My Response
Today marks the last of these entries. Before I begin with today’s post about what I view my response as a Christian to be, I need to make a point based on Marc’s comment from yesterday.
Everyone has to make their own choice to follow Christ, or else faith in Christ means nothing. As such even in a Christian nation parents would have to let their children decide for themselves whether or not they would accept Christ. Which makes this quite possibly one of the hardest aspects for a Christian nation: whether or not the children will follow in the path. But even if they didn’t, I think the Christian response would remain the same: love them. Disfellowship is something reserved for a person who is a believer that is saying things contrary to the doctrine or a public sin that they are unrepentant of. Someone who has not yet made that commitment, then, is not really subject to the terms of disfellowship. Even in disfellowship the idea is not out of punishment, per se, but of love. It is a tough love, but there is love in discipline, in being rebuked (some of the kindest things people have done for me are rebuking me openly and in love when I was wrong). Thus the answer would still be to love them as Christ loves.
Yesterday we examined what a Christian nation would look like in today’s world if a geographical location could possibly exist. I think the honest answer is that a geographical location as described yesterday is never likely to occur. But the wonderful thing is that it never has too! As a friend of mine, Trey Finley put it, the Kingdom of God “knows no geographical and political boundaries.” The Kingdom of God can operate in any country across the world, whether friendly or hostile. It needs no political machine to govern itself (although it would help if we got together every so often to discuss how things are going in our areas…). Not having ourselves limited to one specific geographic location gives us more opportunity to spread throughout all the world, letting Christ impact lives through ours. It also keeps us from huddling to close and forgetting the need to go out and spread the message.
Growing up in the Church of Christ, I am a part of the Restoration movement. But for much of my life I have had no idea of the history behind my fellowship. When I first began contemplating my current thoughts on politics, I was told that my views were very close to those of David Lipscomb. Lipscomb grew up in the Nashville area, promoted Christian education (he helped establish Lipscomb University), and lived during the Civil War. Impacted by Christ, his teachers and his experience in the war, Lipscomb found himself becoming a strict pacifist. In the years that followed Lipscomb developed some powerful ideas of Christian relations with the government, which has been a big influence on me in my development towards my response. But I think just like Lipscomb, my thoughts will be easily confused for other things. So let me clarify here.
My understanding of Christianity is not communism, although it definitely shares a trait, that obviously being that everyone shares their belongings. But in communism the State governs who has how much and when, so that everyone always has the same amount of everything. Christian society should require no such state agency to ensure that everyone is sharing the resources. A Christian society should realize that all things belong to God and as such if someone else has need of that item than they need it.
It is also not anarchism (as I understand it), where the idea is that there should be no governments. In fact Scriptures tell us that we should submit to the authorities we are governed by (whether we voted for them or not). 1 Peter 2:13-17, “ Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.” Why would God say that? Because what good does it do to the perception of Christ when the world sees a people of love show disrespect and spite for the ruler in office? When people respond in hate to troops that return home that doesn’t honor God. (I’ll admit right now, I understand this passage means I need to be more respectful of the politicians and governments I’ve been blasting this whole time. I need work on this, so pray for me if you would.) This is also seen in Matthew 22:15-22, “Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?" But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?" "Caesar's," they replied. Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."”
The point here is that there are many things that people will try to call us when we submit to Kingdom living. They will call us communists, Minarchists, meliorists, or any other number of things. But the fact of the matter is that we are none of those. We are Christians, and that stands different from any political system or movement available in the world today.
Politicians, political parties and governments are all made by God, therefore they all have the possibility for good in them and indeed have good merits to each. However, being human or human constructs they are also part of the Fall, and are therefore broken as well. Therefore while they may do some good from time to time, to rely on them to make the changes in the world that Christ calls for, in my opinion, is fundamentally flawed. The response for a Christian should not be to trust in politicians, political parties or governments to make the change needed. Instead we should return our trust to the God who saves us, for his name is Yahweh Jireh (The LORD will Provide). Christ is the only person in this whole world who can bring about a meaningful change in this world that stands any chance, and he wants to use his Bride to do so.
A lot of us have trouble in believing that the church today can bring about that change. Many of us have been hurt or disappointed in the Church because of our actions (remember, this is a community and we all are responsible). But just because the Church has currently failed in some of these regards does not mean that Christ can do nothing, either. If we truly believe that Christ through his Bride can change the world, then we are going to have to be willing to accept that the Church is made up of people just like us. That the Bride is built on broken people that have made mistakes, just like us. But that the Bride can also be healed through Christ, just like us, and that they are all our family, whether we like it or not. We need to realize that while the Bride is struggling right now, if we continue to see the flaws in the Church and only remain in our fears of what we have done then She never will be able to change. We have to be willing to remain as part of this body that we are in and willing to understand that if we pray for it, if we work with our people, if we stay on this long tough road that families have to travel, that Christ can heal this broken Church and make it once again to what he wanted. And that through this renewed Church Christ can make his change in the world. Imagine it like this: If Christ has been able to make as much progress in the world as he already has with the Church bruised as she has been, how much more progress do you think he could make in the world if all the church confessed and let Her wounds be bound in Christ?
And so, after having considered the thoughts of so many and thinking through them myself, after having prayed about this for some time I have come to the following conclusions:
First, that I am a citizen of the Kingdom, first and foremost. And that although I may be an American citizen and have the right to vote, I choose not to vote or register for any political party. While I will respect the authority of the governments in place today as tools of God, I do not put my hope or trust in a politician, political party or government to make the changes Christ wants in the world, although they may make some progress. Rather, I trust in Christ alone, and that he can do so through his Bride.
Second, that if I want to see the Kingdom on Earth as I see it, it begins here with me. I have to believe that Christ can do this, and I have to be willing to submit myself to that Citizenship. As such, I have decided that if in a Christian Kingdom all things and resources are freely shared, and my primary resource is to minister to the church, then I choose here and now that I will not be a paid minister. I intend to find work outside of the church and share my resource for free.
It’s been a long and interesting journey. I thank you all for listening and for sharing. Many of you have been influential in shaping my thoughts in this regard in one way or another.
I wish best of luck to the candidates.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Monday, November 3, 2008
Sunday, November 2, 2008
On Being a Citizen, Part 4 of 5
A Christian Nation
Let me begin by making it clear that the Christian nation I am going to be describing here today doesn’t currently exist; at least not as a physically, coordinated, geographical location. There is no “Republic of Christianity” or “Parliament of Christ.” What I am describing here is what I think a Christian society would look like if it did exist today as a physical, geographical location. What might the politics of a Christian nation look like?
Let’s begin by reviewing where we left off yesterday on how the current worldly governments are brought about. They are either brought about by the people as a need to bring about the protection and provision of the people, or they are brought about by a conquering warrior who promises to give the people protection and provision (or simply admits he is going to rule over them as slaves). In an odd twist Israel refused God’s protection and provision so they could have their own king like the other nations.
A Christian nation, then, would require no such government. Why? Because they would understand that they don’t need to give power to a group of elected officials to take care of them or provide for them. They put their whole-hearted trust in Christ as King. They see no need to expand their borders, they fear no invaders. Either God will protect them like He protected Hezekiah, or God will allow the ‘conqueror’ to come and use His people to bring about the redemption of the ‘conquerors’ so that they acknowledge the true King. They would not fear death in some country invading because they would truly understand that no occupation authority, no power whatsoever can separate them from the powerful, faithful love of Christ for us. In interacting with other countries their guiding principle would be to love. They would not care about the politics of the governments of any country, whether communistic, capitalistic, socialistic, etc. They would simply send help to all peoples so that they can be a blessing to all the world. This mission to help would not come with obligations on the part of the country they go to, but simply to show the people the love they have experienced through Christ and the love that God has for all men.
They would understand that they are a community, a family of God. A family not bound by blood but by something much more powerful – the Spirit. This understanding of community leads them to several results.
One such result of an understanding of community is that they are in this life together and cannot split from each other for any reason whatsoever. Although they recognize the good that has come from the many different denominations through the years they understand that the unity of the church is paramount and had worked for years before to re-establish the Church as One, which Christ prayed for fervently before his death (John 17). They understand the sanctity and authority of the Scriptures as well as that of the tradition of the Church. They recognize the authority of the shepherds/elders and are willing to submit to and follow their leadership of the Church. They have incorporated the good from the different denominations back into the Church as One. They understand the Church as family, and that although there may be people in the community that they don’t always agree with, understand, and even some that just get on their nerves, they are all still family. And so the Love of God becomes their abiding principle: to love one another as they have been loved. They understand John’s point that if you cannot love your brother in Christ, how can you love Christ? (1 John 4:20-21)
A second result of this understanding of community is united with their understanding that all that they ‘have’ is not their individual belongings, or even community belongings necessarily. Instead they believe and understand that all those things before them are God’s and He has chosen to bless them with what they need or the skills to make the things they need (of which He still provides the resources). This outlook gives them the ability to share their belongings with no qualms or arguments because they understand that it is not “mine” or “yours” but God’s. This would mean they would not have to be concerned with people hoarding resources, so that 10% of the population has 90% of the goods of the nation. They would not see the purpose of hoarding resources because they belong to everyone. This would also be influenced by an understanding that they are not guaranteed one day or another. What purpose is there in personal collecting and hoarding then if it could all be gone tomorrow? In the next hour?
Community would also help these people understand that they have a communal history, and as such a communal responsibility. When they realize that the community of 10 years ago messed up considerably on something, their response would not be “They messed up” but “We messed up.” They would understand the need of communal confession when events such as this occur and they realize their wrong and announce it plainly for all those affected to hear. They will not be caught up in their own pride but be proud only in Christ. And when individuals in the community make mistakes and falter in their walks, they would help keep each other accountable. But they would do so in a spirit of love and forgiveness, always remembering that they too have made mistakes and faltered along the way. They would remember that God has been patient with them in their mistakes and continues to love them through them, and so they too show their love for one another even in mistakes.
They would not be without an understanding of their individuality. However they would understand that while each person is unique and special and their own individual person, the individual would never take precedence over the community.
They would understand the gender roles as God intended them to be. That while a wife should submit to the authority of her husband, this in no way means that the husband is to exploit her and treat her like some slave. Instead, they understand that the husband is to treat his wife with love and respect. Husbands base the treatment of their wives off of the marriage relationship they have with Christ. Since the Body of believers are the Bride of Christ, and Christ treats us with love, mercy, kindness, gentleness, peace, joy, patience, faithfulness and self-control, so they too treat their wives as they have been treated by Christ. Women are allowed to be women and men are allowed to be men, and that doesn’t mean that the women just sit around and cook and clean. The women who climb mountains are not seen as any less of a woman than a woman who cooks and cleans, and the man who loves to cook or decorate is not seen as any less of a man than the one that prefers to work outside.
They would not look at different races/ethnicities within the community with prejudice, but instead see all people as equal.
They would see the value of education of the community as a whole and not just the children, and value that education highly. They would understand that more knowledge doesn’t mean greater status as sometimes people with a ‘simple’ understanding can see something of God that those with ‘great understanding’ had never thought of.
They would understand that while they have been given “dominion” over the earth that does not mean that they have been given the ability to exploit the earth. They understand that they have a responsibility to care for what God has given them and to use their resources appropriately. Reusing materials as available, finding healthy ways to power the things they need, etc.
They would understand worship as not something just done on Sunday but something done all day every day. They would understand that the glory of heaven is not simply eternal life or a life in paradise but that the value of paradise and eternal life is that it is a life eternally next to the Father (in the same way, the fear of hell would not be a fear of fire or torment but of an everlasting separation from God). They would try to live this out in their lives every day. They would see worship when they sang, when they painted, when they danced, when they played sports, when they talked, everywhere. They would not be restricted to one particular worship time but worship at all times, occasionally changing the times for the whole community to gather as needed. They would understand the importance of fellowship meals, where it is not only a joining of the community in meal but of God joining as well.
That is just a glimpse of what I see a Christian nation to be. I love the thought of it. I love the idea of a community that stands together as one and gives praise to God the Father for His unending love and works to make that love known throughout all the world. I love the idea of a community that attempts to make change not by forcing its beliefs through a political machine but looking to Christ to make the change in the world, as he is the only one that can. It’s a shame that it doesn’t exist in the world today.
Or does it…?
Let me begin by making it clear that the Christian nation I am going to be describing here today doesn’t currently exist; at least not as a physically, coordinated, geographical location. There is no “Republic of Christianity” or “Parliament of Christ.” What I am describing here is what I think a Christian society would look like if it did exist today as a physical, geographical location. What might the politics of a Christian nation look like?
Let’s begin by reviewing where we left off yesterday on how the current worldly governments are brought about. They are either brought about by the people as a need to bring about the protection and provision of the people, or they are brought about by a conquering warrior who promises to give the people protection and provision (or simply admits he is going to rule over them as slaves). In an odd twist Israel refused God’s protection and provision so they could have their own king like the other nations.
A Christian nation, then, would require no such government. Why? Because they would understand that they don’t need to give power to a group of elected officials to take care of them or provide for them. They put their whole-hearted trust in Christ as King. They see no need to expand their borders, they fear no invaders. Either God will protect them like He protected Hezekiah, or God will allow the ‘conqueror’ to come and use His people to bring about the redemption of the ‘conquerors’ so that they acknowledge the true King. They would not fear death in some country invading because they would truly understand that no occupation authority, no power whatsoever can separate them from the powerful, faithful love of Christ for us. In interacting with other countries their guiding principle would be to love. They would not care about the politics of the governments of any country, whether communistic, capitalistic, socialistic, etc. They would simply send help to all peoples so that they can be a blessing to all the world. This mission to help would not come with obligations on the part of the country they go to, but simply to show the people the love they have experienced through Christ and the love that God has for all men.
They would understand that they are a community, a family of God. A family not bound by blood but by something much more powerful – the Spirit. This understanding of community leads them to several results.
One such result of an understanding of community is that they are in this life together and cannot split from each other for any reason whatsoever. Although they recognize the good that has come from the many different denominations through the years they understand that the unity of the church is paramount and had worked for years before to re-establish the Church as One, which Christ prayed for fervently before his death (John 17). They understand the sanctity and authority of the Scriptures as well as that of the tradition of the Church. They recognize the authority of the shepherds/elders and are willing to submit to and follow their leadership of the Church. They have incorporated the good from the different denominations back into the Church as One. They understand the Church as family, and that although there may be people in the community that they don’t always agree with, understand, and even some that just get on their nerves, they are all still family. And so the Love of God becomes their abiding principle: to love one another as they have been loved. They understand John’s point that if you cannot love your brother in Christ, how can you love Christ? (1 John 4:20-21)
A second result of this understanding of community is united with their understanding that all that they ‘have’ is not their individual belongings, or even community belongings necessarily. Instead they believe and understand that all those things before them are God’s and He has chosen to bless them with what they need or the skills to make the things they need (of which He still provides the resources). This outlook gives them the ability to share their belongings with no qualms or arguments because they understand that it is not “mine” or “yours” but God’s. This would mean they would not have to be concerned with people hoarding resources, so that 10% of the population has 90% of the goods of the nation. They would not see the purpose of hoarding resources because they belong to everyone. This would also be influenced by an understanding that they are not guaranteed one day or another. What purpose is there in personal collecting and hoarding then if it could all be gone tomorrow? In the next hour?
Community would also help these people understand that they have a communal history, and as such a communal responsibility. When they realize that the community of 10 years ago messed up considerably on something, their response would not be “They messed up” but “We messed up.” They would understand the need of communal confession when events such as this occur and they realize their wrong and announce it plainly for all those affected to hear. They will not be caught up in their own pride but be proud only in Christ. And when individuals in the community make mistakes and falter in their walks, they would help keep each other accountable. But they would do so in a spirit of love and forgiveness, always remembering that they too have made mistakes and faltered along the way. They would remember that God has been patient with them in their mistakes and continues to love them through them, and so they too show their love for one another even in mistakes.
They would not be without an understanding of their individuality. However they would understand that while each person is unique and special and their own individual person, the individual would never take precedence over the community.
They would understand the gender roles as God intended them to be. That while a wife should submit to the authority of her husband, this in no way means that the husband is to exploit her and treat her like some slave. Instead, they understand that the husband is to treat his wife with love and respect. Husbands base the treatment of their wives off of the marriage relationship they have with Christ. Since the Body of believers are the Bride of Christ, and Christ treats us with love, mercy, kindness, gentleness, peace, joy, patience, faithfulness and self-control, so they too treat their wives as they have been treated by Christ. Women are allowed to be women and men are allowed to be men, and that doesn’t mean that the women just sit around and cook and clean. The women who climb mountains are not seen as any less of a woman than a woman who cooks and cleans, and the man who loves to cook or decorate is not seen as any less of a man than the one that prefers to work outside.
They would not look at different races/ethnicities within the community with prejudice, but instead see all people as equal.
They would see the value of education of the community as a whole and not just the children, and value that education highly. They would understand that more knowledge doesn’t mean greater status as sometimes people with a ‘simple’ understanding can see something of God that those with ‘great understanding’ had never thought of.
They would understand that while they have been given “dominion” over the earth that does not mean that they have been given the ability to exploit the earth. They understand that they have a responsibility to care for what God has given them and to use their resources appropriately. Reusing materials as available, finding healthy ways to power the things they need, etc.
They would understand worship as not something just done on Sunday but something done all day every day. They would understand that the glory of heaven is not simply eternal life or a life in paradise but that the value of paradise and eternal life is that it is a life eternally next to the Father (in the same way, the fear of hell would not be a fear of fire or torment but of an everlasting separation from God). They would try to live this out in their lives every day. They would see worship when they sang, when they painted, when they danced, when they played sports, when they talked, everywhere. They would not be restricted to one particular worship time but worship at all times, occasionally changing the times for the whole community to gather as needed. They would understand the importance of fellowship meals, where it is not only a joining of the community in meal but of God joining as well.
That is just a glimpse of what I see a Christian nation to be. I love the thought of it. I love the idea of a community that stands together as one and gives praise to God the Father for His unending love and works to make that love known throughout all the world. I love the idea of a community that attempts to make change not by forcing its beliefs through a political machine but looking to Christ to make the change in the world, as he is the only one that can. It’s a shame that it doesn’t exist in the world today.
Or does it…?
Saturday, November 1, 2008
On Being a Citizen, Part 3 of 5
Role of Government
Before I begin with today’s post, I want to start by addressing just a couple quick points from the comments on yesterday’s post.
Marc and Robbie, you’re absolutely right. I missed out on bringing up education, and I apologize. Of all the people to have thought of the education system, I should have been right there (being in education now myself, albeit private education in another country). I will say right now that I do believe our teachers are severely underpaid and under-cared for. I would have no arguments or complaints with Congress if they were to raise taxes to pay our teachers and schools better. In chatting with my Canadian friends here I’ve learned that in at least some parts of Canada, teachers start at $40-50K per year, with full health insurance and good retirement. I think we could definitely afford to raise taxes to pay our teachers better, to give them better insurance since they deal with some pretty crazy stuff, and to get them a good retirement package. As to not addressing welfare, perhaps at the current time my understanding of welfare is more minute than I thought it ought to be (entirely plausible), but I thought I had covered welfare strategies in the Economics situation. Maybe I just didn’t make it clearer. In any case, God willing maybe I can revisit this topic again next year (or four I guess as the case may be), rehash the thoughts and come up with either different perspectives or further confirm my current ones after learning more about the whole shebang. But until then, we must move on to the Role of Government.
I should note why I feel it’s important to discuss the philosophy of the role of government prior to entering into a discussion on what a Christian society looks like and what I feel my response as a Christian needs to be in the society I live in. To be fair, I have to admit that I have a limited scope of knowledge on this topic and that my knowledge is based primarily on Western theory. I don’t know if the Eastern philosophy is different. (On a brief tangent if I may, if Europe, Australia, Russia and America are typically considered the West, and Arab and Asian countries are considered East, where does that leave South America, Latin America and Africa?) So I don’t know if Eastern philosophy has a different approach to the role and formation of government, especially since they are typically more community oriented than we are in the West. Even with this lacking, I still believe it’s important to discuss the philosophy of the role and formation of government because from there we can compare a worldly government to the Kingdom of God and the “philosophy” behind that.
As Americans we know the basic premise behind our government. And I think most of us at this point would agree that while faith may have had some of the reasons to do with the journey over from Europe and maybe even some reasons to the break from the British government, it wasn’t the primary reason. No, economics was the primary reason. Tired of being ruled by a king that established himself, we chose a different path. So the basic premise behind our government is that ours is a government by the people for the people. It is created by the people to serve the people. So the government is not, technically speaking, the one in charge. I like how Tom Clancy put it in his story, Clear and Present Danger. The main character, Jack Clark, is at the hospital bed of his closest friend Admiral James Greer. When learning that there is a scandal that goes all the way to the top, Jack tells Greer that he’s not sure if he is willing to take the investigation that far. Greer simply responds, “You took an oath to the boss, Jack. And I’m not talking about me, and I’m not talking about the President, but his boss. You took an oath to the people of the United States.” Ideally, the citizens are the boss of the President. Ideally. I can understand that sometimes the elected officials have to go against what the people want and do what they feel is best for our best interest. But I’m afraid I don’t see government officials acting in our own best interest for the greater good, but for themselves to retain their positions of power. I’m afraid I don’t see government officials viewing themselves as public servants once they get into that office.
But our government is also built upon another premise. This is the philosophy that as a civilization grows it recognizes a need for order and certain other needs. One of these needs involves protection from foreign aggressors. The civilization recognizes that threats to their safety exist from surrounding nations and they want protection. They also want to ensure that they will have protection from people within their civilization. By having a unified system in place the civilization could also make improvements upon their society such as standardized roads, plumbing, education, etc. So the people create a governing body to take care of these tasks for them. They place people in positions to make sure that they have an army to protect themselves from foreign aggressors; a police force to protect themselves from domestic aggressors; a judicial system to make sure that the rules agreed to by the society are followed; people to make sure that services such as roads are provided for, etc. As time goes on the civilization realizes its need for protection from food shortages and economic crisis as well and more power is given to the government yet again to handle the situation for them. And so the process goes where more and more authority is given to the governing body to handle the affairs of the people to make sure they are provided for and protected. In voting we have a powerful privilege, then, that we should be thankful for because it gives us the opportunity to be active participants in the government; to decide what we think needs to be done, who should do it and how it needs to be done.
While this does sound like the premise behind the American government, it doesn’t really answer the process of the governments prior to America. How did countries with kings and emperors view the establishment of government?
Many of the governments prior to America were theocratic monarchies. (Rome and the Greek states were republics for a time, but eventually fell back into theocratic monarchies under the Caesers.) So the governments were based on the idea that a god had chosen this or that king to be in place, or that they were descended from a god himself. Kings took their power because they claimed a heritage to a noble line, a line where a god had ordained that man to be king and so as his heir they too followed in that ordainment. A majority of these men would take their throne by force to begin with, then claiming that the god had blessed him with the victory. Because surely victory is related with blessing. We might want to think that the ‘Christian’ ruled countries were different from those such as the Persians, Assyrians, or whoever. But didn’t we act just like them? Didn’t the rulers act in the same way when they claimed the divine right and heritage?
The Israelite government was slightly different. But then again they also had a different history. In most theocratic governments that we are aware of, the kings took their power from the people through conquest and showing that they had the might to protect the people. The Israelites were a little backwards, however. Israel initially sat with God as her one King. The prophets, priests and judges would govern the land based on their connection to God and the revelations God would give them on what the people needed to do. God provided for their every need, military, judicial, economic, food, everything. Someone may argue, “But the Israelites went to war all the time! Whether to protect themselves or to establish the boundaries of the Promised Land they went to war!” But the Israelites had to be consistently reminded that it was not their own might that won the battle but God’s. Remember Gideon, who was told that he had too many soldiers until he was down to just 300 men take out the Midianites. David was punished for taking a census of the fighting men of Israel. Why? Because he was showing his trust in his own might, and he regretted doing it as soon as the answer was given to him. But the Israelites didn’t have Saul or David come in and conquer them and pronounce themselves kings. No, the Israelites themselves declared, “We desire a king!” (1 Sam. 8) God even tried to tell them what a king would do to them if they actually got a king (1 Sam. 8:10-18), but they still insisted they wanted a king. So God put kings in charge of them, but the kings were supposed to rule like David, who (on the whole) realized that while he was king, God was King over all. David recognized that his authority was from God and trusted in Him to provide. Like David, Hezekiah trusted that God would provide for Judah when Assyria threatened her walls, and Hezekiah didn’t even have to fight as a result of his trust in God. (Isaiah 36-37) Hezekiah recognized that his own power would not be what saved Israel, but God’s.
Reading Lee Camp’s Mere Discipleship I would have to agree that the ‘Christian’ governments, past and present, all suffer from what Camp calls the “Constantinian Cataract.” That is that once Constantine united the church with the political machine, the Church often tries to make changes in the world through the political machine instead of Christ. We claim that Church and State are separate. It is is important that the State not interfere with the theology of the church but hasn’t that already happened to a certain extent? Doesn’t the ‘church’ throw its support to one candidate or another, or try to influence change through the State? When people try to take away the rights of Christians in public areas, do we react in peace or throw a fit and call on the government to fix the problem? Shouldn’t we instead look to God to see if and how we were wrong in pushing our faith on others and look to be confessional for that? Don’t the political machines typically fish for and rely on the ‘church’ for support?
Ultimately what governments come down to is a trust issue. We don’t know what will happen so we want protection and provision and we look to ourselves and our governments. When we don’t like what we see we try to evoke change through governments and political parties. Instead of trusting God we hope in the governments we establish and the men who have just as little of a clue as to what will happen in the future as we do. Instead of seeing the need for changing and calling upon Christ to fill us with the Spirit to bring about the change in the world that it so desperately needs we call on political parties to fix the problems with the homosexuals, the rapists, the thieves, the poor, etc. When we fear foreign aggression we don’t trust in God’s sovereign power but instead look to ourselves for defense and offense. We rely upon our guns and military superiority to defend us and attack those that might hurt us. We worry about what Iran or a nuclear North Korea will do, or how terrorists will strike, all the while forgetting to trust in God. We quote Paul and say, “Neither death nor life, angels or demons, the present or the future, nor any power…will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Rom. 8:38-39). Why don’t we act like it then? If there is nothing that the Enemy can do to harm us, why do we worry about a terrorist attack? Will it take away God’s love for me? No! Why do we worry about the economic crisis at hand? Will God stop loving me because my income is dropping? No! (By the way, I’m still trying to remember this one myself – see previous post “Are You Going to Trust the God Who Saves You?)
Which brings me to the point of governments: In using a worldly government, who do we put our trust in? When I cast my vote did I just put my trust in God or in the political machine? Am I trusting God to provide and take care of me or am I hoping that this candidate has a better chance than the other guy to solve the economic crisis so that I can have that good income again?
This isn’t to say that God doesn’t use the governments we establish for His purposes. God used the nations surrounding Israel to punish her when she faltered. Although I may cast my vote it is God who establishes and uses the leader. I like to look at the current system as C.S. Lewis and Tolkien imagined the beginning of the earth. Both men wrote that the world began by God singing it into being. But at some point someone didn’t like the way the song was going. In The Chronicles of Narnia: The Magician’s Nephew, it was the Queen and the boy’s crazy uncle who did not like the song. The Queen hated it so much she threw the piece of lamppost at Aslan with a killing blow. Instead, it bounced off his head, and Aslan was able to incorporate the lamppost into the future of Narnia. Tolkien does a similar method with the Simarillion, where God sings the heavenly host into being. He then gives each a part of the orchestra to conduct of their own, and as they begin to make their own music they see how God has already been weaving their individual pieces together to form a masterpiece. But one of the hosts doesn’t like this, and tries to ruin it. He begins attempts to make dis-chord and noise that will break the dance, tune and beauty of the orchestra. Yet all the while God still manages to incorporate the dis-chord into the beauty of the symphony as well. As much as we end up messing up this world, God still manages to work it into his divine plan and for His glory.
I thought it was funny how quickly everyone was at commenting in the first post about how they didn’t believe America to be a Christian nation when I never actually said it was in that post. All I said was, “What might a Christian nation look like?” I believe your right. I don’t think America is a ‘Christian’ nation. Why do we believe it is? We’ve already reminded ourselves that it was primarily for economic reasons that the founding fathers began the work on it, so it wasn’t based in faith. We can’t say that it’s based on population percentage that believes, because only half of the country is Christian. What would a country look like that truly was Christian? I don’t know about you, but exploring this is the most exciting part of this whole series. Because it is not just about what a Christian society on earth would look like – it’s a sneak peek at the possibility of what heaven will be like! I look forward to seeing you all again tomorrow, as we enter into the Christian society…
Before I begin with today’s post, I want to start by addressing just a couple quick points from the comments on yesterday’s post.
Marc and Robbie, you’re absolutely right. I missed out on bringing up education, and I apologize. Of all the people to have thought of the education system, I should have been right there (being in education now myself, albeit private education in another country). I will say right now that I do believe our teachers are severely underpaid and under-cared for. I would have no arguments or complaints with Congress if they were to raise taxes to pay our teachers and schools better. In chatting with my Canadian friends here I’ve learned that in at least some parts of Canada, teachers start at $40-50K per year, with full health insurance and good retirement. I think we could definitely afford to raise taxes to pay our teachers better, to give them better insurance since they deal with some pretty crazy stuff, and to get them a good retirement package. As to not addressing welfare, perhaps at the current time my understanding of welfare is more minute than I thought it ought to be (entirely plausible), but I thought I had covered welfare strategies in the Economics situation. Maybe I just didn’t make it clearer. In any case, God willing maybe I can revisit this topic again next year (or four I guess as the case may be), rehash the thoughts and come up with either different perspectives or further confirm my current ones after learning more about the whole shebang. But until then, we must move on to the Role of Government.
I should note why I feel it’s important to discuss the philosophy of the role of government prior to entering into a discussion on what a Christian society looks like and what I feel my response as a Christian needs to be in the society I live in. To be fair, I have to admit that I have a limited scope of knowledge on this topic and that my knowledge is based primarily on Western theory. I don’t know if the Eastern philosophy is different. (On a brief tangent if I may, if Europe, Australia, Russia and America are typically considered the West, and Arab and Asian countries are considered East, where does that leave South America, Latin America and Africa?) So I don’t know if Eastern philosophy has a different approach to the role and formation of government, especially since they are typically more community oriented than we are in the West. Even with this lacking, I still believe it’s important to discuss the philosophy of the role and formation of government because from there we can compare a worldly government to the Kingdom of God and the “philosophy” behind that.
As Americans we know the basic premise behind our government. And I think most of us at this point would agree that while faith may have had some of the reasons to do with the journey over from Europe and maybe even some reasons to the break from the British government, it wasn’t the primary reason. No, economics was the primary reason. Tired of being ruled by a king that established himself, we chose a different path. So the basic premise behind our government is that ours is a government by the people for the people. It is created by the people to serve the people. So the government is not, technically speaking, the one in charge. I like how Tom Clancy put it in his story, Clear and Present Danger. The main character, Jack Clark, is at the hospital bed of his closest friend Admiral James Greer. When learning that there is a scandal that goes all the way to the top, Jack tells Greer that he’s not sure if he is willing to take the investigation that far. Greer simply responds, “You took an oath to the boss, Jack. And I’m not talking about me, and I’m not talking about the President, but his boss. You took an oath to the people of the United States.” Ideally, the citizens are the boss of the President. Ideally. I can understand that sometimes the elected officials have to go against what the people want and do what they feel is best for our best interest. But I’m afraid I don’t see government officials acting in our own best interest for the greater good, but for themselves to retain their positions of power. I’m afraid I don’t see government officials viewing themselves as public servants once they get into that office.
But our government is also built upon another premise. This is the philosophy that as a civilization grows it recognizes a need for order and certain other needs. One of these needs involves protection from foreign aggressors. The civilization recognizes that threats to their safety exist from surrounding nations and they want protection. They also want to ensure that they will have protection from people within their civilization. By having a unified system in place the civilization could also make improvements upon their society such as standardized roads, plumbing, education, etc. So the people create a governing body to take care of these tasks for them. They place people in positions to make sure that they have an army to protect themselves from foreign aggressors; a police force to protect themselves from domestic aggressors; a judicial system to make sure that the rules agreed to by the society are followed; people to make sure that services such as roads are provided for, etc. As time goes on the civilization realizes its need for protection from food shortages and economic crisis as well and more power is given to the government yet again to handle the situation for them. And so the process goes where more and more authority is given to the governing body to handle the affairs of the people to make sure they are provided for and protected. In voting we have a powerful privilege, then, that we should be thankful for because it gives us the opportunity to be active participants in the government; to decide what we think needs to be done, who should do it and how it needs to be done.
While this does sound like the premise behind the American government, it doesn’t really answer the process of the governments prior to America. How did countries with kings and emperors view the establishment of government?
Many of the governments prior to America were theocratic monarchies. (Rome and the Greek states were republics for a time, but eventually fell back into theocratic monarchies under the Caesers.) So the governments were based on the idea that a god had chosen this or that king to be in place, or that they were descended from a god himself. Kings took their power because they claimed a heritage to a noble line, a line where a god had ordained that man to be king and so as his heir they too followed in that ordainment. A majority of these men would take their throne by force to begin with, then claiming that the god had blessed him with the victory. Because surely victory is related with blessing. We might want to think that the ‘Christian’ ruled countries were different from those such as the Persians, Assyrians, or whoever. But didn’t we act just like them? Didn’t the rulers act in the same way when they claimed the divine right and heritage?
The Israelite government was slightly different. But then again they also had a different history. In most theocratic governments that we are aware of, the kings took their power from the people through conquest and showing that they had the might to protect the people. The Israelites were a little backwards, however. Israel initially sat with God as her one King. The prophets, priests and judges would govern the land based on their connection to God and the revelations God would give them on what the people needed to do. God provided for their every need, military, judicial, economic, food, everything. Someone may argue, “But the Israelites went to war all the time! Whether to protect themselves or to establish the boundaries of the Promised Land they went to war!” But the Israelites had to be consistently reminded that it was not their own might that won the battle but God’s. Remember Gideon, who was told that he had too many soldiers until he was down to just 300 men take out the Midianites. David was punished for taking a census of the fighting men of Israel. Why? Because he was showing his trust in his own might, and he regretted doing it as soon as the answer was given to him. But the Israelites didn’t have Saul or David come in and conquer them and pronounce themselves kings. No, the Israelites themselves declared, “We desire a king!” (1 Sam. 8) God even tried to tell them what a king would do to them if they actually got a king (1 Sam. 8:10-18), but they still insisted they wanted a king. So God put kings in charge of them, but the kings were supposed to rule like David, who (on the whole) realized that while he was king, God was King over all. David recognized that his authority was from God and trusted in Him to provide. Like David, Hezekiah trusted that God would provide for Judah when Assyria threatened her walls, and Hezekiah didn’t even have to fight as a result of his trust in God. (Isaiah 36-37) Hezekiah recognized that his own power would not be what saved Israel, but God’s.
Reading Lee Camp’s Mere Discipleship I would have to agree that the ‘Christian’ governments, past and present, all suffer from what Camp calls the “Constantinian Cataract.” That is that once Constantine united the church with the political machine, the Church often tries to make changes in the world through the political machine instead of Christ. We claim that Church and State are separate. It is is important that the State not interfere with the theology of the church but hasn’t that already happened to a certain extent? Doesn’t the ‘church’ throw its support to one candidate or another, or try to influence change through the State? When people try to take away the rights of Christians in public areas, do we react in peace or throw a fit and call on the government to fix the problem? Shouldn’t we instead look to God to see if and how we were wrong in pushing our faith on others and look to be confessional for that? Don’t the political machines typically fish for and rely on the ‘church’ for support?
Ultimately what governments come down to is a trust issue. We don’t know what will happen so we want protection and provision and we look to ourselves and our governments. When we don’t like what we see we try to evoke change through governments and political parties. Instead of trusting God we hope in the governments we establish and the men who have just as little of a clue as to what will happen in the future as we do. Instead of seeing the need for changing and calling upon Christ to fill us with the Spirit to bring about the change in the world that it so desperately needs we call on political parties to fix the problems with the homosexuals, the rapists, the thieves, the poor, etc. When we fear foreign aggression we don’t trust in God’s sovereign power but instead look to ourselves for defense and offense. We rely upon our guns and military superiority to defend us and attack those that might hurt us. We worry about what Iran or a nuclear North Korea will do, or how terrorists will strike, all the while forgetting to trust in God. We quote Paul and say, “Neither death nor life, angels or demons, the present or the future, nor any power…will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Rom. 8:38-39). Why don’t we act like it then? If there is nothing that the Enemy can do to harm us, why do we worry about a terrorist attack? Will it take away God’s love for me? No! Why do we worry about the economic crisis at hand? Will God stop loving me because my income is dropping? No! (By the way, I’m still trying to remember this one myself – see previous post “Are You Going to Trust the God Who Saves You?)
Which brings me to the point of governments: In using a worldly government, who do we put our trust in? When I cast my vote did I just put my trust in God or in the political machine? Am I trusting God to provide and take care of me or am I hoping that this candidate has a better chance than the other guy to solve the economic crisis so that I can have that good income again?
This isn’t to say that God doesn’t use the governments we establish for His purposes. God used the nations surrounding Israel to punish her when she faltered. Although I may cast my vote it is God who establishes and uses the leader. I like to look at the current system as C.S. Lewis and Tolkien imagined the beginning of the earth. Both men wrote that the world began by God singing it into being. But at some point someone didn’t like the way the song was going. In The Chronicles of Narnia: The Magician’s Nephew, it was the Queen and the boy’s crazy uncle who did not like the song. The Queen hated it so much she threw the piece of lamppost at Aslan with a killing blow. Instead, it bounced off his head, and Aslan was able to incorporate the lamppost into the future of Narnia. Tolkien does a similar method with the Simarillion, where God sings the heavenly host into being. He then gives each a part of the orchestra to conduct of their own, and as they begin to make their own music they see how God has already been weaving their individual pieces together to form a masterpiece. But one of the hosts doesn’t like this, and tries to ruin it. He begins attempts to make dis-chord and noise that will break the dance, tune and beauty of the orchestra. Yet all the while God still manages to incorporate the dis-chord into the beauty of the symphony as well. As much as we end up messing up this world, God still manages to work it into his divine plan and for His glory.
I thought it was funny how quickly everyone was at commenting in the first post about how they didn’t believe America to be a Christian nation when I never actually said it was in that post. All I said was, “What might a Christian nation look like?” I believe your right. I don’t think America is a ‘Christian’ nation. Why do we believe it is? We’ve already reminded ourselves that it was primarily for economic reasons that the founding fathers began the work on it, so it wasn’t based in faith. We can’t say that it’s based on population percentage that believes, because only half of the country is Christian. What would a country look like that truly was Christian? I don’t know about you, but exploring this is the most exciting part of this whole series. Because it is not just about what a Christian society on earth would look like – it’s a sneak peek at the possibility of what heaven will be like! I look forward to seeing you all again tomorrow, as we enter into the Christian society…
Friday, October 31, 2008
On Being a Citizen, Part 2-1 of 5
(This is the first segment of part 2. Please read this before reading the 'previous' post [2-2])
the corporate machine. I can already hear some laughter and scoffing, and probably deservedly so since we’ve seen quite a bit of growth in governmental authority during the W. Bush administration and the Republican dominated congress. But this was at least their guiding principle to begin with, and since we’re dealing with beginnings here, let’s forgive for a minute and go with the beginnings. The idea was formed off the idea that the government should not have too much power, a fear America has had since its inception. This has generally led Republicans to the idea that they should put less power in the hands of the government and allow the Corporate Machine to provide for the goods and services that the country needs. The positive idea behind this is that it allows the government to tax people less since the Corporate Machine fights between itself to offer the better services to the people. In the midst of that fight the companies work to bring consumers better products at lower prices to try and gain their purchasing power. This philosophy feeds into pretty much everything the Republicans do…
Economics
This is pretty much the philosophy right here. “We could offer nation-wide health care, sure. But then we’d have to tax more for it and it puts more power in our hands. Why not allow businesses to take care of that for us and pass the savings in taxes along to the citizens?” “We could raise taxes to help take care of less fortunate peoples, but that would mean we’d have to tax more and it puts more power in our hands. Why not allow businesses, churches and non-profit organizations handle that?” “We could put more regulation on the corporate machine, but that’d put more power in our hands. Plus, if we regulate them too much they threaten to take their business elsewhere, and people need the Corporate Machine, because who else will take care of them? Who else will provide the jobs and services we need?”
The idea is to work in a capitalistic mindset. It will work if everyone buys, buys, buys. You have to spend, spend, spend. That’s how our businesses provide and that’s how the government runs and that’s the best way to run it. Capitalism, all the way.
Environment
Rather than being too concerned about the environment, the government allows Non-Profit Organizations or the Corporate Machine to do the job of being environmentally responsible. Businesses are allowed to conduct business at their leisure as long as they use common sense not to release anything that will hurt people, and concern themselves only with the environment when it clearly puts the people at risk. It puts more power into the hands of the people, the governed than the government itself.
War/Diplomacy
Here the government concerns itself where the economic welfare and interests of America. If a country that provides us with good economic goods and services is threatened we will move in to protect those interests at all costs. As far as diplomatic relations are concerned the government is willing to work with other countries since they are tied to us economically, but they will never exceed our sovereignty in the world. We, as the United States of America, are the reigning superpower and we need help from no nation.
Now, to be fair, the Republicans would also argue that their philosophy on war/diplomacy also is concerned with ethical rights of others, wanting to make sure that people’s lives and rights as humans are not violated.
Life
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The party believes that everyone is entitled to life. That all unborn children are entitled to that opportunity to life they have before them and that those lives are precious. We should work to protect those lives, and that abortion is a crime in denying someone their right to life.
Religion
Although I’m sure there are some Republicans in Congress or the Senate don’t even bother claiming Christianity, by and large the party is known for its ties to the Christian faith. The general idea of the party is that there should be a separation of Church and State, to protect the Church from the State. Because, after all, if the State became too involved in the Church then it would mean too much power to the Federal, a genuine fear of Republicans.
John McCain
And now to the man of the hour, himself. I have to say, I was quite impressed with him for quite a long time. I heard about how he had been a prisoner of war in Vietnam and was beaten as an American soldier. I heard the story of how he was offered a chance to leave when the Vietnamese realized he was an Admiral’s son. I was shocked to hear that he refused unless he could leave with his men, too. And it hurt to hear that instead he was beaten so badly he still has trouble raising his arms past a certain point.
I was encouraged to hear that here was a man who was willing to cross the line for when it mattered for the country instead of his party. Those are pretty admirable characteristics coming from a politician, especially in recent years when the military experience has been so questionable (National Guard? Purple Heart for a scratch?). Or how partisan some candidates have been.
He’s also able to acknowledge that things aren’t looking so well right now and still laugh about it in good spirit with his peers and Obama.
Unfortunately, things aren’t all roses for the Republican Party. It’s now time to visit some of the details and inconsistencies Rep’s don’t like to mention – especially around election time.
John McCain
Yes, it is admirable his dedication to his men on tour with him – of that I will make no argument. What disappoints me so much about McCain was the mudslinging he started doing towards the end of the campaign. Maybe the smear and fear campaign was a last ditch effort to grab some votes back before the election. Either way, it was something pretty a-typical for a ‘maverick.’
Religion
While Republicans officials talk the talk about how important faith is in their lives, actions speak pretty clearly. They’ve been involved in just as much corruption and scandal as anyone else. And while they claim the idea of Separation of Church and State, just how Separate do they want it? They want the Church’s votes, they want the Church to help lobby for their causes, but they don’t want to be too involved in the church? “No,” they say, “instead of getting involved ourselves we’ll just tell you how you should get involved for us.”
Life
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. “We believe that all life is precious!” *Excluding those that hate us, have the slightest inclination of hurting us, those that get in the way of those hurting us, or those that just happen to be caught in the middle when the bombs drop. Oops, sorry. It was for the greater good.*
I hate to make it sound so light-hearted, because truth to be told it’s sad. If life is precious then life is precious. I can understand from a political perspective the desire to form a defense for your people, but in a time when we can defend ourselves better, do we really need to strike out with the sword quite so much? How long will we wield it before the blood rusts the blade?
If all life is precious, then why don’t we step in for the orphans, the weak, the helpless? Why don’t we step in for those lost because of the system or other circumstances? Isn’t all life precious? Or is it only if they stand a possible current or future economic value based on their likelihood of “success”?
Republicans officials are also typically for the death penalty. But why? From an economic standpoint it costs more in legal fees to try and execute a person than keep them in prison for life. And if all life is precious, why not make all…life…precious?
War/Diplomacy
Although Rep officials claim the purposes for entering war are good and just, have we not learned anything? We went into Iran and trained the people there to overthrow the government. We got our wish – they kicked out their government, then they kicked us out too. We charged into Iraq to free the people of a terrible tyrant. But wait, didn’t we wait till we thought they had weapons of mass destruction? I’m not arguing that Saddam was a cruel and sadistic man, of that I have no doubt. But we knew well before hand that he was striking out at his own people. If we cared so much about them then, why not go before? If we care so much about the rights of people that we are going to attack “corrupt” or terroristic nations, why did we never enter Rwanda during the genocide? Why are we not helping in the Congo instead of just with “Peacekeepers”? Why aren’t we going into other countries with known human rights violations or terrorists? Don’t feed me that bull crap line anymore.
Environment
Sure, allow the Corporate Machine to take care of the environment. Wait, what?! Since when has the Corporate Machine ever cared about the environment? Oh yeah, as soon as it started hitting their pocketbooks either in resources or loss of sales. Let’s face it, America: The only times we’ve cared about the environment is when it was either a fad or it was cheaper. So we pass off the responsibility of regulation to non-profits, which means it takes even longer then for the information to be found out, and then that information can be countered with the Corporate Machine’s own research. Smooth Rep’s. Smooth.
Economics
I think this may very well be the one thing the Republican officials are consistent in, but consistent to a fault. Their lack of effort to help the people so that they can allow their philosophy of letting the Corporate Machine run its course is ruining the country.
“We’ll let the Corporate Machine provide health care services, so that we don’t have to expand Federal power and allow for lower taxes” *even if it does mean that the people are completely abused by the system the Corporate Machine has set up in the absence of government*
“We’ll let the Corporate Machine provide the goods and services for the people that are suffering. If we stepped in, it’d mean more taxes and more power to the government, and we clearly don’t want that. We’ll let corporations, non-profits and churches take care of those people.” *even if that does mean that people are overlooked while the Corporate Machine only helps to save face, non-profits only help when they can or if people meet certain criteria, and the saddest part of all – that the church often does the exact same thing; that right there should put a tear of shame in every single one of our eyes (I’m just as guilty).*
The Republican philosophy could be considered good in theory, but failed in reality. When the Government does not take enough regulation in the Corporate Machine, it’s not just the people that get walked over; our government is perceived as a whore.
the corporate machine. I can already hear some laughter and scoffing, and probably deservedly so since we’ve seen quite a bit of growth in governmental authority during the W. Bush administration and the Republican dominated congress. But this was at least their guiding principle to begin with, and since we’re dealing with beginnings here, let’s forgive for a minute and go with the beginnings. The idea was formed off the idea that the government should not have too much power, a fear America has had since its inception. This has generally led Republicans to the idea that they should put less power in the hands of the government and allow the Corporate Machine to provide for the goods and services that the country needs. The positive idea behind this is that it allows the government to tax people less since the Corporate Machine fights between itself to offer the better services to the people. In the midst of that fight the companies work to bring consumers better products at lower prices to try and gain their purchasing power. This philosophy feeds into pretty much everything the Republicans do…
Economics
This is pretty much the philosophy right here. “We could offer nation-wide health care, sure. But then we’d have to tax more for it and it puts more power in our hands. Why not allow businesses to take care of that for us and pass the savings in taxes along to the citizens?” “We could raise taxes to help take care of less fortunate peoples, but that would mean we’d have to tax more and it puts more power in our hands. Why not allow businesses, churches and non-profit organizations handle that?” “We could put more regulation on the corporate machine, but that’d put more power in our hands. Plus, if we regulate them too much they threaten to take their business elsewhere, and people need the Corporate Machine, because who else will take care of them? Who else will provide the jobs and services we need?”
The idea is to work in a capitalistic mindset. It will work if everyone buys, buys, buys. You have to spend, spend, spend. That’s how our businesses provide and that’s how the government runs and that’s the best way to run it. Capitalism, all the way.
Environment
Rather than being too concerned about the environment, the government allows Non-Profit Organizations or the Corporate Machine to do the job of being environmentally responsible. Businesses are allowed to conduct business at their leisure as long as they use common sense not to release anything that will hurt people, and concern themselves only with the environment when it clearly puts the people at risk. It puts more power into the hands of the people, the governed than the government itself.
War/Diplomacy
Here the government concerns itself where the economic welfare and interests of America. If a country that provides us with good economic goods and services is threatened we will move in to protect those interests at all costs. As far as diplomatic relations are concerned the government is willing to work with other countries since they are tied to us economically, but they will never exceed our sovereignty in the world. We, as the United States of America, are the reigning superpower and we need help from no nation.
Now, to be fair, the Republicans would also argue that their philosophy on war/diplomacy also is concerned with ethical rights of others, wanting to make sure that people’s lives and rights as humans are not violated.
Life
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The party believes that everyone is entitled to life. That all unborn children are entitled to that opportunity to life they have before them and that those lives are precious. We should work to protect those lives, and that abortion is a crime in denying someone their right to life.
Religion
Although I’m sure there are some Republicans in Congress or the Senate don’t even bother claiming Christianity, by and large the party is known for its ties to the Christian faith. The general idea of the party is that there should be a separation of Church and State, to protect the Church from the State. Because, after all, if the State became too involved in the Church then it would mean too much power to the Federal, a genuine fear of Republicans.
John McCain
And now to the man of the hour, himself. I have to say, I was quite impressed with him for quite a long time. I heard about how he had been a prisoner of war in Vietnam and was beaten as an American soldier. I heard the story of how he was offered a chance to leave when the Vietnamese realized he was an Admiral’s son. I was shocked to hear that he refused unless he could leave with his men, too. And it hurt to hear that instead he was beaten so badly he still has trouble raising his arms past a certain point.
I was encouraged to hear that here was a man who was willing to cross the line for when it mattered for the country instead of his party. Those are pretty admirable characteristics coming from a politician, especially in recent years when the military experience has been so questionable (National Guard? Purple Heart for a scratch?). Or how partisan some candidates have been.
He’s also able to acknowledge that things aren’t looking so well right now and still laugh about it in good spirit with his peers and Obama.
Unfortunately, things aren’t all roses for the Republican Party. It’s now time to visit some of the details and inconsistencies Rep’s don’t like to mention – especially around election time.
John McCain
Yes, it is admirable his dedication to his men on tour with him – of that I will make no argument. What disappoints me so much about McCain was the mudslinging he started doing towards the end of the campaign. Maybe the smear and fear campaign was a last ditch effort to grab some votes back before the election. Either way, it was something pretty a-typical for a ‘maverick.’
Religion
While Republicans officials talk the talk about how important faith is in their lives, actions speak pretty clearly. They’ve been involved in just as much corruption and scandal as anyone else. And while they claim the idea of Separation of Church and State, just how Separate do they want it? They want the Church’s votes, they want the Church to help lobby for their causes, but they don’t want to be too involved in the church? “No,” they say, “instead of getting involved ourselves we’ll just tell you how you should get involved for us.”
Life
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. “We believe that all life is precious!” *Excluding those that hate us, have the slightest inclination of hurting us, those that get in the way of those hurting us, or those that just happen to be caught in the middle when the bombs drop. Oops, sorry. It was for the greater good.*
I hate to make it sound so light-hearted, because truth to be told it’s sad. If life is precious then life is precious. I can understand from a political perspective the desire to form a defense for your people, but in a time when we can defend ourselves better, do we really need to strike out with the sword quite so much? How long will we wield it before the blood rusts the blade?
If all life is precious, then why don’t we step in for the orphans, the weak, the helpless? Why don’t we step in for those lost because of the system or other circumstances? Isn’t all life precious? Or is it only if they stand a possible current or future economic value based on their likelihood of “success”?
Republicans officials are also typically for the death penalty. But why? From an economic standpoint it costs more in legal fees to try and execute a person than keep them in prison for life. And if all life is precious, why not make all…life…precious?
War/Diplomacy
Although Rep officials claim the purposes for entering war are good and just, have we not learned anything? We went into Iran and trained the people there to overthrow the government. We got our wish – they kicked out their government, then they kicked us out too. We charged into Iraq to free the people of a terrible tyrant. But wait, didn’t we wait till we thought they had weapons of mass destruction? I’m not arguing that Saddam was a cruel and sadistic man, of that I have no doubt. But we knew well before hand that he was striking out at his own people. If we cared so much about them then, why not go before? If we care so much about the rights of people that we are going to attack “corrupt” or terroristic nations, why did we never enter Rwanda during the genocide? Why are we not helping in the Congo instead of just with “Peacekeepers”? Why aren’t we going into other countries with known human rights violations or terrorists? Don’t feed me that bull crap line anymore.
Environment
Sure, allow the Corporate Machine to take care of the environment. Wait, what?! Since when has the Corporate Machine ever cared about the environment? Oh yeah, as soon as it started hitting their pocketbooks either in resources or loss of sales. Let’s face it, America: The only times we’ve cared about the environment is when it was either a fad or it was cheaper. So we pass off the responsibility of regulation to non-profits, which means it takes even longer then for the information to be found out, and then that information can be countered with the Corporate Machine’s own research. Smooth Rep’s. Smooth.
Economics
I think this may very well be the one thing the Republican officials are consistent in, but consistent to a fault. Their lack of effort to help the people so that they can allow their philosophy of letting the Corporate Machine run its course is ruining the country.
“We’ll let the Corporate Machine provide health care services, so that we don’t have to expand Federal power and allow for lower taxes” *even if it does mean that the people are completely abused by the system the Corporate Machine has set up in the absence of government*
“We’ll let the Corporate Machine provide the goods and services for the people that are suffering. If we stepped in, it’d mean more taxes and more power to the government, and we clearly don’t want that. We’ll let corporations, non-profits and churches take care of those people.” *even if that does mean that people are overlooked while the Corporate Machine only helps to save face, non-profits only help when they can or if people meet certain criteria, and the saddest part of all – that the church often does the exact same thing; that right there should put a tear of shame in every single one of our eyes (I’m just as guilty).*
The Republican philosophy could be considered good in theory, but failed in reality. When the Government does not take enough regulation in the Corporate Machine, it’s not just the people that get walked over; our government is perceived as a whore.
On Being a Citizen, Part 2-2 of 5
(I'm posting this first so that the continuity flows better, as I feel the post is simply too big for one entry. Please read 2-1 before reading this.)
Just like the Republicans we’ll begin the Democratic Party with their guiding philosophy. (I apologize if I mess this up a bit, as I have only taken interest in Democratic policies in recent years.) My understanding of the Democratic philosophy and guiding principle is the government should take more control so as to take care of her people and give less power to the Corporate Machine. Here’s how that fits…
Economics
Like the Republicans, the philosophy pretty well drives the Economics. “It’s not fair that people make billions of dollars while some people go hungry. We should tax more so that people can be taken care of instead of abused. We’ll be responsible for collecting and distributing the money, so the power will reside here in the Federal.” Seeing the failure of people being taken care of they decide to take matters into their own hands.
Environment
The Earth’s resources are slowly dwindling, and who’s protecting it? “Nobody,” is the Dem’s response, “So we’ll step in and do it ourselves.” The Democrats push for more Federal control to restrain the Corporate Machine and make them more responsible for their actions. They promise stricter observance of the rules and that the environment must be protected.
War/Diplomacy
Most Democrats will argue left and right against war. My understanding is that while they do believe in good reasons for war, these are rare and that diplomacy should reign. We should continue trying to talk to people to convince them when they’re wrong.
Life
“We believe all life is precious!” cry the Democrats, too. They argue against war because of the lives lost (foreign and domestic). They argue against the death penalty (for the most part) for the value of life is precious. We should help the suffering, the poor, the sick and the orphans because all life is precious.
Religion
I know it’s hard for some people to believe, but plenty of Democrats call on the name of Christ just like the Republicans. (I mean that in respect to the Democrats, not as a joke. Remember, this is positive time.) What’s neat about the Democrats is that they seem more willing to accept other religious perspectives as well. From a political standpoint in a country that claims the importance of all faiths, that’s really impressive. Plenty candidates and such will still argue fervently for their membership in the Church, but nevertheless, the point is interesting.
Barack Obama
Now here is a man for the history books. At just over the age required by law to be president, he is practically there. Not only is his young age incredible but the man is African-American! It is not only a testament to his motivation of the public or his courage but also of the growth of our country that he has made it this far. Regardless of whether or not he wins, Kudos to him for being willing to take the fight this far. He also seems to be holding a good sense of humor when teased by his opponent McCain at a dinner recently. And while he may be inexperienced, maybe that’s just what the country needs – someone not so tied to the way the system works.
If nothing else speaks for this man’s credibility, it would be this one thing: Colin Powell has endorsed the man. Now if Colin Powell was a Democrat, you could simply push it aside as party politics. But Powell is a registered Republican!! What a blow! And it wasn’t just because “he’s black.” Powell has said that it was because after talking with both men about the economic crisis and how to handle it, he felt Obama had a better chance. Colin Powell is a man most of this country would vote for in a heartbeat if he ran. American trusts him, and many countries respect him. If he’s got Colin Powell’s endorsement, he’s at least got my ear.
But I showed the bad for the Republicans, it’s only fair I do the same for the Democrats. So here it goes.
Barack Obama
Maybe his inexperience will help, but he’s just that: inexperienced. Sure, he’s had some time as a Senator, but 5-7 years in a Senate seat isn’t much compared to 20-30 years of watching the political machine move. From a political standpoint, you tie that together with the fact he doesn’t have any military experience and it’s a bit concerning. Again, maybe that’s precisely what America wants and needs right now, but if we’re talking negatives let’s get these out in the open. Also, let’s be fair and remember that while Obama may not be throwing much mud right now, he threw enough mud of his own at Hillary during the Democratic convention.
Religion
Again, maybe they are more diverse, but they play the game just like the Republicans. As soon as candidacy time comes the question becomes who is more Christian and who has the better Church connections? They pander to the Church like a man with money walking down a neon-lit street.
Life
Just like the Republicans, let’s see some consistency here. If we’re going to claim that every life is precious, then why are we so eager to claim that unborn babies are not alive and give them up to abortion? Maybe the idea is simply putting more government control on a situation that is occurring anyhow, but if life is precious then it is precious – period.
War/Diplomacy
Forgive me if I’m mistaken, but I believe after 9/11 we saw all the politicians were voting for strikes. We were mad, we wanted justice… No, we wanted revenge. We had been hurt and we wanted to put the hurt back. My personal experience of Democratic officials is that they will pander to what the people want here. They will make the promises to whatever the people want.
Environment
While the Democrats do seem pretty steady on this issue, it is strange. If they truly are so adamant about the health of the environment through government control, why not push harder for alternative energy methods and pushing the energy companies to work with the car companies to provide faster methods of obtaining alternative energy solutions? And how odd is it that we value the life of a tree over the life of a child?
Economics
Here is where much of the Democratic power loses its sway on me. Because the Democrats need the Corporate Machine just as much as the Republicans do. Because while they don’t want to admit it they rely on the Corporate Machine just as much for their campaign money so they can stay in office. They rely on the Corporate Machine to provide jobs for the people that vote for them just as much as the Republicans. And at least the Republicans admit they pander to the Corporate Machine. The Democratic officials simply smile and make promises to the guy on the assembly line while they just talked to the owner twenty minutes prior to promise just the opposite.
In general, like the Republicans, while I believe the Democratic philosophy is good in theory it fails in practicality.
That will really have to be the end of my evaluation of the Republican and Democratic parties for tonight. I’m sure you’re relieved, but before I close completely I want to end with this:
Both parties have good and bad aspects to them. But I don’t want you to come away from this looking at Republicans OR Democrats thinking that they’re despicable people, or how dare they claim faith in Christ and pander us the way they do? Because the fact of the matter is that a) we’ve let them do it and b) they’re children of God. As much as it may frustrate us on one party or the other of the terrible things we view either party to have done, or whether they truly believe in Christ or are only using his name to promote themselves, the fact of the matter is that they are God’s children and we are called to love them as Christ loved us. We are all shattered and broken and it’s only through Christ that we are made whole again. For those of us that have put on Christ we must remember that we, too, once lived a life very similar to that. We have to remember that it is only because of Christ that we have any hope at all, and we have to show them that as well. Our response cannot be like the Unmerciful Servant but like that of Christ. Faithful and loving to the end, even throughout all the tragedy, brokenness and horror. Because Christ has loved us through all of ours.
I know today’s post has been long, and I hope I haven’t scared you off. I hope you’ll return tomorrow for the role of government, because we’ll go from there to what a Christian nation might look like…
*I apologize if some of these entries were shorter than what they probably deserved. The fact of the matter is that I am typing this late at night and have to be in to work early in the morning for a long work day. Again, I'm not targeting specific people with this, simply the political machine. Also, sorry if I get some of my information wrong as far as party policies to certain matters, but this is my general opinion of politicians right now from watching the way the parties act.*
Just like the Republicans we’ll begin the Democratic Party with their guiding philosophy. (I apologize if I mess this up a bit, as I have only taken interest in Democratic policies in recent years.) My understanding of the Democratic philosophy and guiding principle is the government should take more control so as to take care of her people and give less power to the Corporate Machine. Here’s how that fits…
Economics
Like the Republicans, the philosophy pretty well drives the Economics. “It’s not fair that people make billions of dollars while some people go hungry. We should tax more so that people can be taken care of instead of abused. We’ll be responsible for collecting and distributing the money, so the power will reside here in the Federal.” Seeing the failure of people being taken care of they decide to take matters into their own hands.
Environment
The Earth’s resources are slowly dwindling, and who’s protecting it? “Nobody,” is the Dem’s response, “So we’ll step in and do it ourselves.” The Democrats push for more Federal control to restrain the Corporate Machine and make them more responsible for their actions. They promise stricter observance of the rules and that the environment must be protected.
War/Diplomacy
Most Democrats will argue left and right against war. My understanding is that while they do believe in good reasons for war, these are rare and that diplomacy should reign. We should continue trying to talk to people to convince them when they’re wrong.
Life
“We believe all life is precious!” cry the Democrats, too. They argue against war because of the lives lost (foreign and domestic). They argue against the death penalty (for the most part) for the value of life is precious. We should help the suffering, the poor, the sick and the orphans because all life is precious.
Religion
I know it’s hard for some people to believe, but plenty of Democrats call on the name of Christ just like the Republicans. (I mean that in respect to the Democrats, not as a joke. Remember, this is positive time.) What’s neat about the Democrats is that they seem more willing to accept other religious perspectives as well. From a political standpoint in a country that claims the importance of all faiths, that’s really impressive. Plenty candidates and such will still argue fervently for their membership in the Church, but nevertheless, the point is interesting.
Barack Obama
Now here is a man for the history books. At just over the age required by law to be president, he is practically there. Not only is his young age incredible but the man is African-American! It is not only a testament to his motivation of the public or his courage but also of the growth of our country that he has made it this far. Regardless of whether or not he wins, Kudos to him for being willing to take the fight this far. He also seems to be holding a good sense of humor when teased by his opponent McCain at a dinner recently. And while he may be inexperienced, maybe that’s just what the country needs – someone not so tied to the way the system works.
If nothing else speaks for this man’s credibility, it would be this one thing: Colin Powell has endorsed the man. Now if Colin Powell was a Democrat, you could simply push it aside as party politics. But Powell is a registered Republican!! What a blow! And it wasn’t just because “he’s black.” Powell has said that it was because after talking with both men about the economic crisis and how to handle it, he felt Obama had a better chance. Colin Powell is a man most of this country would vote for in a heartbeat if he ran. American trusts him, and many countries respect him. If he’s got Colin Powell’s endorsement, he’s at least got my ear.
But I showed the bad for the Republicans, it’s only fair I do the same for the Democrats. So here it goes.
Barack Obama
Maybe his inexperience will help, but he’s just that: inexperienced. Sure, he’s had some time as a Senator, but 5-7 years in a Senate seat isn’t much compared to 20-30 years of watching the political machine move. From a political standpoint, you tie that together with the fact he doesn’t have any military experience and it’s a bit concerning. Again, maybe that’s precisely what America wants and needs right now, but if we’re talking negatives let’s get these out in the open. Also, let’s be fair and remember that while Obama may not be throwing much mud right now, he threw enough mud of his own at Hillary during the Democratic convention.
Religion
Again, maybe they are more diverse, but they play the game just like the Republicans. As soon as candidacy time comes the question becomes who is more Christian and who has the better Church connections? They pander to the Church like a man with money walking down a neon-lit street.
Life
Just like the Republicans, let’s see some consistency here. If we’re going to claim that every life is precious, then why are we so eager to claim that unborn babies are not alive and give them up to abortion? Maybe the idea is simply putting more government control on a situation that is occurring anyhow, but if life is precious then it is precious – period.
War/Diplomacy
Forgive me if I’m mistaken, but I believe after 9/11 we saw all the politicians were voting for strikes. We were mad, we wanted justice… No, we wanted revenge. We had been hurt and we wanted to put the hurt back. My personal experience of Democratic officials is that they will pander to what the people want here. They will make the promises to whatever the people want.
Environment
While the Democrats do seem pretty steady on this issue, it is strange. If they truly are so adamant about the health of the environment through government control, why not push harder for alternative energy methods and pushing the energy companies to work with the car companies to provide faster methods of obtaining alternative energy solutions? And how odd is it that we value the life of a tree over the life of a child?
Economics
Here is where much of the Democratic power loses its sway on me. Because the Democrats need the Corporate Machine just as much as the Republicans do. Because while they don’t want to admit it they rely on the Corporate Machine just as much for their campaign money so they can stay in office. They rely on the Corporate Machine to provide jobs for the people that vote for them just as much as the Republicans. And at least the Republicans admit they pander to the Corporate Machine. The Democratic officials simply smile and make promises to the guy on the assembly line while they just talked to the owner twenty minutes prior to promise just the opposite.
In general, like the Republicans, while I believe the Democratic philosophy is good in theory it fails in practicality.
That will really have to be the end of my evaluation of the Republican and Democratic parties for tonight. I’m sure you’re relieved, but before I close completely I want to end with this:
Both parties have good and bad aspects to them. But I don’t want you to come away from this looking at Republicans OR Democrats thinking that they’re despicable people, or how dare they claim faith in Christ and pander us the way they do? Because the fact of the matter is that a) we’ve let them do it and b) they’re children of God. As much as it may frustrate us on one party or the other of the terrible things we view either party to have done, or whether they truly believe in Christ or are only using his name to promote themselves, the fact of the matter is that they are God’s children and we are called to love them as Christ loved us. We are all shattered and broken and it’s only through Christ that we are made whole again. For those of us that have put on Christ we must remember that we, too, once lived a life very similar to that. We have to remember that it is only because of Christ that we have any hope at all, and we have to show them that as well. Our response cannot be like the Unmerciful Servant but like that of Christ. Faithful and loving to the end, even throughout all the tragedy, brokenness and horror. Because Christ has loved us through all of ours.
I know today’s post has been long, and I hope I haven’t scared you off. I hope you’ll return tomorrow for the role of government, because we’ll go from there to what a Christian nation might look like…
*I apologize if some of these entries were shorter than what they probably deserved. The fact of the matter is that I am typing this late at night and have to be in to work early in the morning for a long work day. Again, I'm not targeting specific people with this, simply the political machine. Also, sorry if I get some of my information wrong as far as party policies to certain matters, but this is my general opinion of politicians right now from watching the way the parties act.*
Thursday, October 30, 2008
On Being a Citizen, Part 1 of 5
It’s that wonderful time of the year again. Time when a nation turns against itself to learn who would lead the country for the next four years. Isn’t it a great time? People argue over who is more Christian than the other, and at the same time argue why the other candidate is a complete idiot compared to him/her. People argue over which is more right, to have the government regulate how much income you make or to let corporations regulate how much income you make. Either way, both people smile and make claims of just wanting to help the little guy, all the while stabbing him in the back. They argue over how precious they value life. One values the life of the unborn while deeming the life of foreigners and our own forfeit while the other deems the unborn as less than human. They will agree on one thing though, and that is that the one thing we need our people to do is spend, spend, SPEND!! We can’t stop spending or else this whole thing falls apart. “What if I don’t have the money to spend?” says the middle-income family. “Why then we’ll get you a credit line so you can spend money!!” shout the politicians. “What about me? I can’t afford to feed my kids!” cries the low-income single mom. “You’re not important,” is the response they get from one, while another says, “I’ll work to get you help sometime in the future…”
What a nation we are. We worry and fret about what will happen if this person is elected or that. We worry about how others will view us if this person is elected or that one. We consider economics, homosexuality, and all sorts of things. So who do we vote for? Half the country says to vote one way, the other half says to vote the other way. It’s even more stressed this year (whether the stress is actually greater or not) because of the economic issue, because of war issues, because of racial issues, because of gender issues. It’s always a call that is of such grave concern that it demands our utmost attention. This is a problem I’ve been debating for some time and one that I’ve finally had to come to some workable conclusion to in the past month. Because for me it’s not simply a question of who do I vote for as an American citizen. The bigger question is who do I vote for as a Christian? I wish I could just make this a quick and easy statement, but unfortunately this is gonna take some time. It’s not a simple question, and so the answer itself isn’t simple either. I hope you don’t mind joining me for a few days while I show you the process I’ve been going through. Because in going through this process I’ve had to consider the Democrats, the Republicans, the role of government as it was intended and where I personally believe it stands today. I’ll have to show you what I think a Christian nation looks like, and what I believe the Christian response for today is. It’s been an intriguing journey for me, so I hope you don’t mind it also. If you are interested, then grab a cup of coffee come tomorrow, because I’ll be posting one part each day leading up to the election day.
What a nation we are. We worry and fret about what will happen if this person is elected or that. We worry about how others will view us if this person is elected or that one. We consider economics, homosexuality, and all sorts of things. So who do we vote for? Half the country says to vote one way, the other half says to vote the other way. It’s even more stressed this year (whether the stress is actually greater or not) because of the economic issue, because of war issues, because of racial issues, because of gender issues. It’s always a call that is of such grave concern that it demands our utmost attention. This is a problem I’ve been debating for some time and one that I’ve finally had to come to some workable conclusion to in the past month. Because for me it’s not simply a question of who do I vote for as an American citizen. The bigger question is who do I vote for as a Christian? I wish I could just make this a quick and easy statement, but unfortunately this is gonna take some time. It’s not a simple question, and so the answer itself isn’t simple either. I hope you don’t mind joining me for a few days while I show you the process I’ve been going through. Because in going through this process I’ve had to consider the Democrats, the Republicans, the role of government as it was intended and where I personally believe it stands today. I’ll have to show you what I think a Christian nation looks like, and what I believe the Christian response for today is. It’s been an intriguing journey for me, so I hope you don’t mind it also. If you are interested, then grab a cup of coffee come tomorrow, because I’ll be posting one part each day leading up to the election day.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Thoughts from the News
10/20/2008
On economics
Gathered from reading the following articles at csmonitor.com
• A Financial New World Order? By Howard LaFranchi, from October 20, 2008 edition.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1020/p01s01-usec.html
• Credit Crisis Driving Global Cooperation, By Peter Grier, Robert Marquand and Mark Rice-Oxley, from the October 14, 2008 edition.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1014/p01s04-wogn.html
The world governments are starting to realize that in this new day and age they will need to be willing to not only work together and have a global regulatory economy, but be willing to work with groups they have left out in the past, such as China, South America, Latin America, Africa – and maybe even other groups like Iran and North Korea (if the North is actually contributing anything to the global market…). And while this is good, I still think it’s not acknowledging the coming economy. This convention and reorganization of the global market should have been done long ago. Now I think they will need to just redo it again in a couple decades, or they’ll just continue to encounter the same problem.
I say this just because of the fact that I still believe an open market is somewhere on the horizon. Even if it’s not, the problem will remain: pirating media is just the beginning of the problem, but it’s still a significant economic problem. There are billions in any country’s currency being lost because people are pirating the movies, music and media business. Some are doing it strictly for a profit, some are doing it out of spite. Whatever the reason the effect is still the same: potential billions are lost. I just think that the global leaders need to at least start acknowledging that it’s on the way and they need to start making plans for it…
On NGO’s
Gathered from reading the following article
• Afghanistan’s Emerging Anti-war Movement, By Anand Gopal, from the October 20, 2008 edition.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1020/p07s02-wosc.html
• Development: South America Fights Poverty in its Own Way, By Daniel Estrada, October 17, 2008.
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=44323
It seems that NGO’s (non-governmental organizations) are going to be a new major player in politics. Then again, they may also just be another name for “lobbys.”
In either case, it was neat reading the article about how the Afghanistans are starting to work on peace on their own, and recognize the need for it to come from themselves not wanting interference from other countries. More should follow suit. Of course, maybe more have, and I’m just now noticing.
10/21/2008
On US Relations
• Politics: New Cuba Policy in Sight?, by Patricia Grogg, October 20, 2008
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=44356
The article notes how Obama has talked about starting talks back up with Cuba, but at his time, under his conditions. I think this Morales guy has a point. If Obama wants to talk with Cuba, he should be willing to work it out on both leaders times, and should allow for a joint decision on what will be discussed. And he shouldn’t even think about talking about the “freedom of the people of Cuba.” That’s just rude.
But in all honesty, shouldn’t this be the way American leaders handle all relations with foreign countries? Where we don’t take the “leading role” that’s gotten us into so much trouble before and allow for joint control? It’s hard to say we have the “most influence” any more when we exist in a global economy and political machine.
On economics
Gathered from reading the following articles at csmonitor.com
• A Financial New World Order? By Howard LaFranchi, from October 20, 2008 edition.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1020/p01s01-usec.html
• Credit Crisis Driving Global Cooperation, By Peter Grier, Robert Marquand and Mark Rice-Oxley, from the October 14, 2008 edition.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1014/p01s04-wogn.html
The world governments are starting to realize that in this new day and age they will need to be willing to not only work together and have a global regulatory economy, but be willing to work with groups they have left out in the past, such as China, South America, Latin America, Africa – and maybe even other groups like Iran and North Korea (if the North is actually contributing anything to the global market…). And while this is good, I still think it’s not acknowledging the coming economy. This convention and reorganization of the global market should have been done long ago. Now I think they will need to just redo it again in a couple decades, or they’ll just continue to encounter the same problem.
I say this just because of the fact that I still believe an open market is somewhere on the horizon. Even if it’s not, the problem will remain: pirating media is just the beginning of the problem, but it’s still a significant economic problem. There are billions in any country’s currency being lost because people are pirating the movies, music and media business. Some are doing it strictly for a profit, some are doing it out of spite. Whatever the reason the effect is still the same: potential billions are lost. I just think that the global leaders need to at least start acknowledging that it’s on the way and they need to start making plans for it…
On NGO’s
Gathered from reading the following article
• Afghanistan’s Emerging Anti-war Movement, By Anand Gopal, from the October 20, 2008 edition.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1020/p07s02-wosc.html
• Development: South America Fights Poverty in its Own Way, By Daniel Estrada, October 17, 2008.
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=44323
It seems that NGO’s (non-governmental organizations) are going to be a new major player in politics. Then again, they may also just be another name for “lobbys.”
In either case, it was neat reading the article about how the Afghanistans are starting to work on peace on their own, and recognize the need for it to come from themselves not wanting interference from other countries. More should follow suit. Of course, maybe more have, and I’m just now noticing.
10/21/2008
On US Relations
• Politics: New Cuba Policy in Sight?, by Patricia Grogg, October 20, 2008
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=44356
The article notes how Obama has talked about starting talks back up with Cuba, but at his time, under his conditions. I think this Morales guy has a point. If Obama wants to talk with Cuba, he should be willing to work it out on both leaders times, and should allow for a joint decision on what will be discussed. And he shouldn’t even think about talking about the “freedom of the people of Cuba.” That’s just rude.
But in all honesty, shouldn’t this be the way American leaders handle all relations with foreign countries? Where we don’t take the “leading role” that’s gotten us into so much trouble before and allow for joint control? It’s hard to say we have the “most influence” any more when we exist in a global economy and political machine.
In All Fairness...
There have been a lot of people that were really upset with John McCain for having thrown done so much mud and garbage at Obama during the debates. I agree that during debates candidates should be civil with one another and not throw around so much dirt to try and show the other guy as such a terrible person. What McCain did was wrong. But let’s be fair here: I remember before the DNC where Barack Obama was flinging just as much garbage at Hillary Clinton as McCain has thrown his way. Is it OK for Obama, but not for McCain? If we’re going to get mad at one, let’s keep it consistent here folks…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)