This makes me think of a little incident that happened to me many years ago. I was at a wedding with some very liberal law school mates. And I was chatting with another guest who was about 8 months pregnant. I have no recollection at all how the subject came up but inadvertantly a very pro-life sentiment came out of my mouth! I should have know better but everybody SEEMED so pleasant and reasonable. This pregnant woman began shouting at me about how she had the right to choose to do with her body what she wanted and she could have have an abortion any time she wanted. She just moments before had been having people feel her baby move in her belly! My jaw dropped! The other standing around us turned and I swear I thought they were going to tar and feather me. I have never felt such hostility emanating towards me. I was shaking in my shoes. It was truly the most twilight zone moment of my life.
Ever since, I’ve thought that pro-life democrats are the bravest people ever and I am proud to identify myself as one!
Ah! I confess to not being aware of such things until I started reading your site years ago. My first thought was, “They need to become much, much louder to give those of us waffling in the middle an alternative.” Shocking that someone would want, you know, good things all around for everyone. 🙂
Congratulations on receiving another Homeschool Blogging Award nomination. You’re part of a great bunch.
Thank you for the link! I feel much less alone.
They do exist–they are an endangered species, though. Bob Casey was a good one…
I think republicans also want good things all around for everyone, too. At least the ones I know do.
Elisha, I think most citizens want good things all around, but I don’t think either party represents those ideals.
Elisha and Jennifer are right, we all just want good things for people (okay, not politicians, they just want votes) and we disagree about the means of achieving it.
I don’t think it’s particularly kind to paint non-leftists as those who don’t want to see blacks vote. That seems equally unconstructive as assuming people are babykillers because they believe the government has a moral obligation to deprive one group of their property to benefit another group.
I very much care about people who don’t have food and people who are discriminated against and illegal wars and our devalued dollar and the billion dollars of deficit spending our country plows through every day and using public funds to support Planned Parenthood and government sponsored torture and… oh my.
I also very much care about liberty and freedom from government control (that’s why I’m voting Ron Paul ’08).
I wonder… how does government have a “moral obligation?” How does a political entity have morality? In my understanding, morality comes from God, and individuals are obligated to live according to God’s moral law because we are created in His image.
Governments were not created in His image. Governments were instituted because of man’s fall and our refusal to live according to God’s law. Though the Bible speaks of qualities a godly ruler should have and it certainly delineates the executive authority given to civic government, I can find nothing that speaks of governing bodies as possessing morality. In fact, God actually warned the Israelites not to institute a monarchy because of all the king would take from them!
Therefore, I disagree with the premise that governments have any moral obligation at all. Supposing they did have morality, can it be discharged by using the threat of imprisonment to force one group to give its property to another group who is deemed more deserving? If I am obligated as an individual to feed the hungry and clothe the naked and care for the widow and orphan, can I discharge that obligation by threatening my neighbor and using her property on behalf of said hungry, naked, widowed, or orphaned person?
I like your blogs and I agree with your thoughts on education. The implication that I am racist because I don’t care for redistribution is offensive and illogical.
Elizabeth, I understand what you’re saying and you raise some good points. I’m actually keeping an eye on Ron Paul myself.
I think, though, that you are responding primarily to things my husband said on his blog and those issues are best addressed there. 🙂 I simply wanted to make sure the person (Amy) who clicked over from my site to his and left the heated comment about abortion knew (in case she never went back to Scott’s site) that he is ardently pro-life.
Elizabeth wrote: I don’t think it’s particularly kind to paint non-leftists as those who don’t want to see blacks vote.
That would indeed be unkind, were someone to have done it. And I’m sure someone somewhere has. But I didn’t. What I very carefully and specifically said was that 43 years ago non-leftists felt that way. I did not say they did today. Was I using a broad brush? Of course I was. Also an accurate one.
You may have read this post whilst you were on The Dial…or then again, you might not have. But take a look at the two electoral maps and tell me how what I said was in any way incorrect. That seems equally unconstructive as assuming people are babykillers because they believe the government has a moral obligation to deprive one group of their property to benefit another group.
Just to make sure I’m understanding: when you say “a moral obligation to deprive one group of their property to benefit another group” are you describing taxing people and using those revenues to support, say, feeding hungry children whose parents can’t afford food? I just want to make sure I’m following properly, since that seems to be what you’re saying, but it doesn’t seem likely at all that that’s what you really mean, and I’d hate to jump to an erroneous conclusion. I wonder… how does government have a “moral obligation?” How does a political entity have morality? In my understanding, morality comes from God, and individuals are obligated to live according to God’s moral law because we are created in His image.
Governments were not created in His image. Governments were instituted because of man’s fall and our refusal to live according to God’s law. Though the Bible speaks of qualities a godly ruler should have and it certainly delineates the executive authority given to civic government, I can find nothing that speaks of governing bodies as possessing morality. In fact, God actually warned the Israelites not to institute a monarchy because of all the king would take from them!
Therefore, I disagree with the premise that governments have any moral obligation at all.
Interesting.
It’s true that corporations, for instance, have no obligation to be moral (a stance an executive vice president at the largest multinational media conglomerate in the world told me he took serious issue with a few years back, incidentally—“Why is it,” he asked, “that what would be completely unacceptable for a person to do is all right for a huge company to do? And why is it that doing something which would be considered kind but natural for a neighbor to do is suddenly noteworthy when it’s a large corporation?” Good questions. But I digress.). Companies are designed to make money. They’re not designed to be Good or Just or Moral or Friendly or Winsome or Attractive. If they’re any or all of those things, well, rock on. But those are just fringe benefits. They’re designed to make money. That’s their entire purpose.
A government is not, despite how this one’s been (horrendously mis-)run this century, a company.
It is, however, made up of humans. And if humans were made in God’s image and humans are obligated to live according to God’s moral law, then how can they form and run a government that’s counter to God’s law? I’m afraid I don’t quite see how that works.
But let’s take a step back. I’m assuming everyone on here has read this a time or two, but I think it’s worth taking ten seconds and rereading every few months:
The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776 The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. 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.
Italics, of course, are mine.
The American Heritage Dictionary defines “rights” thusly:
That which is just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting.
“Morally good.” Smack dab thar in the definition is that word “morally.”
The Random House Dictionary defines “morally” thusly:
in a moral manner
So. Morally, moral, morality.
Rights and morality cannot be separated. They are inextricably entwined.
“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.”
Our Declaration of Independence, one of the three most important documents in the history of our nation, a defining statement of our principles and our purpose and which continues to be justly revered today, says that governments do, in fact, have an obligation to be moral. So perhaps all governments don’t.
But ours does. Supposing they did have morality, can it be discharged by using the threat of imprisonment to force one group to give its property to another group who is deemed more deserving?
Such as when, say, convicted drug dealers have the car they used to commit felonies impounded? And the car is then auctioned off and the proceeds go to the state? Do you believe that’s wrong? Or were you just speaking in a more general manner? If I am obligated as an individual to feed the hungry and clothe the naked and care for the widow and orphan, can I discharge that obligation by threatening my neighbor and using her property on behalf of said hungry, naked, widowed, or orphaned person?
I assume, therefore, that you do believe all taxation is illegal, immoral, unconstitutional or simply unfair? And that state-sponsored roads and bridges, for example, or our military should also be done away with?
There’s also the question over whether providing your citizens with healthcare—again, just to pick one issue—is a matter of good policy or not. It is, although arguments could perhaps be made going the other way. But that’s actually quite a different, if related, topic, the practical side of it, as opposed to the moral. I like your blogs and I agree with your thoughts on education. The implication that I am racist because I don’t care for redistribution is offensive and illogical.
Hey now. You’re either getting me confused with Top Management—which I can tell you, would definitely be a first—or you’re grafting what you mistakenly saw as one of my sins onto her. Which is, I think, what you’ve accused me of doing. 🙂 You can’t blame her for falling in love with a complete maroon. (Even if her college roommates did all warn her away from me.)
Thank you for the responses Melissa and Scott. I apologize for posting my comment here — I had assumed that Melissa agreed wholeheartedly with the sentiments she linked to and directed my persuasions to her since I read her blog the most. 🙂
Scott, I will be happy to address the points you raised if you are interested, but you have much more important birthday matters to enjoy. I think it is probably best to agree to disagree agreeably as brethren in Christ.
Best regards (and happy birthdays),
Elizabeth
Thanks for the kind words, Elizabeth. Scott will be the first to tell you I challenge lots of things he says. But nobody makes me think through an issue like he does. As a friend of ours has often remarked, even when you disagree, he gets you mulling and pondering and examining assumptions, your own and others’. It’s one of the (many) qualities I cherish in him!
*waves to Amy* Have a gyro for me, please?
This makes me think of a little incident that happened to me many years ago. I was at a wedding with some very liberal law school mates. And I was chatting with another guest who was about 8 months pregnant. I have no recollection at all how the subject came up but inadvertantly a very pro-life sentiment came out of my mouth! I should have know better but everybody SEEMED so pleasant and reasonable. This pregnant woman began shouting at me about how she had the right to choose to do with her body what she wanted and she could have have an abortion any time she wanted. She just moments before had been having people feel her baby move in her belly! My jaw dropped! The other standing around us turned and I swear I thought they were going to tar and feather me. I have never felt such hostility emanating towards me. I was shaking in my shoes. It was truly the most twilight zone moment of my life.
Ever since, I’ve thought that pro-life democrats are the bravest people ever and I am proud to identify myself as one!
Ah! I confess to not being aware of such things until I started reading your site years ago. My first thought was, “They need to become much, much louder to give those of us waffling in the middle an alternative.” Shocking that someone would want, you know, good things all around for everyone. 🙂
Congratulations on receiving another Homeschool Blogging Award nomination. You’re part of a great bunch.
Thank you for the link! I feel much less alone.
They do exist–they are an endangered species, though. Bob Casey was a good one…
I think republicans also want good things all around for everyone, too. At least the ones I know do.
Elisha, I think most citizens want good things all around, but I don’t think either party represents those ideals.
Elisha and Jennifer are right, we all just want good things for people (okay, not politicians, they just want votes) and we disagree about the means of achieving it.
I don’t think it’s particularly kind to paint non-leftists as those who don’t want to see blacks vote. That seems equally unconstructive as assuming people are babykillers because they believe the government has a moral obligation to deprive one group of their property to benefit another group.
I very much care about people who don’t have food and people who are discriminated against and illegal wars and our devalued dollar and the billion dollars of deficit spending our country plows through every day and using public funds to support Planned Parenthood and government sponsored torture and… oh my.
I also very much care about liberty and freedom from government control (that’s why I’m voting Ron Paul ’08).
I wonder… how does government have a “moral obligation?” How does a political entity have morality? In my understanding, morality comes from God, and individuals are obligated to live according to God’s moral law because we are created in His image.
Governments were not created in His image. Governments were instituted because of man’s fall and our refusal to live according to God’s law. Though the Bible speaks of qualities a godly ruler should have and it certainly delineates the executive authority given to civic government, I can find nothing that speaks of governing bodies as possessing morality. In fact, God actually warned the Israelites not to institute a monarchy because of all the king would take from them!
Therefore, I disagree with the premise that governments have any moral obligation at all. Supposing they did have morality, can it be discharged by using the threat of imprisonment to force one group to give its property to another group who is deemed more deserving? If I am obligated as an individual to feed the hungry and clothe the naked and care for the widow and orphan, can I discharge that obligation by threatening my neighbor and using her property on behalf of said hungry, naked, widowed, or orphaned person?
I like your blogs and I agree with your thoughts on education. The implication that I am racist because I don’t care for redistribution is offensive and illogical.
Elizabeth, I understand what you’re saying and you raise some good points. I’m actually keeping an eye on Ron Paul myself.
I think, though, that you are responding primarily to things my husband said on his blog and those issues are best addressed there. 🙂 I simply wanted to make sure the person (Amy) who clicked over from my site to his and left the heated comment about abortion knew (in case she never went back to Scott’s site) that he is ardently pro-life.
Elizabeth wrote:
I don’t think it’s particularly kind to paint non-leftists as those who don’t want to see blacks vote.
That would indeed be unkind, were someone to have done it. And I’m sure someone somewhere has. But I didn’t. What I very carefully and specifically said was that 43 years ago non-leftists felt that way. I did not say they did today. Was I using a broad brush? Of course I was. Also an accurate one.
You may have read this post whilst you were on The Dial…or then again, you might not have. But take a look at the two electoral maps and tell me how what I said was in any way incorrect.
That seems equally unconstructive as assuming people are babykillers because they believe the government has a moral obligation to deprive one group of their property to benefit another group.
Just to make sure I’m understanding: when you say “a moral obligation to deprive one group of their property to benefit another group” are you describing taxing people and using those revenues to support, say, feeding hungry children whose parents can’t afford food? I just want to make sure I’m following properly, since that seems to be what you’re saying, but it doesn’t seem likely at all that that’s what you really mean, and I’d hate to jump to an erroneous conclusion.
I wonder… how does government have a “moral obligation?” How does a political entity have morality? In my understanding, morality comes from God, and individuals are obligated to live according to God’s moral law because we are created in His image.
Governments were not created in His image. Governments were instituted because of man’s fall and our refusal to live according to God’s law. Though the Bible speaks of qualities a godly ruler should have and it certainly delineates the executive authority given to civic government, I can find nothing that speaks of governing bodies as possessing morality. In fact, God actually warned the Israelites not to institute a monarchy because of all the king would take from them!
Therefore, I disagree with the premise that governments have any moral obligation at all.
Interesting.
It’s true that corporations, for instance, have no obligation to be moral (a stance an executive vice president at the largest multinational media conglomerate in the world told me he took serious issue with a few years back, incidentally—“Why is it,” he asked, “that what would be completely unacceptable for a person to do is all right for a huge company to do? And why is it that doing something which would be considered kind but natural for a neighbor to do is suddenly noteworthy when it’s a large corporation?” Good questions. But I digress.). Companies are designed to make money. They’re not designed to be Good or Just or Moral or Friendly or Winsome or Attractive. If they’re any or all of those things, well, rock on. But those are just fringe benefits. They’re designed to make money. That’s their entire purpose.
A government is not, despite how this one’s been (horrendously mis-)run this century, a company.
It is, however, made up of humans. And if humans were made in God’s image and humans are obligated to live according to God’s moral law, then how can they form and run a government that’s counter to God’s law? I’m afraid I don’t quite see how that works.
But let’s take a step back. I’m assuming everyone on here has read this a time or two, but I think it’s worth taking ten seconds and rereading every few months:
Italics, of course, are mine.
The American Heritage Dictionary defines “rights” thusly:
“Morally good.” Smack dab thar in the definition is that word “morally.”
The Random House Dictionary defines “morally” thusly:
So. Morally, moral, morality.
Rights and morality cannot be separated. They are inextricably entwined.
“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.”
Our Declaration of Independence, one of the three most important documents in the history of our nation, a defining statement of our principles and our purpose and which continues to be justly revered today, says that governments do, in fact, have an obligation to be moral. So perhaps all governments don’t.
But ours does.
Supposing they did have morality, can it be discharged by using the threat of imprisonment to force one group to give its property to another group who is deemed more deserving?
Such as when, say, convicted drug dealers have the car they used to commit felonies impounded? And the car is then auctioned off and the proceeds go to the state? Do you believe that’s wrong? Or were you just speaking in a more general manner?
If I am obligated as an individual to feed the hungry and clothe the naked and care for the widow and orphan, can I discharge that obligation by threatening my neighbor and using her property on behalf of said hungry, naked, widowed, or orphaned person?
I assume, therefore, that you do believe all taxation is illegal, immoral, unconstitutional or simply unfair? And that state-sponsored roads and bridges, for example, or our military should also be done away with?
There’s also the question over whether providing your citizens with healthcare—again, just to pick one issue—is a matter of good policy or not. It is, although arguments could perhaps be made going the other way. But that’s actually quite a different, if related, topic, the practical side of it, as opposed to the moral.
I like your blogs and I agree with your thoughts on education. The implication that I am racist because I don’t care for redistribution is offensive and illogical.
Hey now. You’re either getting me confused with Top Management—which I can tell you, would definitely be a first—or you’re grafting what you mistakenly saw as one of my sins onto her. Which is, I think, what you’ve accused me of doing. 🙂 You can’t blame her for falling in love with a complete maroon. (Even if her college roommates did all warn her away from me.)
Thank you for the responses Melissa and Scott. I apologize for posting my comment here — I had assumed that Melissa agreed wholeheartedly with the sentiments she linked to and directed my persuasions to her since I read her blog the most. 🙂
Scott, I will be happy to address the points you raised if you are interested, but you have much more important birthday matters to enjoy. I think it is probably best to agree to disagree agreeably as brethren in Christ.
Best regards (and happy birthdays),
Elizabeth
Thanks for the kind words, Elizabeth. Scott will be the first to tell you I challenge lots of things he says. But nobody makes me think through an issue like he does. As a friend of ours has often remarked, even when you disagree, he gets you mulling and pondering and examining assumptions, your own and others’. It’s one of the (many) qualities I cherish in him!