Posted on 09/06/2007 3:58:17 PM PDT by Sopater
". . .Why do you not know how to interpret the present time?" (Luke 12:56)
In last week's commentary I wrote about the recent onslaught of accusations being leveled in print against evangelical and charismatic Christians to the effect that we are really trying to turn America into a theocracy---that tyrannical right-wing Christians want to systematically dismantle democratic institutions and usher in an American facism. As laughable as this may seem to most of us, these authors are deadly in earnest in pressing their attacks. Unfortunately, just as some folks took seriously the absurd fictions of the Da Vinci Code, people are reading these books. I have counted nine of them, one of which was ranked number one on the New York Times bestseller list for a while. So, instead of simply ignoring the accusations, I have chosen to respond in this two-part commentary.
In American Theocracy, Kevin Phillips is evidently afraid of the Southern Baptist Convention becoming the "State Church" of the South! Now, apart from the ridiculous supposition that southern Baptists could ever agree on enough things to actually become an established Church, the fact of the matter is that no denomination in America is capable of that kind of influence today in our society. The days of the old WASP liberal mainline denominational hegemony in American society are long gone decades ago. Further, the evangelical influence that these writers are attacking is characterized by the lack of ecclesiastical organization that would enable it to wield any effective sort of power. The power of evangelical Christianity with the American public is pretty much limited to the powers of persuasion.
One example of an attempt at persuading the public comes to mind---the boycotts of certain American corporations' products organized by my friends at the American Family Association. They have launched consumer boycotts of corporations such as Walt Disney and the Ford Motor Company. Both of these boycotts have protested the companies' blatant support of the homosexual rights movement. How effective are they? That's hard to measure. Ford's sales have dropped dramatically while the boycott has been underway, but American car companies are in real trouble anyway, due to explosive sales growth by Toyota and BMW. In the past, AFA boycotts have caused a few companies to change their policies, but even in those cases it seems impossible to tell how effective the boycotts were. Was it that the boycotts actually caused their sales to drop, or it was that they were so conscious of their public image that they wanted to get rid of the boycott quickly? We'll probably never know.
Or, to take another example, it is granted that Focus on the Family 's Jim Dobson can put out a notice that will unleash a torrent of emails, phone calls, and letters on the members of Congress or the President. But, even that kind of campaign can be, and frequently is, ignored by Senators and Representatives and Presidents who are determined to do what they want to do. The ultimate influence of Christians on policy-makers of any governmental level is limited to the same level of power as the influence of any other type of Americans---the vote.
As our society becomes more secular, it should not be surprising to anyone familiar with the New Testament that the number of attacks on Bible-believing evangelical Christians is on the rise. Still, the falsity of the accusations against us and the absurdity of the attackers' reasoning knows no bounds. Bill Moyers, who has drifted very far away from what (if memory serves correctly here) are his evangelical southern Baptist roots, accuses us of not caring about global warming or the environment. In a New York Review of Books essay entitled "The Evangelist Menace" he wrote: "Why care about the earth when the droughts, floods, famine, and pestilence brought by ecological collapse are signs of the apocalypse foretold in the Bible? Why care about global climate change when you and yours will be rescued in the Rapture?"
Oh, good grief!! In the first place, Christians are just as divided on the global warming issue as the rest of the public. There are those who have jumped on the bandwagon, saying that this is a terribly urgent problem that the U.S. Government must address immediately. And, there are others that agree with me that although there are definite minor temperature changes, there is no demonstrably proven evidence that these are outside the limits of normal periodic change, and that the Michael Moores and Al Gores of the world are fomenting all this hype mainly to create careers for themselves.
Second, Christians are also quite divided on the issue of the rapture. There are those who believe that the Lord Jesus will whisk off the earth all true Christian believers before the period during the End Times that the Bible calls the Great Tribulation. And, there are many others, including myself (and ALL of the great 16th century Reformers, by the way) who do not look for the Rapture to occur until at least half-way through the Tribulation. In addition, no Christian knows when any of this will occur, whether soon or millennia from now. I have never met anyone, nor have I ever read about anyone adopting the attitude that Moyers accuses us evangelicals of having. No one in their right mind would choose to not care about the obvious deterioration of the world around us, if in fact it were obvious. Especially since no one has any firm idea of when the END is coming.
Third, both the Clinton administrations and the Bush administrations have refused to take drastic steps to deal with global warming. To view their refusals as based on Biblical teachings on the last days is a stretch that puts credulity totally out of joint. Would to God that these administrations had been that concerned about Biblical teachings! No, it really has much more to do with economics, and with good reason. To spend the kind of money attempting to fight global warming to the extent that is called for by the Kyoto protocol and many environmentalist organizations would bankrupt the American economy, for a very questionable cause.
Well, enough of the silly accusations about evangelicals wanting to turn America into some imitation of 17th Century Puritan Massachusetts. What is it that we evangelicals actually do want?
We definitely do not want to equate Christians getting involved in trying to change American society with their joining some political party or movement. In talking with a woman at the gym where I work out, after asking about some of my views she said, "You must be a Republican." "No," I said, "actually, I'm registered Independent. I vote for the candidate that seems to best stand for the values I believe in." In my experience there are literally tens of millions of Christians around the country that share my position on this. Sadly, several of the books mentioned in last week's commentary, especially Jimmy Carter's Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis, advocate "Christian" positions on issues that simply amount to the Democratic Party platform. He, and many of these authors attacking evangelical Christians, seem to believe that collective social action is the primary vehicle of Christian involvement, as opposed to the efforts of individuals. Taking that position inevitably results in party politics eclipsing religion. Which is precisely what they accuse evangelicals of doing---blindly supporting the Republican Party. Ironic, isn't it?
Proof that the Religious Left is really promoting political party action is seen in their advocated solutions for three issues: poverty, environmental concerns, and peace. In the case of dealing with poverty, to their credit authors Carter, Lerner, Meyers, Wakefield, and Wallis are indeed serious about feeding and clothing the hungry and poor. But, they think that this should all be handled by the government. Some of them are in favor of the government forcibly redistributing assets, which is Marxist policy, and not remotely Christian. Though government policies are necessary, Christian care for the poor and needy does not consist in lobbying the government to take care of things. Where is the private sector involvement? Trying to deal with poverty through politics simply excuses the individual from the personal responsibility to get involved---hardly what Jesus had in mind when he said that we should offer a cup of cold water in His name.
Some of these writers equate peacemaking with pacifism, which the Bible never does. In Romans 13, the Word of God makes it clear that the punishment of evildoers in society will involve the use of the sword. And certainly, there are times when the defense of my next-door or across-the-ocean neighbor will necessitate violence, such as deterring a rapist, or the present war on terrorism.
The positions of many on the Religious Left in regard to environmentalism raise serious concerns. Pressure from Western governments on developing nations to adopt our environmental regulations will stifle their fragile economies and thus bring more harm than help to their people. Besides, it smacks of what to them is an all-too-familiar imperialism. There is also the great danger of a proper reverence for God's creation sliding into a decidely non-Christian pantheism, or the worship of the creation. Any policy that denies the primary place in the creation to man, or equates human beings with the animals in value, is a policy that rejects Biblical truth, and must be resisted by Christians. A proper Bible-based environmental policy will be one that emphasizes proper stewardship of the creation as people who will have to give an account to the Creator. True environmentalism is an exercise in stewardship. We must neither rape and plunder the creation on the one hand, nor become captive to it and worship it on the other. As God instructed Adam, we are to "till" it, and to take care of it.
Christians are most definitely called to be involved in matters of public policy. To take seriously the call of the Lord Jesus Christ to love your neighbor is to accept the necessity of reforming whatever society we find ourselves in. We are also commanded by our Lord to be "salt and light," which means that we are to season and illuminate all issues of public policy with a Bible-based wisdom and discernment.
We seek no lasting strongholds of power, for the Kingdom to which we bear first allegiance is not of this world. I know of no Christian leader who advocates evangelicals "taking over" the reins of power. Our influence is to be persuasional, not coercive, after the example of our Lord. For no one can be forced to change his mind. Reformation and renewal in society can never be forced on people from the top down---from the seats of power down to the citizenry. Rather, reformation and renewal have to come about as a grass-roots movement of Christians being used by the Spirit of God to change their neighbors---one at a time, two at a time, a city at a time. By definition, it is a strictly voluntary movement, one that will have the characteristics of a revival. That is what we want to see happen.
What kinds of public policies do we evangelical Christians want to see take place in America today? A quick and by no means exhaustive list would include things like: a general prohibition of abortion; the allowance of prayer in public schools; the rejection of embryonic (not adult) stem-cell research; the Federal prohibition of homosexual marriage (either by law or by an admendment to the Constitution); further restrictions on pornography; a tightening of obscenity laws in movies and television; vigorous law enforcement against pedophiles both on the Internet and in the society at large; the replacement of sex education programs for students with abstinence-based programs; putting an end to the tyranny of Darwinian evolution teaching in public schools such that the flaws in evolutionary theory and creation science would at least get equal consideration; and stopping the Federal court system's twisting of the First Amendment to find some supposed "separation of Church and State" that in turn is used to remove all public expression of the Christian faith from American society.
Those of some of the things we want.
Wrong. It will have an affect on society. That's the concern which you would know if you ever really listened to any conservative Christians speak on the issue.
Homosexuals have shown a tendency to be the biggest Christian haters and bashers of any group going. They're argument about trying to have the same rights as married couples is just a smokescreen. They can use other legal means to accomplish things like inheritance, if they wish.
The only purpose to this is to destroy the meaning of the family and when the family goes, society goes.
If you read between the lines, you can answer the question for yourself: Life begins at conception, and extends until natural death. The Framers would have had no reason to believe otherwise. Also consider the unalienable right to liberty. It requires that a human person at any stage of his life should be free from external tampering that may affect his life prospects.
One man's "pathetic oversimplification" is another man's "first principle," or "foundational law."
What concerns do you think I have with "Evangelical Christians?"
The definition of 'human' life is different than for any other organism?
"If science has defined where "human" life begins, and has placed it anywhere after conception, I would venture to guess that the definition is not without serious argument."
Your original comment was an attempt to portray the author's comments as non-religious in nature and to do that you made the claim that since scientists have not been able to define human life then we have to use the most primitive point of our existence, that of conception, to define life. I used a little bit of 'reductio ad absurdum' to bring to your attention that the logic you used isn't sufficient to accomplish your goal.
Not to get into the argument of whether abortion is good or bad, the question of whether a single cell or a group of cells such as a blastocyst can be considered a human or just a potential human is not a scientific question. In a purely pragmatic sense, a cell or small group of cells is not a human, although given the right environment it may become a human. It only becomes a human worthy of protection when something additional is added to the conception such as a soul. If the original author and you believed that the soul was inserted into the baby at birth rather than at conception, I suspect we would not be arguing this point. That is why I questioned BB about the origin of the idea that life starts at conception. Her response was that the Constitution was based on Christian ideals, making my point for me. The original author's point which you supported is based in religion, not science.
I am not arguing whether abortion is a good or bad thing, I am arguing that the original author is basing his list of changes to be made not on scientific or societal grounds but on religious grounds and that his imposition of those changes based on his religion is akin to a Theocracy.
I'm sorry, should I have said it was some sort of machine?
Would you care to give a much less pathetic description of what DNA is?
The constitution undertakes to protect, preserve and defend life...
"What a pathetic oversimplification of the Constitution."
I suggest you take that up with Betty Boop, it was her point not mine.
By the way, in case you didn't notice, the question wasn't about the Constitution but about the definition of life at that time.
You must be too busy calling me pathetic to actually read the posts.
"I wonder what the authors and original supporters of the Constitution would have thought about your concerns with "Evangelical Chrsitians"."
I suspect that most of them would not want Evangelical Christians to have an inordinate influence on the political landscape. Didn't they put into motion ways of separating governance from religion?
I was talking about the idea that it is impossible, because science has not defined when life starts, to make a decision on when life starts.
"Do you mean to say that that science cannot look at a cell that is dividing and growing and know whether or not it is alive?"
Do we have another quote miner here?
Please, go back and the read the posts before you make any more comments. If you have any more comprehension problems at that time, please ask me and I will be happy to straighten you out.
It only becomes a human worthy of protection when something additional is added to the conception such as a soul.
How do you know? What basis do you use for that decision?
How do you know that the soul doesn't come into existence at conception? That it's *added* at some later point?
I am not arguing whether abortion is a good or bad thing, I am arguing that the original author is basing his list of changes to be made not on scientific or societal grounds but on religious grounds and that his imposition of those changes based on his religion is akin to a Theocracy.
Abortion is neither "good, nor "bad"; it's wrong. It's murder. That would be asking whether murder is good or bad.
What makes the making of laws on "scientific" or "societal" grounds any more valid a reason or any better a reason than religious reasons? Is doing something on scientific or societal grounds a superior reason than doing them on religious grounds?
No.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The restriction here is simply that imposed on Congress and what they are and are not allowed to do in regards to restricting religion.
Seems to me that what I've read of the framers of the Constitution, that if they were alive to today they would be classified (and vilified) precisely as that, Evangelical Christians.
It must be, b_sharp. For I know of no other class of living organisms that writes constitutions. Do you?
Get your nose out of your doctrine and do some original looking and thinking for a change. Please.
I was talking about the idea that it is impossible, because science has not defined when life starts, to make a decision on when life starts.
Quote miner? You posted that statement in post 22.
Why don't YOU go back and read the post if you have that short of a memory.
You never answered the question either. I asked: "Do you mean to say that that science cannot look at a cell that is dividing and growing and know whether or not it is alive?"
So what's your answer?
For all the hysterical ravings about dangers of imposing a *theocracy*, would entail, there is an example of where following Judeo-Christian beliefs will get you; a document written by Bible believing men who advocated the overthrow of a corrupt and immoral government.
Belief that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed with their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights. The horrors of Christian thinking.
First, I thought the "Laws of Nature" and "Nature's God" were heretical notions to the true, Bible believing Christian.
Second, isn't reference to a generic "Creator" kind of vague for such devout "Bible believing men"?
Third, do you have any Biblical references or antecedents for the idea that "all men are created equal"; that all men have "certain inalienable rights"; or that these inalienable rights include "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"? Frankly, I don't know what specific Biblical passages the Founders were thinking of when these words were written. Do you?
And fourth, are you advocating the overthrow of the US government?
You can google *Constitution of the United Sates* and get another document written by those same men.
A document that makes no mention of God, and indeed deliberately disavows governmental establishment of religion. Kind of an odd advertisement for theocracy.
The other thing is, a theocracy is rule by God. Not rule by religion, not rule by denomination, not rule by whacko sect leader. Without God's direct intervention, a theocracy is impossible.
Are you suggesting that God His Own Self will be sitting in the White House? If not, then theocracy is indeed rule by "whacko sect leader." One needn't look much further than Iran for an example.
This statement would need to be rewritten as follows in order to be true and valid for the Framers' intentions:
Didn't they put into motion ways of separating governance from organized religion?
They did not mean to separate governance from the core insights and values of Western civilization which have historically been carried and transmitted by Judeo-Christianity.
If they had meant to do that, I think it is evident that the Declaration of Independence would have been differently written.
The scientific method may be wholly incapable of doing that, because its tools are completely unsuitable for that purpose. Science deals with direct observables, objects that have position in space and time. If life is not an "observable" in that precise sense, then science cannot deal with life in general, let alone explain its inception.
That's not to say that we can't instantly tell whether something is alive or dead. We can.
But you don't need science to tell you that. You might need science to tell you the cause of death; but that's completely after the fact: the life is already gone.
I highly recommend you read Niels Bohr's magnificent article, "Light and Life" (1933) for the relevant corroborating insights. If you like, I'll be glad to provide them here in a future post. Just let me know.
On second thought, what the heck? Here's the jist:
The recognition of the essential importance of atomistic features in the mechanism of living organisms is in no way sufficient, however, for a comprehensive explanation of biological phenomena. The question at issue, therefore, is whether some fundamental traits are still missing in the analysis of natural phenomena before we can reach an understanding of life on the basis of physical experience. Notwithstanding the fact that the multifarious biological phenomena are practically inexhaustible, an answer to this question can hardly be given without an examination of the meaning to be given to physical explanation still more penetrating than that to which the discovery of the quantum of action has already forced us. On the one hand, the wonderful features which are constantly revealed in physiological investigations and which differ so markedly from what is known of inorganic matter have lead biologists to the belief that no proper understanding of the essential aspects of life is possible in purely physical terms. On the other hand, the view known as vitalism can hardly be given an unambiguous expression by the assumption that a peculiar vital force, unknown to physics, governs all organic life. Indeed, I think we all agree with Newton that the ultimate basis of science is the expectation that nature will exhibit the same effects under the same conditions. If, therefore, we were able to push the analysis of the mechanism of living organisms as far as that of atomic phenomena, we should not expect to find any features foreign to inorganic matter. In this dilemma it must be kept in mind, however, that the conditions in biological and physical research are not directly comparable, since the necessity of keeping the object of investigation alive imposes a restriction on the former which finds no counterpart in the latter. Thus, we should doubtless kill an animal if we tried to carry the investigation of its organs so far that we could tell the part played by the single atoms in vital functions. In every experiment on living organisms there must remain some uncertainty as regards the physical conditions to which they are subjected, and the idea suggests itself that the minimal freedom we must allow the organism will be just large enough to permit it, so to say, to hide its ultimate secrets from us. On this view, the very existence of life must in biology be considered as an elementary fact, just as in atomic physics the existence of the quantum of action has to be taken as a basic fact that cannot be derived from ordinary mechanical physics. Indeed, the essential non-analyzability of atomic stability in mechanical terms presents a close analogy to the impossibility of a physical or chemical explanation of the peculiar functions characteristic of life.(I added the itals and bolds....)
A return of context:
"The author wants to impose his belief system's definition of marriage."So what's wrong with that? Homosexuals want to impose THEIR belief system's definition of marriage.
"The authors definition of marriage is the universally accepted one. He's not trying to impose just HIS view.
Universal? Where?
Massachusetts has legal gay marriage. Connecticut, Vermont, New Jersey, California, and New Hampshire have legal gay unions.
Do you really want a reduction of freedom?
"So can I have the freedom to help myself to anything you own if I feel like it?
Slip-n-slide....
Do you have that freedom now? No. Am I advocating universal freedom? Only in your strawman.
"Can I have the freedom to end your life is I so choose because I don't like something about you?
Are you suggesting that the restriction of freedom when it comes to unauthorized killing is on the same scale as restricting marriage partners? You have no subtlety.
"Can I have the freedom to do whatever I like, whenever I like, without being responsible to other for the consequences to my actions?
See above. Please.
They are not tying to impose their definition, they are trying to expand the current definition.
"They're trying to expand it, which is changing it.
When did the question become simple change rather than directional change? You are adding in crap in an attempt to confuse the issue
"They're trying to force people to accept and approve of their definition of marriage. "
They are not trying to impose gay marriages on you. Your rights and freedoms are not affected in the least if the definition is expanded. It might be if it were to be restricted. They are looking for the same rights you and I currently have to marry who we love. It's as simple as that.
They are changing the definition and trying to impose it on others through the abuse of the judiciary, because every time it comes up for vote, it gets soundly trashed.
It obviously hasn't been soundly trashed in those States mentioned above.
At one time, from 1863 to 1967, it was illegal for a man and a woman of different races to marry. Activists of the time campaigned for changes to the laws and were successful. Are you upset that they 'imposed' their ideas of marriage on the society of the time? That they are using the courts is irrelevant. The point is, is the expansion of freedom, or the continued restriction a better choice.
"Not allowing homosexual marriage is not an increase in restrictions and a reduction of freedoms. Marriage has always been defined as between a man and woman.
Only in those states where it is currently illegal. In other states it is a restricting of freedoms.
You earlier agreed that this restriction is an imposition of a specific belief set over others. (see quotes above) You wanted to know what was wrong with imposing one belief system over another and then complained that gay marriages imposes one groups beliefs on you. I think you answered your own question.
"Keeping it that way is not increasing restrictions because it's not adding any new one. It's not a reduction of freedoms because no one is taking away a right anyone had before. Homosexuals were never *free* to marry to begin with.
That is true, for the most part. However, there are some States where it would be a restriction and in all others it is an arbitrary constraint to individual freedoms which I believe the Constitution also protects. If constraints are developed based on societal needs, that weigh the consequences of individual rights, then the constraints are warranted. Sometimes this will correspond to religious beliefs, sometimes not. Basing constraints purely on religious grounds will not better society, nor individual lives and so should be avoided. A Theocracy wants to impose constraints not in an attempt to better society, and consequently lives, but to limit actions to a very narrow, easily controlled range. Authority is useful and necessary, but damned scary in the hands of religions.
Just how does a strand of DNA, coupled with the appropriate development environment, produce different cell types? Is it a chemical interaction, or is it something more? Do those different cell types line up in a specific place because of a chemical gradient, or through some special 'feature' you allude to but have yet to define specifically? Are specific sections of DNA enabled or disabled by the chemical 'soup' they find themselves in or is there some master hand poking around in each and every cell?
You know, in your entire post I see no definition of DNA whatsoever. And you call me pathetic.
Where did people ever get the idea that something must remain forever unknown (and unknowable) until science weighs in?
Umm ... maybe from the fact that the "something" is in the realm of biology?
Best wishes,
d
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.