i hate to flog a dead horse but it seems that i can't assert enough that it is NOT hyprocrisy to be a Christian AND think that a faith-based government is bullshit.
(shout out to Anonymous down there)
to argue avidly for a pluralistic society is not an anti-God argument (not that i think God cares, anyway.) it's a civic argument. you cannot have a pluralistic society based on christian law (whatever that is.) and FOR ONCE i'm begging anyone who thinks that we can to really really really lay it out for me.
tell me how you think a theocratic government would work here.
and don't cop out by spouting scripture - that's rhetorically lazy!
think it through and ARGUE for it.
14 comments:
Faith based government? Ummm... I'll pass. Thank you very much!
re: "christian law (whatever that is.)" ... yeah, I don't what that is either. especially since Christ didn't seem to think that God was bound by law. I don't get the idea that laws could define God - or a "godly life" - either.
I'll tell you what it looks like!
It would look like a fascist state with a rigid caste system. Men, of course, would rule the roost, so they'd spend their days keeping their wives pregnant (when they're not blowing off steam at Jezebelle's).
Our friends who favor faith based government like it because they see themselves at the top of the caste system. They don't imagine themselves being persecuted for theological differences.
I think Christ was pretty clear that worldly goverments have nothing to do with the Kingdom of God.
i like that image: christianity as caste-system.
i wonder how an american theocracy would dole out social services, would deal with regulation of industries, would mete out discipline and punishment for illegal acts (what would be illegal)?
i wish the occasional conservative who thinks it's cool to call me a selfish, worldly hypocrite would stop by again and clue me in on all this...
a theocracy. i'm thinking not so much but i'll have to go look it up and see what the definition is. however. . . the thing that jumped out at me was the "don't use scripture/lazy" part. that was funny because i thought of a couple scriptures right off that bat. there is a bigger issue here.
i read once that god is not interested in my spiritual life. that gave me great pause. as i read on it said that he is interested in my *whole* life; all of it. there is great discussion re the separation of church and state - i think that there are those who have a similar thing going on in their own lives. there's my christian life and my political life; my christian life and my personal choices. the duplicity (do i get to join the big word club?) is baffling to me. you're either sold out to god or you're not. you either live by his principles or you don't. you either believe what he says or you don't. either god affects everything you do or not. and that would include political and personal choices. living a life committed to one set of principles over here and one set of principles over there would seem to be rather defeating.
that's what i'm more interested in. i have no interest in proving anything about a theocracy. that's a side issue for me.
jc,
i think we can agree on what you've said. yes, a life dedicated to God requires that kind of whole commitment. no one has a question about that, or even a problem with that. i'd love to have my private faith journey (bleck, i hate that language) be a private one. i'd love to privately believe what i believe yet not have to worry that my government is trying to punish people who don't believe what i believe. that's not the role of government - and i don't think that's the role of faith, either.
but repeatedly we're being forced to drag our faith into the courts and the streets and make it law so that it stops people from doing things that don't fit into our christian faith. that's my question.
how do you use one particular private profession of faith and make it a public legal guideline for *everyone*?
again, this isn't strictly a bible-only question - or our use of scripture would suffice. it's a civic question.
i love this site. i just read this article in harper's mag and it really relates to your post. it's dangerous when we take God into our own hands...
http://www.harpers.org/JesusPlusNothing.html
scary.
-steph
My name is verlch.
You say you are a church gal. What do you, the modern woman, think of this text?
Titus 2:5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of thewoman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 1 Cor. 3:11
I believe the woman is called wo-man is because she was taken out of man, and became woman.
Women, especially Christian woman, need to learn their place. Empowerment of women has been the single most destruction element of our nation.
I wonder if the devil isn't behind female empowerment?
uh, hi verlch.
i don't quite know what my 'place' is but i'm quite sure it's not to be uneducated, unproductive and, frankly, living an agrarian lifestyle in a post-industrial age.
thanks for stopping by, though!
bye, verlch.
i was up until 3 am working on a project and my temper is fractured.
so your comment is now the unfortunate victim of my whimsy.
before commenting again, tone down the hostility.
no one here cares what you think.
i'm deleting you because i don't give space to anti-semite bigots.
lol ding this guy is everyone on the net. just google his name :-/
Post a Comment