Sunday, May 08, 2005

About Pryor on "Faith and Politics"

By Mark Moore (click "comments" below for article).


Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Senator Mark Pryor has taken some heavy critisim for his sugguestion that conservative Christians are in danger of becoming pawns of the Republican Party. Paul Greenberg responded to his comments with a devastating riposite- the gist of which is that Pryor was telling conservative Christains to shut up and pay taxes while the left used religion to advance its agenda in much the same way. Everyone has a right to give their opinion regardless of whether or not that opinion is motivated from religious belief.

I was very glad to find myself in agreement with a Greenberg column again. Recently I had become quite tired of his obsessive rants against State Senator Jim Holt of Sringdale. Because of this single Greenberg article on Pryor, the Democrat-Gazette gave Mark Pryor a chance to write a rebuttal column- something it has never given Jim Holt despite the reams of libilous tripe they have printed about him. So much for journalistic integrity and even-handedness. At least Holt does not have the chance to help them sell any papers.

Anyway, back to Pryor's words, and his rebuttal. Even though I agreed with Greenberg's slapdown of the Senator I do think the Senator has a point. I am concerned that people will think that the Bush Administration position is the Christian/Bibical position. It's not. The Bible calls for individual charity, but not government nanny state programs. The Bible does say there should be one law for the citizen and for the alien in your midst, but this has been completely misrepresnted by the open-border types in the Bush adminsitration. The context of those scriptures in every case is that the alien must be subject to ALL the same laws and obligations as the citizen, including the worship of God and following the Mosaic Law. Illegal aliens are, by the very fact they have broken the law to be there, in violation of those scriptures.

It may not be the most popular position in these parts, but starting wars against countries that have not attacked us is not scriptural either (unless one abuses the claiming of the promised land scriptures). Spending lives and treasure trying to impose good government on people who have not demonstrated the courage to fight for it themselves is not scriptural.

Protecting the innocent unborn is scriptural. The idea that even the baby in the womb is a human being is scriptural. Unfortunately, G.W. Bush has never said that he would appoint judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade. In Texas, he appointed plenty of pro-abortion judges. I don't know why christians should assume that he will appoint pro-life judges when he has pointedly refused to say so.

I don't count it being a "pro-life" judge when they say, "I am against abortion but the courts have ruled so I am going to say Roe v. Wade is the law of the land." It is time for people who claim the mantle of "pro-life" to start acting on their alledged convictions.

On Gay marriage, Bush opposed the idea but let the ammendment die in the senate without spending any politcal capital to get it done. He did not support the ammendment so much as he feinted support. And he has given homosexual interest groups unprecented access to the White House.

I can't think of a single issue where G.W. Bush's position, or Mark Pryor's position, agrees with my understanding of the Bibical Role of Government. Can you?

Understand that I do not doubt the personal convictions of either one of these men, I only question whether their policies reflect what the bible has to say about what government should and should not do.

Sen. Pryor also said that Christians should not call people names and should "rise above the partisan fray". But Jesus called people names- He was not afraid to call the "good" people of his day "a brood of vipers" and "pretenders and hypocrites". I don't say that the Bible holds that out as SOP for us, only that it is not, in certain situations, unchristian for us to call abortionists 'baby killers' since that is what they are. The truth is not unchristian.

I also disagree with the senators position that we should "not be partisan". The amplified version of the Bible is insightful here. Where in other versions it says that Jesus said, "Be my disciple and follow me", the aplified version says "side with my party and follow me." We are supposed to be partisans! Not for the GOP, but for Jesus Christ. He is the King. To the degree that any political party submits to His Kingship, we shold honor that party. To the degree they deny it, we should deny and dennounce them. It is not complicated, it is just hard. It is hard because political parties by their nature try to twist, pressure, and use all things. Only by a personal relation ship with God can His people use political parties for His purposes instead of being used by parties for theirs.

That is how I see it.

8:02 AM, May 08, 2005  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

I was hoping this column would generate more commentary. Do we all agree with it, or is it so flawed that no one knows where to begin to set me straight?

8:42 PM, June 07, 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home