Why do Christians feel it necessary to force their laws and customs on others?

[Gumph]

There are some laws passed in Christian dominated countries or communities that force non-Christians to conform to the views of Christianity.

Do you feel this is acceptable?
Are you not concerned it could cause resentment?
Should Christian customs not only be enforced amongst Christians?

Some examples of Christian laws and customs which are imposed on others for no obvious reason. Particularly if there is consent amongst the protagonists.

No work on Sundays, if you do double pay your staff.
Public holidays on Christian religious days.
Abortion.
Gay marriage.
Monogamy.
Sodomy.
Sex under the age of 18.
Mercy killing (human euthanasia)
Suicide.

Before I get any hate mail, I do not personally subscribe to all the above. But if the people involved had no issue with them, why do Christians pass laws preventing them from doing so?

 

[Hospes]

Gumph,

Your question possibly implies that Christians should set aside there views of right and wrong when advocating civil law. A few questions:

1. On what basis should a person advocate a civil law?
2. Should a Christian not advocate for laws against slavery, bride-burning, or human trafficking because it is their Christian faith that motivates them?
3. Does the fact a religious faith - any religious faith - leads one to advocate a civil law make the advocacy any less worthy than the advocacy of a person motivated by their own person non-religious beliefs?

All laws "force non-Christians to conform", so their is no reason to defend oneself against the charge of wanting to force others to conform via law. The non-religious desires for law to reflect their view of right and wrong no less than the religious.

 

[Jesus' Follower]

I wouldn't exactly agree that they are forced on people, I think people accept this type of arrangement.
I work Sundays but I'm a minister so that's my excuse.
I think for me in the UK, we have always been a Christian country and this is why our laws and regulations mirror that of the Bible. Do other religions need to have Sundays off, marriage with homosexuals (now legal in the UK) or engage in sexual intercourse; I know it happens.
People can often have the laws bent around them for religious purposes, however again, as a Christian country, this is what influences some law making.

The USA may follow suit a little, I'm not exactly sure.

 

[BeStill&Know]

The thought came to me, would you pose this question in an Atheist Nation, or one ruled by ISIS?
I am grateful to live in a nation whose laws has been under Gods influence for most of its history.

 

[lesliedellow]

When a secular government enacts laws that Christians don't like, is it okay to complain because they are having atheists force their laws on them?

In a democracy you just have to live with the policies of the party that won the last election, whether you like them or not.

 

[Soyeong]

There are some laws passed in Christian dominated countries or communities that force non-Christians to conform to the views of Christianity.

Do you feel this is acceptable?
Are you not concerned it could cause resentment?
Should Christian customs not only be enforced amongst Christians?

Some examples of Christian laws and customs which are imposed on others for no obvious reason. Particularly if there is consent amongst the protagonists.

No work on Sundays, if you do double pay your staff.
Public holidays on Christian religious days.
Abortion.
Gay marriage.
Monogamy.
Sodomy.
Sex under the age of 18.
Mercy killing (human euthanasia)
Suicide.

Before I get any hate mail, I do not personally subscribe to all the above. But if the people involved had no issue with them, why do Christians pass laws preventing them from doing so?

Every law is about legislating morality. The legislators believe that certain actions are wrong, so they make laws against them to deter and punish people who commit them. These laws compel those who don't believe that they are wrong to comply. For instance, there are people who don't think it is wrong to use Marijuana or other drugs, but they are compelled to comply with those who think it is wrong. Western society is built on Christian values, so our laws reflect that. Two people might agree that rape and slavery are wrong, but be in disagreement about whether abortion is wrong, so people can have different understandings of morality, but if you were to replace a Christian understanding of morality with a different understanding, then you would still have a system of laws passed that would force those who don't agree to comply.

 

[ViaCrucis]

There are some laws passed in Christian dominated countries or communities that force non-Christians to conform to the views of Christianity.

Do you feel this is acceptable?
Are you not concerned it could cause resentment?
Should Christian customs not only be enforced amongst Christians?

Some examples of Christian laws and customs which are imposed on others for no obvious reason. Particularly if there is consent amongst the protagonists.

No work on Sundays, if you do double pay your staff.
Public holidays on Christian religious days.
Abortion.
Gay marriage.
Monogamy.
Sodomy.
Sex under the age of 18.
Mercy killing (human euthanasia)
Suicide.

Before I get any hate mail, I do not personally subscribe to all the above. But if the people involved had no issue with them, why do Christians pass laws preventing them from doing so?

In the past? In the past the interplay between church and state was one of deep complexity. The middle ages in western Europe can largely be defined by the struggle between the church and the state; sometimes laws were enacted that conformed to ecclesiastical law, other times the laws of the state didn't. For example Charlemagne was an inheritor of earlier Frankish laws, but as the Franks had been Christianized under Clovis I who was the first to unite the Frankish tribes together; the Franks while not abandoning their civil traditions did blend them with Roman civil traditions--which would become the norm of Frankish law through both the Merovingian and Carlongian eras and form much of the foundation medieval Europe. When crowned emperor the Romans Charlemagne brought the Church into the way things were run, for example both a secular and an ecclesiastical representative was chosen to go to the various counties of the empire to see to it that the law was upheld and that the counts governing their counties (a Frankish concept) were acting justly and fairly.

The high middle ages, with the rise of more powerful monarchies there was often a competition between state rulers and the Church, with a common theme being to whom is owed more allegiance, the king or the pope? who is supposed to appoint bishops, the king or the pope?

Following the Protestant Reformation the birth of the modern era saw religious allegiance and state allegiance come together in new ways; if one were English they were subject to the British Crown who was head of the English Church, to be English was to be Anglican, which of course meant that if you were a dissenter and a non-conformist you weren't paying your civic duty--a point that led to religious persecution and disenfranchisement for religious minorities that ultimately led groups like Puritans and Separatists and Quakers to make a new home for themselves in the "new world". The Wars of Religion not only thrusted Europe into a state where kings and rulers were choosing sides in matters of religion, but would be a major catalyst for the Enlightenment and a growing idea that the State shouldn't play a role in matters of religion--an idea which eventually became enshrined in the national constitution of nascent United States.

For most of US history, while not completely free from such problems, has largely been successful because of its stance against marrying religion and state in order that people are free to live their lives believing and worshiping however they desire (to an extent) or to not believe or worship anything at all. There have been moments where things were less savory, Prohibition was largely the result of moral-mongering and fear-mongering by particular religious groups that together were known as the Temperance Movement (let's be clear though that most Christians have never had an issue with alcohol, in fact wine is a central component of our most sacred act of worship, Communion).

Where things really start becoming an issue and we get where we are now is the influence of a man named R. J. Rushdoony whose theology largely was inherited by the Dutch Reformed theologian Abraham Kuyper; Rushdoony subscribed to a form of non-standard Calvinism known as Neo-Calvinism as well as to a generally obscure eschatological position known as Post-Millennialism. Rushdoony believed that Christians weren't supposed to merely be quiet citizens of the nations they found themselves in, but rather Christians had a divine mandate to conquer the world for Jesus, to spread Jesus' kingdom through the institutions of the state including law by enacting God's biblical law (as interpreted by Rushdoony and others) through state civil law; why? Because in a post-millennial view the Church is supposed to grow in power and numbers throughout the world, once the entire world is fully subject to God's kingdom exercised by the Church in the places of political and moral power then Christ will come and take the reigns of the kingdom for Himself; which puts this view at sharp odds with traditional Christian teaching (Amillennialism) and even popular Evangelical teaching (Pre-Millennialism). This system of thought is known as Christian Reconstructionism, but more popularly known as Dominionism.

Dominionism became popular in certain right-wing Evangelical and Fundamentalist circles beginning at the end of the 1960s and through the 1970's; a number of prominant followers of Rushdoony's ideas you have probably heard of, including Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. The Moral Majority and the modern Christian Right is largely the religio-political machine that has taken the ideas of Christian Reconstructionism and blended them with neo-conservative politics (thereby usurping and hijacking American conservatism and, especially in the last couple decades, the Republican Party) into what we see today. It was also very successful in hijacking Evangelicalism, and has also tried to hijack American Catholicism, by turning Evangelicalism from a rather quietous religious movement uninterested in political power to being a significant and major political power today. In the early 1970's many Evangelicals supported Roe v. Wade seeing opposition to abortion largely as a "Catholic thing", it was a concerted effort of a rather handful of politically minded "Rushdoonian" Evangelicals that eventually tilted the issue to where it is now, making getting rid of abortion a major Evangelical moral stance and also a political stance of the Republican party in the 1980's.

So, if we want to talk about how things are looking right now, well that's pretty recent and isn't so much a Christian thing as it is an American thing. Though obviously there was a lot of interplay between Church and State in the past which made civil law look, at least superficially "Christian" or at least at times reflected ecclesiastical opinion or ecclesiastical law. The middle ages are rather complicated.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Hospes]

In the past? In the past the interplay between church and state was one of deep complexity. The middle ages in western Europe can largely be defined by the struggle between the church and the state; sometimes laws were enacted that conformed to ecclesiastical law, other times the laws of the state didn't. For example Charlemagne was an inheritor of earlier Frankish laws, but as the Franks had been Christianized under Clovis I who was the first to unite the Frankish tribes together; the Franks while not abandoning their civil traditions did blend them with Roman civil traditions--which would become the norm of Frankish law through both the Merovingian and Carlongian eras and form much of the foundation medieval Europe. When crowned emperor the Romans Charlemagne brought the Church into the way things were run, for example both a secular and an ecclesiastical representative was chosen to go to the various counties of the empire to see to it that the law was upheld and that the counts governing their counties (a Frankish concept) were acting justly and fairly.

The high middle ages, with the rise of more powerful monarchies there was often a competition between state rulers and the Church, with a common theme being to whom is owed more allegiance, the king or the pope? who is supposed to appoint bishops, the king or the pope?

Following the Protestant Reformation the birth of the modern era saw religious allegiance and state allegiance come together in new ways; if one were English they were subject to the British Crown who was head of the English Church, to be English was to be Anglican, which of course meant that if you were a dissenter and a non-conformist you weren't paying your civic duty--a point that led to religious persecution and disenfranchisement for religious minorities that ultimately led groups like Puritans and Separatists and Quakers to make a new home for themselves in the "new world". The Wars of Religion not only thrusted Europe into a state where kings and rulers were choosing sides in matters of religion, but would be a major catalyst for the Enlightenment and a growing idea that the State shouldn't play a role in matters of religion--an idea which eventually became enshrined in the national constitution of nascent United States.

For most of US history, while not completely free from such problems, has largely been successful because of its stance against marrying religion and state in order that people are free to live their lives believing and worshiping however they desire (to an extent) or to not believe or worship anything at all. There have been moments where things were less savory, Prohibition was largely the result of moral-mongering and fear-mongering by particular religious groups that together were known as the Temperance Movement (let's be clear though that most Christians have never had an issue with alcohol, in fact wine is a central component of our most sacred act of worship, Communion).

Where things really start becoming an issue and we get where we are now is the influence of a man named R. J. Rushdoony whose theology largely was inherited by the Dutch Reformed theologian Abraham Kuyper; Rushdoony subscribed to a form of non-standard Calvinism known as Neo-Calvinism as well as to a generally obscure eschatological position known as Post-Millennialism. Rushdoony believed that Christians weren't supposed to merely be quiet citizens of the nations they found themselves in, but rather Christians had a divine mandate to conquer the world for Jesus, to spread Jesus' kingdom through the institutions of the state including law by enacting God's biblical law (as interpreted by Rushdoony and others) through state civil law; why? Because in a post-millennial view the Church is supposed to grow in power and numbers throughout the world, once the entire world is fully subject to God's kingdom exercised by the Church in the places of political and moral power then Christ will come and take the reigns of the kingdom for Himself; which puts this view at sharp odds with traditional Christian teaching (Amillennialism) and even popular Evangelical teaching (Pre-Millennialism). This system of thought is known as Christian Reconstructionism, but more popularly known as Dominionism.

Dominionism became popular in certain right-wing Evangelical and Fundamentalist circles beginning at the end of the 1960s and through the 1970's; a number of prominant followers of Rushdoony's ideas you have probably heard of, including Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. The Moral Majority and the modern Christian Right is largely the religio-political machine that has taken the ideas of Christian Reconstructionism and blended them with neo-conservative politics (thereby usurping and hijacking American conservatism and, especially in the last couple decades, the Republican Party) into what we see today. It was also very successful in hijacking Evangelicalism, and has also tried to hijack American Catholicism, by turning Evangelicalism from a rather quietous religious movement uninterested in political power to being a significant and major political power today. In the early 1970's many Evangelicals supported Roe v. Wade seeing opposition to abortion largely as a "Catholic thing", it was a concerted effort of a rather handful of politically minded "Rushdoonian" Evangelicals that eventually tilted the issue to where it is now, making getting rid of abortion a major Evangelical moral stance and also a political stance of the Republican party in the 1980's.

So, if we want to talk about how things are looking right now, well that's pretty recent and isn't so much a Christian thing as it is an American thing. Though obviously there was a lot of interplay between Church and State in the past which made civil law look, at least superficially "Christian" or at least at times reflected ecclesiastical opinion or ecclesiastical law. The middle ages are rather complicated.

-CryptoLutheran

CryptoLutheran,

Though I'd bicker with you a bit, that was a fine broadside in the positive sense!

 

[grasping the after wind]

There are some laws passed in Christian dominated countries or communities that force non-Christians to conform to the views of Christianity.

Do you feel this is acceptable?
Are you not concerned it could cause resentment?
Should Christian customs not only be enforced amongst Christians?

Some examples of Christian laws and customs which are imposed on others for no obvious reason. Particularly if there is consent amongst the protagonists.

No work on Sundays, if you do double pay your staff.
Public holidays on Christian religious days.
Abortion.
Gay marriage.
Monogamy.
Sodomy.
Sex under the age of 18.
Mercy killing (human euthanasia)
Suicide.

Before I get any hate mail, I do not personally subscribe to all the above. But if the people involved had no issue with them, why do Christians pass laws preventing them from doing so?

Let me see, Abortion is legal, Gay Marriage is legal, Sodomy is legal, sex by a couple under age 18 is legal if you meant pedophilia then no that is not legal, Suicide is illegal but no one gets sent to prison or fined or punished for it. Mercy killing is legal in some place but euthanasia is not, Monogamy is legal but perhaps you meant Polygamy? There are no laws where i live that restrict work on a Sunday. You forgot a lot of laws that Christians have attempted to force on others, social justice is a Christian concept and all welfare and social safety net programs can be traced to Christian roots.There are more that actually are illegal unlike the bulk of the ones you mentioned.
Murder
Theft
Embezzlement
Torture
Kidnapping
Human sacrifice
Slavery
All things many people would enjoy participating in if only those pesky Christians would stop forcing their religious views down everyone's throat.

 

[Brianlear]

If christian morality were perfectly reflected in government, that government would be a true communist system, and currency likely wouldnt exist.

 

[ViaCrucis]

If christian morality were perfectly reflected in government, that government would be a true communist system, and currency likely wouldnt exist.

Trying to make Christianity fit either in a communist or capitalist socio-economic paradigm is always going to be anachronistic at best, at worst it is a total failure of recognizing the broad history of Christian history and teaching. Both capitalism and communism are products of post-enlightenment modernity, and both have their strengths and weaknesses. Problematically is that both underestimate the problem of human sin, pride, greed, and the lust for power and can easily result in profoundly unjust systems when the system is held as more important than people, especially the lowliest people. The ideals of a truly stateless communist society sound perhaps nice on paper, until it becomes clear that:

1) power vacuums are inevitably filled, and so in every instance of an attempted communist society has resulted in a totalitarian dictatorship or regime that has suffocated the people at the bottom.

2) as unpleasant as "the state" is, human government is inevitable in our world and while Scripture is clear that our allegiance isn't to the powers of this world, we are called to be a gentle and peaceable people within the institutions of this fallen world. Romans 12 and 13 present us as a people who do not seek power and gain, but rather pay our taxes and observe the laws of the land; and yet it can never be that we merely accept anything the powers that be say--clearly there is no room for the worship of Caesar in the Church. St. Augustine's teaching on the City of God and the City of Man, or Martin Luther's doctrine of the Two Kingdoms can be helpful in wrestling through this tension. The structure of civil law is good and necessary, through fallen, as it helps provide for the common order of human society without which the result would be utter lawlessness and barbarism.

The reality is this: Neither Christ nor His apostles, nor anything in Sacred Scripture provides for us as Christians the means to establish a Christian state; Scripture only provides for the reality of Christians as a minority within the civil institutions never as the majority holding the reigns of power and so the Church has always struggled with power since it became accepted, established, and in the place of favor in the 4th century. Asking what a politically Christian establishment looks like or should look like is, in many ways, flawed because Scripture provides no contingency plan for when or if Christians become the dominant force in a society. Christians have tried to figure it out, and different theories and solutions to that problem have been raised time and again throughout history, but the reality is that the temptations of power are always corrupting and the Church has always becomes the victim of its own violence and hubris when it has exerted itself in or through the institutions of power. Because the Church is, at every level, the meeting place of flawed wretches and sinners desperately crying out for the mercy of God.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Hank77]

Because the Church is, at every level, the meeting place of flawed wretches and sinners desperately crying out for the mercy of God.

Excellent post, thanks.

 

[com7fy8]

There are some laws passed in Christian dominated countries or communities that force non-Christians to conform to the views of Christianity.

There might be a difference between views which are theological beliefs, and views about how we need to behave. I understand that the United States Constitution says the government may not make a law about a religious matter, which I think means what people must practice in belief and worship, specifically. But we do need regulation of behavior which can effect others than our own selves. Plus, we do need to have regulation about what is best for our own selves.

"Of course", it is for our own good that we have correct beliefs and ways of worship But the Constitution says no to regulating this.

Are you not concerned it could cause resentment?

Well, if you tell your child no, about what is for your child's own good, yes this could cause resentment. And, even, there are children and teenagers who can scream how their parents "hate" them, because their parents are regulating what is for their children's own good. And, like this, yes . . . if you have regulations which are right, there will be people who will resent regulations which are needed.

Should Christian customs not only be enforced amongst Christians?

I think there is a difference between what is only a "custom", and what is for a human's own good. For example, I do not think that outlawing "social" abortion would be a matter of only "custom". There can be various sorts of very degrading and ruining stuff, included in the process of what I might call "social" abortion > meaning when a young pregnant mother gives in to pressure of family and peers, to kill her own unborn with whom she could learn how to love > she is giving in to people who do not know how to love and support her, plus not learning how to love her own child > this can be very deeply ruining. So, this would not be only an item of "custom". "Of course", if someone obeys a law against "social" abortion, the person can obey in a very wrong way damaging to her child, later.

So, we need right laws to be obeyed in the right way, with the attitude of doing things in a good way. And, for one example, if one obeys the law against "social" abortion, this needs to be done with other people helping her and encouraging her.

Abortion.
Gay marriage.
Monogamy.
Sodomy.
Sex under the age of 18.

These involve very personal behaviors, and these behaviors can be with people not committed to one another - - not committed for a lifetime of finding out with God through Jesus how to love one another. And Christians are concerned about what is in the culture where they will be bringing up their children; because people who have the character to do these things can be influencing and effecting their children, in schools and as police and medical people. So, it is not only an issue of outward customs, but the character making one able to do these things, and how that character can effect how someone is relating with the children of Christians.

Mercy killing (human euthanasia)
Suicide.

If someone decides there is no one worth staying in this life to love, this is not only a problem of custom. If a person comes to the point . . . after a whole lifetime of living on this earth and developing to become how that person is now . . . and the person has become able to feel he or she is not worth having in this world . . . would be worthless and not worth others caring for that person . . . I would say this is a problem much more than a problem of "customary practice".

I don't think pain should be what decides what we do.

If we have not developed family love so we can accept help and sharing with family members at a point when we can not take care of ourselves and be "independent", this is a problem. In the United States, I would say, independence is an idol for many people; and the worship of it has resulted in much personal and social degradation, so now many people would rather die than be cared for even by ones who dearly love them.

So, this is not only about outward custom or behavior.

But you can't make laws that can make people love

 

[JackRT]

In the past and right into the present a great many Christians have had a powerful sense of exclusivity and superiority which translated into the imposition of dominance. Perhaps the best example of this is the "doctrine of discovery". This was laid out in a series of papal bulls in the 15th and 16th centuries. In short it stated that if a Christian should find a new land where there were no Christians, he could take possession of it and if they refused to convert or resisted he was entitled to kill them or make slaves of them. This was written into USA law in a Supreme Court decision in 1818 or '19 and served as the basis of legitimizing the ethnic cleansing and attempted genocide of the native peoples of the USA in the 19th century.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Some examples of Christian laws and customs which are imposed on others for no obvious reason.

Could you please be more specific (as opposed to using the shotgun approach) on what laws, what customs are imposed by who upon whom? Context is everything....Also please show evidence that it is done solelyfor a "Christian" reason.

 

[com7fy8]

The "Blue Laws" is an interesting one. This, if I remember right, was the law not to work on Sunday. But when this law was going to be dropped, I was told, the car dealers did not want it to be ok to work on Sunday, because this would mean the car dealers would all have to work in order to compete with other Sunday working car dealers. So, they wanted to keep the no work on Sunday thing, so they could have time off.

 

[oi_antz]

There are some laws passed in Christian dominated countries or communities that force non-Christians to conform to the views of Christianity.

My biggest thought about this, is how much of this is a reflection of normal morality, and there is some coincidence that Christian values align with normal morality and coincidence that a society with Christian moral values is also inclined toward Christianity. Of course this assumes that your observation is valid, which has been reasonably questioned already.

Do you feel this is acceptable?

Case by case, I do. I do not believe it is acceptable to force non-Christians to observe the Sabbath day. But at the same time, companies quickly and easily resent their Christian employee for doing so, if it impacts their company's objectives. Employers will naturally want to punish an employee for refusing to work and wanting to rest instead.

Are you not concerned it could cause resentment?

Yes, I am deeply concerned at resentment. I even find myself resenting those who resent others for doing what is right.

Should Christian customs not only be enforced amongst Christians?

Many Christian customs should, seeing they are customs for godly living. But some customs are required for a fair society, for example a legal system should value truth and justice.

Before I get any hate mail, I do not personally subscribe to all the above. But if the people involved had no issue with them, why do Christians pass laws preventing them from doing so?

Yeah I am just wondering really, why you have picked on Christianity for this. Surely a law maker, Christian or otherwise, must act according to their moral conscience. Do you think maybe you aren't simply opposed to the common morality in Christians?

 

[Hank77]

The "Blue Laws" is an interesting one. This, if I remember right, was the law not to work on Sunday. But when this law was going to be dropped, I was told, the car dealers did not want it to be ok to work on Sunday, because this would mean the car dealers would all have to work in order to compete with other Sunday working car dealers. So, they wanted to keep the no work on Sunday thing, so they could have time off.

There were many Blue Laws and some are still on the books but not enforced. The one you speak of said that most retail business could not be open on Sundays. This was particularly unfair to those of other religions who's Holy Day was on another day such as Saturday. That meant that they lost two days of sales.
One such law in CT was that someone with a lantern had to walk in front of every automobile after dark. That was before headlights but was still on the books in the 60's I believe.

 

[com7fy8]

Yeah I am just wondering really, why you have picked on Christianity for this. Surely a law maker, Christian or otherwise, must act according to their moral conscience. Do you think maybe you aren't simply opposed to the common morality in Christians?

I would expect someone not a Christian to want things according to that person's conscience. So, "why" would a non-Christian expect otherwise from a Christian??

Of course, this is a Christian forum; so . . . we "might" be the targets of this question

And I see a point of this. There are people who are very busy with trying to change "America" to become a Christian country, "again". But there is that

"doctrine of discovery"

thing that Jack wrote about in Post #14 above. I would say that was not exactly Christian for nations to do that. It was a pseudo-Christian version of what ISIS is doing, maybe not in all details, but indeed the way that religious operators in Satan's kingdom do things. So, this means that humans are capable of claiming to be Christians, but they are then trying to conquer and control others . . . without real change in people's hearts.

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

We have examples, though, of people who say they are Christians and they have been involved in public Christian movements; yet, they themselves do not have control even of their own selves . . . right while they push for laws to control others. One supposed role model for men, I was told, turned out to be cheating on his own wife. Others can be food abusers, not having control of their own selves in the fruit of the Holy Spirit which has love's self-control. Others can be arguers and self-righteously looking down on others.

So - - - I would say people like this would not produce a good law system. And the sort of Christianity witch they would impose would not be right. I myself have been the criticizer, even welcoming news of horrible deeds so I could be unforgiving and looking down on people in the news who have done various cruel things and religious leaders who have helped to promote or cover up for evil deeds.

Programs and policy changes are not what works, but personal example

 

[oi_antz]

I would expect someone not a Christian to want things according to that person's conscience. So, "why" would a non-Christian expect otherwise from a Christian??

Of course, this is a Christian forum; so . . . we "might" be the targets of this question

And I see a point of this. There are people who are very busy with trying to change "America" to become a Christian country, "again". But there is that
thing that Jack wrote about in Post #14 above. I would say that was not exactly Christian for nations to do that. It was a pseudo-Christian version of what ISIS is doing, maybe not in all details, but indeed the way that religious operators in Satan's kingdom do things. So, this means that humans are capable of claiming to be Christians, but they are then trying to conquer and control others . . . without real change in people's hearts.

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

We have examples, though, of people who say they are Christians and they have been involved in public Christian movements; yet, they themselves do not have control even of their own selves . . . right while they push for laws to control others. One supposed role model for men, I was told, turned out to be cheating on his own wife. Others can be food abusers, not having control of their own selves in the fruit of the Holy Spirit which has love's self-control. Others can be arguers and self-righteously looking down on others.

So - - - I would say people like this would not produce a good law system. And the sort of Christianity witch they would impose would not be right. I myself have been the criticizer, even welcoming news of horrible deeds so I could be unforgiving and looking down on people in the news who have done various cruel things and religious leaders who have helped to promote or cover up for evil deeds.

Programs and policy changes are not what works, but personal example

Thanks. I can see the gripe of OP with the example given in post #15, and I did not see an example such as that when I responded. OP may choose to enquire further.