[soc.religion.christian] Church and State

hedrick@cs.rutgers.edu (08/12/90)

I've given some thought to the church/state issue raised by abortion.
I agree with the original poster that the issues are complex.  But of
course that's why it is causing so much trouble nationally.

In my view it is proper for laws to be based on principles that can be
derived from Christianity, but only under two conditions:

  - that the laws have a purpose other than furthering religion

  - that there are also secular justifications

As has been pointed out, laws against murder, theft, etc., can be
thought of as based on Biblical principles.  But of course there are
also secular justifications for them.  Laws against abortion probably
pass this test.  I think one can make reasonable non-religious
arguments for them.

However the fact that a law doesn't violate separation of Church and
State doesn't necessarily mean we should pass it.  In my view,
criminal laws exist primarily to protect us from a few deadbeats who
would otherwise try to victimize people.  I don't think the Law should
be used to impose the will of 51% of the people on the other 49%,
where there is genuine disagreement over what is right.  I realize
there's some vagueness here.  There can be discussions about what
"genuine disagreement" is, etc.  But I simply don't think there is the
sort of concensus on abortion that justifies making a law.

Of course what is right isn't decided by vote, and lack of concensus
is probably of no significance ethically.  However I think concensus
is relevant to passing laws.  There are problems that the State can't
fix.  A situation where there is widespread disagreement within the
society about what is right is a place where I think laws aren't the
right tool to solve the problem.  The problem with using laws where
there isn't a concensus is that it causes the legal structure as a
whole to lose its legitimacy.  If people start coming to think of the
State as simply a way for one group of people to impose their will on
another, then they're going to start taking a cynical view of the Law.
At that point the Law will have lost its power to have an influence on
people ethically.

coatta@cs.ubc.ca (Terry Coatta) (08/21/90)

Catherine Dalzell writes:

>   Are Americans really supposed to respect each other's views?  I
> pity you if that is the case.  Your days are numbered.  Surely what
> you are supposed to respect are the people holding the views.  Hate
> the sin, love the sinner, is the old formula, and that applies to
> sins of the intellect as well as plain ignorance.  IN matters where
> you care about truth you don't respect error.  For instance it
> would never occur to me to respect the mathematical errors of my
> students, since these are deserving of the red pen treatment, but
> I have great regard for my students and for their capacity to do
> better and learn.

There is a good deal of difference between mathematical errors and 
religious ``errors''.  An error in mathematics exist because of a
commonly accepted framework of rules for the manipulation of mathematical
formula and symbols.  With religion there is no objective reality that
we can point to and say, ``There, this is the right way.''  You HAVE TO
respect other peoples' religious views because they derive from the same
sorts of desires, motivations, and perceptions as do your own.  Respect
does not imply acceptance.  It simply means acknowledging that others may
have sincerely held religious beliefs just as strong, yet different from
your own.

God does not send us forth to make laws in a secular world.  He sends us
forth to spread the Gospel, and to love others as he has loved us.  Only
when civil law prevents us from doing this, do we have justification in
challenging civil authority.  We cannot legislate righteousness.

The abortion issue is noteworthy because it derives from two opposite, and
essentially religious points of view.  I expect that some pro-choice
individuals would object to having their point of view labelled religious,
but I think the terminology is apt.  We have no OBJECTIVE definition of what
constitutes a person.  Any precise definition of the term thus derives from
personal beliefs.  I see no easy path for reconciliation here.  A Christian
(who is opposed to abortion) will feel compelled by God's edict to love one
another, to protect the innocent.  Some one who is pro-choice sees no
innocent in need of protection, and feels that the religious beliefs of
others are being forced upon them.

Terry Coatta (coatta@cs.ubc.ca)
Dept. of Computer Science, UBC, Vancouver BC, Canada

`What I lack in intelligence, I more than compensate for with stupidity'

jdd@db.toronto.edu (John DiMarco) (08/25/90)

coatta@cs.ubc.ca (Terry Coatta) writes:

>There is a good deal of difference between mathematical errors and 
>religious ``errors''.  An error in mathematics exist because of a
>commonly accepted framework of rules for the manipulation of mathematical
>formula and symbols.  With religion there is no objective reality that
>we can point to and say, ``There, this is the right way.''

That's not true for Christians. The objective reality we refer to is the
objective reality of God, esp. in Jesus Christ. Concretely, for Christians
"God's way" is the "right way". Of course, there is some confusion among 
Christians as to what, exactly, is "God's way".

Catholics like myself have a bit of an advantage here, because we have the
teaching authority of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, to provide
concrete instruction and to defend the truths of the Good News of Jesus Christ. 

>... You HAVE TO
>respect other peoples' religious views because they derive from the same
>sorts of desires, motivations, and perceptions as do your own.  Respect
>does not imply acceptance.  It simply means acknowledging that others may
>have sincerely held religious beliefs just as strong, yet different from
>your own.

I respect other people's religious views because they are often heart-felt and
fervent. But respect doesn't imply agreement. I recognize the truth that
there are grave differences between one religion and another. Insofar as
these religious positions contradict each other, only one of these positions
(at most) can be correct. And so, where such contradictions occur, I must
respectfully and humbly disagree with those holding positions in variance
with my own. If I truly believe what I believe, how can I believe
contradictions to what I believe? 

>God does not send us forth to make laws in a secular world.  He sends us
>forth to spread the Gospel, and to love others as he has loved us.  Only
>when civil law prevents us from doing this, do we have justification in
>challenging civil authority.  We cannot legislate righteousness.

Love for another may involve fighting for legal protection for that other's
life. 

John
--
John DiMarco                   jdd@db.toronto.edu or jdd@db.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto, CSRI    BITNET: jdd%db.toronto.edu@relay.cs.net
(416) 978-8609                 UUCP: uunet!utai!db!jdd

coatta@cs.ubc.ca (Terry Coatta) (08/30/90)

John DiMarco writes:

> That's not true for Christians. The objective reality we refer to is the
> objective reality of God, esp. in Jesus Christ. Concretely, for Christians
> "God's way" is the "right way". Of course, there is some confusion among 
> Christians as to what, exactly, is "God's way".

You are using the term objective reality in a different sense than I was.  
What I had intended was a ``right way'' thatcould be provably asserted
to anyone, Christian or otherwise.  And that is the point of this discussion
after all -- that there exist people who ar enot Christian and we have to
establish a means of co-existing with them.

> I respect other people's religious views because they are often heart-felt
> and fervent. But respect doesn't imply agreement.

Nor did I state that it should.

> And so, where such contradictions occur, I must
> respectfully and humbly disagree with those holding positions in variance
> with my own. 

But there is a vast difference between you, as an individual, disagreeing
with someone, and you, as an individual, participating in a process of
legislating the correctness of your viewpoint.  Does legislation demanding
that everyone become a Christian produce a nation of Christians?  You'd
have to have a peculiar definition of ``Christian'' to accept this. 


> Love for another may involve fighting for legal protection for that
> other's life. 

I agree.  This is a particular difficulty that we as Christians face with 
respect to civil law. I can understand Christians violating civil law in
order to protect the lives of others.  I can even understand attempting
to have such protection legislated -- as long as Christian religious
beliefs are not explicitly legislated as a result (obviously laws such
as those against murder are in accord with our Christian beliefs, but
Christianity is not explicitly promoted by such laws, nor are such laws
justified via theological arguments).  At the risk of the wrath of OFM
I will note that many of those who clamour for laws against abortion violate
this principle by claiming that the foetus has a soul from conception and
so deserves the full protection of the law as a person.  Permitting such
a law, justified in this manner, is tantamount to legislating the existence 
of God.

Terry Coatta (coatta@cs.ubc.ca)
Dept. of Computer Science, UBC, Vancouver BC, Canada

`What I lack in intelligence, I more than compensate for with stupidity'

jdd@db.toronto.edu (John DiMarco) (09/02/90)

coatta@cs.ubc.ca (Terry Coatta) writes:

>> And so, where such contradictions occur, I must
>> respectfully and humbly disagree with those holding positions in variance
>> with my own. 

>But there is a vast difference between you, as an individual, disagreeing
>with someone, and you, as an individual, participating in a process of
>legislating the correctness of your viewpoint.  Does legislation demanding
>that everyone become a Christian produce a nation of Christians?  You'd
>have to have a peculiar definition of ``Christian'' to accept this. 

No Christian can legislate belief. I cannot force others to accept my
beliefs (even my Christian beliefs) as true.

However, insofar as I, as a citizen of a democratic state, participate in
the legislative process of my nation, my beliefs can -- and will -- determine
the principles I wish the laws of my nation to uphold. If I wish the laws
of my nation to reflect Christian principles, and I believe that the
Christian principles are the best foundation for these laws, it is my
*duty* as a citizen of a democracy to do my best to make sure the laws
of my country reflect Christian principles. Thus, I want laws against
murder, stealing, fraud, abuse, etc.

These Christian principles I uphold do not advocate the legislation of
belief. They do, however, require the establishment of justice insofar
as it is humanly possible.

>> Love for another may involve fighting for legal protection for that
>> other's life. 

>... At the risk of the wrath of OFM
>I will note that many of those who clamour for laws against abortion violate
>this principle by claiming that the foetus has a soul from conception and
>so deserves the full protection of the law as a person.  Permitting such
>a law, justified in this manner, is tantamount to legislating the existence 
>of God.

If I believe the "foetus" is a person, it is my duty as a citizen of a
democracy and a Christian to attempt to ensure justice for that person.
I have the right and the duty to so act, regardless of the foundation
of my beliefs (i.e. whether I believe in the personhood of the unborn
child for religious or scientific reasons). If some other citizen disagrees,
that citizen has the right to oppose me in the democratic process. 

Your comment about "legislating the existence of God" illustrates what may
be the crux of our disagreement. If you mean, by "legislating", the
making or enacting of a law, and if you mean, by law, a prescribed rule of
conduct or action, "legislating the existence of God" makes no sense, because
the "existence of God" is not a rule of conduct or action. If, by this phrase,
you mean "legislating the holding of a belief in the existence of God",
your analogy to a law protecting the unborn falls apart, because a law
protecting unborn children does not necessarily legislate a belief in the
personhood of unborn children.

However, such a law would *recognize* (not legislate) the personhood of the
unborn child. If, by your "legislating the existence of God" comment, you
mean *recognizing* the existence of God, then your statement is correct.
Indeed, permitting a law protecting the unborn child, for the reasons stated,
recognizes the personhood of that child in the same way as a law might
recognize the existence of God.

And Canada has a law which recognizes the existence (and even the *supremacy*
of God):

  Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the
  supremacy of God and the rule of law...
         (the very first line of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 
          Constitution Act, 1982).

Why, then, should the laws of Canada not recognize the personhood of the
unborn child? Or any other Christian principle that the democratic citizens
of this nation choose to require that the laws recognize? 

John
--
John DiMarco                   jdd@db.toronto.edu or jdd@db.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto, CSRI    BITNET: jdd%db.toronto.edu@relay.cs.net
(416) 978-8609                 UUCP: uunet!utai!db!jdd

coatta@cs.ubc.ca (Terry Coatta) (09/04/90)

John DiMarco writes:

> If, by your "legislating the existence of God" comment, you
> mean *recognizing* the existence of God, then your statement is correct.

Yes, this was the intention of my statement.

> And Canada has a law which recognizes the existence (and even the 
> *supremacy* of God):
>
>  Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the
>  supremacy of God and the rule of law...
>         (the very first line of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 
>          Constitution Act, 1982).

And I don't believe that should be part of our constitution either.

> Why, then, should the laws of Canada not recognize the personhood of the
> unborn child? Or any other Christian principle that the democratic citizens
> of this nation choose to require that the laws recognize? 

Because such laws disenfranchise those who are not Christian.  If we lived 
in a society where being Christian were a requirement of membership in
society, I would have no quarrel with your position.  But Canada claims to be
a pluralistic society.  We do not insist on unity of belief.  Yet the
implication of that first line of our constitution (or of creating laws
whose sole justification lies in Christian ethics) is at odds with this.
It is an affront to anyone who is not Christian because it asserts that there
are two distinct classes of people in Canada -- those who are Christian
(and establish the framework of society) and those who are not (and have
a Christian framework forced upon them).

Your duty as a Christian is not to go about making laws which force
people to act in a manner consistent with Christian ethics -- rather
it is to bring Christ to people so that they will, of their own free
will, act as Christians.  God did not give people free will in order that
you or I should take it away.

Terry Coatta (coatta@cs.ubc.ca)
Dept. of Computer Science, UBC, Vancouver BC, Canada

`What I lack in intelligence, I more than compensate for with stupidity'

coatta@cs.ubc.ca (Terry Coatta) (09/14/90)

John DiMarco writes:

> On the contrary, your suggestion that Christians should not vote or 
> participate in the democratic process according to their own (Christian) 
> principles disenfranchizes Christians!

That would be the case if I had indeed suggested it, but I can't recall
doing so.  My intention was to suggest that Christians should not attempt
to establish Christianity via laws, and that the positions they adopt
should be defensible without recourse to the assumption that other people
have similar religious beliefs. 

> The laws must be based on *some* principles. Whether or not those principles
> are Christian is up to the voters and the people they elect.

The principles of most western democracies are preservation of individual
rights and freedoms coupled with an attempt to establish justice.  Persons
elected are not generally encouraged to tamper with this basic set of 
principles.  Their task is to translate these principles into laws and
actions which promote them.

Your conception of democracy seems to be nothing more that ``majority rule''.
This is not sufficient.  Democracy is an empty form of government without
adherence to basic human rights and freedoms.  The essence of democracy
is not majority rule, but compromise and consensus.  The difficulty with
introducing religious ideals or justifications into the political arena
is that compromise and consensus are no longer possible.  How does one argue
with a justification like: ``God says we should act in the following
manner, and so we need laws to enforce this behaviour.''  How can a 
non-believer view this as anything but enforced religion?  This is
disenfrachisement.

Terry Coatta (coatta@cs.ubc.ca)
Dept. of Computer Science, UBC, Vancouver BC, Canada

`What I lack in intelligence, I more than compensate for with stupidity'

jdd@db.toronto.edu (John DiMarco) (09/20/90)

coatta@cs.ubc.ca (Terry Coatta) writes:

>Your conception of democracy seems to be nothing more that ``majority rule''.
>This is not sufficient.  Democracy is an empty form of government without
>adherence to basic human rights and freedoms.  The essence of democracy
>is not majority rule, but compromise and consensus.

That's not true. The essence of democracy *is* majority rule. Compromise and
consensus only come into play when a majority is desired, but has not been
attained.

> The difficulty with
>introducing religious ideals or justifications into the political arena
>is that compromise and consensus are no longer possible.

That's not true either. Religious ideals and justifications have been present
in the political arena since the beginning of time, and compromise and
consensus have not been absent.

Admittedly, people hold onto their religious beliefs often more strongly than
onto other beliefs, so it may be more difficult to convince them to temporize.
Hence compromise and consensus may be more difficult to achieve. 

> How does one argue
>with a justification like: ``God says we should act in the following
>manner, and so we need laws to enforce this behaviour.''  How can a 
>non-believer view this as anything but enforced religion?  This is
>disenfrachisement.

This is *not* disenfranchisement. This is simply an instance of a group
of people in a democracy taking a particular position (i.e. that we need
a law to enforce/prohibit behaviour X) for a particular reason (i.e. that
God told them to). How is that in any way inferior to another group
of people taking another position (i.e. that we need a law to enforce/
prohibit behaviour Y) for other reasons (i.e. because their parents taught
them to, because it'll give them more money, because some politician told
them to, or because their whim at the time suggested it)? 

Look, in a democracy, anybody can have any reason he/she wishes for the
positions he or she takes. The fact that some person's reasons are religious
is no reason to prevent that person from taking his/her position. Anything to
the contrary is patently undemocratic.

I'm getting a little frustrated with this discussion. Why don't you
just spell out exactly how you propose prohibiting Christians from taking
any democratic positions motivated by their religious beliefs, and we
can investigate how "democratic" this is.

John
--
John DiMarco                   jdd@db.toronto.edu or jdd@db.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto, CSRI    BITNET: jdd%db.toronto.edu@relay.cs.net
(416) 978-8609                 UUCP: uunet!utai!db!jdd

[At least in the U.S., there has been an attempt to avoid the "tyranny
of the majority".  That is, our concept of democracy is not pure
majority rule.  It is majority rule combined with a respect for the
minority, which I believe includes a commitment not to impose the
majority's will on dissenters except in cases where there really does
need to be a single policy.  This is the reason we have things like
the Bill of Rights.  It's also the reason that Christians do not
simply prohibit all other religions.  This considerably complicates
discussions on public policy, because it means we have to consider in
any given case whether -- even if we are the majority -- it is
necessary and appopriate for us to impose our will on everyone else.
--clh]

lionti@ecs.umass.edu (09/25/90)

[There has been some discussion about whether it is appropriate for
Christians to pass laws based on Christian principles.  It was said
at some point that democracy is simply majority rule, and if we
are in the majority, compromise and consensus are not needed.  I
responded that even where there is a clear majority, democracy
includes protecting the rights of minorites.  That's why limits
such as the Bill of Rights exist.  --clh]

I think that this whole argument hinges on this statement!!!
The US system of Government is set up as a democracy (loosely) *WITH
CHECKS TO PROTECT THE MINORITY BUILT IN !!!*  Therefore, everyone's right,
in fact duty, is to agitate, vote, etc. for what they believe will make
this the best country for the people, AND LET THE STRUCTURE OF THE 
GOVERNMENT ASSURE THAT THE RIGHTS OF THE MINORITY DON'T GET TRAMPLED.
When it is found that the Government is not adequetely protecting those
rights, the Government should be changed!  The people shouldn't meekly
go around not doing, voting, etc. as they see is right just for fear of
trampling others rights, the Government is supposed to protect those
rights!

People always seem to argue (both here and elsewhere) that "we shouldn't
do this or that, or vote for this or that, because that would go against
such and such Amendment, etc."  It's not the people who are voting's job
to decide that, it is already covered within the structure of the Govt.
So if you want or don't want abortion rights, if you want or don't want
homosexual rights, if you want or don't want prayer in the schools, then
you have a right AND A DUTY to push as hard as you feel necessary to get
those things instituted!  If this offends someone with the opposite opinion,
then they can do the same.  If the majority would be trampling on the rights
of the minority, then the minority can seek redress from the Govt. through
appeals to the constitution via the courts.

SO PUSH FOR WHAT *YOU* BELIEVE IN, and let the chips fall (and be sorted
by the Government).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric C McClure
lionti@umaecs.bitnet
Standard Disclaimer

coatta@cs.ubc.ca (Terry Coatta) (09/25/90)

John DiMarco writes:

> That's not true. The essence of democracy *is* majority rule. Compromise and
> consensus only come into play when a majority is desired, but has not been
> attained. 

I disagree strongly on two grounds: (1) Secular: The basis for society
has to be a recognition of certain fundamental rights and freedoms.
Anything else is tyranny by whatever name you call it. (2) Religious,
I personally find it impossible to believe that any Christian would
willfully choose to ignore the desires of those who are in the minority.
Are we not to love our neighbours, to be charitable, to turn the other
cheek?  This does not imply that we need always give way to desires of
the minority, but we must always consider their desires and needs because
they ARE our brothers and sisters.

> That's not true either. Religious ideals and justifications have been present
> in the political arena since the beginning of time, and compromise and
> consensus have not been absent. 

I find this somewhere between sad and humourous.  Almost anywhere that
purely religious ideals or justifications have intruded into the political
realm have been accasion for recrimination and bloodshead.  The crusades,
the inquisition, the persecution of the hugenots, laws against witchcraft,
and the list goes on.  Religious ideals have blended smoothely with 
government only in more or less homogeneous religious environments, or
when religious ideals overlapped significantly with secular ones.

> I'm getting a little frustrated with this discussion. Why don't you
> just spell out exactly how you propose prohibiting Christians from taking
> any democratic positions motivated by their religious beliefs, and we
> can investigate how "democratic" this is.

I don't propose to prohibit anything.  I am asking that as a Christian
you behave in accordance with the principles of Christianity when acting
in a public forum.  Did Christ ask that we legislate Christianity into
existence?  Did Christ tell us it was OK to pass judgement on what is
proper conduct for non-Christians?  Did Christ suggest that it was OK to
ignore the needs and desires of other people and simply impose Christian
ethics on them?  That is oppression pure and simple.  Is there a
commandment somewhere that says  ``Thou shalt oppress non-Christians''. 

And just what exactly is the point of forcing others to ACT according
to Christian ideals?  Are we saved by ACTING like Christians?  If we
sincerely want to spread the good news of Christ then I suggest the
best way to do that is to treat others courteously, to respect their
needs and beliefs, and to present the good news to them as friends, not
overlords. 

Terry Coatta (coatta@cs.ubc.ca)
Dept. of Computer Science, UBC, Vancouver BC, Canada

`What I lack in intelligence, I more than compensate for with stupidity'

hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (09/27/90)

In article <Sep.25.03.50.58.1990.6312@athos.rutgers.edu> lionti@ecs.umass.edu writes:

(The moderator comments on a previous posting)
>[There has been some discussion about whether it is appropriate for
>Christians to pass laws based on Christian principles.  It was said
>at some point that democracy is simply majority rule, and if we
>are in the majority, compromise and consensus are not needed.  I
>responded that even where there is a clear majority, democracy
>includes protecting the rights of minorities.  That's why limits
>such as the Bill of Rights exist.  --clh]

To which Eric replies:

>I think that this whole argument hinges on this statement!!!
>The US system of Government is set up as a democracy (loosely) *WITH
>CHECKS TO PROTECT THE MINORITY BUILT IN !!!*

This is true, but I believe these are just that, checks.  I believe
the first line of defense should be a reluctance on the part of the
voters and legislative branch to trample the rights of the
minorities.  If we indeed love our neighbor as ourselves we will
act accordingly in our actions relating to government as well as
when we meet him face to face.  Then the court system can act as a
check on how well we do instead of getting in the way of a bunch of 
thieves trying to beat the system.

>                                           Therefore, everyone's right,
>in fact duty, is to agitate, vote, etc. for what they believe will make
>this the best country for the people,

I would agree with this if you include consideration for minorities
in what is best for the people.

>                                     AND LET THE STRUCTURE OF THE 
>GOVERNMENT ASSURE THAT THE RIGHTS OF THE MINORITY DON'T GET TRAMPLED.

Think about how the structure of our government protects the rights
of the minority.  It takes a court challenge to the law which not
only clogs up our court system but costs that minority a *lot* of
money.  If the trampled minority is unwilling or unable to fight
this through the courts the unjust law will stand.  It may stand
even if they fight it, the courts are not perfect.  Should we really
impose this burden on our brothers and sisters?

>When it is found that the Government is not adequately protecting those
>rights, the Government should be changed!  The people shouldn't meekly
>go around not doing, voting, etc. as they see is right just for fear of
>trampling others rights, the Government is supposed to protect those
>rights!

Maybe government is supposed to protect those rights but that
doesn't mean they will.  After all, who is the government?  Isn't it
us?

>People always seem to argue (both here and elsewhere) that "we shouldn't
>do this or that, or vote for this or that, because that would go against
>such and such Amendment, etc."  It's not the people who are voting's job
>to decide that, it is already covered within the structure of the Govt.
>So if you want or don't want abortion rights, if you want or don't want
>homosexual rights, if you want or don't want prayer in the schools, then
>you have a right AND A DUTY to push as hard as you feel necessary to get
>those things instituted!  If this offends someone with the opposite opinion,
>then they can do the same.  If the majority would be trampling on the rights
>of the minority, then the minority can seek redress from the Govt. through
>appeals to the constitution via the courts.

I think we all should support the constitution if we really believe
in its protection of minority rights.  If we believe a law is needed
but not constitutional maybe we should work to modify the
constitution.  I think it is every citizen's job to defend the
constitution and while the supreme court has taken the power to
declare laws unconstitutional I would prefer that they be regarded
as a secondary defense.  Voters and their representatives should try
to do what is right because it is right, not because the court will
overrule them if they don't.

>SO PUSH FOR WHAT *YOU* BELIEVE IN, and let the chips fall (and be sorted
>by the Government).

I find a great deal of merit in what Eric says and I'm not sure how
far he means to push this idea.  Certainly we should try to get our
government to do what is right.  I am concerned however that this
could be taken as, "Vote for what you want regardless of the effect
on others."   (No, I'm not accusing Eric of saying this.)  Such an 
attitude would be wrong, akin to the idea that we can do what we 
want regardless of its effect on others.  Let's assume our fair 
share of the burden, not leave it all up to the supreme court.

There is and will be disagreement on which laws are bad.  This is
normal.  However as Christians we should be honest and try to look
at which laws are good and bad apart from whether those laws benefit
us or not.  I think Jesus would even have us vote against our own
self-interest if that self-interest would infringe the rights of
others, just as he would have us refrain from taking what belongs to
someone else even if we have the opportunity.

Since I am on my soapbox I will mention that I think the mob
mentality can operate all too easily in government.  Things we would
not do individually we find easy to justify as part of a large
group, (eg. mob, corporation  or government).  There seems to be an 
added temptation when we do something as part of a government since 
we can make it legal and we seem to think that what is legal is right.  
This gives our actions an aura of respectibility even though those
actions may be wrong.

Conversely things we would not do to an individual we often do to a 
large group.  Yet the government or insurance company we cheat is 
nothing but a collection of individuals.  What we really do is cheat 
each of those individuals.  Such cheating is not only inappropriate 
for Christians but puts a tremendous burden on our economy.

stq@cbnewsi.att.com (Scott T Questad) (09/27/90)

In article <Sep.25.03.50.58.1990.6312@athos.rutgers.edu>, lionti@ecs.umass.edu writes:
> 
> I think that this whole argument hinges on this statement!!!
> The US system of Government is set up as a democracy (loosely) *WITH

I keep seeing this kind of statement and I'd like to make a subtle correction.
The U.S. is a republic, governed primarily by the Constitution.  If it were
a pure democracy, we would live by majority rule.

lionti@ecs.umass.edu (10/01/90)

[lionti@ecs.umass.edu in a previous posting said that the U.S. system
of government alreay has protection of the minority in it, so you
should go ahead and push for what you believe in.  Hal Lillywhite
agreed that you should try to get the government to do what is right. Bu
> government to do what is right.  I am concerned however that this
> could be taken as, "Vote for what you want regardless of the effect
> on others."   (No, I'm not accusing Eric of saying this.)  Such an 
> attitude would be wrong, akin to the idea that we can do what we 
> want regardless of its effect on others.  Let's assume our fair 
> share of the burden, not leave it all up to the supreme court.
--clh]

Thank you Hal for pointing out the obvious need for moderation in the
points I proposed.  In my article I pushed the extreme somewhat, more
as a rhetorical tool than as a statement of my true beliefs.  I felt
the need to do this, because I often seem to see an almost "paralysis"
on the part of some people to vote for what they believe in, for fear
of offending some group or the Bill of Rights.

I believe that the needs of the minority must of course be considered
when making desicions of this kind, but that people shouldn't let this
totally dominate their decisions when it comes to the political arena.

Again, Thank you Hal for being "the voice of reason," and I hope that
people understand that I am in no way advocating "trampling minority
groups underfoot" as this would certainly be a most unchristian attitude.

yours in love,

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric C. McClure		|						|
lionti@umaecs.bitnet	|     "Vanity of vanities, all is vanity"	|
Standard Disclaimer	|						|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------