That's a Laugh

To think, that the corrupt government of a corrupted society could possibly by the determiner of laws! Laws are created to regulate and bring justice. What could a law be based upon, what standard, what truth, where it up to but a corrupt group of old men (and women...) in fun-looking robes who argue all the time? Yeah, we should give to Caesar what is Caesar's, but this authority is all God's my friends. 

Not Fear, But Love

How would I respond to this? I suppose I would respond with my character more than anything. This passed summer I worked with three females who were all lesbian, and one got married while I was still with them. I never hated, I never treated any of them any different. I actually became good buds with them all, proved myself through hard work (I was a Restoration Laborer) and deep, insightful conversations. If we had ever discussed the topic, I do not think they could accuse me of being that kind of hateful, judging person. If at all possible, I would prove with my character that real Christians know how to say "I love you, I just cant "walk" with you" (walk meaning the walk of lifestyle). I would know, then, how to assert this point. What good does it do for either persons' agenda if I hate? Besides the feelings that would get stirred up, which would lead to no good in and of itself, but logically, what good would come of that? There is plenty of evidence after mentioning this - Biblical, Scientific, and all the crossroads of the two - to support where I stand and how I choose to act about it. How exactly I go about introducing these things and just how successful I am will depend on the temperament of whoever I'm talking to.

A Necessary Evil ?

Q:    Sarah and Mark think that the government is not involved enough in the family.  What do you think should be the limits of government involvement in parenting and why?

A:    This is a rather touchy subject. As a Christian looking in on a Secular world, I find that it will be very difficult for a society with no base for their values to answer this sufficiently. If I were to get right to the heart of the matter, I would say that parenting - both in discipline and lunchmaking, as these seem to be the topics at hand - should be completely dependent upon parents. However, the reality of mankind's fallen condition makes this impossible. Because people are inherently untrustworthy, because there is no single foundation upon which to base that which is "proper parenting", and because people come from so many financial and ethnic backgrounds, some regulations by an overarching authority (government) must by necessity be set forth. In a society where the attitudes of the people and the realities of their lives determines the state of mind held in that governing body, those regulations will inevitably be imperfect and oftentimes dissatisfying in one way or another.

        All this being said, it honestly is hard for me to care one way or another what government regulates. In all three of these articles, the issue at hand actually reminds me of the gay marriage legislation going through Washington state right now: throwing the problem of discipline (behavioural or in terms of food intake) at the state and throwing the desire for gay marriage to be legalized at heart contain the same basic motive, the same basic yearning. It is a cry for normalcy. Nothing more, nothing less. The only reason people even need question if the government should or shouldn't regulate something is because they no longer know how to do it themselves. Without the Bible as your basis for both your personal standards and the standards of general consensus, you are left floating out in space. Basic instinct inside you calls for a human society, a loving family, all these good things...however, without the proper base, humankind has no way to properly meet those ends. Gay marriage is in question because marriage is a standard for life that people want. Do they even know why they want it? A structured, able, caring family that knows how to discipline properly (as the writers of Proverbs did) and know how to properly care about their children's physical and mental needs is something strongly desired by all, but with no all-encompassing means to that end. 

        My point is that it may become necessary that the government become more involved. Life now is not like the life Mrs. Obama had - people are more casual, less respectful. There is a greater and easier access to the foods that are detrimental to one's health, and there are fewer mothers able to set time aside to cook a family dinner because so many have to work now. But that is mainly on the part of foods. If a child is being abused, and they tell someone, the parent can be arrested and the child protected. CPS is enough when it comes to regulating the way a parent can discipline their child. With the overarching philosophies of the modern day consisting of a skewed view of tolerance, a complete lack of moral character, and a "you can do anything" message, a reality check can really only come from one's family and/or church family. Or friends, whoever closest to any particular individual actually has a brain between their shoulders. 

        This does not mean I am by any stretch of the imagination a proponent of government involvement in any of this - quite the opposite really. And while I hold absolutely no expectations towards man's behaviour -so often they err on the side of sinful- I have every hope and every faith in the God-shaped hole inside them. This hole cannot help but recognize God's goodness and the beauty of the simple complexities that are His flawless plan for the life of man, especially if thrown in contrast to the reality of how broken a godless world truly is. 

        So I suppose this still leaves me on the fence, save on the singular point of discipline. I do not want the government regulating that ever. That can only lead to more brainless, moral-less proponents of marijuana (and other sinful behaviours/lifestyles, haha). In this case, I see the "necessary evil" of government as more detrimental than "necessary". Perhaps I am just disaffected and ignorant of what life is like when one is actually, actively dancing the government's tango - that is very possible. But that LAST article especially just seemed to be a whole lot of nothing.