pudge's Journal: Religion and Politics

This chick, Mara Vanderslice, was on Colbert last night saying that religious people should love Democrats, because the Bible says we should care about poor people, and Democrats care about poor people.

Religious people in America care about poor people, she said, and they "care that this administration has made a decision to condone the use of torture."

Hm. Doesn't the Bible also say something about lying? In fact, the Bush administration made a decision to not allow the use of torture. When the famed "torture memo" came out, Bush immediately said "we will not torture," and he has stayed by that policy.

She had other lies, like saying that tax cuts only for the top one percent has been at the top of the Republican agenda. In fact, the GOP tax cut agenda has been for tax cuts for all income tax payers, and in fact, it's been implemented that way.

And doesn't the Bible also say something about following the law? It's abundantly clear that many of the federal social programs she's trumpeting as following the Biblical mandate to help the poor, in fact, are unconstitutional. And besides, nothing in my Bible says a thing about helping the poor through the government, and in fact, the emphasis in the Bible is on individuals helping the poor, not governments.

But in her view, "it's about building a society where we care for our neighbor." Apparently you can't do that without government control. Orwell, anyone? And "politics is about championing the common good." Actually, in fact, the Declaration of Independence makes clear that the purpose of government is primarily to secure individual liberty.

Oh well. Separation of fact and state.

Bush lies about torture

[sulli]

You don't think waterboarding is torture?

Re:

[pudge]

You don't think waterboarding is torture?

It doesn't matter what anyone thinks. It matters what is fact. Bush said unequivocally -- and has remained steadfast on it -- that whatever the law defines as torture will not be used. Torture is not some objective thing we can all look at and say, "yep, that's torture." To some people, waterboarding would not be torture. To some other people, feeding them pork would be torture. Torture is defined only in law. And last year, waterboarding was defined by the Congress as torture, so according to Bush'

Interesting Dichotomy, or Flexibility of Principle

[JesseL]

Funny that the people that are always ranting about the separation of church and state, would decide to make an appeal to the religious to interject their religious principles into the government affairs that they like.

Re:Interesting Dichotomy, or Flexibility of Princi

[jdavidb]

But it's okay when a leftist forces his values on people! A leftist is a highly-moral person, so the values he forces will only be those that all religions agree on. Plus, the principles of the leftist have already been confirmed to be the correct set of morals. He is working for the better good!

For example, when a leftist forces his morals irrevocably on an unborn child by killing that child, that's okay. Just don't force your values on the leftist by telling him he can't do that! Only religious wac

I am a centrist...

[FortKnox]

... but I do have conservative leaning. My thoughts on religion and politics? I care about the poor. I put money in my second church collection to HELP those poor.
The difference? I am helping to poor on my own, and with money I can both afford and be useful to them. I'm not getting taxed to hell and back, regardless of whether I can afford it or not cause the government says its what I ought to do. Republicans don't hate the poor, we just don't want the government to force us to pay for them. We'll

Re:

[jdavidb]

As Walter Williams says [gmu.edu], "Reaching into one's own pockets to help his fellow man is both laudable and praiseworthy. Reaching into another's pockets to help his fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation."

Charity, not socialism

[jdavidb]

I think I saw a headline recently where John Edwards said something similar. And somehow this journal entry reminds me of one I think you wrote before.

I really, really hate the canard that Christians should help the poor, therefore they should help the poor through government programs. Government programs are often the worst possible way to help the poor. Besides, Jesus taught charity, not socialism [blogspot.com]. Socialism is condemned all over the Bible. If "thou shalt not steal" isn't enough for you, then try A

Re:

[pudge]

But I don't buy most of what you're selling. That whole "Christians can only be subjects, not actually in government" and "Christians cannot tax" is utter nonsense, IMO. But I like you anyway. :-)

The taxation thing, that case makes some sense, but is ultimately unpersuasive, especially given your motto about secession being a right: you don't like it, leave the state. Find another.

The "cannot govern" thing is just complete nonsense to me, though. Your quotes about judging are about moral and religious j

Re:

[jdavidb]

But I don't buy most of what you're selling.

I do agree that Jesus taught charity, not socialism.

You buy the important part of it, for this discussion, then. If you get the point from Acts 5:4, that's the main thing I was getting at. I should've put that first. :)

But I like you anyway. :-)

Yeah, it's mutual. You may be wrong on a small handful of things, but you're righter than most. And even when you're wrong, you're still insightful. ;)

The taxation thing, that case makes some sense, but

Re:

[jdavidb]

But on the contrary, God commands us to provide justice, to protect the weak. For that, we must participate in government, of one form or another.

I'm not opposed to government in all forms. I'm not opposed to institutions that exist solely to protect rights. I'm not opposed to government action that is taken solely to protect rights. I am opposed to government actions that violate rights, even those that are done with the justification that this is the only way to accomplish the government's mission