I'm retired, and active primarily in remodelling a 115 year old house, fighting back the jungle surrounding it and trying to do a little gardening in there somewhere, with church and extended family, backpacking, fly fishing small streams and playing on the web.
THIS one is raw, kiddies, from start to finish. Del starts by comparing the State to a gang of robbers taking away half the farm recently inherited by some kids, but they do it with taxes. Interestingly enough, he ends by saying that the (State) is the agent of God for carrying out the duties of the state, and for that reason we are to pay taxes. I guess I got lost. We may argue that taxes are unfair, but it sure doesn't look like the "Christian worldview" would see the state as robbers. Del tells the story of Ahab, Jezebel and the vineyard she obtained for him by using the power of the state to murder the owner and confiscate the property for Ahab's personal use. Was it Louis xvii who said that he was the state? Is it true that the king IS the state, or is he the agent and head of the state, but not to be identified AS the state? Can "the State" steal, or is it individuals misusing the power of the state for their personal purposes that was the problem? Is that something we see today, and is that confined to non-Christians, or does it seem to be carried out primarily by those professing to BE "Christian?" What was the public so upset about recently in the insurance bailout crisis? I think the State is often much more concerned about taking back what has been "legally stolen" than it is with doing the stealing itself.The second part of the presentation was concernend with "separation of the spheres," and an elaborate story of King Uzziah I think it was. making a sacrifice in the temple against the express commands of God as to who was to do so. Del says this was about blurring the spheres, and maybe it is, though I don't think that is primarily what it was about. Let that go. The main point Del is making is that the State gets too big for its britches and tries to rule in all of the spheres and therefore is out of control. I think arguments could be made that the State needs to interfere is some measure with all the "spheres" in order to insure that it performs those obligations required of it. Perhaps not, but Del's argument that the State should not be telling us "What marriage should look like" seems fairly ridiculous when his parent organization is spending tremendous effort to get the state to declare that marriage is between a man and a woman. What's wrong with this picture? Del even said that we require more government when we are not internally governed and that has most clearly been shown to be the case when unregulated business (read greed) puts the whole economy in dire jeapordy. I totally agree with Del: I would LOVE to see far less government, but not until such government is no longer required and I don't see that happening in the near future. Del ends by saying that we have the opportunity to participate in deciding how our government is to be run and that we will vote in accordance of his picture of the proper place of government, but I gotta tellya kids, don't vote thinking that we have reached the point where it really is NOT needed.