Church and State

[Darth Wong]

Quick background: there are a lot of people, particularly in America, who believe that a strictly enforced "wall of separation" between church and state is a bad idea. Specifically, they believe that religious values should be incorporated into a lawmaker's actions, and if appropriate, into the laws themselves.

Without debating this particular belief, which has been discussed to death on this forum and elsewhere, I would like to know why it is inconsistently applied. It seems to me that the people who promote this belief feel very strongly that it should be applied in cases of abortion and gay marriage. But when you bring up the topic of Jesus' exhortation to give generously to the poor, these very same people almost invariably make an abrupt about-face and declare that Jesus only wants us to apply his values as individuals, not as a state.

In other words, church/state separation = good for welfare, bad for abortion or homosexuality. Can anyone justify this inconsistency?

[Maron]

I have yet to see a push by a political party to do away with welfare.

The last welfare reform simply implemented new work requirements, which are hardly irrational.

I see no religious movements calling for the ending of welfare either.

In fact most religious organizations donate large sums of time and money into helping the underprivaleged.

I really don't see any inconsistency

-Maron

[Darth Wong]

I have yet to see a push by a political party to do away with welfare.

I'm not talking about eliminating it completely; I'm talking about the fact that there is vocal opposition, often from the most "Christian" parts of the nation, to making welfare more generous even though Jesus would have pushed to make it very generous. Same goes for the recent vote to hold the federally mandated minimum wage at $5.15/hr.

The accumulation of personal wealth is an American value, but it is not in keeping with Jesus' teachings. I may not be a Christian but I've read the Bible and I know that much.

The last welfare reform simply implemented new work requirements, which are hardly irrational.

I see no religious movements calling for the ending of welfare either.

But where are the religious movements calling for more welfare? I see such calls coming from the more "liberal" churches, but in the so-called "red states", where is this big Christian push for more generosity to the poor?

In fact most religious organizations donate large sums of time and money into helping the underprivaleged.

But they oppose this particular Judeo-Christian ethic being written into law: a policy they do not hold for other Judeo-Christian ethics. It seems to me that if they had the same policy about homosexuality and pornography (ie- "we will apply our rules to ourselves but not expect the state to apply them to everyone"), there would be a lot less conflict.

I really don't see any inconsistency

Perhaps you should look again at exactly what I was talking about, since you seem to have misinterpreted it the first time around. I'm not asking why Christians allow welfare to exist or do something similar as private individuals; I'm asking why they aren't pushing for the welfare state to be far more generous, in light of the fact that they expect other Christian ethics to be enforced at the state level.

[Maron]

I'm not talking about eliminating it completely; I'm talking about the fact that there is vocal opposition, often from the most "Christian" parts of the nation, to making welfare more generous even though Jesus would have pushed to make it very generous. Same goes for the recent vote to hold the federally mandated minimum wage at $5.15/hr.

I have not seen this Vocal opposition...do you have a link or a source? And the min. wage issue...if minimum wage was raised it would cause the price of everything to increase which would negate the wage increase and would not effect those making minimum wage in any way; however, those who are making 7 dollars an hour(who are not directly affaected by the wage increase) will then be on the same level as those who previously were making minimum wage, causing almost everyone making under 12-15 dollars an hour to be Really poor.

The accumulation of personal wealth is an American value, but it is not in keeping with Jesus' teachings. I may not be a Christian but I've read the Bible and I know that much.

He never said that you should not have possesions or wealth. If this was the case then we would need to destroy our money and possesions because giving them to the poor would cause them to violate the teachings by accumulating personal wealth. Jesus never required christians to become communist.

But where are the religious movements calling for more welfare? I see such calls coming from the more "liberal" churches, but in the so-called "red states", where is this big Christian push for more generosity to the poor?

Jesus never specified how much must be given. The fact that you would sacrafice at all shows that you are a generous person. I have yet to find a bible passage that states otherwise.

But they oppose this particular Judeo-Christian ethic being written into law: a policy they do not hold for other Judeo-Christian ethics. It seems to me that if they had the same policy about homosexuality and pornography (ie- "we will apply our rules to ourselves but not expect the state to apply them to everyone"), there would be a lot less conflict.

It is already written into law. If it wasn't then welfare would not exist. Therefore this argument is null. And once again...christians are NOT calling for the abolition of welfare.(at least not on any noticable scale, but there are always those heretic, crazy, "I am Jesus" kind of people. However every group has their wierdos

Perhaps you should look again at exactly what I was talking about, since you seem to have misinterpreted it the first time around. I'm not asking why Christians allow welfare to exist or do something similar as private individuals; I'm asking why they aren't pushing for the welfare state to be far more generous, in light of the fact that they expect other Christian ethics to be enforced at the state level.

Once again...Jesus does not specify an amount that you have to donate, and the current welfare system is extremely generous considering these people get benefits that come out of the paychecks of everyone that is not recieving benefits.

[Darth Wong]

I have not seen this Vocal opposition...do you have a link or a source?

Harper's Magazine did quite a nice article on American Christianity and its broad-based opposition to the welfare state. Even on this very forum, the members who wear Christianity on their sleeves tend to oppose the welfare state; you don't have to look very far.

And the min. wage issue...if minimum wage was raised it would cause the price of everything to increase which would negate the wage increase and would not effect those making minimum wage in any way; however, those who are making 7 dollars an hour(who are not directly affaected by the wage increase) will then be on the same level as those who previously were making minimum wage, causing almost everyone making under 12-15 dollars an hour to be Really poor.

Do you have some evidence that this sort of economic disaster has taken place in the states which have individually raised minimum wage above the federally mandated level? Surely, a predictive model such as this would produce the expected results when tested in practice, correct?

He never said that you should not have possesions or wealth.

Incorrect. He said that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter Heaven.

If this was the case then we would need to destroy our money and possesions because giving them to the poor would cause them to violate the teachings by accumulating personal wealth. Jesus never required christians to become communist.

Wealth is a relative term. In any given society, if some people are far more prosperous than others, then they are wealthy.

Jesus never specified how much must be given. The fact that you would sacrafice at all shows that you are a generous person. I have yet to find a bible passage that states otherwise.

Of course. Did you even bother reading the thread title, where I said the problem was the hypocrisy of people who think generosity is mandated by Christ only for individuals, but other Christian values should be mandated by the state?

It is already written into law. If it wasn't then welfare would not exist. Therefore this argument is null. And once again...christians are NOT calling for the abolition of welfare.(at least not on any noticable scale, but there are always those heretic, crazy, "I am Jesus" kind of people. However every group has their wierdos

Once again...Jesus does not specify an amount that you have to donate, and the current welfare system is extremely generous considering these people get benefits that come out of the paychecks of everyone that is not recieving benefits.

Since the gap between rich and poor has been steadily increasing for the past 30 years according to the CIA World Factbook, this generosity is obviously inadequate.

I think Darth is confusing the christian right with the fisical conservatives. Far from the same animal. There certainly is no call by christians to give less to the poor. And theres certainly nothing in the bible saying the government should confiscate your property to give to the poor. It only does you any good if YOU give it away.

Is there some reading comprehension problem here? I have no problem with the idea of Christians practising their values as individuals rather than forcing them down everyone elses' throats via government law. In fact, I think that would be great, if only they were consistent with this rule.

[Maron]

Is there some reading comprehension problem here? I have no problem with the idea of Christians practising their values as individuals rather than forcing them down everyone elses' throats via government law. In fact, I think that would be great, if only they were consistent with this rule

Well this is a democracy and if an idea gets enough support then it becomes a big issue and possibly even law. There is no law saying that its a package deal that christians have to fight every battle or none at all. Does it really matter what you want christians to do? Obviously the majority of Americans dont think so. I donate to my church, the bill and melinda gates foundation, the local rescue mission, and I pay taxes, which a portion of goes to the underprivaleged. Im doing my part...I dont think I need to push for more welfare. If a lot of welfare mothers wouldnt have 4 or 5 children then we could probably solve the problem of "increasing poverty." Also...how can we be sure that the welfare already being recieved is being wisely used and not squandered on some materialistic possesion that should come after the necessites.

[Shaun]

I have yet to see a push by a political party to do away with welfare.

I have yet to see a party want to expand it.

I see no religious movements calling for the ending of welfare either.

I dont see any religious movements that are actually doing anything major to help, yet they preach to help the poor. Is it just me, or are church car parks full of BMWs and Mercs?

In fact most religious organizations donate large sums of time and money into helping the underprivaleged.

But not the people themselves, they turn a blind eye to poverty. What happened to "If you have 2 coats, and your brother has none, give 1 to him"?

[bdh]

Darth Wong?!? I thought they killed you! anyway

Can anyone justify this inconsistency?

Must you ask questions for which you already know the answer?
But, if I could at least make an attempt, I'd say that those same Christians make the argument that A) abortion is harmful to children and B) (since the prime goal of marriage is the establishment of families) gay marriage is also harmful to children
Logically then, they are not hypocritical in that they don't beleive the Government should tell people what to do with their lives and in that they don't believe people should harm others.

Even so, you would contend that both A and B are false. But, on a beleif level, its not nescessarilly hypocritical since they are only advocating a ban on actions they beleive to harm others.

[mongoose]

gay marriage is also harmful to children

Care to back that up?

[bdh]

Care to back that up?

Not at all. I was merely pointing out that people beleive that. And, if you honestly beleive something, it doesn't make you hypocrite. It may make you other things though. Afterall, the thread is about hypocrisy.

[mongoose]

Not at all. I was merely pointing out that people beleive that. And, if you honestly beleive something, it doesn't make you hypocrite. It may make you other things though. Afterall, the thread is about hypocrisy.

They might be against it because they think gays will harm children, but the the "gays drain the souls of small children" thing is usually overtly religious in the first place.

[Darth Wong]

Darth Wong?!? I thought they killed you!

It's not that easy to kill a Sith Lord. You can, however, drown him in bureaucratic red tape so that he doesn't have time for message boards for a while.

Must you ask questions for which you already know the answer?

Well, the answer is obviously that they're being hypocritical, but I was curious if anyone could attempt to make a plausible excuse.

But, if I could at least make an attempt, I'd say that those same Christians make the argument that A) abortion is harmful to children and B) (since the prime goal of marriage is the establishment of families) gay marriage is also harmful to children
Logically then, they are not hypocritical in that they don't beleive the Government should tell people what to do with their lives and in that they don't believe people should harm others.

Even so, you would contend that both A and B are false. But, on a beleif level, its not nescessarilly hypocritical since they are only advocating a ban on actions they beleive to harm others.

And poverty is not harmful to children, even if we accept the groundless belief that gay marriage is? I still don't see any explanation other than "they're hypocrites", but I appreciate the effort. Maybe somebody else can come up with an excuse, or perhaps the people who hold this sort of position would rather just ignore this thread until it goes away.

[bdh]

And poverty is not harmful to children, even if we accept the groundless belief that gay marriage is? I still don't see any explanation other than "they're hypocrites", but I appreciate the effort. Maybe somebody else can come up with an excuse, or perhaps the people who hold this sort of position would rather just ignore this thread until it goes away.

A worldwide ban on poverty would be nice. However, one could still argue that poverty wouldn't be protected under the law, and, as good Christians, they could fight it individually for the betterment of mankind! Abortion and gay marriage, would be legally enforced, which would be wrong. After all, poverty isn't legally enforced.

In that sense, the christian government isn't sanctioningsomething harmful but also fighting for low taxes.

Well, it is not exactly very costly to ban gay marriage. Meanwhile, the only thing more expensive then more generous welfare is warfare. They may not think that it is worth it.

The economic justification.

[Darth Wong]

A worldwide ban on poverty would be nice. However, one could still argue that poverty wouldn't be protected under the law, and, as good Christians, they could fight it individually for the betterment of mankind! Abortion and gay marriage, would be legally enforced, which would be wrong. After all, poverty isn't legally enforced.

Legally allowing something isn't the same thing as legally enforcing that thing. There's still no difference between poverty and gay marriage/abortion on this score.

In that sense, the christian government isn't sanctioningsomething harmful but also fighting for low taxes.

Yes, I'm sure Jesus would have been a crusader for reduced taxes on the wealthy.

[Rush Limbaugh]

I think Darth is confusing the christian right with the fisical conservatives. Far from the same animal. There certainly is no call by christians to give less to the poor. And theres certainly nothing in the bible saying the government should confiscate your property to give to the poor. It only does you any good if YOU give it away.

[Lee1026]

Care to back that up?

Well, that is what they believe, and the growth of children is complex enough that it is possible to justify just about everything.

And poverty is not harmful to children, even if we accept the groundless belief that gay marriage is? I still don't see any explanation other than "they're hypocrites", but I appreciate the effort. Maybe somebody else can come up with an excuse, or perhaps the people who hold this sort of position would rather just ignore this thread until it goes away.

Well, it is not exactly very costly to ban gay marriage. Meanwhile, the only thing more expensive then more generous welfare is warfare. They may not think that it is worth it.

[bdh]

Yes, I'm sure Jesus would have been a crusader for reduced taxes on the wealthy.

Many of Jesus's supporters were wealthy. Its only logical they'd get a few kickbacks. Where do you think indulgences come from?

Legally allowing something isn't the same thing as legally enforcing that thing. There's still no difference between poverty and gay marriage/abortion on this score.

Unless you're the federal government interfering in states rights? Perhaps an activist judge or the comity clause?

[Zenith Darksea]

Believe it or not, I do actually agree with Wong here on the point about generosity. Christians should be active Socialists in my opinion, and that is that best political point of view to represent Christianity. Christian conservatism is generally, in my view, completely hypocritical.

[rez]

To make an example

I can walk down the street with a t-shirt openly stating how much i love bondage. When i walk down that street i can excpect a variety of dirty looks and comments from the conservative religious.

I can walk down that same street in a different t-shirt. On the way i can walk past ten beggars and give them nothing. I highly doubt that anyone would give me a second look. Much worse i would expect the same behaviour from a large proportion of the christians around me.

The actual argument has been explained very well above, but i didnt see a simple everyday example and thought i'd add one in for you guys. Whilst this doesnt exemplify the involvement of the state - it does show the hypocrasy which is being condemned.

Good to have you back Darth

[Punkus]

Christian conservatism is generally, in my view, completely hypocritical.

Yet it is the most outspoken Christian 'organization' I know of in the United States. Thus, it comes to represent Christianity to those of us who were perhaps hoping for a more benevolent message.

In my opinion, while history can generally prove to us that a government should not intermesh itself with any religion(Iran is a somewhat good example), the basic idea of a fundamental driving belief cannot be removed from the people who make up that government. We all have to admit that we have 'beliefs' about the world we live in. It just happens that sometimes groups of people band together and agree on these beliefs, as well as adopting a common name.

Take Islam for example. Like so many other belief systems, its adherents have done a very good job of taking a common name and a common dogma. In fact(though my knowledge is limited) Islam is the only religion I know of that specifically calls for the church to be an integral, even driving, force in government. It could be just a coincidence, but I have to admit it is worth noting that Islam just also happens to be preceived as one of the most fundamental and violent in existence today...

'Official' religions like Christianity and Islam represent to me a very down-to-earth fact that people have a driving need to band together and be in opposition to something or someone. Without fears, without demons to vanquish or a heaven to reward us, we are without a definition, a justification, that we all seek on some level as human beings.