Moral politics

Post Reply New Topic

Well, it really depends on your views of security, justice and safety and when you feel individual freedom may be traded off for it. Your level of authoritarianism is still relatively liberal.

Meh, you sort it out. Cannabis isn't addictive like tobacco though, and I don't think it kills people through overdoses as much as alcohol does.

Security = being able to arrest and detain threats to national and international security, etc terrorists, given justification. With the neccessary safeguards, of course.

Unless military/intelligence secrets are exposed, or people are calling for coup/revolt/rebellion/whatever and those calls are working, I don't think governments should be allowed to silence any individual unless it's a matter of abusive language, libel, slander, and obscenities. Copyright protection too.

A government which has political, non-security related secrets to hide is probably up to no good in the first place. (Not that military R&D projects can't be nasty and downright scary)

Governments should protect and serve the people and the nation, not serve themselves.

There's more to that, of course, but for another time.

How do you think the ideas outlined in the Sermon on the Mount would come out in this online quiz? If someone based their political philosophy on that speech, what would they be called today?

I don't think that the Sermon on the Mount was a political sermon as it did not mention what a government should do but rather what believers should do. In fact, it is hard for me to say because of that as it doesn't really give answers for most of the questions for a society.

We can argue that they would not be militaristic, have an economic structure with some forgiveness of debt(but it doesn't say how much leniency) but as to welfare or property we have a lack of certainty because there is a call for believers to give to the poor, which can be an assumption of a libertarian state with private property and only private money donation or a government that quietly shares the wealth of the society to help all, the notion that man should not serve money could be interpreted as a call against capitalism but not necessarily so, finally there is some notion that pornography would be bad but there is a question on crime and punishment set up by not judging.

I dunno, I would think that the people who would try to base their ideals just on those passages would probably end up being some form of left-wing anarchists trying to work out a gift economy and a lot of that would simply be due to the fact that they would be trying to turn a call for individuals into a political philosophy.

It is true that the sermon is not explicitly political, but if a majority of voters in a democracy really believed in it, it would transform government policies.

I think the idea of not judging does not necessarily preclude legal punishments - we can 'judge' in many different ways. 'Not judging' would not mean that diving and ice skaing would be eliminated because the scoring is done by judges, nor would it mean that society could take no measures to protect itself from criminals. But the idea of turning the other cheek makes it hard to see how the death penalty could be used; the idea of loving your neighbor as your self suggest that a Christian government would have a plan to reduce poverty and to extend opportunity to people regardless of their economic situation.

Why? Like I said, these are personal dictums. The call for giving in secret is very reflective of the fact that Jesus is not calling for a government's actions but rather an individual's. There is very little here saying that believers should try to remake society but rather it reflects their own personal moral call.

No, it doesn't. Turning the other cheek doesn't make it clear how any measure can be used as all measures are on some level punitive. Really though, his call that he isn't there to abolish the law could easily allow for Old Testament punishments to exist as well, such as the stonings. A better verse would be found in John 8 with the lady being stoned. Finally, loving your neighbor as yourself is not in the Sermon on the Mount, it is found later in the same book though. Very little in the Sermon on the Mount suggests a government plan for poverty, in fact Matt 6:3-4 almost suggests that there wouldn't be one given that those verses establish giving to be a call for individuals to do in private. Really though, you read too much into the Sermon on the Mount as it really is a call for individuals, there is nothing about what governments or any other agency other than the individual should do as not even the church is mentioned, other than possibly the call to pray in private rather than trying to seem holy in the synagogue.

Seems to me that you are missing the point of John 8. Is it not written that he who is perfect should cast the first stone? - seems like they might try to convene a stoning, but it would never get started.



Yes, I know it doesn't spell out particular government plans. But if a majority of people in a democratic country were Christian, would the policies of that country reflect the Sermon on the Mount (and other teachings)??

But, if they can't stone anybody then there is no reason to hold a stoning as the purpose of a stoning is to stone.


It really depends on your interpretation! The bible is NOT a political doctrine. There are left-wing Christians, right-wing Christians, Christian socialists, Christian anarcho-capitalists, and etc. If a majority of the people in a nation were Christian, it does not necessarily have to have a lot of impact on a nation's policies or perhaps any impact. Some of those groups will deny some of the moral power of a government or a nation. Really, the bible is not a political doctrine. The commands found in the Sermon on the Mount mostly CANNOT be implemented as policies from what I have read in it, so your question is seems questionable.

Right. My point is that in the example you cited, a stoning was broken up by Jesus, who basically prohibited it by invoking 'let he who is perfect cast the first stone'.




Christianity is not a political doctrine, I agree. But the moral principles it espouses intersect with policies.

I know, and that can be used against the death penalty.


Not many of them. Christianity could be reconciled with libertarianism and anarchism and with authoritarian governments as well. If Christianity could be stretched from anarcho-capitalism to perhaps even totalitarianism then what policies would Christianity force a government to undertake? I usually take these attempts as "I want to read some beliefs into the bible", and I really don't care about that so much.

No, I am not trying to put anything from modern political systems into Christianity. I am trying to go the other direction and envision what would have to be done to bring various governments in line with Christ's teachings. For instance, what do the the parable on the good Samaritan and other teachings indicate is the Christian stand on racism, and would a truly Christian govt. permit structural racism?

You can't do one without doing the other. You can interpret a Christian's call for government however you'd like to be honest, but you can't say that there is a unified proper Christian approach to government.... at least if you can then show me the logical proof because I'd find that interesting. Are you arguing a dominionist government, where Christian moral law is the government? There is a difference between that and the government of a Christian society... especially given that there are some Christians who do want to abolish centralized governments(not most but still, that is because most people don't).

No, I am not a Dominionist. I don't believe that most Dominionists are capable of reading and understanding the Bible.

Some smart ones do exist.

Really though, I think you are looking for an answer and I don't think that one really exists. I have met Christian anarchists, monarchists, liberals, libertarians, conservatives, even an intelligent person who worked with the focus on the family institute during one of his summers. They all have very different views on the mechanics of a Christian society. You can justify a lot of political views with the bible's morality, but I am afraid of suggesting a Biblical(TM) political view.