The Christian Political Blindspot.

A common theme of some Christians when they engage in U. S. politics is to say, “Christans are the majority.”   And, so there should be prayer in schools, Ten Commandments in the town square and so on.

The Christian brand is on other political ideas.  Just now it is Iran. Bombing Iran is popular with the Christian Republican Presidential candidates.

This past weekend, Mike Huckabee said Ron Paul’s position of leaving Iran alone was not the position of the “mainstream”.  Thus, he should not be the Republican nominee.

It doesn’t seem to be important to Huckabee whether Paul’s position is right or not, it just matters that Christians are the majority, the mainstream.  Political Christians like Huckabee should recognize Christians may not always be the majority, and, it might be wise to be establish that minority views have a place at the table in case they are, one day, the minority.

Of course, the U. S. Christian view that the majority should have its way changes when Christians actually are in the minority, as they are in other countries.  In various countries just now, innocent Christians are being killed in an effort to eliminate them.  U. S. Christians are expressing outrage against those majorities.

Politically minded Christians would be wise to recognize they have been in the majority for a relatively short time in the long history of humans.  Their time as a minority could come again one day.


18 Responses

  1. Bob

    This is why we are a republic and have a wonderful constitution, to stop the majority from stomping on the rights of individual freedoms. Ron Paul is a true constitutionalist, he gets it that we need to protect and uphold the constitution, or we risk losing all our rights. This is what libertarianism is all about. No matter what anyone thinks of Paul’s personal views on people, he is all about upholding the individual’s U.S. constitutional rights. He’s a civil libertarian. And that means protecting gay rights (simply through keeping government out of marriage), muslim, christian rights, and even keeping abortion legal so there isn’t more deaths as there would be if abortion were made unsafe and illegal.
    Thanks Jon.

    1. Henry

      “And that means protecting gay rights (simply through keeping government out of marriage”

      Keeping government out of marriage? That means no marriage license, no divorce proceedings, and no child custody determination. What a mess!

      The physically strong in a separation would get to keep the kids and the assets. The physically weak in a separation get sent on their way. This would be the result of no government role in marriage. It is Libertarian utopia, which in reality would be a mess.

      1. Bob

        Any government involvement in marriage violates the separation of church and state because marriage is a set of religious ceremonies and regulations. Churches, as private associations, have complete ability to define the requirements for marriage, and any consenting adults should be free to take part in any such ceremonies they wish. If those individuals enter into a contract to define their marriage, then the government must enforce the laws binding that contract.

        The government has no legitimate reason to recognize marriages or civil unions with any benefits or taxpayer money. But until these benefits are phased out, the government must not restrict which consenting individuals take part in those benefits.
        In a free society, civil marriage should be a voluntary, contractual option open to any pair of adults, period. Religions can choose to create religious rules and ceremonies open only to those who practice their religion, but their views should have nothing to do with civil marriage.

        Robert Poole, Reason Foundation

        The government should play no role in marriage, which is a sacrament of the church. Any individuals should be allowed to enter into a contract of civil union protected by contract law.

        Dave Nalle, Republic Liberty Caucus

        “Privatizing” marriage can mean two slightly different things. One is to take the state completely out of it. If couples want to cement their relationship with a ceremony or ritual, they are free to do so. Religious institutions are free to sanction such relationships under any rules they choose. A second meaning of “privatizing” marriage is to treat it like any other contract: The state may be called upon to enforce it, but the parties define the terms. When children or large sums of money are involved, and enforceable contract spelling out the parties’ respective rights and obligations is probably advisable. But the existence and details of such an agreement should be up to the parties.

        David Boaz, The Cato Institute

        Marriage should not be subject to government mandates, but instead solely to natural law standards under a rule of law. If some wish to have “gay marriage” and others do not, each should be free to adopt the rules they consider appropriate so long as property rights are respected. Child custody, adoption, and other questions should be based on contracts privately determined, again subject to natural law traditions.

        David Theroux, The Independent Institute

    2. Bob

      Its the democrats and the republicans both equally who are sniffing around Iran looking to pee on it like a dog marking its territory, and possibly China too.
      Don’t forget the democrats are as much war mongerers as the republicans.
      Just watch CNN if you don’t believe me.

  2. Simple

    I am wondering where the example or biblical reference is for christians to use government to promote their religion and values? What would jesus think of christian dominionism? It is getting to the point in the Republican party that you need to be or agree with evangelical christians or you don’t belong there.

  3. Bob

    To Simple 12:35 It is if you are in our evangelical U.S. standing military that Jefferson warned us about. Ron Paul is the only, ONLY, presidential candidate who wants to reign in our empire US military.

    Paul and his like minded Libertarian thinkers get it that its not the governments business to be our moral police, for example keep drugs legal, its not the government’s business. And I do not take drugs, nor would I ever ever want my loved ones to, but still think its none of the government’s business if I was dumb enough to do it.
    Prussian education should not be compulsory, the law that parent’s children have to go to government or any institutional schools. Its not the government’s business.
    I could go on and on, but I’d invite you to look up more of this at if you are curious.

  4. Bob

    I grew up on a farm in Minnesota, and didn’t have “townmilk” as we called it, until I was sent to Kindergarden and we were given those little cartons of milk to drink during snack time. We did everything else on the farm but dairy. So once a week we went to the dairy farm down the road a few miles and picked up our creamer can of fresh unpasteurized milk. Everyone drank their milk that way, straight from the cow with the cream sitting right at the top of the creamer can. It was delicious on peaches or bran flakes. My point is, I never got sick from drinking fresh milk straight from the cow my whole really young life. No one did. But the government says you can’t do that. You have to have your milk boiled, then because all the nutrients have been boiled, pasteurized, right out of it, companies have to add vitamins back in after boiling it so you get some kind of nutrition. And the pasteurization makes the milk into casein, or paint, which is toxic to the body. Most anytime the government gets their hands in our business, we the individual people pay for it, literally out of our pay checks. Government makes us lose creativity, creativity in health care, education, almost everything!!!
    Vote Ron Paul!

  5. Bob

    To Henry, 3:03 Actually, the matriach of my family, my grandmother, was a freethinker, probably agnostic, who was very well respected and loved in our family and rural farm community.
    She was very well read and the one who ran the farm, my grandfather was sickly, but was incredibly nice despite his religiousity and did the best he could to help.
    Getting unpasteurized milk was just what everyone in the rural countryside got back then. It wasn’t special like it is today, and has nothing to do with being a faithhead. No thanks to the government and dairy crony capitalists.

    1. Henry

      Interesting family heritage you shared, Bob. I am aware of similar heritages dating back to the early 1900’s in the upper midwest. I find that history rather interesting.

        1. Henry

          Nice, Bob. I acknowledge when you finally have something worthwhile to say, and you pull the long knives out. Nice.

          Are all you liberternians this fragile? I do realize you liberternians have to be handled with kidd gloves, but this is starting to get rediculous.

          1. Bob

            “finally have something worthwhile to say,” Henry 11:18
            So I’m supposed to forget all your fairytale talk from the past and your cutting down my freethinking and jolly up to you now?

            I don’t believe anything you say Henry, sorry.

          2. Henry

            Cutting down freethinking? Isn’t freethinking based on reason? Can’t freethinking be subject to the scrutiny of reason as well? What are you afraid of?

    2. Bob

      I’m old enough Henry, that this was my childhood too. My parents had a farm, and we spent a lot of time on the grandparents farm too.

Comments are closed.