… AND AMERICA
|| By WILL FOLKS || In posting on a recent church versus state issue in Seneca, S.C., I found myself mulling over my views regarding God and government. It’s an issue I’ve been conflicted on … sort of like the broader question of dueling liberties. Most things are pretty clear cut to me … but definitive answers on this front have eluded me.
One thing is clear: Although I am a devout evangelical (faithfully attending services as part of a congregation belonging to the conservative Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod), I absolutely abhor political candidates preaching to me about their personal relationships with God, their love of family values or their desire to infuse government with religious overtones.
(Ahem, Ted Cruz).
I don’t support “compassionate conservatism” here in the United States, nor do I support invading other countries in the name of God. And I sure as hell don’t believe in taking orders from other countries.
(Ahem, Israel).
Or becoming slaves to their capital.
(Ahem, China).
What do I believe in? Common sense, outcome-driven policy aimed at enabling quality of opportunity for all people in this country – while eliminating threats to the national security (however small or large they may be).
Sanctimony becomes no one … least of all would-be servants. More to the point, politicians who invoke the divine right of kings – like “Republican” U.S. Rep. Mark Sanford – are every bit as dangerous as the Godless heathens they claim to oppose. In an effort to prey on impressionable social conservatives, these politicians join themselves at the hip with Jesus – often getting religious leaders to claim them as God’s “anointed.”
And of course their “faith” becomes a convenient crutch whenever they fall from grace …
Having said all that, as a lover of liberty I concede the point made by many of my friends in the social conservative movement: Specifically, that someone possessing a Judo-Christian worldview probably has a deeper, more ingrained appreciation for the true nature of life and liberty.
In the opening chapter to my forthcoming political manifesto/ political tell-all, I put it thusly …
There are many different conceptions of the divine – but there can be no doubt we are all divinely created. So is everything in us and around us – dirt, dust, plastic, metal, sinew, ice, rock, wood, water, blood, bone, etc.
Everything here arrived by design. It was created with purpose.
There is also no doubt our existence – whatever name or legend we choose to ascribe to its authorship – infuses us from conception with certain indispensable liberties while imposing upon us certain inescapable obligations.
We can question or even explicitly reject this “original premise.” People do it all the time. But to do so is to expressly invalidate one’s inheritance of freedom – and do so without removing the responsibility for one’s actions.
Deep, huh? I thought so.
Of course, I also tell my socially conservative friends that a proper understanding of the Biblical doctrine of vocation accepts that even Godless heathens are often ordained to occupy certain positions of authority – and that in those positions, these non-believers can in fact advance the work of God’s kingdom on earth.
Martin Luther called vocations “Masks of God” – and obviously not all of those masks are worn by those who believe in God.
Still, it’s hard to ignore the unambiguous appeal to “divine providence” made by America’s founders.
In fact one of our nation’s seminal Latin mottos literally translates into “He approves of our undertaking,” a clear reference to the Christian God. By the way, this God’s claim on our country was memorialized in 1956, when the U.S. House (via H. J. Resolution 396) made “In God We Trust” America’s official motto.
Think such a bill could pass “Republican-controlled” Congress today?
Of course not.
It’s also difficult to argue that the ongoing disintegration of the traditional family unit – the Judeo-Christian societal building block – has had widespread (and costly) deleterious effects on our nation. And that many of those effects have probably come, sadly, in the name of expanding individual liberty.
I also know that this website – my website – has been on the front line of many of those fights (including the recent battle in South Carolina over gay marriage).
Hmmmm …
Again, there are no easy answers here. I don’t know the precise balance that needs to be struck. Or how to strike it. I just know that the rabid socialists backing Bernie Sanders, the status quo Democrats backing Hillary Clinton, the establishment “Republicans” supporting Marco Rubio, the strident evangelicals supporting Ted Cruz and the angry conservatives fueling the candidacy of Donald Trump are nowhere near the vicinity of the ballpark of the sort of conversation that we need to be having about this issue.
What do you think?
What does separation of church and state mean to you? How do you view candidates who play the “Jesus He Knows Me” card? What about those who explicitly reject Christianity? And how do those of us who believe in freedom and free markets make sense of all this?
Again, no easy answers … but I look forward to your thoughts on the subject.
Will Folks is the founding editor of the website you are currently reading.
51 comments
tl;dr
This is much better.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/02/these-numbers-driving-donald-trump-victory-are-absolutely-insane
“…or do I support invading other countries in the name of God. And I sure as hell don’t believe in taking orders from other countries.
(Ahem, Israel)…”
Remind me again, what country did Israel invade? Oh, sure they’ve taken a foray or two into enemy territory after being attacked but last time I looked their boundaries were pretty well established since they’ve given the Sinai back – even though those border put the whole nation at risk.
Or did you mean we took orders from Israel? Yeah, right – our one real ally in the whole region gives us orders?
Just getting started on this one.
Come now good sir…you know that the mere mention of Israel drives certain portions of the Tin Foil Hat “aluminati” nutty. Prepare for the onslaught – in the immortal words of CSM Basil Plumley during the Battle of la Drang Valley (1965), “Gentlemen, prepare to defend yourselves.”
Thanks, almost ran my car off Garners Ferry Road. “Aluminati” has to be the funniest thing I’ve read in a while!
I coined the term (which, BTW, is only funny in print) for use in my ongoing discussions with a sorta coworker who has convinced herself that due to career choices in my “prior life” I had some involvement in bringing down the WTC towers. There is little room for reason under the hats of foil; they think big government conspiracies are easy to execute.
“Aluminati” is hilarious
I dunno…I seem to run across these nitwits almost daily in my line of work. Dealing with them wears normal people out. I should ignore them, but it’s just not within my capabilities to ignore stupid; believe me, I wish I could. I should listen to ol’ Ben (Franklin, that is), who said that you can’t reason a person out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into. Brilliant dude, Franklin was.
“Or did you mean we took orders from Israel? Yeah, right – our one real ally in the whole region gives us orders – wanna explain this one?”
So are you denying Israeli influence in American politics? Or are you limiting yourself to “specific orders”?
I don’t consider Israeli influence to be any more important or any less prevelance than Irish influence or French or British or Greenlandish influence. Does it exist? Sure, we normally take input from our allies, that’s why they’re allies. Have we routinely ignored them? Yep, just as surely.
“I don’t consider Israeli influence to be any more important or any less prevelance than Irish influence or French or British or Greenlandish influence. ”
Yea, I’m going to disagree with you mightily on that.
AIPAC is pretty darn powerful-
Not only that, but the reality is that there are many heavy hitting media players that influence both the American populace and US gov’t pols that have Jewish CEO’s, owner groups, etc.
“We only get stories on “Israeli influence” because of the anti-Semitic far left’s attempts to weaken Israel (or is my tin foil yamakuh showing?)”
There’s a lot of people that claim a far right anti-Semitism as well.
In fact, many will claim I’m anti-Semitic by pointing out there is a heavy Israeli influence in American government or suggesting that American government represent American interests over Israeli interests. (but I’m not anti-Semetic)
Trying to keep the “labels” out of the discussion, I think most people explicitly understand that DC has a certain commitment to Israel that supercedes even that of Ireland, France, or Greenland.
I would offer that one reason for the seemingly excessive support of Israel is that their very existence depends on allies like the United States. Greenland and Great Britain don’t have any “natural enemies”, Israel is surrounded by them.
Well, at least you’re coming around to the notion that Israel has a disproportionate influence on American government compared to the others, regardless of the reason.
:)
I would submit that China is now in the driver’s seat as it applies to influence in the United States if for no other reason than the balance of trade and the amount of credit owed to them.
Maybe, they sure were rattled by Trump’s last win.
The US gov’t can’t say it’s not a bed of their own making though. 45 years of deficit spending isn’t going to just fix itself.
True dat!
Speaking of Haberdashers, they should consider a website dedicated to such products.
http://www.reynoldsconsumerproducts.com/
Colonel: 1967. Syria, Egypt. Jordan.
We addressed that, Israel took a pre-emptive strike and eventually gave almost all of the terrain they took back. There is no doubt that Syria and Egypt were planning to attack Israel – that’s why they were able to respond with ground counter attacks immediately. There is some question whether Jordan’s king Hussein was planning to attack or just support Egypt and Syria. Egypt and Syria thought they had things figured out and tried it again largely on their own with some sort from Jordan Saudi Arabia and others in 1973. Israel handed them their asses again as we all know.
If it was (Ahem, Saudi Arabia)…… it would be closer to accurate. In general though great post Will. I think the key was the use of the word balance at the end. Things are too far left or right for my taste these days.
“Still, it’s hard to ignore the unambiguous appeal to “divine providence” made by America’s founders.” [unsupported statement]
It’s easy to ignore since it’s not true.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/founding-fathers-we-are-n_b_6761840.html
Used to be, life was simple, you could lead your life, using the simple tenets of your religion to guide you through the daily affairs without offending anyone..
You still can, but it is best not to mention that religion is your guiding principle.
It’s OK to abide by your religious beliefs, just don’t show them your map.
It’s a good thing none of our founding fathers babbled on about all that God stuff. The Declaration and Constitution would have really sucked…
Yeah, times have changed. If the Constitution was to be rewritten these days, it would look like a service contract from Sears.
Interesting … glad to have you commenting on the site erneba …
Thanks, I enjoy your articles and everyone’s responses are interesting. A good cross-section of the population.
He buried the lede again. His tell-all book is “forthcoming.”
Second time, I think, that he’s affirmed this. Hope the hell he gets it out soon.
His book was “forthcoming” when Haley was running for her first gubernatorial election, wasn’t it?
Missouri Synod? Oh hell, I don’t think they’d even let me take communion, if they knew what was in my heart of hearts.
Will, the LCA is a hell of a lot more fun. Trust me.
Take a walk on the wild side.
Member of an ELCA congregation myself. With a female pastor (gasp!) no less.
LCA
Female pastors, gay pastors, everyone welcome, wine women and song.
“Catholic Lite.”
LOLz. LCA has a “Herchurch” on the West Coast that has some crazy pagan stuff going on. I respect their right to worship spirit animals and the sacred feminine, but that ain’t Lutheranism.
They’re not all that way, though. Unitarians are the same. Some congregations go way over the top with that stuff.
I meant ELCA, actually.
Ever notice Will’s picture of himself look more and more like they are coming from the “hood”.
He’s trying to get in touch with his “roots”.
Pimpin’ ain’t easy.
Mrs. Fits told him that it’s ok for him to add a little more stubble —- five kids are enough!
If his complexion was a few shades darker that hoodie would go from comfortable winter wear to thug attire in the eyes of the average Fox News viewer. LMAO!!!
He’s looking for the pose that he thinks will be “just right” for his cover shot on Time magazine’s “Man of the Year” edition…..
MamaTiger92 took my comment ;)
Ted Cruz is not the only Republican candidate talking about religion. In fact, ALL of them are doing that.
While I would like to blame the candidates, I blame the religious right leaders. They all want a piece of the pie – and I’m not only speaking of National religious Leaders, but also S.C. “family values” leaders. You cannot legislate “family values”. Like I tell my children, pick the top 2 o 3 issues which you think are the most important and then look at which candidate best fits. To me, National security and the National Debt are the most important issues. Which candidate is best qualified to handle those issues?
What’s up with Will and his silly selfies trying to look tough? It’s ain’t working, dude.
hahahahahaha … I know. my wife and kids aren’t buying it either.
Between this and the Jackson post, a couple of takeaways-
-Will’s move to Lexington county may have more to the story than we’ve read.
-We the reading public now know that Sic and the Great Carpetbagger have a financial relationship (unless Sic is providing “in kind” servicing beyond plugs on FITS).
-We the People continue to await Sic’s political manifesto “Mein Kampf to Publish a Book” complete with personal exploits of what it might be like to be a cocksman. (Could he REALLY have been that good if Nikki can’t recall anything at all?)
-The Missouri sect of Lutheranism is apparently down with creating cuckold victims, or at least stalking single female Grand Strand realtors.
Gee, what’s an enlightened self-proclaimed Libertarian supposed to do?
There is nothing “deep” about intelligent design.
“Separation between Church and State!”
Federal Law.
“Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s,
And, to God,
What is God’s.”
Jesus.
We may not “Love one another,” but we must always try to “Respect one another.”
ELCID
“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know, I’ve tried to deal with them.”
? Barry M. Goldwater
Goldwater is proven wrong. They compromise all the time.
How do I view candidates who play the “Jesus He Knows Me” card?
As charlatans duping the rubes. Ever notice it’s always a certain type of candidate appealing to a particular narrow subset of voters? In recent times which president or candidate best typified an honest and dedicated Christian? Jimmy Carter — who gets nothing but disrespect from that same very narrow subset of voters so willing to listen to charlatans touting religion to gain public office. Religion should be a private matter. Those who bring it on the campaign trail do so for the wrong reasons.
“Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.”
I will vote for any one of any religion or no religion at all.
******[Will Folks] I absolutely abhor political candidates preaching to me about their personal relationships with God, their love of family values or their desire to infuse government with religious overtones.” ******
It does not bother me a bit if a candidate talks about their religion. Will thinks that Evangelicals lap that talk up without using any critical thinking skills. By talking religion, I can evaluate their sincerity, values etc…. I would love to hear from Governor Haley what Sikhism means to her. It is the mark of a complex person who honors her parents’ faith and is also a Christian convert. I want to hear Muslim, Jewish, agnostic or atheist views, I would distrust some who is unwilling to share his personal beliefs.
Evangelicals don’t believe everything a sincere Christian says, much less a fraud. The current election shows that Evangelicals will vote for a candidate who’s religious grounding is suspect. (Ex. Two Corinthians).
I have read comments here that the voters are stupid. Well, you’re wrong. They may make mistakes, but they are not stupid. They can distinguish between Cruz’s beliefs and his campaign practices. Most know that Trump is not going to build any wall, but his position goes farther than his opponents and so they support him.
I wonder what they will make of his Howard Stern interviews. I still don’t believe the polls about evangels voting for Trump. The description of an evangelical has changed or the way it is being asked lumps in anyone who goes to church once in a blue moon. If they are voting for Trump, they certainly aren’t the old values voters.
I entered first grade in 1954 and I was taught that the motto of our nation was “E Pluribus Unum”, “Out of many, One”. In my opinion that is the better motto than the insipid and meaningless “In God We Trust” which became our motto out of the rising fear of communism. Our original motto spoke of our nation’s strength to overcome obstacles through unity, to succeed through unity. It spoke to our history from colonies to a nation. It spoke and still speaks to the diversity of our citizens – people who over the course of our existence emigrated here from every place on earth seeking freedom or adventure or a better life. Never, ever will I accept “In God We Trust” as a motto because this motto gives all of our power to another force, an unseen force in which a high percentage of our population no longer believes. IMO, this motto is divisive, not inclusive. It is on our money…so money has become our god. Frankly, I don’t believe God would approve of his name appearing on filthy lucre. “In God We Trust”, as has so often most recently been shown, is an axiom more often proven in its exception than its rule. “E Pluribus Unum” will always and ever be the motto of the United States of America, as far as I’m concerned.