Christian Principles in Government Part 2: What does it really mean?
Aug 15th, 2010 by David Anderson
Every society is based upon certain majoritarian assumptions.Such assumptions in a free society are starting points not a straight jacket. While this is true of every society, some are threatened by the idea America too has such a starting point. The second part of this discussion is once you get beyond certain hot button issues what does applying Judeo- Christian principles to government look like? Christians do not want to exclude others from a free and open society. Christians do not want to set up a religious regime to rule over the earth. Christians do want a successful, stable society based upon human dignity and liberty.
Let’s start by defining our terms. A successful society is one in which most people are able to live a good life usually free from fear of having their life and property taken from others. It is a society where people are allowed to prosper. It is a society that is sustainable in the long term over many generations. A stable society is one with a dependable foundation which allows a rule of law for which all may depend upon. It allows for orderly, peaceful change. Human dignity is the regard for the rights of the individual and the valuing of institutions which civilize humanity and raise the dignity of both the individual and the whole of humanity. Liberty is the right to fulfill one’s destiny. It is the right to find one’s own path. It is not an endorsement of that path or guarantee of happiness or fulfillment. It is not a license to any activity regardless of its impact upon others.
When a Christian talks about returning Christian principles to government, he or she is not speaking of imposing a theological set of living standards. He or she is speaking of important principles which are the basis of the American experiment which have given the world the standard for advancing the freedom and dignity of the human spirit. Most American Christians and indeed most worldwide do not believe they are qualified to be the judge of everyone else. That is an individual responsibility to GOD. The government does not exist to be an organ of the Church. It exists to protect the dignity and rights of the individual from intrusion upon by both individual sources (criminal elements) and collective elements (foreign powers or organized crime). Government is a repository for safeguarding the rights of the individual and has collectively only the same rights to use force as an individual. The individual has a right to take a life to protect his own or others. The individual has the right to stop others from continually harming her. The individual has a right to protect his property. The government provides an orderly and sensible way to achieve those objectives. We sanction and punish people who seriously violate the fundamental rights of others by taking them out of society or for lesser offenses make them forfeit some of their property (such as fines or civil action).
Here is a practical example of what this looks like. If the government has only the rights that can be given it by individuals, a government would not have the right to regulate someone’s sexual practice on their own property with a consenting adult any more than an individual would have the right to barge into someone’s property and say what are you doing in there? Government would have the same right as individuals to recognize the sacrifice of those whose relationships benefit society. It would not have the right to sanction and imprison those who follow a different path.
Another practical example is that government does not have the right to strip away the property of one to redistribute it to another. In Ancient Israel, there was a tax limitation of 10% of income and special assessments for wars needed for national defense. 10% was enough to run society and provide for the Levitical class and yes provide a safety net for the poor. Human dignity demanded that supplies were stored so members of society and even refugees and aliens did not starve. The safety net was a floor not a redistributive mechanism. It did not take away the role of charity nor the role of labor for providing. For instance, if you were poor and had no crops, let’s say a fire wiped out your crops. You were allowed to work and glean fields after they had been harvested to get a fresh start. It was workfare not welfare for the able. The society also provided a safety net for your family. You were also available for neighbor helping neighbor charity. People in need often do not only need a check to meet physical needs, they need connection with other individuals to meet emotional needs.
Those governing on Christian principles are not bound to reject a safety net such as retirement floors and insurance against unemployment, but it does not substitute them for charity. There must be room for both. What Christian principles would rather see is a prosperous society where people control their own economic well being. One were people are prepared for retirement. One were “every man can sit under his own vine” in other words a culture that values entrepreneurship. What is necessarily rejected is theft from one group of people to provide for another instead of encouraging labor, innovation, and thrift.
Christian principles reject the culture of debt. The borrower is servant to the lender. We see this in modern America. China is now beginning to insert itself in our domestic policies because it is a major financier of them, much like America used to do with other parts of the world and through the IMF. The interest of the debt is threatening to harm the economy by threatening our ability to have competitive tax rates, provide for a sufficient military, and meet our social promises. Over spending and lack of thrift is always its own undoing.
Christian principles value the family. Tax policies should not discourage the formation of stable families but encourage them. Every policy should be evaluated for its impact on the family.
Christian principles are founded upon respect for basic human rights. The protection of life, liberty, and property is for all regardless of status, beliefs, or wealth. The dignity of each person must be part of our laws and our public policy. We have to respect the protection of innocent human life above all else. We must respect the right of each person to find their own destiny. That necessitates religious freedom, political freedom, freedom of speech, press, and assembly.
Christian principles value humility. This means accepting that we do not have all of the answers. Government should be open to a free market of ideas all competing for a consensus. Good ideas are not subject to labels such as Christian or Non-Christian.. They are either good or not. Christian principles require the rejection of exclusionary tactics and an attitude of superiority. Government belongs to all of the people equally and all ideas should be subject to the competition of the marketplace of ideas to gain that governing majority. Therefore we reject judicial activism to bypass the will of the people.
When one examines what a government based upon Judeo-Christian principles looks like, it is not at all threatening to those who come from a different perspective. It is not theory after all, we had it for nearly 200 years and it produced the freest, most innovative, and most prosperous society in the history of humanity. Getting back to those principles will strengthen us not weaken us.
When one examines what a government based upon Judeo-Christian principles looks like…
Except that our government is based on a secular document that vests power in the people. The people are free to use whatever justification they want for their vote, whether that be Judeo-Christian values or something else.
God is dead – or haven’t you heard… the precept of God is for the weak-minded that cannot rule themselves and have no inner sense of right and wrong – therefore they must constuct an outside authority to which they can adhere to and thereby and justify their actions
get over yourselves with your “judeo-christian ” baloney
we seperated church from state over 200 years ago – or did you miss that part – therefore your entire argument is moot and invalid
this is a humanist nation, not a judeo-christian one – or did you forgt that Franklin based most of his writing about this nation and its democracy on the principals of the Iriquois Confederacy – hardly a judeo-christian precept.
I almost missed your false premise:
Modern SoCons do not own the definition of “Judeo-Christian values.”
Many Christians and Jews interpret their scriptures to allow or require liberal social and economic policies.
Virtually everything the Founders read when they were young- their ‘formative’ years- was tinged by Christian thought. It would have been impossible to be educated otherwise.
Does this make them ‘Christians?’ Many were, others weren’t. But unquestionably, their philosophy, wisdom and judgments, whether infinitely malliable or resolutely unwavering, were, by necessity, resting firmly upon a Judeo-Christian foundation.
Who cares what religions the Founders believed? They produced a secular document.
Excellent as always, David. I’d like to recommend a book that will fill in the blanks on some of the issues you discussed, “The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States” by Benjamin F. Morris. It is packed with page after page of original source material to support the fact that America was founded as a Christian nation. The evidence is irrefutable. This 1060-page book will astound readers and will send enemies of Christianity into conniption fits. Keep in mind that it was published in 1864 and has been out of print for more than a century, largely through the efforts of the left. The price on Amazon and Ebay is around $50.00, well worth it.
Who cares what religions the Founders believed?
Because of posts like this;
..the precept of God is for the weak-minded that cannot rule themselves and have no inner sense of right and wrong – ..
Our Constitution, a secular document, was written by men- men with Christian philosophical roots and men who could obviously ‘rule themselves.’
Yes – Rick – Men
men like Madison that were NOT deists – that were really closer to athiests – and wrote from intellect, not blind emotion and religious beliefs.
try to put the French Revolution to mind as well – not only was the monarchy overthrown but the church was as well – this was an age of enlightment when the intellectuals were REMOVING themselves from religion – so again – you are wrong….
and – as I alreay know – your mysogeny finally comes to light
The purpose of the Constitution was to clearly define how our God given rights would be protected from being encroached upon by the government. Since it is a document about rights and government, it is not a surprise that the name “God” does not appear in it.
The job of the Declaration of Independence was to establish the basis and the values upon which our nation would be ordained. And the Declaration states…
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…”
Lefties often confuse two very different concepts. The separation of church and state was intended to prevent the government from curtailing the religious rights of all to worship as they saw fit. A church is a human institution and by providing the wall of separation, we keep the government out of it.
But nowhere has anyone ever written that their should be a separation of God and state. While we practice many different religions in our nation, we nearly all worship the same God, whether we be Christian, Jew or Muslim. We are “one nation, under God.” We place the motto “In God We Trust” on all our currency. The Supreme Court in Holy Trinity vs. United States 143 US 266 (1882) wrote unanimously that “we are a Christian nation.” Our presidents pledge to uphold the Constitution, “so help me God.” For most of our history, there has been no attempt or even thought of driving God out of our public discourse. Only in the past two decades has the progressive left begun trying to drive a wedge between God and the government.
As for God’s status, that is for each of us to believe as we see fit. No one who knows me would ever make the mistake of calling me “weak minded,” or saying that I “cannot rule myself,” “have no inner sense of right and wrong,” or have need of any “outside authority.” Yet I believe fervently in a God I cannot see, hear or touch. I can imagine some who have posted on this thread will ridiucle me and demand primary sources or proof. I will not and in fact can not provide any.
That’s why its called “faith.”
As for whether the secularists on this thread are right or I am, I will simply rely upon the words of Jesus Christ when he appeared to Thomas in the Upper Room after being raised from the dead.
“Blessed are they who have not seen, and have yet believed.”
If you don’t believe what David is saying, ask yourself: “Why are you a Nazi?”
Funny, I do wonder why some people avoid a serious discussion of issues like the plague. Thankfully must of you are doing well with this. Carry on. I think a 3 part 4000 word essay has talked me out on this. So don’t take my lack of frequent response as a lack of engagement. I know what I think. I care more about what you think at this point except for anon.
I avoid a serious discussion of issues because I can’t follow your convoluted logic and bizarre interpretation of our country’s founding principles. Neither of us is going to budge – a discussion is simply not possible.
So I make fun of you and your candidate instead. It all works out.
Yes – Rick – Men
men like Madison that were NOT deists – that were really closer to athiests (sic) –
Ever heard of ‘the Father of His Country’- George Washington? The man who led our patriots in battle? Our first President? Remember him?
I’ve been to the same church he attended, in Alexandria (Christ Church, Washington St., Alexandria, Va.); a Christian church. You cherry-pick one Founder- Madison- I’m sure based upon his position against a bill essentially designating a state religion (Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments). Try again, you uneducated dolt.
Most of the Founders were Christians- most others were Deists- all of them were educated under Christian moral principles.
and – as I alreay (sic) know – your mysogeny (sic) finally comes to light
That’s funny, coming from the most ill-mannered, vulgar and disrespectful participant on this site. Say ‘oink, oink,’ and roll in the mud where you belong, cupcake.
David, I am curious about this statement…
“Government is a repository for safeguarding the rights of the individual and has collectively only the same rights to use force as an individual.”
… followed by your comments on taxation. What would be the equivalent right of the individual? In what circumstance may an individual forcefully compel his neighbors to fund an effort, however charitable or noble it may be? Even those institutions which are well-known for requiring member contributions (e.g., churches) conduct their business on a voluntary basis.
Concerned, thank you for the Benjamin Morris recommendation. Happily I have located a copy on Google books that I can browse.
An interesting companion book is Chris Rodda’s “Liars for Jesus.” If you can get past the (unfortunately) inflammatory title, it does contain purported rebuttals of popular claims of the founders’ Christian influences. Always nice to see both sides of an issue.
Pax, remember, it’s easy to cherry-pick.
Most people don’t realize that part of the US Capitol was used as a Christian church (Washington DC had no churches at the time). Jefferson was a regular attendee, his Letter to Danbury Baptists notwithstanding.
I have on many occasions attended services at George Washington’s church- Christ Church- in Alexandria (Va).