No Separation of Church and State, Say Conservatives (Except on Health Care, Food, and Other Jesusy Things Like Peace)

Home / No Separation of Church and State, Say Conservatives (Except on Health Care, Food, and Other Jesusy Things Like Peace)

No Separation of Church and State, Say Conservatives (Except on Health Care, Food, and Other Jesusy Things Like Peace)

Posted May 2 2012 by Ian Ebright with 46 Comments

Welcome to Red Letter Christians! If you're new here, subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on the RLC Movement and/or sign up for the RLC newsletter!

In my experience, conservatives are the ones who insist there should be no separation of church and state. While on the campaign trail, Rick Santorum told America that the idea of such a separation makes him want to vomit. So I guess he’s against it. Conservatives respond to the culture war by asserting that we’re a Christian nation with the can’t-miss implication that our government (when not highjacked by liberals) is godly, founded by Christian men, with laws and freedoms based on Judeo-Christian principle. I know these positions well, having grown up in conservative circles.

But when it comes time for the government to act in ways congruent with Christianity, like feeding the hungry (food stamps) or caring for the sick (health care), conservatives grimace, play the small government and personal responsibility card, and argue that we can’t have government in the role of the church. So which is it?

The First Amendment of the Constitution is wonderfully concise. It covers religion, freedom of speech, the press, peaceable assembly, and the redress of grievances in 45 words. Yes, this means I was nerdy enough to bother counting. Regarding church and state separation, the First Amendment takes a bold position of equality for all religions: there will be no establishment of a national religion, but also no prohibition of religious free exercise. We’ll come back to all of this in a moment. But first, an example of the evangelical double standard about church and state.

As the Supreme Court is hearing arguments about the constitutionality of Obamacare, a very prominent pastor associated with conservatism tweeted this:

That is a Whopper of a false dichotomy, with cheese.

I have never met any member of a centrist or liberal church who believes the government is the answer to all problems. They just happen to favor health care and food stamps over warfare and feeding the military industrial complex when it comes to what the government actually does, which should be pleasing to conservative ears if we are indeed a Christian nation (and by extension, a Christian government).

Notice also that you’re a Biblical church in the eyes of this prominent pastor if you think local church is the answer. One of the more nasty byproducts to come out of fundamentalist thinking is that which erases personal interpretation of scripture from the application of scripture in a contemporary worldview. “Well I’m Biblical and you’re just out there relying on the world” is a response I’ve heard from conservative evangelicals. The government is equated with the world. Then a triple backflip of confusion is performed as the same conservative evangelical relies on “the world” to police and execute individuals at home and abroad while defending such things as earning the honor of Jesus before condemning that same part of the world when it helps the hungry and sick. Even on this pastor’s own terms, I can’t wrap my mind around the magnitude of ignorance in that short tweet. The local church is the answer to what? Everything? Disease? Clean water? Wall Street regulation? Libraries? Roads? And how’s that working out for the local church when it comes to basic essentials like health, shelter and food, things also the focus of evangelical outreach? In the U.S. alone 50 million are without health care and 36.3 million including 13 million children are hungry or facing a serious risk of hunger. This is not an attempt to discredit the church for the wonderful outreach it does, but rather to recognize that the church either has not or can not solve the problem alone.

The conservative explanation tells us there is no separation of church and state, and the state should not be in the business of care and social services. What then should this so-called Christian government do?

Look at the size of the new Homeland Security mega-complex (DHS was created under George W. Bush, as a reminder). Read about the size of our military compared to the next 10 countries. Or check out this figure:

Source: iiss.org

Paul Ryan’s budget? It slashes food stamps and federal pensions but doesn’t touch the sacred cow- a Pentagon budget raking in hundreds of billions annually. In Afghanistan (which Republican candidates favored an expansion of even after a decade of war there, minus only Ron Paul), look at the troop to al Qaeda ratio. Even by our government’s count there are only 200 terrorists left there, while 68,000 of our men and women will remain after Obama’s September 2012 drawdown. Why? And is that small government? In fairness, the left also seems largely anesthetized now that Obama is running these wars, but they also aren’t the ones touting a small government philosophy or claiming that our government is godly when it wages war.

We have ourselves the largest military and defense budget on earth with no nation close enough to be called second place, and the sad irony is that the church-based small government advocates look the other way when it has to do with this warfare and surveillance apparatus while moaning about the threat of big government when the policy actually parallels some of the works of Christ.

It appears that for many conservatives, the size of government doesn’t matter as long as it dovetails with their worldview which, since 9/11, includes a growing allegiance to our police force, prison system, and military. I want to ask them what “tough on crime and tougher on terrorism” has to do with Judeo Christian principle or the life of Christ. I’ve heard the distinctions that conservatives offer about the government’s role to handle the dirty work of security and law enforcement, while assigning the Jesus stuff to the individual or the church. But that answer troubles me. That answer washes its hands of reckless militarism and oppressive domestic surveillance and punishment at the hands of our sprawling security state, and doesn’t seem to mind that the hunger and health needs in this country are out of control. When you take it all in, the conservative endorsement of the broken status quo doesn’t exactly give off a Sermon on the Mount vibe.

—
Ian Ebright is a former film critic who now writes about faith, life, culture and human rights. You can read more by visiting his site The Broken Telegraph, or follow him on Facebook and Twitter.

Readers who viewed this page, also viewed:

Who am I to Think that I Could Stand in God’s Way?

A “Red Letter” interpretation of Pentecost

Start Here

I’m Done Dating Jesus Online

Why Christians Don’t Like Jesus

About the Author

Ian EbrightIan Ebright is a former film critic who now writes about faith, life, culture and human rights. You can read more by visiting his site The Broken Telegraph, or follow him on Facebook and Twitter.View all posts by Ian Ebright →

Popular Posts

Bobmako

Straw Man alert!!!! “I have never met any member of a centrist or liberal church who believes the government is the answer to all problems.” Well phrased to appear reasonable.

I pull that out of the post because you chose to put it in Bold.

The reason we can find no answer is because both sides are very busy trying to falsely frame the other, just as you did here. You lay out an unreasonable premise as the position of the other side, and then use that to validate the balance of your statements. Not saying you are wrong, just that there can be no dialogue going forward except to completely accept your wise and noble presentation.

We have huge problems because,

The church has largely abandoned her role to those less fortunate, choosing instead to let the government step in and do the work we should be doing now. Both conservative and progressive are equally guilty here.

The church has chosen government to act on her behalf to “bless” us with safety, security, etc. Again, both conservative and progressive are equally guilty here.

There is much more, but you have exposed yourself as part of the problem. Please love your enemies or opponents, not speak falsely about them. Then maybe the church can engage and work together for the Kingdom.
- Keith Carr61
  
  I wondered if anyonen else picked up on the false statements.
  - Anonymous
    
    Yes, see my response to some of them. Let me know if you think I’ve mischaracterized the conservative positions here.
- Drew
  
  I cringed when I read that straw man statement as well. While it would be nearly impossible to find a liberal Christian who believes the government is the answer to ALL problems, it is a dime a dozen the liberals and liberal Christians who believe the government is the answer to MOST problems.
  
  That being said, there is a fair amount that I agree with in Ian’s post. Unfortunately, his message is tainted by his hatred for conservative Christians.
  - http://brokentelegraph.com/ Ian (the author)
    
    Drew this is a big part of the problem, that conservatives cannot see criticism (in this case) of only a small part of their logic in regards to politics as anything other than hate, anti-God, evil, etc. This is cultish thinking.
    
    Sorry to burst your bubble, but I was conservative all of my life until about 6 years ago, and I’m an independent. I voted for W in 2000 and 2004 (unfortunately) and did NOT vote for Obama in 2008 (I voted third party). I have no dog in this fight, so to speak, other than to see political beliefs that are congruent with Scripture, and since none of us are perfect, the continual examination of BOTH sides in light of The Word is fair game.
    
    Just because people are bi-partisan or independent, doing their best to take a look at everything as objectively or perhaps freshly is a better word, does not mean the conservative movement then earns a pass, especially when it’s become so fanatical since 9/11. The implication you and conservatives employ is that people are only thoughtful, bi-partisan as you say, qualifying as un liberal etc IF conservative principle is not challenged, or if it’s challenged only in a way that is so soft and watered down as to be meaningless.
    
    Conservatives pride themselves in their courage of conviction, I heard this repeated over and over in GOP talk radio and my years as a conservative and in mainstream conservative circles. But all I see so often is a growing intolerance to allow themselves to be challenged, and a viciousness in their discourse when attempting to defend themselves.
    - Bobmako
      
      Ian, you flow back and forth comparing conservative church with GOP and “conservative” radio. That is inaccurate and unfair. Again, to make you point, you paint with an offensive broad brush.
      
      The military is too big.
      The government is too corrupt.
      The system is tilted heavily to the “haves”
      Are all fair statements.
      
      So what are you doing about it?
      The church has foolishly partnered with politics on both sides, and both are wrong, way wrong. Go search out the scriptures on that.
      
      Yes DHS was created under the Bush admin. (I hated that law.) But it has grown enormous under the Obama admin. You gloss that over easily just to accuse conservatives.
      
      This piece may be an unfair representation of your full spectrum of views, but as a sample, you are hardly independent.
      - http://brokentelegraph.com/ Ian (the author)
        
        Bobmarko you really need me to list the examples of the conservative church being fused to the GOP, Fox News, and hosts on conservative radio? Too many examples to list, and I am troubled that the connection is one you consider to be inaccurate. Open those eyes of yours, Bob. Maybe I’m not the only one suffering from a bias.
      - Bobmako
        
        Actually Ian, I do see the fusion, and said it is wrong. But unfortunately, when you focus solely on the problems with the other guys, no one listens except your own choir so to speak. Fox is ugly, MSN is worse. I live in Ohio, and what Ed Schultz did to this state just for ratings is reprehensible. Oh, and the law in question did need to be voted down.
        
        When you just point at the “conservatives”, which I am not, you invalidate yourself. Not the argument you make, but you actually take yourself out of the discussion.
        
        And I seem to have gotten under your skin a bit. Just trying to help. Until we have civil discourse without name calling and straw man arguments, we will degrade into anarchy, less likely, or tyranny, more likely.
      - http://brokentelegraph.com/ Ian (the author)
        
        You’re not under my skin, I just disagree strongly. The idea that we can only make progress when we tread evenly and lightly, making sure it’s an examination of both sides simulateously and always, is actually quite dangerous as a rule of thumb. While we should work to be bridge builders, there are also times when one group accelerates the danger and as people seeking justice we dare to call it what it is.
        
        So I can argue two things at once and both can be true and important: 1) MSNBC and Fox are eroding our press and national discourse, each outlet uses attack politics to satisfy their demographic which is not news, and 2) conservatism since 9/11 has become radicalized and represents a grave threat to our constitutional republic.
        
        Those statements do not give the left a pass but, for a time, focus on the urgency of calling the conservative movement out for what it has become. All things are not equal, Bob.
      - Bobmako
        
        No Problem. We probably agree on most issues.
        The thing is, the progressives have been in power for the last 3 years, and you choose to call out conservatives. Seems a bit backward to me.
        
        And I originally took your statement as misleading, not intentionally I am sure, but the tone of it was just untrue.
        
        Did I say I enjoyed the post? I should have..
      - http://brokentelegraph.com/ Ian (the author)
        
        Thanks Bob.
        
        “The thing is, the progressives have been in power for the last 3 years, and you choose to call out conservatives. Seems a bit backward to me.”
        
        I understand that and can appreciate why this may seem ill-timed. On my blog as I shared with Drew as well I do take on the left, from the Obama admin to Bill Maher, but again I do see why my focus may seem lopsided here.
        
        Thanks for engaging and for the respectful challenges.
    - Drew
      
      Ian,
      
      Sorry to burst your bubble, but I have never voted for a Republican candidate in my life (although I would have voted for McCain in 2000 if I was old enough to vote at the time). That includes State and National elections. I have no dog in this fight either – as a Conservative Democrat, I’m kind of an extinct breed. I have been represented by a Congresswoman that loved abortion and gay marriage and currently am represented by a Congressman that voted to cut the Food for Peace program budget to zero while voting to increase the military budget.
      
      This website does not get the benefit of the doubt any longer that their purpose is only to criticize and tear down conservatives. This post is one in a line of hundreds of post that are only praiseworthy of liberals and critical of conservatives. If you can point me to any post on here where you have been critical of anything other than conservatives, I would appreciate the link.
      - http://brokentelegraph.com/ Ian (the author)
        
        Drew, hello again.
        
        You wrote “If you can point me to any post on here where you have been critical of anything other than conservatives, I would appreciate the link.”
        Sure. How about this very post? To quote:
        “In fairness, the left also seems largely anesthetized now that Obama is running these wars, but they also aren’t the ones touting a small government philosophy or claiming that our government is godly when it wages war.”
        
        Next up is my post on evolution vs creation, which tends to follow political affiliation (left claims the evo thing and the right- creationism, more or less, so say the polls). Note the post is not a criticism of creation nor an endorsement of evolution but rather a third angle. http://www.redletterchristians.org/the-thing-that-is-higher-than-the-evolution-vs-creationism-debate/
        
        here’s a post where I attempt to reconcile the need for praise and caution of a right wing icon- Tim Tebow. Hardly a hit piece:
        http://www.redletterchristians.org/reconciling-tim-tebow%E2%80%99s-ability-to-inspire-with-his-public-demonstrations-of-faith/
        
        and here’s a post I wrote which both tries to understand, but is also skeptical of, the Occupy movement, largely associated with the left:
        http://www.redletterchristians.org/when-the-occupy-movement-makes-you-late-for-dinner/
        
        But that’s just me. I’m sure the other authors here can provide their examples as well. I know a few of them, and they are thoughtful, Christ-loving folk, and some of them very independent and even leaning right at times on certain Biblical issues, as do I, actually.
        
        Thank you for being a kind challenger. Many of the conservative folks on here are not.
      - Drew
        
        Ian,
        
        Read that sentence again. Even in the one sentence where you might be critical of the left, you defend the left in that very same sentence.
        
        For the record, I was extremely critical of your piece on Tebow and commented numerous times.
        
        As for the occupy piece, you have one critical quote, and while you say you argee and understand with the quote, it is hardly a critical look at the Occupy movement. I see nowhere where you are skeptical, but rather, see you trying as hard as possible to be empathetic with the movement.
        
        I appreciate you taking the time to respond, as most people are content to write and say nothing. However, I have to still ask where you take as critical as a look at the left as you do the right. Not saying that there has to be an equivalence – that you find the equal amount wrong with both sides – but asking where you even take a critical look.
      - http://brokentelegraph.com/ Ian (the author)
        
        You’re changing the subject Drew. That sentence is critical of something other than conservatives. That was your criteria, and I answered it. You don’t get to discard it just because I also contrasted it with conservative philosophy. Just because one thing is less bad than another (in my example) does not mean the first thing isn’t being criticized as well. Criticism is not an all or nothing/on off switch.
        
        You’ll need to go read those posts closer, I don’t feel the need to defend them any further, but they are more even-handed than you are giving credit for and again, you are changing your criteria. You asked for examples of anything other than conservative philosophy being criticized, and I’ve provided numerous examples.
        
        You are also welcome to visit my blog in which I challenge the left frequently, including posts where I’ve taken on Obama admin policy re: assassination, bin laden, and more. Bill Maher has landed on my radar twice and each time I have criticized him. I also do a fair amount of criticizing of myself on my blog, and since criticism is not nearly the whole point, there’s hopefully a lot of encouragement as well, including in the April 12 post which you read.
      - Drew
        
        I’m not changing the subject, but rather clarifying. I asked for an example of you being critical of the left, and you proudly gave me a sentence. However, a sober analysis of that sentence shows that within the sentence itself you defray the criticism.
        
        You say you provided numerous examples; I say they were all bogus. I guess we disagree.
        
        It would appear that when you challenge the left, it is for not being progressive enough.
    - Drew
      
      Looking back at a few of your articles, I did enjoy the article on April 11th, 2012, and this is the only article in the last four that explicitly targets conservatives. Not sure beyond that, I’ll check them out when I have more time.
  - http://brokentelegraph.com/ Ian (the author)
    
    How was it a straw man? I was responding to the exact language used by a prominent Christian conservative pastor. I didn’t inflate his statement at all, in fact I copied and pasted the very tweet for you.
    - Drew
      
      Ian,
      
      If I say I go fishing all the time, then you point out that I don’t, in fact, go fishing at 3 am on Saturday morning, you would technically be right, but you would be missing the point. It’s the spirit of the strawman.
      
      When the pastor says that some churches think the answer to all problems is government, for you to point out that you were unable to find a person that does not believe that the answer to every single problem in the universe is government, you are missing the point. It’s the spirit of the strawman.
      
      If you honestly have not met people and churches that believe that government should solve a majority or almost all of our issues, then I would suggest meeting more people and churches.
      - http://brokentelegraph.com/ Ian (the author)
        
        Not so fast. For you to say you go fishing all the time is something that is understood by everyone because as a literal expression everyone knows it is physically, practically, financially unsustainable.
        
        For a pastor to say that some churches see gov as the answer to “all problems” is a position that could actually be held and articulated as a political belief, and that’s what’s so insidious about it: to paint progressives as relying totally on gov, thus relying zero on God. it’s quite a slander from a pastor who should know better. why are you okay with it?
        
        It’s more than curious that you attempt to micromanage my rebuttal in which I did not inflate his position at all, while giving the actual straw man (inflating the progressive position to something that wants the government to solve all problems) a pass. As I said to Bob, it seems like you’re ignoring your own biases now.
      - Anonymous
        
        Ian,
        Do you really think the pastor meant that liberals think government is the solution to all problems? Do you think he really thinks that liberals think government is the solution to his neighbor not picking up after his dog? Seriously, I’m sure it was exaggeration. He probably meant something like “when liberals see a problem they usually look to the federal government for a solution.”
        
        I think it’s unreasonable to build a blog post around the supposed meaning of a random pastor’s tweet. Good arguments take on the best arguments of the other side, not the worst or least well expressed.
      - http://brokentelegraph.com/ Ian (the author)
        
        That’s the exact kind of rhetoric I’ve so often heard, Sam, a true distain for progressives from conservatives. “You’re a liberal? You probably want the government to clean up after your dog.” More directly, yes there are many conservatives, either earnestly or by way of mockery, who believe progressives want the government to fix everything. It’s prevalent ignorance, and it was echoed in that pastor’s tweet (which was by no means the entirety of my post). I’m not going to ignore trends just because they are absurd and simple minded. Those are often the exact ingredients leading to trouble, historically.
      - http://brokentelegraph.com/ Ian (the author)
        
        Not saying you have that distain, I realize it was just an example, but one that gets used many times with less than wonderful intentions.
      - Drew
        
        I don’t think it is ignorance; there are a lot of progressives who want the government to be heavily involved in many aspects of their lives.
Keith Carr61

I wonder how much out of context the tweet was? As for conservatives not believing in govt helping the indigent or poor….who said that??? Every arguement I have heard always addresses the wasteful programs that ineffectively dole out billions to many who dont deserve it. As far as Christians are concerned I beleive you will find that we are and continue to be persecuted for what we believe. We are targeted in the press, comedy circuit, globally, and not one word from our illegitimate president. Your arguement is inaccurate to say the least and obviously biased liberally.
As for our military….I would like to know how you can disect the cost of helping billions of people in liberation or food, or supplies etc….. Get off your soapbox….It needs a good cleaning.
- Drew
  
  Keith,
  
  Obama is a Christian and he is legitimately our President. To say anything else is bearing false witness and sinful.
  
  Also, Christian persecution in the United States is kind of an oxymoron. Yeah, it is getting more difficult to be a Christian in the United States, but persecution? Let me know when you get martyred or jailed.
  - Questioning
    
    Amen
- http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com Anonymous
  
  Please tell me where in the Bible Jesus makes a distinction between the deserving poor and the undeserving poor.
  - mike
    
    2 Thess. 3:10
    - cravey
      
      Technically, that would be Paul.
    - Allie
      
      Boy, was that ever out of context. This is about lazy people in the church, not poor people in society.
      - http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com Anonymous
        
        And on top of that, 2 Thess 3:9 says “We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. ” which sounds like the work they were doing isn’t a necessary prerequisite for getting help. Meanwhile verse 11 goes on to say Paul’s talking about disruptive busybodies in the Church.
      - mike
        
        So we treat those in the church worse.
  - Keith Carr61
    
    When they were told that if they didnt work, they didnt eat. If you cant make the distinction between those who are poor by choice and those that are poor because of circumstance then you cant make an arguement period.
    - http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com Anonymous
      
      I think you’re referring to the same verse Mike is, which was written by Paul, not said by Jesus. As with the rest of Paul’s epistles, it’s a letter to another early Christian settlement about internal Church politics. If you look at the lines surrounding that one, he’s pretty clearly talking about people who aren’t being active participants in the Church (verse 11 talks about disruptive busybodies, and verse 6 talks about not living according to Jesus’ teachings). Combine that with how we’re told the Apostles live in Acts (sharing all they had), and it looks to me like: if you don’t participate actively in the Church, you’re not invited to our potluck.
      
      I can’t find a spot where Jesus makes this distinction though. Is begging considered work? Jesus heals beggars, rather than telling them to go away. In Matthew 5:42, Jesus says “give to the one who asks of you,” so I guess asking is work enough for him. In Matthew 19:21, he tells the rich man to give all he has to the poor. He doesn’t say “the working poor,” just “the poor.”
      
      This site is about the “red letters,” Jesus’ words. Why are Paul’s words more important?
      - mike
        
        Also, the Torah says not to harvest the corners of your fields. So the poor can work: by harvesting their own food. This gave them dignity and self respect. Those who would not work and able too, would not eat. I believe Jesus heal the beggar because he could not help his own self. So, your interperation of the red letters is that if the poor ask;we must give to him. So if I understand you, if the poor do not participant in the church we should not help them. Maybe Paul did not want people joining the church for a free handout. Also, G-d said 6 days you shall labor. Paul had visions from Christ; why are we to treat it his words as less important? Do they not reinforce Christ words. The Church is commanded to help the helpless not the lazy. Proverbs 21:25. Your posts are respectful and thougthful. I will give them prayerfully condsideration and discuss with my conservative Christian friends and my liberal too. I will be back to read your response. Also ,you have not yet gotten political. G-d Bless
Drew

I have long been tired of extreme liberal Evangelicals that bastardize Jesus into a political liberal and reinterpret Scripture to fit neatly with their secular, liberal politics. They do not see Jesus as God but rather as a good person that advocated secular social causes, like a Ghandi or Martin Luther King Jr. They hate the Great Commission – it’s not politically correct – and try to rack up as many works as possible, although only works that have the stamp of approval of the Democratic party. Most extreme liberal Evangelicals are dead because they works but no faith.

I have also long been tired of extreme conservative Evangelicals that bastardize Jesus into a political conservative and have good theology but refuse to live the life of Jesus and retreat into a Pharisaical kind of life. Hiding out in a suburb and passing laws against everything you don’t like, rather than getting your hands dirty and making a real difference in the world, is the antithesis of Jesus. Faith without works is dead, and most extreme conservative Evangelicals are dead.

That is why I was initially thrilled when I read RLC by Tony Campolo. I thought we finally had a place, a movement, where good faith and theology would meet good works and action. However, from the very beginning, I warned that the biggest threat is that the movement would be tainted, corrupted, and hijacked by secular liberals and vaguely “Christian” liberals.

That prediction has come to fruition. I rarely see any posts here about faith or written with good theology. I see advocacy of secular social causes without a faith case, I see regular harsh condemnation of conservative Evangelicals, I see constant political advocacy of the Democratic party. Even Tony Campolo has jumped on the bandwagon with his latest post, “I try to be bi-partisan, but let me condemn – shocker! – the Republican party.”

The Red Letter Christian has become everything it hates – the liberal Evangelical equivalent of conservative Evangelicals, just a different side of the same coin.
Rickjanzen5

It is very interesting to an outside observer from Canada how you guys take this government/ political stuff so seriously. One view from the north is government does what it does and the lives and actions of disciples of Jesus are completely independent of it. No government of any political stripe is going to be completely sympathetic with Christ causes, because Christ causes don’t sell in the market place of power. When government happens to promote causes that bear some resemblance to what Jesus taught, I assume that the Holy Spirt is doing his work there like everywhere, but dont’ get too excited about it because governments make bad bed-fellows. When they act contrary to the ways of Jesus, there is nothing stopping us from continuing to live out our obedience at the local level. Even death is not a threat to that. In our free countries we do have a right to protest what we see as injustice and oppression. But not getting our way there is no excuse for disobedience at home. Give to Caesar…..
Guest

Since I’m not a US citizens, maybe I shouldn’t even comment on this, but I think that even though the author might be a bit biased, the article makes a few valid points. And: aren’t we all a bit biased…?
Matt

This is article number two this week in the “Mindless Liberal Psycho-Babble” Count. For the record, I’m pretty sure I’ve only read two articles.

And once again I will try to articulate the Conservative viewpoint.

1) Conservatives believe that private individuals (whether Christian or not) know what is best for their own lives and their own families better than a collection of elected representatives and unelected government employees.

2) Conservatives believe that government has a defined role and that role is defined in the Constitution. Anything else not contained in the Constitution shouldn’t occur. For instance, individual mandates.

3) Christian conservatives understand that the Bible tells us to take of the downtrodden, widows, orphans, others like that. However, we believe that private organizations and individuals are better equipped to handle charity and goodwill than the government.

I know, I know, these few principles of conservatism are super radical.

And a quick question about your anti-military rantings. Do you understand what freedom is and how precious liberty is? Secondly, do you understand how freedom is bought and preserved? I don’t know where you are located, but I have a strong feeling you aren’t where I am. For that reason I can tell you with confidence there are hundreds of millions of people around the world that are very happy that we have a defense budget like we do. The United States is not just another country on the globe. It is the country that kicks serious tail when freedom anywhere in the world is threatened and our people are engaged.

Mr. Ebright, there is the way you want the world to work, and then there is reality. Engage the brain embrace the latter.
mike

Does this writer really believe that conservative Christians want to regulate Wall St and keep the water clean at the local church level? I guess the pastor wants to fight the GWOT from the local church too. The Christian left is as bad as the Christian right. Both are polarizing and extreme. There is a proper role for govt. Its not all or none. Lets pull our troops out of Europe and lets recognize that welfare has destroyed the inner city black family. George Bush tried to get govt. funding for his faith based initiatives but was stopped by the left because of the wall of separation between church and state.
- Anonymous
  
  “There is a proper role for govt. Its not all or none.”
  
  Thanks for this sensible statement. It’s a much more accurate representation of what most conservatives believe than that pastor’s Twitter comment. Conservatives don’t deny that the federal government has a role to play in building infrastructure, regulation of certain interstate commerce, national defense, foreign relations, trade policy, enforcing the law, protecting rights of citizens not to be harmed by the actions of fellow citizens, etc. I doubt that pastor quoted above would disagree. No conservative believes that the church should take over these duties. It’s ridiculous for Ian to imply that conservatives believe so.
Anonymous

Ian,
You seem willing to engage your commenters, and I appreciate that. Please consider my thoughts. There are a number of blatant mischaracterizations in this blog post before you even get to the quote from the pastor.

Mischaracterization
#1: Rick Santorum is against the
separation of church and state.

Here’s
what Santorum said to George Stephanopoulis:

“I
don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state are
absolute…The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in
the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and
vision of our country…to say that people of faith have no role in the public
square? You bet that makes me want to throw up.”

I
think Santorum’s characterization of the separation of church and state is
wrong (it doesn’t mean people of faith can’t let their faith guide their
political decisions or that the church can have no involvement in the operation
of the state, despite what some on the left like to claim), but he’s not saying
the separation of church and state makes him want to vomit or that he thinks
there should be no separation of church and state. He’s saying that the idea that people of
faith or the church can’t try to influence political decisions in the public
square makes him want to throw up. He
didn’t say it very well, but it’s pretty clear that’s what he meant.

Mischaracterization
#2: Conservatives believe our government
is Godly.

This
couldn’t be further from the truth. You are correct in pointing out that many conservatives would agree
with the statement that “we’re a Christian nation…founded by Christian men,
with laws and freedoms based on Judeo-Christian principles” but that is not the
same thing as saying the government is godly. In the minds of most conservatives, the
government is distinct from the founding principles of the country and the
American people. Conservatives are
constantly talking about getting back to our founding principles and adhering
to the Constitution. It’s these things
that conservatives consider “godly,” not modern government. I don’t
I agree completely with the conservative “Christian nation” stuff but it’s a
mischaracterization to sum up the conservative position as “the government is
godly.”

Mischaracterization
#3: Conservatives base their hostility
to the federal government in the principle of separation of church and state.

In
fact, they do no such thing.
Conservative opposition to the federal government getting involved in
wealth redistribution is based on several factors depending on which
conservative you talk to, but it’s not based on separation of church and
state. It’s based on either the limits
placed on the federal government by the Constitution or on the belief that
government aid makes people dependent and less willing to work or that it’s
morally wrong to take money from one person and give it to another or that
these problems are best left to civil society (including churches) or local
governments to solve. I’ve yet to hear
any conservative say it’s a violation of the separation of church and state for
the federal government to be engaging in social welfare work. Again, I don’t agree with all these
rationales, but they are a much more accurate characterization of the
conservative position than yours.

You use these mischaracterizations to show a supposed inconsistency in the conservative
position on the separation of church and state, when it really doesn’t exist. This is unfortunate because you go on to make some decent points
about conservative budget priorities.
But how many conservatives will you actually convince when you start off
the way you did? You could have easily
made these points without the mischaracterizations at the start and the
ridiculous use of the pastor’s twitter comment to paint a false picture of what
conservatives believe.
Jlivingston

great piece
RobS

I likely still lean more conservative, but certainly have been put off by many “conservative” actions and principles (which I’m actually thankful for). A challenge that pains me, is to have to actively have some kinds of checks and balances on personal responsibility. My wife and I help a person who is disabled and rather poor ($10k earnings living near Washington, DC in a trailer, etc). Her daughter is 26 years old, healthy, and had near 10 jobs one year and now refuses to make an effort to look for work. It’s hard for me to be responsible for people like that. Her brother takes off every winter due to his job being seasonal and collects unemployment every year like clockwork. So yeah, I reach out to the one of the three that’s doing something and the others are just discouraging. So, how to do a “test” to separate those truly in need from those that just “mooch”? It’s hard.

It’s pretty sad we’ve got childhood obesity problems and hunger problems in the same country. But we’ve also built a pop-culture of self-love that doesn’t care about others as we celebrate crazy “famous” people, etc.

One thing the government always lacks in the distribution of benefits is love. If they overpay you and you’re a poor person, the government will come & take it back (which is hard for someone who earns very little). The local church won’t make this mistake as much — or, they hopefully wouldn’t demand it back. (* this is just personal testimony from the above mentioned disabled lady *)
- Anonymous
  
  Rob – You’ve hit upon a very key point which is often missing: love. The government is incapable of loving anyone. And nothing it does is done out of love. That’s not true justice. True justice occurs when people serve others out of love for them as their brother or sister. Self sacrifice is integral to this process. No one gains compassion and love for the poor because they were forced to pay taxes to the government, which, in turn, used that money to help the poor. Sure, it helps the poor for the time being, but it doesn’t yield an increase in love.