Top of Page
Return to News Index
RELIGION & POLITICS
Election 2004 and “Moral Values”
Commentary & Analysis by Dr. Robert M. Bowman
President, Institute for Space and Security Studies
Whether we like it or not, religion has become a major factor in American politics. Having failed to neutralize it, the left must work to see that it is a factor for good, not evil. So far, its influence has been almost entirely negative. The article on page 2 is an attempt to change that. It is an attempt to reach out to Christians who voted for G. W. Bush in 2004. They need to hear that there is another Christian perspective. Truth is, progressive moral values are far superior to others, and the moral values of Jews, Unitarians, and humanists are closer to the heart of Jesus than those of most Christians.
Then why did we get trounced on moral values in 2004? First, the election results are suspect. Chances are, the Democrats really won the election, but lost the vote count. We must eliminate voting machines which do not leave a paper trail. Second, other factors, like fear, played a big role — perhaps bigger than “moral values.” Third, progressive moral values did not lose the 2004 election. John Kerry did. I worked hard for Kerry and spoke forcefully at his rallies. (Maggie led 32 precincts for his campaign.) Yet he was far from our top choice as the nominee. The big money folks in the Dem Party convinced primary voters that he was the most electable. Truth is, by selecting a pro-choice Roman Catholic who was also a pro-war New England liberal (and a fraternity brother of Bush’s to boot), the Democrats probably nominated the one man who could possibly lose to Bush! Progressive moral values were never even mentioned, much less defended. When Kerry promoted progressive ideas (like health care, the environment, and education), he failed to make them the moral issues which they are. And when addressing the biggest moral issue of the election — the war against Iraq —, Kerry abandoned the progressive position completely and in essence supported Bush’s immoral war, merely claiming he could do it better than Bush.
Having left morality out of his policy proposals completely, Kerry by default left gay rights and abortion as the only two moral issues in the campaign. And he failed miserably to defend his position on even these issues. In spite of having morally superior positions on almost all the issues, neither he nor the Democrats in general expounded a moral and spiritual basis for their policies.
The problem is, leftists of faith (and there are a lot of us) tend to be marginalized and ignored. This must not continue. The progressive movement cannot succeed without our participation and indeed our leadership.
What with the deficit, the jobs lost, the failing war, and the scandals, Bush should have been defeated 75% to 25%. (It would have been tough to cover that up by election day fraud.) But it didn’t happen. The Dems conceded the Bible belt and the heartland. It’s time to regain the moral high ground that is rightly ours. An illegal war of aggression, homeless veterans, countless millions without health care, growing poverty in a land of plenty — these are moral issues, and must be seen as such! We can’t ignore the Christian vote; we must court it. Jesus never would vote for the enormous evil put forth by Bush and his neo-con handlers. Yet I’m not sure He could have voted for the alternatives either. To win, we must put forth policies Jesus could support and candidates who are comfortable saying so. That’s what my article on page 2 is all about. My dear non-Christian readers, please don’t let the title turn you off. It turns out a “Jesus Society” is one in which the government serves the people, not the corporations. So read it, and use it to convert your Christian friends away from Godless Republicanism. Thanks! Bob
Toward a “Jesus Society”
by Most. Rev. Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret.
Presiding Archbishop, United Catholic Church
The Place of Christians in a Democracy
Christians make up a clear majority in these United States. Our nation was founded on Christian principles. We were once a “Christian nation,” and in many respects, we still are. Yet we are also a pluralistic society made up of adherents of many religions … and none.
Our Constitution provides for freedom of religion. Nowhere does it proclaim freedom “from” religion. The United Kingdom has recently designated atheism as a belief system, putting it on a par with and in competition with all other belief systems. We in the United States ought to consider doing the same. Since our Constitution prohibits a “state religion,” that would mean that atheism could no longer be the de facto religion of public schools, courthouses, and public squares.
The Constitution protects churches from interference by government. But does it also protect the government from interference by churches? I think the clear implication is that it does. No “church” should dictate government policy. But the Constitution clearly does NOT prohibit individual Americans from bringing their religious beliefs to bear in the voting booth. The question thus arises, “Since we Christians make up the majority, can we shape the government to our liking, and if so, should we?”
On the one hand, our republic was envisioned as much more than just a democracy. Majority rule is not the highest law of the land. After all, the tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. That’s what we’re trying to prevent the Shi’ites from doing in Iraq. Our country’s vision includes the protection of the minority. Just as we are devoted to the protection of the human rights of Christians in China and Saudi Arabia, we must be equally devoted to the human rights of atheists and Muslims in the United States.
Having said that, there is no reason why we should not pursue a government based on Christian principles and carrying out policies in line with the teachings and example of Jesus of Nazareth. After all, Jesus showed time and again his respect for minorities in Israel – even hated minorities like Samaritans, tax collectors, lepers, and Roman soldiers. In addition, the purpose of Christian moral values is for the wellbeing and happiness of the people. God doesn’t make capricious laws. They are all for our good. As Jesus said, “The Sabbath was made for people.” The same is true of all the other laws as well – at least the ones that truly came from God and weren’t invented by men. The only time Christian values would be to the detriment of non-Christians in our society would be if they were applied legalistically and uncaringly. Of course, Jesus never applied them that way. Why should we? Jesus’ biggest problem was not sinners, but the cold legalism of the Pharisees. The minute we start acting like Pharisees, we cease following Jesus.
For the most part, the moral values of Jesus are positive ones. Love one another. Care for widows and orphans. Sell all you have and give to the poor. Heal the sick. Visit the imprisoned. Clothe the naked. Feed the hungry. Embrace the leper. Forgive. Turn the other cheek. Go the second mile. Give drink to the thirsty. Return good for evil. Shelter the homeless. Who could complain about a society like that? Jesus taught that God loved the people – all the people – and wanted the institutions of society to serve the needs of the people. If we can attain a government which does that, who among our citizenry will object?
Actually, we can be quite sure that some will object. These are the elements of society now getting a free ride at the expense of the vast majority. They would include the billionaire owners of multinational corporations exploiting the poor and perhaps televangelists and leaders of big, wealthy churches. Remember, Jesus didn’t please the secular and religious leaders of his day. So we shouldn’t be surprised if we don’t either. Nor should we let that deter us. Of course, they crucified him, and they may do the same to us. Personally, I’m willing to chance it. Dorothy Day once said that we measure our discipleship to Jesus by how much trouble we’re in. The famous Jesuit Father John Dear echoed that thought, “If we‘re going to follow Jesus, we are going to get into trouble. This is our calling.” So we should not mind if we incur the wrath of the rich and powerful with so much to lose. The vast majority of people will greatly benefit from living in a society which follows the teachings of Jesus (and therefore the will of God).
Provided we always remember to honor the dignity and rights of others, there is no reason we Christians should not proceed to build a “Jesus Society,” and make our government a part of it.
Conservative Christians have made some progress lately in raising their issues. But these efforts have sometimes been misguided. Lower taxes and a strong military may or may not be desirable objectives. But they have nothing to do with Jesus, and are not Christian moral values. It often seems like Christians are being used by Country-Club Republicans to further their corporate objectives and personal agendas.
Liberal Christians have fared even worse. They tend to be overwhelmed and marginalized by secular liberals who have a profound disdain for religion in general. The left tends not to acknowledge the legitimate complaints of the right about the shallowness, selfishness, and immorality of much of American culture (particularly that of TV and Hollywood). One of God’s greatest gifts, sex, is used to titillate us into watching “Desperate Housewives” or buying automobiles, mouthwash, and just about everything else in our consumption-driven society. We are continually bombarded with an “If it feels good, do it” philosophy. This is not liberal. It is libertine.
In building our “Jesus Society,” Christians must reject both extremes, as both are driven by non-Christian, immoral motives. We must, instead, base our objectives and priorities solidly on the teachings and example of Jesus himself.
Elements of a “Jesus Society”
We can describe a “Jesus Society” quite simply. Jesus did it for us. “Love God, and love your neighbor as yourself.” This sums up all the law and the prophets. All the rest is commentary.
Of course, some amplification and commentary is good. Jesus had to tell everybody what he meant by “neighbor.” Turns out it’s everybody, including those you don’t like. His example, of course, was the hated Samaritans, considered by the Jews to be heretics, half-breeds, and traitors. Another time, he was even more specific. “What good is it if you only love those who love you? No, you are to love your enemies. Do good to those who persecute you. Overcome evil with good.” He also spelled out what he meant by “love.” That’s the Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule, and the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus made it quite clear that we were to apply these to ourselves, not to others. “Judge not, lest you be judged,” “Let the one without sin cast the first stone,” and “Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.” His final bit of amplification was his “Amen, I say to you, ‘As often as you have done this for the least of our brothers and sisters, you have done it for me.’” This didn’t really add to “Love your neighbor.” It just emphasized its importance. That’s it. That’s the whole of it. Now all we have to do is apply “Love God and your neighbor” to government policy.
Freedom of Religion
First, let’s deal with the “Love God” part. The task of government is to provide an environment in which each person is free to love God in their own way, without interference or intimidation. That’s what the First Amendment means when it says, “The government shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion or restricting the free exercise thereof.” In other words, there shall be no state religion, be it Christianity, Judaism, Mohammedanism, Secular Humanism, or anything else. Government shall show no partiality toward any one religion, nor disparage or ridicule any religion.
It is crucial that every American is free to love God in his or her own way. At the same time, there is no reason why our government cannot openly proclaim its dependence on God. To have “Under God” in our pledge of allegiance and “In God We Trust” on our coins does no more than reflect the faith underlying the origin of our nation and its form of government. It favors no vision of God over another, and does not violate the First Amendment. To atheists who don’t like it, I say “I’m sorry you feel that way, but this is who we are and what we believe.”
Love Your Neighbor as Yourself
Respect for Life (Do Not Kill)
The most contentious moral issue of the last few decades has been abortion. It has divided our people as no other. It is time to recall the spirit of Jesus and come together to resolve this tragedy in a way that respects life – both the life of the unborn and the life of the already living.
In crafting a Christian moral position on abortion, there is absolutely no guidance for us in either the words of Jesus or the Bible as a whole. Instead, we must rely on common sense, what science there is, and broad guidelines like the Golden Rule and our natural instincts. When you think about it, isn’t it strange that Christians (who believe in an after-life and believe that aborted fetuses go to Heaven to be with God) oppose abortion so vehemently (and in some cases, violently)? Atheists, who believe that this life is all there is, should be the ones most upset about babies being denied a chance to be born. Go figure!
When I was running for president, I was often asked if I was pro-life or pro-choice. My answer was, “Yes.” I’m sure you can imagine that as the father of seven children and the grandfather of 21, I am very much pro-life. As soon as I find out that one of the women in the family is pregnant, I include their “new baby” in my daily prayers. I believe abortion is a tragedy. But I also believe it would be even more of a tragedy to criminalize a woman who has one. I think Bill Clinton had it about right when he said that abortion should be legal, safe, and rare. As a matter of fact, abortion rates did go down under President Clinton. But then they apparently went back up under George W. Bush, because the social conditions that made women desperate enough to seek abortions had worsened. Government can play a role in minimizing abortions by eliminating those social conditions that drive women toward abortions in the first place -- lack of financial security, lack of health care, and irresponsible men who get women pregnant and then disappear. Government can also give women real choices, and make sure they are aware of their options. But then, having given women choices, government must respect the choices women make. There can be no return to the back alley.
Where I differ with many liberal politicians is in the extremeness of their positions. Clinton vetoed a ban on partial birth abortions. I would have signed it. Kerry voted against such a ban several times. I would have voted for it. I know of no case where this horrendous procedure is medically necessary. In those rare instances when it is necessary to terminate a pregnancy in the third trimester in order to save the mother, there are ways to do it which give the baby a chance to live as well. Some liberals have even voted against bills requiring doctors to provide medical care to infants born alive after attempted abortions. I would have voted for such a bill. Regardless of your view on abortion, to let a live infant die after being removed from the womb is murder. If we are to stop such excesses of the anti-life liberals, we must join with others all across the political spectrum to minimize abortions and to take such practical compromise measures as parental notification and waiting periods. Above all, women should know exactly what they are doing and what their options are. Before obtaining a surgical abortion, a woman should be counseled by a doctor who does not provide abortions and can be impartial. Of course, a “Jesus Society” would be so caring of the expectant mother that she would have no reason to seek an abortion in the first place.
As a matter of practical politics in a pluralistic society, I think Roe v. Wade had it pretty close to right. Originally, it essentially barred states from restricting abortions in the first trimester (when enforcement of a ban would be impossible in any event), allowed states to require a good reason for second trimester abortions, and permitted states to ban abortions altogether in the third trimester. There was sound reasoning behind such differentiation. There’s a huge difference between a fertilized egg (most of which never attach to the uterine wall and result in a pregnancy) and an 8-month fetus capable of living on its own. To equate the morning-after pill with a late-term abortion is counterproductive. It’s time the American people ignored the extremists on both sides of this issue and worked out a way to make Roe v. Wade work as originally intended. Then as the social reforms of the “Jesus Society” come into being, the number of abortions will plummet. More repression and legalism isn’t the answer. As always, love is.
The Jesus we Christians follow both preached and practiced nonviolence. “Love your enemies. Turn the other cheek. Overcome evil with good.” We know them all by heart. But do we take them seriously? Do we remember that Jesus himself was a victim of capital punishment? “Father, forgive them. They know not what they do.”
We Christians respect the life of others. But we have even greater concern for their souls. So why on earth would we want a guilty criminal, a sinner, put to death before God has a chance to change his heart and bring him to repentance? Those who support the death penalty say that “Thou shalt not kill” really meant “Thou shalt not murder.” So while killing an innocent person is wrong, killing a guilty one is OK. To a secularist or an atheist, that might sound right, but to a Christian it’s absolutely wrong! We should be much more loath to kill a guilty person than an innocent one. If we kill an innocent person (and I’m not recommending it), we are killing the body. But if we kill a guilty person, we kill the soul as well. We play God. We take vengeance out of God’s hands. We thwart God’s mercy, forgiveness, and saving Grace. How dare we!!
The United States is one of the few nations still practicing the barbaric, antiquated, uncivilized practice of capital punishment. A government does not promote respect for life by engaging in state-sponsored killing. A moral political agenda would include a ban on this anachronistic, unnecessary, expensive, and ineffective practice.
The Christians of the first three centuries understood and practiced (as best they could) the nonviolence of Jesus. It was unthinkable for Christians to take up arms against another human being. Christians were not even allowed to testify against murderers or perpetrators of other capital offenses, for they could indirectly be causing the death of the accused. The Church flourished, nurtured by the blood of martyrs who would rather die than kill.
Then in the fourth century, the Church sold out to Constantine. It came out of the catacombs and into the halls of power. The Church turned its back on the nonviolent Jesus and traded its heritage for legality, respectability, affluence, and worldly power. The post-Constantinian “Just War Theory” was a tortured attempt to rationalize sending young Christians to fight the Emperor’s wars. It is still going on.
But let’s assume for a moment that Christians can in good conscience believe in the “Just War Theory.” Would that justify the wars of our recent presidents (both Republican and Democrat)? Absolutely not! None of this country’s recent military ventures have come even close to satisfying the eight criteria of the “Just War Theory.” (For a detailed exposition of these criteria and their application, see “A Christian View of War” on the web site www.rmbowman.com/catholic .) If anyone who claims to be a Christian supports this country’s war against Iraq, I challenge them to apply the eight criteria of St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. No matter what denomination you belong to, you will be forced to agree with Pope John Paul II that this is an unnecessary and immoral war.
For many of us who follow Jesus, however, all the legalistic wrangling over the eight criteria is immaterial. For us, there can never be such a thing as a “Just War,” much less a “Jesus War.”
If the United States really wants to be a Christian nation, then we should follow the example of Costa Rica, bring our troops home from around the world, and disband the Armed Forces entirely. However, this is not just a Christian nation. Our government is responsible also to a hundred million or so non-Christian Americans. They may not want to take the step in faith that we Christians are called to do. It is true that both our Jewish and Muslim citizens believe in Psalm 33, “A king is not saved by his mighty Army. A warrior is not saved by his strength. A war horse is a vain hope for victory, and by its might it cannot save.” And in Psalm 37, “Trust in the Lord and do good, that you may dwell in the land and have security.” But lacking the example of Jesus, they may not be willing to entrust their families and their fortunes to “doing good.”
Therefore, a moral political position on defense in this multicultural nation might have to include retention of a “Self-defense Force” similar to Japan’s under MacArthur. At the same time, it should offend none of our citizens if our government scrupulously applied the eight criteria of the “Just War Theory” to any potential military action. Since one of those criteria bans the indiscriminate killing of civilians, this would mean scrapping all our nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, as well as Depleted Uranium munitions, anti-personnel land mines, and cluster bombs. And, of course, it would do away with this “pre-emptive war” nonsense. A moral foreign and military policy would allow volunteers to serve as United Nations peacekeepers in places like Rwanda to prevent genocide. But it would absolutely outlaw the kind of aggression on behalf of multinational corporations typified by our oil wars against Iraq, Kosovo, and Afghanistan (to say nothing of our many interventions in Central America on behalf of the United Fruit Company).
A moral defense policy would also recognize and honor those who proclaim “selective conscientious objector” status. This would allow Christians and others who believe in the “Just War Criteria” the right to apply them to any conflict and refuse to fight in a war they believe is in violation. Currently, “Conscientious Objector” status is only allowed to Quakers and others of us who declare themselves pacifists against all wars. This is improper discrimination against those Christians who follow Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.
Hopefully, after a few years of our carrying out a moral foreign policy and doing good around the world, no foreign groups will continue to harbor resentment and hatred for us. Acts of terrorism against us will cease. Eventually, it will become clear, even to our non-Christian citizens that we have no need for armed forces, because no one is going to attack us. At that time our transitional moral policy can be transformed into a truly Christian policy and our armed forces disbanded completely. A “Jesus Society” will beat its swords into plowshares and teach war no more.
Our Christian duty to preserve life extends to caring for the environment, God’s creation, upon which all life depends. Some Christians have been taken in by the “Rapture Cult” which teaches that we don’t need to care for the environment, because God is about to destroy the world anyway. As Reagan’s Secretary of the Interior James Watt reportedly once said, “When the last tree is gone, Jesus will come.” (Unsaid is that those who push this idea are those who reap financial profits from raping the environment – the oil and logging industries, the chemical and paper industries, ad nauseum.)
Recently, many prominent Evangelical Christians have begun to see that this is wrong. We really don’t know when God is going to end the world. (The early Christians were firmly convinced that it would happen in their lifetimes.) And if the end is not imminent, then we owe it to our children’s children to care for God’s creation. If our lives do not depend on the decisions we make now about global warming, depleted uranium, toxic waste, deforestation, the health of the seas and the coral reefs and the rain forest, the lives of our grandchildren certainly do. “Love one another” applies to them, too.
Respect for Human Dignity; Justice for All
Health Care, Welfare, Jobs, Education, & Other Rights
I don’t know anyone who disagrees that Christian morality requires that we care for the less fortunate. The disagreement comes over how to do it. The Christian right says let individuals and churches do it. Charity should be voluntary, not coerced. The Christian left says let us pay for it through our taxes. Here I must strongly agree with the left. Individuals seldom reach out beyond their own family. Churches in the suburbs seldom reach into the inner cities to do their charity. And churches in the inner city try, but don’t have the resources. As a practical matter, if government doesn’t take care of the needy in the ghetto, it isn’t going to get done. Besides, in a land as affluent as ours, it isn’t a matter of charity. It’s a matter of justice.
The only just and moral way to handle these issues is by government providing a basic standard of existence as a right, and paying for it with a graduated tax on individuals and on corporations. Historically, this has been the income tax. More and more, these essential services are paid for (if at all) with a highly regressive tax (Social Security’s FICA for bare subsistence retirement income, Medicare’s Part B flat fee for medical care for the elderly, and property taxes for education). In such taxes, the burden falls heaviest on those least able to pay, the working poor paying a much higher percentage of their income than the very wealthy. The last remaining progressive tax, the income tax, has been slashed to such an extent that essential services are more and more falling on the states, counties, and cities, who have to raise money through less progressive taxes. The net result has been an overall tax increase for the working class and middle class, and a huge bonanza for the super-rich. Naturally, the gap between rich and poor in this country has become a yawning chasm, greater than that in any other developed country. This is truly immoral.
The right wing is fond of saying that redistribution of wealth is wrong and wouldn’t do any good, anyway, because there aren’t enough rich people to really make a difference. That is untrue. Redistribution of wealth has been going on for decades, but it has all been from the bottom to the top. It’s time for some to go the other way. If just the world’s billionaires gave up only half their wealth, they could provide food, clothing, shelter, clean water, and basic medical care to every person on earth, and could double the income of half the people on the planet. I’d say that would make a difference. But it’s not going to happen as long as the billionaires own both major political parties, and also own the media outlets.
What is truly immoral is that the super-rich have such control over the political process and the media that neither major political party even raises the prospect of fundamental changes for the benefit of all. A true single-payer national health system? Forget it! Jobs for all at a living wage? Not a chance! Strengthening Social Security by removing the earnings cap on taxable wages? No way! Such ways of fulfilling our moral responsibility to our neighbor are ridiculed by the media and ignored by both national parties. Thank goodness we occasionally have a lonely voice raising such issues. What a pity the media largely ignores such voices.
These issues should be debated. Let’s talk about their practicality and argue over their cost. But that dealing with them is a moral imperative in any just society (and even more so in a “Jesus Society”) should be obvious to all, and we should say so. To ask a follower of Jesus to vote against a national health system, full employment, and a livable wage should be like asking an alligator to vote for draining the swamp.
I support human rights; and the last time I checked, homosexuals were human beings. So by definition I support homosexual rights. They should have the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as anyone else, and that includes the right to be free from discrimination and harassment. From a moral and societal point of view, we should all oppose promiscuity, whether gay or straight. We tell our straight teenagers to "Save it for marriage." But what do we tell our gay teenagers to save it for? Now, many people are uptight about the word "marriage." They want it used exclusively for the union of a man and a woman. OK. So let's call a monogamous commitment between gays or lesbians "pairage." But for goodness sakes, we must encourage it, whatever it is called. We can no longer doom homosexuals to a lifetime of celibacy, closeted deceit, or promiscuity. We must hold out the hope of being able to live in a lifelong relationship, and to have that relationship recognized by society and given all the legal rights, responsibilities, and privileges that accrue to married heterosexual couples
Inerrantists will no doubt struggle to square these views with the Bible. We must remember that thousands of years ago, the writers of the Biblical texts did not know what we do now. They did not know that homosexuals are born that way and therefore made by God. (And God don’t make junk!) My view of Christian sexual morality is clear. Sex is good. It is one of God’s greatest gifts. What’s more, God gave human beings the unique ability to have sex at any time of the month. So its purpose is more than procreation. There is nothing intrinsically evil about any sexual act. The key is love. Sex is sinful if it is promiscuous, exploitive, forced, bought, or devoid of love and commitment. One’s gender or gender preference has little to do with it. I firmly believe that my view of sexual morality is in tune with Jesus and therefore with the mind of God.
Others may believe differently. I will not try to force my views on them. If they believe that homosexual acts are sinful, they are free not to engage in them. They are even free not to bless them in their particular churches. But they shouldn’t try to force their narrow views on everyone else through governmental edict or Constitutional amendment. To do so is to follow the Pharisees, not Jesus. Those who wish to protect the sanctity of marriage should take on promiscuity and divorce. Those are the real threats to marriage, not gays.
As a society, we must no longer hide behind the fiction that homosexuality is a “choice.” What teenager would choose the shame, discrimination, persecution, ridicule, rejection, loneliness, and sky-high suicide rates of the homosexual? No, these people are children of God who deserve the chance to go through life with a partner of their choosing. It should be left up to individual churches whether they choose to bless the union of a homosexual couple with a sacramental wedding. Churches have the right to establish requirements for their services, without governmental interference. But for government at any level to deny a gay couple the legal contract made available to heterosexuals is illegal discrimination.
A Christian Political Agenda
Christians of the left and of the right must recognize that we have a common interest in building a “Jesus Society.” In doing so, we must respect our democracy, including its protections for the rights of minorities with which we disagree. Let’s work to promote candidates that speak the truth and support a truly Christian political agenda. Let’s debate the morality of various policies. And let’s make sure that the “moral values” that win the day are ones that Jesus could relate to. Let’s replace the moral values of Leviticus with those of the Sermon on the Mount. Then instead of continually mouthing “God bless America,” let us seek to be worthy of the many blessings already bestowed upon us. God, in His infinite patience and mercy, has been on our side for a long, long time – a time in which we have become increasingly unworthy. It is time for our government to stop serving the billionaires and the giant corporations and to become the servant of the people. That will put our country on God’s side … and that’s true Christian morality.
A “Jesus Society” will serve the needs of the people – all the people, for all are made in the image and likeness of God, and all (regardless of their religious faith or lack thereof) represent Jesus in our midst. Let us serve Him by serving them.
Top of Page