"Regardless of the faith of the people holding public office, government itself and all public employees serve God's providential care for all humankind. Even when we are convinced that government is dysfunctional and needs reform, public service remains an honorable vocation and it deserves the respect of all."

As people of God, of the Creator when we take up an office as a public servant, we should do unto others, care for others, be the champion for others and live as close to a Christ/Allah/Buddha/Goddess/etc life as we can.

That is what Bishop Hansen is alluding to: We should not take an office of honor if we are not going to serve the people we ought. Government is just not so folks can flash credentials, making back room deals and receiving as much wealth as possible.

And if that is an issue for people, because they feel that falling on hard times=laziness then apparently you have no sympathy for the many seminarians who are struggling financially, for those who have been laid off because Corporate America decided to take these jobs overseas or have no health care because Corporate America decided they cared more about the stockholders and the CEO than their dedicated employees, or that Corporate America bought out, pushed out smaller Mom/Pop businesses who unfortunately can not afford to give their employees benefits, that the Insurance Industry does not care about Health and more about lining the pockets of their stockbrokers and finally that people voted not out of frustration, but out of racism. These same problems were going on in Clinton's time, but there was no massive rushing to the polls, no Tea Party at that time-only because someone chose to run, to attempt to clean up the previous 8 years (and yes even then some) and because of the color of his skin.

I do not trust this Government on either side of the aisle strictly because politicians are not for the people; they are not for Main Street. I even have issue with the President on certain aspects of his health care, but I will not go to the extreme-I will voice, I will demand that there needs to be changes for the people not for the rich. Period.

Reading Bishop Hansen's remarks is just another reason why I am unashamedly Lutheran, and proud to have answered the call.

Signed,
A Seminarian in the Heart of Chicago

The author’s arguments are flawed. He writes about spiteful rhetoric and stigmatizing opponents on immigration and gay rights. Immigration and homosexuality are not the problem. The problem is that government has become the financial conduit to medical care and education for people who have fundamental lifestyle differences. Government is ineffective at treating its subjects individually.

Homosexuality is a parasitic lifestyle. It cannot sustain itself. Its existence is dependent on a heterosexual population. A continent of homosexuals will die from its inability to procreate. Nobody enjoys parasites. Gays need straights to survive. Straights can thrive without gays.

Non-IV drug using monogamous heterosexuals have almost no chance to contract HIV. Why should they be lumped together with promiscuous homosexuals, patrons of prostitutes, or IV drug users to calculate group medical insurance costs? Celibate individuals are not at risk of STIs and pregnancy. Shouldn’t their decision cause them to enjoy a lower cost of health insurance?

Immigration isn’t a problem if taxes don’t pay for costly education or medical services to others. I love immigrants. My parents are immigrants. He who uses hate-laced rhetoric against immigrants is likely unable to articulate his desire not to have to pay for their health care or education. I’ve never heard a single complaint about immigrants’ willingness to do the jobs overeducated Americans don’t want to do.

Altruism is wonderful. Charitable contributions are altruistic, taxes are not. Taxes are the price we pay to provide universal services when we can’t identify a specific recipient. Think about how we protect our borders. Who benefits? Who should pay? Taxes are the only way to pay for such services because your neighbor does not derive any more benefit from protection against invading armies than you do.

When taxpayers see their incomes being abused supporting the lifestyles of those who live without care, jealousy sets in. They think, “Why should I work hard when my money is being taken from me to pay to educate the kids of the guy three states away who doesn’t work and spends his life getting high or laid? I’d prefer to get high or laid myself.”

I am unable to tell the homosexual how he should live because it is not my place to do so in a free society. I can’t tell the lazy man that he’s had too many kids and is costing me too much. I can’t tell the immigrant that his contribution to society is far outweighed by the costs of his health care. I can only make it expensive for them to live their lifestyles. If they are jealous of my frugal lifestyle, they should change how they live instead of forcing me to pay more to support their expensive habits.

You want to eliminate these problems? Simple. Repeal EMTALA, repeal ObamaCare, and pass school voucher legislation. Push the cost of health care and education back onto the consumer. The free market works.

Hagop Hagopian
An Evangelical Christian

@SeriouslyOtis

“Are you "for" or "against" civil and truthful debate?”
I’m all for it. Does that mean I will politely and quietly accede to or acknowledge the authority of a deity? No.

“His contention is not to "foist" one deity above others and only uses the neutral God, not Christ or Shiva or Buddha.”

The neutral god? Please explain what that even means. Are you saying that when he says ‘god’ he doesn’t mean the one in the old/new testament, the one that requires his followers to worship and recognize one and only one god? Then why the capital G? Is this the same ‘neutral god’ (wink, wink) that is mentioned on our currency, our pledge to the flag and to affirm an oath?
Please explain further how I misunderstood: “We recognize that government is God's servant”
As coupled with the ‘neutrality’ of: “as the apostle Paul wrote in the New Testament.”

Certainly we are not a majority, but there are in this nation people who have dismissed the entire notion of a divine deity. We recognize the authority of no gods, neutral or otherwise. For us a neutral god is as unimaginable or just, and no more reasonable than all those Norse, Roman and Greek gods that your religion dismisses as mere mythology.
Would you let pass the following statements as benign and neutral?
“We recognize that government is the Goddess’ servant”
“We recognize that government is the golden calf’s servant”
“We recognize that government is Allah’s servant”
“We recognize that government is Baal-berith’s servant”

As for civility of discourse, it has already been said better than I could say it for myself:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household."

I’m not the one that threw down the gauntlet.

@Gladerunner; I think you misunderstand the Bishops statement as a constitutional mandate regarding God being the government's servant. It is a statement of Faith based on the Lutheran and mainline protestant understanding of the God of the Bible's interaction with the world. You attempt to defame his character by calling him egocentric and ignoring the rest of his article which speaks clarity to his understanding. His contention is not to "foist" one deity above others and only uses the neutral God, not Christ or Shiva or Buddha. This ploy is the exact kind of rhetoric and diversion to which he is referring. You have proved his point by not rationally arguing with the subject of the entire article. Debate needs to be civil and about the issues at hand, not made up stuff based on one line of text. You, Gladerunner are part of the problem to which he speaks, and as a Christian I won't argue with your incivility. Are you "for" or "against" civil and truthful debate?

"We recognize that government is God's servant"
No sir, it is not.
Ours is a government by, of, and for ‘the people’.
God has his own kingdom. Those who swear in to public office vow to uphold, protect and defend the constitution, not the New Testament.
Individuals can claim whatever religious affiliation they wish, or none at all. The Government itself is without religion, independent of religion. It neither affirms nor disavows any higher beings. Individuals in government service can certainly believe in whatever they wish, as individuals. Individuals may consider themselves ‘servants of the lord’ as long as that service does not interfere with constitutional directives and limitations.
No sir, you do not get to claim ownership of our government. It is the apex of egocentricity to even try. Our Government bows to no god, it doesn’t need to, it is simply not in that domain. It is here to protect and serve the people, all the people, it is not here to save souls, proselytize to infidels, or to foist one deity ahead of others.
Just because you can spray-paint your name on the side of a boxcar, that act does not constitute ownership.