Encoding Biblical Values in Law

[Jesdisciple]

I'm a defected Republican who remains conservative and, as a result, I'm questioning the conventional positions on several issues. So here's a biggie that I'm having trouble with: How do you justify insisting that all citizens follow Judeo-Christian values? How does this translate from a theocracy to a constitutional democracy? How does it not violate 1 Corinthians 5:12?

 

[VegasGeorge]

There is no doubt that the founders of our nation, and the great majority of our original citizens, were of the Christian faith, and of Judeo-Christian heritage. That freedom of religion is central to our Constitution in no way alters that fact. The Judeo-Christian heritage of our country is beyond dispute. It is true that our Constitution guarantees the individual the right to believe and practice religion as he or she sees fit. But that doesn't mean that collectively we Americans don't have the right to preserve our national heritage. We do have that right. So for example, we cannot forbid any American from converting to Islam. But, we could impose immigration restrictions designed to protect our Judeo-Christian national heritage from being overwhelmed by Moslem immigrants. And, recent demographic revelations make it clear that such a threat already exists.

 

[heymikey80]

I'm a defected Republican who remains conservative and, as a result, I'm questioning the conventional positions on several issues. So here's a biggie that I'm having trouble with: How do you justify insisting that all citizens follow Judeo-Christian values? How does this translate from a theocracy to a constitutional democracy? How does it not violate 1 Corinthians 5:12?

Coupla points.

The church isn't in place to enforce these things. That's the establishment clause of the Constitution. However, the people are. They decide how they shall be ruled, within certain limits outlined in the Constitution. They have every right to apply their perceptions of morality in the way that they function in government. The result is a rule by representative majority.

How do I justify "Judeo-Christian values"? Because I find them to be right. As Dt 8 says, "what great nation is there that has statutes and judgments as righteous as this whole law which I am setting before you today?"

Israel didn't have a law for citizens and another for strangers to Israel. "One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you." Ex 12:49

These are general moral principles. I'm not saying each of the case laws specifically appropriate for Israel are directly applicable today. But these concepts are very different from being case laws. They're generalized. And they're applicable.

If you want morality contained in the national law, then it's going to be found in the general equity of the Scriptural law. If you want immorality contained in the national law, then let people walk over you about what they want to do to you, instead.

 

[Jesdisciple]

George: I'm not attacking immigration, although I do see problems with it. Allowing Muslims to immigrate is an issue of culture regardless of morals.

I'm talking more about the internal moral issues which secular conservatives disagree with us on and which don't violate rights. Abortion doesn't count because it kills; same-sex unions count unless you use a sociological objection. In fact, I had homosexual unions in mind but thought there were other issues in this category. But now I see that it's unique among social issues; see "Social issues in the United States" on Wikipedia.

So to re-orient the topic a bit, why should homosexual unions be forbidden based on the Bible (or common law)? If you only have problems with the effects on children of same-sex couples or other sociological issues, there's no need to explain those. If you can think of another issue which fulfils the qualifications I gave above, please provide it.

Mikey: I don't mean to suggest that different laws should be provided for the Church versus everyone else; I mean to ask whether Christian values should go into law at all? The Church would be responsible for disciplining its own members.

 

[E.C.]

I'm a defected Republican who remains conservative and, as a result, I'm questioning the conventional positions on several issues. So here's a biggie that I'm having trouble with: How do you justify insisting that all citizens follow Judeo-Christian values? How does this translate from a theocracy to a constitutional democracy? How does it not violate 1 Corinthians 5:12?

I don't think any government can "insist" upon anything unless said government defines the culture of the people in which it governs.

For example, European countries. Russia, Romania and Serbia may respectively be made up mostly of Russians, Romanians and Serbs, yet the three countries have significant minorities. In those countries, there is no "state religion" yet the Orthodox Church is recognized as being "special" because of the over 1,000 year-old history of Orthodox Christianity in those countries. Church and State are still separated, but the religious heritage, so to speak, of the people is still recognized.

Yet what about minorities? Well, that is where the concept of "national minority" comes in. The Bashkirs, Tatars, Chechens, Ingush, and many others; within Russia are recognized as national minorities. The Hungarians, Albanians, Slovaks and others within Serbia are also recognized as national minorities. The Hungarians, Germans and I believe also the Gypsies within Romania are recognized as national minorities.
All that this means, is that those minorities have a long history within the country and their bit of history is recognized even though it is not Russian, Serbian or Romanian per say.


In the USA, things are different. There is no religious heritage that is acknowledged and therefore nothing can be insisted upon. However, when one throws things like the Freedom of Speech and equal rights into the equations, that leaves little room for complaint when Atheists pay for pro-Atheist advertisements to be on buses.

In the USA, we do not have a defined culture like there is in Europe and other parts of the world because of that, anything goes. Since we elect our own leaders and since elections can go this way or that way, than overtime we shall see that what defines "American" shall become more watered down and go by the wayside.


The thing that makes a theocrasy stand out is that the head of state is also a religious leader. The only true theocrasy left in the world is the Vatican City-State. Tibet before the Chinese Communists invaded in 1949 was a theocrasy since the Dalai Lama was the head of state and a religious leader.

 

[Hentenza]

I'm a defected Republican who remains conservative and, as a result, I'm questioning the conventional positions on several issues. So here's a biggie that I'm having trouble with: How do you justify insisting that all citizens follow Judeo-Christian values? How does this translate from a theocracy to a constitutional democracy? How does it not violate 1 Corinthians 5:12?

Define Judeo-Christian values.

 

[Jesdisciple]

E.C.: I can't figure out whether you're for or against Judeo-Christian laws. You seem to give a basic framework that a conclusion can be drawn from, but I don't see where you're going.

Hentezna: I'd say anything coming from Scripture that can't be drawn from the Constitution or its amendments is Judeo-Christian. Opposition to homosexual unions (not based on sociology) is currently the only example I know of. While some would argue that abortion should qualify as well because fetuses aren't technically citizens, I don't think this claim follows the spirit of the Constitution.

 

[VegasGeorge]

Regarding homosexual marriage, I strongly object to that. Giving such unholy unions official sanction flies in the face of our Judeo-Christian heritage wherein homosexuality has been condemned for centuries as an abomination.

That being said, I think government should get out of the marriage business altogether. I think marriages are made and sanctioned by God alone. If government sanctions gay marriage, it become my business. If government wasn't involved, it wouldn't be any of my business. Perverts could line up around the block for wedding ceremonies at their local Anglian woo-woo parlor, and I wouldn't care at all. It would be strictly their business, not mine. But government's involvement makes it my business, and I object.

 

[Jesdisciple]

George: So you're saying you would be alright with civil unions being available for both homosexual and heterosexual couples? In other words, it's just the term "marriage" that bugs you?

BTW: I agree that homosexuality is an abomination... So are divorce and a few other things the government doesn't mind.

 

[Faith.Man]

I'm a defected Republican who remains conservative and, as a result, I'm questioning the conventional positions on several issues. So here's a biggie that I'm having trouble with: How do you justify insisting that all citizens follow Judeo-Christian values? How does this translate from a theocracy to a constitutional democracy? How does it not violate 1 Corinthians 5:12?

I do not blame you for being a defected Republican. I've been disappointed by them many times. I wish this country WAS a theocracy. Then I'd only have to give 10% (tithe) of my working wage to the government. Actually, I wish I lived in a monarchy with Jesus as King! I do not consider myself a Republican. I am a Conservative on most issues, Libertarian on a few others.

But this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. This country was not founded on the teachings of the Qur'an or Shari'a law, nor would I want to live in a country that was. Most of our Founding Fathers were religious of one type or another. Their Faith was an important part of their lives and they did not want the State to establish a religion, which is why the New World was settled in the first place.

1Co 5:12 - For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?
1Co 5:13 - But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.
(NASB)

1Co 5:12-13 - It was not Paul’s business to judge those outside the church (cf., e.g., his silence about the woman in 1Co 5:1); still less was it the business of the Corinthians. But discipline within the church was their responsibility. Those in the world God will judge (cf. Act 17:31). But those within the Christian community who continue in sin with an unrepentant spirit, the church should discipline by expulsion. (Bible Knowledge Commentary)

It should be noted here that the Corinthian Church in Corinth was not under theocratic rule. They were gentiles, pagans, and some displaced Jews.

 

[Jesdisciple]

Faith.Man: I agree, except maybe about the theocracy... But how do you apply that to laws instituted in America for purely biblical reasons? Does a coalition of Christians (basically a church) organized for this purpose overstep Paul's instructions?

 

[Faith.Man]

Regarding homosexual marriage, I strongly object to that. Giving such unholy unions official sanction flies in the face of our Judeo-Christian heritage wherein homosexuality has been condemned for centuries as an abomination.

That being said, I think government should get out of the marriage business altogether. I think marriages are made and sanctioned by God alone. If government sanctions gay marriage, it become my business. If government wasn't involved, it wouldn't be any of my business. Perverts could line up around the block for wedding ceremonies at their local Anglian woo-woo parlor, and I wouldn't care at all. It would be strictly their business, not mine. But government's involvement makes it my business, and I object.

Glad to see a fellow NRA member represented here. I basically agree with you but wonder what all the companies across the nation are going to do with respect to "significant other" employee benefits. What about federal, state and local government employees? And then there's the case of divorce. The trial lawyers will want to be paid with divorce rates around 50%. This is just a nasty can of worms that's bound to be opened one way or the other.

 

[Faith.Man]

Faith.Man: I agree, except maybe about the theocracy... But how do you apply that to laws instituted in America for purely biblical reasons? Does a coalition of Christians (basically a church) organized for this purpose overstep Paul's instructions?

This is an interesting and thoughtful discussion that I'd like to continue. By the way, the theocracy comment was said in jest. But it would help me if you gave a some examples of laws instituted for example for purely Biblical reasons.

From my standpoint, I am concerned about Christians banding together under the spell of a charismatic leader (Jim Jones, David Koresh, Heaven's Gate, et al), and being led astray. The Christians of the early church were well-grounded and very concerned about the well-being of their fellow believers. But in this country from the early 20th century till the present time, the socialization of our country has taken the place of non-profit Jewish/Christian relief organizations and replaced them with government agencies and their paid less efficient bureaucracy.

 

[Jesdisciple]

This is an interesting and thoughtful discussion that I'd like to continue.

My, the difference between a secular conservative or Christian conservative forum. On the secular one, I'm a liberal because I question conservative norms.

By the way, the theocracy comment was said in jest.

I am truly glad... If I could know Christ was actually the head I'd have no problem with it, but I really can't understand how Israel's theocracy managed to prevent a corrupt "prophet" from getting power.

But it would help me if you gave a some examples of laws instituted for example for purely Biblical reasons.

Here are some hypothetical ones: Criminalizing divorce except in cases of adultery or abuse; disallowing the at-fault spouse from remarrying; prosecuting blasphemers; and basically anything else we don't think should ideally happen. Homosexual unions (notice that I never call them marriages) are the only real example I know of, and I think the issue earns us a bad name as theocrats.

From my standpoint, I am concerned about Christians banding together under the spell of a charismatic leader (Jim Jones, David Koresh, Heaven's Gate, et al), and being led astray.

I question the validity of the entire religious right movement, really; if we can't find a secular reason for a belief it probably doesn't belong in a secular government. The idea that because we have a "Moral Majority" we can legislate Scripture seems totally contrary to the reasons America was founded in the first place. Although note that I don't take separation of church and state (which isn't actually in the Constitution) so far as to limit anyone's freedom of speech (which is).

The Christians of the early church were well-grounded and very concerned about the well-being of their fellow believers. But in this country from the early 20th century till the present time, the socialization of our country has taken the place of non-profit Jewish/Christian relief organizations and replaced them with government agencies and their paid less efficient bureaucracy.

I don't think of opposition to welfare as a theocratic stance; it really grows out of economic theory that doesn't come from Scripture (at best, the theory is implied).

 

[E.C.]

E.C.: I can't figure out whether you're for or against Judeo-Christian laws. You seem to give a basic framework that a conclusion can be drawn from, but I don't see where you're going.

Sorry, I have a bad habit of sometimes posting or speaking in a very roundabout way

The point, is that within the US's Constitution, or any democracy or republic for that matter, there is very little chance of insisting that the people follow this way of thinking or that way of thinking. The only true way in which a government of a sovereign state can insist, is if there is either A) some mention of a religious heritage of some sort or B) if there is a monarchy. Even then, one must consider if/how such things would be enforced, but that is a different topic.

Unfortunately, you may not get a straight answer on whether I'm "for or against Judeo-Christian laws" because not only does the term seem quite ambiguous, but also since the 2008 US presidential election I've become more and more apolitical. But I'll try to answer or explain as best I can

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I'm a defected Republican who remains conservative and, as a result, I'm questioning the conventional positions on several issues. So here's a biggie that I'm having trouble with: How do you justify insisting that all citizens follow Judeo-Christian values? How does this translate from a theocracy to a constitutional democracy? How does it not violate 1 Corinthians 5:12?

I don't justify that. I'm a conservative Christian who is politically libertarian. I'm fundamentalist on the very basics of the faith, but also fundamentalist on the Constitution, and particularly on the Bill of Rights. As per 1 Cor. 5:12, judging those outside the faith is not my department.

 

[Jesdisciple]

Time to give this thread some CPR...

E.C.: Is there any law which you might theoretically support based solely upon Scripture, without seeing any benefit other than obeying God? Or if you do see a benefit, is it secondary to Scripture? (For example, some liberal Christians justify welfare theologically as a means for the Church to help the poor. I wonder whether they would hold that view if Scripture didn't mandate helping the poor; if not, I would call that theocratic.)

 

[Faith.Man]

My, the difference between a secular conservative or Christian conservative forum. On the secular one, I'm a liberal because I question conservative norms.

I am truly glad... If I could know Christ was actually the head I'd have no problem with it, but I really can't understand how Israel's theocracy managed to prevent a corrupt "prophet" from getting power.

Israel was under the authority of Judges first, before they asked the prophet Samuel to be like the countries around them. That's when they got their first king, Saul. Israel had many corrupt, idolatrous kings when they didn't follow the prophets of God.

Here are some hypothetical ones: Criminalizing divorce except in cases of adultery or abuse; disallowing the at-fault spouse from remarrying; prosecuting blasphemers; and basically anything else we don't think should ideally happen. Homosexual unions (notice that I never call them marriages) are the only real example I know of, and I think the issue earns us a bad name as theocrats.

I haven't heard any respectable Christian say they wanted to criminalize divorce, prosecute blasphemers, etc. We have a bill of rights which prohibit the establishment of a state religion. The only people who even mention a new constitution convention are the far left-wing who like to muzzle us with respect to the first amendment and take away our right of self-protection by abolishing the second amendment.

I question the validity of the entire religious right movement, really; if we can't find a secular reason for a belief it probably doesn't belong in a secular government. The idea that because we have a "Moral Majority" we can legislate Scripture seems totally contrary to the reasons America was founded in the first place. Although note that I don't take separation of church and state (which isn't actually in the Constitution) so far as to limit anyone's freedom of speech (which is).

I think you've jumped to a false conclusion here. The only people I see trying to limit free speech are the Democrats.

I don't think of opposition to welfare as a theocratic stance; it really grows out of economic theory that doesn't come from Scripture (at best, the theory is implied).

To understand my position on welfare, you have to look at what was happening in the 20s and 30s when the great social experiment began. The progressives as they were called back then were fascinated by the "social experiment" taken place in Russia. It wasn't that people were going hungry, groups like the Salvation Army and local church's sponsoring soup kitchens took care of that. Their was no reason for FDR's social experiment except for control. FDR even tried to stack the Supreme Court. As far economic theory, FDR's policies actually prolonged the Great Depression, much as BHO's policies are doing the same now. Try reading "The Forgotten Man" by Amity Shlaes to get an unbiased view of the Great Depression.

If the above seems rather distant, I don't mean it to be. I'm not particularly feeling too good right now. My wife has the H1N1 flu virus and I might have it too, except so far a milder form.

Peace

 

[Jesdisciple]

Israel was under the authority of Judges first, before they asked the prophet Samuel to be like the countries around them. That's when they got their first king, Saul. Israel had many corrupt, idolatrous kings when they didn't follow the prophets of God.

Yep... God's power is the only explanation I know for the fact they didn't have a revolution, although I still don't understand it. Maybe they would have revolted if Samuel hadn't given them a king.

I haven't heard any respectable Christian say they wanted to criminalize divorce, prosecute blasphemers, etc.

I just dreamed those issues up. I think the only difference between those and non-sociological opposition to homosexual unions is the severity. They're based on the same faulty premise of the Moral Majority. According to Wikipedia ("Moral Majority"), they did actually want to censor "anti-family" media.

I think you've jumped to a false conclusion here. The only people I see trying to limit free speech are the Democrats.

Yes, that's what I was referring to. This thread is about separation of church and state; I was drawing the line between acceptable and unacceptable applications of that principle.

Great Depression: Thanks for the book recommendation (gonna save it on Amazon), but I still don't see how that's a theocratic position.

If the above seems rather distant, I don't mean it to be. I'm not particularly feeling too good right now. My wife has the H1N1 flu virus and I might have it too, except so far a milder form.

Eesh, I hope that goes by fast. I dunno whether it earned all the credit, but the Tamiflu I got a month or two ago purged it within three or four days after the symptoms really hit. I don't think I've ever seen such a short one, so I do recommend that prescription.

 

[Faith.Man]

Yep... God's power is the only explanation I know for the fact they didn't have a revolution, although I still don't understand it. Maybe they would have revolted if Samuel hadn't given them a king.

I just dreamed those issues up. I think the only difference between those and non-sociological opposition to homosexual unions is the severity. They're based on the same faulty premise of the Moral Majority. According to Wikipedia ("Moral Majority"), they did actually want to censor "anti-family" media.

If I remember right, one of the Moral Majority's big issues was sex and violence on TV. That's where the "Family Hour" came from. They wanted the first hour of prime time TV to be family friendly. At that time NBC was still a major network. Shows like "The Waltons", "Touched by an Angel", "Little House on the Prairie" all did quite well in the ratings, which in some ways, supported Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority campaign. In-fighting between Fundamentalists like Falwell and Charismatics like Pat Robertson put an end to the organization. Falwell supported George Bush for President when Pat Robertson was also running for the Republican nomination. I am not sure what kind of President Robertson would have made but I do know he's an unapologetic supporter of Israel, which I am too. As a self-labeled Fundamentalist, I want to distance myself from Falwell and others like him who I feel are more showman than anything else.

Yes, that's what I was referring to. This thread is about separation of church and state; I was drawing the line between acceptable and unacceptable applications of that principle.

Great Depression: Thanks for the book recommendation (gonna save it on Amazon), but I still don't see how that's a theocratic position.

Eesh, I hope that goes by fast. I dunno whether it earned all the credit, but the Tamiflu I got a month or two ago purged it within three or four days after the symptoms really hit. I don't think I've ever seen such a short one, so I do recommend that prescription.

My wife is in worse shape than me but she's no longer running a fever so that's good. I have only started running a temperature yesterday. H1N1 seems to hit everyone a little bit differently.