Some evangelicals in Republican Party are feeling left out

3652 reads

There are 17 Comments

WilliamD's picture

" They feel out of place in a GOP increasingly dominated by tea party activists and libertarians who prefer to focus on taxes and the role of government and often disagree with social conservatives on drugs or gay rights."

Good! The focus on social issues is the church's job to clean up, not the government's!  The church as a whole has no credibility to speak about anything until it gets its own house in order. Evangelicals have been putting their trust in government way too long in my opinion and fiscal conservatives who are more interested in taxation and limiting government are putting the right focus on what government is supposed to be doing.  

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

WilliamD wrote:

Evangelicals have been putting their trust in government way too long in my opinion and fiscal conservatives who are more interested in taxation and limiting government are putting the right focus on what government is supposed to be doing.  

Absolutely.

Dave Barnhart

Nick's picture

WilliamD wrote:

Good! The focus on social issues is the church's job to clean up, not the government's! 

So it is not the government's job to make laws against murder (abortion) and enforce those laws?

 

Sean Fericks's picture

Nick, it is the state's duty to protect rights, including that of the unborn.  It is NOT the state's duty to regulate vice (drugs, pornography, adultery, etc.).  It is the duty of the Church to proclaim the solution to vice, and to live its example.

Chip Van Emmerik's picture

Sean,

Are you declaring that not to be the government's responsibility biblically or constitutionally or both?

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Nick's picture

 Sean,

Abortion is a social issue.  Protecting rights is a social issue (eg. civil rights movement).  Furthermore, majority of libertarians using same flawed rethoric are pro choice.  And it is that flawed logic I am criticizing.

Sean Fericks wrote:

Nick, it is the state's duty to protect rights, including that of the unborn.  It is NOT the state's duty to regulate vice (drugs, pornography, adultery, etc.).  It is the duty of the Church to proclaim the solution to vice, and to live its example.

farmer Tom N's picture

I have officially given up on the Republican Party.

When the last three Presidential candidates are progressives like George W Bush, John McCain, and Willard "mittens" Romney, then I can not and will not call myself a Republican.

Add their capitulation to Obama on amnesty, budgets, debt ceiling, and every other thing he wants, the Republican Party serves no useful purpose, other than funding raising using Obama as a foil.

different subject

I have sympathy for libertarian thinking. Liberty in Christ is awesome. But, I'm continually amused by the idea that government is not supposed to regulate vice. 

I assume that you would ask for immediate government intervention if your neighbor opened a brothel next to your family home.

I suppose you like having crack houses next door to your church as well. Can't let the government interfere in business transactions, don't ya know.

 

Sean Fericks's picture

Chip Van Emmerik wrote:

Sean,

Are you declaring that not to be the government's responsibility biblically or constitutionally or both?

Thanks for asking the clarifying question.  Constitutionally, government is limited.  Abortion and murder (same thing) are not in the preview of the federal government.  They are to be the preview of the individual states.  Same applies to marriage, adultery, drugs, medicine, etc.

By extension, since the Constitution is the highest law of the land, it is unbiblical to use the federal government in unconstitutional ways. If believers wish to change the scope of federal governance, they should do so via amendment.

As a libertarian, I believe that state and local governments should defend life, liberty, property, and sanctity of contract.  They should do little else.  

Biblically, Government is to reward good and punish evil doers (Rom. 13). History suggests that the best system for accomplishing this task is our own federalist constitutional republic.

Sean Fericks's picture

Nick wrote:

 Sean,

Abortion is a social issue.  Protecting rights is a social issue (eg. civil rights movement).  Furthermore, majority of libertarians using same flawed rethoric are pro choice.  And it is that flawed logic I am criticizing.

As a libertarian, I believe that the task of government is to defend rights. I believe that it is the Church's calling to proclaim truth and influence society toward a more godly society. There is some overlap (abortion/murder). But there are also social issues that are out of bounds (especially for a federal government with enumerated powers). Do you believe that the federal government should expand its power, and begin to regulate the sacred covenant of marriage?

Sean Fericks's picture

farmer Tom N wrote:

I have officially given up on the Republican Party.

When the last three Presidential candidates are progressives like George W Bush, John McCain, and Willard "mittens" Romney, then I can not and will not call myself a Republican.

Add their capitulation to Obama on amnesty, budgets, debt ceiling, and every other thing he wants, the Republican Party serves no useful purpose, other than funding raising using Obama as a foil.

different subject

I have sympathy for libertarian thinking. Liberty in Christ is awesome. But, I'm continually amused by the idea that government is not supposed to regulate vice. 

I assume that you would ask for immediate government intervention if your neighbor opened a brothel next to your family home.

I suppose you like having crack houses next door to your church as well. Can't let the government interfere in business transactions, don't ya know.

 

Great thoughts Tom.

Regarding the GOP, I am still registered and active in my county central committee.  This allows me to influence and vote.  If you give up your ability to influence, all you have left is a neutered complaint.  I encourage you to register GOP and join your central committee.

Regarding brothels, we have him here in Elko.  They are zoned appropriately (a proper function of the city council).  Because they have a safe and legal local area to operate, we do not have street walkers.  We have no brothels near our church, and I know of at least one Christian group in our area that ministers directly to these hurting ladies.

Oddly, drugs are illegal, and our jail is full of users and dealers. I know of one young man who has been to prison on multiple occasions for using and stealing to pay for his vice.  

Nick's picture

Sean Fericks wrote:

As a libertarian, I believe that the task of government is to defend rights. I believe that it is the Church's calling to proclaim truth and influence society toward a more godly society. There is some overlap (abortion/murder).

There is far more overlap than you may think.  I think it was RC Sproul who said (or quoted someone who said) that a law not grounded on morality is tyranny.

 

Sean Fericks wrote:

As a libertarian, I believe that state and local governments should defend life, liberty, property, and sanctity of contract.

....

Do you believe that the federal government should expand its power, and begin to regulate the sacred covenant of marriage?

Do you believe local governments should regulate marriage?  Do you believe marriage is a contract?  Do you believe marriage partners have rights, and that those rights are enforceable?

If not, why should the government regulate a monetary contract and not a marriage contract?

Do you believe orphans have the right, if they are adopted at all, to be adopted by a mother and a father?

 

Sean Fericks's picture

"There is far more overlap than you may think.  I think it was RC Sproul who said (or quoted someone who said) that a law not grounded on morality is tyranny."

I agree with your uncertain source that immoral laws are evil. However, it does not follow that we should have a law to regulate every vice.

 

Sean Fericks's picture

"Do you believe local governments should regulate marriage?  Do you believe marriage is a contract?  Do you believe marriage partners have rights, and that those rights are enforceable?"

I believe they should enforce contract, not regulate marriage (at the state level). They should also adjudicate familial disputes to protect children, since children are unable to give informed consent to marriage contracts.

 

"If not, why should the government regulate a monetary contract and not a marriage contract?"

The Constitution grants Congress the power to coin money, regulate interstate commerce, and grant patents (for instance). It does not grant Congress the right to regulate marriage. At the state level, I suppose regulation of both is (to some degree) constitutional. But in both cases, I would vote against regulation. I would vote in favor of sanctity of contract.

 

"Do you believe orphans have the right, if they are adopted at all, to be adopted by a mother and a father?"

When a child is the ward of the state, I believe that the state has a duty to place the child is the best care possible. In my dream world, this would always be a mature Christian home with a stable financial situation, a stay at home mom, older siblings, etc. We don't live in a perfect world. I would be in favor of placing children with married couples (Christian definition), or with mature, responsible, single parents.

Jim's picture

On the debt ceiling:

The problem with voting against raising the debt ceiling is that they've already voted to spend the money. It's basically corporate hypocrisy to vote against raising it. The analogy of not raising the credit card debt limit on a spendthrift is not a match. Also not raising the debt ceiling is a sword that cuts indiscriminately across the economy: yes it cuts programs that might be hated ... but it also impacts the military and those who rightfully depend upon government payments.

On voting GOP: (I voted for Mitt over Obama and McCain over Obama). Neither were my own first choice but it gets down to the lesser of two evils. This midterm election I will be voting for McFadden over Franken and Johnson over Dayton here in Minnesota

 

 

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

While not raising the debt ceiling is not the weapon of choice, for lots of reasons, right now I believe that our 17 trillion (or so) debt is a far bigger U.S. enemy long-term than ISIS, al Qaeda, terrorism in general, etc.  The idea behind using this tool is to force those in power to make the hard choices about how to spend what we have instead of spending what we don't have.  I don't find the sequestration to be the best way to balance our budget either, but it's still better than going even further into debt.

Any time hard choices have to be made, beloved programs will be cut alongside those that should be cut.  That's the nature of the beast.  Anyone who has ever had to drastically cut spending to bring debt under control will have to give up both things they like and those that are beneficial (not just things they think they can easily live without) in order to achieve the greater goal.

Dave Barnhart

Jim's picture

Both parties play "kick the can" . Neither are responsible. The GOP may be more responsible but not much.

Issues not being addressed:

  • Budgetary reform and closing the budget gap (it seems laughable to talk about balancing the budget)
  • Social Security reform
  • Medicare reform
  • Supplemental Security Income disability program fix (there is massive fraud here)
  • Immigration reform
  • Fixing Obamacare - even Dems know it not workable

The two main issues before politicians of both parties:

  • Fundraising &
  • Reelection