A Christian Government in America

[gtparts]

Ok GT, you have lost me now. I am not really certain what we are debating anymore.

However, guaranteeing rights is the primary role of government in a free society (thus the reason I scratch my head at your anarchy claim). Protecting your right to live over your neighbor's right to kill is an acceptable use of force. Making you and your neighbor go to church, IMHO, is not.

Follow me here:
1) The populace finds an act by one person or group against another person or group is a grievous miscarriage, unfair, and offensive.
2) They get their legislators to pass a law making the act illegal and providing some guidelines for punishing those who transgress the new law.
3) An individual or group violates that law, are caught, tried by their peers, found guilty, sentenced, and punished.

Now, the question is, "Has the government succeeded in protecting the rights of the victim(s)?" Obviously not! If it is murder, the victim is still dead. If it is a scam on old people, most often their bank accounts is still "cleaned out". The only way to protect rights, then, is to PREVENT the violation from ever happening. So, let's not delude ourselves into believing that government can achieve that end. They only respond AFTER the right has been violated.

Lets take a step back and consider your position. Our society currently "values" a progressive tax structure which punishes achievement. It is societal values which are triumphing over property rights. Our current tax code is written in such a way, and influenced in such a way, that the masses can claim the ownership of other's property. These values will change over time, and we can see this currently. But, if we had well defined property rights which were protected, such an aggression would be limited.

I agree that laws deprive certain "rights," but do not see where it is relevant to the topic. The discussion was whether or not we would impose a Christian govt. I saw this as an imposition of Christian values. I do not see where there is a biblical context for using force to persuade folks to live a "christian life." Jesus never did it. I don't think I will jump on board either.

Impose?? The OP merely asks to contrast the current form of government with one that is based on Christianity. What tenets of the Christian faith do you find so repulsive? Love your neighbor as yourself? Return good for evil? Take care of widows and orphans? Where does it say that Christianity must be forced upon the unwilling? Can you not see the difference between a faith-based government and a mandated faith initiative? There is no reason to believe that a Christ-based government would be oppressive to non-Christians. Such is simply not part of the Christian faith.

I know that kind-of meandered around, but I am really having a tough time understanding why you think forced Christianity would be an ideal, when in fact, there could not be a "truly Christian government." One concept eliminates the other. Christianity is all about choosing God through faith, and government is force.

Again, what causes you to fear the implementation of a Christ-based government? Christ never forced His teachings on anyone. He only said that to follow Him, one must believe and completely subordinate themselves to the will and purpose of their Father in heaven. That is exactly what Jesus demonstrated in His own life, nothing more and nothing less.

The only point I will concede is that every government on Earth, instituted by men, will at some point exhibit corruption. A Christianity-based government, instituted by men, will inevitably have that problem. The question is, "Will it be any different than the corruption we have seen under our present form of government." Not likely. In fact, I would suggest that our present form is already, at least in part, Christianity-based. Is the present corruption the result of included Christian principles or the absence of those principles?

 

[TheBishop]

Follow me here:
1) The populace finds an act by one person or group against another person or group is a grievous miscarriage, unfair, and offensive.
2) They get their legislators to pass a law making the act illegal and providing some guidelines for punishing those who transgress the new law.
3) An individual or group violates that law, are caught, tried by their peers, found guilty, sentenced, and punished.

What you speak of here is mob rule, better known as a democracy. Again you show a fundamental lack of understanding of what kind of country our fore fathers designed. They set up a REPUBLIC, to prevent such scenerios as you suggest. They did not want laws based on the whims of the masses.

Now, the question is, "Has the government succeeded in protecting the rights of the victim(s)?" Obviously not! If it is murder, the victim is still dead. If it is a scam on old people, most often their bank accounts is still "cleaned out". The only way to protect rights, then, is to PREVENT the violation from ever happening. So, let's not delude ourselves into believing that government can achieve that end. They only respond AFTER the right has been violated.

Agian our fore fathers understood this. They trusted men to be good men knowing that no amount of legislation could prevent evil deeds by men agianst men. The understood law to be post de facto, and set up them to punish not prevent. What they did try to prevent was an out of control tyrannical government. They gave us a document that could prevent such a tradgedy but unfortunately the elected have trampled on that document.

Impose?? The OP merely asks to contrast the current form of government with one that is based on Christianity. What tenets of the Christian faith do you find so repulsive? Love your neighbor as yourself? Return good for evil? Take care of widows and orphans? Where does it say that Christianity must be forced upon the unwilling? Can you not see the difference between a faith-based government and a mandated faith initiative? There is no reason to believe that a Christ-based government would be oppressive to non-Christians. Such is simply not part of the Christian faith.

You have yet to answer my most fundamental question on this topic. It seems you want to ignore the obvious. maybe I need to type it in bold big letters.

Why with a clean slate, did a group of men, whose majority was christian, not institute a christian government when they had the chance?

Again, what causes you to fear the implementation of a Christ-based government? Christ never forced His eachings ton anyone. He only said that to follow Him, one must believe and completely subordinate themselves to the will and purpose of their Father in heaven. That is exactly what Jesus demonstrated in His own life, nothing more and nothing less.

The only point I will concede is that every government on Earth, instituted by men, will at some point exhibit corruption. A Christianity-based government, instituted by men, will inevitably have that problem. The question is, "Will it be any different than the corruption we have seen under our present form of government." Not likely. In fact, I would suggest that our present form is already, at least in part, Christianity-based. Is the present corruption the result of included Christian principles or the absence of those principles?

Your excactly right, and this in part answers the question above. Corruption eventually leads to tyranny. The present corruption has absolutely nothing to do with any christian principals. It has everything to do with your first statement, people treating this country like a democracy, and people willing to sacrifice liberty for things like security, forced equality, and social engineering.

A good and just government needs no other foundation but individual liberty.

You have still yet to answer : What Rights must we surrender in order to form a society?

 

[JB0704]

The only way to protect rights, then, is to PREVENT the violation from ever happening.

Only to the extent that the punishment is not a deterrent. There are a lot of things Iwould do if I would not end up in jail for doing them.

On this thought, if a government were christian based, wouldn't repentance be the end of the legal system. A sin (crime) would be forgiven, and there would be "no record of wrongs" (had to throw some corinthians out there). I don't want that, and I don't think anybody on here wants it either.

Impose?? The OP merely asks to contrast the current form of government with one that is based on Christianity. What tenets of the Christian faith do you find so repulsive? Love your neighbor as yourself? Return good for evil? Take care of widows and orphans? Where does it say that Christianity must be forced upon the unwilling? Can you not see the difference between a faith-based government and a mandated faith initiative? There is no reason to believe that a Christ-based government would be oppressive to non-Christians. Such is simply not part of the Christian faith.?

Government, by its nature, is imposed on the population. A christian government would have to get its money somewhere, so it would have to collect taxes. Those taxes would have to be collected thruogh implied force.

People should choose the ideals, then live them. Not be forced at the point of a gun to live a moral life. Taking care of orphans, feeding the poor, loving your neighbor are all the most appealling aspects of Chrisitianity to me. But none of these actions should be from compulsion. If they were, then you are advocating for socialism.

Again, what causes you to fear the implementation of a Christ-based government? Christ never forced His teachings on anyone.?

This is my whole argument. Government, by definition, does everything through force.

The only point I will concede is that every government on Earth, instituted by men, will at some point exhibit corruption.?

This is also my dillemma with church. I do not fear Christianity, I fear Christians. Particularly the ones who would force another to live according to thier interpretation of morality. If a person is moral through force, then they are not really moral. Morality exists when we choose it.

A Christianity-based government, instituted by men, will inevitably have that problem. The question is, "Will it be any different than the corruption we have seen under our present form of government." Not likely.

I think our current government is better because it gives more personal freedom than one that would force Christian morality on folks (see results of today's Sunday liquor sales vote for a good example of forced morality).

 

[TheBishop]

This is also my dillemma with church. I do not fear Christianity, I fear Christians. Particularly the ones who would force another to live according to thier interpretation of morality. If a person is moral through force, then they are not really moral. Morality exists when we choose it.

 

[JB0704]

A good and just government needs no other foundation but individual liberty.

Well said. I absolutely agree.

 

[TheBishop]

Well said. I absolutely agree.

I would restructure the government with a christian like you anyday!

 

[JB0704]

I would restructure the government with a christian like you anyday!

 

[gtparts]

What you speak of here is mob rule, better known as a democracy. Again you show a fundamental lack of understanding of what kind of country our fore fathers designed. They set up a REPUBLIC, to prevent such scenerios (sp)as you suggest. They did not want laws based on the whims of the masses.

Check line (2). What I described is a republic. You must have missed that one.

Agian (sp) our fore fathers understood this. They trusted men to be good men knowing that no amount of legislation could prevent evil deeds by men agianst (sp)men. The understood law to be post de facto, and set up them to punish not prevent. What they did try to prevent was an out of control tyrannical government. They gave us a document that could prevent such a tradgedy but unfortunately the elected have trampled on that document.

Then you would agree that no government protects our rights. They may very well define them, but they only respond and seek to punish and/or secure restitution. Our rights are not guaranteed until the government can assure no infringement will occur. Until then, rights can only be lost.... and, hopefully, restored. Obviously, a murder victim cannot have their life, liberty, or their ability to pursue individual happiness restored. So, let's dispense with the idea that any government can ensure rights.

You have yet to answer my most fundamental question on this topic. It seems you want to ignore the obvious. maybe I need to type it in bold big letters.

Why with a clean slate, did a group of men, whose majority was christian, not institute a christian government when they had the chance?

It is really not relevant to the OP, but the obvious answer is that wicked men in power sought to forcefully subjugate the population in various ways, including attempts at forcing one religious system over all others. The flight to the New World was in many instances motivated by greed (think Spanish conquistadors, for one), but the early colonial efforts in settling this land that later became the original thirteen colonies ( note: Forming a new nation was not really a consideration in the 1500's, 1600's, nor the early 1700's) and was strongly motivated by a desire for religious freedom; not to live free from any religion, but to practice religion in their own way.) The forefathers had 250 years of history to help convince them to shape a new government that allowed religious freedom independent of government meddling.

Your excactly (sp) right, and this in part answers the question above. Corruption eventually leads to tyranny. The present corruption has absolutely nothing to do with any christian principals. It has everything to do with your first statement, people treating this country like a democracy, and people willing to sacrifice liberty for things like security, forced equality, and social engineering.

A good and just government needs no other foundation but individual liberty.

Individual liberty must be tempered by the societal institution of government placing reasonable and acceptable restrictions for the greater good of the entire population. Everybody doing as they please, based on unrestricted, individual liberty, is the very definition of anarchy.

You have still yet to answer : What Rights must we surrender in order to form a society?

We all give up something. Do you pay taxes? Are you restricted from owning and using certain weapons? Could you be forcibly conscripted into military service under past draft laws? Are you allowed to print and distribute legal tender or is that reserved as a right and responsibility of our government? Can you manufacture and distribute legitimate medical drugs or cut hair without the proper permits/ licenses? I think you get my point.

 

[gtparts]

Only to the extent that the punishment is not a deterrent. There are a lot of things Iwould do if I would not end up in jail for doing them.

How well is punishment working as a deterrent (except in the case of capital punishment)? If it were a reality, we wouldn't have to punish anyone but the first offender. Everyone else would discard the very idea of risking violating the law. As for incarceration, ever hear of recidivism?

On this thought, if a government were christian based, wouldn't repentance be the end of the legal system. A sin (crime) would be forgiven, and there would be "no record of wrongs" (had to throw some corinthians out there). I don't want that, and I don't think anybody on here wants it either.

(Love that you made the Corinthian comment.)
There is a major consideration that must be taken into account. Spiritual repentance and the receiving of forgiveness does not do away with the consequences for breaking civil laws. It didn't in biblical times, it doesn't today, and I can't imagine that such would be the case in a Christian-based government, today or in the future. "Christian-based" could not be understood as perfect, as long as humanity administers the government.

Government, by its nature, is imposed on the population. A christian government would have to get its money somewhere, so it would have to collect taxes. Those taxes would have to be collected thruogh implied force.

Sounds like the same "sticking points" we have in the present form of government.... any form of government.

People should choose the ideals, then live them. Not be forced at the point of a gun to live a moral life. Taking care of orphans, feeding the poor, loving your neighbor are all the most appealling aspects of Chrisitianity to me. But none of these actions should be from compulsion. If they were, then you are advocating for socialism.

I wouldn't disagree with any of what you have typed in this paragraph. I just don't know why some interpret "Christian-based government" as being one that makes Christianity compulsory. It isn't evident from Scripture.

This is my whole argument. Government, by definition, does everything through force.

Actually, that may be true of some forms of government, but if you look at our founding documents, you will see that the states made mutual pledges to the federation, all the while retaining for the states and individual certain rights not seceded to the new national government. In short, we gave up something as individuals to gain something as a community.

This is also my dillemma with church. I do not fear Christianity, I fear Christians. Particularly the ones who would force another to live according to thier interpretation of morality. If a person is moral through force, then they are not really moral. Morality exists when we choose it.

I think our current government is better because it gives more personal freedom than one that would force Christian morality on folks (see results of today's Sunday liquor sales vote for a good example of forced morality).

Why do you argue against yourself? You say that morality cannot be forced and in the next breath assume that Christians are convinced that they can. Most Christians I know are far smarter than that.

In the NW corner of our state is Cloudland Canyon State Park. There are signs and railings to keep visitors from going over the edge on the moss-covered rock and falling to their deaths. Some are smart enough to understand and obey the signs. It is called "heeding the warnings". The laws concerning Sunday sales of beverage alcohol only serve as a warning. The laws do little to actually stem the heartbreak caused by the combination of irresponsible people and beverage alcohol. Those that choose to, will make purchases Monday through Saturday. But, I have never heard anyone say, " I want to drink till my judgment is impaired and total my new car." or "Nothing would make me happier that to know my child will be an alcoholic. The more jobs he loses, the better." or maybe, "Serves my niece right for getting plastered, aspirating in her vomit, and dying as she lay unconscious on the floor. Stupid kids! My brother and sister-in-law should just be philosophical and get over it." Those laws may stimulate discussions that save us from many human tragedies. If they do, wouldn't it be better to have the laws than do without them?

 

[TheBishop]

Check line (2). What I described is a republic. You must have missed that one.

No you described mob rule. That laws are left to be decided what ever is inline with the times. It is most certainly should not be that way.

Before anything can be reasoned upon to a conclusion, certain facts, principles, or data, to reason from, must be established, admitted, or denied. Mr. Burke with his usual outrage, abused the Declaration of the Rights of Man, published by the National Assembly of France, as the basis on which the constitution of France is built. This he calls "paltry and blurred sheets of paper about the rights of man." Does Mr. Burke mean to deny that man has any rights? If he does, then he must mean that there are no such things as rights anywhere, and that he has none himself; for who is there in the world but man? But if Mr. Burke means to admit that man has rights, the question then will be: What are those rights, and how man came by them originally?

The error of those who reason by precedents drawn from antiquity, respecting the rights of man, is that they do not go far enough into antiquity. They do not go the whole way. They stop in some of the intermediate stages of an hundred or a thousand years, and produce what was then done, as a rule for the present day. This is no authority at all. If we travel still farther into antiquity, we shall find a direct contrary opinion and practice prevailing; and if antiquity is to be authority, a thousand such authorities may be produced, successively contradicting each other; but if we proceed on, we shall at last come out right; we shall come to the time when man came from the hand of his Maker. What was he then? Man. Man was his high and only title, and a higher cannot be given him. But of titles I shall speak hereafter.

We are now got at the origin of man, and at the origin of his rights. As to the manner in which the world has been governed from that day to this, it is no farther any concern of ours than to make a proper use of the errors or the improvements which the history of it presents. Those who lived an hundred or a thousand years ago, were then moderns, as we are now. They had their ancients, and those ancients had others, and we also shall be ancients in our turn. If the mere name of antiquity is to govern in the affairs of life, the people who are to live an hundred or a thousand years hence, may as well take us for a precedent, as we make a precedent of those who lived an hundred or a thousand years ago. The fact is, that portions of antiquity, by proving everything, establish nothing. It is authority against authority all the way, till we come to the divine origin of the rights of man at the creation. Here our enquiries find a resting-place, and our reason finds a home. If a dispute about the rights of man had arisen at the distance of an hundred years from the creation, it is to this source of authority they must have referred, and it is to this same source of authority that we must now refer.

Thomas Paine rights of man.

Then you would agree that no government protects our rights.

No our governments main function is to protect and preserve individual rights.

They may very well define them, but they only respond and seek to punish and/or secure restitution.

No our rights are natural born rights. Government defines nothing.

Our rights are not guaranteed until the government can assure no infringement will occur.

Our constitution and citizenship guarantee rights again government does not. Government is instuted among men to protect our natural rights.

Until then, rights can only be lost.... and, hopefully, restored. Obviously, a murder victim cannot have their life, liberty, or their ability to pursue individual happiness restored. So, let's dispense with the idea that any government can ensure rights.

No but it is supposed to ensure justice for the infringement of those rights. No government can ensure rights, it is up to an ever vigalant and aware populace to do so.

It is really not relevant to the OP, but the obvious answer is that wicked men in power sought to forcefully subjugate the population in various ways, including attempts at forcing one religious system over all others. The flight to the New World was in many instances motivated by greed (think Spanish conquistadors, for one), but the early colonial efforts in settling this land that later became the original thirteen colonies ( note: Forming a new nation was not really a consideration in the 1500's, 1600's, nor the early 1700's) and was strongly motivated by a desire for religious freedom; not to live free from any religion, but to practice religion in their own way.) The forefathers had 250 years of history to help convince them to shape a new government that allowed religious freedom independent of government meddling.

That is the best thing I have read from you.

Individual liberty must be tempered by the societal institution of government placing reasonable and acceptable restrictions for the greater good of the entire population. Everybody doing as they please, based on unrestricted, individual liberty, is the very definition of anarchy.

NO,NO,NO!

We all give up something. Do you pay taxes?

Yes unfairly.

Are you restricted from owning and using certain weapons?

Yes and I shouldn't be.

Co

uld you be forcibly conscripted into military service under past draft laws?

Yes, But it would only be in defense of my rights and others.

Are you allowed to print and distribute legal tender or is that reserved as a right and responsibility of our government?

Yes actually you can. It must be backed and interpreted to have some value. You just can't counterfiet existing currency. Look up berkshares, berkshires.

Can you manufacture and distribute legitimate medical drugs or cut hair without the proper permits/ licenses? I think you get my point.

No but agian I see this as a overreach of government powers. Let the market decide. If I want to buy drugs from a street vender, it my decision, not yours. If I choose to let some bum off the streets be my doctor what concern is of yours?


Do not commit murder becuase its illegal?
Do not steal becuase its illegal?
Do not prostitute yourself becuase its illegal?

I would wager no, as do most good people. You assume that people will seek chaos if we did not have government to hold our hand. I say no. We are no longer hunter gathers, of segregated tribes. We are a species that thrives in social orders, we seek them out. Those orders do not erode becuase of freedom. They erode when too many impose their will for the sacrifice of a few.

 

[ryanh487]

The last time this happened, we had the dark ages.

But according to the Bible, it will happen again with people who THINK they are serving God but are massively deceived, and will persecute the true people of God in the name of God.

 

[willie]

Whether or not we consider the word "true" in the equation, we have to understand that government represents force. Taxes are a necessity of government, they are collected through implied force. Laws are upheld through force. The only way to remove force is to assume complete benevolence (freely pay taxes and follow all laws without need of force) of the population, which will not happen, if it did, we are talking about a utopian society which would require no government at all.

So, if we had a "true christian govt," we would not need govt, or the "true christian govt" would have to use force. I can't get on board with using force to advance a belief system. I don't see where Jesus would have endorsed such a practice either. In fact, I don't recall if Jesus ever lobbied the govt for anything. He was more of a rebel type.

Hope that clears it up for the folks who have implied a "true christian" would endorse a "true christian govt."

Matthew 10-34


I am come not to bring peace, but the sword...