Book about Evangelicals and Politics

[JSojourner]

If I wasn't a Christian, I dare say I could have become one of those self-serving, self-seeking, self first, self last, self always kind of people. Thankfully, I'm not

I give to charity, but it's not so I can merely feel good about myself, and I'm happy for my taxes, whether direct or indirect, to fund programmes such as healthcare, education, welfare, etc. Society, in itself, is greater than the sum total of its parts, which is why any notion of the common, or public, good, is far from abstract

Issues, such as child poverty, lack of affordable healthcare, can be very much moral issues as well as abortion, same-sex marriage and stem cell research, for example

As for the Bible sanctioning the tithe (10% to the church), and that alone, as a mandatory tax, well society has evolved and become much more complex than it was back on that era. Of course, in an ideal world no man, woman or child would be dependent on either the government nor on charity for a helping hand. As a Christian, I champion the plight of those less fortunate than myself

Dave

Hi Dave!  I'm not sure I've told you, but I really value your posts.  Thanks.

As regards the tithe, I heard a sermon a few weeks ago that rocked me to my core and still troubles me (in a good way).

The Deacon was preaching that week and said, "For centuries, the church has taught that God's standard of giving is the tithe.  That is heresy.  The tithe is NOT God's standard for giving.  God's standard for giving was Calvary."

I could go on to explain, quantify, redact and re-interpret.  But really, each Christian has to take that for what it means to them...in light of what they believe God intends for them.

To my non-Christians friends here, my apologies for getting so "churchy" here -- I really didn't mean to steamroll anyone.  But I did want to recommend Balmer's book!  LOL

(It's a good read for non-Christians, too, so they can understand both the great work Evangelicals have done...and the roots to which they must return.)

[Bono]

Balmer is simply asking why Evangelicals have abandoned their traditional support for the poor, women's right, labor, prisoners and the environment.

1) support for the poor - hogwash - Social Conservatives give more to charity than non-conservatives.

2) women's right -  Social conservatives aren't trying to take any rights away from women...except the right to kill their unborn.

3) labor - i don't even know why this is a christian issue in the modern U.S.  Americans work far less than people in biblical times and Jesus never complained about how hard people worked while he was on earth.

4)  prisoners - hogwash - just who exactly has more prison programs than any other group?  Evangelicals

5) environment - on average, America is much cleaner than is was 30 or even 40 years ago.  This is an argument over how far we should go to protect the enviroment, not if we should protect the environment.....and IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT WE PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT MUCH MORE THAN THEY DID IN BIBLICAL TIMES...MORE THAN EVEN JESUS DID HIMSELF. 

Social conservatives DO give to help the poor.  Balmer affirms this and so does Jim Wallis in his books.  But there are two problems here.  First, some of their giving is aimed not at the actual feeding and care of the poor, but with a view toward proselytizing.  I have no problem with this.  I support a missionary in the Philippines. Wycliffe Bible Translators and I used to support the Billy Graham Evangelistic Assn -- all because I do believe in the work of making more and better disciples of Jesus Christ.  And there can be no arguing that some giving does go to the actual needs of poor people, without any strings attached.  (Though more than one ministry here in my town won't help poor people who are not already Christian or who won't sit still for a gospel sermon.)

But there's another sense where I think we have a problem.  Individuals -- conservative, liberal and otherwise -- can and do give tons of money.  Good on them!  But what of nations and people groups?  Jesus, in Matthew 25, is clearly judging NATIONS and not individuals for how they treat the least and the last.  Jeremiah's laments and prophesies are specific in saying that ordinary people AND Kings, Rulers and Nations are held to account. 

How do you propose God will judge nations? Throw them collectively into hell? The only thing Matthew 25 says is that all the nations will be present in judgement, ie Jews and Gentiles. That is the focus there, not some social gospel hocus pocus.

As for all your other stuff, the only time a tax is mandated in the Bible is a ten percent tithe to the church. 

Social gospel hocus pocus?  The greek word there is ethnos.  People groups...nations or nation states.  How does God punish?  As I said, perhaps the leaders and lawmakers.

So that eventually comes to salvation by works. How nice.

Nope.  Not at all.  It's the chicken and the egg.  (Actually, the security of the believer is something I will forever be grateful to men like Calvin and Darby for championing.)

St. James explained it very nicely, Dr. Luther's objections notwithstanding.  Salvation IS by grace alone. One who is saved, however, bears some proof of it by their works. 

But I respectfully suggest you missed my point.  St. Paul, and I believe Jesus also, taught salvation by grace alone...for the individual.  Societies, nations, governments and groups of people are judged -- according to Jesus' words in Matthew 25 -- by their deeds.  You will see in the text that Jesus is judging the nations.  ("All the nations will be gathered before him", it says.) And within each nation-state, Jesus allows for the possibility that there will be groups of righteous.  Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, undoubtedly damned nations, nonetheless had remnants of righteous who will be saved.  Those responding in the scene the Lord sets refer to themselves as "we".

As I said before, I am not completely sure how this paradox works.  The individual is saved by grace, through faith alone.  Yet Jesus' words in Matthew 25 can't be explained in any other way -- unless you accept that he is judging nations, systems, people groups.  Otherwise, Jesus and St. Paul are in unquestionable disagreement.  And based on your posts, I know you hold scripture in high regard.  So I doubt that's an option you would comfortable with.

But let's speak of works.  You have, at least once, cited Gary North as someone you respect and admire.  May I ask why?  Don't you think his call for the execution of homosexuals, witches and abortive mothers is an egregious evil?

Way to miss the point. The only thing Matthew 25 says is that all nations will be present in the final judgement, not that nations will be judged corporatively. That was said so that people could understand that the Final judgement isn't just for Jews, but for everyone. I am still waiting for you to tell me how corporate damnation is even possible.

As for Gary North, the only thing I did was recoment a book by him. I had never heard of his father in law. As for the rest, God mandates those things in the Old Testament judicial law. I disagree with North over how the general equity of those laws should be applied today, but given that he is clearly drawing on scripture, I don't see how you can say that is egregiously evil unless you think Moses and God who ordered the laws through him are evil.

[JSojourner]

Balmer is simply asking why Evangelicals have abandoned their traditional support for the poor, women's right, labor, prisoners and the environment.

1) support for the poor - hogwash - Social Conservatives give more to charity than non-conservatives.

2) women's right -  Social conservatives aren't trying to take any rights away from women...except the right to kill their unborn.

3) labor - i don't even know why this is a christian issue in the modern U.S.  Americans work far less than people in biblical times and Jesus never complained about how hard people worked while he was on earth.

4)  prisoners - hogwash - just who exactly has more prison programs than any other group?  Evangelicals

5) environment - on average, America is much cleaner than is was 30 or even 40 years ago.  This is an argument over how far we should go to protect the enviroment, not if we should protect the environment.....and IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT WE PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT MUCH MORE THAN THEY DID IN BIBLICAL TIMES...MORE THAN EVEN JESUS DID HIMSELF. 

Social conservatives DO give to help the poor.  Balmer affirms this and so does Jim Wallis in his books.  But there are two problems here.  First, some of their giving is aimed not at the actual feeding and care of the poor, but with a view toward proselytizing.  I have no problem with this.  I support a missionary in the Philippines. Wycliffe Bible Translators and I used to support the Billy Graham Evangelistic Assn -- all because I do believe in the work of making more and better disciples of Jesus Christ.  And there can be no arguing that some giving does go to the actual needs of poor people, without any strings attached.  (Though more than one ministry here in my town won't help poor people who are not already Christian or who won't sit still for a gospel sermon.)

But there's another sense where I think we have a problem.  Individuals -- conservative, liberal and otherwise -- can and do give tons of money.  Good on them!  But what of nations and people groups?  Jesus, in Matthew 25, is clearly judging NATIONS and not individuals for how they treat the least and the last.  Jeremiah's laments and prophesies are specific in saying that ordinary people AND Kings, Rulers and Nations are held to account. 

How do you propose God will judge nations? Throw them collectively into hell? The only thing Matthew 25 says is that all the nations will be present in judgement, ie Jews and Gentiles. That is the focus there, not some social gospel hocus pocus.

As for all your other stuff, the only time a tax is mandated in the Bible is a ten percent tithe to the church. 

Social gospel hocus pocus?  The greek word there is ethnos.  People groups...nations or nation states.  How does God punish?  As I said, perhaps the leaders and lawmakers.

So that eventually comes to salvation by works. How nice.

Nope.  Not at all.  It's the chicken and the egg.  (Actually, the security of the believer is something I will forever be grateful to men like Calvin and Darby for championing.)

St. James explained it very nicely, Dr. Luther's objections notwithstanding.  Salvation IS by grace alone. One who is saved, however, bears some proof of it by their works. 

But I respectfully suggest you missed my point.  St. Paul, and I believe Jesus also, taught salvation by grace alone...for the individual.  Societies, nations, governments and groups of people are judged -- according to Jesus' words in Matthew 25 -- by their deeds.  You will see in the text that Jesus is judging the nations.  ("All the nations will be gathered before him", it says.) And within each nation-state, Jesus allows for the possibility that there will be groups of righteous.  Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, undoubtedly damned nations, nonetheless had remnants of righteous who will be saved.  Those responding in the scene the Lord sets refer to themselves as "we".

As I said before, I am not completely sure how this paradox works.  The individual is saved by grace, through faith alone.  Yet Jesus' words in Matthew 25 can't be explained in any other way -- unless you accept that he is judging nations, systems, people groups.  Otherwise, Jesus and St. Paul are in unquestionable disagreement.  And based on your posts, I know you hold scripture in high regard.  So I doubt that's an option you would comfortable with.

But let's speak of works.  You have, at least once, cited Gary North as someone you respect and admire.  May I ask why?  Don't you think his call for the execution of homosexuals, witches and abortive mothers is an egregious evil?

Way to miss the point. The only thing Matthew 25 says is that all nations will be present in the final judgement, not that nations will be judged corporatively. That was said so that people could understand that the Final judgement isn't just for Jews, but for everyone. I am still waiting for you to tell me how corporate damnation is even possible.

As for Gary North, the only thing I did was recoment a book by him. I had never heard of his father in law. As for the rest, God mandates those things in the Old Testament judicial law. I disagree with North over how the general equity of those laws should be applied today, but given that he is clearly drawing on scripture, I don't see how you can say that is egregiously evil unless you think Moses and God who ordered the laws through him are evil.

It's evil for a human being to murder someone because they are gay.  Period.  You can believe God ordered it but then let God carry it out.  God, being God and all that, can do as he or she wills and is right.

The problem comes when Gary North...or Dave Chilton or any of the other Christian Reconstructionist (or Muslim fanatics, for that matter) decide who lives and dies based on their sexual identity or religion.

(As an aside, it's fascinating that Rushdoony and his disciples teach capital punishment for being gay, being a witch or several other offenses...because the Bible teaches it.  But they don't advocate cities of refuge for these same offenders.  That's also taught in scripture.  Of course, the Bible also says the state should execute people who eat shellfish.  But I bet North owns stock in Red Lobster.)

I didn't miss the point about Matt. 25.  Jesus is clearly judging based on works. There's no other way to interpret this passage, unless you bastardize your view of the Bible.  Therefore, since I believe in salvation by grace alone, Jesus must be judging other than individuals.  Ergo -- nations or "ethos" in the Greek.

Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos and Isaiah are pretty clear too -- that horrific judgment will befall nations that habitually trample the poor and mistreat those of other cultures.

[Bono]

Balmer is simply asking why Evangelicals have abandoned their traditional support for the poor, women's right, labor, prisoners and the environment.

1) support for the poor - hogwash - Social Conservatives give more to charity than non-conservatives.

2) women's right -  Social conservatives aren't trying to take any rights away from women...except the right to kill their unborn.

3) labor - i don't even know why this is a christian issue in the modern U.S.  Americans work far less than people in biblical times and Jesus never complained about how hard people worked while he was on earth.

4)  prisoners - hogwash - just who exactly has more prison programs than any other group?  Evangelicals

5) environment - on average, America is much cleaner than is was 30 or even 40 years ago.  This is an argument over how far we should go to protect the enviroment, not if we should protect the environment.....and IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT WE PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT MUCH MORE THAN THEY DID IN BIBLICAL TIMES...MORE THAN EVEN JESUS DID HIMSELF. 

Social conservatives DO give to help the poor.  Balmer affirms this and so does Jim Wallis in his books.  But there are two problems here.  First, some of their giving is aimed not at the actual feeding and care of the poor, but with a view toward proselytizing.  I have no problem with this.  I support a missionary in the Philippines. Wycliffe Bible Translators and I used to support the Billy Graham Evangelistic Assn -- all because I do believe in the work of making more and better disciples of Jesus Christ.  And there can be no arguing that some giving does go to the actual needs of poor people, without any strings attached.  (Though more than one ministry here in my town won't help poor people who are not already Christian or who won't sit still for a gospel sermon.)

But there's another sense where I think we have a problem.  Individuals -- conservative, liberal and otherwise -- can and do give tons of money.  Good on them!  But what of nations and people groups?  Jesus, in Matthew 25, is clearly judging NATIONS and not individuals for how they treat the least and the last.  Jeremiah's laments and prophesies are specific in saying that ordinary people AND Kings, Rulers and Nations are held to account. 

How do you propose God will judge nations? Throw them collectively into hell? The only thing Matthew 25 says is that all the nations will be present in judgement, ie Jews and Gentiles. That is the focus there, not some social gospel hocus pocus.

As for all your other stuff, the only time a tax is mandated in the Bible is a ten percent tithe to the church. 

Social gospel hocus pocus?  The greek word there is ethnos.  People groups...nations or nation states.  How does God punish?  As I said, perhaps the leaders and lawmakers.

So that eventually comes to salvation by works. How nice.

Nope.  Not at all.  It's the chicken and the egg.  (Actually, the security of the believer is something I will forever be grateful to men like Calvin and Darby for championing.)

St. James explained it very nicely, Dr. Luther's objections notwithstanding.  Salvation IS by grace alone. One who is saved, however, bears some proof of it by their works. 

But I respectfully suggest you missed my point.  St. Paul, and I believe Jesus also, taught salvation by grace alone...for the individual.  Societies, nations, governments and groups of people are judged -- according to Jesus' words in Matthew 25 -- by their deeds.  You will see in the text that Jesus is judging the nations.  ("All the nations will be gathered before him", it says.) And within each nation-state, Jesus allows for the possibility that there will be groups of righteous.  Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, undoubtedly damned nations, nonetheless had remnants of righteous who will be saved.  Those responding in the scene the Lord sets refer to themselves as "we".

As I said before, I am not completely sure how this paradox works.  The individual is saved by grace, through faith alone.  Yet Jesus' words in Matthew 25 can't be explained in any other way -- unless you accept that he is judging nations, systems, people groups.  Otherwise, Jesus and St. Paul are in unquestionable disagreement.  And based on your posts, I know you hold scripture in high regard.  So I doubt that's an option you would comfortable with.

But let's speak of works.  You have, at least once, cited Gary North as someone you respect and admire.  May I ask why?  Don't you think his call for the execution of homosexuals, witches and abortive mothers is an egregious evil?

Way to miss the point. The only thing Matthew 25 says is that all nations will be present in the final judgement, not that nations will be judged corporatively. That was said so that people could understand that the Final judgement isn't just for Jews, but for everyone. I am still waiting for you to tell me how corporate damnation is even possible.

As for Gary North, the only thing I did was recoment a book by him. I had never heard of his father in law. As for the rest, God mandates those things in the Old Testament judicial law. I disagree with North over how the general equity of those laws should be applied today, but given that he is clearly drawing on scripture, I don't see how you can say that is egregiously evil unless you think Moses and God who ordered the laws through him are evil.

It's evil for a human being to murder someone because they are gay.  Period.  You can believe God ordered it but then let God carry it out.  God, being God and all that, can do as he or she wills and is right.

The problem comes when Gary North...or Dave Chilton or any of the other Christian Reconstructionist (or Muslim fanatics, for that matter) decide who lives and dies based on their sexual identity or religion.

(As an aside, it's fascinating that Rushdoony and his disciples teach capital punishment for being gay, being a witch or several other offenses...because the Bible teaches it.  But they don't advocate cities of refuge for these same offenders.  That's also taught in scripture.  Of course, the Bible also says the state should execute people who eat shellfish.  But I bet North owns stock in Red Lobster.)

I didn't miss the point about Matt. 25.  Jesus is clearly judging based on works. There's no other way to interpret this passage, unless you bastardize your view of the Bible.  Therefore, since I believe in salvation by grace alone, Jesus must be judging other than individuals.  Ergo -- nations or "ethos" in the Greek.

Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos and Isaiah are pretty clear too -- that horrific judgment will befall nations that habitually trample the poor and mistreat those of other cultures.

After all this, the only possible conclusion is that you don't understand theology. Firs tthing, God commands people to undertake those punishments, not to wait and see. As I said, I don't think the general equity of those judicial laws agrees with North's views, but it doesn't make him evil. As for shellfish, that was cerimonial law and was done away with.
As for judgement in works, I've explained this on that thread in Individual Politics. The judgement will be based on works, but Christians have Christ's righteousness imputed to them and thus are blameless before the Lord. Non-christians don't have such, since they are under law, and they will perish by the law.

P. S. As for David Chilton--unfortunately after he suffered his brain damaging heart attack he slipped into heresy, but before that sad event, he was an outstanding Bible scholar. His commentary n Revelation is fantastic.

[JSojourner]

Balmer is simply asking why Evangelicals have abandoned their traditional support for the poor, women's right, labor, prisoners and the environment.

1) support for the poor - hogwash - Social Conservatives give more to charity than non-conservatives.

2) women's right -  Social conservatives aren't trying to take any rights away from women...except the right to kill their unborn.

3) labor - i don't even know why this is a christian issue in the modern U.S.  Americans work far less than people in biblical times and Jesus never complained about how hard people worked while he was on earth.

4)  prisoners - hogwash - just who exactly has more prison programs than any other group?  Evangelicals

5) environment - on average, America is much cleaner than is was 30 or even 40 years ago.  This is an argument over how far we should go to protect the enviroment, not if we should protect the environment.....and IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT WE PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT MUCH MORE THAN THEY DID IN BIBLICAL TIMES...MORE THAN EVEN JESUS DID HIMSELF. 

Social conservatives DO give to help the poor.  Balmer affirms this and so does Jim Wallis in his books.  But there are two problems here.  First, some of their giving is aimed not at the actual feeding and care of the poor, but with a view toward proselytizing.  I have no problem with this.  I support a missionary in the Philippines. Wycliffe Bible Translators and I used to support the Billy Graham Evangelistic Assn -- all because I do believe in the work of making more and better disciples of Jesus Christ.  And there can be no arguing that some giving does go to the actual needs of poor people, without any strings attached.  (Though more than one ministry here in my town won't help poor people who are not already Christian or who won't sit still for a gospel sermon.)

But there's another sense where I think we have a problem.  Individuals -- conservative, liberal and otherwise -- can and do give tons of money.  Good on them!  But what of nations and people groups?  Jesus, in Matthew 25, is clearly judging NATIONS and not individuals for how they treat the least and the last.  Jeremiah's laments and prophesies are specific in saying that ordinary people AND Kings, Rulers and Nations are held to account. 

How do you propose God will judge nations? Throw them collectively into hell? The only thing Matthew 25 says is that all the nations will be present in judgement, ie Jews and Gentiles. That is the focus there, not some social gospel hocus pocus.

As for all your other stuff, the only time a tax is mandated in the Bible is a ten percent tithe to the church. 

Social gospel hocus pocus?  The greek word there is ethnos.  People groups...nations or nation states.  How does God punish?  As I said, perhaps the leaders and lawmakers.

So that eventually comes to salvation by works. How nice.

Nope.  Not at all.  It's the chicken and the egg.  (Actually, the security of the believer is something I will forever be grateful to men like Calvin and Darby for championing.)

St. James explained it very nicely, Dr. Luther's objections notwithstanding.  Salvation IS by grace alone. One who is saved, however, bears some proof of it by their works. 

But I respectfully suggest you missed my point.  St. Paul, and I believe Jesus also, taught salvation by grace alone...for the individual.  Societies, nations, governments and groups of people are judged -- according to Jesus' words in Matthew 25 -- by their deeds.  You will see in the text that Jesus is judging the nations.  ("All the nations will be gathered before him", it says.) And within each nation-state, Jesus allows for the possibility that there will be groups of righteous.  Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, undoubtedly damned nations, nonetheless had remnants of righteous who will be saved.  Those responding in the scene the Lord sets refer to themselves as "we".

As I said before, I am not completely sure how this paradox works.  The individual is saved by grace, through faith alone.  Yet Jesus' words in Matthew 25 can't be explained in any other way -- unless you accept that he is judging nations, systems, people groups.  Otherwise, Jesus and St. Paul are in unquestionable disagreement.  And based on your posts, I know you hold scripture in high regard.  So I doubt that's an option you would comfortable with.

But let's speak of works.  You have, at least once, cited Gary North as someone you respect and admire.  May I ask why?  Don't you think his call for the execution of homosexuals, witches and abortive mothers is an egregious evil?

Way to miss the point. The only thing Matthew 25 says is that all nations will be present in the final judgement, not that nations will be judged corporatively. That was said so that people could understand that the Final judgement isn't just for Jews, but for everyone. I am still waiting for you to tell me how corporate damnation is even possible.

As for Gary North, the only thing I did was recoment a book by him. I had never heard of his father in law. As for the rest, God mandates those things in the Old Testament judicial law. I disagree with North over how the general equity of those laws should be applied today, but given that he is clearly drawing on scripture, I don't see how you can say that is egregiously evil unless you think Moses and God who ordered the laws through him are evil.

It's evil for a human being to murder someone because they are gay.  Period.  You can believe God ordered it but then let God carry it out.  God, being God and all that, can do as he or she wills and is right.

The problem comes when Gary North...or Dave Chilton or any of the other Christian Reconstructionist (or Muslim fanatics, for that matter) decide who lives and dies based on their sexual identity or religion.

(As an aside, it's fascinating that Rushdoony and his disciples teach capital punishment for being gay, being a witch or several other offenses...because the Bible teaches it.  But they don't advocate cities of refuge for these same offenders.  That's also taught in scripture.  Of course, the Bible also says the state should execute people who eat shellfish.  But I bet North owns stock in Red Lobster.)

I didn't miss the point about Matt. 25.  Jesus is clearly judging based on works. There's no other way to interpret this passage, unless you bastardize your view of the Bible.  Therefore, since I believe in salvation by grace alone, Jesus must be judging other than individuals.  Ergo -- nations or "ethos" in the Greek.

Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos and Isaiah are pretty clear too -- that horrific judgment will befall nations that habitually trample the poor and mistreat those of other cultures.

After all this, the only possible conclusion is that you don't understand theology.

Well, I graduated from Moody Bible Institute in Chicago.  But I admit, that was a long time ago. 

[/quote]
 Firs tthing, God commands people to undertake those punishments, not to wait and see.
[/quote]

Yes.  And then God says, let there be cities of refuge to which they can flee where they will not be put to death.  I'll concede I neither like nor understand much of the way God revealed Himself in the Old Testament.

But Jesus said, "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father."  In other words...Jesus is how God has chosen to show his heart.  To me, that implies mercy, forgiveness, tolerance, respect and social justice.

I guess everyone's mileage varies.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

This has nothing to do with your approval and everything to do social regulation. One doesn't have to approve of something to not regulate it.

Yet, I do NOT attempt to regulate homosexual marriage, they can get married all they want as far as I am concerned.  I simply refuse to condone by granting them tax cuts.  Tax cuts are for activities condoned by society. 

---

The people certainly have the right to not condone certain actions, that however, is different than legally banning such actions.

Yet Homosexual marriage is NOT banned, only the recognition of it is banned.

---

Some people may not approve of interracial marriage - but if that rather ill informed group were a plurality they would not have the right to ban it.

Red-herring

---

You seem to be arguing that minorities have no rights if a majority decideds to take them away - that's not the America I know.

Again, “recognition” is the issue, not “rights”, for they maintain the right to marry.

---

People can not vote to make a minority less equal based upon religous values (or other values)
[;/quote]

as if motives are filtered at the ballot box…

---

I get that you are a part of those groups and that you want to be pandered to. That regulating other peoples lives is small potatos to evangelics as long as those regulations conform with their religion.

Yeah, I guess that is why I approved of the striking-down of the Texas Sodomy law.

Stamp of approval? Whatever. I don't see the evangelicals out in force trying to ban getting drunk - but then many evangelicals drink.

1) drinking does NOT equate to being drunk, anymore than eating equates to gluttony

2) I do not attempt to outlaw “sin” as long as the action doesn’t pose immediate harm to others.