The blog will not post my latest comment. I think maybe it is too long? Suffice it to say this should be comment #7 under my last post.

Woelke, I will grant you that you should not have to wear a seatbelt under conditions. The conditions are that you can guarantee to pay for scraping yourself off the highway, that you can fully pay for all hospital expenses, and that you will not injure anyone else when your body flies through the windshield. I know that sounds extreme, but after some thinking, I believe that is what it comes down to.

I also think that the government is incredibly inefficient, and this makes it seem like the whole point is to run our lives. However, I think it necessary. Please consider that in OT Israel, the laws dealt in part with railings on your house, and the proper steps to follow in case of accidental death by ax head. I think you could say this is the first historical government regulation. It shows that there is a place for the government to make laws that may abridge freedom for the sake of others. In a perfect world, would we wear a seatbelt? I think so, because we would be thinking of others. Of our families that need us to not get smeared, if not the temple status of our bodies. I think this is where the sin/crime distinction breaks down. What are crimes if not sins against others? Without sin, there would be no crime. But the point is moot, because there is sin, so there is crime.

Next, what to do about crime? Is it the sphere of the church? No. Is it our own? No. Therefore, there must be a government. Our national blessing and curse is that we all get a say in what is and is not a crime. I think that the same goes for regulations. Should we have to be told not to speed? No, we would definitely all drive better if we really had the best interests of others at heart. But we do not. And in order to avoid either gridlock or rampant selfishness, the government sees fit to tell us how fast we can move in any given 2 ton steel box. I don’t see any difference between that, and between Israel having to install a railing around their roofs. Can we just be responsible for ourselves? No. Because we are sinners, we require a civil government to rule in our communities.

The same goes for us Christians at the ballot box. We can postulate and speculate on the proper way to handle immigration, but until we tell our representative what we think, and then work with others to hold him accountable for what we think is right, then we bear every bit as much blame as they do for the disasters that come out of Washington. There is no such thing as a fire and forget representative. There is no such thing as a guiltless representative, or a guiltless constituency. Instead of throwing votes away on a radical because he offers change, I think that a better approach to this upcoming election is to surely delay the likes of Hillary or O’bama, and then work to bring about proper candidates. Candidates who will listen. I guarantee that a republican can do some good, especially with support from us, while a liberal will not listen. Think about the justices Bush has appointed. Think about the groups that he has brought support to, and the bills like stem cell research that he has vetoed. And then think about higher taxes and national health care. There is a choice. The choice is to be responsible in all areas of government, and not just vote your conscience. Keep in mind that one man’s fiestiness is another man tickling.

Advertisements