@Smokin Joe Hold on Joe. I think you've got the wrong idea from what I said.
My religious obligations are mine, not the business of the entire Country. We are told that separation exists, that Congress shall make no law with respect to religion (no official religion) nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. That is the 'separation of church and state' the Liberals hammer us with.
Well, yes and no. Two things:
First, CONGRESS shall make no law. The same is not stated to governors and state bodies (unless otherwise stated in their own constitutions). So this mythical veil described as the 'separation of church and state' as embodied in the US Constitution does NOT go all the way to the ground.
And congress is 'making law' right now against the free practice of religion. When a Christian baker can be sued out of existence for merely not baking a cake against his faith, congress has made a law (
in absentia, by inaction).
And secondly, in the nearly prophetic words of Bob Dylan, "You've got to Serve Somebody"...
There is no such thing as a moral vacuum. There is no philosophical neutral. If we are not willing to be guided by the moral sense embodied in the Judeo-Christian Ethic (Fancy words for the Law of Moses and the testimony of Yeshua the Messiah), we will, of a necessity, be guided by something else (one might say, someone else).
In that, I am not only speaking to you as a person (albeit that the same applies) I am speaking on a grander scale, to We, the People. America is founded upon Individualism, and I embrace that, probably more than most. But that does not discount the will in aggregate. Yahweh does judge nations (not only persons), and We, the People ARE a nation. There is no question that a mere generation ago, we were a Christian nation. That is very much in question now. And that question is paramount, lest we forget from Whom our rights are endowed... And in the moment we forget, the great American experiment is over.
We, the People, have lost our way. In large part that is because of the fallacy known as the separation of church and state, because while the state is no longer adhering to the Christian principles it was founded upon, there is no question that it now teaches a different religion. And with a different religion comes a different ethic, necessarily. There is no moral neutral. Which do you prefer?
Now I am being told to support a Liberal program because, well, WWJD?
Not by me, you're not. I rose precisely because words were put in Yeshua's mouth. WWJD? I can tell you: He would keep the laws of His Father's House. He came to us with no doctrine of His own, but with the doctrine of Him from whom he was sent. That doctrine (the Law of Moses) stands against liberalism.
My friend, this is no theocracy, even though most of our laws are based on Judeo/Christian ethos.
I understand what you mean, but there is in fact, an unbridgeable dichotomy in that statement. Our government cannot protect the rights we are endowed with without recognizing Him from whom that endowment derives. End of story. And that need not mean 'theocracy'. The American system is patterned in parallel to Torah - There is a separation of church and state embodied in Torah. The priests did not run things. The Sanhedrin did. Politics and religion distinctly demarcated. Yet there was no doubt who 'the People' belonged to.
In my family, when we can get the meddlers of government out of the way, we take care of our own. My wife and I have had as many as four grandchildren living under our roof at the same time, and have provided for their needs with never a dime from the government, in fact paying our taxes the whole time. That obligation, however, is one of family. It is how things are done, in both the Chippewa culture my wife was raised in, and in the Southern influenced English/Irish/Scots culture I was raised in dating back to the colonial era (1600s). That, in both sides of the family, is just how things are done. Those moral obligations are not binding on anyone else, that is very much a personal matter.
That's right. And how it should be. And were it so, there would be little for government to do with regard to welfare. That does not negate the responsibility to do that little bit. And I am of the opinion that if it were so, the taxes would not be begrudged. As an example, there has long been county-run orphanages, county and state hospitals... That is in keeping with the American way. They were not a burden then, and should not be a burden now... IF, IF, IF it was as it was before, and that is in keeping with 'as it should be' in your statement above.
What makes it a burden is the destruction of the family (largely endorsed by the government).
The compact between the States that formed the Constitution, however, is the law by which we have all agreed to live. In that law, there are no moral obligations (despite the apparent codification of some) only legal ones. The government is not The Almighty, though His Law is the main basis of our government, not just at the Federal level, but at the State level (if you don't like the rules in one state, you can move, trust me), and even local law governs the day to day actions of most folks.
Agreed in large part. The moral obligations are left to the states and the people, as everything is, not specifically enumerated in the US Constitution. My one caveat in that would be the care and keeping of the soldier, and the widow of the soldier... From wound and from loss, I mean.
However, that law, whether we would judge it to be moral or not, is not a question of morality so much as legality, of ethics, not morals [...]
That's a mighty fine line, friend, and a distinction without a difference. Ethics are morals, or couched therein, as is law.
and without an eternal soul, Government, as an entity is not morally bound whatsoever aside from the individual moral influences of the governed, raised in unity on the law, whether those morals are heartfelt or just a cheap emotional mechanism to make people feel guilty to screw them once again.
Eloquent, but false. The single guiding moral/ethical compunction of our government is specifically and succinctly described in our Declaration of Independence. It is there to safeguard our rights as endowed by our Creator. That sole purpose cannot be at odds with that endowment or it's Creator, by it's very definition... That is an ethical/moral aegis.
The mechanisms are in place to take care of those who CANNOT care for themselves, from the Social Security tax, which many would argue is unconstitutional in and of itself, which is going to be in serious fiscal trouble because the Congress looted those funds to buy votes. Yet Americans paid into it, having been promised a return or survivor benefits for their family, and even disability payments should they become injured. It is already a mess. Yet those looted funds often went to programs for 'the poor', and an entire industry of Social Workers and counselors was created and supported, employing a multitude of officers, "for the poor".
You are misguided if you think I would disagree with you here. You are preaching to the choir.
Government "charity" has been a dismal failure overall.
Yes it is. But it is not right to say that the malformed federal behemoth discounts what was before... And there has long been state and county run charitable services.
So I will ask, by what Constitutional Authority does the House of Representatives (or the Congress, in toto) vote to contribute from the public monies to the benefit of a few?
They have no such authority.
In fact, it robs the people of the means by which they might have exercised their free will to engage in charitable acts, and of any choice to do so in that particular matter, unless they dig even deeper in their pockets for more money.
There's the money shot. Right there. Let people do for themselves and their own, and there will be damn little left to worry about.
However the funds collected by government are increasingly being used to provide the ordinary means of life to the multitude, be that three meals a day in school, day care (after school programs), housing, food, even phones.
Again, by what Constitutional Authority?
Does anyone think it wise to add yet another program, to eliminate the personal fiscal reasons for living cleanly, and staying healthy, as if that will reduce cost? It did not work with being 'poor'.
Right, exactly. Do not assume I am in any way advocating for any of that.