Support for immigrants cost him his party's nomination for President. Lincoln went on to become President in 1860 instead of William Seward, who became the Secretary of State in Lincoln's administration.
Later, Republicans opposed illiterate immigrants; Democrats opposed importing "pauper labor" to do the menial jobs. That was the 1896 election between William Jennings Bryan and William McKinley.
Teddy Roosevelt said, "Every immigrant who comes here should be required within five years to learn English or leave the country." Franklin D. Roosevelt, disagreed saying, "Remember, remember always, that all of us, and you and I especially, are descended from immigrants and revolutionists."
Little has changed in one-hundred years with respect to politics and immigration.
Conservatives say, "Close the borders and restrict immigration to individuals with the skills and talents to make our society thrive. They, in turn, can benefit from the American Dream."
Progressives say, "Do away with borders. We are all citizens of the world. Let anyone who wants to, come and benefit from the American Dream."
What both are really saying is, "We've got it pretty good here; the only question is who and how many are we going to allow in to enjoy it?"
But the men and women who founded the United States were missional - both in their faith and in their form of government. They believed that, to have a good government, you needed to have citizens who were grounded in the Christian faith. Their ultimate dream and ambition was to see their faith and their form of government spread to every nation around the world.
"You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are." - George Washington.
"…we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the Supreme Ruler of the world… that the confusions that are and have been among the nations may be overruled by the promoting and speedily bringing in the holy and happy period when the kingdoms of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ may be everywhere established, and the people willingly bow to the scepter of Him who is the Prince of Peace." - Samuel Adams.
"…the religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His apostles… This is genuine Christianity and to this we owe our free constitutions of government." - Noah Webster.
"…the Christian religion – its general principles – must ever be regarded among us as the foundation of civil society." - Daniel Webster.
Rush County was named after one of the three most notable Founding Fathers, Benjamin Rush. In 1791 he wrote, "Christianity is the only true and perfect religion; and… in proportion as mankind adopt its principles and obey its precepts, they will be wise and happy."
These statements show that the founders believed that Christianity was the only foundation that would make a democratic republic work. And they longed for the day when every nation around the world would follow their lead. But statements like these are not politically correct. How could we impose our belief system on others?
But, if we've found something that works, why is it okay to keep it to ourselves? How self-centered, and uncaring are we to let other people struggle with oppressive governments while we enjoy the fruits of our founders' vision and labor?
If the Bible really is the Word of God, if it really can transform the human spirit, if it can take spiritually dead people and make them live again, why wouldn't it impact our everyday lives? Daniel Webster said, "Whatever makes men good Christians, makes them good citizens." If that's true, won't good citizens make good governments?
What would it be like if every leader around the world prayed like Solomon, "…give your servant a discerning heart to govern your people and to distinguish between right and wrong"? 1 Kings 3:9a
We can take part in the immigration debate that has been argued for many decades, or we can recapture our founders' vision by becoming missional both in our faith, and how it can impact our everyday lives. The choice is yours. Choose well.
Questions? curtisferrell1962@gmail.com
You can find me on FACEBOOK at my Facebook Page (http://www.new.facebook.com/profile.php?id=504321719).
Here's a link to my Flickr.com Page (http://www.flickr.com/photos/curtisferrell/)
Thanks for reading!
Showing posts with label conservative. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conservative. Show all posts
Thursday, February 5, 2015
Friday, October 26, 2007
There's a Higher Moral Law
I am writing in response to the Cokie and Steven V. Roberts, Newspaper Enterprise Assn., article “The ‘agents of intolerance’ return” published in The Courier-Times on Wednesday, October 17, 2008.
What role should faith play in American politics? How compatible is orthodox religion with the practical functioning of democracy?
That was a great way to start an article. Unfortunately, what followed is proof that the Roberts’ totally misunderstand people with a conservative Christian world view.
Texas preacher Rick Scarborough had it exactly right; it’s not about winning elections. For the conservative Christian it is exclusively about honoring Christ and the authority of God’s word.
Politics is about compromise and there are many areas where we can reason together and reach compromises. Should we pave or gravel-top this road? Should we spend 5 million or 10 million on cancer research? Should we mandate full-day Kindergarten and allow school vouchers for private schools? In all of these areas compromises can be reached that benefit the community while not violating a moral law. However, following the Judeo-Christian God with integrity has nothing to do with compromise when it comes to moral law, or what conservative Christians would call “clear biblical truth.”
Ask Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego from the Hebrew Scriptures who said, “We will not bow!” Translation: we will not compromise about this. Daniel even accommodated the king who kidnapped him along with other promising young leaders like Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego by serving as a royal advisor, and eventually as the king’s most loved and trusted advisor. But when it came to things as simple as his personal prayer life or diet, Daniel drew a line in the Babylonian sand and said, “I will not disobey God. There are some things that I just will not do.”
In the New Testament the Apostle Paul wrote in his second letter to the Corinthian church, “What do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?” And the Apostle John wrote that “God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth.
Following God is about purity in thought and deed. In our own power, we cannot attain absolute purity, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive for it. Just because compromise is easy and/or acceptable in the political realm doesn’t mean we should lay aside strongly held beliefs simply to gain a political victory. Even our own poets like Frost say we will be rewarded if we “take the road less traveled.”
Sean Hannity is right when he says that if conservative Christians abstain from the political process, “the result will be far worse for the cause that I know [James Dobson] passionately and deeply” believes in, and the nation will live with the consequences. But God forbid if we sell our souls for a short lived, hollow, political victory.
Religion as the dominant credo or a blueprint for public policy may or may not be a source of discord. But religion as the blueprint for a well lived life is essential. Voting for someone who doesn’t value life enough to protect it, is a violation of a biblically informed personal blueprint, and red flag indicating a life that is being lived without moral integrity. In 2007, no one in their right mind would vote for someone advocating slavery. But that was not the case 140 years ago.
In the pre- and post-Civil War years, politicians were having a very similar discussion as the one we find ourselves in today. But they were not discussing the right-to-life or the sanctity of marriage, they were discussing the right to buy, own, and sell other people. Slavery isn’t wrong because we all decided it was wrong. And slavery wouldn’t have been right if the Confederate States had won the war. Slavery is wrong because a higher moral law says it is wrong. Killing pre-born babies, and destroying the definition and structure of marriage, is wrong because that same moral law declares it is wrong.
The congressional votes cited by Senator John Danforth (R-MO) regarding stem-cell research and Terri Schiavo can be seen clearly in the light of this higher moral law. Polls, political practice, Senators, and opinion writers cannot change that law.
Many times we enter the voting booth, hold our noses, and pick the candidate we can tolerate the best, not the one we like the most. However, there may come a time when people of faith cannot, in good conscience, vote for any of the candidates presented by the political machine. Abstaining at the ballot box is not the equivalent of political ignorance or of moral intolerance. Sometimes choosing not to vote is the only choice you can make and still sleep well at night. Conservative Christians who refuse to make “compromises” on moral issues may or may not understand the American system. But a nation that refuses to acknowledge a higher moral law, as well as the Giver of that moral law, does so at its own peril, and a Christian who does so will certainly have a higher authority to answer to.
What role should faith play in American politics? How compatible is orthodox religion with the practical functioning of democracy?
That was a great way to start an article. Unfortunately, what followed is proof that the Roberts’ totally misunderstand people with a conservative Christian world view.
Texas preacher Rick Scarborough had it exactly right; it’s not about winning elections. For the conservative Christian it is exclusively about honoring Christ and the authority of God’s word.
Politics is about compromise and there are many areas where we can reason together and reach compromises. Should we pave or gravel-top this road? Should we spend 5 million or 10 million on cancer research? Should we mandate full-day Kindergarten and allow school vouchers for private schools? In all of these areas compromises can be reached that benefit the community while not violating a moral law. However, following the Judeo-Christian God with integrity has nothing to do with compromise when it comes to moral law, or what conservative Christians would call “clear biblical truth.”
Ask Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego from the Hebrew Scriptures who said, “We will not bow!” Translation: we will not compromise about this. Daniel even accommodated the king who kidnapped him along with other promising young leaders like Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego by serving as a royal advisor, and eventually as the king’s most loved and trusted advisor. But when it came to things as simple as his personal prayer life or diet, Daniel drew a line in the Babylonian sand and said, “I will not disobey God. There are some things that I just will not do.”
In the New Testament the Apostle Paul wrote in his second letter to the Corinthian church, “What do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?” And the Apostle John wrote that “God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth.
Following God is about purity in thought and deed. In our own power, we cannot attain absolute purity, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive for it. Just because compromise is easy and/or acceptable in the political realm doesn’t mean we should lay aside strongly held beliefs simply to gain a political victory. Even our own poets like Frost say we will be rewarded if we “take the road less traveled.”
Sean Hannity is right when he says that if conservative Christians abstain from the political process, “the result will be far worse for the cause that I know [James Dobson] passionately and deeply” believes in, and the nation will live with the consequences. But God forbid if we sell our souls for a short lived, hollow, political victory.
Religion as the dominant credo or a blueprint for public policy may or may not be a source of discord. But religion as the blueprint for a well lived life is essential. Voting for someone who doesn’t value life enough to protect it, is a violation of a biblically informed personal blueprint, and red flag indicating a life that is being lived without moral integrity. In 2007, no one in their right mind would vote for someone advocating slavery. But that was not the case 140 years ago.
In the pre- and post-Civil War years, politicians were having a very similar discussion as the one we find ourselves in today. But they were not discussing the right-to-life or the sanctity of marriage, they were discussing the right to buy, own, and sell other people. Slavery isn’t wrong because we all decided it was wrong. And slavery wouldn’t have been right if the Confederate States had won the war. Slavery is wrong because a higher moral law says it is wrong. Killing pre-born babies, and destroying the definition and structure of marriage, is wrong because that same moral law declares it is wrong.
The congressional votes cited by Senator John Danforth (R-MO) regarding stem-cell research and Terri Schiavo can be seen clearly in the light of this higher moral law. Polls, political practice, Senators, and opinion writers cannot change that law.
Many times we enter the voting booth, hold our noses, and pick the candidate we can tolerate the best, not the one we like the most. However, there may come a time when people of faith cannot, in good conscience, vote for any of the candidates presented by the political machine. Abstaining at the ballot box is not the equivalent of political ignorance or of moral intolerance. Sometimes choosing not to vote is the only choice you can make and still sleep well at night. Conservative Christians who refuse to make “compromises” on moral issues may or may not understand the American system. But a nation that refuses to acknowledge a higher moral law, as well as the Giver of that moral law, does so at its own peril, and a Christian who does so will certainly have a higher authority to answer to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
