Pre-Ambling Off Track
Alan started a pretty cool discussion on blogcatalog.com whether or not people would be willing to vote for Ron Paul started today. It was great seeing so many people speak out regarding their hopes and fears regarding the 2008 election.
Personally, after the last six years of failure after failure and irresponsible policy decisions (remember that budget surplus when Clinton left office?) by George "God talks to me" Bush, I got suckered into feeling that people learned their lesson and that moving forward, people of faith and people who do not practice a religion, or have one that they prefer to keep personal and private, will finally realize that we need to focus on the things that affect us all.
One comment really stood out to me and prompted me to write.
bsd13 of http://www.ablogaboutnothing.com
I’m considering voting for Ron Paul due to his incredible respect for the Constitution. Time will tell if I’ll vote for him or not.
As for his position on these "hot button" issues people like to throw around I see it very plainly. If you respect the Constitution you’ll respect God’s Word in the Bible, if you respect God’s Word all these other things will fall into place as they should no matter what the issue is. Then perhaps people will stop trying to live each other’s lives for them and let God do what God wills to do.
I do see a lot of parallels between people sharing a fundamental political belief that the Constitution is perfect and should be treated as immutable and people considering the Bible to be the prescribed blueprint for the lives of every person on earth. I’m not sure what bothers me more, the idea that someone is equating respect for the primary religious writings of a single religion with the Constitution (which just baffles me really) or the fatalism that screamed out from the sentiment that if we "respect God’s Words" everything will fall into place. We need to be a nation of action to address the many problems facing us. Sitting back and simply hoping God will take care of us is a sure path to destruction. I prefer to quote Algernon Sidney in Discourses on Government: "God helps those who help themselves." The sentiment goes back much farther but I prefer the simple and succinct expression that Heinlein popularized: TANSTAAFL!
As long as people continue to try create a theocracy here in the USA and the rest of us are willing to fight against that goal, we, as Americans, will be stuck spinning our wheels instead of tackling issues that really matter. Our country was not built as a theocracy, our national culture and institutions are not theocratic. Such a conversion should be treated as an attempt to overthrow the government. I hate sounding extreme, but thats what it comes down to for me. There were Christian framers of the Constitution but they had the decency and the strength of character to accept that people cannot be a little bit free. Many modern Christians could take a lesson from them. Self-determination is not just for nations.
The Preamble to the Constitution says:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Lets look at that sentence.
- "in Order to form a more perfect Union" - A Union can only be more perfect by its parts growing closer and more supportive of the whole. Using religion as a wedge issue the way it is so commonly used in politics today sabotages that mandate.
- "Insure domestic Tranquility" - This is a direct order to compromise. The original colonies that formed the basis for this nation were founded on very different principles. There were colonies specifically founded for Catholics, for Quakers, and for Protestants. Some colonies, like those in Protestant New England, used religion as a basis for laws and tried to create a heaven on earth by implementing the rules of conduct spelled out in the Bible. Other colonies, like New York, were founded by nations with a strong trading background. The early Dutch settlers, while usually Christian, put trade as a pathway to prosperity high on their governmental agenda. Georgia, as a debtor colony had people from many different sects, as well as deists and humanists who practiced no publicly recognized religion at all. To ensure that domestic tranquility, these diverse peoples had to have a framework for settling differences and exploring ways to live together as one common people and our Constitution and the Bill of Rights were a big step i that direction. Despite the wording, and despite my dislike of the cliche, Freedom of Religion MUST include Freedom from Religion in the political sphere. I see people all over the country lining up on religious and doctrinal lines instead of keeping in mind that our government must work for all of us if we are to truly have domestic tranquility.
- "provide for the common defense" - There isn’t much I want to say about this except to say that when Eisenhower warned of the growing strength of the military-industrial complex we should have listened. Also, the old name for the Department of Defense should be revived. It is truly now, the Department of War.
- "promote the general Welfare" – This is a big one. In 2004, G.W. Bush won the election with 50.73% percent of the votes cast. The total number of votes garnered by his opponent, John Kerry, was more than the total Bush had in 2000. Despite the very close race and the narrow margin of victory, Bush claimed he had "earned capital in this campaign, political capital". The idea that a political figure can interpret the fact that barely half of the people in the United States were happy enough with his performance as president to re-elect him astounds me. In any rational world, that politician would step back for a moment and take stock of the world around him and ask himself what he is doing that is alienating half of the voting public. The statement calls for promoting the "general Welfare". It does not say that our government should be used as tool pander to one’s electoral base. Once elected, a president or congressperson must accept the fact that they are now duty bound to represent their entire constituency and not just the ones who voted for them. The needs and desires of special interests have replaced "general welfare" as an impetus for change in our government.
I get really disappointed when people treat the Constitution as if it is Holy Writ. Even the framers knew it wasn’t perfect and included plans for amending it. It was an excellent document and is something to be proud of, particularly at the time and place it was devised. But we should also remember that section two, clause three of Article 1 legislated alloted seats in the House of Representatives based on the full population of "free" citizens and counted slaves, the backbone of the wealth and economy of much of the South, as two-thirds of a person. I know that was a different time and a different society when that was written, but the fact that times and situations change should be the argument against treating the US Constitution as though it is set in stone.
The framers gave us very clear instructions and guidelines on how to amend the document in light of changes in society. This should be treated not just as our right, but also as our responsibility.
So bears being used as a retaliatory tool to execute mouthy adults is ok?
The world “children” (or youth) in the passage you are referring too about bears tearing people apart is actually a word in Hebrew that can mean anything from an infant to a fully grown and mature man. Don’t assume because english translations say “children” it literally means children.
Also bear in mind that in the culture of that day anyone over 13 was considered to be an adult. In our modern culture making a 13 year old bear the burdens of an adult is unthinkable, but in that culture it was the norm.
As far as Lot offering his daughters to the crowd yes he did, but as you know from the story the angels pulled him back in and struck the crowd blind. They then warned Lot to flee the city with his family because the Lord would destroy it for it’s wickedness.
Before all that happened, before the angels acted against the crowd and before they warned him to flee Lot had no idea they were angels. He had no idea they could fend for themselves against a horde of assailants.
Yeah I suppose if I took the Bible out of context as badly as you seem to do I would also have some serious doubts about it.
I don’t either – for YOU. I prefer to try to maintain a higher standard. The Bible has bears tearing children limb from limb for teasing a bald man. The Bible says that Lot’s offering of his virgin daughters to a bunch of horny men to protect two angels, who, if the Bible is to be believed, were quite capable of defending themselves and were quite callous to allow Lot to put his children in harm’s way.
The world is not as black and white as you seem to see it. The Bible’s ten commandments are not a bad thing by any means, but they are also not the end all and be all of what humans should aspire to in how we treat our fellow humans. Its more a bare minimum the way I see it.
Thats my point, people who do not subscribe to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic belief system DO not see eternal death and eternal damnation as the same. It’s only when you ignore my Freedom of Religion and verbally subscribe me to yours that they become the same.
If there was a God as described in the Bible, then no, I wouldn’t be exempt, but thats a HUGE “if”. If the Sūtra Pitaka is true then you and I are both going to be reborn repeatedly until we achieve a state of being that allows us to experience Nirvana. I see both of those “ifs” as equally likely or unlikely.
Um, in Biblical terms eternal death and eternal damnation are one in the same. There is no “bait and switch” as you claim.
And see this is EXACTLY what I was pointing out in my post you linked too. This whole idea that because you have a certain belief system (or cosmology as you put it) that God’s law doesn’t apply to you. That because you don’t believe you are exempt from His judgment. That’s exactly what I was getting at with the post.
So play devil’s advocate for a moment and tell me *if* there is a God as described in the Bible would you be exempt simply because you don’t recognize Him? I know it’s a little bit like Pasqual’s wager, but don’t let that stop you from answering the question.
I don’t see how following either the old Testament Commandments, or the Great Commandments would somehow be a problem. For the most part our laws already reflect them to one degree or another. And I think we can agree that in general terms our laws aren’t too bad in the US. They could be better but when compared with many other places they serve their purpose.
Nothing: Its the illogic of statements like that that make it so hard for me to try to have a serious discussion about issues with you. You said:
You do a bait and switch there. First you mention eternal death, which many many people, myself included, expect to occur when my physical body dies, and then in the next sentence you drop that option and replace it strictly with “eternal damnation”. Thats an option in your world view and I respect your right to hold it, but its NOT in my cosmology so it doesn’t apply to discussions with me.
As far as a theocracy, you said that following theological tenets, specifically the commandments, that it would strengthen the constitution. Thats a step towards theology as part of government.
I assume that most people would want eternal life for the simple fact that it makes sense. Especially when you come to the realization that the only alternative to eternal life is eternal death, or damnation. How silly would one have to be to in all honesty say they’d prefer eternal damnation to eternal life? My little bitty mind can’t even comprehend something like that. Can yours?
Yes humans were put here before the Bible. and yes there are certainly copies of it sitting around along with the books you mentioned. Only difference is that the Bible is the real deal, the inerrant word of God directly from God Himself. The other books are just that, books.
And what makes you think anyone wants a theocracy? That’s totally 100% counter intuitive to what the Bible teaches about salvation. If someone comes to repentance and acceptance solely because a government tells them to it is not of the heart and it means nothing to God.
Why would you assume that most people would find eternal life more important than freedom in this life. With my limited time and resources, I am much more interested in helping as many people life free, happy, and healthy lives here on earth than piling up gold stars for an afterlife.
Humans existed a long time before the Bible was compiled, and an even longer time before the Bible was accessible to lay people in English. Humans will exist long after the Bible is filed on shelves for comparative religion students along with the Koran, the Tao Te Ching, Vinaya Pitaka, and The Kojiki.
The Constitution was influenced at least as much by the Magna Carta as it was the Bible. The writing of John Locke on liberalism and social contract were very powerful inspirations for our founders, particularly Jefferson, Hamilton, and Madison.
My point is that having influenced the Constitution does not give any document the right to push for a do-over to gain more influence than it was originally granted. If our founders wanted a theocracy, they could have probably managed to pull it off because protestants outnumbered everyone else by a large margin. They did not,. Most of them understood that people came to this continent to avoid federal government influence on religion.
Thanks for the comment Dane. I somehow missed the initial approval email so I didn’t see it until just now when I approved it. It won’t happen again since once approved, always approved.
Sitting Back vs Taking Action: My issue was with the passiveness of his statement – “if you respect God’s Word all these other things will fall into place as they should no matter what the issue is”. Thats a passive statement, unless you want to consider the verb respect as active which seems iffy to me.
To me, respect for God’s Word would mean to believe and spread knowledge of it around. I have trouble seeing how doing that will address our trade balance, budget deficit, and health care for lower middle class children.
Edit: Had to change Dale to Dane -my older brother is named Dale so it slips in sometimes when I type something similar like Dane.
Whoa! Hold up there my friend. I’m in no way shape or form suggesting that the Constitution and the Bible are somehow equally important. That’s complete nonsense. The Constitution might give you some freedoms, but the Word of the Lord gives you life. Now that I think about it I suppose it depends on what is more important to you, mortal liberty or eternal life.
I suspect that the answer for nearly everyone is eternal life, but I admit there are those who would sooner die a thousand horrible deaths than ever have to bow a knee to the living God. And you know if God was just a made up figment of mankind’s overactive imagination it wouldn’t matter. There would be no eternal damnation, no eternal punishment. But God isn’t a made up figment of the imagination He’s very real and very alive. When you consider it from the angle it’s much more difficult to be flippant towards a relationship with God.
As far as respecting God’s word if you read the Constitution of the US much of it draws from Biblical principles. No, I don’t believe the Bible was the sole source of inspiration of CONUS, but I do believe it was an important source. Important enough in fact that if we obey the commandments we can’t help but strengthen the Constitution.
No one is sitting back and “hoping God will take care of it”. In fact the Bible tells us specifically that faith without deeds is useless.
If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. – James 2:15-18
So if you know Christians who just sit around waiting hoping for God to just suddenly do something they clearly have no idea what the Word says. Either that or they’d just rather not be bothered.
Alan, where you attended high school is of no concern in the matter. I attended at a Southern Baptist high school, but believe me I didn’t have a relationship with the Lord until almost 13 years later. You can know everything there is to know about what the Bible says, but if you don’t have a living, breathing, walking, talking relationship with Christ you honestly don’t know a thing.
One challenge to you Allan you say you can support any position from the Bible depending on how you quote it? Support gay marriage and capital punishment by using the Bible.
off topic, but when I looked it up and though some more I determined that I have indeed read the Heinlein book that Spider Robinson finished. It was very different from his other books more of a collection of bits and pieces of his philosophy of life.
didn’t feel up to doing the Heinlein piece today so did a quickie about something else and used the title as a teaser. you’ll get it I’m sure
Exactly. Don’t waste time beating your head against a wall when you know you won’t get meaningful results. Instead put that effort towards something that can bear fruit.
Thank you. As I read the beginning of your reply, I started to feel distress since I know in my heart that there is no way that I personally could possilbly dialog with that guy. I went to his blog to see what he had posted (he mentioned in the thread that I had given him inspiration for his next blog post) and it is just drivel.
(remembering someone recently remarking to me that he is allergic to drivel)
Apply what you said to me personally I would take to mean that I need to find ways to work with people like tiffany, whom I find a bit abrasive and unpleasant and leave the hard core bible spouting illiterates for people who understand them better…
Dammit! I wrote this last night after I already took my sleepy time meds so I wasn’t as alert as I could have wished.
A better title would have been Preambling Off a Cliff.
Thanks for the Digg Alan.
Alan:
Second comment first: Yes, I even had a cat named Pixel. :) But when I think of Heinlein’s use of TANSTAAFL the book that mainly comes to mind is “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”.
As far as working with people like that, I don’t think we have a choice in the matter. It’s not in anyones power or best interests to exile people from the political arena. That would just be more of the same. when the Republicans had a clear majority in the House and Senate, they road roughshod over Democrats who opposed legislation they introduced. I would hate to see Democrats do the same. These are supposed to be deliberative bodies and that means open and frank discussion from all interested parties.
If the extreme view of people like that are to be silenced or have their political ambitions thwarted, that kind of censure should come from people closer to them ideologically. The diversity of the US citizenry requires us to form coalitions. People holding similar beliefs must work together by compromising together to speak with a common voice on issues that matter to them. This guy is not a conceivable part of your coalition and he isn’t a part of the mainstream Christian part of our population either. If he wants to have a voice he will need to find a larger group that is willing to work with him and progressive Democrats like you are not that group.
Alan said “that he is beyond reaching and we must work towards consensus with those who can be talked with?”
Isn’t that a lot like saying, shouldn’t we simply disenfranchise people like this?
It’s been a long time for me. I was a Christian when I was younger, at the least considered myself an Atheist for quite a time after joining the Army, and now am comfortable with the term agnostic with tenancies to want to believe. But what I remember from back in the day is that one can not “respect God’s Words” in the absence of action. To characterize that phrase as sitting around and hoping God will handle it misses the larger imperatives it holds to act on your convictions. Interestingly it seems that both people who find the faith silly and those who hold it up as their own have come to see this phrase in this light.
I take it you are a fan of The Cat Who Walked Through Walls?
(thinking I should do a Heinlein roundup on my blog)
I regarded the poster you quoted as a ‘concern troll’ and rather plainly told him to fuck off. I don’t think it’s possible to have meaningful dialog with people whose idea of discourse is to quote to you the Bible. I attended a Jesuit high school and understand the Bible just find, thanks, but it is not my source of belief. And as any serious student of the Bible plainly knows one can quote it selectively to support any position whatsover.
Would you argue that to move forward together as you describe in this post that we must find a way to work With people like this poster or would you agree with me that he is beyond reaching and we must work towards consensus with those who can be talked with?