3 ms·

Maybe? A lot of the Christian people I know and like fall in between. Regardless of their personal views, they look at the idea of legislating morality as count

Maybe? A lot of the Christian people I know and like fall in between. Regardless of their personal views, they look at the idea of legislating morality as counter to the basis of their religion, and then also the moral fiber of the current GOP, and go "nope", and either abstain from voting, vote third party, or vote Democrat (potentially while holding their nose). I've yet to meet the hardliner who wants to ban abortion, but then also is sufficiently pro-welfare to really show they care about life, let alone finding a logically consistent path through all the other knock on effects. Carlin had it right; they tend to be pro-birth, not pro-life.

reedjosh 4y ago
> the idea of legislating morality as counter to the basis of their religion And this is what I've been finding lately as I've been reading and researching the bible.
robonerd 4y ago
> Christian people [...] look at the idea of legislating morality as counter to the basis of their religion Isn't reforming pagan Rome essentially the foundational act of the Christian religion? Christ critiqued the system and was tortured to death for it. Followers of Christ continued to critiqued the system and many more were tortured to death for it. The strength of their conviction in the face of death inspired more followers, as did the evident injustice of the Roman system. Before long, they had enough mindshare to enact reform. Keeping religion out of politics seems like an American value, not a Christian value.
- lostcolony 4y ago
  Not really, no. The entire New Testament takes place during a time Christianity was a weird sect of Judaism, and at best ignored by Rome (persecution was by Jewish authorities). Not sure what the 'foundational act' of Christianity would be, maybe Jesus' death and resurrection, maybe something in the Book of Acts (badum-tsh, but like, Pentecost), but it wasn't caring about Roman governance. Christ didn't critique Rome. He didn't really have words for Rome at all, beyond "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's". The threat he embodied to 'the system' was specifically the Judaic priesthood who didn't view him as the Messiah. Well, arguably he embodied a broader threat to Rome, in that as you say, living in ways counter to Rome (and 'the world' at large) it challenged institutional assumptions and gave way to reform, but that wasn't a threat Rome really recognized, and, key to your point I think, was not trying to affect Roman law, nor lead to it even amongst those who were citizens of Rome. Other than the aforementioned "give to Caesar what is Caesar's", which certainly doesn't seem to challenge Rome, or indicate any political stance beyond "pay your taxes", can you come up with any time Jesus even -acknowledged- Rome? He didn't even disobey Roman law; both Pilate and Herod Antipas acknowledged they could find "no guilt in him". It was a Jewish affair. Even Paul didn't seem particular interested in Rome. He was a citizen of Rome, afforded rights, which he availed himself of when it came to who could judge him, but which he never talks about using to vote (despite as a citizen of Rome having that right, at least for local leaders). He doesn't instruct citizens to vote, let alone how they should vote, nor does he instruct them to be active in civics. He does give instruction for how to engage with civic leaders - pray for them, and obey the law. That hardly paints a picture of getting religion into politics. More to the point though, what I was referencing was specifically Jesus' and Paul's statements regarding the law. Namely, that all the law could do is condemn. It's part of a broader understanding that one aspect of the Old Testament is that it serves as a demonstration that even God's chosen people are unable to live up to the law; people can't be good enough. Everyone who lived under the law was condemned by the law. That trying to legislate morality just serves to punish people for being immoral. That something different is needed to actually make people righteous (Christ, sanctification through grace, etc etc). It is ironic, then, how many Christians end up deciding that what this culture really needs is more law, morality via legislation, rather than trying to affect the culture by, well, living counter culturally, loving those who persecute you, etc. If the Christian voting bloc collectively shrugged its shoulders at abortion as a law, while at the same time showing up at abortion centers to love and support those who were there, ensuring their needs as potential mothers, as well as any needs from having an abortion (which is oftentimes still traumatic) were met, voting not to punish and condemn ("you got raped at 14? Too bad; you get to be a single teenage mother now. Have a good life") but instead to enable (mandatory paid maternity leave, welfare programs to ensure children would be taken care of, healthcare coverage, etc, so that having a child wasn't an economic burden), it would likely lead to a much better reception to their message than the current most highly visible tact of political partisanship.

reedjosh 4y ago

> the idea of legislating morality as counter to the basis of their religion And this is what I've been finding lately as I've been reading and researching the bible.

robonerd 4y ago

> Christian people [...] look at the idea of legislating morality as counter to the basis of their religion Isn't reforming pagan Rome essentially the foundational act of the Christian religion? Christ critiqued the system and was tortured to death for it. Followers of Christ continued to critiqued the system and many more were tortured to death for it. The strength of their conviction in the face of death inspired more followers, as did the evident injustice of the Roman system. Before long, they had enough mindshare to enact reform. Keeping religion out of politics seems like an American value, not a Christian value.

lostcolony 4y ago
Not really, no. The entire New Testament takes place during a time Christianity was a weird sect of Judaism, and at best ignored by Rome (persecution was by Jewish authorities). Not sure what the 'foundational act' of Christianity would be, maybe Jesus' death and resurrection, maybe something in the Book of Acts (badum-tsh, but like, Pentecost), but it wasn't caring about Roman governance. Christ didn't critique Rome. He didn't really have words for Rome at all, beyond "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's". The threat he embodied to 'the system' was specifically the Judaic priesthood who didn't view him as the Messiah. Well, arguably he embodied a broader threat to Rome, in that as you say, living in ways counter to Rome (and 'the world' at large) it challenged institutional assumptions and gave way to reform, but that wasn't a threat Rome really recognized, and, key to your point I think, was not trying to affect Roman law, nor lead to it even amongst those who were citizens of Rome. Other than the aforementioned "give to Caesar what is Caesar's", which certainly doesn't seem to challenge Rome, or indicate any political stance beyond "pay your taxes", can you come up with any time Jesus even -acknowledged- Rome? He didn't even disobey Roman law; both Pilate and Herod Antipas acknowledged they could find "no guilt in him". It was a Jewish affair. Even Paul didn't seem particular interested in Rome. He was a citizen of Rome, afforded rights, which he availed himself of when it came to who could judge him, but which he never talks about using to vote (despite as a citizen of Rome having that right, at least for local leaders). He doesn't instruct citizens to vote, let alone how they should vote, nor does he instruct them to be active in civics. He does give instruction for how to engage with civic leaders - pray for them, and obey the law. That hardly paints a picture of getting religion into politics. More to the point though, what I was referencing was specifically Jesus' and Paul's statements regarding the law. Namely, that all the law could do is condemn. It's part of a broader understanding that one aspect of the Old Testament is that it serves as a demonstration that even God's chosen people are unable to live up to the law; people can't be good enough. Everyone who lived under the law was condemned by the law. That trying to legislate morality just serves to punish people for being immoral. That something different is needed to actually make people righteous (Christ, sanctification through grace, etc etc). It is ironic, then, how many Christians end up deciding that what this culture really needs is more law, morality via legislation, rather than trying to affect the culture by, well, living counter culturally, loving those who persecute you, etc. If the Christian voting bloc collectively shrugged its shoulders at abortion as a law, while at the same time showing up at abortion centers to love and support those who were there, ensuring their needs as potential mothers, as well as any needs from having an abortion (which is oftentimes still traumatic) were met, voting not to punish and condemn ("you got raped at 14? Too bad; you get to be a single teenage mother now. Have a good life") but instead to enable (mandatory paid maternity leave, welfare programs to ensure children would be taken care of, healthcare coverage, etc, so that having a child wasn't an economic burden), it would likely lead to a much better reception to their message than the current most highly visible tact of political partisanship.