ACLJ

[p-freak]

I promised I would say something about why I don\'t agree with ACLJ. I\'m not really interested in going into deep discussions about these issues. I know my view is very different from yours. And I must admit that I haven\'t investigated everything ACLJ is doing. I just went to their site to get some info on John\'s latest song and I listened to the program that features the premiere of The Cross Remains.

In general my biggest problem with ACLJ is that it represents a kind of political christianity that I don\'t support. Many Americans believe that their country has been founded on a Christian basis. While that\'s true in some regards, there have been some developments that have turned Christianity into some political force that is sometimes far removed from the gospel Jesus preached.

One of the apparent symptoms of this problem is the intolerance that exists towards Islam. Of course there are some problems with Islamism (radicalism within Islam). Some of them even turned to acts of terrorism. But it\'s not a war of Islam against Christianity. As always religion is used as a stick to beat the dog. It\'s difficult to see through all the Christian propaganda that in the past the foreign policy of the USA has created fertile ground in the Middle East in which radicalism has been thriving for the last decades. So it\'s a political problem and not a religious problem.

And for me ACLJ is so deeply rooted in this American political Christianity, that I just can\'t agree with it. Jesus\' gospel is something completely different from all the issues ACLJ is dealing with. They\'ll probably do some good things, but in general I feel it\'s a misdirected effort. It would be better if they would use their energy to battle for social equality and for the marginalised and the poor.

I know many of you disagree with this, and I\'m not trying to convince you. So feel free to disagree.

[executioner]

I will have to say that I'm not really into them that much; I just kinda keep an eye on them through the NRA. They do have some good programs, but like ANY man made organization they have their flaws and misdeeds.
On another note I do feel as Christians we need to be intolerant towards Islam and other non Christian religions. We need to show our love towards them and also show them through Christ what type of lie they are being led too. All forms of Islam are evil in the sight of God and if we are looking through his eyes to see this truth then we would feel the same.

[executioner]

I promised I would say something about why I don\'t agree with ACLJ. I\'m not really interested in going into deep discussions about these issues. I know my view is very different from yours. And I must admit that I haven\'t investigated everything ACLJ is doing. I just went to their site to get some info on John\'s latest song and I listened to the program that features the premiere of The Cross Remains.

In general my biggest problem with ACLJ is that it represents a kind of political christianity that I don\'t support. Many Americans believe that their country has been founded on a Christian basis. While that\'s true in some regards, there have been some developments that have turned Christianity into some political force that is sometimes far removed from the gospel Jesus preached.

One of the apparent symptoms of this problem is the intolerance that exists towards Islam. Of course there are some problems with Islamism (radicalism within Islam). Some of them even turned to acts of terrorism. But it\'s not a war of Islam against Christianity. As always religion is used as a stick to beat the dog. It\'s difficult to see through all the Christian propaganda that in the past the foreign policy of the USA has created fertile ground in the Middle East in which radicalism has been thriving for the last decades. So it\'s a political problem and not a religious problem.

And for me ACLJ is so deeply rooted in this American political Christianity, that I just can\'t agree with it. Jesus\' gospel is something completely different from all the issues ACLJ is dealing with. They\'ll probably do some good things, but in general I feel it\'s a misdirected effort. It would be better if they would use their energy to battle for social equality and for the marginalised and the poor.

I know many of you disagree with this, and I\'m not trying to convince you. So feel free to disagree.

Something that caught my eye was on how you feel a Christian or Christian Values should be in politics. Are you saying that we as Christians should not be involved in politics? Just a simple question to see if I understand you correctly.

[CatNamedManny]

I generally agree with P-freak on pretty much everything he says there.

I also think the ACLJ has done some good things in expanding the rights of Christians in the public arena beyond where they would be otherwise without compromising the rights of non-Christians.

Ultimately, though, the ACLJ belies its own name because it is not interested in "law" and "justice," except in the case of Christians. For example, the ACLJ was key in getting Congress to pass a law that makes it harder for local governments to cite zoning law in denying houses of worship the ability to build and expand. I think this law, properly applied, is a good one. Unfortunately, ACLJ turned around and called for New York City to use historic-preservation and zoning laws to reject the application for the now-infamous Muslim community center two blocks away from ground zero. That kind of hypocrisy is not helpful.

Finally, I posted this when the conversation briefly turned to ACLJ some time ago, but I think it is worth noting that ACLJ is merely the second major organization to defend Christians against attempts to abridge their rights. The ACLU has been doing it for years.

[p-freak]

Exe, I\'m definitely not against Christian involvement in politics. But politics in general is not a Christian game. As much as some Americans believe that the government shouldn\'t be involved in taking care of the poor, I think that should be one of the primary tasks of the government. And then it is possible to be involved in politics as a Christian.

Sometimes it feels that in the States some Christian themes are very helpful in securing support from a certain part of the population, while there is no full Christian agenda. How can you be in politics and completely ignore the poor and helpless in society. In the other thread I read some harsh remarks about poor people being too lazy to work. I was really shocked. Jesus went to the poor and helpless. He came to the outcasts and if we are to follow him, we should do the same and stand up for people who can\'t stand up for themselves. This theme is completely missing in what is considered \'Christian\' political ideas in the States. The heart of the gospel is being ignored. This is a political Christianity that has very little to do with the gospel of Jesus Christ. If that is the only way Christians can be present in politics, then I think it would be better if we wouldn\'t be involved in politics at all. This is just betraying our mission, our sacred trust.

[gman]

I think sometimes, perhaps mistakenly, we use the term poor to identify people who are in a lower income bracket and collecting lots of freebies, when they are capable of doing better. Those people are really not the same kind of poor people that Jesus dealt with. We tend to wrap those people and the actual poor into one group. We say the Gov't cares for the poor, when it really is caring for the actual poor, plus a whole a lot of folks who shouldn't need the assistance; the lazy folks if you will. I wouldn't classify an actual poor person as lazy, and I don't think anyone else intended to do that. The American Gov't tends to create programs that are so broad that it's easy for more than just the poor to get assistance. Why work hard and make your own way, when you can live a good life on someone else's dime? Perhaps there's a bit a of gray area on who should and shouldn't be helped, but it seems that Gov't programs rarely include any means or incentive to get people off of those programs that really shouldn't be on them. Again, why work hard if you don't have to and can get Gov't help instead?
Also again, big difference between an actual poor person and someone like a cousin of mine who has been on welfare for most of her adult life, yet she and her husband are both well educated and able bodied. Both get branded as poor, but really only one is poor. The other is taking the easy road.

[Rocksoup]

I'm all for taking care of the poor. Free loaders on the other hand...definitely not. The U.S. Government does a terrible job of discerning between the 2. If we were just taking care of the "poor" because they are disabled, or or legitimately cannot take care of themselves, we wouldn't be in some of the mess we're in as a country. Alot of the so called "poor" that we are taking care of are what I would more accurately describe as "lazy". And I cant even count on both hands and feet how many of these ppl that I personally know who fall into this later category.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.....where's my compassion? I work for Comcast.... I go into these situations every day. I personally get to see my tax dollars being spent on the best cable packages money can buy by these so called "poor". Enough on that....don't want to be late for work.

[Rocksoup]

Gman... you beat me to it....you just type faster than I do.

[Muleya]

The problem is how to separate the legitemate from the lazy. Do you throw the baby out with the bath water? Or do you just accept that some lazy are going to hitch a free ride? I don't have the answer. And while I readily admit that gov't doesn't do a good job of that, I will admit it's NOT an easy job to begin with. It could well cost AS MUCH or MORE to sort them out than it does to let them hitch a free ride. That is purely conjecture on my part, but there certainly would be COST involved in sorting them out.

I further agree it is our responsibility as Christians to support the poor, and we should not simply leave it to the gov't. But as has already been stated, we as Christians are not really doing enough. So if gov't doesn't do it, legitimately needy people WILL fall through the cracks.

I work in the financial services industry, so I've seen plenty of people abusing the system, too. But I also know there are a lot of folks out there willing to work, trying to make an honest living and support their families that just aren't quite making it.

And I recently had a wake up call on the whole health insurance/medical industry thing. My 8-yr old daughter broke her femur playing on the jungle gym at school on a Sunday afternoon. She required transport to a regional hospital where a pediatric surgeon could set the bone and put rods in it. By the time it was all said and done, the bills totalled close to $30K! I thank God that we have good insurance through our employers and that we had reserves to cover our deductible. BUT, I can easily see how folks with no insurance, or even minimal insurance, and folks who get by paycheck to paycheck, would be in serious trouble after something like this!

Again, I don't know what the answer is, but something has to be done. Personally, I'd like to see affordable health care, but I don't think that's going to happen...certainly not as long as Americans are looking for any small reason to sue health care providers in their attempts to get something for nothing. I'm not necessarily excited about universal health care, but I don't really have anything better to offer.

[Jan]

I love it when someone says what I want to say, then I don't have to figure out how to say it. I haven't learned how to quote several posts in one reply.....but I like your comments about poor vs. freeloaders (gman and rocksoup), and how it is difficult for the government to separate the two (muleya). Good comments and I agree!

[gman]

I love it when someone says what I want to say, then I don't have to figure out how to say it. I haven't learned how to quote several posts in one reply.....but I like your comments about poor vs. freeloaders (gman and rocksoup), and how it is difficult for the government to separate the two (muleya). Good comments and I agree!

It is difficult to distinguish, which is one reason I would argue for Gov't getting out. I think that, often, their motives are not pure. Politicians like to sweep up as many as they can, and then come election time they can point a finger at their opponent and say, look at all the help I've brought, and he wants to take it all away. They're not dealing with the actual poor, but rather those who could make it on their own but instead lap up the Gov't assistance, serve as the Govt's useful idiots, and continue voting for the gravy train. The Gov't uses them to great effect to evoke compassion in a large percentage of the rest of us, so we too will vote for the gravy train.

[Jan]

It is difficult to distinguish, which is one reason I would argue for Gov't getting out. I think that, often, their motives are not pure. Politicians like to sweep up as many as they can, and then come election time they can point a finger at their opponent and say, look at all the help I've brought, and he wants to take it all away. They're not dealing with the actual poor, but rather those who could make it on their own but instead lap up the Gov't assistance, serve as the Govt's useful idiots, and continue voting for the gravy train. The Gov't uses them to great effect to evoke compassion in a large percentage of the rest of us, so we too will vote for the gravy train.

Exactly. This is why I and some other people I know and probably alot who I don't know - used to vote Democratic, because we thought we were being compassionate to the poor by voting for the party that wanted to take care of them - but then later found out it doesn't really work that way.

[Muleya]

No doubt that politician's motives are hard to read...and I generally assume the worst!! I don't doubt many simply maneuver to make the light shine better on themselves.

In my thinking, the very fact that someone wants to hold public office implies certain things about them that makes me question how fit they are to do it! But, alas, how else is it really going to work in the real world??

[gman]

No doubt that politician's motives are hard to read...and I generally assume the worst!! I don't doubt many simply maneuver to make the light shine better on themselves.

In my thinking, the very fact that someone wants to hold public office implies certain things about them that makes me question how fit they are to do it! But, alas, how else is it really going to work in the real world??

That's why I like a guy like Chris Christie. Someone who doesn't necessarily want the job, but recognizes that there is a real mess and someone needs to volunteer for clean up duty. Someone who will stand up and say, it's my time, I'll do it.
Washington is super elitist anymore. If a new guy comes in, the establishment says you can be one of us if you work at it and play by our rules, and if you don't want to be one of us we'll see to it that you don't last long. They claim to be for the American people, but the American people are the first ones under the bus every time.