Many of the things that Conservatives rail against are in direct opposition to Biblical principal. I find it ironic that fiscal Conservatives often tie their political agenda to what they claim to be Christian principals. One of my favorite things to do is study The Bible. In addition to it being a source of faith and comfort, The Bible is also a very complex thing to study. One of the most fun things that I do at my church (besides playing the piano) is teaching Sunday school and Bible study. Whenever I watch the news and see Conservative Christian politicians railing against the environment or the Liberal principles that they say will destroy this country, it makes me wonder if they are reading the same Bible I am reading. I want to say that although this article has a religious work as its source, this is an article about politics. I am not trying to convert anyone, just making a political point.
LIBERAL
And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest. And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the LORD your God.
Lev 19:9-10 (KJV)
The children of Israel were led out of the slavery from Egypt by Moses. Judeo-Christian tradition then states that Moses went on Mt. Sinai and received the 10 Commandments. Moses also received “The Law.” This contained all the laws and regulations that the nation of Israel was to live by. One of the practices that God instituted was the gleaning of the field. The law states that anything that is left over from the normal harvesting process is to be left and not collected by the farmer. The law also states that when you are harvesting your crops you are not permitted to harvest the corners of your field. It says you are to leave these parts of your field so that poor people and strangers can have something to eat. It seems to me that although God intends that everyone should work, he realizes that there will be times when people face unfortunate circumstances. When that happens, he does not want society to let people starve to death. It seems rather that God makes a way so that everyone in the community can help. When someone’s house burns down, or if someone is widowed, they don’t have to starve to death. In our government we have things like social security for old people. We have unemployment when people loose their job. There was even a debate for a public option for health insurance so if someone lost their job and became sick or injured, they wouldn’t go bankrupt and die. Conservatives condemn these public programs as weakness and something that destroys our American values. I argue that it is strength when a society finds the will to help ease the suffering of others. Although I agree that some of these things can be misused, the idea behind them is important.
When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence.
Deuteronomy 22:8
Another thing that conservatives rail against are the regulatory agencies of this country. The argument is that business can regulate itself and the government will only get in the way. God, in this system, puts regulations on the specific practice of building houses. He states that when you build a house you have to build a ledge before you build the roof. The reason is if someone working on the roof falls they will fall into the ledge and not plummet to their death. Conservatives have been trying to deregulate everything from the Board of Health to the oil industry to Wall Street. I believe in Capitalism and the free market. I also believe that the government can regulate parts of the private sector without getting in the way. The idea is that we can regulate industry (whose primary interest is to make money) to ensure a reasonable degree of public safety.
TREE HUGGING
If you come across a bird's nest beside the road, either in a tree or on the ground, and the mother is sitting on the young or on the eggs, do not take the mother with the young. You may take the young, but be sure to let the mother go, so that it may go well with you and you may have a long life.
Duet 22:6-7 NIV translation
In this portion of the law, God has outlined a very specific scenario. He states if you find a bird with young or with eggs that you are permitted to eat the young and the eggs, but you are not permitted to eat the mother. Why would God detail such an instance in the law? The Bible does not provide an explanation. I argue that God realizes that by taking the mother and the eggs you will wipe out two generations in attempting to feed yourself. If you leave the eggs the young may not be able to fend for themselves. I believe that this principle is not specific to birds, but can be applied to a host of environmental issues. I believe that it was God’s intention for the nation of Israel to live in harmony with their environment and to not exploit it. I believe that in today’s society our biggest challenge is getting our over-consuming and still growing population to live in a sustainable way. Notice that this passage ends with a note to the person. God is instituting this principle to ensure that the people will have long life. God realizes that the health of the environment is essential to the survival of humans.
COMMUNIST
Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles' feet, And distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
Acts:4:34-37
This scripture is from the New Testament. In this passage, the newly formed Christian church has several challenges. It's solution to it's economic situation was for everyone to sell what possessions they had and redistribute the money to who needed it. I am not advocating Communism, nor am I saying that God was in favor of the ruthless quasi-Communist governments that have taken hold in countries all over the world. I am saying that early Christians recognized the power of community and the problems people can solve when they work together. I am also talking more about the economic value of socialism more than the communist governmental structure.
As I stated earlier, the aim of this essay is a political one, not a religious one. One could argue that Moses went into the mountain and made up the whole thing. We can argue that my interpretation is incorrect and I am a fundamentalist wacko. You could argue that these rules were made for a specific time and place and do not apply to us in any way. The intention of this article is not to argue the validity of Christianity, nor is it to state that my interpretation of scripture is the definitive one.
I think mixing government and religion is a very bad thing. I have always argued for the complete separation of church and state almost to the extreme (like taking “In God we trust” off the money, I mean are we a secular nation or aren’t we). I am making the political argument that if politicians want to use Christian values to dismantle social security and regulatory institutions, then I want to examine all of the source material from which they are quoting. If they are quoting the scripture “you don’t work you don’t eat (2Thes 3:10), then I think we should examine all of the evidence in the book they are quoting from. I am not even going to mention Matt 25:40 or Matt 26:11 because they are religious arguments and not political ones. If conservatives are going to use Biblical principle to dictate political philosophy, than I feel it is my right as a tree hugging hippy Christian fundamentalist socialist LIBERAL to disagree.
DISCLAIMER
I also think it is a very dangerous thing to look at scripture without looking at context. I have tried to put context to these scriptures, but would advise everyone to read it for themselves. I am not a know-it-all.
Don't be afraid to leave comments. Argument is not a bad thing.
Posts
1 comment:
They called Darwin the man who killed God. As though some how, understanding the science of how evolution works negates that faith in a larger design or spiritual power. It does not. One of the things that always struck me was that Darwin doesn't endorse survival of the fittest, he rejects it. He argues that unlike animals we are capable of rejecting the selfish instinct and to rise above it. People know the phrase survival of the fittest but they don't understand the context and the rejection of it. I read Origin of the Species 20+ years ago as a freshman at Temple University. I've been fighting with people about it since the day I finished the book.
Post a Comment