Dobson on McCain
66 comments | Permalink
Reading between the lines, it seems that James Dobson is not a fan of John McCain.
Update: (An alternate title of this post could have been called: "What James Dobson Will Do to Help Ensure that Roe v. Wade Is the Law of the Land for Many, Many Years to Come.")
Update: Sarah Pulliam: "In 2006, Dobson and other Christian leaders said it would be a sin to not vote, as long as the candidates provide the right resume."
Update: Ross Douthat: ". . . attacking McCain for his tendency to use 'foul and obscene language' seems like the purest form of social conservative self-parody. Particularly given the Bush Administration's record on that front."
Update: From Hugh Hewitt, one of the most relentless critics of McCain, writes today:
Update: (An alternate title of this post could have been called: "What James Dobson Will Do to Help Ensure that Roe v. Wade Is the Law of the Land for Many, Many Years to Come.")
Update: Sarah Pulliam: "In 2006, Dobson and other Christian leaders said it would be a sin to not vote, as long as the candidates provide the right resume."
Update: Jeremy Pierce looks at whether or not Dobson is being fair and telling the truth."If you can find a politician who understands the institution of the family, who wants to protect children from immorality, who understands that we are at war with those who want to destroy us and who understand that liberal judges are undermining us and need to be reined in," he said "and if you can find a politician who lives by a strong moral code and believes in Jesus Christ ... if you can find such a person, it would be a sin not to vote for him."
Update: Ross Douthat: ". . . attacking McCain for his tendency to use 'foul and obscene language' seems like the purest form of social conservative self-parody. Particularly given the Bush Administration's record on that front."
Update: From Hugh Hewitt, one of the most relentless critics of McCain, writes today:
There are seven reasons for anyone to support the eventual nominee no matter who it is: The war and six Supreme Court justices over the age of 68. . . . It is very possible to play full contact politics without the threat of going home if your team loses. The stakes in the fall are far too high for that.
posted by JT at Tuesday, February 05, 2008
66 Comments:
You're so right, it is only "between the lines." Dr. Dobson should be encourged to be more explicit with his concerns.
Wow. This is just a great reminder for me of how small God is. Surely, we all have a civic duty, but I was under the impression that whther John McCain, Romney, Hillary, or Obama got elected, that God would still be on the throne and have the ability to do whatever he wants in this or any nation. Thanks Dr. Dobson for reminding me how little He really is.
This kind of foolishness is why I haven't listened to Dobson in years. Between his foolish politicism and his psychobabble, he really has nothing good to offer that can't be found somewhere else.
Great alternate title!!!
Back in October when conventional wisdom said that Rudy would probably be the RNC candidate, Dobson was salivating over the political mojo that he'd regain with a pro-choicer in the White House. If a few more million babies die, well, that's just the price for his fame.
Then Giuliani had to go and quit the race, and ruin the whole thing. But thankfully, Dobson has bounced back and figured out a new way to power-grab.
It is to hurl. :-(
Your alternate title is disingenuous, and I believe incorrect. John McCain is the one who will make sure that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land for many years to come because a true constitutional judge will overturn his campaign finance bill in a hurry. And he has said previously that he would not appoint judges like Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, because he is too conservative. He has disputed saying that, but it has been verified by several people who were present at that time.
I'm so glad that Dr. Dobson has finally spoken out in this election, I just wish he would have done it sooner. John McCain is NOT the right man for this country. Now Dobson needs to endorse Huckabee.
Are you suggesting that voting in a Republican (McCain) is going to end Roe v Wade?
Uhh, Justin, you are much too smart to believe that.
weak
Justin,
You've seriously got to be kidding me. We've had a big "Christian" Republican in office for the last 8 years and the abortion rates are higher than they ever were. You right-wingers really need to stop playing this card because it is getting old and people are starting to realize it. Amazing how a theology blog endorses ridiculous right-wing politics.
Luke,
Your comment is completely and utterly wrong. The Guttmacher study released in January shows that abortion rates are at their lowest levels since 1974.
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2008/01/17/index.html
It's nice to know that whenever a prominent Christian conservative takes a principled political stand, I can always count on my Reformed brethern to start sharpening their knives.
In a spirit of love, of course.
Dobson doesn't like McCain? No wonder I like McCain so much. :)
Can anybody explain why Dr. Dobson didn't come out early in support of Governor/Pastor Mike Huckabee who is STAUNCHLY pro-family?
I never understood that. I have not seen FOTF's articulation of why they have been reticent in supporting Mike Huckabee who is staunchly pro-life and firmly against gay-marriage.
This post has been removed by the author.
Justin, please don't diasable the comments on this site because of these few folks that choose to leave bitter comments. You do us all a service by allowing us to communicate with you. Sometimes people choose to show their bitterness to the world.
I haven't read the article that Dobson wrote simply because I'm already convinced McCain isn't the right man for my vote, thus I'll vote against him in the primary, but if he's the nominee then I'm certain that he's more likely than Obama or Hilary to appoint judges that interpret the constitution rather than ammending it to what it should have said.
Once again, thanks for letting us leave comments and please, please, please, don't take it away from us!
Justin:
I love your blog, and I check it multiple times a day. I usually click on the links to read the various articles you might suggest, and I have often bought the books you mention on your site.
However, regarding this post, I am completely at a loss. Dismissing James Dobson is one thing (I'm not a fan of his either), but your post (and many of the comments) smack of hating the message because of the messenger. Whether you like James Dobson or not, or whether James Dobson has embarrased himself and others in the past or not, the fact is that his comments in this case are absolutely correct. The allegations in the first paragraph of his comments are all factually accurate. McCain's past actions and statements completely belie his conservative claims. How James Dobson pointing this out makes God "small" (as Chase wrote) is beyond me. Your use of sarcasm, Chase, to chastise another brother in Christ speaks more of your arrogance than Dobson's.
It saddens me when I see Christians take potshots at other Christians because of politics. Politics! Our citizenship is in heaven. We should remember this when we get so concerned with our citizenship here that we sarcastically mock our brethren.
In Him,
Matthew S. Jacobs
So one of the reasons that Dobson doesn't like McCain is that he has a temper and uses foul language? What about Dobson? In almost every political statment by him that I've ever heard or read he tends to lash out at those he disagrees with in a unchartiable way. I do respect Dobson for taking a stand on things, and I do respect his passion, but I've seldom heard him speak in a way that doesn't in some way mirror the kind of speech he condemns in this article (not saying that he swears, but his tounge seems far for tame).
The reason I care about what he says is that I think some of his more divisive rehtoric has hindered our ability to clearly proclaim the Gospel. I know one effect is that I can barley have a conversation about Christianity with a non-conservative without having to spend a considerable portion of that time trying to explain that while Christians may share some conservative values, Chrisitianty remains distinct from conservatism. Also, I don't know too many Democrats that would feel comfortable in Churches heavily influenced by his teachings. I know this one from experience, as I attented a Church that was big on Dobson, and the word "Democrat" there was almost a swear word in it own right. I know there are many values of the Democratic party that are incompatible with biblical truth, but I also agree with the "Gospel Colalition" document that the world should see churches where Republicans and Democrats can worship together and celebrate their shared identity in Jesus Christ.
Again, I'm not writing this as a personal attack against James Dobson. I've been guilty of person anger toward him in the past, something I'm still working on repenting of. If I desire unity between Republican's and Democrat's who are Christians, then I should desire that same unity between myself and my brother in Christ, even if just in my heart before God.
But it does seem to me that his focus is too narrow- it may help save America in some points, but I fear that it might hinder the salvation of Americans in others.
"He has sounded at times more like a member of the other party."
Are Christians Republicans? Is God more for a Republican,than a democrat?
I'm a Republican, but that really makes no difference to me. I don't hardly ever use the title.
I heard Dr. Dobson say that he have he differences with the Pope, but he was a great leader, and although their theologies were different he did much for this world. (paraphrased)
As a Christan shouldn't James Dobson simply state the truth about the Pope, that his religion is a Gospel of works, and so many extra biblical false teachings come from the Pope?
James says, "Well I'm no theologian, nor minister."
Neither was Amos, he was a farmer. Nor Peter, he was a fisherman. But they could preach the truth.
I hang gutters on houses, and i love to share the Gospel, and to share the truth of the Scriptures.
I like Dr. Dobson, and I admire him for much that he has done, but I wish he would be less political and family focused, and more Gospel focused.
He could have a great impact if he would do that.
It's hard to take Dr. Dobson seriously when he comes out against McCain and says nothing about Romney who is the one who said he would "preserve and protect a woman's right to choose." Oh, wait. He says he changed his mind on that. Of course, he "saw" his dad march with MLK.
I have not seen FOTF's articulation of why they have been reticent in supporting Mike Huckabee who is staunchly pro-life and firmly against gay-marriage.
Truth, your issue is easy to explain.
FotF's first F left the second F loooooooong ago. Huck isn't conservative in some other issues, and Dobson doesn't want to alienate his sheeple.
Thirsty David writes: "Between his [Dobson's] foolish politicism and his psychobabble, he really has nothing good to offer that can't be found somewhere else."
I disagree with Dr. Dobson's take on McCain. Indeed, I will support whoever the GOP nominee happens to be. However, it's one thing to disagree on Dr. Dobson's tactics, David, but quite another to uncharitably say the man has nothing good to offer. I'm sure you really didn't mean what you said and I hope you'll apologize for it.
Robin,
These stats are not counting the morning after pill, which is abortion.
donsands said,
I like Dr. Dobson, and I admire him for much that he has done, but I wish he would be less political and family focused, and more Gospel focused.
He could have a great impact if he would do that.
You managed to say in three sentences what I blithered on about for 3 paragraphs. And more clearly too. Well put.
You know, all this wonderfully edifying talk made me think of something ...
Dobson is arrogant, uncharitable and ambitious. And, of course, like many on this blog, he has made the abortion the centerpiece of his political agenda. It is ironic that so many defend his "principled" stand on issues but can't imagine a Christian voting for a democrat (much less being a democrat), even if that Christian is also principled in his views.
It seems that with politics and conservative evangelical Christianity, the two have become one flesh.
I share your desire that Roe v. Wade be overturned.
When your blog doesn't turn to politics, your analysis of issues and insights into culture are typically quite sharp and charitable. However, one wonders if this post is a "jumping the shark" moment for your blog. I hope not.
I look forward to reading more of the "mix of theology, philosophy...and culture" posts in the future.
Thirsty David writes: "Between his [Dobson's] foolish politicism and his psychobabble, he really has nothing good to offer that can't be found somewhere else."
I disagree with Dr. Dobson's take on McCain. Indeed, I will support whoever the GOP nominee happens to be. However, it's one thing to disagree on Dr. Dobson's tactics, David, but quite another to uncharitably say the man has nothing good to offer. I'm sure you really didn't mean what you said and I hope you'll apologize for it.
I didn't say he has nothing good to offer. I said, "I haven't listened to Dobson in years" because he "has nothing good to offer that can't be found somewhere else."
"he has made the abortion the centerpiece of his political agenda."
Amen to that. But we need to speak the truth in love as well.
The killing of innocent life is "centerpiece", as you say to me, because it's taking God's creation and ripping it apart.
I long to see God have mercy on America, and deliver us from killing millions of babies every year.
It's going to take a man of courage to lead this nation to do this; a man after God's own heart.
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against wicked spiritual powers.
But the Lord Jesus is mighty and sovereign, and His grace can do great things.
I like what Piper says on abortion in "Brothers We Are Not Professionals":
“Brothers, may we not dare to believe that by the grace of God and the perseverance of His people in prayer and piety and political action there could emerge in the coming decades a consensus for life and that the twenty-first century could look back on our generation with the same dismay that we look back on the slave laws of this land and on the concentration camps of World War II? Nationwide reformation has happened before - with Wilberforce in England and Lincoln in America. It can happen again. Will you put the trumpet to your lips or be silent?”
2 weeks ago my pastor preached a sermon about the genocide of the Canaanites in Joshua. One of his central points was that though God commanded Israel to wipe out the Canaanites, it was driven, in some sense, by the wickedness of the Canaanites, which basically came down to lots of incest and child sacrifices (I think Deuteronomy is where the Canaanite sins were described). Anyway, I was profoundly saddened to see that the sins of this people, which God said was the reason he was giving them into the hands of Israel, probably pale in comparison to the sins of modern America. It was just startling to think in those terms and wonder what temporal judgement God could have in store.
To think that Christians shouldn't be concerned with abortion, sexual immorality, or the importance of the family, when these are the specific sins that caused God to approve of the genocide of the Canaanites seems to be pretty unbiblical.
Sorry, Leviticus 18 is where God outlines the sins of the Canaanites.
If last night proved anything its that more people, like Dobson, should have got behind Huckabee instead of worrying about whether he could win or not. He proves last night he can, but he could have dont even better if more people got behind him instead of losing hope and expecting the worse.
Ive never seen such lack of hope in people. drives me nuts. yep, instead of complaining about McCain and Barak/Hillary, he should have gotten with Huckabee.
Its sad that Huckabee has had to even fight for the votes of people that supposedly agree with him or say they do.
now that he's proven this is a three man race(or a one man race with McCain out front)...these conservatives who dont like McCain should get behind Huckabee. He came close to winning OK and MO last night as well.
Why will the evangelical conservative base not get behind Ron Paul. All of this talk of Huckabee being the best candidate who is the most conservative is not entirely accurate. True, he is conservative on social issues, but so is Ron Paul. Taking that off the table and examining the rest of the candidate's positions - Ron Paul is the most conservative across the board.
A vote for McCain as "the lesser of two evils" is a contradiction of prinicple and severely undermines the relevance and strength of the conservative base in the Republican party.
While I wish Dr. Dobson would endorse a candidate like Ron Paul rather than abstaining from the vote in November - his position is equally valid and speaks volumes of a man governed by the timeless truths and principles revealed in the Scriptures.
A vote for Ron Paul or a non-vote in November is better than voting for a socially conservative, big interventionalist government ticket in McCain/Huckabee.
Phil 1:9-11
Emily, McCain said something about Alito that he wouldn't want true of his appointees. There are several ways to take it, but the best way to take it that's consistent with everything he's said across time (including what he's saying now) is that he didn't like how obvious Alito's conservatism was. Given that the Senate barely confirmed him, and it's now much less likely to confirm similar people because of its change in makeup, the next president (if a Republican) will have an even harder time getting a conservative approved. That means the person will need to be at least as unknown to the Democrats as John Roberts was and less known than Alito was. That interpretation fits with everything McCain said. He has repeatedly said that he likes Alito, and he voted for him. I suspect he'd try to get someone more like Roberts in, and the only real difference between the two is how well known they were at the time of their confirmation. So it's pretty unfair to McCain to assume he meant his comment in the least charitable way that many have taken it.
Matthew Jacobs:
Dobson's comments are not absolutely correct. He says a number of false and misleading things, some of them things he should easily know better about. It's hard for me to see his portrayal of McCain as honest. I've chronicled some of them elsewhere and won't repeat it all here.
Ryan, I think the main reason most evangelicals aren't getting behind Ron Paul is because he doesn't recognize that we're responsible for the situation we created in Iraq and thus shouldn't act as if we have no obligation to do our best to improve it. I don't see such abandoning of responsibility as very Christian.
It also doesn't help that he's weak on some of the very social issues that are driving this discussion. He doesn't think there should be a federal ban on abortion, at least not until there's enough support for it to put it into the Constitution itself (which concedes the pro-choice claim that the 14th Amendment doesn't extend to the fetal stage, something I won't concede).
He's also very extreme on most other issues, far too extreme for most Americans. He wants to dismantle most of the federal government, even though there's no other social structure in place to handle the responsibilities that the Bible makes clear we have to the unfortunate. I know most conservatives prefer other ways to handle such things, but the prophets clearly place that responsibility on the civic leaders and government in Israel, and it's on their conscience if it's removed without giving people any other recourse to replace it. (And don't say that it's the church's job, because the evangelical church by and large gives only a negligible amount to the poor and to purely social causes.)
But I couldn't vote for Ron Paul even apart from all those things, purely because of his toleration for racists writing in his name when he clearly had time to correct the situation but didn't, and then when he had to respond to it more recently he had little to say to indicate that he even understands what racism is. (See here for links to discussions with more detail.) It's a pretty important issue for him to be entirely on the wrong side of, but I have no indications that he'd do a thing to recognize the most important racial problems that there are and every indication that he'd try to pretend that the worst racism in this country is affirmative action. This strikes me as exactly the kind of doublespeak that Amos and Hosea condemned in Israel when civic leaders faced criticism for oppressing the poor.
Jeremy Pierce:
Thank you for your response. I will make one quick reply, and then I will no longer read this thread. Again, it's sad that we are this concerned with politics.
I read your posting, wherein you indicate that you chronicle the false and misleading statements made by Dobson about McCain. In fact, of course, what you do is acknowledge that Mr. McCain said/did the things Dobson claimed, and voted the way Dobson claimed - but, you then attempt to explain them away. You even attempt to explain WHY John McCain did/said/voted a certain way. Obviously, this is impossible, unless you ARE John McCain, or you simply believe his explanations (now that he's running for President) at face value. You are welcome to do so; I do not.
What Dobson said about McCain is true, whether you believe they are explainable or not.
In Him,
Matthew S. Jacobs
Matthew, context is important for interpreting the significance of someone's remarks. Pointing out that what McCain said doesn't have the significance Dobson implies is not the same as "explaining them way" in any pejorative sense. But what I did isn't just pointing out that they don't have the significance he attaches to them. I pointed out the dishonesty and inaccuracy of several of them. Some of them were flat-out false, regardless of what you make of them.
As for believing people when they explain their actions, I suppose you could assume the worst of people without giving them the benefit of the doubt and without seeing if there's a plausible explanation that would mean all the harsh claims are actually slander. You have that legal right. I don't concede that it's moral to do so, however, certainly not Christian. Misrepresentation is not a Christian virtue, and yet you defend Dobson's doing so.
As for politics, there's nothing sad about talking about politics. Our moral obligations extend to every sphere of our lives, including whether we vote and who we vote for if indeed we do vote. We ought to reflect on those moral responsibilities in order to act wisely.
Here's a question for you guys, an honest one: What do you think about what George Bush has done over the past 7 years? I only ask because you all were playing the same cards (abortion and homosexuality) when he ran BOTH times, claiming that he was conservative and you would vote for him because of his stance on these 2 issues. So, now that he honestly hasn't done much for both issues (apart from a few minor things, certainly nothing major as the statistics prove), what do you think about him?
Luke,
I personally do not care about the homosexuality issue. Regarding abortion he did get BAIPA passed with bipartisan support and more importantly put Alito and Roberts on the Supreme Court. (As opposed to two Bader-Ginsburg types that Gore/Kerry would have probably preferred) Supreme Court nominees are far and away the most significant piece of the abortion issue. As far as the rest of his presidency, I'm pretty disappointed because he is much more fiscally liberal than Clinton was and hasn't really been much different than a big-government democrat.
Luke,
I am also thankful for his stance on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. I think that had he not made this stand we would have encouraged an entire industry based on women harvesting their embryos for profit (pretty much like we do for plasma and sperm) and we need to seriously consider the ethical implications of producing millions of embryos solely for the purpose of destroying them for profit.
The Christian's proper political posture is 1.) Submitting to governing authorities with a God-glorifying attitude (Rom 13 & 1 Pet 2:13-17); 2.) Praying for the salvation of all men, especially political leaders (1 Tim 2:1-4); 3.) Seeking to make disciples of Jesus Chrsit, including among political ranks (Matt. 28:19). Politics is a liberty, NOT a duty for the Christian. Submitting to, evangelistically praying for and making disciples of political leaders IS the Christian's DUTY. Don't get this confused Christians! God has not commanded His people to build or maintain earthly nations (He doesn't need our help). We are to be about building the Kingdom of God. We "aliens" in the world need to be careful not to become athiests in our political thought, i.e. there's no God controlling the world's political landscape (Daniel 2:21). Let's be passionate about the souls of leaders...not just their votes. God is on the throne. Be anxious for nothing...and be careful not to damage your witness for Christ by alienating our mission field through the passions of partisan politics. It's a liberty to be involved (certainly vote), but it's not a duty, rather a liberty. Too many believers are confused on this today. Check out www.capmin.org.
Luke, I think very highly of President Bush. He's so much better than his father was on almost every issue. The biggest hesitation I have is his being too willing to give in to the Dick Cheney wing of his administration on Machiavellian issues, and I suspect they manipulate the fact that he trusts those who seem loyal to him. But that issue is far less important to me than the things he's done right. His judicial nominees have largely been excellent, better even than Reagan's.
He's a rare case of a conservative who doesn't take a radical libertarian view on economics but sees the government's responsibility to foster virtue in its citizens and to care for the needs of the neediest who aren't in a position to provide for themselves. He does give in a bit too much to spending on worthless projects. I'm also especially impressed at his willingness to be race-conscious without supporting the lowering of standards in the typical way affirmative action does. His cabinet-level appointments have been outstanding, and the problems some of them have had weren't foreseeable (although he's too loyal to those who should have been removed sooner). His attitude toward race is one of the things I've been most impressed about with him, such that I think he's the president in the history of this country who has handled it better than any other (and I don't expect the next president to be better, whoever it is, because not one of the candidates is in the same league).
He did allow Rumsfeld to mismanage the war (but I defend his decision to go in to begin with, and I do so on just war theory grounds that aren't entirely to do with self-defense but do involve that given the faulty intelligence that everyone had and accepted without question). I do have serious reservations about the specific ways he wanted to do the guest worker program, but I think such a policy is in principle the best way to deal with the immigration problem we now face, provided that illegals don't anywhere near as easy as easy a time approaching legal status as those who entered legally do. But compare Ronald Reagan's approach of actual amnesty (as opposed to what people like Romney are calling amnesty, which isn't Reagan's outright dismissal of all charges without penalty).
So there are definitely things I'd criticize, but I think he's either the best or second-best president of my lifetime. Even Reagan had severe problems in the way he handled certain issues, and they happen to be issues that matter a lot to me (e.g. ignoring racial issues, dragging his heels on AIDS, outright amnesty on immigration, not being as selective in appointing Supreme Court justices who would be both collegial and conservative, so we got Kennedy who upheld Roe and Scalia who in part caused O'Connor's turn to the left with his harsh rhetoric). So it's hard for me to say even that Reagan is clearly better on the issues I consider most important.
Sean, I can't agree. I think it is a duty to vote. Philosophers speak of a category of actions called supererogatory. These are supposed to be actions that would be very nice if we did them, but we have no obligation to do them. I think the Sermon on the Mount is clear that there are no such actions. If it would be good to do it, and there is no better thing to do, then we should do it. We all fall short of perfection, but that doesn't mean it's ok to be imperfect.
Matthew,
I am not taking a pot shot at another Christian because of Politics, as McCain is not my candidate of choice. I genuinely believe that only a small view of God will lead to comments like the ones Dobson made that are referenced here, and I find it tragic, standing by my comments.
we are..."to give an account of our political conduct at the Judgement seat of Christ." - William Wilberforce.
It is a Governmental liberty...but also a Religious duty, responsibility, and privilege...
Jeremy, I hope I understand your response. Let me say...it would be a duty for the Christian to vote and be involved in politics if the government required such. The government does not. Therefore, it's a liberty, not a duty. Many Christians around the world live in countries where the Christian faith is illegal. Do they have a duty to be political, i.e. involvment in changing governement? I don't believe so. They do, however, have a duty to make disciples, even if it means persecution. The apostle Paul had great open doors to "act politically" with Roman officials but he never did. Rather, he preached the gospel to them. That was his duty. It is ours too. As Americans we have a liberty, not a duty, to act politically. Let's be good stewards of the liberty without sacrificing our biblically explicit Christian duty. Grace and peace Jeremy.
Sean, my claim isn't that every Christian around the world and across time has a duty to vote. Some states give no such right, and it wouldn't respect the government God has placed over them to demand such a right.
But given that we have such a right, I take it as a moral obligation to exercise it in order to do good to all (which Paul tells us to do in Galatians). That seems to me to be a moral obligation.
"He wants to dismantle most of the federal government, even though there's no other social structure in place to handle the responsibilities that the Bible makes clear we have to the unfortunate." -Jeremy
Are you referring to Welfare here? I too would love to see less government giving out hundreds of millions of dollars to the poor, and to the world.
I guess if you expound on this a bit it may help. For I think this nation is in big time debt because of it's so-called compaasionate spending.
Not we shouldn't be helpful. And I do believe the Church should be helpful to the poor, which it is, if it was the poor you are talking about.
Just a few thoughts that came to me.
Have a good evening.
Reducing government spending and focusing its spending on the most efficient and helpful causes is wonderful. Bi-partisan efforts led by Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton did some of that in the 90s. But removing all the support from people who depend on it and can't work is nothing but heartless. The extreme libertarianism that wants to dismantle welfare and other social programs entirely strikes me as exactly the kind of thing the prophets rail against. The underlying principles behind libertarianism are individualistic and self-interested to begin with, and those assumptions are contrary to the entire mindset of the Bible, which assumes communal responsibility and obligations toward others despite our never having willingly assumed those obligations. The entire spirit of libertarianism that Paul begins with is contrary to every fiber of my moral understanding as derived from the Bible.
Sean,
we are..."to give an account of our political conduct at the Judgement seat of Christ." - William Wilberforce.
It is a Governmental liberty...but also a Religious duty, responsibility, and privilege...
I think Jeremy's right about the moral obligation.
Remember the good Samaritan? Rememeber how the other guys walked by?
...Our "legal" liberty to vote in America is not bound up in "secular" or "amoral" issues or descisions. Take abortion for istance. In a way the legal opportunity for you to vote on this issue (and others) is akin to walking down the street and seeing a guy who got mugged and needs some help. You are then presented by that opportunity with a duty(and privilege) to take advantage of your legal opportunity.
I hope that makes sense.
If you have a legal liberty to stop something evil or a legal liberty to do or start something good and dont take it, ...God sees that as sin.
To him that knows to do good and doesnt do it, to him it is sin.
legal liberty....spritual/religious/moral duty....
" . . . I think this nation is in big time debt because of it's so-called compassionate spending.
Not we shouldn't be helpful. And I do believe the Church should be helpful to the poor, which it is, if it was the poor you are talking about."
First, we are in bigtime debt for fighting a war we should not be fighting and financed by the President's solution for any economic problem--tax cuts. This president has been and continues to be fiscally irresponsible. There isn't some vague "compassionate spending" explanation out there to account for the deficit. It's the president's policies, rubber stamped by a compliant republican congress, that has gotten us into this mess.
Second, there is nothing biblical about the either/or mindset that says that government shouldn't spend money on the poor because the church can take care of them. Can government sometimes play a legitimate role in alleviating the suffering of his fellow citizens as Jesus taught in the story of the good samaritan? I think so. Government should be limited, not because it's evil (business and government are full of sinners, right?) but because there are some things it can't do as efficiently or effectively as other agencies.
A believer can help the poor, the church can have a benevolence fund and train its people to care for the poor, the sick, the widows, those in prison. And systemic problems that individuals and local churches can't address, should be addressed by government.
When a person loses a job due to illness or injury, then loses health insurance coverage and then incurs tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills, most churches can't absorb the costs of that kind of care, much less take over the mortgage payment, utilities and all the rest. In these circumstances, why wouldn't a Christian, of all people, want to think of a way to help folks in those circumstances?
Hey, I'm just saying that i thought welfare was way over done. maybe I'm wrong.
Sure the Bible teaches us to help others, Amen.
It also teaches if you don't work, then you don't eat.
There's a balance there somewhere. God will take care of His Church. I trust Him.
But I definitely do not trust the government. The government trusts in humans to bless, and it's all humans they look to not God.
I don't know all the answers for sure.
i appreciate all the dialogging. It helps me.
Donsands,
The current welfare system isn't perfect, but the point of the 1990s welfare reform of Clinton and Gingrich was to make sure people couldn't receive it unless they demonstrated that they were either working or trying to find a job. I have to prove that I'm working at least half-time to get WIC, even though I'm a full-time student. People without the ability to work, however, shouldn't fall under the "you don't work, you don't eat" restriction. Caring for the widow and orphan is throughout the Bible. Why shouldn't governments have the same obligations as individuals, but on a greater scale? The prophets certainly included them.
"People without the ability to work, however, shouldn't fall under the "you don't work, you don't eat" restriction."
That goes without saying.
There are a lot of lazy people in this nation however. And they can find lots of loop holes in order to get money. They love money.
There's that side to it for sure.
And there's the other side as well, which is poor people who need help, who don't really want it.
I admire these kinds of people, but I think they are rare.
This nation's government and politicians have spoiled many people, and the people now think the government owes them.
I like what Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". That's a good statement for sinners.
That saying has been turned backwards and inside out.
That's how I see it when I rub shoulders with the poor. Most of them, not all, seem to think the government owes them money.
There are legitimate cases, and the government can help if it wants, but I would suggest what Paul said to do, and that's for the family to care for one another, and for the Church to help out, and then go to the government.
My state has pumped in millions and millions of dollars into helping people, and it backfires so many times.
They built these housing buildings in Baltimore a few years back, so that the poor could have places to live. They turned into drug havens. And a couple years ago they imploded them all to the ground. Millions of dollars wasted.
The government has taken God out of the equation, and humanism just don't work.
And when it doesn't, then we simply tax more and pour in more money.
There's my rant.
I'm not that smart about these things to tell you the truth. But I know human sinful nature, because I know me, and it ain't good, unless we have the Holy Spirit, and the lord's grace upon us.
Why shouldn't governments have the same obligations as individuals, but on a greater scale?
Because governments don't have money to hand out. Individuals do. Governments have to take it from those who have it. If I did that, you'd call it stealing. And governments do have the same obligation as individuals to not steal.
If you want the long version, you can click my link. There's an article at the top of the page (for now) answering that question.
(JT - Sorry if plugging my own site isn't kosher. I won't be offended if you delete this.)
ThirstyDavid,
Yes, that's what libertarians often say, but it's not a view Christians have available to them. Jesus doesn't say to render to Caesar's the things that are yours but you're required by law to give up. He says to render to Caesar what is Caesar's. Tax money actually does belong to the government if the laws says it does. That's Jesus' view, anyway.
Besides, nothing we have is really ours anyway. Everything ultimately belongs to God. It's true that he lets us steward some of it, but he also puts us under governmental systems in his providential plan (see Romans 13) so that the laws we fall under govern the possessions we have. If those laws involve a 90% income tax, then 90% of what we earn isn't ours. It's the government's to steward.
You might argue that such a system is unwise from the point of view of good governing, and I'd agree. But I don't think you can argue biblically that we have a right to complain if a government imposes a high tax on the ground that the money is ours. The Bible doesn't give us that option.
Jeremy,
I'm not suggesting tax revolt. I agree that paying our taxes (rendering to Caesar) is not optional, whether or not the law is just; but that's not the issue here. The issue here is electing just governors, and I do have the option of voting for the candidates that best represent justice.
Moreover, the President and Congress are not Caesar. In a constitutional republic, the Constitution is Caesar. Elected officials are only administrators of that law and are under that law, which limits their powers in no uncertain terms. It is our duty to elect those who will obey the law.
Which brings us back to the actual topic of this thread: the President appoints those charged with guarding the Constitution -- the Supreme Court. It is completely unconscionable to sit back and passively give that power to an archenemy of the Constitution because the alternative is not the ideal choice.
About my money not belonging to me: as far as any man is concerned, it does. God has entrusted it to my stewardship, and I am responsible for its use. It's just silly to say that thieves should not be stopped because it's not my money, anyway.
Just to pile on, Dobson is a good family counsellor and a lousy political thinker, and maybe a worse theologian.
No need to elaborate.
But by law it's not your money.
It's funny how some people think the Constitution is the only law we've got. It's not as if the founders thought they were starting from scratch. There's a whole history of English common law, and the Constitution insists on a few things on top of that, and then legislative bodies add further laws. Executives enact executive. The Constitution provides a framework for how some of that is done. That doesn't mean the Constitution is Caesar. The government is Caesar, not some document that restricts how government should be run.
As for money and stealing, I never said there's anything ok about stealing. I was denying that taxation should ever be seen as stealing, biblically. There's a huge difference between those two claims.
"That doesn't mean the Constitution is Caesar."
However, when the president takes his oath, I think, he says, "I am bound to the Constitution".
Good night, and have a grace and truth filled day tomorrow.
Jeremy, wow . . . I'm truly not trying to be insulting, but you really have no idea what you're talking about.
The founders wrote the Constitution as they did to prevent any man or group of men from having the power of Caesar. An elementary understanding of history establishes that quite plainly.
The Constitution is not simply the first layer of laws to which others may be freely added. The Constitution (have you even read it?) defines our government, delineating what it is to do, how it is to be done, and what it cannot do. It specifically lays out the powers of government and says -- loudly and clearly -- that any power not given to government is categorically off-limits.
That's all from me. I suggest you read the Constitution and the founding fathers. You might learn some of the history you've obviously missed.
OK, one last word: Don is right. Every elected official acknowledges that the Constitution is the law over them.
Wait, so what the founders called Caesar (imperialistic monarchy) must be the same thing as what Jesus called Caesar (whoever occupies the governmental role)? That doesn't follow.
I've probably read the Constitution more than you, unless you're in a field where you have to read it regularly. Nothing you say is news, of course, but I fail to see any of its relevance. You might want to pay some attention to unenumerated rights, however. I would also argue (and have done so at length) that we have no absolute duty to the Constitution. Other moral considerations win out at times. But that discussion is lengthy, and you can read what I have to say at my own post. Some people will push Ron Paul as a principled man, meaning that he sees the Constitution as absolute and never strays from his fallible interpretation of it. I see him as an absolutist about a principle that's not absolute (following the Constitution no matter what).
I do think the Constitution plays a very important role in defining the limits of government and outlining the rights of the people. I don't think it's divinely-inspired, though, and I have a hard time seeing anyone who does as remotely biblically faithful.
Christian philosopher Douglas Groothuis weighs in with this post.
Blessings,
Steve
While I fully understand the angst of Conservatives in their policy opposition to John McCain blunders like Illegal immigration, Conservatives are beginning to amaze me in their inability to see the larger picture.
While I also disagree with McCain on a dozen issues or so, the alternative is not just four years of 'sitting it out' as some have proposed.
Many talk radio hosts have battled a McCain nomination. Even Focus On The Family Director Dr. Dobson (who I admire ) has declared his refusal to vote for McCain.
This astonishes me because it’s the same as saying “if we don’t get the conservative I want, We’ll let the country go to hell in a hand basket.”
This, in my opinion is very dangerous and makes our future prospects harder - since our children will be growing up in the aftermath of such a decision.
Anti McCain pundits and commentators such as Rush Limbaugh have ventured the idea that perhaps we should sit this election out and let the Dems have a term in office, claiming it might pave the way for a future shot at a candidate he and others will like in four years.
While I understand these expressions of dismay, I think it’s shortsighted. Imagine the damage our country will endure if Democrats control all three branches of government for 4 to 8 years. .
This would give liberals what they will treat as a clear sign from America that is it ready to move sharply to the left. Conservatism will lose most of it’s teeth and the liberal agenda could easily reverse all of the progress we’ve made in the war on terror, Tax reduction, Pro Life, and other extremely important issue.
We can always address the issue of immigration again in 4 years. What we cannot afford to see happen is a liberal agenda that makes illegal immigration the least of our country’s problems. Our country may be so torn up, it won’t have the time to even visit the issue, like we can today.
There is no such thing as a quick recovery from 4 years of liberalism unchecked. We may be facing what will take years and years of damage to undo. What’s more, there’s no guarantee that it WILL be undone. The passage of even one single liberal law is extremely difficult to outlaw - as if Roe V Wade hasn’t taught us this already!
Rush Limbaugh and others may revel in 4 years of liberal destruction as a talk radio host who can use the material, however all it takes is one liberal judge appointed to the Supreme Court to unravel the one ace we’ve achieved in the last 8 years. This doesn’t occur to me as a smart decision for Conservatives to be making..
As Evangelical Conservatives know, Pride cometh before the fall, and I hope they will study that verse before deciding to approach this election with dismay rather than enthusiasm.
Questioning McCain was right and highly useful for a time and a season. But there are greater threats looming on our horizon than John McCain.
It’s time to put our differences aside and get with the business assuring our children, they will not grow up in a socialist, liberally dominated world. This may be our cross roads, and it is certainly no time to be staying home on Election Day.
Danny Vice
The Weekly Vice
http://weeklyvice.blogspot.com
ThaLunatic Daily
http://thalunatic.blogspot.com
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home