But... but that means hard work!!! WAAAAA!!! I just wanna sit back and wait for the gummint to do it all FOR me instead of getting off my @$$ and doing anything for myself!!!!!
Really, the "Manhattan Declaration" people should have just written that. It would be shorter and contain the exact same message.
It sounds like someone misread this document. From what i read, it simply affirms the determination of the signatories to defy laws that go counter to the universal values they list. I don’t see where it asks government to do the Gospel’s job.
Not really a fan of the Manhattan Declaration, but not for the reason this peabrain mentions. I wouldn’t want the quest for “family values” to decimate evangelical churches the same way that the social gospel decimated what used to be called the mainline denominations.
Still, one has to be pretty screwed up in the head to see affirming the freedom of the unborn as an attack on freedom.
"From a strictly human perspective, the document is troubling as well. It focuses on human power to effect changes in human laws which will in turn effect the hearts of the people – an approach that Christ repeatedly rejected in His earthly ministry. If Christians want to rebuild a moral culture, they must be willing to preach the gospel but rely on the power of God to change hearts – they should not hide behind the power of government."
The writer is either naive or deliberately attempting to deny both the intent of the Manhattan Declaration and, more importantly, to deny both historical and present reality as to how so-called "progressives" have used religious sentiment to enable enlarging coercive government power over individuals.
He conveniently overlooks the fact that it is through politicians citing Biblical injunctions to "help the poor" and "do justice" that many of the legislative actions which are destroying opportunity and liberty have been enacted. If there is a danger from signers of the Manhattan Declaration, then he must admit the danger to liberty posed by those who have used religious sentiment to enact oppressive laws.
ReligiousLiberty.tv's archives feature Barack Obama's “'A Call To Renewal'” – Barack Obama on the Role of Religion in Public Life." This contains the much-touted statement, "Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers." There were other statements which may have more implications for this discussion, however.
Given this writer's so-called "concern" about the Manhattan Declaration, is he equally concerned about these excerpted statements from the President's own words?
1) "For one thing, I believed and still believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change, a power made real by some of the leaders here today. Because of its past, the black church understands in an intimate way the Biblical call to feed the hungry and cloth the naked and challenge powers and principalities. And in its historical struggles for freedom and the rights of man, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world."
2) "Pastors, friends of mine like Rick Warren and T.D. Jakes are wielding their enormous influences to confront AIDS, Third World debt relief, and the genocide in Darfur. Religious thinkers and activists like our good friend Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo are lifting up the Biblical injunction to help the poor as a means of mobilizing Christians against budget cuts to social programs and growing inequality.(Note that these persons are not cited for inspiring individuals to give of their own moneys, but for advocating legislative actions or causes)
"And by the way, we need Christians on Capitol Hill, Jews on Capitol Hill and Muslims on Capitol Hill talking about the estate tax. When you’ve got an estate tax debate that proposes a trillion dollars being taken out of social programs to go to a handful of folks who don’t need and weren’t even asking for it, you know that we need an injection of morality in our political debate."
3)"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all." (How about using Jefferson's "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them" as the basis for a solid argument against depriving the unborn of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? This seems to be a "principle that is accessible to people of all faiths" and underlies our very Constitution's protections.)
These observations represent only a few problems with this writer's assessment of the Declaration.