Is it possible?

The answer to this is the same as the answer to any question that starts out..."Will christians..."

Some will, some won't.

Speaking as a Christian (whoa...I may regret this here!)...Jesus told the people to pay their taxes (some would interpret his words to mean "follow the laws") even though some of his followers thought they were above Roman law. So I don't see a biblical imperative to change the government, although I find no conflict with people seeking to change systems to reflect their own values. I think that is natural.

this months harpers asks a simmilar question in one of their cover stories, it wonders if the majority of americans define themselves as christians why are the so un christ like, i'm not going to go into the article, but i'll tell you my take on christians, i think that most christians (especially fundamentalists, which seem to be the majority) don't really fiollow christ at all, they believe he is the saviour but the main core of their belirefs are derived from the old testament, the eye for an eye, not turn the other cheek of the new testament

Ok I want to make clear that I am not interested in what christians may think or just how "christian" they are. What I am interested in is that simply being of christian belief is contractictory to the basic premises of democracy. How to equate/balance "sin" with governance. Hi Eva hope you had a swell time in colorado.

Thanks for the clarification, Dys. You brought up several points, and I wasn't sure exactly where you wanted to go. I'm glad you don't want to discuss the good/bad points of Christians and/or Christianity. That might interest some on the spirituality threads, but not me.

I wondered why you didn't post this under politics. Now I understand. You're talking about the intersection of politics and religion, specifically Christianity. Correct?



You might say that. And I wouldn't disagree. However, I would also say that being of Islamic belief is contradictory to the basic premises of democracy, as is Buddhism and nearly every other religious belief system I can think of.

But I don't have a problem with that. Political systems deal with organizing and managing society. Religious systems are not usually interested in providing for the common defense or maintaining physical infrastructure. They're more interested in the spiritual (or ethical, if you will) welfare of the people.



Some believers (of many faiths) believe that people in positions of governmental power were put there as instruments of the Higher Power. In which case, they tend to accept the judgments of the government. Other believers reject that idea and view Church and State as diametrically opposed, with the "State" representing evil incarnate.

Personally, I don't believe either position is correct. Neither Church nor State is right 100% of the time. There are good people and bad people, as well as good ideas and bad ideas, in both systems. The hard part is picking and choosing which to believe in both.



Oh, and Hi, Dys! Yes, we did have a good time in Colorado. Not as good as seeing you guys in Albuquerque, but a good getaway nonetheless. A mountain cabin is not exactly my idea of Heaven on Earth, but the guys and doggie loved it. So I was happy.

Actually, I don't think that Buddhism would.

I think there is a huge disparity within Christianity, and if you limit your question to Christian fundamentalists, there are still vast differences. Jimmy Carter was a fundamentalist, albeit, a moderate Baptist, but he believes in a strict separation of religion and state, and he is not unique in his belief as a fundamentalist. This is different from the conservative evangelists who believe it is their Christian duty to shape the country so it is in accord with a strict, literal interpretation of the Bible.

Bush and his conservative Christians would interpret the Constitution to suit their religious beliefs, and if that were insufficient, they would attempt to alter the Constitution too through amendments.

If Democracy is nothing but mob rule, then Bush and his followers could theoretically impose a Theocracy through the democratic process. However, I think that this is very unlikely to happen in a highly educated country like ours especially considering the difficulty of passing a constitutional amendment.

Please rewrite that properly.