Religion is a facet of the behavior of mankind. Therefore, it has both an ethic and an ethos. Thus religion and politics have a lot in common. Forces are a work to make the United States of America a theocracy which is based upon an entire different set of propositional "truths". A theocracy assumes that "Godly men and women" alone have the right to rule. Of course, these "godly men and women" alone know what God wills for the common good. Consensus applies to the Charismatics alone.

No such assumptions motivated the founders of these United States. Furthermore, history is relete with examples of horrific atrocities under theocracies. The present Middle East Crisis is just one such example. Time on one's knees is a poor posture for the leader of a "free people"--unless, of course, it is to get one's ear to the ground! Neither a finger to the wind nor a prayer rug is anyway to govern. The study of law and government and civil behavior would be far better preparation. A little prior experience in democratic governance would be a big plus. "My way or the highway" infects too much of religious behavior. It is certainly no way to run a democracy. Tom

Hi Kirsten,

I wrote some of the following comments in a Feb.2004 article in online spectrum. I think the excerpts are pertinent to your article.

"I maintain it is historically incontestable that virtually all the founding fathers of the Republic recognized the Judeo-Christian God as the Creator and Rights Giver. Fifty-two of the fifty-five signers of the U.S. Constitution were professed Christians. At minimum, eight and possibly eleven of the Declaration of Independent’s thirteen signers was Christian. Perhaps only three or four of the founders were deist and yet their view is often put forth as the controlling norm. I believe the facts disagree with the understanding that the founders believed in a generic or inactive God.

Significantly, the founders’ Rights Giver was above the rights historically extended by most societies, thus their Creator extended freedom of religion as a natural right, whereas other societies often denied it. Their specific religious prohibitions focused on religious tests for office; a state or national church, as was often found in Europe; or government funding for teachers of religion. These were the foci and stood behind the understanding of Thomas Jefferson’s "wall of separation." These concepts prohibit America by law from becoming a Christian nation.

Yet I maintain that separation was not intended to deny public mores and religious understandings from having any part in the formation of civil law and behavior. I suggest that in the last fifty years we have witnessed a severely reformulated meaning of separation. If this revisionist meaning were the original intention, numerous inconsistencies existed from the beginning, as seen in the first speeches of George Washington and other founders. Other examples include public prayer and Christian chaplains in Congress, appointed by a committee of the Senate and House in April and May 1789.
Note the public words of deist Jefferson, excerpted from his Second Inaugural Address, delivered on March 4, 1805:
'I shall now enter on the duties to which my fellow-citizens have again called me… I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessities and comforts of life, who has covered our infancy with His Providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join with me in supplications that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils and prosper their measures.'
President George Washington in his farewell address stated, 'reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.'

So what’s the point? Evidence from numerous historical witnesses indicates that the founders did not mean to keep public acknowledgement of God or general religious ethical understanding and mores separate from state functions, purposes, and civil law.

As a Christian and citizen, I will support civil laws that uphold the general ethical principles of Scripture. If proposed laws violate explicit rights guaranteed under the First Amendment, that is a different story. However, civil laws that promote the ethical sensitivities and mores of the majority, which, in turn, derive from religious understanding, do not inherently violate the original meaning of separation.

In the realm of the state, its proper purpose is not to try to put the law into hearts. God ordained civil authorities as a fear and sword to constrain evil by the disorderly and evildoers in a fallen world, where the law is not in the heart. Laws are to be just, and those that exist are to be administered non-preferentially with the ability to show mercy when appropriate.

Perhaps the last two paragraphs are food for thought and especially applicable in the U.S. for aspiring young SDA politicians and citizens.

Regards,

Pat

Pat: the founders had all of King George and his church they could stand. They also had all of Cotton and Increase Mather they could stomach.

God they had no trouble with. It was "godly men" they couldn't trust! Tom

It is holy men you have to be very careful with--they can and have had a very nasty bite. tjz

Tom,
Yes...anyone who adds to the gospel of Christ. They are usually the "hyper holy", lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ.

The state shouldn't be in that realm (gospel) at all since they bear the sword.

pt

Tom,

In addition, however, we have to also consider the secular state and it's goals. I have previously mentioned Hitler and how he used the "liberal" German church in his lofty goals for the state in the social arena. Bonhoeffer appealed to Orthodoxy for the remedy.

pt

Pat

Thanks,

I thought we were trying to rreconstruct the original thinking of the founders and not what some would try to do with it today.

There is no evidence that the founders were thinking in terms of a theocracy. Tom

Tom,

Since you are "lonely"...I was trying to point out that we may overstate "separation." OF COURSE they were not seeking a theocracy. However, apart from a state church and funding religion they did not envision keeping religious discourse or religious concepts out of government or civil law IMHO.

I think we Adventist having been stung by "blue laws" may be oversensitive to religion in public discourse. Laws are not wrong because they may express religious sentiments. For example bigamy and incest laws are not considered to be a violation of the establishment or free exercise clause.

Social mores invariably contain the fabric of religious attitudes. They violate free exercise in my view if the laws are "distinctive" to one religious group.

So the founders were religious and they were mearly setting the parameters of religious activity in civil law and governing but not excluding it. To exclude might be to invite the social crises that create over reaching. We might do well to consider that.

In my view, There are very few Christian groups in the religious world now in favor of theonomy. Dispensationalist expect the rapture and most others have an "Amill" view. There are still some "Post Mills" but they are in an extreme minority. Of course in Islam there is that problem in a large degree.

I believe there is equal pressure from the religious left and right to have government advance their agenda. And, in my view, The religious left involves much more government funding and centralization of power. It seems the "left" pushes federal social programs with funding and the "right" pushes "morals" apart from funding that have traditionally formed the fabric of an orderly society. Which do you feel is most consistent with the U.S. founders original position?

Could it be that perhaps the greatest danger in the future is being controlled by a powerful "secular state" manipulating special interest to it's own purposes? After all, it is only a powerful centralized state that can prevent "buying and selling." Could it be that "exclusive" faiths such as the Jews in Germany become more a target than the "inclusive" ones that adapt more easily to the social agenda?

BUT, As far as today, we use our gifts to build up the church and others we come into contact with...we enjoy life,loveones and God's blessings and...the future angst comes when it will...but God is there to ultimately deliver and raise the dead.

All the best to lonely "out there."

pat

Thanks Pat

I think the issue is how far does government intrude to ensure domestic tranquility. The inscription on the Statute of Liberty goes much further than the Constitutio. I guess the inscription has no legal standing. But it is the face we try to give the world and then take it away as soon as the crops are in!

The Best

Tom

Tom,
It seems that at least one of us old white guys has been rejected by our younger bloggers. It's likely me But, I got use to rejection after my first wife left. :~) Now, I have another wife and a dog that love and accept me... so I will make it! Hope you are fine!

Pat

Pat

I have the best wife in the world. 58 years of bliss. We have three grown children, three grandchildren, one great granddaughter and another on the way. We had Thanksgiving at our senior son's 14 acre horse farm. Five horses, one mule, and one miniture donkey--a great pet for Madie age 3.

I have an older brother within 3 miles, a son and daughter within 10 miles. I have a close friend in a retired General Conference Officer. The problem comes from being a Yankee in the deep south. Been here 41 years but you would think I burned Atlanta--let alone discounting E.G. White's prophetic gifts. I just retired from teaching a Sunday School class at Reid Memorial Presbyterian Church. "Ike's" church while at the Augusta National. So I have a lot of friends in Christ.
Being a teacher/administrator for 41 years--it still is hard not to have a lesson and a lesson plan in the works. I get at least one call a day from the kids. I am blessed. Tom

I wonder if it is not helpful to distinguish three somewhat different approaches to church/state issues among the "founders" of the United States.

Many of those who first settled what we now call New Mexico, Virginia and Massachussets were frankly theocratic, the first being Roman Catholic, the second Anglican and the third more thoroughly Protestant.

We see a very important but often forgotten negative reaction to theocracy in the persons of Roger Williams and others like him.

Somewhat later, as a third option, we see the emergence of "ceremonial deism" in places like Virginia and Pennsylvania. True, people of this conviction were "Christians" in some broad sense of the term; however, their primary agenda was to prevent the transportation of Europe's religous wars to this continent.

Perhaps a helpful way to think about current church/state struggles in the United States is to view them as continuations of the ongoing competition among these three impulses. If so, we Americans will never come to a "settled" consensus. Instead, we will always be in the business of formulating compromises on a case-by-case basis. Although this is messy, I think it is a good thing because it provides the necessary checks and balances.

I also think that Adventism makes its most important political contributions from the Roger Williams stance. Like him, we protest theocratic abuses in the name of what we take to be true religion. Like him, we contend for the religious liberty of people with whom we disagree. Like him, we move to the "wilderness" and establish alternative communities that more fully reflect our values. These strategies and tactics are all "political" in their own way.

This suggests that some SDAs will run for elected office and lead from these positions of political power. But most who enter public life will do so as journalists, commentators, philosophers, historians, advocates, think-tank founders, specialists in relief and development, pastors and so forth because these are all attempts to serve and persuade rather than coerce.

The amazing change that has taken place in recent decades regarding smoking in public places is a good example. We Adventists support carefully formulated legislation on this issue; however, the bulk of our work has been educational in nature and it has had a tremendous impact.

I fear that many SDAs today may be tempted by the theocratic option, as are many other politically conservative Protestants and Roman Catholics. To yield to this temptation would be to abandon our own important heritage.

I think mixing religion with politics is fraught with danger. The President beginning cabinet meetings with a prayer may seem innocent but I think it belies a much larger problem. Those cabinet ministers would have been recruited with probably “like minds” with regards to specific religious beliefs. Those beliefs will probably take precedence over other attributes which may be more meaningful for the job. Having a group of “like minded” religious believers is quite frankly very worrying. It is fine if you agree with their “version”, but by definition anyone's belief system is going to be different from the majority of people (this is why we see so many religions in the world).

In contrast, people in Europe in many ways have rejected religion, (probably due to its history), and in so doing is producing a society which conversely enjoys more freedom and less fanaticism. The decision in France to not allow any specific religious garments in schools, I think is great as it promotes unity rather than separatism. When people are in their own homes, they can do what they like, but the imposition of any belief system on others, you could argue is morally wrong. You can't legislate belief, you can only win people over to your way of thinking.

David,

Could you flesh out what you mean by theocratic. Does that mean that one should not vote for say principles in the last 6 Commandments?

pat

Pat, Doesn't the term "theocratic" refer to a form of government dominated by a religious belief (such as some of the Muslim theocracies)?

Privately, one can choose to live by the principles of the last 6, but not until they have been incorporated into the laws of the land could they be voted upon.

BTW, how could anyone force the 10th commandment?
Or, for that matter, the law against adultery? It is reason for severe punishments in current Muslim countries, and they define it.

Even the others: stealing, lying and murder, are currently used by governments: war is murdering someone who you don't know, and both stealing and lying are well practiced by our own U.S. government.

Elaine

You are correct. Never-the-less, governments have attempted to legislate the first four. The most prominent has been the Bllue Laws of some states. While adultery may not be punishable, the consequences are remediated by laws of the states.

Obviously the 10th is the tough one. Unless lust, greed, become overt rape, incest, or stealing the State has little it can rightly use. That doesn;t mean it hasn't tried in the past. Why at least the lust part was supervised with a vengeance in boarding schools in my day. Never-the-less some excellent unions resulted from co-education. Tom

Hi Elaine thanks for your response,

I asked that question of Dave to discern the difference between what he meant by "theocratic" versus the statements by Washington in my post above...the second in this strand.

Roger Williams was one of the first to state that the first four commandments relate to the individuals conscience and the last six to the "realm of the state" as relates to civil law.

The US is by law prevented from being a "Christian or 'other' theocracy." That is not the same as the mores and civil law being influenced or formed by Christian or religious principles.

As stated in an above post by me, the use of "the law" by the state is not for the purpose of "putting it in ones heart." It is to restrain evil and create a more orderly society. The Constitution and Bill of Rights was to restrain the degree of central government intervention and to establish individual and states rights.

"Thou shalt not murder" applies to individuals taking of life and not to the states legitimate role of "killing" those who murder should they be found guilty. The word "Murder" was not used of Israel's wars or the killing of the guilty in their theocracy...church and state as one under covenant law.

As to the 10th commandment, it is influential in the development of laws that protect private property. Also it helps protect agaist "collective covetousness." Ahab coveted Naboth's vinyard and took it...and died for that.

Some may be to young to remember when there were no "no fault" divorces. Until the late 60's one could not get a divorce without "cause...adultery i.e." and the right to divorce and remarry without the consent of the other spouse. While I recognize the incompatability of many, yet one of the main causes of poverty in this nation is due to single parent families. Starting a new household diminishes ones ability to care for the first. Of course abandonment acts in much the same way but yet it remains illegal in regards to child support.

I simply believe it needs to be clarified that religious principles influencing laws are not of themselves necessarily "theocratic" or in violation of the first ammendment. While theocracy was not the original intent of the US founders neither was the opposite extreme IMHO.

pat

I stand to be corrected, but is it not true that only ACTIONS can be legislated, not one's private convictions or conscience?

The first four commandments may address both, but they are impossible to judge unless there are actions, i.e., A Sabbath breaker must actually pick up sticks that day, or worship of other gods cannot be a private feeling, but acted upon.

Although Jesus spoke of lust as being equated with adultery, if that were so, no one could be from adultery. and what about lovers or engaged couples? No thoughts of physical intimacy, even though not acted upon!

Do we truly believe that hate is equivalent to murder? Or that ALL work on Sabbath is breaking that commandment? Get real, folks.

Hi Elaine,

Was the last post directed to me? I am not sure how it relates to any of my post however. I am talking of how the present US government and state governments come about civil laws that are related in some way to the last six commandments and can they have religious overtones without violating the 1st amendment...and not represent a "theocracy" from a historical perspective.
Ideally, good Civil laws are made to create a more orderly society not for the purpose of primarily placing those laws in the heart of offenders.

Tomorrow, I will be out of town for about a week.

Dave,I hope you will find time to clarify your position on "theocratic" for me from a historical US position as it relates to creating "ethical" civil laws that may have originally sprung from religious beliefs...specifically the last 6 Commandments. Do religious concepts/mores neccesitate the label of "theocratic" in a Democratic Republic?

All that is best,
pat

Elaine,
Read your post again...
Fortunately for us all, civil governments in the US at least don't get many convictions except on judging "Actions"!

Could it be that Christ was pointing out that not merely external compliance is enough to consider one righteous but also that which comes from the heart?...and all is laid bare to Him.

Ps.143:2 "And do not enter into judgment with Thy servant,
For in Thy sight no man living is righteous."

I am thankful that we are reckoned as righteous in Christ by faith alone...how about you! :~)

pat

I think the issue is made quite clear by the mumbling words of the little boy commanded to sit down by an autocratic father. The boy was heard to mumble: " I'm sitting down on the outside but I'm standing up on the inside!!!!!"

Once I was asked to give the Sabbath School Lesson at the Loma Linda University Church. The lesson was on Sabbath-keeping. One of my remarks was; "One has not truly "kept" the Sabbath unless they had walked a Roos mile. Dr. Roos, a pathologist on the faculty was a natural born naturalist. His children and ours were approximately the same age. Frequently we would drive either to the beach or to the high desert and start a nature hike with Dr. Roos as our mentor. "Did you ever see tiny mountain shrimp in a pool of water in a hollow rock? Every weed had a name and a purpose. As the children and the old man (me) tired; Dr. Roos would say it is just another mile to the biggest surprise of all. Off we would go to find a Joshua tree all twisted and gnarled by the wind. As we returned to the cars the Sun would be setting in the West, We were tired but happily informed. "Bless the Sabbath" and Bless the Roos Mile for the best of Sabbath rest for those tied to a desk all week."

Unless we can see God's ten words as that kind of living:
They serve no redemptive purpose. Tom

Thank you Pat, for sharing careful enlightening words on our history.

I wanted to add a comment on the same topic, but headed a different direction. In answer to the questions:With religion and politics changing the face of society (be it for better or for worse), what role should Adventism, with it's apocalyptic message, play in the public sphere? And more so, what is the proper place for young Adventists who are considering entering the political minefield?

My answer would have to reach back into the old Testament- Daniel was both a very apocalyptic prophet and a stateman par excellence that brought his religion into his political interactions with kings. Joseph was likewise a political figure, strong in economics that attributed God with his insight yet used shrewd planning in dealing with the future. This, to me says that Adventists should be encouraged to change the world for good within the political sphere, even more so as we recognize that there are going to be rough times ahead from our reading of Revelation.

As a church, it may be almost impossible since the church encompasses a wide lattitude on political stances, and pushing for a political agenda as a institution will be seen as divisive and possibly immoral from some dissenting sector. (we have a history lesson in Germany already)

But as individuals- young people should go for it! You can change the world one person at a time, but why not also change the world one law at a time- which affects millions? However, may those laws which have moral implications be rooted just as strongly in empirically proven principles, not propped up by religious/moral conjecture or fervor alone.

If murder is the taking of an individual's life, isn't that exactly what war is all about? Prior to war, the de-humanizing of the "enemy" is a necessary prerequisite. How well I remember WW II denigrated the Japanese as "slant-eyed" and even to the forced incarceration of Japanese-American citizens.

Yes, hate must precede murder in all wars. Attempts to justify killing in war is not described in "thou shalt not murder"? Justifying the murderous acts of the Israelites against occupiers of the land they wanted does not make it right. That is only one of the many events Christians rightfully question when attributing love and compassion to God. Reading the OT stories there are numerous examples that question such a glib response.

For some reason, I have been unable to see that anyone has been commenting on this post, except for Tom's initial post, until today. I was ready to comment on my own article, in a way that would likely have sent the conversation in an entirely different direction, when I was flooded with the dialogue that has been going on without my knowing of it.

A state ruled by religious zealots is something that I hope never to have to be a citizen of. Political leaders and those representing mixed religious and secular groups have an obligation to govern dispassionately and with a carefully measured hand of consequences near and far; they must separate their personal and public lives.

However, I am not certain that one can separate all religious beliefs from politics. History does not run in parallel strands of "politics," "religion," "humanistic morals." Rather, interwoven, they become indistinguishable. Anyone wishing to remove all religious influence from government (which would include many basic societal principles) should just give up now; and if ever their is a time in which a society comes close, I believe there are still some islands for sale in the Philippines.

Because of my political stance, which could probably best be generalized as a traditionally conservative libertarian (if those words mean anything anymore). I am skeptical of any laws that could lead to a bigger government. For example:

David Larson posted, "The amazing change that has taken place in recent decades regarding smoking in public places is a good example. We Adventists support carefully formulated legislation on this issue; however, the bulk of our work has been educational in nature and it has had a tremendous impact."

While I support this legislation, I find it scary that movements are now being taken in California to prohibit smoking in private vehicles with children. Of course it is harmful to the health of the children, but at what point must the government stop? Regardless, with so many players, it is impossible to know whether one piece of legislation will do more harm than good.

This is the fear I have with religion mixing to heavily with politics, or on the other hand, the creation of a completely secular state.

Regardless of traditional attitudes that politics is a waste of time considering the apocalyptic message, I am happy that members of the Adventist church take time to engage themselves in the process.

Elaine,

In response to your latest comment: I have recently gone through a process of questioning whether such a thing as a "just war" exists. First of all, I'd like to state that "just" should not be held to the "perfect" standard. Living in a world of sin does not leave mankind, nor governments the option of acting in a way that would be preferred in the Christian standard.

I remember reading in a commentary on Gandhi's autobiography, about his being asked if he thought civil disobedience could have been used against the German army of world war two. I don't honestly remember what his reply was, but I don't think it matters; a third of the world would probably be speaking German.

As long as this world is like it is, there won't always be diplomatic options, and the right choice, will often just be the better one. In a world of actions, and reactions, mankind must do what it thinks to be best. Certainly, corruption and mistakes will always occur, and innocent people will die; this doesn't make war good, but it doesn't condemn all wars as unnecessary.

A smoke free society is not a religious issue. It is a societal issue with ramification toward health---a costly poscess. Just as soon as we started asking government to pay for our health care, government began also started to legislate health style. We even now have eliminated trans fats.

Fat must go!!!! That is not a religious issue that is common sense. Tom

Hey Tom,

I sure didn't mean to imply that smoking is a religious issue (though I know of some people that would call me out for blaspheme of the "holy scriptures" of Mrs. White). Anyways, I was just taking David's prior example and using it for my own case in point, that one form of legislation can lead to another. Thus, making it obvious that what is good on the outside, and for the short term may not be so for the long term.

Now then, with all that aside, I would like to throw the argument out there that many things that are not religious on the surface, are driven for secondary religious reasons, such as abortion, gay marriage, and yes, smoking. For example, I met a fellow Adventist this year, that passionately told me that gays should be persecuted to the point in which they retreat to underground societies. I wasn't quite sure what to say.

Hey Tom,

I sure didn't mean to imply that smoking is a religious issue (though I know of some people that would call me out for blaspheme of the "holy scriptures" of Mrs. White). Anyways, I was just taking David's prior example and using it for my own case in point, that one form of legislation can lead to another. Thus, making it obvious that what is good on the outside, and for the short term may not be so for the long term.

Now then, with all that aside, I would like to throw the argument out there that many things that are not religious on the surface, are driven for secondary religious reasons, such as abortion, gay marriage, and yes, smoking. For example, I met a fellow Adventist this year, that passionately told me that gays should be persecuted to the point in which they retreat to underground societies. I wasn't quite sure what to say.

Kirsten: "Anyone wishing to remove all religious influence from government (which would include many basic societal principles) should just give up now; and if ever their is a time in which a society comes close, I believe there are still some islands for sale in the Philippines."

I would urge you, Kirsten, while you're still studying abroad in Argentina, to read an excellent book, either written in Spanish or English, on the occupation of the Philippine Islands first by Spain beginning in the 16th C and that lasted more than 300 years. Invasion of the islands by the United States of America, consequent to the Spanish-American War of 1899, followed Spanish rule. Conversion of the natives to Christianity was offered as the primary reason for colonization respectively by both powers. Imperial Japan also briefly imposed its sovereignty during WW2, according to them, for co-prosperity, economic reasons rather than religious. Who was telling the truth?

Lastly, in case you haven't heard of Fred Hoyt, emeritus professor of La Sierra, and Doug Morgan of Columbia Union College, please allow me to introduce you to two highly-regarded Adventist historians who've published on Philippine-USA relations.

For those who objec to government intrusion with protecting children for smoke while riding in cars, how is that different from mandatory child seats and seat belts? We as a society, should first, and foremost, protect those who do not have a voice, and when issues of children and their health is concerned, we must speak boldly to protect them.

As for the comparaison of non-violence during WW II, the time for speaking out was long before the war started and when Hitler was assuming power. As Niemoller said, "When they came for me, there was no one left to speak for me." The Adventists and Christians in Germany did not speak out against Hitler which allowed him to reach the eventual power to act as he did. That is why Christians should be aware of conditions and protest long before it is too late. We have been far too complacent many times, and what is happening in the U.S. is reflected in that refusal to speak out against tyranny of the executive power.

Where would government stop if it gets used to using the children, their voicelessness and their health, as its rationale for interference?

(Why not just have the government with all it's so called expert doctors and psychologists and educators raise children? In ideal little houses with perfected ventilated cars in the best parts of the country? That way the innocent and vulnerable little things are not prone to the capriciousness of individual parents.)

This can easily lead to a tyranny of executive power in another form I am thinking. How much interference is reasonable? How much is too much? Or is this too relative a question?

Whether it's true or not "there are still some islands for sale in the Philippines" that moneyed transnationals may appropriate and exploit, it's less certain anyone may yet choose to live in absolute seclusion from religious zealots, armed or otherwise, that claim sovereignty over their side of the archipelago. Not in the last 450 years.

Why should our "role" change with the wind?

Weren't we given one commission?

Do we have anything to offer others that affords respite from the rapidly changing (unstable) world around us?

Anyways, something by arlyn caught my eye:

"Where would government stop if it gets used to using the children, their voicelessness and their health, as its rationale for interference?

This can easily lead to a tyranny of executive power in another form I am thinking. How much interference is reasonable? How much is too much? Or is this too relative a question?"

I agree.

It often bothers me how often people just blithely re-propose National Socialism/Communism all over again as if we have had no historical experience with it and its assumptions whatsoever.
Remember the Lebensborn?

I mean, how can anyone not see the inherent tyranny of the wild, unchecked "it's for the children" rationale?

(The funny--or sad--thing is that if one had said "It's about terrorism" many of those same people would get exactly what arlyn was talking about there).

Hi Arlyn,
Thanks for your response. I've been on a trip the last 10 days. Agree with your post for individuals to "go for it" in politics but as you am wary of organizational input in politics.

On a earlier blog you responded on "Jubilee" principle.
I don't see any way to integrate the principle into American society. In fact the federalist papers (Madison #10) warned of doing so in US.

Also, if that isn't a "theocratic" principle...what is? I think you recognize this.

Tom posted an interesting comment...paraphrasing,...when citizens decided government would pay for health...government started making rules on health activities. It is interesting to me that many who invoke "free will and choice" and freedom to make decisions don't recognize the inherent danger to "free will" presented by "more government" than limited government. All legislation is "moral" to someone's view...in theory that is what "law and legislation" is about.

I repeat an earlier proposition, that is...why is the "morality" behavior issues of the religious right wrong and the religious left's "morality social and economic activism" as regards government intervention OK?

pat

Somewhere it is written: Of the people, by the people, and for the people. Three little prepositions can sure cause a lot of dialogue. Tom