Me and My Buddy, James, part 2

On to chapter 2.

One thing that's really bothering me about this book is that he has a tendency to quote scripture to support something, but then not fully explain how scripture supports what he's saying. Chapter 2 (Render unto Caesar) is an excellent example.

The story of Jesus telling the pharisees to "render unto Caesar only what is Caesar, and to God the things that are God's" is actually one of my favorite Jesus stories. I also like the one where he calls the pharisees a "brood of vipers". I just can't come up with stuff this good! I mean if one of the leaders of the Moral Majority came up to me and said, "Tell me, wise teacher, do you think it's lawful to pay taxes when our government is involved in so many immoral things?"

Aside -- I realize this will never happen. First of all, people don't ask those kinds of questions when they already have all the answers, and secondly, they'd never ask a woman! But just stick with me here.

"Tell, me, wise teacher, do you think its lawful to pay taxes when our government is involved in so many immoral things?"

"Well,"... I stammer a response, "Ooohhh, we might have a reason not to pay taxes! goodie."

So, I just get amazed when Jesus comes up with such a great answer. I've also always liked the response because it's given me peace of mind that I can pay taxes and not be sidetracked with concern over what the government is doing. Keep a clear mind of what is God's and pay the appropriate respect and obedience to the governing authorities.

Kennedy is extending this passage to mean that, in this day of democratic government, rendering unto to Caesar includes political participation. There, I would question the argument, but for the sake of reading the book, I'll allow that it could pertain. Let's just say I think he's on shaky ground.

Now, he goes on to talk about "imposing morality" on our culture. And, in truth, I agree with him there. I agree that the Judeo-Christian ethic should be pushed on our culture. I don't want to live in a culture where thievery is accepted (I've dealt with governments like that, and I've seen, first hand, the effects on the people), sexual morality is abandoned and the people are constantly struggling to survive. However, I also have read about and seen cultures where morality is pushed to a point beyond legalism. Do we really want to just push our morality on a culture and force them all to comply? Do we really want to be little Talibans?

In the end, God gives us a choice, and there is a certain amount of grace and respect that I think we need to extend to our fellow citizens. For instance, when I argue the point of abortion with a person who is pro-choice, I don't pull out my Bible and start to lecture. Why would I do that when we've already lost the culture war, and the Bible has no meaning to them? I argue it on these points:
1) We are all better off when we protect the most innocent life --be it unborn, old or disabled. It's better for humanity in general if we preserve the least common denominator because humanity is better off when we are compassionate.

2) Medical evidence shows the existence of life from conception. As the evidence grows for this, do we want to believe we haven't protected life when we should have?

3) We are not in a position to determine if a life is worth living or not. There are three people who are living in my home, living a better and more full life than a majority of the world, who had been written off as not worthy by many many people. Where do we presume to devise the criteria for whose life is worth living?

Of course, I also support birth mothers, adoption and the foster system, as well as trying to provide support and assistance for teen mothers in any way I am able.

What I don't do is take out my Bible and systematically apply scripture to the cause. Of course the scripture shapes the morality, but I'm smart enough to realize that that isn't going to fly in our culture anymore! Thankfully, scripture reveals truth, and so we can use the truth that scripture reveals to shape our arguments.

Anyways, he goes on to the "Goal of the Founding Fathers." Eee gads.

I could write an entire book on my thoughts about the founding fathers, the constitution and the birth of our nation. How in the world did we get where we are today unless there were some problems from the start??? I'll spare you the ramblings, if you've been nice enough to read this far. However, I have to crack up at the point he makes about something the Arthur DeMoss Foundation (which has been involved in some really good things) said in a newspaper many years ago, "Religion's influence on public policy has had a long and distinguished history. Over the past 200 years religion has been a stabilizing force in this country. Suddenly Americans are being told that religion and morality were never meant to influence politics. To believe this would require a disregard for our history...even the desertion of the principles of our forefathers."

So, religion did play a big part in the founding? Was it Jefferson's disbelief in miracles and the divinity of Jesus? Was it Franklin's interest in marketing Christianity while not believing in it? Was it in the form of the freemasons? Think rationally James! The actual Constitution of the United States tell us that we have the right to the "pursuit of happiness" -- that's GODLY?

But, in addition to that religion did get used to justify taking of land from the natives, slavery and even, hundreds of years later, segregation. Of course, you can also site Islam, Mormonism, Taoist, and even Hari Krishna as religions that have influenced our government.... is this all good?

Another thing that befuddles me is his insistence on quoting dead supreme court judges and politicians, like what they thought about this topic is pertinent in any truly apparent way. Just because they sat on the bench sure doesn't mean I need to heed what they said! You're going to have to do a little better than that to convince me.

He ends the chapter by stating the we should always vote for Christians. Sure. And we know they are Christians by... their words? Because someone is a pastor? Because they drive a minivan and wear clothes from J.C. Penny? Hasn't he realized that they all say they are Christians, and that some even say they have the same values as us?

In addition to that, even if they are Christian, that doesn't mean they're competent or able to lead a nation or run a state.

We've got to go beyond this somehow because we really can't trust any of them.