Why the Christian Right is Wrong

LewRockwell.com | February 13, 2004 | by Michael Peirce

[jcb8199]

"So it is all right to violate the law for the greater good as we see it?"

Well, according to some San Fransicoans...YES.

(Also seemed to work OK for Martin Luther King...)

[Blood of Tyrants]

Romans 13
9The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet,"[1] and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

And it could logically extended to "care for your neighbor as for yourself".

Freeing the Iraqi people was the RIGHT THING TO DO.

[VOA]

"President George Bush and his Republican yes men find their largest and most gullible
group of constituents among the Christian Right – a loosely defined amalgamation
of churches and denominations that typically includes most fundamentalist Christians,
particularly in the South. "

Who says Howard Dean still doesn't have influence?
Well, at least on one opinion writer.
If the writer ever read "How To Win Friends and Influence People"...
it didn't stick.

[u-89]

Please be more specific in your question, fix what exactly?

[Blood of Tyrants]

The whole system of government. If neither side is fit to rule, what do we do?

[yatros from flatwater]

The problem, as the author demonstrates, is that the "Christian Right" has attempted to turn the "Ring of Power" to its own causes. This is usually referred to as "being practical", and unfortunately follows the same road that led the "Christian Left" astray.

Such a strategy cannot succeed. It violates the epitome of the social commandments as stated by R. Yeshua ben Yosef of Natzaret, recalling R. Hillel: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

[philosofy123]

Unfortunately, the majority of the Christians are going to vote Republican or Democrat. I wish there was a different organization or party that is able to groom new leaders and grass root call for defending our constitution, defending our boarders, abolishing the Dept of Education, allow people to educate their children like they are feeding them (no one expect the federal government to tell him or her what to feed their children!). And above all defend our boarders.

The two parties system is so entrenched, and I see no hope or ways out of this trap. Grass root movements can thrive if its leaders are very moral, and above reproach. But the Character assassinators do not have to be correct in throwing labels at the threat of an outsider.

[ChevyZ28]

"Christians have widely supported the war of aggression against Iraq, which was waged without a declaration of war, and was waged against a country that "might" be a threat to us at some time. Under that rubric we could justify invading Bolivia or Australia."

I took this part of the article out to point out that there is no prescription covered in the Constitution that requires the President to seek an official Declaration of War. We are indeed as guilty as Saddam Hussein or any other maniacal, homicidal, and suicidal dictator if we stand idly by and do nothing at all to stop the blood shed. In the end, I believe the Iraqi people will say with a sigh of relief, thank God for the America people, Because of them, we can breathe free.

[ChevyZ28]

DITTO!!!!!

[Blessed]

> This thoughtful article is met with hostility on FR... gosh, who could have imagined?<

He is right about one thing Christians spend to much time looking for "their share of the governments sop" and are happy to let the government do the churches work.

His mistake is in assuming Christians responsibility is only towards our government.We are called to minister to the world not just the US.If people are oppressed we have a duty and a right to help.Therefore his arguments against the war are just silly.May be he needs to be a little more "thoughtful".

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Christian?........more like political hack!

[the OlLine Rebel]

OK, it was too long so I didn't read all of it.

But basically, I agree. Some1 should always point out exactly what is really in the Constitution whenever all these nonsense freedom-killing "bills" come up - not to mention the very fact of actions of presidents and judges.

OTOH, exactly cuz libs have "gone along" w/conservative principles thru the years in the same manner this author fears, we have an incrementally worse government situation than, say, 100 years ago. Things didn't change overnite. "Compromise" got us to where we are, gradually, so no1 notices, like the frog slowly boiling in water.

It's therefore possible that compromise will gradually get us back out. In fact, unfortunately it's virtually a requirement that 1 compromise w/the lib principles if there's any hope of returning to better respect for the Constitution. Unfortunately it's all insidious, but people just won't go for "shocking" changes, cuz of what they're used to.

IMO, Repubs should say what they really think, stand up as much as possible for their beliefs, *start out* w/"radical" proposals, but be prepared to water it down. But better to start w/the "tough" stand than water down an already wimpy proposal - which is what I think too many Repubs have done, and why so many are irritated w/them.

[philosofy123]

shooting your neighbor because he is a dangerous methamphetamine-crazed psychotic recently escaped from a high-security prison for triple murder and rape, who is pointing a rifle at your chest and laughing maniacally.

And you really think that Saddam was pointing his gun at your (our) chest and laughing maiacally? You know, I heard that people who are "so sure" are typically fanatics.

[Dr. Thorne]

For those of you who think voting against George Bush is the same as voting for a democrat I can only ask you, would you have voted for Adolph Hitler?

Haven't we heard enough of this from MoveOn.org? Anything coming out of LewRockwell.nuts is as intellectually sound as a pronouncement from Rael... but much more hateful, Anti-American and dangerous.

[Paul_B]

Michael Peirce doesn't seem to allow for the Christian who sees that the administration and the party aren't perfect, but are our best choice at this time. That's a pretty simple concept.

We need provocateurs to motivate us, but when they go too far they ask us to abandon the only chance we've been given.

[ChevyZ28]

I also agree with this. What we need are politicians with a principled stand who have a clear and unclouded understanding of the Constitution and how it is intended to work. I fear, however, there are no such men or women on whom we can depend on to rightly enforce the Constitution. If there are any such men and women, then they would never be voted in to office. For some reason, our country is sliding down a very slippery slope from Constitutional Government to a Socialist Government, and ultimately, I believe a Communist Country.

[Buffettbassman]

I truly don't understand how someone can be a christian and a democrat without a diagnosis of multiple a personality disorder.

[u-89]

You continuously confuse Christian theology with the mission of the State. The new Testament is NOT a document outlining government actions. It is addressed to the individual and the Church.

>"Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet,"

Is it OK for the government to engage in these activities? Much of our foreign policy since The War (we picked) With Spain (in order to grab her territories so we could have bases to project power from to be a great nation in the European Imperialist tradition) has been guided by greed, power and occasionally delusions of grandeur.

Our policies since WWII in the Mid East have been expressly so we could dominate the oil production. We have meddled in others affairs, propped up despotic regimes and as the man here points out Saddam was our creation. You should also remember they we fully supported him during his war with Iran and we "saw nothing" as he oppressed his people back then. Furthermore you should keep in mind that Bush the Elder had his ambassador to Iraq, April Glasby, give Saddam a green light in his dealings with Kuwait and as soon as he moved we reneged on our guarantee. We would not have fought Gulf War One if the Soviet Union had still been intact. We saw an opportunity and used Saddam as an excuse to move troops into the region. Leaving Saddam in power was an excuse to leave our troops in the region. This current war furthers our position of dominance in the Gulf and I'll bet you here and now we get permanent military bases there after the so called "independent" New Iraq is formed. The "Love your neighbor" reasons for this war is a blatant sham.

[moneyrunner]

Until I read this, I always believed that the Bible and the Constitution were two different documents. I guess I'll have to re-read them.

[Jagdgewehr]

Read your Bible daily. But for goodness sake read the Constitution of the United States once in a while and make your political decisions based upon what is lawful rather than what feels good.

...and on election day I do...what exactly?

I guess I'll stay with the "lesser of two evils" system of voting.