No Separation of Church and State, Say Conservatives (Except on Health Care, Food, and Other Jesusy Things Like Peace)

Photo credit: 2007 Marc Nozell/flickr. Use does not represent endorsement by the photographer.

In my experience, conservatives are the ones who insist there should be no separation of church and state. While on the campaign trail, Rick Santorum told America that the idea of such a separation makes him want to vomit. So I guess he’s against it. Conservatives respond to the culture war by asserting that we’re a Christian nation with the can’t-miss implication that our government (when not highjacked by liberals) is godly, founded by Christian men, with laws and freedoms based on Judeo-Christian principle. I know these positions well, having grown up in conservative circles.

But when it comes time for the government to act in ways congruent with Christianity, like feeding the hungry (food stamps) or caring for the sick (health care), conservatives grimace, play the small government and personal responsibility card, and argue that we can’t have government in the role of the church. So which is it?

The First Amendment of the Constitution is wonderfully concise. It covers religion, freedom of speech, the press, peaceable assembly, and the redress of grievances in 45 words. Yes, this means I was nerdy enough to bother counting. Regarding church and state separation, the First Amendment takes a bold position of equality for all religions: there will be no establishment of a national religion, but also no prohibition of religious free exercise. We’ll come back to all of this in a moment. But first, an example of the evangelical double standard about church and state.

As the Supreme Court is hearing arguments about the constitutionality of Obamacare, a very prominent pastor associated with conservatism tweeted this:

That is a Whopper of a false dichotomy, with cheese.

I have never met any member of a centrist or liberal church who believes the government is the answer to all problems. They just happen to favor health care and food stamps over warfare and feeding the military industrial complex when it comes to what the government actually does, which should be pleasing to conservative ears if we are indeed a Christian nation (and by extension, a Christian government).

Notice also that you’re a Biblical church in the eyes of this prominent pastor if you think local church is the answer. One of the more nasty byproducts to come out of fundamentalist thinking is that which erases personal interpretation of scripture from the application of scripture in a contemporary worldview. “Well I’m Biblical and you’re just out there relying on the world” is a response I’ve heard from conservative evangelicals. The government is equated with the world. Then a triple backflip of confusion is performed as the same conservative evangelical relies on “the world” to police and execute individuals at home and abroad while defending such things as earning the honor of Jesus before condemning that same part of the world when it helps the hungry and sick. Even on this pastor’s own terms, I can’t wrap my mind around the magnitude of ignorance in that short tweet. The local church is the answer to what? Everything? Disease? Clean water? Wall Street regulation? Libraries? Roads? And how’s that working out for the local church when it comes to basic essentials like health, shelter and food, things also the focus of evangelical outreach? In the U.S. alone 50 million are without health care and 36.3 million including 13 million children are hungry or facing a serious risk of hunger. This is not an attempt to discredit the church for the wonderful outreach it does, but rather to recognize that the church either has not or can not solve the problem alone.

The conservative explanation tells us there is no separation of church and state, and the state should not be in the business of care and social services. What then should this so-called Christian government do?

Look at the size of the new Homeland Security mega-complex (DHS was created under George W. Bush, as a reminder). Read about the size of our military compared to the next 10 countries. Or check out this figure:

 

photo credit: iiss.org

Paul Ryan’s budget? It slashes food stamps and federal pensions but doesn’t touch the sacred cow- a Pentagon budget raking in hundreds of billions annually. In Afghanistan (which Republican candidates favored an expansion of even after a decade of war there, minus only Ron Paul), look at the troop to al Qaeda ratio. Even by our government’s count there are only 200 terrorists left there, while 68,000 of our men and women will remain after Obama’s September 2012 drawdown. Why? And is that small government? In fairness, the left also seems largely anesthetized now that Obama is running these wars, but they also aren’t the ones touting a small government philosophy or claiming that our government is godly when it wages war.

We have ourselves the largest military and defense budget on earth with no nation close enough to be called second place, and the sad irony is that the church-based small government advocates look the other way when it has to do with this warfare and surveillance apparatus while moaning about the threat of big government when the policy actually parallels some of the works of Christ.

It appears that for many conservatives, the size of government doesn’t matter as long as it dovetails with their worldview which, since 9/11, includes a growing allegiance to our police force, prison system, and military. I want to ask them what “tough on crime and tougher on terrorism” has to do with Judeo Christian principle or the life of Christ. I’ve heard the distinctions that conservatives offer about the government’s role to handle the dirty work of security and law enforcement, while assigning the Jesus stuff to the individual or the church. But that answer troubles me. That answer washes its hands of reckless militarism and oppressive domestic surveillance and punishment at the hands of our sprawling security state, and doesn’t seem to mind that the hunger and health needs in this country are out of control. When you take it all in, the conservative endorsement of the broken status quo doesn’t exactly give off a Sermon on the Mount vibe.

 

46 thoughts on “No Separation of Church and State, Say Conservatives (Except on Health Care, Food, and Other Jesusy Things Like Peace)

  1. Ian, it is quite obvious that there is zero objectivity in your article here. For one, you are suggesting that Christians are hypocrites because they want to help the needy but don’t want the government to do it. That is not hypocritical, it is a call for responsible government. Also, you are implying that all conservatives agendas are in sync with the Christian agenda, which is flat out false. You clearly do not understand the rationale behind Christians’ objections to government “assistance.”

    Christians believe it is not the role of government to help the needy. Rather, it is the role of the church. Christians strongly oppose the government takeover of what is supposed to be the role of the church (that is, helping the needy) for a few reasons. The first reason is that the government cannot do it efficiently; time and time again they demonstrate their inability to stick to a budget and accomplish goals. The second is that they cannot do it effectively. Government is too big and too slow to respond to the ever-changing needs of society. The third is that government “help” is no help at all because it actually creates more dependents. The goverment method is to throw people and money at the problem with the problem really lies in a lack of morality and faith.

    I would like to further point out that there is a direct relationship between the shrinking of the church and the growth of the government. As more and more people stop caring about their relationship with God or even acknowledging that He exists, they instead turn to worldly institutions (government) to fill the void not filled by the church. For reasons mentioned above, government cannot solve the problems and only makes them worse.

    It would serve you well to at least try to understand Christianity and its methods before trying to paint it as something it is not.

    • I am a Christian and I do think we can (and should) call on the government to help the needy. Especially if we insist on having a strong hold on the government over “Christian” issues like gay marriage and abortion. So it would serve you well, CM, to not speak for all of us.

        • I didn’t realize you were the overseeing power of authority on what the government can and cannot do properly. My bad.

          • I’m not. I just have a brain and the power of observation. Try looking at what’s going on in reality and you’ll realize the only logical conclusion one can reach about government is that less of it is better for all.

        • CM so you’re against unemployment insurance? That’s helping the needy. Have you at any time used it? Note that those checks reach mailboxes and get cashed into accounts, thus working properly. The government also does food stamps and school lunch assistance as an example, how are those things not done properly? The fact that people in need are now able to eat seems to indicate a success.

          Are all of the other developed nations with healthcare not doing it properly? How do you measure failure in those countries? And can you provide proof? You must do me the favor not to include anecdotal stories about Canadians waiting on the street corner in a hospital gown for surgery, I heard that one already on GOP talk radio.

          • I imagine the rebuttal for your argument, Ian, is that this country only started going down the tube when socialist principals came into play. If you have a history book, open it to America’s Great Depression and note that the New Deal did nothing pull the US out of the Depression- it only prolonged it. Some years later, LBJ’s ‘Great Society’ put us on the fast track to where we are today where 1 in 5 people in the country are on some type of government assistance. You would have to be blind to see that the government WANTS you to become reliant on them.

            Maybe you should pull yourself away from this world and your ‘ever-changing society’ and realize that there is a constant and unchanging Law in this world. Get to know Him, you might learn something.

          • Ian, have you seen the national debt recently? Have you seen the unemployment rate recently? Have you seen the federal deficit recently? I’m assuming you haven’t, because if you have and you still think things are working, I recommend that you find a critical thinking course at your local JC and get into the first one with an opening.

        • Yes, the churches do it so much better. The churches care more for children. Oh, wait. My Bad. It was the churches which turned a blind eye to its own abusing young boys, and castrated boys in its care it believed were homoosexual.

    • Christians believe it is not the role of government to help the needy. Rather, it is the role of the church.

      Great! Get to doing it and we won’t need this discussion.

      • How about you join a church and get to doing it too? You are only reiterating my whole point, which is that as the church ranks have shrunk, the people turn to the government for help, and the government ranks swell, and we end up with deficits, debt, higher unemployment, and even higher numbers of needy people.

        • I agree with CM on this. Additionally, it should be well noted that, while speaking from a purely Biblical standpoint, God’s layout for government noted that even %10 taxation on citizens is excessive. It is quite clear through Jesus’ teaching of caring for the needy should focus on personal and church exercises – He does not mention the Romans giving you everything they want by taking it from others. And to Ian, for someone who seems to know everything on this subject, your eyes seem to be closed to anything outside of your own rhetoric. I don’t know if you’re a Christian because I haven’t read your other articles, but you may want to learn something from the Bible instead of from Al Sharpton.

          • Wow. Just. Wow.

            You agree with a troll? Well, happy days, then.

            Funny you tell us we should read the bible and not Al Sharpton (not sure where that came from. Do you not know any other names), but refuse to acknowledge that Jesus scorned wealth and wealth-hoarders. But neither you nor your “buddy” (if you’re not the same person) can actually read, so I guess I’ll forgive you for your illiteracy. Not for your hatred, but your illiteracy.

        • I’ve been a member of churches my whole life. Volunteered in my church’s soup kitchen every Saturday for years. But being that close to churches has made me realize that churches can’t (and sometimes *won’t*) do it all on their own. There is plenty of non-taxed money – but very little of it going to the poor.

          Ian has already talked very publicly about everything you’re accusing him of here – including being a Christian. But you came trolling here. For me, I’m working for those in poverty through my job. So, please, tell me how I’m supposed to help again.

          • Is that standard operating procedure for you, to call people you don’t agree with trolls? I have merely pointed out that government is not the answer to lifting the poor out of their poverty, but that voluntary care and generosity from the people (generally the church-going type) is the best way to address social inequalities. So far, you have done nothing to refute that…perhaps because there is no real proof that government “assistance” actually works.

          • Only when those people troll. Like you did when you came here, ignored EVERY LAST THING Ian actually said and started arguing your own points from some imaginary world. Ian, for instance, explicitly said that neither he nor any other liberal or moderate (or progressive or leftist for that matter) church has asked for the government to take care of all our problems. He also specifically said it’s not an either/or. YOU ignored that and turned it into an either/or. You came in with some false claims that made it obvious you’re not here to have a discussion, but to troll.

            Does that hurt your feelings, to be called a troll? Good. Because it hurts the cause of Jesus and it hurts poor people struggling to hear bs about what we should do and shouldn’t do when you’re not willing to put up yourself.

          • Furthermore, there is nothing to refute. I said that when churches put up, then you can speak. Until then, talk to the churches and put your money where your mouth is. Churches nor private donations have not historically EVER given as much to the needy as government programs are – and when they were helping significantly (as the tenement movements were in the late 1800′s through the early 1900′s), they called upon the government to assist because they realized they were only making small dents.

        • Oh, and a church that wastes money on propaganda for antibirth control and takes away the right of two consenting adults to marry each other is any better?

          As if. It’s people like you that make faith in the church drop.

    • CM…and the church is doing such a great job of helping the needy in our country. After all, supply and demand works in assistance too. If the church really increased the supply of assistance (of the kind that works, as you’re so certain they’d do better) then the government wouldn’t have a demand to fill. So why do you suppose they aren’t doing that?

    • You seem to be speaking for all Christians, CM. I’m a Christian and I take offense to that. You are not speaking for me. I respect your opinion…but it is not the opinion of all Christians. Peace…

    • But why do Christians believe “It is not the role of the government to help the needy?” Where in the Bible, where in tradition, does it say that the Church must be the source of all comfort for the downtrodden and impoverished, and if the sate provides any assistance whatsoever, it is committing evil?

  2. Not that I agree with the right on most of this stuff, but the article to me seems to start off with a false dichotomy. If I am a Christian and advocating for a larger role for Christianity in government, I don’t think it follows that I must also advocate for a larger role for the government in the economy. It seems like several things are being conflated here.

    • No mention of the economy in my post, AD. No talk of the correct Christian response to auto bailouts or tax percentages. I don’t see the false dichotomy. If Christianity includes Christ-like behavior, then the person who asserts the unity of church and state must advocate for a state which consistently behaves like the body of Christ. They forfeit the right to pick and choose.

      • Ok, food, health care, infrastructure etc. all relate to production, finance or services (aka the economy). The way in which these are provided and allocated IS what the ‘small government’ debate is about. So, if you don’t think this is about the economy that might be why we are seeing different worlds.

        There’s a lot here, I would just say, taking from your last response: “If Christianity includes Christ-like behavior, then the person who asserts the unity of church and state must advocate for a state which consistently behaves like the body of Christ. They forfeit the right to pick and choose.”

        It seems like you’ve concluded that the free-market (small government) positions held by the right are not Christ-like. I know many of them who would agree with the your ends, and simply disagree with the means (back to role of the state). I still haven’t had time to think this through clearly, but I think distinguishing between people’s ends and means might be more helpful – and unpacking it might resolve some issues being discussed here.

        • Just because policy, faith, government and morality can have economic implications does not mean the discussion or the motivations behind them are or should be primarily economic. It seems that you are trying to referee this post and discussion and I don’t understand why.

  3. I’ll only add that CM and PRT’s collective observations about limited government and taxation aren’t a discussion rooted in Biblical reality, because the theocracy of Israel mandates leaving the fields for the poor, and the tithe, and the freeing of slaves after 6 years, and the return, after 50 years, of land to its original owner. This is so far from both pure capitalism and pure socialism as to be unrecognizable, so please, CM and PRT, if you like free markets, have at it – but don’t baptize them in the Bible.

    • Exactly, Richard. And that’s the point. If the same people who insist that church and state ought not be separated, actually demanded that their non-separate church-state apparatus followed Biblical commands about money and wealth and poverty, we’d be looking at a really different set of circumstances.

  4. Ian, your article just comes across as a liberal rant against conservatives with jabs at the church. But the irony of this is that the liberal agenda has actually been the biggest contributor to the dismal economic climate we’re experiencing in the US. Are you like Obama, believing that conservatives want people to have dirty water and to die because they don’t have healthcare? Well, guess what…let the government keep up the wasteful spending on failing social programs and you’ll eventually end up with the poverty epidemic that you tried to avoid.

    What we really should be focusing on is our own nature and what we can do to control it. The funny thing about human nature is that it is self-destructive; while other animals and organisms have instincts that promote self-preservation, humans have a selfish sin nature that ultimately leads to their destruction. But we also have a moral code that is written into our very nature by God. But as the moral compass of society continues to erode (because our free will allows us to override the moral compass), so will the political, social, and economic status. So hell on earth is not a matter of if, but when.

    The conservative Christian approach has faith that this trend can be reversed with personal decisions to abandon a life of selfish sin and to sacrifice oneself to Him for the greater good. But this must also be combined with personal accountability. For this reason, it is perfectly acceptable to allow the Christian church and the state to come together in the sense that Christian values drive the decisions and policies. After all, morally sound principles and behavior lead to stability, balance, and prosperity. The absence of morally sound principles leads to nothing but dysfunction, pain and suffering. Of course, people who abandon their moral compass and pursue their sinful desires reject this notion of Christian principles having any authority over their lives, and ultimately they become the majority because the sinful human nature prevails in the end. Once the majority, the immoral/amoral populace mocks the church for not doing more to help, when in reality it is their own abandonment of the church that seals their fate. From then on the state of affairs in the country are on the fast track to collapse.

    So what’s my point? Mankind is going to hell in a handbasket, but Jesus has the power to save. And if enough people believe that, real positive change can happen. But if people keep relying on worldy institutions to save them, they’ll forever be left wanting.

  5. “Just because policy, faith, government and morality can have economic implications does not mean the discussion or the motivations behind them are or should be primarily economic.”

    That’s not what I’m saying at all.

    To back up a little bit, I think the key comes from this paragraph:

    “But when it comes time for the government to act in ways congruent with Christianity, like feeding the hungry (food stamps) or caring for the sick (health care), conservatives grimace, play the small government and personal responsibility card, and argue that we can’t have government in the role of the church. So which is it?”

    I guess yesterday I was operating out of the assumption that we all know that this is probably the weakest and most ridiculous argument deployed against food stamps or the health care reform legislation, and that most even engaged conservatives familiar with the issues will subordinate this argument to other appeals to effectiveness (as some conservatives on this page did).

    So I guess I made a jump as to what I thought was most important – also in part due to the other people on this page moving in that direction – that the most pressing issue is not the logical inconsistency by fringe conservatives on principles of how government is to operate, but rather the apparent disparity between Christian values and the outcomes generated by policies implemented with Christian support.

    The conversation is partially there, but not totally – which is why my instinct was to shift the focus – this might be why I came across as ‘refereeing’. I’m not trying to referee between the people here – only trying to make the point that a slightly different angle is the most urgent one.

    • “I guess yesterday I was operating out of the assumption that we all know that this is probably the weakest and most ridiculous argument deployed against food stamps or the health care reform legislation, and that most even engaged conservatives familiar with the issues will subordinate this argument to other appeals to effectiveness”

      I would argue that it’s a very prevalent argument that plays into the disparity you mention. I’m not going to refuse to notice trends just because they are weak and ridiculous or focus instead on esoteric commentary when the exact problem at times is simpleminded ignorance (among other things).

      “the most pressing issue is not the logical inconsistency by fringe conservatives on principles of how government is to operate, but rather the apparent disparity between Christian values and the outcomes generated by policies implemented with Christian support.”

      Head, spinning. My post was about that disparity as was my first reply to you and as I read it, so too is the discussion. Yes some have lightly touched on economic issues, but only to underscore their points about the disparity. You have proposed we focus first on the economic implications and now back to the disparity which is officially crazy making for me to try to follow. I love ya, and you are super sharp and knowledgeable, but we’re missing each other this time. Let’s drop this and try again on a future post.

  6. @CM

    The Church (the Body of Christ, which I am assuming you belong to) wants the opportunity to help me out instead of letting the government do it? Awesome! :)
    I’ve got the PERFECT opportunity for you to put your money (literally) where your mouth is!
    My monthly medical bills are between $550 and $600 monthly. The government can help get that down to about $75 a month. So the government can help me out to the tune of around $500 a month.
    Tell ya what – I’ll give the church a break and we’ll just call it call it an even $450. How’s that?
    My mailing address is:

    John Gordon
    104 E. Court
    Ottumwa, IA
    52501

    I will be looking for your check or cash in the mail soon! Bless you, and I appreciate your faithfulness. :)

    – John Gordon

  7. Gotta say I love the hypocrisy of this entire article and the people that are either ignorant to it or just want to act as if the goverment has it together. I’ll try to help both the ignorant and the whiny liberals on here that actually think they know something with just the simple facts so everyone can decide rather than argue back and forth without actually having any evidence to back it up. And I have to say I’ve always thought Ian to be if nothing else a smart and articulat writer, but unfortunately it doesn’t appear he’s done much homework on this one.

    Food stamps are flat out not here to help the needy. Sure they help out some that need it but more often than not it is simply people who don’t want to get off they’re ass and go to work. Take that into account and go ahead and look up “food stamp fraud” into a google search. You’ll find article and article of the abuse including only 2 days ago 7 georgia residents acused of a 5 MILLION DOLLAR food stamp fraud. Yes, Ian…sounds like the government is don’t a wonderful job. I can give you a million more examples but being that I work for a company that accepts food stamps now I get to see things personally. Just the other day I had an 18 year old perfectly able to work kid already on the food stamp hotline. Furthermore I know at least 4 kids that are addicted to drugs, moving from house to house or the streets but don’t worry about the food stamps…they keep coming to serve that addiction. And thats what they do with it. When they actually get the food stamps they sell lets say $200 worth of food stamps for $50-100 cash just so they can get high. Feel free to do your research.

    The other joke I’m hearing on here from this debate is how the church does so little compared to the government. Really?? At least the church I donate to that gives to missions etc are doing really great things and getting loads of food to other countries for a mere fraction of what it takes the government and it doesn’t look like anyone here actually is accounting the difference in numbers. Lets take a look here since I guess some of this isn’t obvious to everyone.

    The government gets money from everyone (you know, except the illegal aliens, the ones who don’t want to work or the high society thats in jail). Not only that, they get, based on your income,anywhere between 20 up to 48% of it. And if you win the lottery or hit a big jackpot?? You can fill in the blanks here too.

    Meanwhile the church has a much smaller amount of people that they are getting money from, they’re only asking for 10%, and harldy is every single Christian going to church actually titheing.

    I guess not to everybody on here, but it seems pretty obvious to me that the church isn’t exactly getting a very fair chance to do what you guys apparently want them to do. I think if the church had 20-48% of our money and recieved it from everyone that they would find a little better way to spend the money for the needy than the goverment. Apparently that seems to be up for debate though.

    I won’t even get into the ridiculousness of Obamacare and those that support it. Its a joke and an unconstitutional one at that. This wansn’t even voted on and yet even in the democratic and socialistic society that we’re living in now, 60% don’t want it. In fact, even the government that inducted this healthcare system don’t want it and don’t have to use it. Please use your brain a little and it should become obvious that this isn’t a good healthcare system and will only further pull our national debt into a black hole we can never get out of. I guess most think that American can just keep printing money and we’ll be ok freely spending like we are under Obama because we are the national currency. Only problem with that is that other countries are catching on to this and it won’t be long til we are no longer that national currency and than yep…we’re in a whole bunch of trouble. And you can mark my words on this reply…IT’S ABSOLUTELY GOING TO HAPPEN.

    I’ll leave this ending short and sweet Ian – The government has single handedly managed to destroy Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Healthcare, Unemployment and above all else…our national budget. I’m not sure what you think the goverment is doing right but I’m pretty sure your missing something.

    And to all the one’s on here preaching that there is Christian hate on here and everywhere…it’s more hypocrisy as usual in the left wing media and agenda. For those who call me intolerable of gay marriage and transgendering…I guess your right. I’m about as intolerant of it as you are of unborn children.

    Your welcome :)

    • Your last paragraph says it all: even though you rant all about how you don’t like government getting involved in people’s lives, you have no problem with government taking control of women’s bodies. Your hypocrisy is blatant and obvious.

    • It scares me that you go to church and can still say the things you do. Get back to scripture and maybe you can start to unwind the flag from around your neck.

    • Uhhh, wow. I know you’re getting a lot of hate replies which makes me think this even more…. Did I fall asleep and write a comment under the name Rob Adams? Except for the curse word in the first paragraph… It’s word for word what I would have written. Rob, you keep up the good fight. If you are telling the truth and get persecuted, you are doing it right. If you don’t bump into the devil it means you are going the same direction he is. Keep in mind no matter what you think of the people you are arguing with, ultimately it’s satan you are in a fight with so name calling and personal insults take away from the sting of simply telling the truth. The devil hates that and loves anger to another human. In a boxing match, the one who loses his cool is the one who loses. We are winning and God bless.

  8. NOTE FROM IAN, THE AUTHOR: Rob’s comment has been heavily edited to remove his use of ugly personal insults and name calling aimed at Sundown. Hey Rob- this is your one and only warning. Next time you get deleted. Make any point under the sun, just do it with a bit of respect and decency. Now for Rob’s heavily edited comment:

    Government taking control of women’s bodies?? Please. What about the child’s right to decide. I could go on and on. Do you remember Roe V Wade?? The government are the one’s that are allowing abortions to take place. Until 1969 and the government stepped in, it was just largely assumed we didn’t kill our own children.

    Get your facts straight.

    • Rob, you are way out of line. Although it would be totally applicable to call you names, no one has. Go spew your hate somewhere else.

    • <Until 1969 and the government stepped in, it was just largely assumed we didn’t kill our own children.

      No, YOU get YOUR facts straight. Until 1969, women had illegal abortions and died. A lot. Because women have always had abortions, and always will have abortions. The only question is, can we make them legal and safe, or will we force women to die of septicaemia because we consider the potential for life (and a foetus is just a potential) more important than an actual, living, breathing woman?

      Also – are you in favour of forcing parents to donate organs and blood if their children require it fr medical reasons?

  9. Well I have to say thank you Brett for having the insight and knowledge of the matter to see what I’m getting at. The last time I checked saying that someone is being ignorant or idiotic to something was not saying that they are ignorant or an idiot so I’m not sure why my comment was edited. If someone wanted to talk to me about soccer rules and I went on and on what I thought should be done but don’t really know anything about soccer I would have to say that I’m ignorant and idiotic so the subject of soccer (which I honestly am) ;)

    I don’t remember specifically calling anyone names on here. Saying someone doesn’t have knowledge of something is another way of saying they’re ignorant to it and that’s all I was trying to convey. Believe me, if I wanted to say how I really felt about people’s lack of knowledge to politics, etc on this site but how they think they know what’s really going on because they watch Bill Mahr or Jimmy Kimmel for they’re news I certainly could. I can personally tell you that regardless of my Christian and political views I’ve got nothing but love for God’s people and I do think that is who we ALL are. Hopefully everyone finds that road one way or another. I just can’t sit back and let people try to tell other people how to vote or live they’re lives when they really haven’t done any research to back up what they’re writing. The internet is a very valuable tool and when used the right way can influence alot of people for good. Unfortunately the reality of it is that it’s much more being used for evil and I don’t see that ever changing.

    In all seriousness though, Republicans, Tea Partiers,Independants,Democrats and Occupy’rs alike all have crooked leaders and problems with they’re system I’ll be the first to admit that. God is the only one that anyone should really be listening to and I am more than less interested in following the politics of the bible than any one party.

    I’m completely with you Brett, you’ve got to fight for what you believe in and if your not running into the devil from time to time than your probably doing something wrong. Beautifully said.

  10. What is it with hate-filled, anti-American, anti-Christ extremists and their abuse of the English language?

    Came here via Slacktivist. So glad there are still thinking, caring Christians who have not gone off the deep end. It gives me hope to read blogs like these.

  11. Too funny. Here we have an argument (@CM) 1. We should leave helping the poor and needy to the church; (2) But the church is not able to fulfill the needs; (3) Because people (those with brains) are no longer particularly interested in religion. So I guess what CM is really looking for is a way to force people back to the church. If we eliminate government programs and starving people are forced to rely on the church to survive, CM apparently thinks that will increase the number of “true believers” (and their means) to care for the poor. But that’s ridiculous. The bottom line is that as people have gained knowledge (and knowledge is free), they understand the fallacy of religion, the historic and current evils of religion, and want nothing to do with it. Those that still believe in God realize they can have that belief outside of the structure of religion, and that taking care of the needy is the role of all of us, through our democratic and representative government.

  12. It’s SO nice to see a bunch of complaints from Christians who probably NEVER even ready the bible!

    And yes, this article IS correct. As the bible says, get that log out of your eye, and get into reality and out of denial. This is NOT a Christian state. NOT. the men who created it may have been Christian, but they put in the first amendment for a reason! Not that most of you would care.

    So, you let people vote on if gay people can get married? I’m all set to vote on wether or not a women has to marry her rapist. It is in the bible, after all.
    And yes, I’m being sarcastic. I hate rapists.

    But it’s true. Stop picking what to believe and what not to. Believe ALL of the bible, or none of it.

  13. I am really loving the theme/design off your blog. Do you ever run into any browser
    compatibility problems? A number of my blog readers have complained about my blog not working correctgly in
    Explorer bbut looks great in Chrome. Do you have any recommendations to help fix this issue?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail