Following up part 1 and part 2 of this discussion let’s talk about Romans 13, which says to be subject to the government. It is this part of the bible that our government is pushing pastors to push on their people, and some pastors are doing it.
Here is the thing, would these pastors push people to support everything the government does and says if somebody other than Bush was in office? I doubt they did when Clinton was in office. Would they say support the government if it enacted Jus Primae Noctis (where the political leader got first rights to any bride ahead of the groom). Would they support Hitler? They don’t support the governments support on abortion or many state’s desire to support gay marriage, so they clearly have limits. Clearly if this was to be the case, then we should apologize to England and resubmit ourselves to English rule since if we take Romans 13 the way the Bush administration wants us to, then we were wrong to revolt against an unjust government.
Also, in context, this applies to good, Godly government. It is like the “wives obey your husband thing.” Yes it says that, but that doesn’t make her a slave to what the husband says, and it says in that same passage that the husband is to love his wife, which in principle means that he would never ask her to do anything she wouldn’t naturally do anyhow.
Besides, Bush is not the government. Our elected officials are not the government. Homeland Security is not the government. The IRS is not the government. The Constitution is our government, even from a Romans 13 perspective, and if we were to be subject to anything, that is what we would be subject to. Only one candidate stands for the Constitution, all the rest do not. Bush clearly does not stand for the Constitution.