Monday, November 3, 2008

The Bible and the election

I realize that the contemporary view is that religion and politics do not, and should not, mix. The whole of modern American society is infused with this false belief, but people don't actually believe it anyway when you get down to where the rubber meets the road. One's religion does, and forever will, inform one's politics. True, we can't legislate morality ... as long as it's Christian morality. All other versions of morality (non-Christian morality) is not only acceptable but encouraged in modern American politics. As I've said so many times before (and I invite anyone to refute the principle with a good argument), all laws are founded on morality, someone's morality.

Matthew Fontaine Maury once observed that "the Bible is authority for everything it touches." I agree. So, since I agree, I offer the following opinion. If the Bible says anything on politics, then it is authority for that particular aspect of political philosophy. If it says anything about what our standards should be for choosing our rulers, then it is authority for the making and observing of those standards.

So does the Bible have anything to say about choosing our rulers; about what standards and principles we should apply to their selection? Indeed it does, and we're wise to pay particularly close attention to the details, especially in this farce of a presidential election:

Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you.

The elective franchise carries with it a heavy burden of responsibility and of duty. The two candidates we're offered in this election in no way, so far as I can tell, meet these simple, reasonable qualifications (If you think either of them does, I should like to hear why.), therefore, since no other candidate for the presidency is included on the Oklahoma ballot, and since the Oklahoma ballot does not make accomodation for a write-in candidate, I shall abstain in the presidential election.

For those of you who know the scriptures, you're encouraged to offer others, Old and New Testament, which speak to this issue. The scripture I've posted above serves very well the purpose of this post, and that is why I chose it.


Flatulent Fuzz said...

I have not read this book yet, but I have heard the author speak. Sounds like this book might fit in with this post.

Wall of Misconception: Does the Separation of Church and State Mean the Separation of God and Government?

Terry Morris said...

Hmmm. I'm not familiar with the title. What is the name of the author?

Someone brought this up over at yesterday, quoting the phrase "separation of church and state," which really didn't fit into the context of the question which spawned his reply to me, but nonetheless I played along and simply asked where those words might be found in the U.S. Constitution. He mentioned the first amendment and suggested that I "read up on it," also implying that I am unintelligent since any intelligent person, according to this guy, knows that religion and politics do not mix. LOL

I do know that these words are found in the old Soviet Union Constitution since religion under communism was found to cause too many problems for the totalitarian state it established.

Of course the words themselves may be found in Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, but as per the usual with liberals Mr. Jefferson's words (not to mention his view of religion and American politics) are taken out of context to establish a pretext for liberal style church-state separation in America.

But suppose I take a letter written by President Reagan to some concerned educational organization during his presidency which says something to the effect that the constitution has erected a wall between education and state. Suppose I take those words of Reagan's, written in an obscure letter some 87 years after they were written, and formulate a whole constitutional principle around them. What would I be called? Hopefully someone with Jayrock's predilection for offending and insulting others, albeit from a different governmental philosophy, would come along and call me a nutjob.

I assume the book you mention references original source documents, founding quotes and letters, and so on. If so, no matter what angle it approaches the subject from, it is probably a useful tool for the discovery of truth. But as I've said before, our founders established a government to their liking, "laying its foundations on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them seemed most likely to effect their safety and happiness." They did not mean to subject our generation to the oppression of dead men.

Flatulent Fuzz said...

Peter A. Lillback