Saturday afternoon, six GOP candidates participated in the Thanksgiving Family Forum which focused primarily on social issues surrounding the 2012 election. The forum was sponsored by The Family Leader and took place at the First Federated Church in Des Moines, Iowa. Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman were also invited, however, both declined to attend.
Original Event Date: Saturday, November 19, 2011
Participants: Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Paul, Perry, Santorum
Here is the entire video of the forum, moderated by pollster Frank Luntz. The actual candidate forum begins at about 30 minutes in if you jump ahead.
Report from the Des Moines Register:
Six Republicans vying to be their party’s nominee for president in 2012 met across a Thanksgiving dinner table on Saturday night for an unconventional discussion of their views and policy proposals.
The Thanksgiving Family Forum, held in a Des Moines church in front of some 2,500 social and religious conservatives, was an unusually freewheeling and philosophical discussion, touching on issues of morality, liberty and personal responsibility as well as hot-button issues like abortion and same-sex marriage.
Forum moderator Frank Luntz, the famed Republican message guru, challenged candidates Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum with mostly open-ended questions, and didn’t hesitate to press them on particulars.
In a question about the 10th Amendment — a GOP favorite that leaves to the states powers not specifically given to the federal government — Luntz asked whether states could “tell the federal government no” on issues of morality. He directed the question initially to Cain, who is black, and referred to state segregation laws that were dismantled only through federal action.
Was the federal government justified in imposing a morally just law — ending segregation — on the states, even if it perhaps exceeded the 10th Amendment?
For Cain, the answer was something of a qualified yes: “The states can’t say no to the federal government if they’re wrong,” he said.
But Paul, the most libertarian-leaning of the Republicans in the field, immediately jumped in to disagree.
“The states definitely have a right to be wrong,” he said. “The states are supposed to correct it. But there are limits. That’s why we have a Constitution.”
The discussion was lively at times. Overall, Luntz did a decent job moderating the discussion and posed some provocative questions.
Auto-Generated Tags:
- gop debate december 10 replay
- citizenlink com
- Iowa Presidential Forum video
- iowa forum video
- bill clinton take part in contract with america
- forum vidéo
- thanksgiving debate in church
- The only important difference between Nazi-ism Fascism Communism Socialism and Liberalism is the spelling andthat the last group hasn’t got the brains to figure it out - Bill Vance
Isn't it interesting that both Romney and Huntsman, both Mormons, didn't attend the Thanksgiving Forum, although both were invited? Is it forbidden by the Mormon church to go into another place of worship other than the Mormon church? And if either were to become President, how would that affect their presidency and social & political obligations? For instance, would they never be able to attend an event held in a church? Would either uphold the National Day of Prayer?
Let's hope they wouldn't uphold the national day of prayer because that is unconstitutional. It is respecting an established religion.
Noah…you obviously do not believe in any everlasting truths, virtues or morals…but rely on whatever the current culture(group think) provides instead of really thinking for yourself, Pointing out New York and the laughably insane California(going down the tubes) as positive examples is unbelievable. Congratulations…you've made my point all by yourself and I need not add to that. Good luck you'll need it. I'll pray for you Noah. Better start building your own Ark.
Argueing with idiots is getting rather tedious…I'm done…and I'm not going to waste anymore time in unproductive pursuits…rather play with my family…it's been fun sort of…see ya…
You are just so wrong. It's like talking to a wall. You do not need a religion in order to have good virtues and morals. I have no idea what everlasting truths are, but they sound rather un-scientific, which means they are erroneous.
[...] example," Santorum said in a brief interview with CafeMomStudios after Saturday night's Thanksgiving Family Forum. "We really don't do anything in the federal government by way of supporting [...]
How will limiting liberty help families?
Just toss religion in there and we get a thread ten at least ten times as long as any other thread from pre-existing debates? Anybody else find that funny? What a distraction. Stop arguing with each other and focus on issues. There is one creator of this earth, its more than six billion inhabitants, and the entire universe for all we know. Everything we see and know originated from the same cause and that's all there is to it. There is no one god, your god, or my god. Just one cause, to be good. And to create a higher standard for all of humanity, for life after we leave this world.
Well, you are right to some extent Percival. However, the purpose of life is not about being good. Good deeds doesn't really hold much weight when your dead. The reality of things is that our universe was created with a purpose by an intential God. Things aren't just a random conglomeration of atoms and molecules. Everything was created with a purpose and an intention.
The real question that everything comes down to is "how does one reconcile themselves to God?" And just about every religion out there will tell you that you can somehow earn you way into reconciliation through praying, fasting, good works, going to church, and all kinds of other junk.
However, my question is that if God is a Holy God that is perfect in every way, why do people seem to think that they can become perfect through just living a good life? It's absolutely absurd. In order to be reconciled to a perfect and Holy God, one must become perfect, and this is a mere impossibility for us humans. It's not something that we can just do on our own.
This is why I don't follow any religion. I follow Jesus. He's the one that took the sin of the world upon Himself so that we might be reconciled to a pure and Holy God. And its not just a figment of my imagination, I know He's real because I feel His presence, hear His voice and have seen the masses healed in His name.
I've also asked Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists what their experience is with their gods and still haven't met one that has had any interaction with their gods. And usually anyone that has had some sort of "spiritual" experience with some other god will usually fall down and start shrieking during our prayer meetings because the demons behind their gods usually can't take the presence of the real God. So I mean I'm no genius, but can someone please explain to me how Jesus is not Lord when we see people with demons from false gods tremble in fear, the sick healed, and even people raised from the dead in His name?
And can everyone stop politicizing God? I mean come on. He really could care less. Things either line up with His Word or they don't. It doesn't matter if you are Democrat or Republican. Every one is held to the same standard.
I am not a religious jew, but I at least appreciate how jews do not think that other gods do not exist, but just do not worship other gods. We are tolerant of all religions and most of us believe that the government should be completely free of any religious recognition because each person should be given equal representation. There are people of many religions in this country, and even more without a religion (such as myself, although I am culturally a jew), so we cannot have anything to do with a god in the government because that does not represent everyone equally. Many people believe in a god, many in a different god, some in multiple gods, and many in none at all. Also, if we want to be a great nation, we have to adapt to modern times. Natural selection exists on the political level as well. We need to be a nation of science.
Kate said in response to*Giggle*….. "Are you insane? How does the decision of a gay person to marry destroy YOUR personal moral belief system at all? Are they forcing you to be gay? Are they forcing you to have ANYTHING to do with them, at ALL? No, and no."
**********************
I'm no bible thumper so my opinion has nothing to do with religion but "HELL YEAH" the leftist progressives that push the gay marraige agenda are "forcing" gays on the public by forcing the legalization of gay marraige. Every State where "the people" have a chance to vote its not only a vote of "NO" but Hell NO & then liberal judges overturn the will of the people so damned straight liberal leftist progressives are forcing gays on us.
The issue is literally batting ZERO with the majority of people/voters but it doesn't matter to the tyrannical libs.
Judges overturn those votes because preventing gays from marrying in a legal (not necessarily religious) sense is horribly wrong.
Noah,
Marriage was created by God and defined as between a man and a woman. I think the problem is that liberals want to take what God created and say that it is what the secular world defines it as rather than what the Bible clearly defines. Although most Christians would say that homosexual activities are clearly a sin, I do not think that they would say that two men or two women should not have the right in this country to get a legal contract saying that they are making a commitment to be lifetime partners. But don't be confused, that does not constitute marriage or any of the great things that are associated with marriage as God defines it in the Bible. We must be careful not to limit freedoms, including the right to do what you want in your own home or the right to express your faith in God in public. The problem is that most liberals are very intolerant of ideas other than their own, so Christian worship and belief needs to be protected by the law from militant homosexual sinners and left-wing fascists and PC police. Marriage is one institution that needs to be protected. The right to pray in schools is another, and teaching creation alongside evolution as an alternative viewpoint is yet another.
You are just so wrong. Creation should not be taught alongside evolution because creation is a religious belief while evolution by natural selection is an irrefutable scientific theory. If you think creation should be taught in the classroom, shouldn't other religious origin stories be taught as well. What if multiple gods created the humans? That is just as valid as one god. The beautiful thing about evolution is that whether you believe in it or not, it happens anyway.
Students are allowed to pray in school. It is just not allowed to be organized by the school because schools are run by the state. Organizing prayer in school is respecting an established religion, which is unconstitutional, so is not allowed.
We cannot define a legal marriage based on what you think a god said. That is your right to not recognize a religious marriage between homosexuals, but it is not your right to discriminate what the proper marriage is legally.
f 'em in the arse
Science is merely our feeble attempt to understand Gods creation. He wants us to use the brain the gave us and to appreciate the incredible complexity of the universe but the thought that we could ever be all knowing is, frankly, nuts. What we do with the knowledge we do obtain is the question…good or evil…massage and grow our egos and pride or humbly thank him for the wonder of it all and the ultimate puzzle to occupy our searching minds.
Lord forgive me for my impatience with fools and my previous statement…Let them see the light and stop a philosophy that ultimately results in a worldwide Holocaust that will make what the NAZIs, Mao, Pol Pot, Che, Castro and Stalin look like childs play. Give them eyes and an open mind and heart so they may see.
Wow.
Are watching this I realized how absolutely disgusting republican views can be. How dare they think that their beliefs are so superior that can can dictate other people's lives who simply aren't Christian. A women has every right to decide what to do with HER OWN body, a person has a right to choose who THEY want to marry. None of these personal decisions ever even impose on a Christian's life! The only reason they give a damn is because they want to feel like they're doing something so they can get to heaven. What gives these people the authority to to control the lives of the non religious? All individuals have a right to choice and to exercise their beliefs and I pray that these freedoms that ALL deserve will never be taken away.
so true
We believe every person, Christian nor not, has the right to decide what they do with their own body. We also believe we do not have the right to decide what happens to another's body without due process. You decide to make a baby. (We call that your choice.) That is another body, it is not yours. Most women who aborted their child realize the wrong of it after the baby is killed. They live in guilt the rest of their life. Living in guilt is a terrible way to live. Think about it.
It was a wonderful forum. I really appreciate getting to know more about the candidates and their views on issues that I believe are the most important. Thank you for putting this together. I hope and pray that we will make a real change in this country which turns us back to the Lord. God Bless America!(please)
Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord. Psalm 33:12
What can be more disgusting than killing innocent children. Cutting them into pieces or sucking thier brains out just before birth to kill and enable easier passage from the vaginal canal. You heartless liberals have been responsible for Americas Holocaust (killing 50 million+!!!! babies since 1973 and Roe v Wade) And counting. If this persists then the American leeft will be responsible for more deaths than the NAZIs, Mao, Stalin, Che, Pol Pot and Castro combined… before 2050…. Abortion is cold blooded MURDER by the one person who should care for them the most…thier mother. By the way…progressive moron…the lefts hero and founder of PLANNED PARENTHOOD was a racist who promoted the program of eugenics…proposed sterilization of blacks, people of low IQ, people who had disabilities or criminal records as a method of creating a super race. The NAZIs later studied this program and adopted it(documented in thier writings) …and the rest is history. There is much, much more but the bottom line is that the left is the philosophy of death. Even now Blacks now abort 45-50 % of thier children. How tragic and sad. Leftists…responsible for 250 million killed since Marx…and counting (add 1-2 million more deaths per year for the ban of DDT to eradicate Malaria…again mostly children. Evil personified.
Somehow you will rationalize all the above..instead of questioning you indoctorination by liberal education, pop culture and media…and getting together with your fellow progressive patting each other on the back congratulating yourselfs how brilliant you all are and how stupid those who would preserve life are. Hell… how many of you would like to adopt eugenics so that everyone thought JUST LIKE YOU?!
PROGRESSIVISM….resulting in Regression into a world where the new feudal Lords (Communists, Atheists, Radical Environmentalists, Pseudo-Intellectuals/Scientists hold themselves as the new Gods regulating the lives of the rif-raf peons, serfs…creating the new down trodden. The good news is eventually mans inate desire for freedom will depose the new Elite feudal lords. Since 1776 that became inevitable when men decided to test whether man could govern himself instead of a King dictating from his throne. Freedom…Good……Statism…Bad. God endows us with unalienable right which no man can take away…unless we let them. With freedom comes responsibility however..and lefties want no moral code…except one that serves thier purposes.
You should notice how you are born on your birthday, not your conception day. By the fourteenth amendment, all citizens must be given equal protection, but you are not a citizen until you are born or naturalized in the United States. I am not saying that you should not feel bad if you abort a fetus, but it is the right of the parents. I also find it sexist how you say mothers should care about their children the most. Fathers should equally care about their children. There really is not difference between males and females. Biologically, we are exactly the same species (although we are all different, and gene pools that never mix may eventually evolve into new species), and thus have the same potential for an intelligent brain.
Oh Noah…God help you…your philosphy and response is so very lame…I mean it…may God help you, your sickness is astonishing…..whew! Doesn't it bother you that the line of thought you follow, brought to its logical conclusion means suffering and death to 100s of millions more people? Or is it more important to your ego that you can never admit maybe there is a better way? Or is it that people are of no more consequence than a virus? Or have you gone so far as the others of your ilk that believe and wish a virus should proagate worldwide in order to bring the human population down to 350,000 or wipe humans out completely (to save the earth) Or merely to have us return to the days when we lived in caves? That…really there is no morality, good or evil. And what defines good and evil? A philosophy of life? Or human suffering and death? Or could it be that a philosophy that at least holds the hope out for and preaches for life and love realizing that given we are human… we will never in this life achieve anything close perfection. I believe there are two main directions we can follow. One holds the hope and promise of life…the other death. You believe in science…and it appears you may have an excellent capacity for logical thought…USE IT! Use it to question the validity of your beliefs, use it to look at history, writings(all sides) and extrapolation to determine where it leads. Use your abilities to question and hypothicate and observe the two directions JUST AS RIGOROUSLY AND HONESTLY AS YOU WOULD A SCIENTIFIC PROBLEM. All the time answering for your self…where are we headed…what end point would match your ideal and will your philosophy get us there or at least in that direction based on history and logical inference and honest unbiased observation. Do they still teach an honest Scientific Method? God and science are not in an arguement. It is Gods creation we are studying and it is indeed wonderous and it should be a lifelong challenge and source of joy. No human has the capacity to know it all…all we can do is do an honest and wonderous investigation, ever expanding our knowledge and understanding. Lose the ego and become a better man. And contribute to mankind. And the direction man follows. If you care.
Noah, If we believe that a person is not a citizen until its birth day, and we can kill a baby legally before he is a citizen. Does that mean we can kill any non-citizen and get away with it??
You are right. I used a poor choice of words. I meant that all citizens have the right to privacy. Part of the right to privacy is the being able to make your own decisions.
Noah, What about NON citizens?? My point was; a person, citizen or not, no matter how old, has a right to live. To kill any one, citizen or not, with out due process, is murder. Liberals making murder leagal is still wrong.
It is heart breaking to know that there are so many people who do not know the God who made them. They have no respect for His gift of life. To them it is foolishness. They refuse to understand. I pray we elect a man that knows whose he is.
AMEN to that B. Anderson! Also pray for those who don't know Him that they would come to know and love the one true God who more than deserves our all for His glory. Happy blessed Thanksgiving to you and yours.
Kody et al…Happy Thanksgiving…Oh boy! Almost Turkey time!
Thanks, Same blessing to you. I had a great day with God, family and friends.
God Bless BA
Thanks all for the interesting posts. I'm not typically involved in these things. Made me think some. God bless you all and your families and have a Merry and Blessed Christmas.
Did you ever think that maybe not everyone is a christian and does not celebrate christmas?
Noah, so we should not wish you well??? Christmas is a national holiday. If we wished someone a happy Thangsgiving, would it insult some one from another country?
Thanksgiving is not a religious holiday, it is an American holiday. Christmas is a religious holiday upheld by only some of the MANY religions in this country. Just so you know, there are no national holidays. The right to make official holidays is reserved to the states. Unfortunately, I believe every state does recognize christmas as a state holiday, but that is unconstitutional because that is respecting an established religion.
You need to get your history straight. Thangsgiving is a time to pause and thank God for our blessings. It think that makes it a religious holiday.
Legally, there cannot be any religious holidays. Once again, it is respecting an established religion, which is against the constitution.
We'll then I guess it doesn't apply to you. Maybe everyone should be a Christian. I would have wished you a Happy Hanukkah but you have rejected that religion as well. I wish enlightenment and salvation for you….and for the world.
Mr. Bob Jones….I loved your post. Very well thought out and expressed. Much more civilized than I tend to be. Thanks for your contribution. In Facebook terms this would be a definite "Like". I'm happy to see that being highly educated doesn't have to result in a liberal/anti-God indoctorination. Maybe dealing with real science instead of studying under Princetons Peter Singer(Philosophy Department head) who makes an arguement under his Utilitarian philosophy for abortion up to 2 years of age. If that is what progressivism tends toward…I don't want any part of it and the very idea enrages me. Nothing but pure evil can result. My heart breaks at the thought that such ideas could be considered in America. And we are supposed to revere someone just because he he holds a high position at one of the top educational institutions in the world? I don't think so.
[...] Also.. Gingrich's statement occurred *after* all the candidates except the two Mormons attended the Iowa Thanksgiving Family Forum: [...]
Bill Cammack
I enjoyed your perspective and commentary I hope you are not really done!
Good music too.
RON PAUL 2012
What is so bizzare that I just can't believe it…is that there are so many liberal Jews. Are you not aware that the far left is anti-semetic (Jews) and anti- Israel ….joining with Palestinians and Arab Terrorists? I love the fact that after being subjected to unspeakable acts over centuries the Jews finally got their Jewish nation back and with extreme bravery defend it against all odds. I respect those Jews who fight that fight. Their opponents are liars and they are evil. I also appreciate the wonderful gifts God has given his chosen people…they have made contributions at a rate and significance far in excess of their numerical representation. Amazing!
However, I wonder if the liberal Jews have some kind of self destructive gene or guilt complex over because of their overabundance of gifts that results in them denying their religion, supporting the very people who would kill them. Look at who is joining forces to attack Israel and Jews(Lefties and radical moslems) and who supports and loves Israel and Jews everywhere(American Christian Conservatives) and ask yourself…why am I suicidal?
I am jewish and have relatives in Israel. What we liberal jews support is the emergence of Israel as the great secular nation that it is. Israel has no official religion. If you ever travel to Israel, you will find that most of the jews there are non-religious. Also, the muslims there get along fine with the jews because they are Israelis, not jews and muslims. We as Americans should be advocating for the acceptance of the Palestinians as part of a secular state that is equally theirs.
Noah, I think you need to watch this debate:
http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2011/11/video-watch-the-full-iowa-thanksgiving-family-forum/
Get some popcorn and beer and enjoy!
No beer. I'm 17
"the muslimsther get along fine with the jews because they are Israelis, not jews and muslims"
Um, Noah, time to stop smoking the weed bro. You are starting to contradict what you said in the same sentence!
My previous statement stands…you sir are a suicidal moron. maybe the Jews wouldn't have been the worlds most long lasting pitiful victims if it combined bravery and faith at the same time…for once. On the otherhand maybe, with all that is wonderful about Jews…they are doomed to fight against their own greatness in God and suffer the consequences.
By the way, all your Godless church requires is that you be a "good person" Where do you think we get our comcepts of Good and evil…..just make'em up randomly….who decides….if no God why not if I decide as Peter Singer does that killing babies up to 2 years of age is justifiable abortion….that everyone accepts moral relativity….I decide what is moral…and my idea of morality is just as valid as yours and I decide that it is moral and natural to have sex with children as NAMBLA(National Association of Man Boy Love) does. Lack of Gods moral code, and commandments including the 2 that Jesus left us in the New Testament, absense of which, relies on imperfect, selfish man to his own devices….the eventual decisions on morality decided by who is stronger. With God every human has certain rights that are unalienable…LIFE….LIBERTY….PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS(PROPERTY)….an excellent start for any society….God given rights and a moral code…instructions as how to treat one another…
By the way…it is stupid for a Christian to be anti Jew since our Lord Jesus Christ was born Jewish.
And while everyone wants Jews and Arabs/palestinians to live in Peace….its the intractability of the Isalmists and their teachings of "kill the jews/Infidels"(teaching in their schools to their children so the hate passes from generation to generation) and calling for another Holocaust…."wiping Israel off the map" that is the barrier…Israel gave up Gaza in order to promote the peace process and what did they get? Hundreds…thousands of rockets pointed at their schools….I don't know your side always seems to have children taking it in the ass…one way or another…despicable….the ultimate evil
I'm done talking to you, you are freakin' hopeless…You probably wouldn't recognise Gods work…even if it was brought down to you from a mountain written on stone tablets.
We are reaping what you assholes have sown. Good freakin' luck…not
My dapologies if this subject has been broached in the comments; feeling at the moment, too short on time to read through them all (I've been watching 12 or so hours of debates in order to catch up)…
…but did anyone happen to catch the last 5 or so seconds of this video wherebye a security guard is heard suggesting the "nightstick option" to another man?
Is anyone else disturbed by this?
(Just seems to me that if the assailant was peaceful enough to be having a.. conversation with the security guard, this suggestion might be considered an AGGRIVATED ESCALATION OF AGGRESSION by the authority having jurisdiction? I couldn't make out what the 'assailant' was talking about …and wonder why he wasn't heard out. BTW, did anybody feel that Ron Paul got sufficient air time to address the FED as requested by 'the people' [as promised]?)
Just when when I was beginning to feel a bit better about the future of this country…
The Establishment Pushes Their Last Presidential Hopeful; Can't top Ron Paul
freedomofspeechrealized.webs.com
RON PAUL 2012
CAN HE WIN?????!!!! We gotta get rid of Barry O…..I think we are passing up a critical and golden chance in 2012….but nobody seems to have the beans! TRAGIC! Four more years and we are relegated to the trash heap of history….we need to hit the streets! BUT….in a sane manner not like the violent, drug using, raping, property destroying "OCCUPIERS OF WHAT EVER". We need to be the adults but adults that organize into a force greater than the Occupiers and greater than the tea party previously did and actually have a COHESIVE MESSAGE that makes sense and offers a sane alternative to the anti American, anti capitalist, anti business, anti bank, anti God, anti producer/acheivment of the dirtbag occupiers, arsonists. Peaceful but persistant in enough numbers and we can make a difference. Do it or lose America forever.
Geez Roy…
Do you really still buy into all the crap propaganda?
Whether some of it is true or not, don't EVER forget who puts it out and what they push for.
Also try to remember that not all things that people put out there are true (even if those people might think that they are true).
This is how we can begin to take back America (and then may even hold on to it if we ever do).
Wake up watchman! We must do ALL that we can for any of this to happen. Hope is the first requirement.
It is a struggle of Good vs Evil.
Santorum, Bachman, Cain, and for some odd reason Gingrich(why he has the audacity to speak on such things is beyond belief) keep trying to say morality is the reason and standard for laws. But whose morality do we choose? Which holy book, and which interpretation, and what about those who believe it is immoral to follow such decrees? This is exactly why the founding fathers gave us religious freedom, but not a religious government. They knew that if laws were decided based solely on what one group declares is moral, then there would, by definition, be another group seeking to overthrow the first group. They knew this because that is what had happened in the societies they came from. They also saw it in the diversity of beliefs among the colonies. Each group had a different idea of what morality is and how religious belief interacts with law and public life.
And which individual should we trust with such authority? No one. Moral behavior is NOT the realm of government, and does not originate with government (sorry, Santorum). Moral instruction originates (even biblically) from the primary guardianship and then secondarily from our small social circles (especially organizations like church, girl scouts etc). It is up to the leaders of these organizations (especially the family) to speak up and make its voice known- to bring instruction to the young. But, the government should not be involved in deciding issues of morality. If there is a failure of morality, it is because of the failure of family and of our immediate role models to communicate morality. Not because government hasn't been involved enough.
Laws are there to keep people from harming, or infringing on the rights, of others. If a law cannot achieve this goal, then it has no right to be on the books.
The idea of using congress or the president abolishing courts is frightening. We vote on our the president and the legislature. They are both our representatives. As such, they are by definition, biased and politicized. The judiciary is supposed to be unbiased. They are not our representatives, but impartial ears whose job it is to arbitrate between two opposing arguments. By voting on them, we compromise their integrity. By imposing term limits, we compromise their integrity. By abolishing this court and that court, we compromise their integrity. Now, I know the courts are not perfectly impartial, but doing the things I just listed will quickly further corrupt them. If you do these things, then justices will begin to make their decisions not based on the cases presented to them and what sort of impact their decisions will make on further laws. Instead, they will begin to make decisions based on political motivations and personal preservation. Imagine you have a republican congress and they abolish a certain court because they do not like their decisions (it may sound nice when your side has the ability to do it). Then the Democrats come in power, reinstate them, and abolish and intimidate courts who have not sided with them. Back and forth, back and forth. This would force courts to make their decisions based on who was in power, and not based on the case presented to them. Imagine if justices had to spend their time fund raising and campaigning, what a nightmare!!!
Look at the super committee recently created to help decide how to trim our spending. It is clear to all Americans that our government finances are in chaos. We desperately need to reduce our spending. The task of this bipartisan committee was to find areas we could do that. They couldn't do it. They were, due to their political affiliations, motivated by re-election and indebted to those who paid for their campaigns, unable to come together and reach an agreement. It was too political. Imagine such a political, partisan realm being introduced into the courts! It would be devastating.
I agree with some of what you say and wonder about the motivations for removing certain circuits.
I do have to correct you however on your closing statements. Though this seems to be the general consensus about the super committee, do have to add that they were only charged with the mission of cutting PROPOSED SPENDING.
No actual cuts…
Vote Ron Paul if you want to see real cuts, real freedom, real American Policy (as defined by our mission documents).
@RSvetti, I forgot about that point, that it wasn't even real cuts they were going for- just cuts on future spending.
I couldn't agree more that the other candidates only represent the same establishment- especially Gingrich. Gingrich is a powerful speaker but he's not going to cut the funds of those who have helped him maintain power, or his friends in the health care lobby. Ron Paul has my vote through and through.
While our constitutional republic absolutely does not "establish" any one religion and guarantees the right to the practice of any religion with the exception for those "religions" that infringe on the basic God given rights of others, life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness(property) (i.e. the practice of human sacrafice because it definately infringes on the right to life) the basis for our laws are the Judean/Christian religion and tradition. The evidence for this is plentiful, even "carved in stone" as the 10 Commandments as well as the words of the founders are present on Memorials and in court rooms(being removed by morons) and the opening of sessions of Congress is preceded by prayer and the graves of our soldiers typically will be marked by a cross. The Bill of Rights guarantees the right OF religion not the right FROM religion…in other words you do not have the right to restrict others practice of religion including displys of faith. If you do not like it simply ignore it as I do displays of devil worship or Islamic displays. They certainly do not affect my belief system. I know, I know…we should remove the 10 commandments, after all they prohibit such things as "killing" and doinking your neighbors wife, coveting his stuff and stealing along with showing respect to your Father and Mother, pure evil to be sure, but maybe preferable to "kill the infidel". Then there is the two "greatest commandments" given by Jesus "Love God and Love your neighbor as yourself" Oh, my! How awful!
Regarding the courts…when a court flaunts the constitution and the rule of law it jepordizes its legitimacy and the offending judge should be sanctioned and the possibility of removal should be considered when in blatant disregard for the law of the land…after all it is the job of the judge to uphold the constitution, period. That is the essence of his/her job…if you don't do your job you're fired!
Again, Roy, you did not answer either of the questions I raised. Which interpretation of the "Judeo/Christian" ethic do you choose from. You have a huge range to select from- from the most conservative Amish, or Westboro side or to the most liberal gay-affirming traditions or Unitarians. The basis for our laws is reason, not religion. Yes, it is undeniable that many of our founders had strong personal faiths. But it is also equally true that many of them did not, and that many were deists (who believed in a "creator" concept but not the Christian one). The fact that our declaration say creator and not "Jesus" or "Yahweh" is paramount.
We are explicitly given the right to personal religion, and that includes traditions that are not informed by the "Judeo/Christian" ethic. No where does the constitution guarantee the right to impose your selected ethic. You are trying to impose your inference against the explicit rights of every citizen. Again, you are missing the difference between civil observation and law. Yes, Christians should have the right to congregate and express their views, but they have equal authority to do so as someone who is Hindu, a Scientologist, Atheist etc. When public or government funds/land/language/representatives are involved it must be careful not to give one religious expression favor over another. A freedom either has to be applied equally (such as all religions being able to put up their symbols in public space) or excluded completely. You cannot pick and choose which private traditions get their views expressed through public venues and which get excluded.
As for your 10 commandments, it's funny that Christians love to try to say our law is based off the Judeo/Christian ethic. It is not. First, our law is based off of Greco/Roman traditions- plainly evidenced by the imitation of their government, language, and architecture. Second, how many of the 10 commandments are upheld by our laws? Two. Do not kill (even though capitol punishment is somehow a favorite of Christians), and do not steal. we are free to covet our neighbors wife, even to sleep with her and have orgies if we care to. We can lie (except under oath but that is for rule of law not religion), we can disrespect our elders, we can commit adultery, we can have other gods, we can have idols. Did the Judeo/Christian ethic have influence? Clearly. Is it the basis of our laws? No. The fact that we have abolished slavery, racism, and have given women equal protection and liberty is a reflection that our values do not come from the Bible, but are a result of the evolution of societal values.
Finally, once more I have to say that moral instruction belongs in the family and societal structures, but is not appropriate for government interference. Laws are there to protect people from harm and to prevent others from imposing on their liberties. If the only basis for a law is because of a singular religious view, then it has no basis for becoming a law. Our laws must protect people from all views, and walks of life equally.
@1:55 Ron Paul, laughing, says "Doctors are still polling higher than the politicians." But if more people in Washington were there out of principle- if more of them were there to stand for something- in short, if more politicians behaved like Ron Paul, then we would once again consider politicians great statesmen, worthy of honor and respect.
I don't agree with everything Ron says, but at least I know the areas I disagree on. With the other candidates, few of them will take a stand on anything and their position changes daily and depending on who asks them and which audience is listening. Who knows what they actually think and what they actually intend on doing. If they were honest and forthcoming, like Paul is, I am sure I would find much more that I would disagree with than with Paul's positions. They just play games and politics as usual.
Can Ron Paul WIN???!!! I would vote for him if it ment Barry would be sent packing ( to Chicago or Hawaii or Kenya…whatever)…and to think he is guaranteed a handsome retirement for life after the damage he has done. Gr-r-r-r
Yes he can win. In fact, out of the GOP candidates, he is the one most likely to gain the support of the independents and moderate democrats. For example, many of the Occupy movement are staunch Ron Paul supporters. Watch CNN and MSNBC clips on Youtube and you will see many of the left saying they could vote for him but believe he cannot win his own party. If he can win the Republican vote, he will win. Many polls have shown Paul leading over a head-to-head match up against Obama.
That's so erroneous. The only one who has any chance of beating Obama is Romney. Unfortunately, Romney will win the nomination, so I ask all of you to make sure that everyone you know votes. Democrats need to start voting. There are way more Democrats than Republicans, it's just not all Democrats vote, but all Republicans vote. Reelect Obama. The man is a genius.
Actually, I think Romney would play into the hands of Obama. It's clear that campaign Obama is vastly different from President Obama, but Romney can't say anything about that because campaign Romney is vastly different from campaign Romney. Also Romney is big government, big spending, big corporation, big health care just like O. The areas where Obama could be most vulnerable are the same places Romney is vulnerable, so he can't be effective in driving home why he's a better choice than Obama. I'm not so sure Romney will win the nomination, it seems the Republican base feels like "anybody but Romney." Romney has been slowly and steadily losing supporters, and Paul has been gaining them at the same slow and steady. The remaining voters have been running around between first Bachmann, then Perry, then Cain, and now Gingrich. But those voters are basically anti-Romney.
Not to mention, Gingrich, Santorum, Bachmann, and Romney have each only won one state straw poll, Perry has 2, Cain 9 and, Paul has 10 (including the critical Cali).
I think the one thing that can be said is nobody has it in the bag. (ps. I voted for Romney in 2008)
Noah Rosenblatt:
Though I can seen what might make you think that (GOP straw polls and such), this is strongly disagree.
This, because there have been several polls of a similar nature showing that Ron Paul will conclusively (thus far anyway) take the cake from Obama.
Knowing this, you might consider reading again the above post and then thinking about what that sign down on wall street is suggesting.
…nevermind that the media have not been listing Ron Paul as contender in the polls (irregardless his top rankings).
AND…the most important advice yet…"never fart in a wetsuit"
'nough said.
I've come to the conclusion that given the responses…even from those leaning right or libertarian that there is NO HOPE. Maybe I'll move to Chile or Costa Rica…Chile is heading in the right direction and Costa Rica has excellent surf and they welcome Americans with $$$. Merry CHRISTMAS….everyone! Hopefully someday you will "get it" bye, bye!
And you've been communicating with my Austrailian Shepherd…named Roy….he is smarter than any of us.
Get the facts straight folks. For example, the sixth commandment is thou shall not murder (kill unlawfully), not thou shall not kill. There is a huge difference, which you will understand if you take the time to read the Bible.
Or, take your so-called "evolution of social values" that lead improved treatment of women and abolishing slavery and racism. If you look at scripture, Jesus Christ treated women, other races than the Jews, and slaves with way more respect than the Jewish society of that time. Christianity also puts an emphasis on the value of those who are rejected by society- the weak, poor, lame, sick, etc. When Jesus first taught all of this, it was revolutionary and it was part of what got Him killed (along with claiming to be the Son of God). Jesus influence and the teaching of the scripture are behind the idea that all people are created with basic fundamental rights, including the right to worship whatever God you want to worship. God Himself allowed evil in the world when He allowed us the choice to worship Him or to reject Him as God. The only thing that you are missing here is that you think that freedom of religion means "freedom not to worship any God" but you do not realize that all men worship; if you do not worship God, you worship yourself, or beauty, sensuality, humanity, mother nature, whatever it might be (usually yourself though in my experience).
Again, my point has little to do with the things you are talking about. If I worship myself, or King Juju the pink singing tree frog of Sri Lanka makes no difference (as a side note you perceive me worshiping myself like I perceive you talking to an imaginary friend- let's just agree to disagree on that) The main point is that in a pluralistic society as ours and one that had the first truly secular government in history, no religion gets special treatment- even if it has more adherents today or when it was founded. If special religious claims of morality are the only argument, then the there is no basis for a law. Such morality is the duty of its adherents to spread socially, through speaking out and awareness, but not through legislative acts. This is exactly how Jesus behaved. How many laws did Jesus seek to reform? Which forms of government did he overthrow? None. He left Roman law (as morally depraved as Christians say the Romans were) as it was and sought not to change laws- but humanity's hearts and minds. The only things he threw out were the religious laws and religious law makers. So, I don't see why Christians get so active politically, because it certainly isn't WWJD.
There's no doubt that the teachings of Jesus have some really good things to say about human nature- but so do Buddha, Confucius, the Hindu scriptures and Aesop's fables. I don't have to believe in their being literally true to allow them to shape my understanding for the betterment of myself and society. But, the bible (including the New Testament) does more to subjugate women and to treat them like property than it does to elevate them. Racism, or racial mistreatment, also have a firm footing in the NT. The fact that Christians today regard slavery immoral is a credit to the growth of humanity- not the bible. Simply comparing NT treatment of women and races to the OT is not sufficient. We are talking about the "revelation of god's morality" here. God could have easily commanded racial and gender equality but he was too busy worrying about the kinds of spots and blemishes the animals had that were being burnt for his pleasure.
No, Jesus did not give us freedom of religious choice, he is the one who introduced the concept of hell for non-belief. Christ didn't teach about fundamental human rights, that was an outgrowth of the Age of Reason.
All this is to point out that our morality does not just originate from one source, nor does anybody have the right to impose their specific moral views on someone else. Christians can't even decide amongst themselves what is moral and what is not, so don't expect a pluralistic society to adopt the views of one sub-segment of that group.
LOL. Cain says the common good "levels the playing field so everyone can be treated equally, fairly, and with respect."
I was waiting for him to cough and under his breath say "unless you're gay"
Your statements have an element of truth but an element of deception. Let's go through them one by one to find out the errors:
Your Comment: Again, my point has little to do with the things you are talking about. If I worship myself, or King Juju the pink singing tree frog of Sri Lanka makes no difference (as a side note you perceive me worshiping myself like I perceive you talking to an imaginary friend- let's just agree to disagree on that) The main point is that in a pluralistic society as ours and one that had the first truly secular government in history, no religion gets special treatment- even if it has more adherents today or when it was founded.
Reply: Actually, who you worship makes every difference. The Bible says "choose for yourself this day who you will serve, but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" (Joshua 24:15) Who you worship has everything to do with how you spend your time, money, beliefs about charity, beliefs about sexuality, and on and on. You will find that typically you put your time and money and effort most in where you worship. As a non-believer, you may not understand that because in postmodern Christian churches there has been a decoupling of faith and living. Church is something that people do as a cultural event on Sunday and the rest of the week they live as an atheist. So you do not see the connection between worship and every aspect of their life. But for true believers our entire life is rooted in Christ and in the teaching of the Bible.
Your Comment: If special religious claims of morality are the only argument, then the there is no basis for a law. Such morality is the duty of its adherents to spread socially, through speaking out and awareness, but not through legislative acts. This is exactly how Jesus behaved. How many laws did Jesus seek to reform? Which forms of government did he overthrow? None. He left Roman law (as morally depraved as Christians say the Romans were) as it was and sought not to change laws- but humanity's hearts and minds. The only things he threw out were the religious laws and religious law makers. So, I don't see why Christians get so active politically, because it certainly isn't WWJD.
Reply: You can't separate a person's presuppositions from their politics. As an atheist, you have certain presuppositions (faith) that are different than mine. For example, you believe that there is nothing beyond the physical world, i.e. if you can see taste touch feel hear or measure it with some scientific instrument, that it does not exist. You might try to say that politics and religion should be completely separate because it allows for your own personal presuppositions of atheism to be used as the sole presuppositions in the political arena. This is a very deceptive tactic used by atheists in the areas of science, politics and law in this country. I do not know if this was or was not the intention of the few of the founding fathers that were atheists or deists, but what I do know is this: you are trying to put Christian faith into a box that is bounded by atheistic presuppositions, and then you are trying to get Christians to agree to this. A true Christian will never agree with you, although a Christian who does not understand what they are doing may (such as Francis Collins, for example, who tries to reconcile scripture with science by explaining the Bible from science rather than the other way around). The right thing to do, for a Christian, is to put politics, law, history, etc. into a box that is bounded by Christian presuppositions. And yes, I am sure that we will simply have to agree to disagree over this point. But you should realize, if you don't already, the full implications of what you are asking Christians to do (and equivocally that we aren't asking any more of you than you are of us when we participate in politics) by your worldview and commentary. A real-life example of this is in public schools. You would say that teaching creationism is not allowed because it is "religious" and therefore "establishment of religion" but teaching of homosexual sex acts is "ok" because it is "not religious". If you apply what i have shown you above, you will see that you are asking for the government to establish a religion of atheism by taking this stance.
Your Comment: This is exactly how Jesus behaved. How many laws did Jesus seek to reform? Which forms of government did he overthrow? None. He left Roman law (as morally depraved as Christians say the Romans were) as it was and sought not to change laws- but humanity's hearts and minds. There's no doubt that the teachings of Jesus have some really good things to say about human nature- but so do Buddha, Confucius, the Hindu scriptures and Aesop's fables. I don't have to believe in their being literally true to allow them to shape my understanding for the betterment of myself and society.
Reply: As a non-Christian, you are trying to use the Bible to prove a point. But if you do not believe what the Bible says, why are you even bringing it up? You take this stance of complete freedom to use and disgard what you want as needed for your argument. But that is not the case in reality. Jesus did not give the option of partially believing in Him, or even believing that he was a great teacher or moral man. The things that He said indicated clearly that He is the Son of God. If you don't believe that, then you would have to say that His teaching is inconsistent with who He said He was. You would have to say that He was a liar. And we shouldn't be saying that a liar was a great moral teacher. Or else, you might say that He was a lunatic. But again, who would want to say that a lunatic is a great moral teacher? Your warped version of the truth allows you to believe that somehow there are all of these great teachers who all conflict and contradict with each other. As a sinner, we search for a way to reconcile all of them because we don't want to deal with the fact that one of them is right and the rest are wrong. If this is true, it means that we have to submit ourselves to one as Lord, and as sinners, we don't want to do that naturally. Only the Holy Spirit can show you the error of your thinking- I can explain it to you as best as possible to try to help remove the stumbling blocks, but if you don't want to believe, you will keep putting more in the way and we can keep going back and forth ad nauseum. It's like the saying about the scientists and philosophers who are trying to get to the top of the mountain, who persevere through many challenges and seemingly impossible gaps, then get to the top and find sitting on the other side the theologians, saying welcome to the debate, what took you so long? To equate the Bible with Aesop's fables is to show your complete and utter ignorance of the power of God's Word. "For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart." Hebrews 4:12.
Your Commment: I don't have to believe in their being literally true to allow them to shape my understanding for the betterment of myself and society. But, the Bible (including the New Testament) does more to subjugate women and to treat them like property than it does to elevate them. Racism, or racial mistreatment, also have a firm footing in the NT. The fact that Christians today regard slavery immoral is a credit to the growth of humanity- not the bible. Simply comparing NT treatment of women and races to the OT is not sufficient. We are talking about the "revelation of god's morality" here. God could have easily commanded racial and gender equality but he was too busy worrying about the kinds of spots and blemishes the animals had that were being burnt for his pleasure.
Reply:
1. Well actually, you do have to believe in the Bible being true in order for it to shape you. That is one of the basic tenets of scripture- that you are changed by your faith in God. "And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit." 2 Cor 3:18
2. There is NO scriptural basis for men subjugating women and treating them like property. The Jewish society may have, but the many rules made up by that society were not always based on scripture, and that was a big part of why Jesus came and challenged the Jewish leaders. Look at examples of how Jesus respected his mother, or other women, to see how women should be treated. Look at examples of how Paul treats women, examples of female believers in the NT church, and you will find that women in the Bible are treated with equal value in God's eyes. Look at what Paul says about women's roles, and you will see that women are to be cherished. Perhaps the most important point comes from the OT Genesis 1:27: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."If God created us male and female in His own image, he is clearly giving equal value to both. This does NOT mean that he is giving them equal roles. Value and roles are two different things. Jesus has equal value with the Father, but He has a different role. No one would consider Jesus subjugated for having stepped up on the cross and giving His life in obedience to the Father's will. We can all agree that it only enhanced Jesus and the Father's glory (We can have a whole different discussion about this topic in a different thread).
3. Racism in the New Testament? Can you point out the specific examples that you are talking about? God makes it clear that believers are believers. He values all equally. The Body of Christ is made up of all who put their faith in Him. I don't see how you can get racism out of this unless you warp the scriptures. I realize that many churches did do this to justify racism, but what sinner do does not change what God has said.
4.:"God could have easily commanded racial and gender equality but he was too busy worrying about the kinds of spots and blemishes the animals had that were being burnt for his pleasure." The words "command racial and gender equality" sound like a line from a California textbook. You are expecting God to work in the same way as the modern day liberal movement? He teaches throughout the Bible, from the very creation and throughout the Torah: 1. Who He is, 2. What we have done and 3. What He expects of us. God never states that men and women should have equal roles. In your confused human value system, you may think that equal roles are good, but I would wholeheartedly say that I favor God's teaching and for some very good reasons. I love my wife, but I would not want us both to have the same role. She feels the same way. But this gets to a more serious issue that you don't understand about Christianity. God created us differently. Yes, equal but different! The postmodern movement tries to turn this truth on its head by saying that men and women are completely equal in value and in role. But I would argue that everything from scripture to biology negates that lie. You can hold to it if you like, but don't expect to be on moral or logical high ground with it. I would say that you have quite a bit of conjecture to be making up in order to support it (which, by the way, is something that our liberal court system is great at doing). You see, God is a God of differences. When He created the world, he didn't make it all one amorphous blob. He created trees and mountains and water and swamps and all that good stuff that atheists like to call "Mother Nature" for lack of a better explanation for how such amazing creation came about. But it is precisely the differences, the contrasts, that make creation so beautiful. And the same is true for a man and woman, and even more so when they are united as one in marriage, which is God's plan for marriage. That, by the way, is part of the reason behind why homosexual marriage is wrong. (The other part goes back to the above quote about man being created male and female in God's image.)
Your Comment: No, Jesus did not give us freedom of religious choice, he is the one who introduced the concept of hell for non-belief. Christ didn't teach about fundamental human rights, that was an outgrowth of the Age of Reason.
Reply: You have a choice. It does not mean that you do not have consequences for your choice. God does not say that we go to hell because we do not believe. He says that we go to hell because of our sin. We are saved by grace, through faith. Grace is something free, unmerited favor. You can't say that we have lack of choice because we have lack of grace. As the creator, all value rests in God when He put His spirit into us- we were inanimate (without soul) before that point-it is God's choice. "The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." Genesis 2:7 Your problem is that you question a God who created you as if he were a human being, but you don't realize that the situation is like the potter and the clay. "When a potter makes jars out of clay, doesn't he have a right to use the same lump of clay to make one jar for decoration and another to throw garbage into?" Romans 9:21 And yes, the Bible and Christ teach about fundamental human rights, but you do not see it because you ignore whatever includes God in the equation. You see, fundamental human rights come from God, and with a proper understanding of God and the Word, fundamental human rights are a logical conclusion. But to value them over the value of God would miss the point. Let's look at one example to help you see. The Jewish leaders are about to stone a woman for adultery. Jesus stops them and says "let he who has no sin cast the first stone" (John 8:7) Jesus is referring to Deuteronomy 13:9 and 17:7, where the witnesses of a crime are to start the execution. Only those who were not guilty of the same sin could participate. While this says a lot about the Pharisees, it also says a lot about our own hearts. It means that before we judge others, we had better make sure that we deal with our own sin before God first. And this woman was most certainly given the chance to have a fair trial by God in the story. This is why I say that theological issues (such as sin) are completely interwoven with political and governmental ones to the point that they are inseparable. If you are not a Christian, you might think that a person can be tried for something like "teaching his children to hate homosexual acts" without a fair trial. You might even think that his judges could be those caught up in the act of homosexual sin. But clearly God is saying here that a good judge is one who has gotten his own heart straight before God. And that all takes a knowledge of God's teaching in His Word, a proper heart attitude before God, and applying it to His life in prayer and practice.
Your comment: All this is to point out that our morality does not just originate from one source, nor does anybody have the right to impose their specific moral views on someone else. Christians can't even decide amongst themselves what is moral and what is not, so don't expect a pluralistic society to adopt the views of one sub-segment of that group.
Reply:
1. Morality comes from God. Anything else is a lie or deception. (That does not mean that God always gets the credit from society for having written the law on our hearts.) If no one has the right to impose moral views on anyone else, we would be living in anarchy right now. I don't think you understand the basic underpinnings of our country's own governmental system or any country's system for that matter.
2. When you say that Christians can't decide amongst themselves what is moral and what is not, you are taking the view of the uninformed. If you simply read the Bible and use it as your guide, it will be very clear to you that there are only some Christians who are following it. The rest have either added to it, taken away from it, or changed it to agree with postmodern humanistic "age of enlightment, reason, whatever you want to call it" values. They have caved in to the pressure from inside and outside to change their presupposition from faith in God to faith in nothing beyond the material world.(See "How Shall We Then Live" by Dr. Francis Schaeffer, an excellent historical commentary on this that will set straight all of the revisionist history that you were taught by a liberal public school system) Churches that do not believe in the Bible attempt to explain miracles scientifically rather than just believing. They attempt to explain things like gender confusion and homosexuality by taking verses out of context. In some ways it is better to be an atheist than someone who says they are a Christian but has to change what scripture says,or agree with only part of the Bible, in order to believe it. There is only one true church, the Body of Christ, and all true believers make up that church, and all true believers will be in agreement about basic moral teachings of scripture. I can't tell you who the true believers are, only God knows our hearts, but I can say that He gave you a brain and a heart, so get a Bible and get to work using them! As for expecting our society to agree with everything that God says, that is never going to happen, and I think we can both agree on it. Man has rejected the truth for a lie (2 Thes 2) and throughout scripture God commands Christians to obey worldly governments despite this fact. Christians are to live in the world, not be of the world. God does not say NOT to get involved in politics, but His top priority is issues of the heart, not taxes. That is why He says give to Caesar what is his and give to God what is God's. (Matthew 22:21) Ultimately, for a time, the prince of this world is satan, but His time is coming due. So it doesn't surprise me to see a government that makes laws that have nothing to do with God's Word or people who hate God more than ever. That is why it is so important that Christians focus on teaching and preaching the problem of sin and the work of Christ on the Cross. Having said that, if we don't stand up in public, including our workplace, courts, politics, etc. for the name of Christ, those who hate the light that He represents will try to take away all freedom to worship Him. "This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil." (John 3:19) So we had better continue to run the race, pressing on for the prize in Christ Jesus (Php 3:14), in every aspect of our lives- church, politics, etc. As John Piper likes to say, "when the motor of my mind is in neutral, the hum of the gears is (God's Word)".
You assume things about me you can't possibly know, and which are actually very wrong. I was a Christian for 25 years and not too long ago, I would have written the stuff you wrote above. I went to the top academic Christian college in the country and I studied the Bible there. I know what you're going to say, but you'll have to believe me when I say I didn't just read it with my mind but I also had an open heart to scripture. I was as completely devoted to my faith as anybody could be.
The main question I've asked is whose version of religion, scripture, and morality should we accept when considering public laws and education? You clearly believe that your version of Christianity is the right one and dismiss everybody else's as some form of apostasy. You want us to teach your version of "truth" at the exclusion of everyone else's, including that of science. First, scientific discoveries or religiously neutral and are simply descriptions of reality as it can be observed. Sometimes scientific discoveries have implications about specific interpretations of specific faiths (for example heliocentricity), but they are not religious in nature. The hole, and hypocrisy, of your argument becomes immediately apparent when you substitute the Qur'an and Muslim faith for any time you mention Bible, Scripture, or Christian. You would rightly be offended if they tried to throw out our laws or education based on their theology. But, you ask everyone else to allow an exception for you. If you want to teach such things, you are free to in your home, churches, or in private schools – but you don't get public money to preach your private faith. Another example is the Amish. They believe the use of electricity and many modern developments are immoral. Does that mean you should not be allowed to type on the computer we are communicating through? Should they be able to use public funds to teach their world view to your child? Obviously, no. Under our constitution, they have the freedom to form their society as they see fit, but they cannot impose their beliefs on the rest of us.
You suggest I am arguing for anarchy. Far from it. We have the constitution. We have thousands upon thousands of laws that govern our lives (for example which side of the street we can drive on). These restrictions are good for the preservation of society. But, when the only argument is a religiously motivated one, it cannot become law (or should be thrown out by the judiciary for being an unconstitutional law). For example, working on Sunday. The only reason for banning people from working on Sunday would be a religious one, and therefore should be thrown out as a law. People are allowed to not work on Sunday, or create a society or subsection of society that will permit their belief. But, you do not have the authority under the constitution to tell Walmart they must close their doors every Sunday.
If you cannot see how someone can gain moral wisdom and insight from reading something like Aesop's fables without believing in it's veracity, then that's your short-sightedness, not mine. I could gain wisdom from reading a Harry Potter book, because it is not about the truth of the story being read, but what understanding of human nature I can gain from my own thought processes.
I never said women were identical to men. They are not. But they should be accorded equal freedoms as us. They should be allowed to vote, own land, choose their own vocation or to stay at home. That is the inalienable right of any human. But the Bible denies women the right to divorce, sets the price a father can sell his daughter into forced servitude- including sexual slavery, allows men beat their wives, treats them legally as property, lists them among the spoils of war, denies them the right to speak up in church, forces them to learn at home from their husbands, denies them the ability to have authority over any man, denies them the right to teach, makes them subjugated to will of their husband (with no exception given for abuse) and more. There are more subtle forms of discrimination, such as only tracking lineage through men, or not counting females in population tallies. If you wish to discriminate against women, then there is ample support to be found in the Bible. You may say that such interpretations are not the "correct" ones, but it has taken us millennia to shake such ideas. Only within the last century or so, have women really been allowed normal human freedoms equal to their phallus bearing counterparts.
… I almost forgot, women were forced to marry their rapists, and were to be stoned to death if their rapists were not caught and they were not married. Rape was considered a woman's disgrace not a violence perpetrated against them.
Noah,
Please share with me the irrefutable proof that evolution is more than a theory.
And since you said it happens whether we believe it or not, please give me one example of proof that it happened.
I have a PhD in chemistry and I have been in the field ovr 15 years. Despite reading a lot on the subject, I have not seen any proof yet. If anything, it seems like science shows that it can not happen rather than proof that it did.
@ Bob Jones…you hit a grans slam….again, dude. You obviously just didn't start thinking about these issues just recently….who are you? It hasn't been a long time for me and I like being exposed to well thought out arguements. Even the arguements I don't agree with.
It sadens me that the supposedly "open mind" and tolerance of the liberal or atheiest is so invested in destroying the greatest…and only hope for the human race. I hope they are listening with an open mind and open heart…but I don't really hold out much hope for that. You(we) are probably wasting our time on these hard core anti-christs. But maybe that has been foretold and cannot be changed…at least not by us. Maybe an INDIVIDUAL will be influenced. After all salvation is NOT Obamas "Collective Salvation" but an individuals PERSONAL relationship with God.
I wasn't going to continue to add this discussion but felt compelled by your comments to let you know they are appreciated and added to this conservative Christians thinking process in a positive way.
@ Noah…I hope you've been paying attention. Hopefully you will discover that at 17 years old you may not have all the answers…there may be hope for you yet…but it will take a direct divine intervention in your life. Don't know why Gods chosen people insist on rejecting Him in favor of wandering, lost in the wilderness, through out history. Can we hypothecate that this tendency may have something to do with the struggles of the Jewish people throughout history, continuing through today and into the foreseeable future? Just sayin'.
Also you say Barry O. is a genious…and he very well have a high IQ….however…is he wise? Are policies wise? Or moral? We probably disagree completely on these questions.
OneNonBeliever, were your parents missionaries in Russia? Just curious.
No Russian missionaries here.
Hey Noah, I'm glad that we have young folks like you who are engaging in politics and cilized debate. I bet your parents are proud of you.
I have a song for you that expresses the gospel that you might like. It is by Shai Linne, a rapper. You can see his blog here: http://lyricaltheology.blogspot.com/
The song is called "In Adam All Die"
Chorus
We’re cursed from our birth, sinning from the beginning
The womb to the tomb, depraved to the grave
Astray every day, every breath brings death
In Adam all die, In Adam all die
We’re rebels like the devil, scheming like demons
Prideful with our idols, disgusting with our lusting
Twisted and sin-sick, selfish and helpless
In Adam all die, In Adam all die
Verse 1
Everybody knows that they’re guilty
Our conscience condemns us, shows us we’re filthy
Truth be told, we really have no answers
For why we fall short of our own moral standards
The evidence for God is simply bountiful
And it’s illogical to think we won’t be held accountable
A universal day of judgment approaches
Any rational notion of justice would presuppose this
And deep down inside, everybody knows this
But we disregard it because our deeds are atrocious
We prefer the vicious, our words are malicious
Our slurs pernicious, we find the absurd delicious
Depraved in our appetites- the things we crave are lacking light
Because sin’s got us enslaved and shackled tight
And if we are to understand the fruit
We need to go back and examine the root
Chorus
Verse 2
The world we live in wasn’t always like this
The early days had perfect righteousness and bright bliss
Man and woman under God-ruled government at first
Bubbling with mirth, immersed in loving with no hurts
God gave what theologians call the covenant of works
Forbidden fruit- the day you eat of it you’ll be cursed
Husband wasn’t alert; wife lacked discernment
Entrapped by the serpent and that was the first sin
The consequences were monumental
In fact, I’m not convinced they had a clue of what they’d gotten into
Their eyes were opened more- truth in the lies
To their surprise, they didn’t get the prize they were hoping for
They see their nakedness and now regret it
They tried to cover their guilt and then blame shift- how pathetic
And it’s a true story- you want some evidence?
We’ve been doing the same thing ever since
Chorus
Verse 3
We talk Adam and Eve, cats think we’re "throwed off", really
They don’t think it relates to thugs in North Philly
But it’s like Switchfoot said- we were meant to live
But in the garden Adam was our representative
So when the Judge executed the sentence
Adam’s guilt was imputed to his descendents
Global calamity
Major debt, pain, regret, the reign of death- total depravity
And yes, I’m aware that cats were not there
Which opens the door to charges of “that’s not fair”
But God is not subject to fallen notions of fairness
Besides, when it comes to God’s glory, most could care less
We can’t measure how we chase sand treasures
And banned pleasures- similar to our ancestors
So instead of saying if you were there what you would do
Seek your refuge in Adam number two
Chorus
I think Dr. Ron **THE BOSS** Paul is the hardest worker of them all. He is like a lazer that destroys Evil.
Roy, I agree that this has been a great forum for debate. Usually the comments online completely lack substance and are personal attacks. I have to give these folks credit for sticking in there to get so deep into the real issues. I agree that it could be that we are wasting time explaining scripture to people who God has not chosen, but it is impossible to know. I guess we all pitch in somewhere, and efficiency and strategy are good but sometimes God leads in a different direction. That is why I have been praying for these folks and the nuggets of God's Word that we have had a chance to present here. The answers are really for anyone who is reading this blog who might be undecided or wavering in their faith because of the deception of satan and the lies of the flesh. After all, if we don't praise God, the rocks will cry out! (Luke 19:40)
When I first became a Christian in 2000, I was a teaching assistant in the chemistry PhD program. I remember an undergraduate student who told me that she was raised a Christian but was having serious doubts because her professors were giving her all of this so-called scientific evidence for evolution and old earth. I decided that I had to study hard to understand whether I should believe in evolution and if it agreed with what God says in the Bible, and to be prepared to make a defense for the hope that I had in Christ (1 Peter 3:15- note it is supposed to be with gentleness and respect. I think I still need work on this part!) Although our public school system will not tell kids this, I found in my research that there are many Christian men in history whom God has given tremendous insight into science, philosophy and law. When we engage in apologetics, we are standing on their shoulders today. There are also some great defenders of the faith who are currently serving God in the public arena; one of them is Ravi Zacharias, http://www.rzim.org/ . God has given him and his colleagues great wisdom for apologetics. His motto is "helping the thinker believe; helping the believer think". The other book that had a great impact on my life was "The Gospel Primer" by Pastor Milton Vincent. Although it is not a big production, it contains the most solid scriptural exposition of the gospel that I have ever seen. There are many other great Christian leaders who I don't have space to mention, and each of them has something to contribute to our personal theology. I guess God doesn't give anyone a monopoly on spiritual gifts! Well, all the glory belongs to God. And I am glad this dialogue has encouraged you- it has been encouraging to me too to see other Christians reaching out to share the words of life.
To OneNonBeliever
Your comment: You assume things about me you can't possibly know, and which are actually very wrong. I was a Christian for 25 years and not too long ago, I would have written the stuff you wrote above. I went to the top academic Christian college in the country and I studied the Bible there. I know what you're going to say, but you'll have to believe me when I say I didn't just read it with my mind but I also had an open heart to scripture. I was as completely devoted to my faith as anybody could be.
Reply: First of all, I'm sorry if I have offended you. I will try not to make assumptions in my further replies. I'm sad to hear that you once professed faith in Christ and now you are not walking with Him. I am not a Christian counselor, so I don't know the best things to say to someone who has back slidden. I really hope and pray that God will bring you back into the sheepfold. I do know that God is sovereign over all things, and if He has given you saving faith, he will be faithful to bring you through to the end. (1 Cor 1:9)
Your comment: The main question I've asked is whose version of religion, scripture, and morality should we accept when considering public laws and education?
Reply: I think the problem is that we have gone from thinking that it is ok for everyone to have their own opinion, to thinking that therefore everyone is right and no one is wrong. The postmodern philosophy of relativism is a curse that afflicts the educational system in this country to this day. We would all be the better if we taught our children that there are other alternative worldviews. And if we taught them to argue in public debate based on values, based on utility, based on logic, etc. rather than based on political correctness and shutting down opponents because their value comes from a religious view rather than a worldly one. That is supposed to be what democracy is about.
Having said that, there is no place that I have found in the Bible that says that democracy is the best governmental system, so I don't believe by default that USA or our government is the best in the world. I am not saying that I am not patriotic to our country, just that I don't automatically assume that the way we have done or currently do things in America is the best way. I am a citizen of heaven first before being a citizen of USA. I love to support my country and neighbors to the extent that it doesn't ask me to violate God's law. That was an easy thing to do 20 years ago, but some of the injunctions being ordered by liberal courts these days are making it more and more difficult. These courts are supposed to make wise choices for but too often they use abuse their authority to legislate the whim of a specific minority that they favor, such as homosexual activists, for example, in California, even when the popular vote goes against them. If it comes down to public laws and school teaching being based on their values or mine, of course I want mine and they want theirs. Basically they are asking me to give up my value stance in favor of their value stance so that I will pay taxes to support public schools that will teach my kids their values. And if I don't do that, they are accusing me of violating this concept of separation of church and state that liberals are now re-defining to mean pretty much any public display of Christian faith (someone in Wash Post recently said that the cross should be banned in public because it is brutal. but I didn't hear them complaining about kids walking around with spikes and chains that symbolize torture- it's clear that their motive is to try to prevent the name of Christ from being mentioned in public).
I don't think that liberals are taking the establishment clause in context. The founding fathers came from a Europe where the Catholic church had oppressed true believers in the reformation for a long time. They wanted to make sure that Christians here would be free to worship or not worship as they believed, and would not be subject to a papacy or other type of dictatorial religious regime. For me, it means to prevent the establishment of an official government religion, not to ban the cross on a military monument or the ten commandments in a court room, or a time for students of any faith to pray before starting classes. To be honest, if you want to use politically correct language that liberals love to invent (and has so much in common with the red guard in China- have you ever studied that event- it smacks of the current liberal media and militant homosexual movement in this country?) what you are asking seems to be intolerant towards those who believe in God. But then again, it is easy to call others intolerant so long as they are being intolerant against something that you value.
Your comment: You clearly believe that your version of Christianity is the right one and dismiss everybody else's as some form of apostasy. You want us to teach your version of "truth" at the exclusion of everyone else's, including that of science.
Reply: As I mentioned, postmodernism is the cause behind a lot of wrong beliefs in the modern age. I believe that there are universal truths. I believe in rationality and the ability to reason. I believe that God gave us a brain, among other things, so that when we hear and read His Word, we will understand it. I believe that if you read the Bible and compare scripture with scripture, there is only one way to interpret the main ideas. Granted, there are plenty of places where people have minor differences because not everything has been revealed or some historical information is unclear, such as end times etc., but the message of creation, of sin, of redemption through Christ, and Christ's return, are agreed upon as clear by all true believers. And it is clear that the entire OT anticipates the coming of a Messiah and God's plan for redemption and salvation. If you sit down with a well translated Bible such as NASB or ESV and you read through the verses where a backslidden church would use to support homosexual sin or female pastors in their theological statement, you will find that there is simply no way to logically justify their conclusion. You should agree with this because you pointed out below how you think the Bible is "out of date" in regard to women's roles in society. It is blatantly clear that these churches are trying to use scripture to justify the currently popular views of sinful man, and are picking and choosing rather than reading the Bible as a whole, in the proper historical context.
When I first got saved from reading the Bible, I came from a very sinful background (adultery, foul mouth, disrespect to parents, and much worse unmentionable) and I read the whole Bible twice. GOd showed me that it is consistent throughout and it was very easy for me to see the difference between those who were teaching from their own opinion and those who were looking at the verses one by one and comparing them to other scriptures to make sure that they were being consistent. Thi doesn't mean that I didn't have questions or doubts, but God gave me the Holy Spirit to show me the truth. If you don't have the Holy Spirit, you probably will be confused by all of these other teachings because even though you have the ability to reason, you do not have the desire to please God. God commands us to "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15 If you have His Spirit, you will seek to do what His Word says, and He will illuminate for you as you read and pray.
Your comment: First, scientific discoveries or religiously neutral and are simply descriptions of reality as it can be observed. Sometimes scientific discoveries have implications about specific interpretations of specific faiths (for example heliocentricity), but they are not religious in nature.
Reply: As a scientist and also a Christian, this is a subject near and dear to my heart. I do the scientific process every day in the research lab. I have published over 20 scientific papers, two book chapters, etc. so I know something about the scientific world. I hate to say this about my colleagues, but scientists are just as confused as anyone else in this world. They have marital problems, struggles with pride and substance abuse, etc. What I am trying to say is that morally, science does not do anything for them. And while they are great at running a western blot or mass spectrometer, I certainly would not want them at the helm of our government making laws. My colleagues are very opinionated and think that they know more than others who are not scientists simply because they are scientists. Many of them were good students and excelled in school, so they have a superiority complex. Others think that because they have studied one subject so hard and understand it so well that they have the right to be an expert on all other subjects, including those which they know nothing about. I admit that I sometimes fall into this trap myself! But as I get older I am seeing how much there is to learn besides science. Most of my colleagues will stretch the truth as much as needed to get a publication or grant money, so it doesn't surprise me if they come up with stuff like the Miller-Urey experiment and then print it in every single elementary school textbook to try to brainwash young impressionable children into believing that science has solved all of the great mysteries of the world, including creation and the existence of God. Science to me is just a tool. Intrinsically it is not good or bad. It depends on how you use it. But to many young people, the word science automatically means something good, for which they hold high respect. Part of this has to do with the goal of science to make man live forever, to be like God, and part has to do with professors who have influence through teaching classes, who pump up science to be more than it really is, because like used car salesmen they need to justify what they do in order to feel valuable in life. For Christians, value comes from God, not from our career. As someone on the inside who sees the face of science after the makeup comes off, I can assure you that science has no monopoly on the truth and should be treated just as skeptically as any other system of thought. That is why, as I said previously, science should fall under the authority scripture, not the other way around.
Your comment: The hole, and hypocrisy, of your argument becomes immediately apparent when you substitute the Qur'an and Muslim faith for any time you mention Bible, Scripture, or Christian. You would rightly be offended if they tried to throw out our laws or education based on their theology. But, you ask everyone else to allow an exception for you. If you want to teach such things, you are free to in your home, churches, or in private schools – but you don't get public money to preach your private faith. Another example is the Amish. They believe the use of electricity and many modern developments are immoral. Does that mean you should not be allowed to type on the computer we are communicating through? Should they be able to use public funds to teach their world view to your child? Obviously, no. Under our constitution, they have the freedom to form their society as they see fit, but they cannot impose their beliefs on the rest of us.
Reply: Actually, I have no problem if we teach kids in school a balanced and unbiased perspective on religion (doubt that is possible with current liberal regime). I took a lot of religion classes on buddhism, hinduism and christianity in college as an agnostic. There isn't time to teach every single religion ever known to man, but certainly some of the major ones in a comparative religion class would be a good start. I wouldn't be a big fan of teaching kids militant islamic teachings, or mormon teachings that Jesus is on a planet in outer space, but it wouldn't mess them up any worse than "bobby has two daddies".
I don't think that Christians are asking for an exception to get their way with others, I think that they are are asking not to be excluded because they are Christian. I don't think that Christians want to be relegated to live separate lives as the Amish becauseof their beliefs- they want to be in the world but not of the world. You say that we should not get public money to teach private faith, but liberals are asking for public money all the time to teach private faith. THey do when they support abortion clinics, they do when they use student funds for the school's LGBT club, and they do when they use teachers' union funds to support left leaning atheist politicians for office. I personally think that we should be able to opt out of the public school system completely, take our tax dollars that are going to fund all of these liberal programs such as teaching kids homosexual sex education in elementary school, and put them towards home schooling our kids with the truth from God's Word. Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it. Proverbs 22:6. I think that you are misunderstanding using public funds for things related to religion (such as a statue with a cross) for "imposing your religious viws on us". They are not the same thing. If they are, then you are imposing your atheistic view on me every single time that you exclude religion from a publically funded event/work/show/etc. If you don't think that excluding something can be as important as including something, try telling that to Joe Paterno.
Your comment: You suggest I am arguing for anarchy. Far from it. We have the constitution. We have thousands upon thousands of laws that govern our lives (for example which side of the street we can drive on). These restrictions are good for the preservation of society. But, when the only argument is a religiously motivated one, it cannot become law (or should be thrown out by the judiciary for being an unconstitutional law). For example, working on Sunday. The only reason for banning people from working on Sunday would be a religious one, and therefore should be thrown out as a law. People are allowed to not work on Sunday, or create a society or subsection of society that will permit their belief. But, you do not have the authority under the constitution to tell Walmart they must close their doors every Sunday.
Reply: First of all, I don't think there is anything wrong with working on Sunday. Jesus says that the sabbath is made for man, not man for the sabbath. (Mark 2:27) It is a great day to spend worshiping the Lord and focusing on Him, because after all we don't spend enough time throughout the week due to work distractions; but whoever made that law was adding something to scripture (we talked about this in a previous comment). But I do think that while God has given the government authority, He has also given it a responsibility to do what is right. And that involves moral interpretion. Otherwise, yes, you will have anarchy. Allowing child pornography is not right, nor is allowing gay parades with groups that support child molestation dressed as clowns going around giving children free gifts with their contact information. It doesn't take knowing the Bible for someone to know that these folks are corrupted by their fleshly lust, yet liberals would argue that we can't impose moral values on this situation because it is intolerant of those who are "different". but what it really is doing is being intolerant of those who are normal for the sake of a few sick perverts. That is anarchy, and it is a danger to a civil society, even an atheist one. And I should put in a plug for the Bible as the best reference that we have for moral law. If you were to remove all of the advances in our society based on the moral law of the Bible, we would not be typing these messages today- we would still be having gladiator fights and slavery.
Your comment: If you cannot see how someone can gain moral wisdom and insight from reading something like Aesop's fables without believing in it's veracity, then that's your short-sightedness, not mine. I could gain wisdom from reading a Harry Potter book, because it is not about the truth of the story being read, but what understanding of human nature I can gain from my own thought processes.
Reply: I am not challenging the fact that you can learn from readng fables. I am saying that the Word of God is our guide for life and Aesop's fables is in a completely different league. It doesn't mean that we can't learn from other things, but if they contradict scripture, scripture will always prove to be right. Solomon talks about how there are always books being written but there is no new idea under the sun. Books are great, I've read plenty in my lifetime, but I just don't put academic learning and worldly clever philosophies at the priority level of scripture.
Your comment: I never said women were identical to men. They are not. But they should be accorded equal freedoms as us. They should be allowed to vote, own land, choose their own vocation or to stay at home. That is the inalienable right of any human. But the Bible denies women the right to divorce, sets the price a father can sell his daughter into forced servitude- including sexual slavery, allows men beat their wives, treats them legally as property, lists them among the spoils of war, denies them the right to speak up in church, forces them to learn at home from their husbands, denies them the ability to have authority over any man, denies them the right to teach, makes them subjugated to will of their husband (with no exception given for abuse) and more. There are more subtle forms of discrimination, such as only tracking lineage through men, or not counting females in population tallies. If you wish to discriminate against women, then there is ample support to be found in the Bible.
Reply: Please give verses for these claims. I don't doubt that the Hebrews had subtle forms of discrimination and were a male-dominated society. Most of this is stuff that you need to read in the context of the entire Bible and history/culture in order to understand correctly, you can't just pick and choose sentences. We can discuss them one-by-one and put in context each verse.
The stuff about women being subjugated to husbands and no authority over men is easy to answer without looking up the verses. Women are to be submissive to husbands in Christ and husbands are to love their wives sacrificially as Christ loved the church.(Eph 5) The idea is that women's role is to submit to their husbands so long as their husband is submitting to Christ. Husbands role is to literally lay down their own life to love their wife spiritually, similar to how Christ did for the church. There are many, many books written on this but I would recommend that you check out "mark of a man" by Elizabeth Elliott. I have never seen a better book that explains what is it to be a man from a biblical perspective. There is also a very long book written on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood by John Piper that is available free online as a PDF. I don't have space to go into all of the great teachings that come to mind from scripture right this moment, but I would be glad to dialogue more if you like. Basically, the confusion about male and female roles has caused many of the core problems in our society. My wife and I live according to the biblical teachings and when she stopped working we had an amazing improvement in our relationship. She has a PhD too, by the way, which defies the stereotype of an uneducated hillbilly bumpkin that I mentioned in a previous post. The better education a woman has, the more prepared she is as a wife, mother, home-schooler and home-maker. And there is no Biblical basis for women not getting an education or not working a job so long as it doesn't interfere with their role as a wife and mother. In fact, the Proverbs 32 woman is very industrious in the market and people know this and she is praised for it. The problem with our society is that vocations in the workplace are valued over the vocation of being a mother and home maker because workplace vocations earn money and that is seen as valuable and powerful. Yet any man whose wife is at home can tell you that the role of a woman in the home is far, far, more valuable than any job that she could get. They estimated the monetary value at 150k per year but I think that you can't put a monetary value on spiritual matters. Whether to work in the workplace or at home is the choice of a woman and her husband, but I can tell you that all the women I know doing it absolutely love it and wouldn't have it any other way. By contrast, many of the women I know in the workplace who have neglected their family life are having marital problems and are unhappy that they don't get to spend more time raising their children.
The part about women being in authority over men, you are probably taking out of context. It is saying that women should not have authority in the church for teaching. Men are called to take the initiative to teach and lead in the church. You are probably implying that submission is a less valuable role than leadership, but all of these things are understood through Christ's example. He submitted the Father, yet that didn't make HIm any less valuable- actually it served to increase His glory. You are confusing "position" with "value". You might be doing this because in our world, a person's position in an organization sometimes indicates their value to the organization. But in Biblical terms, position does not indicate value, it simply indicates differentation in role. As I mentioned in a previous post, God is a God of differences. If everything was an amorphous blob, this world would not be as amazing as God has created it with differences.
Comment: You may say that such interpretations are not the "correct" ones, but it has taken us millennia to shake such ideas. Only within the last century or so, have women really been allowed normal human freedoms equal to their phallus bearing counterparts.
Reply: I am not disputing that women have more freedom today than ever before. In fact, all people have more freedom today than ever before. But there are some things you need to think about:
1. The fact that women in the past were not given freedom does not indicate that the Bible is responsible for that. You seem to be assigning responsibility to the Bible for something that was actually the responsibility of sinful man.
2. Man is becoming more and more wicked. So while we are gaining freedom of action, we are actually losing freedom of will. We are all a slave to something- either slave to sin or slave to God. (John 8:34) Only the truth can set you free (John 8:32). What this means is that there is actually significantly more freedom in Christ than as an unsaved sinner who is captive to satan and the flesh. You see, as a Christian, I do not have the same value system as an atheist that says that "more freedom of behavior is always necessarily better". I would argue that there are times where freedom is not good. For example, a kid crossing the road by himself vs. holding his mother's hand. but my point is not about women's right to vote, etc. but about the typical worldly value of freedom of behavior without boundary, which assumes that freedom of behavior is something that is aways good in itself. I would prefer to subjugate myself to Christ in order to gain freedom from the sinful desires that ensnare me, "because He is gentle and lowly in heart, and I will find rest for my soul." (Matt 11:29) Perhaps the worst tyrant to be enslaved to is your own sinful desire, which ultimately results in spiritual and physical death! The Bible says "Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death." (James 1:15)
We are hardly scratching the surface on some of these topics, there are so many more scriptures to share and deep profound revelation of scripture on some of these topics. It is so refreshing to hear the Word of God because you know the truth when you hear it, and it is like eating whole oats vs. the refined white flour of the worldly ways of thinking. It's just good solid and filling. I really enjoy thinking through how what God has said applies to our lives and politics in our country. It is amazing how much insight and wisdom He has given us in scripture! Thanks again for all of your good discussions.
@BobJones,
Once again, it comes down to whose version of morality do you choose. This is not a post-modern question, but one our forefathers themselves asked. This is the specific reason why we are a secular government that provides the freedom for its citizens to answer that question for themselves. This arrangement is the reason religion absolutely flourishes in the States. Our forefathers knew that answering such a question is impossible, and warned about the dangers of sectarianism. If you look at the history of the various colonies, from the Quakers to the Presbyters, Jamestown to the Utopian experiment of Georgia, our various colonies had vastly different ideas on the role of morality and religion in society. Our forefathers wisely decided to allow US, we the people, to choose and define our morality for ourselves and not to decide moral positions through government. The purpose of our laws is not to create moral people. Far from it. The purpose of our laws is to protect our personal freedoms and liberties- and to prevent people from imposing on those liberties. Thomas Jefferson wrote "the legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." The purpose of law is to create social order, but not to create "moral" individuals.
It is up to you and I to develop those things. As I have said many times already, it is up to society to care for the moral upbringing of an individual. Most importantly, this begins in the home, then to small groups and associations (like church or girl scouts etc). But, it is an impossible task for government to select which sect of a particular faith has the proper notion of morality. Should your wife have to wear a burqa because one segment of our population thinks that is the moral behavior of women? Should you have to unplug your computer and end our conversation because one section of population believes electricity is immoral? Those people who believe such things are allowed the freedom to live according to their beliefs, but it is not the role of legislation to decide whose version of morality to choose. Thomas Jefferson said, "I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another." Finally, once more I repeat I think it is instructive that Christ himself never sought to set up laws and government, but in fact overthrew established laws of morality. His focus was on the heart of the individual and not on the power of a religious organization.
As I have stated many times already, I believe moral instruction is very important. I would love to see a focus on ethics in the classroom. I also would love to see the focus on developing critical thinking and debate skills instead of the wrote factual recitation method we see in our schools. I too, dislike much of the PC movement. I think it's a waste of time to dress things up with fancy words to try and put a protective hedge around everyone so that nobody's feelings get hurt. People get too easily offended. The one thing I do like about the PC movement, however, is the emphasis on trying to understand someone's way of life who is different from your own- to honor somebody who has different experiences and traditions from your own. If we all truly embraced this, I do think life would improve for everyone.
You said, "I do think that while God has given the government authority, He has also given it a responsibility to do what is right. And that involves moral interpretion. Otherwise, yes, you will have anarchy." I disagree. Our government is a great example of how that is not true. The government has given great power to our organizations to decide for themselves the rules and regulations it deems as prerequisite for membership. So, if a church decides that you cannot be a member if you work on sunday, or if a woman doesn't cover her head, or if you sprinkle a child instead of immersing it (etc.), they are free to do so. The only time government oversees doctrinal issues, is when a person's liberties are being infringed upon by the organization. One absurdly obvious example is human sacrifice. Government doesn't allow this even if it is part of a religious creed or observance. Even then, they don't ban the organization that promotes such practices, but only bans the behavior. Again we can look to the various organizations of our colonies and settlers to see how they had social order (and not anarchy), while yet having vastly different views of morality and organizational roles and laws.
You said, "I don't think that Christians want to be relegated to live separate lives as the Amish becauseof their beliefs." True, few people want to be outcasts. Most people want others to share their world view. But, it is not the role of government to make it easy to carry out a specific world view. The more radical a world view, or the further it is from the values of a current society as a whole, the more difficult it will be for that group to be fully immersed in society. That's the way it is. The Amish, for example, are free to live their lives how they see fit, but it is not our responsibility to make sure it's easy for them to fit in with everyone else. Christ himself said that you will be outcasts for your beliefs. That you will be ridiculed and abused. But, that you were to take up your cross and follow him and to go the extra mile when people persecute you. I don't think mainstream Christianity will be on the outer fringe of society in anytime soon. The vast majority of our population consider themselves Christians (though you and I know that what there's a wide spectrum of what that actually means). But, the more extreme one sect's position is compared to that of society, the more it will naturally be on the outskirts of society. To conclude, it is the responsibility of an individual to figure how to make their worldview work within society, not government's.
The point of my comments on the bible and women's roles (and slavery) within society is to highlight that your values as a Christian are strongly shaped by society, even when such teachings fly in direct opposition to what your holy books actually say. But, as I've already spent plenty of time today on this discussion, I will have to postpone the lion's share of that argument for another time.