go get a quote from Jesus where he says you need to NOT help people through government?
Dear TM:
1. The Lord loves a CHEERFUL giver. When we give out of God's love it is UNCONDITIONAL. So if people do not give freely out of CHARITY that is not giving, it becomes extortion in the case of threats of penalties by the IRS (which does not always follow due process and is not always constitutional in its practices) against the free will of the people.
2. The Bible instructs us to respect civil laws, authorities and human institutions.
So where the Civil Laws respect religious freedom to fund and support policies according to one's beliefs, and not be forced to endorse support or fund someone else's private religious beliefs, this applies to political beliefs where there are religious differences.
The same way pro-choice advocates don't want to pay for or fund anti-choice policies in conflict with personal beliefs, pro-life advocates don't want to either! Same with people on both sides of gun regulation, or immigration policies, or the death penalty, gay marriage, etc.
It is AGAINST constitutional laws of equal protection (14th amendment), religious freedom (1st amendment) and 10th amendment rights reserved to people and states, among others.
So if we are to follow the SPIRIT of civil or constitutional laws, we will respect the religious freedom and beliefs of our neighbors and NOT abuse govt and especially NOT taxation to impose conflicting policies against the beliefs of our neighbors who have a different approach to solving the same problems WITHOUT violating those beliefs.
You can call this equal free exercise "separation of church and state" equal protection of the laws or whatever. It means respecting the free will of others.
If God respects our free will and free choice, certainly we can do the same.
If the civil laws recognize our free will to "choose" in the case of abortion, without fear of penalty by law for making that choice, certainly we should respect people's choices in general about health care choices instead of penalizing people who don't buy insurance, for example.
Our country is in the political mess we are in right now, because we have forgotten our laws and started abusing politics and govt to force and bully policies against the will and consent of half the nation. Both parties are guilty of this. Two wrongs don't make a right.
There is a concept called "no taxation without representation" that our country was founded upon. So we need to practice what we preach, and not just where it is politically convenient.
If people have disagreements on policy, we should go through our respective political parties and use representation, funding and policies there to enact the programs that are consistent with our views and beliefs, and not impose these on other groups doing things differently.
Jesus said to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.
So this is another way of respecting civil laws and church laws, and not mixing them.
You can't mandate religious charity through govt.
That should be freely given through the church so people take responsibility
for which people they are attending to. there is not enough accountability through
govt to handle people case by case, so this needs to be done locally through nonprofits,
schools or churches who can service individuals and cater to their spiritual and personal
issues that are creating the dependency. Govt is not in that business. We need to separate
the roles and not misdirect resources or force mandates where it is not appropriate.
See the Code of Ethics for Govt Service (
ethics-commission.net) about govt employees
employing the most economical or efficient means of getting tasks accomplished (paraphrased).
Since this laws was passed unanimously by Congress in 1980, it is part of the civil laws.
So we are supposed to respect those. it is best to find the charities or businesses/schools which provide the
most effective programs for weaning people off dependence on charities or govt, and let those be in charge instead.
That would remove the social burden from federal govt which needs to focus on
issues of national defense and security, which churches CANNOT do, and interstate commerce
to reduce debts spending and taxes, and push more responsibility to local states and people
to handle their own population issues democratically and not overburden federal govt trying to
represent all this under one policy when every state is so diverse and has different programs to address those needs.
3. under civil laws, we redress grievances by democratic due process.
This does not mean to keep shoving the offending policy down someone's throat while they are petitioning and protesting. This is not equal defense protection or representation, but puts more burden on one side to defend their beliefs from imposition, instead of treating the two sides of the conflict equally, and accommodating input from them both BEFORE making a policy decision.
We should stop the offense and resolve the conflict BEFORE enforcing the policy or threatening to. If both sides did this, we would make decisions by consensus and inclusion, not bullying and exclusion which otherwise abuses the First and 14th Amendment.
We would actually enforce constitutional laws consistently instead of violating them by imposing policies that dissenters don't agree with religiously.
The equivalent in the Bible is Matthew 18:15-20.
We are in fact engaging in that process here, because humans tend to follow this by natural laws, by conscience. When we have objections or perceived grievances or trespasses, we tend to protest and petition our neighbors to correct the problem. We do this naturally.
So for democratic due process, we should complete this process and reach a consensus BEFORE making a public policy that everyone is required to follow.
basically the civil laws are a social contract between people and govt based on consent of the governed. So to fulfill and enforce the constitutional/civil laws, which are based on natural laws of human nature and governance of social relations, we should respect informed consent and not resort to political bullying by coercion or exclusion to make laws.
that goes against human nature and causes disruption of the peace.
So if we respect the equal peace justice and freedom of others equally as ourselves,
the right to assembly peaceably in society, and the equal right to security, then we
would not threaten to impose on people's beliefs by abuse of either church or state authority.
4. lastly the golden rule of reciprocity
Jesus and the Bible say to love others as ourselves, and to love others as Jesus loves us.
So if you do not like people pushing their agenda abusing either church or state authority to impose things against your beliefs and free will, it is wise and natural NOT to do so to others.
Again that is just natural law. To treat others with equal love and respect we enjoy as well.
The law of reciprocity is found in every belief system.
We would be more consistent if we practiced constitutional laws the same way,
and respected and enforced the same rights/freedoms/laws for ourselves and others euqally.
this would fulfill the 1st and 14th amendment, as well as protect the other laws from violation.
You can petition people to change their minds, but abusing force of law or threat of govt penalty to impose a policy against their beliefs is both a violation of constitutional laws and ethics and is contrary to the laws about treating others as you want to be treated. It is hypocrisy because I don't know a single human being who enjoys being forced to do something against their beliefs by an outside party, but will naturally protest and petition until the conflict is resolved and they feel their free will is being included and respected.
that is just human nature, our laws are based on that, and we need to respect each other.
I believe we share the same values here, so I hope this makes sense to you.
I am also a secular Gentile under natural laws, which I believe Jesus fulfills equally as the scriptural laws.
I agree that we should help our neighbors, and just ask that you be consistent with your approach.
