Where Faith and Politics Intersect

•

Quotes from Acton Institute Power Blog.

Many of these quotes put me in mind of leftists who cannot abide "Conscience Clauses" regarding forcing Christians to participate in the celebration of gay unions.

Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, “that Religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only be reason and convection, not by force or violence.” The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man: and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate.

—James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance

While we are contending for our own liberty, we should be very cautious not to violate the conscience of others, ever considering that God alone is the judge of the hearts of men, and to Him only in this case are they answerable.

—George Washington, Letter to Benedict Arnold

Every man must give an account of himself to God, and therefore every man ought to be at liberty to serve God in that way that he can best reconcile to his conscience . . . . It would be sinful for a man to surrender that to man which is to be kept sacred for God.

—John Leland, The Rights of Conscience Inalienable

 

•

(In preparation for the upcoming election cycle - with an eye toward "where faith and politics intersect."

when I discuss the "contraception mandate" or the "gay agenda", I specifically use the term "leftist" instead of "liberal."

I've heard the question asked again and again, "why can't we reach a compromise?"

I believe the answer lies in the "rise of the wings" - classic liberalism and classic conservatism had much in common. When the "wings" - right wing and left wing - move further and further apart, compromise becomes more difficult.

Classic conservatism and classic liberalism had, more or less, the same goals. Left wing politics and right wing politics do not.

One problem is that modern politics don't use Biblical meanings. Christianity stresses personal responsibility, while the following thoughts on political conservatism stress societal responsibility. Liberal politics stress individual rights, but not responsibility.

A couple of basic definitions:

Conservative: A traditional conservative will support any social institution (public or private) that promotes and maintains social order and public good. A traditional conservative will emphasize the social/societal (both social responsibility and social benefit) over the isolated individual. (link)

Liberal: When the term “liberalism” (from the Latin word liberalis, meaning “pertaining to a free man”) first emerged in the early 1800s, it was founded on an unwavering belief in individual rights, the rule of law, limited government, private property, and laissez faire economics. These would remain the defining characteristics of liberalism throughout the liberal epoch, generally identified as the period from 1815-1914.

I'm looking for a simple comparison between "conservative" and "right wing" - which will be useful. But for time being, here is a short comparison between "liberal" and "leftist:"

Similarly, a liberal believes in and defends our Western heritage, while desiring to make it more egalitarian. A leftist is instinctively hostile to the Western heritage, regarding it as fundamentally unequal and therefore bad, and only redeemable through radical change. link

we are seeing it more and more, most publicly in both the "gay marriage" debate (you WILL celebrate the gay, or be sued) and the Hobby Lobby decision (Leftists are getting ever more open about wanting to eradicate religious liberty.)

And so it begins.

•

an article here

As I read Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals for the umteenth time, and as I read this article, I'm reminded that (Rule #5)

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”

“…you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments.”

I put "false accusation" in that category.

Read this article quoting Mozilla, and consider Brendan Eich.

Eich co-founded Mozilla. His guidance got it up and running. Last week, he quit in disgrace. His "crime?" Eight years ago, he donated $1,000 to California's Prop 8 (Constitutional amendment banning homosexual "marriage." I'm not going to send any readers there, but find an article on the matter and read the comments.

No longer can "same sex marriage" be a matter of opinion - those who hold the view that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman should be drummed out of the public square.

Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it. We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves.

Really. What standard are they not living up to...the one that the co-founder helped to set in place? If this is the "true to ourselves" that they want to live up to, the world, in one week, became a much scarier place for people of a more conservative faith.

We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act. We didn’t move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry. We must do better.

How did we "expect" them to act? Obviously, liberals expected Eich to be forced out (or not promoted in the first place) much more quickly.

Oh...and "engage" must equal "get rid of all those who don't toe the gay agenda party line."

Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.

As long as "standing for both" means "getting rid of everybody who disagrees," Mozilla is doing great at that.

Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness. We welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views. Mozilla supports equality for all.

And some are more equal than others.

We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public. This is meant to distinguish Mozilla from most organizations and hold us to a higher standard. But this time we failed to listen, to engage, and to be guided by our community.

The rank hypocrisy makes me angry.

This week, not quite so diverse,

Not quite so open,

The beliefs and opinions of those who think that marriage should remain defined between a man and a woman...not quite so encouraged to share.

If their "higher standard" is anti-Christian, shutting down of conversation, and shutting out all who disagree, they seem as if they are on the right track.

As I write this, an alert came in telling me that SCOTUS has declined to hear Elane Huguenin's case in New Mexico. The world can now force Christian photographers to either act against their conscience, or be forced out of the public square.

There can be no disagreement on the "SSM" issue, or you will be ridiculed, fired, sued, forced out, called vile names...

all for the sake of "tolerance."

Welcome to the New United States of...

• 1 Comment

•

Yesterday I wrote about what a "license" does and what it means for marriage.

If...

  • A license grants you permission to do that which is otherwise illegal....

    • then...

  • (in non-common law states) it is illegal for Christians to marry unless they gain the state's permission first.

    • The Gospel Coalition asked a couple of years ago

    Should Pastors Separate the Christian Wedding Ceremony from the Civil Rite?

    It seems to me, that at this point, the state has the right to divorce the civil from the religious (courthouse wedding, etc.) but the religious does not have the right to divorce the religious from the civil (it is illegal to have a Christian wedding without the state's permission.

    (caveat: common law states have specific criteria to be met in order to qualify as a "common law marriage. There are a couple of states that require that in order for a common law marriage to be "official" it must be registered with the state [but with no prior permission from the state needed] In common law states, one could have a religious ceremony without having to get the state's permission, thus divorcing the religious from the civil)

    I have made it known that I refuse to be married in a state with a "gender neutral" license (such as California.) I am NOT "party B"

    I believe the time is coming when the definition of "marriage" as required by the state, will be so far astray of the definition of "marriage" as defined by God, that Christians will, with clean conscience, reject civil marriage.

    The question is: do we provide "test cases" now? or wait until persecution begins?

    •

    This article at the Gospel Coalition was written nearly two years ago.

    TGC Asks: Should Pastors Separate the Christian Wedding Ceremony from the Civil Rite?

    In the last few months, we've been discussing this a lot. At what point does the state give up the right to define marriage for Christians? If the state forfeits that right, by defining "marriage" in such a way that it no longer resemble's God's definition, is a Christian obligated to have the state's permission to call themselves "married"?

    Let's start with the "permission" part.

    In Michigan,

  • there is still a law on the books against cohabitation - a heterosexual couple may not live together without being married
  • a heterosexual couple is required to have a marriage license before being married.
  • it is illegal for a pastor to officiate in a marriage ceremony unless the couple has a state-issued marriage license.

    • In order to live together in marriage, a couple in Michigan must have a marriage license; they must have the State's permission to marry.

    Why do I use the word "permission"? It's the word "license"

    What does a driver's license to? It gives you permission to drive and it's illegal to drive without one.
    Hunting license? It gives you permission to drive and it's illegal to hunt without one.
    Concealed Carry License? It gives you permission to carry a concealed weapon and it's illegal to carry without one.

    Through a license, the States grant you permission to do something that is otherwise illegal.

    With that logic, it is ILLEGAL to call oneself "married" unless the State has given you permission to do so.

    At what point did the State get the authority to define marriage in such a way that we must have the State's permission to marry?

    The "State" has married the Christian wedding ceremony and the civil rite to the point that you MAY NOT have a Christian wedding Ceremony WITHOUT the civil rite.

    TGC Asks: Should Pastors Separate the Christian Wedding Ceremony from the Civil Rite?

    • 1 Comment

    •

    Christian who is politically conservative?
    Christian who is theologically conservative?

    My Political Views
    I am a right social moderate
    Right: 3.54, Authoritarian: 0.54

    Political Spectrum Quiz

    I am, first and foremost, Christian.

    Theologically, I am 100% Reformed.

    Based on the chart here, I'm a theological conservative, but on others, I miss the mark on 7-day creationism.

    I find it interesting the (generally and broadly) those who fall mostly in the "liberal" description are not willing to identify with that descriptor.

    But if a person who fall into the "conservative" side gets called "conservative, their reply is more likely to be "thank you."

    I started this post a few days ago, and honestly don't remember where I was going with it.

    Probably because I do post on theology and I do post on politics.

    For me, "conservative" is a handy way to let folks know up front what mind set I'm working from.

    • 1 Comment

    •

    This debate is "heating up" because of the battle over same-sex "marriage" - and some folks are saying the one of the problems with legalizing same-sex "marriage" is that it could lead to polygamy. (Reminds me of a joke my husband used to tell: Why does Bob Jones University forbid dancing? It could lead to sex standing up)

    I have read in both blogs and their comments section that "homosexuality and polygamy are equal (sins).

    ~~~

    (side note: 1 Cor. 6:9-10: Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality(**), nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God

    **or Old Testament patriarchs

    ~~~

    First: I am not "pro-polygamy" in the sense that I believe it's the right think for everybody.

    I am not (NOT) pro-polygamy in the sense that it's what I want for myself.

    I simply cannot call "sin" what Scripture does not call "sin." I'm happily (and truly) Reformed and the first Sola is "Sola Scriptura." Scripture is our only infallible rule of faith and conduct. We must not call evil...good. But we must also not call "sin" that which God does not call "sin."

    Our Holy Father does not regulate "sin" - He forbids it.

    Like all things, polygamy can (and is) abused, but if we call all things "sin" that some people abuse...we would not even be able to eat!

    Our Holy Father does not describe Himself, even in metaphors, that portray Him as doing anything that is "sin.". Isaiah 3:6-10 gives us Jehovah and his wives, faithless Israel and treacherous Judah. I believe that polygamy, in and of itself, cannot be "sin" or Jehovah would have chosen a different metaphor.

    Our Holy Father does not give us sinful things. in 2 Samuel 12 we read that Jehovah had delivered Saul's wives into David's arms. One can hardly say that polygamy made David commit adultery and kill Uriah! Greed and Lust did that.

    God could have put an asterisk after the Leverite marriage law...but He didn't. The God who told His people not to wear cloth made out of blended linen and wool, could have told His people to take only one wife...but He didn't.

    God didn't forbid business, He regulated it.
    He didn't forbid marriage, He regulated it.
    He didn't forbid polygamy, He regulated it.

    If you want to make an argument that it leads to bad things (so does parenthood, if you ask Abel,) that's fine. But that's not the argument I see being made.

    If you want to make an argument that in the New Testament, leaders are forbidden to have more than one wife, that's fine. But that's not the argument I see being made.

    Don't call "sin" that which God does not call "sin."

    •

    Let Freedom Ring

    Our hope (and freedom) is not of this world...

    There are likely far bigger disappointments to come than the one that dropped last Thursday. We did not choose this culture war and it is not about to leave us alone. The media, the academy, the government, the libertine elite–they may sully our reputation and shame our convictions, but they cannot steal our joy. We can pray more, sing more, and smile more than any of the party-goers making mud pies in the slums. We do not have to fit in down here so long as we fit in up there. We do not need a president’s approval if we have the affection of our King. Our hearts and our Bibles are wide open. Our salvation is firm. Let freedom ring.

    •

    ~~~

    Would God Be Just if He Saved No One?

    ~~~

    60 Second Summary: The Pill: Contraceptive or Abortifacient?

    The Gist: It's time to distinguish clearly---in terminology, thinking, and public policy---between contraception and abortion.

    ~~~
    About that gun show loophole…

    Just imagine… open forums where criminals, the deranged and the idle rich can wander in off the streets, plop down a fistful of cash and walk out with every weapon known to man with no background check. It’s an awful thing, isn’t it? Or at least it would be… if it were real.

    •

    "We've laid down our blood to have a free exercise of religion in this country and will continue to do so."

    Working from a variety of sources, I really don't wonder very much what the motive is.

    “Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent.” Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis

    The claim:

    Just as the spectacle of an all-male Senate Judiciary Committee’s stern questioning of her in the 1990s drew women voters to the polls, these lawmakers and women’s groups say Thursday’s House hearing on the Obama administration’s contraception rule — with an all-male panel testifying before a largely male committee — could provoke the same kind of response

     

    First thing:  There were two panels, the second panel included two women.

    Second thing:  it's not about contraception, it's about religious freedom and it's fitting that religious leaders were on the panel.

    "The real issue here, it's not birth control; it's religious liberty, it's freedom of conscience, [and] it's the freedom of individuals and their churches to determine their own positions and their own policies about contraception and abortion,"

    From the Catholic News Agency (quoting Pamela Haag):

    “The phrase 'women’s health' in the birth control dispute is the latest nimble euphemism,” author and blogger Pamela Haag wrote in a Feb. 17 essay published on the “Marriage 3.0” blog.

    Access to contraception, she said, “isn’t really about my 'health.' It’s not principally about the management of ovarian cysts or the regulation of periods.”

    “Birth control isn’t about my health unless by 'health' you mean, my capacity to get it on, to have a happy, joyous sex life that involves an actual male partner,” wrote Haag, criticizing White House supporters for discussing contraceptives mainly as “preventive services” for women's health.

    Even the folks who support the mandate (who are not following the administrations party line) know that it's not about health, it's about the ability of women to have sex without responsibility or consequences.

    From Timothy George and Chuck Colson , via Christianity Today:

    But Catholic institutions aren't the only ones affected by this mandate. Prison Fellowship, for example, which employs 180 people, could not purchase insurance for its employees that covers abortifacients. Nor could the world's largest Christian outreach to prisoners and their families afford the fines we would incur.

    Three years ago, when we co-authored the Manhattan Declaration, we predicted that the time would come when Christians would have to face the very real prospect of civil disobedience—that we would have to choose sides: God or Caesar.

    Certainly for the Catholics and for many of us evangelicals, that time is already upon us.

    Rev. Matthew Harrison, president of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod:

    Harrison's goal Thursday, he said, was to tell Congress to "get the federal government out of matters of conscience for religious people, particularly in life issues where there's long-standing moral and ethical church precedent."

    But he also wanted to drive home the intense feeling of alienation that, he said, conservative people of faith feel under the Obama administration. He said he would rather go to jail than comply with even the modified mandate, and that he would "give up my sons to fight" for the First Amendment.

    On Friday, he explained those comments: "We've laid down our blood to have a free exercise of religion in this country and will continue to do so."

    Harrison told the committee of the charitable work of the Missouri Synod and its members, calling the church "a machine which produces good citizens for this country, and at tremendous personal cost."

    The members of his church "work, pay taxes, are charitable and responsible, take care of their children, participate in their communities and government, and serve in military," Harrison said. "The state should be interested in religion for this purpose: We produce good citizens. So stop attacking us. We are in every way a blessing for this country. We feel attacked for our fundamental convictions as if we're a detriment to our country. And that is a lie."