the human condition: thoughts on culture, religion and politics

In Defense of Empathy

2010-05-10T22:04:00.000-07:00

My next book to read is Jeremy Rifkin's The Empathetic Civilization. I'm very excited to get started on it, as everything I've been reading about it seems to confirms some things I've been thinking for a while. I also think there's a lot in it that could be applied to theology. Anyways here's a quote from Rifkin writing about real freedom in his latest piece on Huffington Post.

"Freedom requires that one is treated by others as an end not as a means. One can't really be free in a society where everyone treats each other in an exploitative or instrumental manner. True freedom, therefore, is only possible in a society that lives by the "golden rule." "By doing onto others as we would have others do unto us" we express our support for the optimizing of each other's life. This is the embodiment of what freedom means. A society that lives by the golden rule and embeds it in its laws and public policy is a free society. The golden rule is rarely exercised in authoritarian regimes."

Honestly

2010-05-05T21:31:00.000-07:00

It has obviously been a while since I last blogged. Most of the time people go on a blog hiatus because they are really busy and just don't have time. That is not the case for me. I have had time, and plenty of it. Another reason most people quit blogging for a while is because they just don't have anything to blog about. That also is not an issue. I have plenty of things bouncing around in my brain to post on. The reason I haven't blogged is simply because I don't know what I believe about so many things and I A. don't want to blog on my thoughts and feelings at the moment only to look back and regret doing so and B. I often feel I just don't have enough information.

I've also been thinking about my intellectual and spiritual journey. I've come from a conservative back ground and have steadily journeyed leftward. What I don't want to be is a pendulum, and I think, on this blog at least, I have come across that way. I don't want to be a liberal fundy anymore than I want to be a conservative fundy. What I believe to be true, what I think makes the most sense, however, tends to always fall on the left rather than the right. It's just the way it is. I don't only listen, watch and read liberal sources of information. I go out of my way, like listen to Glenn Beck, to get a broad range of opinion. I read columnists like Robert Samuelson and David Brooks-- not liberal guys! -- and often agree with them on certain issues. Yet, at the end of the day, liberals often make the most sense and represent the most moral point of view.

What I've come to realize is that the only thing I can offer on my blog is my honesty. What I write represents how I view the world, and as long as I am listening to all sides and doing my best to make sense of them, then that's all I can do. If I'm wrong then that's o.k. If I mostly agree with one political view then that's o.k. as well. I can only offer an intellectually honest point of view with the information I am given. So that's what I'm trying to do, not offer a liberal or progressive point of view, just mine.

Finally

2010-03-22T06:30:00.000-07:00

Is it perfect? No. Is it even that good? Eh, I think it's ok. History was definitely made last night with the passage of the healthcare reform bill, but the bill doesn't do anywhere what needs to be done like ban basic healthcare insurance for profit, like every other developed country has.

The pluses are that discrimination based on pre-existing conditions and other nasty insurance practices will be done away with; thirty some million people in the next four years will have coverage; and healthcare insurance will be mandated. With the first and third items in effect, hopefully we can get some of the people with poorer health off medicaid and medicare and onto private plans. Oh and this plan actually seeks to pay for itself and not add to the deficit. Something that can't be said about Medicare part D which was passed under Bush.

As for the "American people's" feelings. I honestly could give a crap. I don't really care what the polls say. There's been so much disinformation put out there by the fear factory known as Fox News that I don't think most people have the slightest clue what they are talking about. Also most people have insurance that they are happy with, and it seems that unless one has personally been screwed by the current healthcare system one is less likely to be for changing it.

I thought Chuck Todd made a valid point yesterday on Meet the Press. A Democrat and Republican leader were on earlier in the show stating that they could maybe find some agreement on energy and immigration. Todd pointed out that those issues were regional, so we should expect some agreement, as where healthcare is philosophical, so we should expect the intense partisanship we have seen. My feeling is that next year this will be all history, and Americans will be as happy with this legislation as they are with another piece of legislation the Right said would take our freedom away-- Medicare.

Lastly, out of this whole mess also comes proof that pro-lifers do have a real voice in the Democratic party. So much for the Obama is the most hardcore pro-abortionist ever crap.

The Healthcare Summit

2010-02-25T09:10:00.001-08:00

I'm watching the healthcare summit. The president has pointed out that where the gov't steps in is to create a baseline standard of care. I've thought this should happen even when I was still a conservative. It seems like an obvious point. I have yet to see a Republican take this point on. Instead I hear from Republicans: "if people pay less then they will get less coverage, and if people pay more they'll get more coverage." But the people paying less are only getting high deductible catastrophic coverage which doesn't do crap for preventative medicine and routine medical needs. And that's a big part of the problem.

But to be fair. I would like to see a Democrat address the claim that employers will be more willing to drop people from their coverage and pay the fine because the fine will be cheaper.

Speechless

2010-02-08T16:56:00.000-08:00

From Politico--

PALIN: It depends on a few things. Say he played, and I got this from Buchanan, reading one of his columns the other day.(Good job Sarah, you read a newspaper) Say he played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran, or decided to really come out and do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like him to do. But that changes the dynamics in what we can assume is going to happen between now and three years. Because I think if the election were today, I do not think Obama would be re-elected.

But three years from now things could change if on the national security threat --

WALLACE: You're not suggesting that he would cynically play the war card.

PALIN: I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying, if he did, things would dramatically change if he decided to toughen up and do all that he can to secure our nation and our allies. I think people would perhaps shift their thinking a little bit and decide, well, maybe he's tougher than we think he is today. And there wouldn't be as much passion to make sure that he doesn't serve another four years --

WALLACE: But assuming he continues on the path that he going on and we don't have that rally around the flag (ph) --

PALIN: Then he's not going to win.

The prospects of this woman actually being nominated as a presidential candidate is terrifying. Obama should "toughen up", and start a war. Nice. Palin's take on foreign policy sounds like a drunken college frat boy playing alpha male and trying to impress a girl.

And then there's this gem--

Palin, who slammed Emanuel last week for calling liberal activists "f---ing retards," declined to ask conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh to apologize for using the term "retards" on his nationally syndicated show, saying Limbaugh used the word as satire.

"I didn't hear Rush Limbaugh calling a group of people who he did not agree with f---ing retards and we did know that Rahm Emanuel, it's been reported, did say that. There's a big difference there," said Palin, whose youngest son Trig has Down Syndrome.

Palin made the comment after Wallace asked her about this Limbaugh quote: "Our politically correct society is acting like some giant insult's taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards. ... I mean these people, these liberal activists, are kooks."

"Should Rush Limbaugh apologize," Wallace asked.

Palin responded, "They are kooks so I agree with Rush Limbaugh."

I can't even comment on this because I know people who support this woman, and I don't want to insult them. I don't even know what to say. She is an absolute joke. The hypocrisy is just astounding. Just decry Limbaugh's comment! But she can't. And that's how bad it's gotten.

REPEAL DON'T ASK DON'T TELL!!!... later?

2010-02-04T19:23:00.000-08:00

I used to support Don't Ask, Don't Tell on the grounds that it would be just weird and gross to shower with openly gay men. I argued that since we don't put men and women in the same bunks and have them shower together, then we shouldn't allow gay men and women to shower with other men and women. Later, however, I changed my mind. For one, I argued that the policy was dumb because gay men and women already serve in the military. The situation already was a reality and there hasn't been any huge incidents that I'm aware of. Two, we have fired many valuable soldiers who just wanted to serve their country like their hetro counterparts, and this is especially troubling since our troops are spread thin. And three, because we wouldn't expect any hetro soldier not to talk openly about his wife or girlfriend, so why should we force gay soldiers to stay silent on the subject of their loved ones. But as of late, I have kind of been on the fence about this issue.

I was listening to NPR today, and they did a story where they interviewed several marines concerning Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Many of the soldiers preferred not to talk about it, one said he was for repealing it, but another said he thought we needed to leave it alone... at least for now. His argument was that soldiers are increasingly becoming more and more stressed. And indeed, suicide among soldiers is up, and many are suffering from PTSD and other psycho-social problems. This soldier believed that if DADT is repealed right now, then we could possibly see another Matthew Shepherd incident. Repealing DADT right now, he said, could be bad for the military, the country, and the gay community.

Yet often times doing the right thing comes with a price. Should we have kept slavery legal because a lot of people died making it illegal? Still, we've lived with this policy for well over a decade, gay people technically can serve in the military, and I have to heed the warning of an individual who has been a marine for a long time and knows what that life is like. So while I'm for repealing it, maybe it won't hurt to wait.

Why I Love the Daily Dish

2010-01-25T13:45:00.000-08:00

This is just awesome. I almost peed my pants.

Obama Says F*ck It

SuperNews | MySpace Video

Also, interestingly enough, a libertarian defense of the health care bill.

Another Victory for Plutocracy

2010-01-22T08:28:00.000-08:00

Years ago when I took political science we started off our first class discussion on the topic of power. I didn't understand the significance at the time. I thought politics was all about being a conservative or liberal, and I thought we'd be spending our time discussing that. But politics, as it turns out, is really all about power, and so is the rest of life. And just like everything else in politics and government yesterday's Supreme Court decision wasn't really about freedom of speech, like the Right argues. It was about the concentration of power.

Yesterday's decision essentially allows corporations and unions (but let's face it, unions are weaker than they have every been, and don't have nearly as much money as corporations do) to use as much money as they can to create political ads supporting candidates, with the stipulation that the ad identifies who is sponsoring it. Republicans hail this decision as a victory for free speech. They argue that we have an open market place of ideas and anyone should be allowed to pay for any ad supporting any political candidate or view one wants. Add to that the warped idea that corporations are people, and the denial of allowing corporations to do this amounts to denying a person their freedom of speech. The problem is, there are good reasons why we've restricted this.

The main reason is the issue of corruption by money in politics, not that there isn't already enough of that. If a corporation spends millions on ads supporting a candidate, then that corporation will have significant influence over that politician. Furthermore, a corporation can bribe or blackmail politicians with the threat or offer to spend millions on getting him or her elected. Politicians are already representing the interests of corporations rather than the interests of the people, but now things are only going to get worse. Because let's face it, my letter to my congressman is going to have much less influence than Lehman Brothers letter that includes a 2 million dollar check. What this amounts to is the further concentration of power into the hands of the wealthy few and out of the hands of the people. This decision was anti-democratic and anti-freedom. Which shows that despite all the freedom rhetoric, Republicans don't really give a damn about freedom since the majority of corporate dollars goes to their candidates. Just like they really don't give a damn about judiciary activism, seeing as this decision was a result of that and I have yet to hear a Republican point that out.

So if you hated the amount of political ads that aired in the last election year then get ready, because you ain't seen nothing yet. And just know that most of those ads won't be for candidates that have your interest at heart, but rather for the banks, Wall Street, big insurance and energy companies.

Negro Please!

2010-01-11T18:45:00.000-08:00

This whole Harry Reid "scandal" is absolutely absurd, and is nothing more than a symptom of the vile political climate in this country. Was what he said less than tactful? Of course. Did he use an archaic term from a more racially fractured time in American history? Yes, and he probably used that term because he grew up in said period of time. And lastly, is what he said true? I think that if we were honest with ourselves we would have to answer in the affirmative. So he made an off the cuff remark using a racially insensitive word that just so happened to be true. He apologized to the person he made the statement about and that person forgave him. So what's the big deal?

The big deal is that our system is so screwed up that either side will do anything to score cheap political points. The idea that Reid should resign over what he said is ludicrous-- almost as ludicrous as these disingenuous schmucks on the right feigning outrage. And then to make it worse, the arguments Republicans are making about double standards, citing the Trent Lott remarks about Strom Thurmond, further displays their dimwittedness on race matters. Trent Lott lamented that a man who ran on a segregationist platform did not win the presidency. Let me see, saying "Gee Strom, I wish you would have become president and crushed the civil rights movement" is a little worse than Reid's inappropriate comment. But they don't seem to grasp that. The second a drop of blood hits the water, they just swarm. Because really, the truth is that they could give a damn about what Harry Reid said, they just want to take him down and gain power.

And that's a shame, because I really want to believe that there are good Republicans and Democrats who actually do want to work together for the good of the country. But as the Obama presidency has gone through it's first year, I struggle more so every day in believing that. And if I was honest, I would say that one side is worse. Above I said that "either side" will do anything to score cheap political points, and in the past that has probably been true, but the more I pay attention to politics (especially with the last election), the more I see the cheapest, most desperate and underhanded attacks coming from the right. For instance, the right has used everything from fear mongering about government takeovers to fear mongering about death panels to derail meaningful healthcare reform. And I can't help but believe they're now playing the race card to that end as well.

Done!

2010-01-07T20:15:00.000-08:00

It's hard to believe that I started blogging almost three years ago. I started doing this as I began my pre-requisite classes for my BSW. I felt that I was beginning a new chapter of my life. I had recently finished a second degree for something I was less than passionate about and only for the purpose of making more money. All along, while I was getting that degree, I was planning on going back to school simply to study what I loved whether I made money from it or not. I was excited to take a college history course, sociology classes and economics. I started blogging at that time to improve my communication skills, and learn to better articulate my thoughts. Yesterday, as I finished the internship I began in August, that chapter of my life closed.

In the past five months I've had some wonderful and challenging experiences. I've experienced moments of great hope for humanity, as well as, increasing cynicism. And blogging has been a significant factor in this experience. For all the times people have knock blogging, I truly believe it's helped me along in this journey. I know that I wrote better papers in a shorter amount of time because I blog. I know that as I worked with patients over the last six months I was able to communicate with them better because I blogged. So now that I'm done with my internship, maybe I'll do it more.

How About Now?

2009-10-12T12:30:00.000-07:00

Maybe this will finally get middle-American, populist conservatives on board with health care reform. Just wondering...

Holy Crap!

2009-10-08T14:10:00.001-07:00

The ground doesn't feel too cold, but it seems that hell may have frozen over, because Sean Hannity and Michael Moore recently debated on Sean's show and it was.... a really good discussion. If this sort of exchange was the norm for these type of shows this country might just be in better shape. I'm just stunned. And I also couldn't agree more with Moore on this. The borrowers, the average joe's, are to blame for the whole economic collapse?? Really? And the people who have all the wealth, power and smarts in this are only partially responsible? Anyways I found this to be a good, reasoned but passionate discussion, and wish there were more of this on cable news.

Health Care Around the World

2009-10-03T08:02:00.001-07:00

T.R. Reid is a journalist who recently traveled the world learning about other country's health care systems. He wrote a book about it, but his findings are also distilled in this article. Reading it just makes me crazy, because it shows that we have no excuse for having our crappy system.

The Anatomy and Physiology of the Social Organism (Culture and Social Change)

2009-09-23T09:37:00.000-07:00

The last part of the social organism is not a social institution, yet I think it might be the most important part; it is culture. Culture can be seen as the soul, the DNA or the genes of the social organism. Culture saturates and envelopes the SO, affecting it in every way. It is what the SO looks like; how it behaves; what it values and believes in etc... It is who the SO is at its core. This is why changing the morals, values and ethics of a culture-- because morals, values and ethics are cultural-- is the key to social change.

We tend to overlook the penetrating role culture plays in our lives. We regularly speak of freedom in this country, all the while forgetting how tremendously limited our freedom is. We are, in fact, products of our culture, and this truth is central to post-modern thought. So when one thinks of social change, it is imperative to note that true change only takes hold when there is cultural change. For instance, we may have outlawed slavery, but it still remained in the South in different forms for decades; and even after progress was made in the area of civil rights, harsh and abusive racism lingered on. Additionally, outlawing it didn't happen just on its own, as it may not have even been outlawed if not for huge developments in the economy which came through the industrial revolution. Yet still, religion also played a large role via the abolitionists and other religious movements, as well as, the civil rights movement as lead by Dr. King.

So slavery was defeated by different efforts and changes in different SI's, but one could argue that all of these efforts may have not been enough had they not changed the culture of the U.S. It was major generational shifts in attitudes towards racism that really solidified the progress made by civil rights leaders. And ultimately the religious hope of Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech drove, and continues to drive, our SO towards the reality of a post-racial America.

Culture can be seen not just simply as the water we swim in, but as a water that influences us in a multitude of ways, and that we have the power to influence as well.

The last observation I want to make is how culture interacts with relationship and religious hope. Thinking of culture as the soul of the SO makes incredible sense when we begin thinking about the transcendent feelings we get in church worship services, or political rallies, or sporting events. In those moments we tap into the soul, or culture, of a SO sharing the same religious hope as it, and feel like the strangers around us are as close as family. Our souls become one with the soul of the SO. The reality that we are part of one organism becomes an experience we feel deep in our bones.

Culture is the underlying force behind the behavior of the social organism. Imagine being able to extract the DNA from one person and inject it into another. If this were to occur, the individual's entire organism would be transformed. This is essentially what is possible with cultural change. The entire SO can change, and I think this truth is the key to maybe all of our social problems.

Why???

2009-09-19T15:48:00.000-07:00

A question I have been pondering this past week is: Why can't we just have a real bipartisan health care reform bill?

The Republicans want tort reform and to allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. They argue that tort reform would reduce costs because doctors order unnecessary tests and such to cover their butts in case they are sued. Greater competition, the argument goes will greatly lower costs as well. Fair enough.

The Democrats want greater regulation of insurance companies to make sure they do not deny care based on "pre-existing conditions" and cherry pick the healthy people over the sick. They (and Bill O'Reilly??!!) also want a public option to keep insurance companies honest and create competition. Both sides agree on many cost-cutting measures such as comparative effectiveness, electronic medical records and preventive medicine.

So why not have a bill with all these things?? If we can have a public option, the Dems could say, then we'll support insurance companies competing across state lines etc... Instead it looks like we're going to get more watered-down mediocrity that isn't even going to get Republican support. What a waste.

The Anatomy and Physiology of the Social Organism (The Family and Religion)

2009-09-13T16:27:00.000-07:00

If people are like cells in the SO, then family is the substance that holds the cells together. However, for this analogy to work, family needs a broader definition that I'll call family-quality relationships. What I mean by this is that we tend to compare some relationships (co-workers, friends etc.) in our lives family. "My work place is like one big family" we might say. So the better the quality of the relationship, the more we compare it to "family." Good relationships then, the more family like the better, holds the social organism together. Bad, chaotic relationships tend to tear the social organism apart.

Religion also needs a bit of redefinition. In many ways, religion has been replaced in our culture with science, and many people do not consider themselves religious at all, including myself. What then is the quality that religion has that still thrives even in, say, an atheist country like China? The answer is hope. Hope is what drives us on an individual level, and it is also what drives the social organism. When we get out of bed in the morning, most of us believe there is some sort of purpose or meaning behind our life, and this feeling is what pushes us forward. Likewise the social organism has a sense of transcendent meaning or hope that drives it through history. Many times this hope is some sort of Utopian future. The Nazis believed they could bring about a Utopian society by destroying what they understood to be inferior races and people. Marxist Soviets believed they would bring about a Utopian, classless society of workers. So whether it be going to heaven when one dies or creating an earthly utopia, religious hope moves the individual or SO forward by providing a belief in a transcendent purpose.

So in sum, the three of the five social institutions function in the social organism similarly to how the nervous, circulatory and digestive systems function in the human organism. Relationship binds humans, which can be thought of as cells, together. And religious hope, a belief in some sort of transcendent purpose, propels the social organism through history, similarly to how our belief in purpose and meaning propel us through each day.

A Quick Comment on the Whacko Right...

2009-09-07T19:24:00.000-07:00

For whatever twisted, demented reason, I have been torturing myself by listening to Glenn Beck. His show always happens to be on when I'm in the car and, like staring at the proverbial car crash, I just have to listen.

I honestly feel sorry for conservatives in this country that he is one of their major spokes people. His show is nothing but tin-hatted rants laced with shameless religious rhetoric. I really find it hard to believe that GB actually even believes what he's saying. I can't believe that he's stupid, because he's just not. The guy made it into Yale. And I would believe he's just bat-shit insane, but I can't believe Fox and CNN would let a complete loon have a prime-time show. So I have no choice but to believe he's just being paid to stir up the most ignorant of the right (which unfortunately there seems to be a lot of), and scare people, who wouldn't otherwise care about politics, into thinking Obama is trying to create a fascist dictatorship. Which is sad.

Conservatism in this country is becoming synonymous with nut-jobs and morons. Granted, the left has their nuts, but they're not hosting prime time news shows. Rather than simply trying to present better ideas conservatives are putting forth absurdities like: Obama is forming a secret police with the Peace Corps and Americorps; Obama is going to brainwash the country's children on the first day of school; Obama's creating a shadow government of Czar's; and Obama's gonna pull the plug on grandma.

What's that? This nutjobery is part of the right-wing fringe you say? Witness the resignation of Van Jones, and schools not carrying the president's address because of angry parents. Conservatives have gone to crazytown, and good ones like Joe Scarborough, George Will, David Brooks and Andrew Sullivan need to call this idiocy what it is and elevate the discourse before something tragic occurs.

The Anatomy and Physiology of the Social Organism (Government, Economy, Education)

2009-09-04T09:02:00.000-07:00

The government functions as the brain and/or the nervous system of the social organism. Just like our brain regulates and organizes the other systems in order to maintain homeostasis, the government regulates, passes laws, creates programs and budgets in order to maintain socioeconomic homeostasis. It's the government's job to organize society, similarly to how our brain orders our other systems.

The economy and wealth (wealth in it's most general sense) can be viewed as the circulatory system and the blood of the SO. The circulatory system distributes blood throughout the body. Blood functions as the vehicle for oxygen and nutrients for the growth and development cells. This is very much like how wealth functions as the vehicle for the things needed to develop and sustain the SO. Put another way, wealth represents the materials and resources the SO needs to survive, develop and grow; and the economy, like our circulatory system, is how those resources and materials are distributed.

While the government's role is to organize and regulate the economy, just like the brain's role is to regulate blood flow (e.g. when it gets cold, the brain directs blood to our internal organs away from our extremities), it's crucial to point out that the brain needs a healthy blood supply to function properly. Likewise, government needs a robust economy to function. Thus a balance has to be struck so that the government does not over-regulate depressing the economy, but regulates and redistributes enough to maintain socioeconomic homeostasis. When Herbert Spencer argued that the five SI's formed the social organism, he said that this was because of the natural evolutionary process. But as an anarchist and social darwinist, Spencer said that the government must be done away with, so that mankind can reach his ultimate potential and build a utopia. For Spencer, the government prevented this by not letting the poor (read unfit) die off and the rich (read fit) procreate. Many conservatives and libertarians make the same mistake Spencer did by not recognizing the important organizing, homeostatic role of gov't. And while not being social darwinists, many argue for an economic darwinism, emphasizing competition over cooperation.

Education and information are to the SO, as the digestive system and food are to the human organism. Information is brought into the social organism from the outside like food is brought into the body from the outside. Info is then processed into curriculums, theories, formulas and technology and combined with wealth to increase the growth and development of the SO. It is also worth noting that just like there is bad food and good food which can damage or develop cells, there is bad and good information which can damage or develop the cells, or people, of the social organism.

To summarize, in the human body, the blood keeps cells alive by acting as a vehicle for nutrients and oxygen. Likewise, the social organism uses information in the form of technology for its development and growth which flows throughout the SO via the vehicle of economy and wealth. Thus info and knowledge come into the SO and is processed by its education system which turns said info into formulas, theories and technology. This technology is then distributed by the economy with the gov't organizing the whole thing. Of course, this is incredibly simplified, but this provides a rough sketch at how these SI's function like our own organ systems.

These three SI's operate on a relatively objective level, while the remaining two SI's and culture operate on a much more subjective level. I think it's important not to view one group as being more important than the other for all of them are in constant interaction, affecting one another and creating the whole SO.

The Anatomy and Physiology of the Social Organism (Intro)

2009-09-01T14:18:00.000-07:00

For the past few years I have struggled to formulate a way to explain how I see the world. What I have had are chunks and pieces of things I believe, but not a way to put them all together into one complete picture or worldview. I was envious of people whom, even though I believed it was a mistake, bought into and ideological system, because at the very least they could explain their view of the world in an orderly and systemized way. I, on the other hand, believed in a theory here and a theory there, but overall felt all over the map. However, now, I am hoping that this has finally changed.

Over the course of my years reading and thinking and blogging I, like many other thinkers and writers, have been trying to view the world in a way that transcends liberal and conservative, and religious and secular. And I believe that I have found a way to do this that makes the most sense, at least to me. This is my first attempt at really putting what's been going on in my head into words, and I'm doing this as much for myself as for anyone interested in reading. A lot of what I'll say isn't new, but the way I am going to present it is (or at least it is to me). So with that, I will begin.

I'll start by saying what I've pointed out on my other blog-- that all reality is made up of things are whole, yet are also parts e.g. atoms, molecules, cells etc. all the way up to us. And just like the rest of reality, we indeed make up something as well-- society. Or still more accurately, we make up the things that make up society-- social institutions. The five social institutions (SI's) are the institutions that have made up every civilization ever studied, and they are: Government, Economy, Education, Family and Religion. This is incredibly significant, and is no coincidence. Spanning all cultures, human beings, when forming a society always have the same basic institutions. With that said, if we think of society like one big organism, or social organism (SO) as coined by Durkheim, then would it not make sense that SI's function and work together just like other systems within an organism (e.g. our organ systems) do?

If the answer is yes, then it becomes clear that it is a mistake to, as people often do, champion one's preferred SI as the solution to all of society's ills. For example, in left v.s. right debates, the left often insists that government involvement or social programs are what is needed to fix society, while the right argues that less government involvement with the free-market is what is needed. Thus one sided argues for government while the other for the economy. Yet, in other debates one might often hear the preservation of the family as the key to fixing society. Still in other circles, you'll find education being touted as the cure-all for society's ills. And finally, and more frequently, I hear that the church as the solution. The church, the argument goes, has ignored its role at taking care of the poor, the sick and the widow and handed that responsibility over to government.

However, in viewing society as an organism, all of these parts come together, and each SI becomes integral for social change and betterment. It is reductionistic to focus upon one SI, for the SO is more than the sum of its parts. Indeed, I think it is possible that some SI's mirror our own organ systems functioning very similarly in the SO, and that the best lens for comprehending society is to view it how we would any other organism. Thus, arguing that one SI be removed or tremendously minimized to fix social problems, is akin to arguing for the removal of one of our own organ systems to cure our body.

The question of how I think the SI's function in a SO, will be discussed from here on out. I have virtually this whole series done; I just need to edit sections before I post them. Government, Economy and Education will be next, with Religion, Family and Culture after that.

To Anybody Still There...

2009-08-25T14:09:00.000-07:00

I've been incredibly busy adjusting to my new life as a full-time pharmacy technician and a part-time social work intern. I do have a gargantuan post in the works though, that I am eager to finish. I hope to have it done by Thursday, but we'll see.

Stupid Is...

2009-07-28T19:46:00.000-07:00

I just have to comment on the Henry Louis Gates incident. I got to check out the Sunday morning political shows, and listen to George Will and others discuss how Obama's comments had racial overtones. Really? The police arresting a man in his own home after he showed identification proving he lived there wasn't acting stupidly? Really? I don't care if Gates went off on them, called them racists and pigs blah, blah, blah. After he showed some ID, the cops should have been on their way. Now I'm not saying the cop involved is a racist, or that Gates shouldn't have kept a cooler head, all I'm saying is that the president was right for calling said actions stupid. For conservatives-- and I didn't read the Thomas Sowell piece where he weighed in on this but I can imagine what he said-- to imply the president was making accusations of racial profiling is absurd.

In other news, a study has been published declaring that obesity costs the U.S. 147 billion annually. It goes on to say that medical bill are much higher for obese people. I think this is pretty convincing evidence that we need a junk food tax in our health care reform. It's a common argument that obese people die earlier and are thus less expensive than healthy people in the long run. However, much of our health care expenses go towards interventions to keep people alive longer who are suffering from obesity, i.e. people now live longer with heart disease than they did in the past. All that to say, if we're looking to cut costs and pay for health care reform, taxing the crap that increases the costs might not be a bad idea.

The Missing Piece in the Healthcare Reform Puzzle

2009-06-17T10:56:00.000-07:00

Massive healthcare reform is currently in the works, and hopefully some good changes will be made. There are at least two unchangable certainties that will continue to increase the cost of healthcare, and while I'm in favor of a government option to compete with private companies, and the various other ideas to reduce costs, I believe one of the root causes of the rising cost of healthare are not being addressed. This is because, even though it directly affects the rise in healthcare, it is beyond the scope of healthcare policy. Yet, I believe, it is imperative that changes in this area need to happen in order to balance out the two certainties that will contintue to make costs rise.

Two things that are unchangable that affect cost:

-The baby-boomers are aging, which means that more and more people are going to need more and more care. Demand raises the cost, thus the price of healthcare is destined to increase and there is nothing we can do to change this. For more on this go here.

-New technology is always incredibly expensive when it comes out. I can buy an older cheaper Ipod and still listen to music; I don't need the latest version of it. But getting the newest and best healthcare could mean life or death, so the constantly developing technology in healthcare also means it will invariably become more expensive.

Some ways to decrease cost:

I think we need a national program to compete with private plans. I believe this because A. competition is good for consumers and B. as Paul Krugman recently argued, a national plan would keep private plans honest. Having a national plan would also ensure that everyone could have healthcare, and access to cost reducing preventative care. But here's the problem. I have good health insurance, yet I don't get a yearly check-up even though I know I should. The reality is that a lot of other people might not as well. Outside of forcing people to get check-ups, there is just no easy solution to this problem except for providers to create huge incentives for people who participate in preventative care. I know that if my premium would go way up if I didn't get my check-ups or screenings, I would start seeing a doctor regularly. Another problem is that people just might not get insurance even if they can afford it, which is why mandating healthcare is important. I understand the concern with "forcing" people to get healthcare, but realistically, everyone participating in this is important not only for the health of individuals, but for the economic well-being of the country.

But even with univeral coverage and prevention, there is still remains a missing component. Other countries aren't healthier than us because they have universal healthcare. They are healthier because they eat and live differently.

The cost-reducing issue in the healthcare debate that no one is talking about is the atrocious American diet. To deal with this, I would argue that taxes should be raised on junk food and foods that contribute to poor health, and we should stop subsidizing corn and soy beans and begin subsidizing crops that promote healthy diets. Part of the reason people are obese is because unhealthy food is cheap and healthy food is more expensive. Most fast food items, for example, are made from corn or soy products so they are cheap. And high-fructose corn syrup, a contributor to obesity, is in everything because corn is cheaper than sugar or natural sweeteners. Reducing subsidies on these crops and increasing subsidies on crops that promote a healthy diet; taxing unhealthy food; and educating the public more on a healthy diet might, by hitting Americans in their pocketbook, cause people to eat better and live healthier.

To cope with the large swath of our population getting older, we all need to live healthier lives. Eating healthier and preventative care will drive down costs making universal coverage affordable. If we tax junk food, that would generate additional revenue for the purpose of healthcare as well. The bottom line is whether it's the insurance companies or the masses, everyone needs to change their ways, but unfortunately I don't see much coming out of Washington on getting Americans to put down their Big Mac and pick up some veggies and whole grains.

Thoughts On Who Joe the Plumber's Been Checkin Out Lately...

2009-05-11T20:25:00.000-07:00

This morning I came into work to Fox Noise Channel's ongoing coverage of the beauty queen homophobe's supposed persecution by the evil liberal media, and now apparently Donald Trump. Great way to start off a Monday! I hate to rant, but really, are Conservative Evangelicals really this hypocritical to make this chick their gay-marriage martyr after pornographic photos she apparently lied about taking have come to light?? And yes, I think they are pornographic, not "tasteful" as the moron on Fox described them as.

This whole shit storm beautifully illustrates how warped the Christian right's views on gay marriage really are. Gay marriage will supposedly destroy the sanctity and institution of marriage they argue, yet the type of "modeling" Miss Prejean has been involved in has done more to tarnish and destroy traditional marriage in this country than the gay rights lobbies could ever dream of. It just goes to show how dogmatic the issue of gay marriage has become with some Christian conservatives.

Conservatives are fighting a losing battle on this, and they need to just back out before they continue to look even more foolish. Marriage is not going anywhere, unless you believe something instituted by God can be destroyed by humans. We live in a pluralistic, secular, democracy. So gay couples should have the same rights heterosexual couples have, and if this country wants to call it marriage then so be it. I personally would disagree that the term "marriage" accurately describes the union of two homosexuals, but I also would disagree it accurately describes whatever that two day fling was that Brittany Spears had as well. The bottom line is that family will not be strengthened when we have a marriage amendment to the constitution, as conservative evangelicals so fervently believe. The family will begin to be strengthened when we start treating each other as human beings and not sex objects. And it will be strengthened when we actually see marriage as a covenant rather than a contract we can tear up when things get tough. Until these Christians recognize that, they're going to continue turning Americans off to their brand of Christianity. Not that that's a bad thing.

Obama. Abortion. Reduction?

2009-05-07T06:30:00.000-07:00

It looks as if Obama is making good on one of his campaign promises-- to find common ground in the abortion debate and work to reduce abortions in a number of ways. This, I believe, is the only real solution to the problem, at least in this period of American history. Abortion is going to be legal and people are going to have sex, thus we need policies that will reduce abortions and make an abortion-free country seem possible.

Obama said recently: "I would like to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies that result in women feeling compelled to get an abortion or at least considering getting an abortion." The Administration has brought together pro and anti abortion advocates to discuss ideas and goals in reducing the number of abortions and to get people talking rather than arguing. The White House will then consider ideas and recommendations that come from these talks. Ideas that are being discussed are: "improving education about use of contraception; better access to emergency contraception (which can be used after sex); improving education about sex, relationships and the "sacredness of sex"; stamping out employment discrimination against pregnant women; improving family-leave policies; and encouraging adoption." The Administration is especially interested in: "sex education; responsible use of contraception; maternal and child health; pregnancy discrimination in the workplace and elsewhere; and adoption."

This is encouraging for me and others who voted for Obama despite the protests of friends and family that Obama was a hard-core pro-abortion guy not really concerned about reducing abortions. Most frustrating for me is to read about pro-life people poo-pooing contraception. A global study of abortion conducted by the WHO found the lowest rates were in Western Europe due to its widespread availability of contraception. Fewer unwanted pregnancies means fewer abortions-- go figure!

I'm hopeful that this effort will produce some creative policy that the majority of pro-life and pro-choice people can get behind, and that the militants on both sides will continue to decrease.
Source

Making Lemonade: A Return to Responsibility?

2009-04-23T06:49:00.001-07:00

I understand that there are people really suffering as a result of the recession, and I realize that I am fortunate. Even in the most economically depressed state in the union, I am one of those blessed to be prospering in this economy without a worry in the world about Anne or I losing our jobs. So I am aware how insensitive it may sound for me to say that I think this recession could turn out to be something positive. In fact, I'm not the only one who believes this, and I probably wouldn't be writing this if TIME hadn't validated my feelings. They have recently published a couple of issues highlighting some good things that are coming from this recession. In the April 6th edition, their cover reads: "The End of Excess: Why this crisis is good for America," and in the latest issue they have a story about the growing frugality in American consumers. In short, this crisis is good because it is forcing Americans to do things like become closer to friends and family, and is providing a good ass-kicking to our excessively consumeristic ways. It is exposing the danger of piling on debt and being financially irresponsible; and it comes at a time when we are becoming increasingly aware the need for sustainable forms of energy which has the potential of creating a stable new driver of our economy.

Along with highlighting the need for personal responsibility, this crisis may hopefully drive home the need for responsibility in the banking and financial sectors. Paul Krugman has a great piece entitled "Make Banking Boring" where he describes how banking and finance has gone through periods of excitement and boredom. Between WWI and 1929 the banking and finance sectors were "exciting," with those in the finance sector becoming fabulously wealthy, but with soaring debt. After the depression, regulation became tight, debt went down and banking became "boring." Yet this boring period yielded a time of great economic progress for the majority of Americans. However, in the 80's, regulation was lifted and banking became exciting again as those in the finance sector, once again, became fabulously wealthy and debt blew up. Ever since, the 80's extended into the 90's, and throughout the Bush years, as Americans piled on the debt and have lived excessively wealthy, consumeristic lives. Krugman argues that we must return to a tightly regulated system and restore responsibility. I agree, and my hope is that it will not only be the system that becomes more responsible and less excessive, but individuals as well.

But there are problems, and I think David Brooks has some valid points. In his column, "Big Spending Conservative," Brooks discusses how Obama has picked up on the responsibility theme as well. This should be good news that the president is driving home the message of responsibility and less excess, but Brooks points out his hypocrisy. Brooks writes:

"Moreover, for an administration that puts responsibility at the center, it is not itself very responsible. Federal spending is the leverage the administration uses to gain control over sector after sector, and yet this money is all borrowed.
Obama imposes hard choices on others, but has postponed his own. He presented an agenda that bleeds red ink a trillion dollars at a time. Now he seems passive as Congress kills his few revenue ideas (cap and trade) and spending cuts (agricultural subsidies). Huge fiscal gaps are opening this decade that can’t be closed by distant entitlement reform. They can’t be closed by cynical Potemkin cuts, a few million at a time"

I am all for government intervention and regulation. I am all for health care reform. I am all for "green jobs." I am all for good, effective social programs. But I am also all for fiscal discipline, and that is one thing I do not see coming from the administration or congress. Now, yes, the tax cuts will expire, and I think that is a good thing, but there needs to be some spending cuts as well, and more than a piddly 100 million dollars.

Technical Difficulties and the G-20

2009-04-08T07:47:00.000-07:00

I haven't quit blogging here, my mind just hasn't been focused on politics and what's going on in the world lately. Also, my mouse on my laptop is dead and my other computer is incredibly slow, so that has made using a computer incredibly undesirable, as using my laptop consists of me hitting tab a million times trying to land on the item I want to click on.

But anyways... In politics and current events, I think the president is doing a decent job. It was refreshing to see him at the G-20 and know that the other leaders there were listening to us again and cared what we had to say. It was relieving to hear him say he was there to listen and not lecture, but also acknowledging that anti-Americanism in Europe had often gotten out of hand and that America has done a great deal of good in the world. I know we didn't get everything we wanted there, but hopefully restoring and building relationships will go a long way in getting things we want down the road.

You Are What You Eat- Part 5

2009-02-21T09:28:00.000-08:00

From what I know about him, Polan is a secular Jew, but I found the final portion of his book very spiritual and moving. He quotes the Christian writer, Wendall Berry, numerous times and even discusses why it is good to say a blessing.

Eating is a tremendously spiritual, sacred practice. Jesus knew this-- one of Christianity's main practices centers on eating. What we eat exemplifies our stewardship of creation. And not only of the created world around us, but the creation God has imparted us to care for-- our own bodies. Our skyrocketing health care costs are a direct consequence of our horrendous failure as stewards of creation. I would argue that if we ate differently, our health care crisis would go away.

Secondly, eating is spiritual because eating is relational. Creation depends on us to steward it well, and we depend on creation for sustenance. All of us depend on the same planet. In that way, we are all interconnected. Polan talks about the importance of going to farmer's markets, not just to get good food, but to meet the person feeding you. He argues that there is something important about the farmer looking the consumer in the eye when he sells him some produce. It's a lot harder to sell salmonella-infected vegetables to someone when you have to meet and greet the buyer.

Anne and I have come to the conclusion that eating well is something worth spending the extra cash on. Why wouldn't you spend a little more on something you put into your body on a constant basis? People research their new T.V. much more than they research what they eat. That is incredible to me. What's more incredible though is how much of our health problems-- and I would argue social problems-- are rooted in or linked to the ways greed and selfishness have affected our diet and food production. The good news is that the solutions are simple: eat food as God intended it to be, and develop eating practices that have been around since the dawn of civilization. The bad news is that our culture and economy want to create food products that are cheap and quick to make. So just like living a life that is, morally, how things were intended to be goes against the ways of the world around us, it seems that eating how we were intended to does as well.

You Are What You Eat- Part 4

2009-02-18T19:43:00.000-08:00

I'm just skimming the surface of what Polan has to say about the reductionist science of nutritionism, processing, and the Western diet and all of the diseases that come with it. I found his research to be eye-opening, logical and clear-headed. But this book isn't just about how screwed up the American diet is, it's about changing one's eating habits as well. So what does Polan suggest? Polan's solution isn't focused on teaching the reader to eat foods containing only certain nutrients, or to only eat organic or become vegan. Instead he offers a simple mantra: Eat Food, Mostly Plants, Not too Much.

Eating food means eating whole foods, or foods made with a minimum amount of easily recognizable ingredients. "Mostly plants" is obvious. People should eat mainly fruits, grains and vegetables. This is the one I struggle most with because while I like vegetables, I generally tend to eat them the least. Concerning meat, Polan argues that meat should be more of a condiment than a main dish. He also points out that commercially produced animals are pumped full of hormones and pharmaceuticals, and eat horrible diets. On top of the dreadful conditions these animals live in (which is reason enough not to consume them), and all the crap they are given, the person who eats them is eating what they have eaten. In other words, all of the horrible things put into these animals is put into you when you eat them. Thus, Polan argues that it is best to buy meat that has been "grass finished," or better yet, to hunt and kill your own meat. It is true that animals who have been raised in cruelty-free environments and have been fed healthy food produce much more expensive meat, but if one is eating much less meat, then the price shouldn't be a huge issue.

The last part of the mantra, "Not too much" is also obvious. Americans are notoriously "big eaters," and-- go figure-- Americans are notoriously obese. Polan suggests that Americans should take up eating practices of other (healthier!) cultures, eat smaller portions and take more time to eat. Taking more time allows the body to digest the food and let the eater know he is full. When we shovel food into our mouth our body doesn't have the time to let us know we are full before it's too late. Polan also says that we need to not eat alone. He says that food should be a communal experience where relationships are strengthened and bonds are made. It's interesting to point out that a gateway into a culture is its diet. Food is often a great starting point for people of different countries or cultures to begin learning about one another. It is something we all have in common.

You Are What You Eat- Part 3

2009-02-16T16:38:00.000-08:00

The book I read where this information comes from is called In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto by Michael Polan. It was a great and informative read. Polan argues that the Western diet has made us more unhealthy despite the fact that Americans are obsessed more about the nutrients they take in than ever before. The problem with focusing on nutrients, Polan argues, is that nutrients have a food context, food comes from a cuisine, and a cuisine comes from cultures that have existed for a long periods of time living in the same place and eating the same things. So people have adapted to their diets for thousands of years. But more importantly, these cuisines usually consist of whole foods with little processing.

Processing makes foods last longer and makes them cheaper, but also strips them of their nutrients. Polan uses the example of a Twinkie, and how it never goes bad. Why doesn't it go bad? Because it has no nutritional value. We are in competition with micro-organisms for the nutrition found in food. If it will rot then that means it's good for you; micro-organisms want to eat it for the same reasons we do. Yet instead of eating foods that will spoil, we have a culture that lives off food which will last forever-- hamburger helper, macaroni and cheese, canned soup and pasta-- and much of this food amounts to a lot of empty calories and carbohydrates. In other words, we might have a crap ton of food in this country, but much of it is poor quality, and has to be fortified with vitamins because of the ways it is preserved. And while fortified food is better than non-fortified food, it's just not that same as "real food"-- that is, fresh fruits and vegetables and meat that comes from animals that had healthy diets themselves. Take whole grain.

For years we've been eating white bread made from refined flour. Refined flour-- or the plain white flour in your pantry-- is made by stripping the grain of most of it's nutritional value (the germ) leaving the starch and protein. Why strip it of the germ? Because removing the germ causes the flour to last much longer. Before this discovery, flour would rot rather quickly. When people first began living off of bread made from refined flour they began developing deficiency diseases. It wasn't until the thirties, with the discovery of vitamins, that this problem was solved. And in 1996 folic acid began to be added to flour as well, because people were deficient in folic acid. It hasn't been till recently that we've seen food companies and the media encouraging to us eat "whole grains."

You Are What You Eat- Part 2

2009-02-14T12:59:00.000-08:00

We've all been to the store and seen food packages loaded with health claims-- "high in fiber", "low in fat", "heart healthy." There is big money in these claims. Scientists are paid to research nutrition. When they make a "discovery" like, say, I don't know, that all fat isn't evil, and some, like omega 3 polyunsaturated fat, is good for you, food companies start churning out products that are "high in "omega 3s." And it doesn't matter what that food is. I have orange juice that Tropicana somehow got omega 3s into. The idea is that we can make any food-- even pop! -- good for us if we simply add certain nutrients to it. The problem, however, is that food is more than the sum of its parts.

Take beta-carotene for example. In carrots, beta-carotene is an incredibly healthful anti-oxidant. Thus, the logic was that if we could just put some beta-carotene in a pill and take it as a supplement, then we wouldn't have to do the dirty work of eating carrots or other beta-carotene rich food. But that logic was wrong. In fact not only did it not work, but taking B-C in supplement form could actually be bad for you. Why? Because for some unknown reason the body metabolizes B-C in a beneficial way when it comes from carrots or other foods, but not when it's taken alone. It could be something in the carrot, or it could be something even more complex like a combination of acids in the stomach and other things in the carrot.

Another great example is milk. When milk has fat removed from it, it loses its creamy milk texture, and in order to restore some of that texture, non-fat dry milk is added. However, non-fat dry milk contains oxidized cholesterol, which is actually worse for you than regular cholesterol. On top of that, milk contains fat-soluble vitamins which, needless to say, the body needs fat to properly digest. So removing the fat negates the purpose of drinking milk in the first place!

You Are What You Eat- Part 1

2009-02-12T06:50:00.001-08:00

It's been pointed out repeatedly that we live in a culture where we are always trying to get the biggest and the best, and do things in the shortest amount of time. To acquire that new I Pod, cell phone or car we are constantly trying to cheapen the things we spend money on to survive and live; and do things faster so we can work more hours. And in this uniquely American way of life, we have developed a uniquely American diet to facilitate our mission for acquiring more shit.

I have, for several years now, been trying to eat more healthy. In my various health care related classes I have learned about the evils of saturated fat and LDL cholesterol, and the wonders of fiber and omega 3 polyunsaturated fats. I haven't always done the most stellar job, but I've tried my best. I've done this not because of my weight, but because I care about things like dying of cancer, heart disease or a MI. But these efforts have unfortunately been misguided. While I tried to stay up-to-date on the latest trends in nutritionism, I, like most Americans, have completely missed the point of why many of us are so unhealthy despite the fact that Americans are more health conscious than ever before.

What we're missing is something much bigger than just eating things that have more of this nutrient or less of that, for food is more than the sum of it's parts, and eating is an intricate, relational exercise. A book I read recently explores this idea and it has changed the way I think about food and how Anne and I eat. While I won't go into great detail I do want to share some interesting things I learned, and why this book is so important.

Partisanship Fails Again

2009-02-06T18:50:00.000-08:00

I've been trying to digest this whole stimulus mess. I've gone back and forth sometimes believing that the Republicans need to keep the spending on pet Democratic programs in check, and sometimes believing that the Dems just need to go all out, and do their thing. I've been disappointed that Obama has seemed to give up on bi-partisanship, and been annoyed at the fact that the Republicans don't give a crap about bi-partisanship. But as the Senate comes to a deal on this, and as I gorge myself on opinion and analysis on this issue, my thoughts are this: Partisanship fails again.

As usual, Robert Samuelson lays it all out:

"Unfortunately, investing in tomorrow won't automatically stimulate the economy today. The $819 billion program passed by the House will only slowly provide stimulus. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that in fiscal 2009 (through this September) about 21 percent of the new spending and tax cuts will flow to the economy. For 2010, the estimate is another 44 percent. The total of 65 percent means that, by CBO's estimate, about a third of the $819 billion package would be spent after fiscal 2010."

''Or take the $39 billion in the House bill for added highway and transit construction. That's nearly double existing funding levels. When queried, state officials worried about how fast they could "adjust their contracting procedures" for such a big increase, reports CBO. As stimulus, the better course would simply be to give more money to states and localities -- and order them to spend it. Most would plug deficits, avoiding program cuts and layoffs."

"What's also sacrificed are measures that, though lacking in long-term benefits, might help the economy now. A $7,500 tax credit for any homebuyer in the next year (and not just first-time buyers, as is now in the bill) might reduce bloated housing inventories. Similarly, a temporary $1,500 credit for car or truck purchases might revive sales, which are down a third from 2007 levels. Normally, these targeted incentives would be unjustified; today, they may be necessary expedients."

"The decision by Obama and Democratic congressional leaders to load the stimulus with so many partisan projects is politically shrewd and economically suspect."

Don't get me wrong, I think some long term projects should be included, but I also think the bill is loaded with too many "partisan projects." But is Obama to blame? I would agree with Pat Buchannan who, on the Mclaughlin Group, said that Obama isn't to blame; Pelosi is. Pat also added that he believes Obama is really unhappy with the bill, but is pushing it to please his party. And while I think that some of the Republican criticisms are probably valid, all I seen from them is ideology and their same ol' solution of cutting taxes for people who aren't going to spend it. What we needed was a stimulus package that was mainly immediate stimulus. What we got is a Democratic project loaded package that did nothing but create partisan bickering. Which isn't to say that I don't believe in what much of the Dem's want to do, I do, but this wasn't the right time. I know they think it was, but their reasons for thinking that wasn't the change I, nor most Americans, voted for.

And So Begins the Extreme Left-Wing, Socialist Take Over

2008-12-30T13:01:00.000-08:00

I know it's been a while, and I have a substantive post I'm half done with, but I just couldn't resist commenting on some of the less than news-worthy news concerning Obama's budding presidency.

I love the fact that he has chosen Rick Warren to speak at the inauguration. I believe this is a strong signal that Obama wants to truly bridge the divide and be a president for everyone. It pisses me off that gay rights groups are crying about this, but it doesn't surprise me, even though these groups probably trashed President Bush for being polarizing and gave lip service to Obama uniting the country. I guess if you're going to reach out to everyone, then you're always going to push some away.

But what really made my eyes bug out of my head were Pat Robertson's recent comments about Obama. For all the crap I had to endure concerning Obama turning the country into some sort of socialist dictatorship, I was floored when good ol' Pat said this:

"I am remarkably pleased with Obama. I had grave misgivings about him. But so help me, he's come in forcefully, intelligently. He's picked a middle of the road cabinet. And so far, if he continues down this course, he has the makings of a great president." (emphasis mine Source)

Now I'm sure he had glowing things to say about President Bush at the beginning of his presidency, so I really couldn't care less about his judgement when it comes to how good a Pres Barry will be, but sometimes it's just fun to say "I told ya so."

Mike Huckabee vs Jon Stewart

2008-12-16T11:36:00.001-08:00

The Daily Show has become the place for thoughtful debate about political and social issues (who'da thunk it?). This episode features Mike Huckabee for a discussion on the role of government and gay marriage. Two full segments are devoted to it. I'd be interested in hearing thoughts on this as they thoroughly cover both issues. It's really worth watching.

Election Conundrum: Thoughts on Compromise and Voting While Christian

2008-11-20T08:05:00.000-08:00

In my last post I attempted to navigate the difficult waters of the abortion debate. My arguments were rightly pointed out as being pragmatic. I readily acknowledge this fact, and make no attempt to argue otherwise because I believe they should be pragmatic, as is virtually every engagement in the political arena. Being pragmatic usually involves compromise, and, once again, I readily acknowledge that I made some compromises in my vote. This is because when a Christian, such as myself, must choose a political candidate I will always have to compromise, because a ruler of a kingdom of this world will always have some anti-kingdom of God policies. In this election I compromised on voting for a candidate who has the anti-kingdom view of being pro-choice. I did this because I believe abortion is the result of deeper anti-kingdom problems that I believe Obama has a better handle on. Only time will tell if made a good compromise.

Recently, Jim Wallis wrote a piece about a letter Focus on the Family put out about the election. In it, Wallis says: "Christians should be committed to the kingdom of God, not the kingdom of America, and the church is to live an alternative existence of love and justice, offering a prophetic witness to politics. Elections are full of imperfect choices where we all seek to what is best for the "common good" by applying the values of our faith as best we can." Wallis does a great job here articulating how Christians should approach politics. There should be a constant awareness that the only way the world can truly change is by the church enacting God's kingdom. The question then becomes what is the product of God's interaction in the world and the work of fallen human beings, and how can Christians promote policies and candidates that will promote God's kingdom that are also being favored by those outside the kingdom? In other words, where does the "common good" look like the kingdom, how can those areas be promoted politically, and how can those areas where the common good doesn't look like the kingdom be changed? For starters I would argue the areas where the CG doesn't look like KOG involves a change in deeply held values, and a change in values usually happens outside the political arena.

I am fully aware that what I just wrote might be confusing, but for the sake of not writing a novel, I won't go on. So if you're confused, you know where to comment.

Abortion. Obama. Need I say more?

2008-11-04T05:20:00.000-08:00

Righteous indignation is cathartic, but, often times, isn't helpful. Oh sure, it can be helpful rallying people to causes, but in the end it usually incites war and division, rather than healing and reconciliation. Those, instead, come with dialogue, understanding, knowledge and finding common ground. The abortion debate in America is full of righteous indignation from both sides, but after all the yelling and rallying the debate rages on. Abortion still exists, and even if it were outlawed, would still exist in other parts of the world and in back-alley abortion clinics. Conservative Republicans have used the outrage Christians feel about abortion to woo them into a sizable voting bloc. As a former voter in that bloc, I have come across increasing debate, and have come under questioning about my decision to vote for Barack Obama. And as someone who continues to believe that abortion shouldn't exist in America, but also views the issue as something much more complex than: "abortion is murder and a vote for a candidate who supports Roe is a vote for murder", I feel compelled to better formulate my views in a way that is easy to articulate, and promotes discussion rather than debate. I also feel compelled to respond to posts I've read online written by thoughtful friends whom with I disagree. So that's what this post is about.

Recently, Mr. Rudd wrote a great post presenting his reasons for not voting for Obama based on his belief that an Obama presidency would increase accessibility to abortion, thus increasing the number of abortions. He bases this claim on a statement from Obama saying he would sign the Freedom of Choice Act. Mr. Rudd also expresses frustration with Obama's "centrist talk concerning life issues" and his alleged desire to make abortion "as accessible as possible." I believe these are legitimate arguments as FOCA and Obama's pro-choice stance are troubling for me as well; but as someone who views the abortion issue with increasing complexity, I do not find these arguments convincing enough to deter me from voting for Obama. So, to begin, I want to explain how I see the abortion situation, then look at FOCA and Obama, and other pieces of legislation being supported by democrats.

Pro-life groups often compare their cause to the abolition of slavery. I tend to think that this is a helpful analogy because, like slavery, the issue of abortion has two components: a moral component and an economic component. Abolitionists worked courageously and creatively to thwart the evil of slavery, yet their efforts might have failed if not for the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution moved our economy from being labor intensive and agrarian, to capital-based and industrial. This shift eliminated the need for slaves. So the solution to slavery was more complex than winning hearts and minds and courageous tactics such as the underground railroad; economic change was crucial as well. Likewise, there is a relationship between abortion rates and the economy, as well as, other factors. In the 90's abortion rates made a sharp decline. Because one the main reasons women get abortions is for lack of ability to care for a child, this decline has been partially attributed to the good economic conditions of the 90's. Other factors, such an increased access to contraception and education, have also played a role in decreasing the abortion rate. In sum, when the reasons women have abortions decrease, abortions decrease. Legislation has some effect, but the solution will ultimately come from other forces, as well as, a change in hearts and minds.

Regarding the Freedom of Choice Act, I want to flatly state what is reality: Barack Obama is pro-choice and he has never said otherwise. This means he supports the decision of Roe v. Wade believing a woman should have the choice to terminate her pregnancy if she desires. FOCA is a piece of legislation responding to efforts of the Pro-Life movement to limit the rights granted to women by Roe. It seeks to: "establish a federal law guaranteeing reproductive freedom for future generations of American women. This guarantee will protect women’s rights even if President Bush and an anti‐choice Congress are successful in reversing Roe v. Wade or enacting even more restrictions on our right to choose." It should, therefore, come as no surprise Senator Obama would support such a bill. This is not about a desire to increase accessibility; it is about Obama's beliefs about Roe. There is much debate over what exactly this act would do in regards to rolling back abortion restrictions, however, the line I posted above describing the purposes of this bill implies there could be further restrictions. I would also add that in no way does passage of this bill guarantee an increase in the abortion rate, nor does it stop a creative pro-life movement from combating abortion in any number of ways.

Finally, there is a movement among pro-choice groups and pro-life democrats to reduce the need for abortion, thereby decreasing abortion rates. The Prevention First Act, which has the support of Harry Reid and Senator Obama, seeks to decrease abortion in a number of ways including access to family planning, realistic sex education, and access to emergency contraception. Another plan, the 95-10 initiative, seeks to reduce abortion by 95 percent in 10 years by various ways, including abstinence education and promoting adoption. This plan is promoted by the pro-life group, Democrats for Life, and according to Donald Miller, also has the support of Obama. In the end, Obama wants abortion to be legal, but is for fostering a society where abortion is rare. On the topic of abortion Obama has said: "We can certainly agree on the fact that we should be doing everything we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies that might even lead somebody to consider having an abortion...And what I have consistently talked about is to take a comprehensive approach where we focus on abstinence, where we are teaching the sacredness of sexuality to our children...and I think we should make sure that adoption is an option for people out there. Source"

Today I voted for Barack Obama in good conscience, despite my disagreement with his belief that a woman has the right to choose to have an abortion. I did so because I believe that abortion will only be solved when the debate ends, and people of varying opinions create solutions. The Democrats, in recent years, have realized that it is imperative for them to become more open-minded toward the pro-life movement. They have altered their platform, and are willing to work towards decreasing abortion outside of limiting Roe v Wade. Aside from the issue of abortion, I support Barack Obama when it comes to issues of war and peace. I believe a McCain administration would be much more willing to seek military solutions over diplomatic solutions. War is a life issue as well, and it's important to keep in mind that the sacredness of human life is about more than abortion. Democrats seem to be willing to forsake the angry rhetoric in favor of seeking common ground, and, for me, that's a reason to give them my vote.

Why I'm Voting for Barack Obama: Part 2

2008-10-21T07:43:00.000-07:00

Domestic Policy
With the current financial crisis it would be easy to say, "I support Obama because McCain is for the same economic policies that got us into this current mess." And I would be partly right, but I would also be being disingenuous because the economy is always much messier than how it's portrayed in blame game politics. So instead, I will appeal to my understanding of the role of business, taxes and the government.

Government and business are in a symbiotic relationship. Businesses create an economy, and taxes from that economy fund the government. A good government fosters a good society that creates workers, and more entrepreneurs to start more businesses. Everyone who owns a business in the U.S. uses the human capital created by public schools, uses U.S. infrastructure, and is protected by the U.S. military etc... Thus the government relies on business to create it's economy, but business relies on the government for a vibrant society to do business in. It makes sense then that someone who profits from a business started in the U.S., using all this country has to offer, should pay for it in taxes. And it would further make sense that the more one profits in the U.S., the more of one's profit should be subject to tax. Government and business are inextricably connected. It is with this understanding that I support Obama's tax policy to raise taxes on those making a quarter of a million a year or more, and cutting taxes on the middle class.

From 1970 to 2000 the average income for those on the bottom 90% of the income ladder actually fell from $27,060 to $27,035, and those in the 99%-99.5% ranges average income increased from 202,792 to $384,192. Those in the 99.5%-99.9% saw their average incomes raised from $317,582 to $777,450, but most strking is the increase in the average income at the very top: $3,641,285 to $23,969,767. So it is fair to say that for most, incomes have been stagnant, and it would make sense to put more money in the pockets of those who need it and will spend it, than to give more tax cuts to those who are already well off.

I also support Obama's position on closing loopholes and going after corporations who dodge taxes. In all the talk about how much the rich pay in taxes, it often gets overlooked at how much they don't. Capitalism is effective at producing great wealth because it is driven by competition to become wealthier (AKA greed). If I believe that human beings are prone to corruption and selfishness, then I have to believe we need a strong government to manage the wealth created by our economy and enforce it's tax laws. When we do this, we create a healthy society of customers for businesses and more entrepreneurs to build businesses.

In other issues, heath care continues to sky-rocket making paychecks smaller while millions remain uninsured. Obama's plan isn't perfect, but I believe it's better than McCain's plan which will increase the number of the uninsured, lower the quality of insurance and doesn't address discrimination by insurance companies. I also like Obama's policy on education with everything from merit pay to tax credits for higher education, and free community college. Education is imperative for a healthy economy and society, and for the sake of lengthiness, I'll leave it at that.

In sum, based on my understanding of the relationship between government and the economy, I believe Obama's policies are superior to McCain's. Health care is something I am greatly concerned about, and I believe it is a joke that we spend as much as we do on health care yet have so many who are uninsured. Those in that bottom 90% have also seen their wages decrease by the rising cost of health insurance and education. Therefore, I believe it makes the most sense to lessen the tax burden on people in the middle, increase the tax burden on the top, and use that money for health care and education to better our society as a whole. I also continue to believe in eliminating programs that do not work, and cutting spending where we can. Obama claims to believe the same thing. We'll see if he actually does.

Why I'm Voting for Barack Obama: Part 1

2008-10-20T11:31:00.000-07:00

I know I can come across as a hard-core Obama supporter on this blog, but in real life I remain suspicious. I do so because, while I like much of what he says in his speeches, believe his policies are better than McCain's and like the overall vision of America he represents, in the end, he is a politician. And politicians will say and do whatever they need to to get a vote; especially this time of year. I look at his voting record, for instance, and it doesn't really represent change. Instead, it represents the same in that Obama is a Democrat and he votes with Democrats 95% of the time. To be fair, Obama came from obscurity into the national spotlight in a short amount of time, and that would require strong party loyalty. Just look how long it took McCain to get his party's nomination. Yet I still find myself questioning: "Really Barry? Line by line? You're gonna be just as into cutting as you are into spending? We'll see..." But with that said, here's why I'm voting for him.

Foreign Policy
Foreign policy is the issue for me when it comes to this election. Iraq is the reason why I said, "HELL NO. I refuse to vote Republican this year." Sadly, there was a time when I argued for going to war in Iraq. I knew all the reasons. I had an air tight argument. But even that night when the news stations interrupted regular programming to tell the American people we had begun bombing, I had a queasiness in my stomach. "I hope this was the right decision" I thought. I was wrong. The war in Iraq was criminal. Members of the administration had wanted to invade Iraq since the Clinton years, and they used 911 to accomplish that end. It was a war based on ideology and blind faith. Because the administration had blinders on, it refused to listen to any dissenting information or intelligence. Bush was dead certain. Because of this abhorrent decision, over 4,000 young men and women are dead, and thousands more are coming back, their lives changed, from injuries sustained in combat. I won't even get into the hundreds of thousands who were killed in Iraq. And for what? Bin Laden is still out there. Afghanistan is going down the toilet. Iran is building nukes, and our hands are tied because we removed her enemy in Iraq. We are arguably less safer than when we initially invaded. And we have hurt our relations with our allies.

This last point was why I started questioning the war in the first place. After 911 we had the support of the world behind us. Some of our biggest critics were saying, "we are all Americans now." There was so much good that could have come from 911, but the administration squandered it's political capital on Iraq. And this leads me to Obama. In an increasingly globalized and pluralized world where America is on it's way to becoming one of many super powers, we need someone who can forge a strong relationship with the global community. McCain, with his support of the foreign policy of the last eight years, is not in the position to do this. Obama is the perfect person to accomplish this, with his stunning rhetorical skills and ability to mobilize the masses, he is the charismatic figure America needs to represent her to the world. He also has never supported the war in Iraq, and therefore does not carry it's baggage. His foreign policy views are complex and he refuses to see the world in the manachean way of the Bush administration. Fareed Zakaria says this:

"Obama rarely speaks in the moralistic tones of the current Bush administration. He doesn't divide the world into good and evil even when speaking about terrorism. He sees countries and even extremist groups as complex, motivated by power, greed and fear as much as by pure ideology. His interest in diplomacy seems motivated by the sense that one can probe, learn and possibly divide and influence countries and movements precisely because they are not monoliths. When speaking to me about Islamic extremism, for example, he repeatedly emphasized the diversity within the Islamic world, speaking of Arabs, Persians, Africans, Southeast Asians, Shiites and Sunnis, all of whom have their own interests and agendas."

And, also, because of this last point, if we are attacked again, I will feel much safer with a President Obama in the White House. I am confident he'll provide sane leadership in a time when the populace is seeing red.

Thoughts on Last Night's Debate

2008-10-03T07:32:00.000-07:00

The analysis coming out about last night's debate consistently have reported that there was no train wreck, there was nothing special or that it was Sarah Palin's night. One thing I will say about Palin is that she didn't crash as bad as I thought she was going to, based on the first half an hour. I thought it was going to be a slaughter when the topic was bankruptcy and the mortgage crisis, and Plalin gave a yes/no answer, then procreeded to ramble endlessly about energy. I was stunned. A couple questions later Palin, obviously getting nervous, called Senator Biden "Senator O'Biden." Thankfully, for her sake, her performance didn't continue to decline and she regained control.

But this is what is just killing me, and this is what I loathe about American politics. Everyone is saying she debated well. But if you actually listened to her versus Senator Biden, her answers and arguments sucked. I would bet that over 50 percent of what she said was the same thing over and over again. Half of what she said was populist, homespun, gibberish, and slogans about her and McCain being "mavericks." I was ready to shoot myself if I heard the word "maverick" one more time. Meanwhile, Senator Biden clearly had-- agree with his positions or not-- command of every issue spitting out facts and statistics to back up everything he said. Like one commentator I heard this morning said: Senator Biden appealed to those who respond to rational arguments while Governor Palin appealed to those who respond to emotion. And this is why Palin just drives me insane. She is the embodiment of, the concentrated form of, everything that is wrong with American politics. Her interviews, to any critical listener, are a joke! Tina Fey used one of her answers, word for word, in a parody of her! She obviously doesn't know crap about the world outside of Alaska, but because she supposedly "relates" to people because she's a hockey mom and uses folksy vernacular, her performances are lauded.

To be fair, Biden also tried to appeal to the common man himself, which he had to do considering what he was up against. And he also used slogans and sound bites as well, but no one can doubt that he is ready to be President. This debate was like watching a high school student take on a professor. And, yes, they both stretched the truth as well, and Yahoo posted a fact-check here.

Lastly, I would be saying all of this if I were still a Rush Limbaugh listening conservative. The fact that a large portion of the country trusts Palin, based on what we've seen of her, to be President is terrifying to me. Being a hockey mom, a good parent, down-home, middle-class etc... are not reasons we should vote for anyone. And, thankfully, before this debate more and more people began realizing she was a bad choice. In a week, after this debate is forgotten about, maybe people will continue coming to their senses.

My Morning With Barry

2008-10-02T08:53:00.001-07:00

About an hour ago I arrived home from my first political rally. Last night, I found out that Barack Obama was going to be in town this morning at Calder Plaza, which is this large open area in the middle of downtown in front of city hall. I have the day off today for school, so I decided I would go.

I got up early with my wife, and the two of us headed downtown. She, unfortunately, had to work, so I just rode with her since she works blocks away from Calder. We got downtown with enough time to walk to a local coffee shop and get some Pumpkin Spice Lattes. As we walked back to her work it started to lightly sprinkle. I forgot my umbrella, so I started worrying I would be walking back to the car, after the rally, cold and wet. Thankfully, it never started raining, but the sky remained flooded with dark gray clouds. Predictably, the line was long going several blocks down the street, and wrapping around the corner for another block or so. I brought my Stats textbook, so I could get some reading done while I waited.

After filling out a card, and getting through security, I was pleased to find that I wasn't stuck in the back of the crowd as I expected to be. I was in the middle with a pretty clear view of the podium. After several speakers, the Pledge, the National Anthem, and a perfunctory prayer filled with thee's, thou's, beseeches and other Elizabethan words and phrases, and after listening to the same play list over and over again which consisted of like 90% country songs (if i went to a McCain rally would most of the songs be rap and r&b?), Obama finally took to the stage. He gave a great speech (of course) about the economy, jobs, taxes, spending and cynicism. He ended by movingly speaking about how so many Americans have worked hard to achieve their dreams, saying, "There have been those who said, I may not be able to vote, but maybe someday my child or grandchild will run for President of the United States." This moved me because, at the very least, it was worth seeing Senator Obama because I'll be able to say that I've seen the first African American President of the United States in person.

The second after Obama finished speaking, the dismal sky broke apart, and warm sunlight poured through the clouds...

It really did... It was weird.

Different Voices on the Financial Crisis

2008-09-25T13:24:00.001-07:00

I've been trying to educate myself on the financial mess lately, but the more I read and listen the more questions I have. How soon and how intense does the government need to act? Should the bail out be smaller than 700B? How can the people be protected, while allowing the responsible parties to reap the deserved consequences? Should we have a bail out at all? Is the government to blame? What I think everyone agrees on is that it all boils down to greed. But here's what I've been reading lately.

From Ron Paul:
"The solution to the problem is to end government meddling in the market. Government intervention leads to distortions in the market, and government reacts to each distortion by enacting new laws and regulations, which create their own distortions, and so on ad infinitum.
It is time this process is put to an end. But the government cannot just sit back idly and let the bust occur. It must actively roll back stifling laws and regulations that allowed the boom to form in the first place.
The government must divorce itself of the albatross of Fannie and Freddie, balance and drastically decrease the size of the federal budget, and reduce onerous regulations on banks and credit unions that lead to structural rigidity in the financial sector."

-There's probably much truth to this, but I strongly disagree with the idea of just letting the market do it's thing.

From Fareed Zarkaria:
"The first task remains to bolster confidence. The next is to devise a workable and flexible plan to dispose of the mountains of assets that the government is taking over. Then, after some thought and analysis, should come the fixes needed to better structure America's massive and complex financial markets.
Some problems require more regulations. Firms that are deemed too large to fail should also be deemed too large to be leveraged at 35 to 1. Some problems require better regulations. For instance, the rule forcing financial institutions to mark their assets down to "market prices"—even when these are distressed prices and firms do not intend to sell the assets any time soon—created a crazy downward spiral. Still other problems require less state intervention. Why should the government insure Fannie Mae's risky profit-seeking behavior?
This crisis should put an end to false debates about government versus markets. Governments create markets, and markets can exist only with regulation. If you want to be truly free of regulation, try Haiti or Somalia. The real trick is to craft good regulations that allow markets to work well. No regulatory structure will be perfect, none will eliminate risk, nor should they. At best they can tame the wildest gyrations of the market economy while maintaining its efficiency."
-I especially like his point: "If you want to be truly free of regulation, try Haiti or Somalia."

From Robert Samuelson:
"Greed and fear, which routinely govern financial markets, have seeded this global crisis. Just when it will end isn't clear. What is clear is that its origins lie in the ways that Wall Street -- the giant investment houses, brokerage firms, hedge funds and "private equity" firms -- has changed since 1980."
-This is a great and informative column.

From Paul Krugman:
"I have a four-step view of the financial crisis:
1. The bursting of the housing bubble has led to a surge in defaults and foreclosures, which in turn has led to a plunge in the prices of mortgage-backed securities — assets whose value ultimately comes from mortgage payments.
2. These financial losses have left many financial institutions with too little capital — too few assets compared with their debt. This problem is especially severe because everyone took on so much debt during the bubble years.
3. Because financial institutions have too little capital relative to their debt, they haven’t been able or willing to provide the credit the economy needs.
4. Financial institutions have been trying to pay down their debt by selling assets, including those mortgage-backed securities, but this drives asset prices down and makes their financial position even worse. This vicious circle is what some call the “paradox of deleveraging.”...
The logic of the crisis seems to call for an intervention, not at step 4, but at step 2: the financial system needs more capital. And if the government is going to provide capital to financial firms, it should get what people who provide capital are entitled to — a share in ownership, so that all the gains if the rescue plan works don’t go to the people who made the mess in the first place.
That’s what happened in the savings and loan crisis: the feds took over ownership of the bad banks, not just their bad assets. It’s also what happened with Fannie and Freddie. (And by the way, that rescue has done what it was supposed to. Mortgage interest rates have come down sharply since the federal takeover.)
But Mr. Paulson insists that he wants a “clean” plan. “Clean,” in this context, means a taxpayer-financed bailout with no strings attached — no quid pro quo on the part of those being bailed out. Why is that a good thing? Add to this the fact that Mr. Paulson is also demanding dictatorial authority, plus immunity from review “by any court of law or any administrative agency,” and this adds up to an unacceptable proposal."

Brilliant

2008-09-15T05:04:00.000-07:00

2008-09-11T12:26:00.000-07:00

Calling all rednecks
To put down their sluggers
And turn their attention
From beating the buggers
Pick up machine guns
And kill camel-fuckers

Backwoods nation

Calling all doctors
Of spin and the smokescreen
To whip the new hate-triots
Into a frenzy
Of good versus evil
Ignoring the history
Of the backwoods nation

Ain't it a shame?
When due process
Stands in the way
Of swift justice

Calling all frat boys
To trade in their hazing
Their keggers and cocaine
And casual date-raping
For cabinet appointments
And rose garden tapings

Backwoods...
Backwoods...
Backwoods nation.

-David Bazan

You Can Put Lipstick on a Pitbull, But it's Still a Pitbull

2008-09-11T12:13:00.000-07:00

I want to be Bi-Partisan. I really do!! But Republicans are making it just so hard. Sure Obama is using this whole lipstick non-sense to scold the McCain campaign and score political points, but at the same time Obama is right to scold them. It's just idiotic! Anybody who does just a little bit of research knows that Obama was not calling Palin a pig. It's a figure of speech John McCain has used numerous times. Even Bill O'Reilly has got Obama's back on this! But, who knows, after that interview, maybe he's now smitten with Barry as well.

Anyways, Obama is calling this Swiftboat politics. How ironic Palin supporter, Massachusetts Governor Jane Swift had this to say: "She is the only one of the four candidates for president, or the only vice presidential candidate who wears lipstick."

Shameless. Thank God, they're taking a break for 9-11.

Source

The O'bama Factor

2008-09-10T08:07:00.000-07:00

I used to love Bill O'Reilly. I watched his show every night; I read his first two books; and I did a book report for my political science class on his second book. I was a huge fan, and without going into the reasons why I no longer am, I was still very excited to see his interview with Barack Obama. Like a child running to the Christmas tree on Christmas morning, I have, since we recently down-graded our cable, been running to the computer every morning and checking O'Reilly's Fox News site to see the latest installment of this interview. And I've been pleased with what I've seen thus far. This has been a good interview for a few reasons: O'Reilly is hostile territory and if Obama does well with Bill, then he can do well with anyone; O'Reilly has been extremely tough and will argue his own opinion and analysis against Obama; and Obama has responded well and argued right back.

The third installment was what I was most eager and anxious to see, as it was to cover Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers and Father Pfleger. Obama, like the other installments, handled the questions masterfully and remained civil but firm with O'Reilly. He successfully argued that Ayers, Wright and Pfleger were doing work in the community when he was doing work in the community, and that was how the associations were formed. He argued that all of their views are not his views, and linking him to them is nothing but classic GBA, which it most certainly is.

What drove me crazy the most in this interview was O'Reilly's yelling when there was absolutely no reason to yell. O'Reilly is incapable of having a reasoned and calm discussion over hot-button issues. However, I must say that in the second installment Bill made a good point that I do not believe Obama successfully answered. He argued that poverty has increased because immigration has increased. Robert Samuelson, who has an excellent column, argues this as well.

So, overall, I've got to give it up for O'Reilly. He has conducted a, sometimes unnecessarily hostile, but good interview and put the heat on Obama. And Obama has performed well himself coming right back with reasoned and solid answers. O'Reilly's interview far outshines Keith Olbermann's which was a complete joke. I can only stomach so much ass-kissing whether or not I agree with said individuals. We'll see if Republican starlet Sarah Palin comes on the factor, and if Bill is just as intense. And hopefully this interview has some O'Reilly fans thinking twice about Obama.

Bias and Propaganda: MSNBC and Olbermann Do the Right Thing

2008-09-08T09:11:00.000-07:00

While I love Harball, and I think that Chris Matthews-- despite it being obvious he supports the Democrats-- runs a fair show where issues are debated in a balanced and civilized way, I completely agree with MSNBC's decision to remove Matthews and Keith Olbermann from the election coverage. Olbermann, of course, is the liberal version of O'Reilly. And although I think he's much more articulate and intelligent than Bill, because he is so blatantly one-sided, I have hardly ever watched Countdown. Having those two cover the election would be like having O'Reilly and Sean Hannity cover the election on Fox News. There would be absolutely no objectivity. So MSNBC is right to remove them and put in Gregory.

That said, I think that the 9-11 video in question that Olbermann apologized for was exploitative and pure propaganda. What it did was to, once again, conjure up these primal, visceral emotions; emotions that one should never act, nor make decisions upon. It also, once again, painted America as the holy, sacred beacon of freedom, and the terrorists as the enemy of that freedom. These raw emotions that are elicited from the graphic footage from 9-11 that the video portrayed, coupled with manichean language, is a dangerous concoction that neoconservatives use time and time again to rally people in support of their militaristic and imperial foreign policy. We do not need more leaders who say "bring 'em on" in response to attacks on America. We cannot have another Yosemite Sam occupying the White house. That prospect scares me more than the possibility of another attack.

Olbermann was right to apologize, but he should have waited to do it on his own show.

And Just to be Fair...

2008-09-04T10:23:00.000-07:00

Yahoo also posted this AP article fact-checking speeches made at the DNC.

Fact-Checking the RNC

2008-09-04T09:58:00.001-07:00

Yahoo just posted this AP article on their home page analyzing speeches made at the RNC.

The RNC Thus Far

2008-09-03T20:13:00.000-07:00

So I got to listen to Senator Lieberman's speech last night. In '04 I longed for a McCain-Lieberman ticket, so it was kind of surreal watching him give a speech at the RNC. There were so many times in his speech that just seemed so awkward. Like the time he brought up McCain courageously reaching across the isle for campaign finance reform... Uh, didn't like 99.9% of Republicans despise him for that? But, I guess that would go for every time he talked about McCain "reaching across the isle." They hate him for that! There was talk of him being Kerry's running mate just four years ago, and unfortunately I was listening to it on the radio so I couldn't see the audience reaction. But I got some laughs, even though McCains's centrism and willingness to work with the other side is what I use to love about him.

I read an article tonight about Guiliani's speech, which just seemed to be a bunch of fear-mongering, and just now I suffered through my first Sarah Palin speech. I say suffered in all seriousness because I struggled to keep my dinner down as she went on and on about her down-home, folksy, leave-it to beaver, little house on the frozen prairie, life wrestling grizzly bears and exploiting her perfect, beautiful son with Downs Syndrome. Oh... do I sound a little angry and negative? Sorry, I'm just still in the moment I guess. How could one not be after listening to childish attack after childish attack? I heard some people thought Obama's speech was negative; I guess McCain's found his attack dog. And you gotta love how she trashed community organizers; apparently they don't have any responsibilities. Like I said, childish...

And I guess Mike -Fox Noise Channel- Huckabee spoke about how the media is being unfair to Republicans..... I'm just gonna stop now... I'm hoping the best for McCain's speech.

Didn't See that Coming...

2008-08-29T18:47:00.000-07:00

So McCain has chosen Sarah Palin as his running mate. Wow... I thought for sure it would be Romney. I truly am stunned because McCain has just made an enormous gamble, and what I think this shows is that McCain is really uncertain about his chances. I also think it's interesting that Romney was the obvious choice for obvious reasons yet he didn't get chosen; and the reason he didn't get chosen is because Palin is a woman and is pro-life.

This choice has absolutely nothing to do with picking someone who would make a good president; it's all about winning the election. For one, McCain is looking to steal some Hillary supporters. Palin, today, said something like, "now we can finally break that glass ceiling." This, of course, refers to Hillary's comment about putting 18 million cracks in that glass ceiling. Secondly, McCain chose her because of her pro-life record. The Dean of Liberty University Law School, here, says that this will energize conservatives. So the pro-life, born again president we have now disappointed the religious Right on abortion, but McCain, who they're already suspicious of on abortion, picks a pro-life VP and they're going to be energized? Ok...

The biggest gamble with this choice, however, is the fact that McCain is an old guy with lots of health problems. The primary purpose of the VP is to fill in for the president if the unfortunate occurred. McCain and the Republicans main attack on Obama is his lack of experience, yet Palin is significantly less experienced than Obama.

Nevertheless, it's ironic that McCain chose her to attract Hillary supporters and pro-life conservatives. Now that's a change indeed.

How Couldn't He?

2008-08-24T11:52:00.000-07:00

I read several stories yesterday criticizing Obama's choice of Joe Biden as V.P. They said that his choice reveals that he's not the big change agent he claims to be, and that it shows his lack of confidence in his abilities.

So picking the most knowledgeable and experienced democrat on foreign policy and other issues was a bad thing? Really? Don't we want a president who surrounds himself with the best and the brightest? And don't we want a president who will hire people who will challenge and disagree with him? Selecting Biden proves Obama will do both of these things. To boot, Joe Biden has a working-class background and has never been involved in sexual or financial scandals. He still takes the train to work, for crying out loud. Saying Biden doesn't represent change, because he doesn't lack experience or because he isn't a woman or minority is non-sense. Having character and integrity, in Washington, represents plenty of change.

Obama made a great choice.

Nice Try Rick

2008-08-18T20:23:00.000-07:00

This past weekend, I was told that if Obama gets elected that we will be attacked again, because he is a wuss. I was then told that all he wants to do is "talk", which I assumed meant diplomacy. After this little exchange, I sat down to watch the Obama-McCain-Rick Warren extravaganza. I thought some of it was good and I liked what Warren was attempting to accomplish with this forum, although I do not believe he succeeded.

His goal was to have a civil, honest, down-to-earth discussion about the candidate's personal beliefs, character and leadership qualities. It was meant to put the campaigning aside, and just have meaningful dialogue. What's funny is that, what analysis I watched, the host and guests all seemed to think McCain had the better "performance." Now, this would typically mean that McCain won. But, in this forum, the goal was not to "perform", but to be authentic. But McCain truly did have a great performance; I have never seen a better George Bush impression in my life. McCain answered every question with as little thought and nuance as possible. Is there such thing as evil? "Yes there's evil, and it has it be defeated." What is something that ten years ago you believed, but don't today? "We have to drill here! We have to drill now!" Many times McCain didn't even look at Warren, but turned to the audience and slipped into campaign mode. I suspect he did this because, well, many Americans want a president who is cut and dry, black and white and downright simple. George Bush ran and won on that quality four years ago.

And this frustrates and scares me. I want a president who, like Obama, took a while to answer Warren's questions. Obama seemed to try and answer the questions in a thoughtful and sincere way. He played it safe on some, and I caught him being dishonest on another. But for the most part, he put a lot of thought into his answers. I want this in a president because we live in complex world. I don't want a president who has a quick short answer for questions that ought to elicit reflection and nuance. And because we live in a dangerous world, I don't want a president who is small on diplomacy and big on military action. War should be the last possible solution. Diplomacy doesn't equal wussiness. It means one understands the horrendous cost of war.

Of course, you can have someone who just thinks and never decides and that's no good. And you can have someone who just talks and talks but never acts, and that's also ineffective. But if Warren's intent was to help voters decide who to vote for based on how the candidate answers a tough question, then he further solidified my choice in Obama. Even though McCain may have had the better performance.

And So it Continues...

2008-08-07T11:28:00.000-07:00

We were at a friends house last night when McCain's latest, mindless piece of trash came on the air. You know, the one with Brittany and Paris. I was kind of surprised to see it, as I thought it was only a web ad. I started lamenting to my friend how I really, really thought this election would be different. I thought that McCain and Obama mutually wanted a positive, substantive, smear-free contest. My friend just looked at me and said, "but he can't win that way, people are dumb, so that's what works." At first, I just didn't want to accept my friend's simplistic and cynical analysis. But the more I think about it, considering all that hangs in the balance with this election, and considering all the talk about higher politics, it just makes the most sense. To win, McCain's gotta do what works, and the people he's trying to persuade buy into weak, substanceless, smear ads.

There's been much said and written about the continually dumber American electorate, and how it threatens our democracy. Calling a good chunk of the country dumb is often dismissed as elitist. But when politics are constantly boiled down to sound bites and slogans, and political ads consist of comparing a candidate to Brittany and Paris, that says something about the audience. Let's just hope we don't see a Hanoi Hilton veterans for truth.

And on a separate, but somewhat related note, this is why I TiVo The Daily Show:

Drinking with the Kids (updated)

2008-07-17T14:09:00.000-07:00

Not too long ago I posted a rant about how I believe putting alcohol on a pedestal encourages its abuse. I also said parents should be allowed to drink with their kids and model responsible drinking habits. Last month TIME published an article on this topic. Here's a couple quotes:

"A few years ago, a team of North Carolina researchers, led by public-health professor Kristie Long Foley, examined whether adults' approval or disapproval mattered when adolescents were deciding whether and how much to drink. Foley's team analyzed surveys of more than 6,000 people ages 16 to 20 in 242 U.S. communities. One predictable finding: kids whose parents gave them alcohol for parties were more likely to binge-drink. That discovery underscored years of research showing that the earlier people start to drink, the more likely they are to become alcoholics.
But another result was surprising: if kids actually drank with their parents, they were about half as likely to say they had drunk alcohol in the past month and about one-third as likely to say they had had five or more drinks in a row in the previous two weeks. As Foley and her colleagues wrote in a 2004 Journal of Adolescent Health paper, "Drinking with parents appears to have a protective effect on general drinking trends."'

"Kids from the Southern European countries of the Romance languages--France, Romania, Italy, Spain and Portugal--get drunk at about the same rate as American teens (or slightly less often) even though a typical kid in these countries can buy wine or beer in any shop from early adolescence. The Southern European model of moderate, supervised drinking within families seems to be the most promising approach, on the basis of the North Carolina study. Italy and Spain report very low rates of alcohol dependence or abuse (less than 1% and 2.8%, respectively) compared with the U.S., where the rate is 7.8%, slightly lower than France's 8.7%. (All the figures are from the World Health Organization.)"

An Encounter with a Refugee

2008-07-15T17:14:00.000-07:00

I think I was set up. My friend Jason didn't tell me much about this refugee he hooked me up with to interview for my interviewing class. I contacted Jason, who volunteers working with refugees, because I needed to interview someone from a diverse cultural background. I figured a refugee who just arrived from Africa would be more interesting than my Hispanic co-worker who's lived here all her life. When Jason gave me the email of a refugee he knew who would be a "perfect candidate," all he told me was his name, age and that he'd been in the U.S. for a little over a year.

I contacted this refugee, and we made plans to meet up. I showed up at his place Monday morning. There was no where for us to talk inside the place he lived so we just sat in my car. My first question was where he was from and how, and why he came to America. I was taken aback by his answer, "I'm from Rwanda and in 1994..." Jason didn't tell me I was going to be talking to a survivor of the infamous Rwandan genocide, which was the backdrop for the movie Hotel Rwanda. And I'm not sure, but I have a feeling Jason purposely didn't inform me because he wanted me to be surprised. For over an hour, this refugee recounted his entire experience during this historic event. My brain couldn't keep up. Aside from knowing a lot of people died and that the conflict was between the Tutsis and the Hutus, I knew nothing about it. He explained, not only his story, but all of the cultural and political factors behind it. I could not believe that he is only 20, and that he was 7 when this happened.

For me, this was not only an interview; it was a sacred experience. Almost every day we hear about people dying on the continent of Africa. Just recently, in Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe brutalized those who opposed him in Zimbabwe's presidential election. Millions have died of AIDS. Talking with this refugee, I couldn't help but to repeatedly think that this incredibly intelligent, talented and friendly person with so much potential, could have been just another statistic. And then I realized that every time I hear about all the people dying in Africa, that they are people just like him. I think we tend to believe that because they live in Africa, they are used to disease and death, and that, for them, it's just a part of life to have loved one's die. We think they're so different than us.

Lastly, I realized that, like John McCain's economic advisor, who doesn't speak for him, said "we are a nation of whiners." Ok, in our context, we have reason to whine, but in the global context... I realize that meeting people who have had it much harder always elicits feelings of shame for complaining and taking things for granted. But maybe we need people like this refugee to come here, thankful just to be alive, and teach us how to be happy and grateful in our comfortable, overly-stimulated, choice-laden existences. And, perhaps, we need these people to show what is possible, inspiring us to be better human beings. It's interesting how when the rich and famous encounter the people of Africa, they end up becoming crusaders for saving this continent on fire. And maybe as our country continues to engage with them, some salvation will come to us as well.

So if you're reading, thanks Jason.

Farming in Skyscrapers

2008-07-09T07:33:00.000-07:00

A while back, TIME ran a story on how biofuels are destroying the Amazon and carbon-trapping forests in South America:

"The Amazon was the chic eco-cause of the 1990s, revered as an incomparable storehouse of biodiversity. It's been overshadowed lately by global warming, but the Amazon rain forest happens also to be an incomparable storehouse of carbon, the very carbon that heats up the planet when it's released into the atmosphere. Brazil now ranks fourth in the world in carbon emissions, and most of its emissions come from deforestation. Carter is not a man who gets easily spooked--he led a reconnaissance unit in Desert Storm, and I watched him grab a small anaconda with his bare hands in Brazil--but he can sound downright panicky about the future of the forest. "You can't protect it. There's too much money to be made tearing it down," he says. "Out here on the frontier, you really see the market at work."
This land rush is being accelerated by an unlikely source: biofuels. An explosion in demand for farm-grown fuels has raised global crop prices to record highs, which is spurring a dramatic expansion of Brazilian agriculture, which is invading the Amazon at an increasingly alarming rate."

As I read this article back in March, I thought about something that I've wondered for years: Why can't we create farms that go up instead of out? In other words, why can't we build skyscrapers and put farms in them? And, in this case, why can't we build skyscrapers, and put farms in them for the use of biofuel? Recently, I learned that, low and behold, I'm not the only person who has thought about this. It's called "vertical farming" and while I haven't seen it talked about in terms of producing biofuel, it would reduce fuel consumption by bringing the farms right into the city. Vertical farming and entomophagy: food-environmental-energy-factory farming-global warming crises solved!

A Team of Rivals?

2008-07-02T09:17:00.000-07:00

I admit, as a sucker for crazy ideas like bipartisanship, reform and progressivity, I'm loving this piece by the Weekly Standard. I know I said I liked Biden as Obama's Veep, but I'm gonna have to flip-flop and say Hagel would be the best choice. A team of rivals would be a refreshing change from the eight years of cronyism we've seen.

Oh Goody....

2008-06-24T11:16:00.001-07:00

Bill Clinton has offered his support in getting Obama elected. Yippee... After his stunning performance campaigning for his wife-- saying that since she's a little up there in age now, her recollection of her trip to Bosnia might have been a little off, especially since she gave the speech around 11 pm. This was, of course, after her "3 am phone call" ad started airing, and, oh yeah, she didn't give the speech late at night either. And let's not forget about the Obama-Jesse Jackson comparison. With supporters like Bill...

My Veep Picks

2008-06-17T09:16:00.000-07:00

For McCain: Newt Gingrich
-I think he's already said that he wouldn't do it, but I think he'd be the best choice. Let's face it, he's incredibly intelligent. His scholarly, professorial persona would balance out McCain's straight-talkin, down-to-earth, no BS style. He would also balance out McCain's admitted ignorance on the economy. They also both share an independent streak and believe in climate change.

For Obama: Joe Biden
-Biden would help with the bigot vote (let's face it, that's what it is), balancing the ticket with a solid, presidential, white, male statesman. He also has huge foreign-policy credentials and experience. He is also like McCain in that he's more of the straight-talkin, no BSer and would compliment Obama's professorial and scholarly persona. Oh, and he was also my pick for president. Richardson would also be good, but too risky -- one minority at a time please.

Why Wasn't This Guy in "Expelled"?: Thoughts on I.D.

2008-06-15T11:49:00.000-07:00

NPR's Science Friday recently featured Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller talking about his new book Only a Theory which takes on the intelligent design/evolution battle. Miller, of course, believes in the theory of evolution, but is also-- dun dun dun-- a practicing Roman Catholic. I don't know if I agree with everything Miller says, but the interview is good and, at one point, Miller takes on a caller who argues with him about the fossil record and the probability of proteins forming accidentally. To hear this part of the interview, simply skip to the middle.

My point in bringing this up in relation to the movie Expelled, is that I believe movies like Expelled, and this whole faction of the Intelligent Design movement, are just as extreme as people like Richard Dawkins. According to this article in Scientific American (yes I know, they're supposedly the "bad guys," but until someone proves their analysis false, from what I've read and heard, it rings very true) Expelled links the theory of evolution with the holocaust by taking quotes completely out of context:

"Expelled quotes Charles Darwin selectively to connect his ideas to eugenics and the Holocaust.When the film is building its case that Darwin and the theory of evolution bear some responsibility for the Holocaust, Ben Stein's narration quotes from Darwin's The Descent of Man thusly:
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
This is how the original passage in The Descent of Man reads (unquoted sections emphasized in italics):
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The producers of the film did not mention the very next sentences in the book (emphasis added in italics):
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
Darwin explicitly rejected the idea of eliminating the "weak" as dehumanizing and evil. Those words falsify Expelled's argument. The filmmakers had to be aware of the full Darwin passage, but they chose to quote only the sections that suited their purposes."

It's funny to me that the same people who despise Michael Moore will flock to a film that uses his same kinds of tactics. So for the same reason I never saw Farenheit 911, I probably won't ever be seeing Expelled.

Why didn't Expelled feature people like Ken Miller, Francis Collins, Simon Conway Morris, John Polkinghorne or Alister McGrath who are all Christians and take the Bible and their faith seriously, yet are also scientists who believe in evolution? Why did it only feature extremist atheists like Dawkins, who, interestingly enough, didn't even know what movie he was being interviewed for? Why are the I.D.ers so hell-bent on trashing the theory of evolution? I would say that it's because a very specific interpretation of Genesis, but Ben Stein, to my knowledge, isn't a Christian and there are many other people who aren't Christians that support ID-- people who believe aliens created the world, for instance. Technically, I, and the scientists I named above, could be under the I.D. banner, because while we believe mainstream ideas about evolution, we believe that evolution was how God created, hence the design we see in the universe. But I could care less about having theistic evolution taught in the classroom. Why? Because the second God, or anything that cannot be measured using the tools of scientific inquiry enters the picture, then we aren't talking about science anymore.

Ultimately, most of the people that support I.D. believe that evolution leads to atheism, and that's why they're so militant. But, fortunately, as evidenced by myself and a gazillion others, that's a bunch of BS. So how bout this: teach your kids creationism, I.D., evolution or whatever, and let them decide what they think. Just don't teach them that if they believe evolution then they can't believe in God, because that's just not true. If people would just understand that, then maybe we could focus on more important issues.

A Sad Day for Political Junkies

2008-06-15T11:09:00.000-07:00

Anyone who follows politics knows how incredibly tragic the loss of Tim Russert is. Ever since Friday, I have been following the coverage. Seeing the humanity brought out in these journalists and politicians that I watch all of the time makes me realize what an amazing person he must have been. I watch Meet the Press every Sunday. This morning, Tom Brokaw started the show with a "no weeping" policy, however, part way in, it was Brokaw who struggled to fight off tears in an attempt to finish his sentence.

One thing I've taken away from watching this coverage is that Russert spent most of his time neck deep in politics, studying it from every angle. Yet, unlike most people, he remained hopeful and optimistic; he loved politics and never grew cynical. I know a lot of people who hate politics, could care less or have grown jaded. I hope I never become that way. Politics are an enormous part of the human condition and influence every area of life. So I am exited for the coming election day because, ultimately, I am hopeful for a better world; I am hopeful for better people and, therefore, also for better politics. But it will be sad to watch it all unfold without the coverage of one of the only journalists who deserve the label "fair and balanced."

Christianity and Politics: Three Current Perspectives in Light of Jesus, the Early Church and Rome - Conclusion

2008-06-06T20:26:00.000-07:00

Christianity teaches that humans are fundamentally broken or sinful. People exhibit this brokenness on an individual level and also on an institutional, cultural and societal level. In Romans chapter 5, the the apostle Paul describes how sin started with one person and spread to the entire world. Paul then compares Adams sin to Christ's death saying that Christ's single act of righteousness extends to all. So, in other words, Christ reverses the curse. At one point Boyd quotes Revelation 11:15 which says that the kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of Christ. Boyd uses this verse to argue that the kingdoms of this world are in the process of being handed over to Christ. So, right now, the kingdom of God is invading earth.

Going back to the Romans 5 analogy, if sin starts individually and spreads to institutions and governments, then isn't the reverse true? Redemption starts individually and spreads to institutions and governments and politics. If this is true, then wouldn't that mean Satan is less in control of the "kingdoms of this world" than he was in Paul and Christ's day. And if so, what does that mean for Christians engaging in politics? On that, Boyd takes a very separationist point of view. But I'm not so sure that I do.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The second distinction Boyd makes is that kingdoms of the world are “power-over” kingdoms, while the kingdom of God is a “power-under” kingdom. Power-over refers to the government's use of punishment to rule its citizens. Behavioral change is achieved by force from the outside, so a power-over kingdom rules over its people. But the kingdom of God is a power-under kingdom, changing people from the inside out. Citizens of God's kingdom come under people in loving acts of service. According to Boyd (2005), “The cross is the ultimate symbol for the kingdom of God, for it defines what the kingdom always looks like. It looks like Christ – self-sacrificial and loving. It looks like grace (p. 33).” Boyd concludes that one either places his or her trust in the use of force and coercion, or one places his or her trust in the Spirit, working through Calvary-like love to change people from the inside.

Because America is clearly a power over-kingdom, it cannot be, nor ever have been, a Christian nation. The role of the Christian in politics, therefore, is not to fuse God’s kingdom with a kingdom of this world, but to live out the unique kingdom of God in its midst. This happens when Christians submit to Christ’s lordship and communally embody his teachings and example, which causes people to, as Boyd says “come under the loving influence of the kingdom (Boyd 2005).” So the goal is not to protect the original Judeo-Christian values America was supposedly founded upon, but to overthrow America, and every government, with the power of the cross.

This does not mean Boyd is against Christians involving themselves in the political process, on that Boyd (2005) argues:

“To insist that we keep the kingdom of God radically distinct from all versions of the kingdom of the world does not mean that our faith and moral convictions shouldn’t inform our participation in the political process. Of course they should – but that is true of all citizens of a free country… What the distinction between the two kingdoms does imply, however, is that citizens of the kingdom of God need to take care to distinguish between their core faith and values on the one hand and the particular way they politically express their faith and values on the other. While the way of the kingdom of God is always simple, straightforward, and uncompromising, the way of the kingdom of the world is always complex, ambiguous, and inevitably full of compromises. Hence, kingdom people who share the same core faith and values can and often do disagree about how their faith and values should inform their involvement in the kingdom of the world (p. 15).”

Boyd also points out that Jesus had “conservatives” and “liberals” among his own disciples. Matthew was a tax collector, while Simon was a Zealot (Boyd 2005). As we have seen, these two factions were diametrically opposed to one another, yet under Jesus they were working toward the same ends. Christians, therefore, can live in political tension with one another disagreeing with how their values affect their political involvement, but at the same time are working toward the same goal of overthrowing the kingdoms of this world with the kingdom of God.

Greg Boyd’s perspective looks most like the interactions Jesus, Paul and the early church had with Rome. Jesus rejected the Jewish factions of his day and, instead, created his own unique community that included wealthy tax-collectors, militant Zealots, and societal rejects. He told Pilate his kingdom was not of this world and denounced the way of coercion and violence. Paul started, as Horsley says, “alternative communities” of Jesus worshippers in the midst of Rome and its Caesar worship (Horsley 1997). He did not advocate the Christianization of Rome, but anticipated its overthrow by the kingdom of God, and this is exactly the point of view Boyd argues in his book. I believe the awakening of some on the Christian Left and Right to the folly of aligning God with partisanship and a myopic understanding of values is a hopeful sign that, someday soon, the church might be unified under the cross, rather than divided by politics.

The Solution to the Food Crisis, Environmental Degradation and Factory Farming

2008-06-04T21:22:00.000-07:00

Growing up, I was quite the weird little attention whore. One of the things I liked to do to get attention was eat ants. One time, I ate a live one and it kept crawling up my throat. I thought it was hilarious; other people just thought it was gross. Americans still think eating bugs is gross, but much of the world doesn't, and maybe soon things here will change.

I read this article yesterday on entomophagy, which is the term for eating insects. I admit that I have a fear of large flying insects, so I wouldn't really be all about eating them. But given that there's more protein in insects than in chicken, and it takes less water to raise them I might reconsider. This is a great article and I predict that by the time I'm an old man entomophagy will be commonplace in the U.S. The article points out that sushi once had a high gross-out factor, and lobster is just a large cockroach. I would add that food in the U.S. is becoming increasingly multi-cultural and diverse, and shows like Bizarre Foods promote desensitization. I know, it sounds gross, but read the article, it makes a lot of sense.

This Would be Great

2008-06-04T15:09:00.000-07:00

Call my idealistic. Call me naive. But I would love this. It's exactly the kind of contest we need. I hope Obama takes him up on it.

Christianity and Politics: Three Current Perspectives in Light of Jesus, the Early Church and Rome- Greg Boyd

2008-05-30T10:26:00.000-07:00

I have been facinated with Greg Boyd ever since he spoke at my church a couple years ago. He's a megachurch pastor who is a former atheist and a graduate of Princeton Theological Seminary and Yale Divinity School, yet he takes a very literal approach in his belief in Satan, angels and demons. I admit that I struggle with believing in a literal devil or demons and angels, so for an Ivy League trained intellectual and scholar to embrace these things is encouraging to me. I'll comment more on Boyd's political ideas in upcoming posts.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But a third perspective remains. This perspective is one that, I believe, most accurately reflects the activity of Jesus and the early church in their political element. It is a perspective that views politics through a theological lens, and one that relies much more on faith, than on the political process.

In 2004, Dr. Greg Boyd, a pastor at a mega church in Minnesota was being pressured by various Christian, conservative groups to take a political stand in his pulpit. Under the increasing pressure, Boyd finally decided to address his reluctance to enter the political fray with a series of sermons he called, “The Cross and the Sword.” To his surprise there was an incredibly negative reaction by some of his congregation resulting in 20 percent (roughly 1,000 people) of them leaving. This exodus from Boyd's church made national headlines. A year later he penned a book version of his series entitled, The Myth of a Christian Nation.

In this book, Boyd takes a much different view of America and a Christian’s role in her politics than the religious Right and Left. Rather than portraying America as good or bad, Boyd makes a theological distinction between kingdoms of the world, and the kingdom of God. For Boyd, America, like every nation that has ever existed, with the exception of maybe ancient Israel, is a kingdom of the world; and all kingdoms of the world are run by Satan. Boyd (2005) supports this argument with the story of Jesus' temptation in the wilderness:

“For example, in Luke 4 the Devil tempted Jesus by showing him “all the kingdoms of the world” while saying, “To you I will give their glory and all this authority; for it has been given over to me, and I give it to anyone I please. If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours” (Luke 4:5-7, emphasis added). Jesus, of course, would not worship the Devil to acquire these kingdoms. But note: he doesn't dispute the Devil's claim to own them (p. 21).”

A little later, Boyd quotes 1 John 5:19 which says “the whole world lies in the power of the evil one,” and points out that Jesus calls Satan “the ruler of the world” three different times (Boyd 2005). But, while Boyd (2005) believes America belongs to Satan, he does make note that God uses governments for his purposes saying:

“God uses governments as he finds them, in all their ungodly rebellious ways, to serve his own providential purposes. As Paul describes in Romans 13, this general purpose is to preserve as much law and order as is possible. Insofar as governments do this, they are properly exercising the authority God grants them and are, to that extent, good (p. 20).”

So Boyd’s view of America is neither that it is good nor bad, but instead, it is just another kingdom of this world and that the Christian's focus should be on the kingdom of God.

Christianity and Politics: Three Current Perspectives in Light of Jesus, the Early Church and Rome- The Religious Left

2008-05-19T11:31:00.000-07:00

My prof and I started butting heads a little on the subject of Jeremiah Wright when discussing this portion of my paper. I'm not a fan of him either, and I think Obama was right in denouncing him; it was all he could do. That said, while I think some of his ideas are nutty, I can appreciate his point of view and I understand that, in the black church context, he's not that unique. The Afro-centric movement wasn't about saying black people are superior, but that black people have their own unique heritage and they will not conform to a dominate culture that has oppressed them. Recently, I saw a black preacher discussing Wright, and he mentioned that one of Martin Luther King's sermons were entitled something like"Why America is Going to Hell." His point being that most Americans are unaware of the more fiery sermons that King gave.

I like what a lot of what Jim Wallis says. I do think he's too aligned to the Democratic party for him to be considered non-partisan, but I think what he's doing is important. Wallis is essentially saying that Christian values encompass values that everyone finds important, and that they should unify rather than divide. Wallis points to an example of an agnostic who thanked him for making him feel included and spiritually inspired after he spoke at a rally. Wallis is also trying to rescue Jesus, if you will, from his connection with the political Right. In doing this, hopefully, Wallis will let Jesus be Jesus and not just create a liberal parody in his efforts.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those who are commonly referred to as the religious Left include a diverse group of people including civil rights leaders such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and liberal, mainline, church organizations like the World Council of Churches. They find their modern day roots in the civil rights movement and the work of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Jesse Jackson, of course, worked closely with Dr. King. Partly because of this history, the United States is looked at with a critical eye. Rather than longingly wishing the United States would return to its Christian heritage, those on the religious Left view those years as a time punctuated by racial bigotry, discrimination and oppression. Rather than thinking of the times of prayer that opened sessions of congress, as Schaeffer cited, those in the religious Left might cite Fredrick Douglass (1968 [1845]) in regards to America’s “Christian” past:

"Between the Christianity of this land, and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference – so wide, that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt and wicked… I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ; I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land. Indeed, I can see no reason, but the most deceitful one, for calling the religion of this land Christianity (p. 120)."

Currently, an extreme example of this criticism towards America has been expressed in the sermons, which have been blasted across the media, by presidential candidate, Barack Obama’s, former pastor the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

While Martin Luther King regularly invoked God into his messages of racial equality, leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who have been in the national spotlight for years, rarely do. Instead, they have focused more on the message of civil rights for African Americans and social justice. They are also closely aligned with the Democratic Party. In sum, the religious Left has looked much like the religious Right in their engagement with the political system to bring about change that reflects their pet Christian values. However, Jim Wallis, a long time evangelical leader on the Left, has recently campaigned for a new dialogue on the matters of faith and politics.

In his 2005 book God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It Wallis says this concerning values: “I believe the values debate should be the future of American politics. Of course, the questions are which values and whose values? ... Will the moral values debate cut both ways in politics, challenging both the political Left and the political Right, both Republicans, and Democrats? (p. xxi)” Wallis calls for Christians of both parties and of all sensibilities to have a discussion on values that transcends both ideology and political party. Wallis advocates that every issue, including: social justice, war, racism, abortion, the family, capital punishment, the AIDS pandemic and the environment, be put on the table. Jackson and Perkins express similar sentiments in their aforementioned book. However, division remains between both groups and both continue to share the commonality of using to political process to advance Christian values.

Why it Pays to Get an Education Before You Run Your Fricken Mouth

2008-05-15T21:09:00.000-07:00

Because Chris Matthews will tear you a new one...

Christianity and Politics: Three Current Perspectives in Light of Jesus, the Early Church and Rome- The Religious Right Pt 2

2008-05-15T20:47:00.001-07:00

For this section I used the new book by Tony Perkins and Harry Jackson called Personal Faith, Public Policy. I just stumbled across it at the book store, and found it to be exactly what I was looking for. I must admit that there was a lot I actually agreed with. I have a feeling though, that the portions I resonated with were written by Harry Jackson rather than Perkins. However, when I first started reading it I thought I was going to be tearing my hair out all the way through. For one, the religious Right like to compare themselves to prophets, like the ones in the Old Testament, calling their nation to moral clarity. This is problematic, because Israel actually was a theocracy -- which the religious Right readily admit America is not -- and, therefore, Israel's prophets had every right to call their nation back to God and remind it of its heritage. Secondly, the book starts out with describing how, starting in the 40's, different liberal groups have been "carrying out a radical anti-Christian agenda" via the courts. Such radical anti-Christian rulings they cite include one where the state of Maryland cannot require applicants for public office to swear they believe in God. Another one ruled that there cannot be excessive entanglement of government and religion, and its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or advance any religion. I could not believe that they characterized such rulings as radical or anti-Christian. What I see is a time in American history where the country was becoming more diverse and less Protestant Christian, so various groups thought that if public funded gatherings or assemblies were to be for everyone then they need not include perfunctory religious ceremonies. I fail to see how these rulings restrict religious freedom.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The religious Right view themselves as a conscience to the nation, calling it back to its heritage and away from secularization. Recently, religious Right leaders Tony Perkins and Harry Jackson Jr. have come out with a book called Personal Faith, Public Policy highlighting the history of the religious Right and its future. In it, they articulate the mission and identity of the religious Right, past and present:

“What prompted Jerry Falwell and others to challenge the public policies of our government and the directions of the broader culture in the early 1980’s after years of isolationist neglect by Christians was the aggression of the Left against America’s long held values. The denizens of the religious Right, then and now, didn’t have a driving desire for power, nor did they want to establish a theocracy… They saw themselves as people of conscience who, over the last half-century, have awakened to a terrible reality similar to what King David saw in his day... The religious Right is made up of people who have been awakened by real concern over government policy and cultural initiatives that were being influenced and shaped by a post-modern world view that was radically secular and hostile toward the Christian faith (Jackson & Perkins, 2008, p. 16-17).”

Jackson and Perkins echo Schaeffer in their concern with the secularization of America and its corruption. Manifestations of this corruption include: removal of prayer in public settings, the breakdown of the family and abortion. And these are the issues that the religious Right has been most invested in. Jackson and Perkins argue that school prayer was the issue that “rapidly advanced” the cause of the Moral Majority. The federal courts banned school prayer in a “string of legal victories” which caused Christian voters to “march into the public policy arena (Jackson & Perkins 2008).” Indeed, to many, these issues are what Christians have come to be known for. Recently there has been an attempt to get a constitutional amendment passed banning gay marriage, and a ban was passed outlawing partial-birth abortion. So the religious Right maintains a relatively high view of America and engages in the political arena focusing on the issues of abortion, religious liberty and the family. On other issues they maintain positions that largely mirror the Republican Party platform, and are in sync with conservative sensibilities. Their counter part, however, what some have called the “religious Left,” takes a different view of America and focuses on different issues.

Ding Dong...

2008-05-13T21:47:00.000-07:00

It's over, but she isn't going away. Everyone is saying that it's impossible she can win short of intervention by the democratic party, so why is she staying in? I personally think she's trying to hurt Obama so she can run in '12. It's funny watching Hannity and Colme's because, as of now, they are both Hillary suporters. Both of them were arguing with Clinton arch-nemesis and all-around slimebag Dick Morris.

I think that Obama simply needs to ignore the crazy lady and go after McCain like she isn't even there. Like I said, everyone knows it's over, and her staying in it makes her look out of touch, not only with the country, but with reality.

Christianity and Politics: Three Current Perspectives in Light of Jesus, the Early Church and Rome- The Religious Right Pt 1

2008-05-11T16:23:00.000-07:00

I saw Francis Schaeffer speak about A Christian Manifesto on an old episode of the Corral Ridge Hour, which is what gave me the idea to use his book for a source. I admit that I thought much of what he had to say about losing our inaliable rights and our religious liberties to be a little shrill to say the least. Boyd makes excellent arguments that I never got to touch on concerning the church taking up the power of the government and losing religious liberties. In short, he believes that the church using the government to impose its agenda is a dangerous temptation and idolatrous when it has done so, and that Christians shouldn't be concerned with fighting for their religious liberties as the church has thrived the most under intense persecution and lost its distinctive radicalness when it has become a national religion. Boyd simply points to empty churches in Europe to back his claim. And finally, Boyd says that the Christianity that was so much a part of the founding of this country is nothing more than a civil religion and not the Christianity of Jesus.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are two distinct differences between the United States of America and the Roman Empire. The first is that Christians in America are not forced to worship any god. The U.S. is a country of religious freedom. The second difference is that its citizens are invited to participate in the political process. Democratic freedom is a privilege the early church in Rome did not have. Because of these distinctions Christians are faced with the question of how their faith should influence their political involvement or whether they should be involved at all. The American political arena is generally divided between conservatives and liberals. This division carries over to American Christianity dividing Christians into a religious Right and religious Left. Historically, evangelicals have sided with the Right, while mainline denominations have often sided with the Left. Among the many differences between these two sects, there are two I want to highlight: the view of the United States and the Christian values that take priority in political participation. By focusing on these differences I believe I’ll get an accurate picture of how these two perspectives view the role of Christians in politics.

In the late 70’s and early 80’s, the group collectively known as the religious Right began taking shape in America. They represented politically-active, conservative, Christians. They formed a strong allegiance with the Republican Party, and are commonly given credit for electing Ronald Regan as president. The political organizations that were key players in the rise of the religious Right were The Moral Majority and The Christian Coalition. Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and D. James Kennedy were its central figures. Falwell and Kennedy have both passed away in recent years.

A book written in the early 80’s which had a strong influence on leaders in the Religious Right and covers the philosophical, historical and theological underpinnings behind it was A Christian Manifesto by the late Francis Schaeffer. Schaeffer essentially says that Christianity is at war with the religion of Secular Humanism for the soul of America. In this book, Schaeffer argues that materialistic humanism is taking over America; destroying the family; removing Judeo-Christian values from the public square; and threatening the concept of inaliable rights. It is doing this, Schaeffer argues, because at the core of materialistic humanism is the belief that all reality is based on random chance and, therefore, there can be no “certain inaliable rights.” They are completely arbitrary (Schaeffer 1982).

Historically, Schaeffer promotes the view, which is common among those in the religious Right, that America was founded on Judeo-Christian values. The conservative Christian belief that America is a “Christian nation,” and that Christians must “take back America for God” come from this historical perspective. Therefore, those of the religious Right carry a generally positive view of the U.S. Schaeffer (1982) reflects on the United States’ Christian past, writing: “Most people do not realize that there was a paid chaplain in Congress even before the Revolutionary War ended… And from the very beginning, prayer opened the national congress… They knew they were building on the Supreme Being who was the Creator, the final reality (p. 33).” And concerning the founding of America on Judeo-Christian values and the influence of materialistic humanism Schaeffer (1982) writes: “What we find then as we look back is that the men who founded the United States of America really understood that upon which they were building their concepts of law and the concepts of government. And until the takeover of our government and law by this other entity, the materialistic, humanistic, chance world view, these things remained the base of government and law (p. 39).” So there is a fundamental understanding that America was once a basically Christian country, but secularism has corrupted it.

Christianity and Politics: Three Current Perspectives in Light of Jesus, the Early Church and Rome- History Pt 2

2008-05-09T15:56:00.000-07:00

According to scholar, Richard Horsley (1997), “Although some would still view Jesus as an innocuous religious teacher, it is becoming increasingly evident to many that he catalyzed a movement of the renewal of Israel – a movement over against Roman rule as well as the Jerusalem priestly aristocracy (p. 1).” Israel was called to be the light of the world, reflecting God’s image to all of humanity, but she had failed miserably. With choosing 12 disciples, representing the original 12 tribes, Jesus was renewing Israel. He was the Moses figure leading a new exodus declaring the imminence of the kingdom of God (Wright 1999). In Jesus declaring that God’s kingdom was at hand, he was denouncing the empire of Rome. Jesus taught not to resist violence with violence, and he engaged with the ruling class. Therefore, Jesus rejected the violent ways of the Zealots; unlike the Herodians, rejected Rome as Israel’s governing authority; and in his teachings, rather than separating themselves like the Essenes, called Israel to live out their true vocation, united in their calling, as God’s representatives amongst the Romans. This isn’t to say that Jesus did not care about politics, or believed Israel was to be separate from it. But, because the Gospel is transformative on every level, in Israel living out God’s kingdom, they would be a new community with a new economy and a new kind of politics that transcended Rome.

By the time of the Apostle Paul, an entire religion revolving around Caesar had developed. Rome was brutally conquering the known world and expanding its empire. Caesar was declaring that he was Lord and Savior. According to Horsley (1997): “During the 50’s the apostle Paul moved systematically through eastern Mediterranean cities … proclaiming “the gospel of Christ…” Yet by then “the gospel of Caesar” had already become widespread and well established in those very cities (p. ?).” Horsley goes on to say that the cult of Caesar was incredibly pervasive in all of the places Paul visited (Horsley 1997). Caesar, essentially, was controlling his empire, not just with military might, but with celebrations, imagery, symbols, games and a religion devoted to him. Paul’s message was dangerous because he was saying that Jesus was the true Lord and Savior, that Jesus brings peace and that Caesar is a fraud. Paul was latching onto his distinctly Jewish belief that God is intimately involved with human affairs. Concerning this, Wright (2002) says: “Simultaneously, and precisely because of the inner dynamic of just this Jewish tradition, Paul was announcing that Jesus was the true King of Israel and hence the true Lord of the world, at exactly the time in history, and over exactly the geographical spread, where the Roman emperor was being proclaimed, in what styled itself a “gospel,” and in very similar terms (p.5).”

Paul was not only declaring a different gospel, but the communities Paul was starting were living out this new gospel as well. In an empire filled with hierarchy and extreme social stratification, Paul says in Galatians: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ.” Cahill claims that this is the first time in recorded history where egalitarian ideals are spoken of (Cahill, 1999). Paul is saying that, according to Christ’s gospel, everyone is equally valued.

Christ’s gospel also transcended economic stratification that was pervasive in Caesar’s Empire. In Acts chapter four, those in the early church sold their possessions so that no one among them was in need. Imagine living in a world where you believe Caesar brings peace and economic security, and coming upon communities claiming that Jesus is Lord and Savior. And under this Jesus, everyone is equal, generous and meets each other’s needs. In a world where religion, economics, and politics were one, this was how the first Christians interacted with their government, Caesar and his empire.

Christianity and Politics: Three Current Perspectives in Light of Jesus, the Early Church and Rome- History Pt 1

2008-05-06T16:00:00.000-07:00

My sources for this part were N.T. Wright, Thomas Cahill and Richard Horsley. Wright has been the most enlightening for me when it comes to the historical Jesus. Horsley is big on viewing Jesus and Paul against the politics of Caesar and Rome rather than viewing them against Judaism. I find this stuff extremely interesting. My understanding of Christianity has been greatly changed by learning about the historical context of Rome, so I apologize if anyone reading this finds it boring.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Jewish people lived in the promise that their god, YHWH, had chosen them to be his instrument in saving the world. They were a nation that would bless the nations. Yet, the Jewish people spent an enormous amount of time as conquered people, under the oppressive thumbs of various empires. Most notably, they lived as slaves under the Egyptians, and after their stint oppressing their own people under Solomon and subsequent kings; they were captured by the Babylonians in 597 B.C (Wright 1999). After their exile in Babylon, they were freed by the Persian king Cyrus and allowed to return to their homeland, where they rebuilt their temple (Cahill 1999). Fast forward to Jesus’ day, and the Jewish people lived under the oppressive Roman Empire. Rome ruled over the Jews via a puppet government, the Herods, who were part of a Jewish line known as the Hasmoneans (Cahill 1999). In sum, this was the political and religious conundrum of Jesus’ day: The Jewish people, chosen by the one, true God over heaven and earth to be his means in saving the world, were living under the rule of pagans. While they were technically free, they might as well have been back in Egypt.

The ministry of Jesus was set against an explosive backdrop where the spheres of religion and politics completely overlapped. Unlike our day, there was no concept of separation of church and state. N.T. Wright (1999), a new testament scholar and bishop of Durham, puts it this way: “And the popular frustration with the overall rule of Rome and the local rule of the priests and Herod brought together what we must never separate if we are to be true to the biblical witness: religion and politics, questions of God and of the ordering of society. (p. 36)” Israel’s religious identity and Roman imperialist oppression were interconnected.

During this period, there were at least five different Jewish factions: the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Herodians, the Zealots and the Essenes. And out of these sects there were at least three divergent views on how to deal with the Romans: complicity, violence and isolation (Wright 1999). The Herodians and the infamous tax collectors worked with the Romans, becoming wealthy and powerful on the backs of their fellow Jews. This enraged the Zealots and, mostly, Zealot-sympathizing Pharisees who took the view that Rome needed to be conquered (Wright 1999). The Zealots were freedom-fighters and continually turning out new messiahs and attacking the Romans. The third way came from the Essenes, who took to the desert, lived in caves, assiduously studied the law and waited on God’s judgment (Cahill 1999). It doesn’t take a stretch of one’s imagination to find similarities and parallels with these Jewish factions and the religious factions in our day. Westboro Baptist Church, headed by Fred Phelps of the infamous “God Hates America,” and “God Hates Fags” campaigns, share the extreme zeal and intense anger of the Zealots. The tendency of the some Christians to retreat into their own little communities and sub-cultures resembles the Essenes. And the Christian Right and Christian Left in their, at times, intense alignments with the Republican and Democratic parties can look like the Herodians. Jesus, however, sided with none of these views.

Christianity and Politics: Three Current Perspectives in Light of Jesus, the Early Church and Rome - Intro

2008-05-04T19:58:00.000-07:00

This paper was originally going to be called "Religion and Politics," but to talk about religion and politics in America is to assume the religion in question is Christianity. I think that's kind of interesting and says something about the place of Christianity in America. I had to make the most of the limited scope I was given in writing about this. That said, I'm not sure Boyd's arguments are necessarily complete, or even that I 100% agree with him on everything, but compared to the religious Right and Left I think he sheds an enormous amount of light. So here's my intro, I'll try to post more soon.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since its inception, Christianity and political systems have been closely intertwined or at odds with one another. Christians were fed to hungry animals by the Romans; Christianity was made the official religion of Rome under Theodosius; Christians fought both to abolish and sustain the institution of slavery; many Christians insist that America is a Christian nation; and some Christians insist America is an enemy of Christ. For the past 25 years, Christian groups, in America, both on the political Left and Right have fought to inject their religious convictions into the political system; and, arguably, those on the Right have been the most successful. But I want to ask the questions: What is the role, if any, of Christians in politics, and whose perspective, in America today, looks most like Jesus and the early church? To answer these questions I will first look at Jesus’ actions and message in the context of various first-century Jewish factions and the Roman Empire; and, from there, look at Paul and the early church, also in the context of the Roman Empire. I will then examine three leading views amongst Evangelical Christians today: The religious Right, the religious Left, and view of Dr. Greg Boyd. I believe, in light of what we know about Jesus and the Jewish and first-century Christian struggle with Rome, that Dr. Boyd’s ideas best reflect the church’s role in present-day American politics.

It's Done!

2008-05-01T19:12:00.000-07:00

I am finally done with my research paper I have been working on for the past two weeks. We had to write a 7 page paper about anything we wanted, so I chose to do mine on something I was really interested in. The title of my paper is: Christianity and Politics: Three Current Perspectives in Light of Jesus, the Early Church and Rome. So yeah... it was a little longer than I expected. Last week when we needed to hand in our rough draft I had 6 and a half pages, I was half-way done, and it was in font 10... Needless to say, I did tons of revising and re-working. This was the hardest paper I have ever done, but I learned a lot about writing. The two biggest things I learned that much of the time you won't get to use some of your best material, and that outlining, structure and sticking to your outline are crucial.

I plan on posting this paper in chunks with commentary. I don't know if I'll post the whole thing, but I think it could generate interesting discussion. Until then...

In a Few Short Sentences, Define Freedom...

2008-04-03T18:49:00.000-07:00

That's what our research writing prof asked us to do tonight. I sat there for like 10 minutes just staring at my paper. I honestly didn't think I was going to come up with anything, but I finally ended up with this:
Working from the idea that human beings were created with an intent and purpose, freedom is the ability for one to be what one was intended to be regardless of time, place or circumstance.

Yeah, I figured that I'd just stay as vague and abstract as possible and it'll sound brilliant.

Drinking on the Sabbath

2008-04-03T06:53:00.001-07:00

I listened to this story yesterday on Marketplace. Georgia is one of the few states that has leftover prohibition laws on buying alcohol on Sundays. The governor is against repealing the law saying that: "Six days is plenty to gather up. We've got refrigerators. You've got different places to store. I think we need a little relief on Sunday." Another Georgia citizen says that repealing the law is further chipping away at the sabbath.

I'm sorry-- actually no I'm not-- but this drives me bonkers. Firstly, Sunday IS NOT the sabbath!! To make one specific day of the week THE sabbath misses the point of the sabbath! But unfortunately missing the point is nothing new to many Christians in America. There's nothing magical about Sunday, yet in the minds of many there is. This is nothing more than superstition and it has nothing to do with Christianity or Jesus or God. And if Sunday is sacred to these people then fine, but don't enforce laws on the rest of the citizenry to abide by certain restrictions on YOUR special day! American IS NOT a Christians nation!

Secondly, I would argue, that the tremendous stigma that so many people, Christians or not, place on alcohol is part of the reason it's abused. Alcohol IS NOT evil, it's ABUSE is! And the more you tell kids, "no, no, no you can't drink till this specific age" the more kids are going to want to drink. And thanks to this law, the age of 21 is the sacred day when the birthday boy or girl goes out with the intent on getting as shit-faced as humanly possible! Quit putting alcohol on this pedestal and maybe, just maybe we might see less abuse. Parents should model responsible drinking habits for kids. And maybe if we were more like Europe in this area, and kids started drinking when they were 12, it would be no big deal and wouldn't lead to abuse.

Listening to America's Critics

2008-03-16T11:44:00.000-07:00

Much has been made of the clips of Barak Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright. For one, this is nothing but guilt by association. Rob Bell's my pastor so I must agree with everything Rob Bell says? Thankfully, this morning on Meet the Press Clinton supporter Nita Lowey said that Obama's condemnation of Wright's remarks should be good enough and nothing more should be made of it. Honestly though, I didn't find the remarks all that offensive.

Days after 9/11 Wright said "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye... We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost"
Aside from the parts about Palestinians and black South Africans of which I know little about, I find a lot of truth in this statement. He's essentially saying that when it comes to the people the U.S. killed in other countries, namely the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Americans show little regard for the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in those bombings. Our motives might have been just, but what we did was horrible. He's also pointing out that those who live by the sword die by the sword. Violence breeds violence.

The other quote from Wright referred to the way America has, in the past, and currently treats black Americans. Wright said, "The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."
Once again, I'm not incredibly knowledgeable about all the topics he hit, but even if half of what he said is true I'm not seeing the huge controversy. Sure, he's being hyperbolic and provocative. And perhaps rather than saying "God damn America" pastor Wright should have said "God have mercy on America and empower your church to bring change by being the image of Christ." But, the fact is that when most Americans, and especially Christians, see statements like these and immediately cry "anti-Americanism," they are just confirming the last portion of what he said. Americans think this country is supreme and above all criticism. Any suggestion that America reaps what she sows is met with angry charges of anti-Americanism.

When all is said and done America is just another country. Like Tony Campolo says, and I paraphrase, "America is the best Babylon there ever was, but she's a Babylon nonetheless." Some of the critics might need to tone the fire and rhetoric down a tad, but I believe much of that fire stems from a deep thirst for justice and peace, and some of their voices (NOT ALL!) should be listened to. And I would argue that some of the MOST outspoken critics of America should be Christians. Because, after all, many times the kingdom itself is anti-American.

Like People are Actually Offended...

2008-02-28T13:39:00.000-08:00

The other day at work my manager and another employee were discussing the 3 hour free coffee promotion at Biggby's. During the discussion my manager noted that he thinks the name change from Beaner's to Biggby's is kind of dumb and he doubts anyone was really offended. I, so badly, wanted to ask the Mexican cleaning guy Miguel, who was standing in the same room as us if he agreed, but I figured that wouldn't be very wise. I've heard other people express these same ideas, but, apparently, according to the news story I linked to people did take notice. In fact, a couple friends who moved to Michigan a year ago were shocked that the name of a popular coffee chain was a derogatory term for Hispanic Americans.

My question is why do we caucasians have such crappy attitudes when other people feel offended by something? Shouldn't we respect other culture's feelings on such matters? Who are we to judge what other people are offended at? I understand that some groups take things too far, but I really don't believe this is one of those instances. Don't get me wrong I liked the name "Beaner's" very much, and I'll probably continue to call it that. The name Biggby-- don't ask me why, it's probably something from my childhood-- make's me think of a large, dumb cartoon dog Maybe they should have compromised and changed their logo to a large coffee bean to drive the meaning home.

But, in the end, shouldn't we consider this progress? Not that long ago in the 50's the government actually had a deportation program called, "Operation Wetback." We thought nothing about throwing around racially disparaging remarks. I'm not saying we should be politically correct, but historically we (caucasians) have done a lot of evil to other people in this country, and the least we can do is respect a racially oppressed people's right to be offended.

Poverty in Michigan

2008-02-26T21:56:00.000-08:00

In keeping with the topic of poverty, Michigan Radio political correspondent Jack Lessenberry did an essay on poverty in Michigan.

When discussing whether the poor can actually be helped Lessenberry writes: "I think some of that came from experiences people had during the War on Poverty. Some of the starry-eyed were disillusioned when many of the poor turned out not to have good work habits. They also tended to be lacking in social skills. Helping them proved to be harder than just finding them a job interview.
Well, guess what. Most really important things aren’t easy to do. If they were, someone would have done them already. "

More importantly, he writes about children born into poverty saying: "But there are more than half a million children in this state who are poor through no fault of their own. If we don’t do what it takes to help them, we aren’t even a good, let alone great, society."

Thoughts?

Poverty Actually Causes Neurological Damage??!

2008-02-21T20:53:00.000-08:00

It appears that people aren't poor just because they're lazy. Who'd a thunk it?

Thanks Ryan.

Just Set your Prejudices Aside for 15 Minutes and Watch

2008-02-21T09:37:00.000-08:00

I eat meat. I eat chicken, veal, lamb, pork, cow and fish. I have no intention of becoming a vegetarian any time soon. That said, what do I do after watching a video like this? Yup, it's narrated by Alec Baldwin the big, scary, LIBERAL actor who should just act rather than try to force his political views on us good ol' God-fearing Midwestern folk. It also mentions the evil, ultra-liberal group PETA who is, in fact, so incredibly liberal they are incapable of speaking one truth. So with that, I would urge all of my fellow carnivores who consider themselves compassionate, and even more importantly claim to follow Jesus, who drop by my blog to watch this video. What you do with it is your business; I'm not sure how I'll respond, but I think it's important to be informed.

Stop Hurting America!

2008-02-13T15:56:00.000-08:00

In '04 Jon Stewart went on Crossfire and kicked Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala in the balls-- well not really-- but what he did was even better then that. If you missed his appearance you should check it out because I think the disdain he exhibits is manifesting itself in the huge youth turnout for Obama and in the imminent nomination of McCain.

Rush Limbaugh and company have been coming unglued over McCain, and I admit that part of me enjoys listening to these meltdowns. The reason Rush hates McCain is because he sees McCain as a trojan horse who will, "let the enemy in" because what Limbaugh, and people like Tom DeLay, want is a Republican-controlled country; not a democracy. I think that the country is sick of the us-versus-them politics that has enveloped the last eight years. I think that, especially, college-educated young people and independents are looking for leaders who will work with those in the other party and champion what's best for the country and the rest of the world, and not Republican or Democratic dogma. The Stewart-Crossfire appearance struck me because for far too long we've had shows like Crossfire and Hannity and Colmes perpetuating divisiveness and this either-or, liberal versus conservative garbage.

A McCain-Obama contest would be good for America, and elevate the political discourse. And a McCain or Obama presidency would, hopefully, bring together some of the good things from both parties.

Enough with the Cell Phones!

2008-01-31T22:16:00.000-08:00

At work we're forced to listen to John Tesh. On the Tesh's show he regularly has anti-driving while talking on a cell phone segments. These drive me nuts. The other day he claimed a study showed that drivers who are talking on cell phones- even ones with blue tooth- slow down traffic. Here's my beef with this: I, personally, don't have issues with talking on my phone while driving. I have a much more difficult time talking to people who are in the car with me. Furthermore, what about driving while eating and/or drinking, or driving with a backseat full of screaming, fighting, taddle-tailing kids? What about the studies for those situations? Are you going to tell me the mom with all the fighting, loud, crying kids in the car is less distracted then someone talking on a cell phone? Are we going to create legislation outlawing driving with kids? My problem with those who want to create cell phone laws is that they're trying to legislate distractibility, and we could do endless studies proving that everything from fellow passengers to billboards distract people and cause accidents, slower traffic etc... I think the focus on cell-phones is assinine; go after the soccer moms.

Charlie Wilson's War

2008-01-23T08:39:00.000-08:00

This past Saturday my wife and her friend Erica went and saw a movie together while I went and saw Charlie Wilson's War. I've been wanting to see this film for a while and lept at the opportunity. I thought it was phenomenal, and I'm bummed that it hasn't received more Oscar nods. I thought for sure it would be up for best picture, best actor and best actress, but it's only up for best supporting actor for Philip Seymour Hoffman who was astounding.

The film was about the Soviet war with Afghanistan in the late eighties. Soviet helicopters were flying over Afghan villages and gunning people down. Russian soldiers were massacring Afghans and raping their women. Pakistan was facing a huge Afghan refugee crisis, as Afghans were flooding their borders. In the midst of all this stepped Texas congressman Charlie Wilson played by Tom Hanks. Wilson sat on the Defense Appropriations committee, and as a favor for a friend stopped in Pakistan to meet with their president. While he was there he was flown to a refugee camp to witness the carnage first hand. I loved this part of the movie because it showed that a womanizing, alcoholic, cocaine-using politician can have a soul. He was so moved by what he saw that he went back home and got to work. With the help of CIA officer Gust Avrakotos played by Hoffman, Wilson ended up getting the Pentagon to spend 300 million dollars to arm the Afghan Mujaheddin. The Mujahideen ended up defeating the Soviets which struck a huge blow in the way of bringing down the Soviet empire.

The film gave a strong and fair critique of U.S. foreign policy. After the war Wilson tried to get the U.S. government to help rebuild Afghanistan. He was told that the American people don't give a shit about building schools and hospitals, they cared about defeating the Soviets. It's also said that the Pakistani president Wilson visited had killed the previous president in a military coup. The U.S. has consistently worked with oppressive regimes in an effort to defeat even more oppressive regimes. Because of this the U.S. has often supported it's future enemies. Such was the case with Saddam Hussein.

Where this movie shined was in addressing religious fundamentalism and extremism. What was interesting is that all the good guys in the movie were fundamentalists/extremists whether they were Jewish, Muslim or Christian. One of the most disturbing moments in the movie was where a Christian congressman gave a speech to the Mujaheddin when the Pentagon decided to arm them with the weapons they needed to fight the Soviets. The speech was very manichaean, much like the speeches GW gave after 911. The congressman said the battle between the Mujaheddin and the Soviets was a battle of good versus evil, and that God was on their side. One of our largest flaws as a nation is that we're duped into believing we are the, "good guys" and our enemies are, "the bad guys;" that we're good and they're evil. We bought into this twisted way of thinking after 911. The reality is things are messy. Sometimes we work with people who come to power by military coups, and execute the former leader. Sometimes we work with men like Stalin. In the early eighties there was a groundswell of support for Saddam. Sometimes Congressmen with shady ethics are moved by witnessing human misery first hand, and they do everything in their power to fight for justice.

The movie ended with this quote from Wilson: We changed the world, and then fucked up the endgame. I thought that summed up the message of the movie. The U.S. uses it's power to, at times, great things like arm peasants to win a battle with an empire. Then after the battle was won we didn't stick around to see that those people were cared for and educated. Of course we know what happened to Afghanistan later on. Could that have been prevented? Can we learn from our mistakes?

The End of Tolerance

2008-01-17T22:46:00.000-08:00

I was talking with Hoan, one of the pharmacists, today. I enjoy talking to him because he's one of the only people at work who follows politics, international affairs, movies and music. He is Vietnamese and came here on political asylum, so he also has a unique perspective on this country and life in general. If I had to further describe him I would say that he is intensity personified, yet in spite of his intensity he is very deep and reflective.

We were discussing the presidential candidates today when I asked him what he thought about Barak Obama. He responded by saying, "OK...."
I interrupted, "oh, you think he's OK?"
"No," he responded, and then proceeded to go into a speech about race and the victory black Americans would declare if Barak won, how there would be a march on Washington, and how Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would be gloating.
"Yeah, I understand what you're saying, but, seriously, considering the history of what blacks have gone through here, it would be an astounding achievement. It would be a huge deal. "

We went back and forth some more; I honestly can't remember everything he said, but he told me this story about a conversation he once had with a Jewish guy. Hoan first explained that he is Catholic, and said as they were talking the word tolerance came up. The Jew said, "don't you ever mention that word."
After Hoan said this he just kind of stared at me.
"Well, what did he mean?," I said. "There's a lot of ways you can interpret that."
Hoan grabbed two pills off the shelf and set them on the counter about five inches apart from one another. Then he set a sharpie in between them.
"Tolerance or coexisting is this: you stay on your side of the line and I'll stay on mine. You don't cross over and fuck with me and I won't cross over and fuck with you. Keep things like that and everything will be alright." Grabbing the pills and moving them back and forth across the sharpie he said, "But what has to happen is someone has to cross the line. You need to come over to my side and so we can talk, we can empathize, and we can share our stories and learn from one another. Then we can be on one side of the line. That's how it has to be."

Whoo-Fricken-Hoo

2008-01-03T19:44:00.000-08:00

Maybe I won't have to vote for Hillary.

Benazir Bhutto, and Thoughts on Collectivism

2007-12-28T06:34:00.000-08:00

I was reading TIME magazine on my way to Chicago last October. I was reading it cover to cover because, well, there was nothing else to do, and I came to this article on Pakistan. Normally I would have bypassed this article, but I started reading it because I thought either I would get into it and find it interesting, or I would read it, find it boring, but at least learn something. The article was about the former woman prime minister of Pakistan (which I found surprising, since Pakistan is a Muslim country) who had come back to Pakistan from a self-imposed exile to a groundswell of support and celebration. It was a good article and I kept track of the ongoing development in this story of this woman leader who was going to bring democracy to Pakistan. I found her compelling and courageous as she had survived numerous assassination attempts. In fact, an attempt on her life was made the day she came back to Pakistan when a suicide bomber blew himself up killing over a hundred people. After all, this was a wealthy Harvard and Oxford educated aristocrat who could be globe-trotting and living it up. If it were me I wouldn't have voluntarily gone into a country where so many wanted me dead.

So, with that said, I was stunned yesterday morning when I got up and flipped on MSNBC so see the headline: Benazir Bhutto assassinated. All I could do is gasp and then sit there in silence. Not only had I come to admire this woman, but I immediately began to empathize with her supporters. This woman represented hope to these people, and you could see the devastation they were experiencing. Not only was this a huge loss to Bhutto's numerous supporters, but this a big deal for U.S. foreign policy. Pakistan is teetering on Islamic extremism, and there was a deal in the works for Bhutto to become a co-president. This would have made Pakistan a more moderate, secular country; as well as making Pakistan a stronger partner in rooting out terrorists. But now that these hopes have been destroyed with an assassins bullet, there isn't anyone to act as successor to Bhutto. She was it.

Later I realized that virtually every American today was going to be confused by the fuss over this woman with the funny name who was killed in some foreign country. Honestly, this pisses me off, as it does much of the world. Americans would have been more upset if Brad and Angelina broke up. We tend to think we're the only people who matter. For much of us, our attitude is that we're the biggest, baddest and richest so who cares about all those other countries. I know this is true, not only because I see these sentiments expressed on TV and in people I talk to at work and elsewhere, but because, up until a couple years ago, I too acted this way. What changed my thinking was my church's growing concern for poverty abroad, a shift in the kinds of authors I read, and a quote by former president Bill Clinton.

A couple years ago I was reading a news magazine and it featured an interview with Bill Clinton. I couldn't tell you what the interview was about, but something he said struck me. It wasn't anything too profound and it's something I think most people would agree with, but it's always stuck with me. He was asked about our current foreign policy, and he said that right now we're the only superpower, but there will come a day when we're not the biggest dog on the block. And so it's important to work with other countries and form relationships. He then went on to talk about how India and China's economies are exploding, and the possibility of them forming an alliance of some sort. It's a statement that's true, yet I know it's a reality most Americans don't want to swallow; especially these assholes, who are why I think we're in Iraq, but that's another post. Most of us like our empire. We live sedated existences. We're sedated with Hollywood, pop-culture, the mainstream news organizations who trumpet American greatness, tabloids, some forms of Christianity, and having it "my way." We're happy in our own little worlds, and are oblivious to what's going on in the rest of the world.

I get irritated when I hear pundits always talking about doing what's best for America, or when they talk about how many Americans have died in Iraq. What about what's best for the world? What about the Iraqi's who have died? What about the soldiers from other countries? Maybe this is a macrocosm of what I mentioned above. The fact is, is we are an empire, and all empires have eventually fallen. We are part of a global community. The way we live, who we vote for and the way we interact with the rest of the world matters. At some point we won't be the biggest dog on the block.

I'm probably writing this because I've become something of a collectivist in the past couple years. I tend to focus on the common good rather than just what benefits me. Take health insurance for example. I have health insurance. I work in the pharmacy of the largest hospital on this side of the state. My job isn't going away. My health insurance isn't going away. What the hell do I care if our next president is a free-market, privatization-cures-everything Republican? I'm still going to have coverage. I care because there are people that won't, and our country has the capability to see that everyone is covered. The whole is more important than me.

That's also why I mourn with the Pakistanis the loss of a great leader. Their country matters, not only because it's nuclear and bordering on unstable, but because they're fellow humans who are part of this world too. All men are created equal, right? God love's everyone. My hope for 2008 is that we'll get a president who focuses on diplomacy, whose very, very last resort would be war, and a president who doesn't mis-pronounce the names of foreign leaders. That's why I'm voting for change. Vote Obama '08 ;)....JK....Ok, not really.

BAM!

2007-12-21T08:56:00.000-08:00

Cornel West from Democracy Matters:

"The journey for the Constantinian Christians from Ronald Reagan's election in 1980 to George W. Bush's selection in 2000 has been a roaring success based on the world's nihilistic standards.

Never before in the history of the American Republic has a group of organized Christians risen to such prominence in the American empire. And this worldly success-- a bit odd for a fundamentalist group with such otherworldly aspirations-- has sent huge ripples across American Christendom. Power might, size, status and material possessions-- all paraphernalia of the nihilism of the American empire-- became major themes of American Christianity. It now sometimes seems that all Christians speak in one voice when in fact it is only that the loudness of the Constaninian element of American Christianity has so totally drowned out the prophetic voices. Imperial Christianity, market spirituality, money-obsessed churches, gospels of prosperity, prayers of let's-make-a-deal with God or help me turn my wheel of fortune have become the prevailing voice of American Christianity. In this version of Christianity the precious blood at the foot of the cross becomes mere Kool-Aid to refresh eager upwardly mobile aspirants in the nihilistic American game of power and might. And there is hardly a mumbling word heard about social justice, resistance to institutional evil, or courage to confront the powers that be-- with the glaring exception of abortion... I speak as a Christian-- one whose commitment to democracy is very deep but whose Christian convictions are even deeper. Democracy is not my faith. And American democracy is not my idol. To see the Gospel of Jesus Christ bastardized by imperial Christians and pulverized by Constantinian believers and then exploited by nihilistic elites of the American empire makes my blood boil."

A Republican I'd Vote For

2007-12-13T15:55:00.000-08:00

I just listened to the NPR Republican presidential debate . Take much of what John McCain has said and done with working to end ridiculous spending and his position on the environment, take Huckabee's compassion for the poor and what he says about education, take Romney's call for Universal healthcare, Ron Paul's view on the war and Iran, and what you'd get is a Republican nominee I'd vote for. The fair tax thing I'm not so sure about though.

By the way, this was worth listening to just for Alan Keyes... :)

I <3 Huckabee?

2007-11-30T12:35:00.000-08:00

I've already decided I'm not going to vote for any of the Republican candidates next year, but I admit that I loved how Mike Huckabee responded to a question posed to him on the YouTube debate the other night. The question was, "What do you think about the Bible?" I typically hate ALL politician's responses to these type of questions because, quite frankly, none of them have any idea what the hell they're talking about, and they always try to give an answer that makes everybody happy. But Huckabee not only nailed this question in a way that demonstrated his theological prowess, he also gave an answer that, I think, would make most people happy. He first said that either you believe the Bible is God's word or you don't, and where the debate begins is what is literal or allegorical. He then went on to say that what is clear is to love your neighbor as yourself and what you do to the least of these you've done to me, and since we still don't get the easy things right, it's pointless to fight over the complicated parts. I paraphrased , but that's essentially what he said.

Chris Matthews made a good point on Hardball last night. Why did Huckabee answer the question at all? What does taking the Bible literally have to do with being a good president? Why is this being used as a litmus test for governing a secular nation? Why should Huckabee being a Christian be a selling point? Here's what I think: it shouldn't, but if Christ is going to be dragged into this, he should look good. Indeed, the correct answer would have been, "I'm not going to acknowledge this question because what I think about the Bible is completely irrelevant to a presidential debate." Instead Huckabee gave an honest answer that highlighted the heart of the Gospel, was thoroughly Christian, yet is something that people of all religions and the non-religious can embrace. And that might be one of the best thing I can say about any of the candidates, Republican or Democrat.

Rudy and the (Hopefully) Unraveling of the Religious Right

2007-11-12T21:55:00.000-08:00

After reading this post there's just not much else to say. I hope that the coming election will be a huge blow to the religious right. From the looks of things, a large portion of the Republican party's base is not going to vote for their nominee. There really isn't a nominee they will vote for that can beat Hillary. One of the leaders of the Relgious Right has backed an adulterous, pro-gay, pro-choice candidate. And it looks like I'm going to vote for Hillary Clinton. It's going to be an interesting 2008.

The Suffering of Mother Teresa

2007-09-12T14:40:00.001-07:00

"[Jesus]: Wilt thou refuse to do this for me? You have become my Spouse for my love... Are you afraid to take one more step for Your Spouse- for me- for souls?... Am I a second to you?
[Teresa]: Jesus, my own Jesus- I am only thine- I am so stupid- I do not know what to say but do with me whatever You wish-...
[Jesus]: You are I know the most incapable person- weak and sinful but just because you are that- I want to use You for My glory. Wilt thou refuse?"

"God- please forgive me- When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven- there is such a convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives and hurt my very soul. -I am told God loves me -and yet the reality of darkness and coldness and emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul. Did I make a mistake in surrendering blindly to the Call of the Sacred Heart?"

On my way home from Chicago I read an article in TIME about the new Mother Teresa book that chronicles her 50 year faith crisis. Honestly, I expected it to be boring, but to my surprise the article was captivating, thought-provoking, inspiring and convicting. It called to my attention the issue of suffering and how little of value American Protestants place on it.

When I was little I remember my mother explaining to me that Catholics had all these crucifixes in their churches, but what they need to realize is that Jesus rose from the dead. Her point was that Jesus' death is only part of the story, and that the most important part is the resurrection. Along with that I was taught that Catholics believe salvation comes through works. These sentiments, while they have some validity, have been deeply ingrained in me, and those that grew up with similar faith backgrounds. What this article forced me to do was assess suffering as it relates to the gospel, question what the emphasis on the resurrection and de-emphasis on Christ's suffering- as well as, the emphasis of salvation by faith- has done to American evangelicalism, and think about how much suffering should be a part of Christian orthopraxy.

Part of the TIME article is devoted to shedding light on why Mother Teresa (MT) sunk into spiritual darkness throughout her entire ministry. The atheist response, of course, is that MT simply realized that religion is a human creation, and much of her life was spent in a state of perpetual denial. The psychologist's response is that she inflicted it upon herself. I imagine that much of the anti-Catholic stream of Protestantism would probably say, "See, I told you she wasn't really a Christian, and that she didn't have a relationship with God." I found the Catholic response, however, to be the most beautiful, compelling and hopeful.

Rev. Brian Kolodiejchuk, the editor and compiler of Come Be My Light explains MT's desire to drink ONLY from, "Christ's chalice of pain." The article goes on to say that MT's desire was fulfilled, and later suggests that God allowed MT to suffer the deepest anguish Christ experienced on the cross- God's absence. From my own reading, I understand that Catholics believe that suffering purifies. Now, while I believe that a Christian is a new creature, I would agree with the Catholic sentiment that rejoicing in our suffering for others brings us closer to imaging Christ. Part of the gospel is that Christ served and suffered for a world he loved, and that being his follower means learning to do the same. And that when we suffer joyfully for others, Christ's image is reflected, and the gospel is extended.

No doubt, Christ's victory over death is central to the gospel, but in order for Christ to be resurrected he first had to suffer and die. In de-emphasizing the role of suffering and sacrifice, and putting all the emphasis on "the good stuff," I would argue we have neutered the gospel and stripped the Kingdom of it's power. In many circles the gospel has been reduced to, "Christ did all the hard stuff; just believe and you're on your way to heaven." This gospel goes right a long with the American lifestyle, which also seems to avoid the suffering that a lot of the rest of the world goes through. Indeed, I and most everyone I know live a pretty kooshy life. I don't necessarily think this is an evil in and of itself, but I think that maybe this means we need to go out of our way in order to serve, sacrifice and suffer because the gospel is best shared by someone who looks like Jesus suffering and dying for those he loves.

Practically, those of us who don't find many opportunities to suffer, I think, should seek them out. Whether that means going out of our comfort zone, giving up a seat for others on the bus, volunteering in a poor neighborhood, living in a poor neighborhood, or simply thanking God for the rare occasions we do get to suffer. I don't condone everything I read in the article. I only mean to point out something I think that Protestant Christians could learn from Catholics. And whether or not any of the previously mentioned explanations for MT's faith crisis are true, I think we should all, in whatever way, partake in Christ's passion.

Irreparable Cruelty

2007-08-27T16:06:00.001-07:00

I think that Michael Vick is a total douche. I've got very little love for people who mistreat animals. Gandhi said, "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way in which its animals are treated," and I think that's very true. Stephon Marbury defended Vick saying that dogfighting is just another sport and compared it to deer hunting. At first I dismissed his statements as more idiotic bullshit coming from another person that ought not to have such a lofty platform. But then I started to really think about it. Do we accept hunting as a legitimate sport and not dogfighting because that's how, culturally, we've been conditioned to think? After all somebody is profiting from deer hunting, and hunters are certainly being entertained and enjoy it. So what is the difference between a deer being stalked and shot with a bow, and two dogs fighting to the death all for the purpose of entertainment, sport and profit? Aren't the end results the same? Animals die and people are rich and happy. This is the position that PETA would take, which, right there, should be a red flag. But maybe not.

Today, my dad called to let Anne and I know that their dog died. My mom adopted this dog, last year, from an organization that rescues puppy-mill dogs. These dogs live their lives in tiny cages just large enough for them to lay down. The only attention they get is from the brutal people who take them out when they are in heat to breed with a stud. Their only purpose is to make babies. As you can imagine, this cruel, inhumane treatment irreparably damages them psychologically and socially. Suzie, the dog my parents adopted, was virtually catatonic, and my mom was the only person whom she responded to and gave any sort of evidence that she wasn't a dog that my parents owned ten years ago that they had freeze-dried. I think that she even might have actually liked my mom, but that might be pushing it. Thursday my mom, aunt and their friend took a short vacation to New York, leaving Suzie alone with my dad. Apparently, she immediately stopped eating, drinking and going to the bathroom. Today my dad took her to the vet and she dropped dead on the vet's table.

Both of my parents feel responsible. My dad was pretty upset, and I imagine my mother is devastated. My hope is that they stop blaming themselves and start blaming those who are responsible- the puppy-mill owners. The only reason Suzie shut down is because of the irreparable psycho-social damage done to her the first five years of her life. She was traumatized in such a way that the absence of my mom caused her to go into a depression that killed her. Human cruelty is so destructive and powerful, that it can kill animals not only with physical abuse but psychological abuse as well.

So, what does this have to do with Vick and Marbury besides cruelty to dogs? Well, as I pondered Marbury's statements I found that he is essentially saying that killing an animal is killing an animal. It's all the same, one way is called a sport and the other is called cruelty. This got me thinking about my stance on hunting. I started thinking about what is considered noble hunting over what isn't. I don't consider trophy hunting noble, and the hunting that is done in the shark fin soup industry is the epitome of waste, greed, and barbarism. On the other hand I'm reminded of how Native American buffalo hunting is romanticized because of their deep respect for the creature, and their use of the whole animal. I agree that this is good and noble hunting.

We (humans) are relational beings. And not only are we in relationship with God and each other, but we also have a relationship with creation. We depend on creation to live and creation depends on our good stewardship for it's survival. Of course, not only is our relationship one of dependency, but also of companionship such as with our pets. It's interesting how, in our relationship-making, we humanize pets. We are appalled that the Chinese eat dogs, because, to us, dogs are like little people. Likewise Hindus might be appalled that we eat cattle, but I digress.

Like most moral quandaries, this too boils down to a theological truth. Humans are in relationship with creation, and our role in that relationship is good stewardship. The puppy-mill owners relationship with Suzie was one of abuse, neglect, malapropism, greed, torture and exploitation. My mom's good relationship with her, ultimately, could not restore her. Michael Vick's relationship with his dogs is also one of barbarism, abuse, exploitation etc... I would add that many people who own pit bulls do so for status and macho ism, but that's another post. Many hunters eat their kill and are conservationists. They hunt partly for sport, but also because they have a deep reverence for creation, and feel closer too it by sitting in a tree for hours on end covered in deer urine. Therefore, I would argue, hunting- excluding the aforementioned bad forms of it- represents good stewardship and a good relationship with creation.

Hopefully, this bad press about dogfighting will raise awareness about animal cruelty. I'm no PETA advocate, but sometimes I think they're right, and I affirm their overall dream of people living in right relationship with creation. Even though Vick allegedly converted, I still think people who fight dogs are douches, and it would be nice if he'd publicly come out against it, get his peeps in the hip-hop community to do the same and help the police bust up dogfighting rings. For some reason I'm not too optimistic about that. Words usually speak loud enough in these cases where action isn't necessary. But one can hope.

Evangelicals on Mitt Romney

2007-07-31T22:36:00.000-07:00

This story is a little old, but still represents some of the current evangelical feelings on Romney.

I'm not a big fan of Mitt Romney, but this just makes me crazy. Romney was in Iowa where he spoke in front of some conservative, evangelical Christians. Heres a couple quotes from NPR: "Mary Doren, a stay-at-home mom, said Romney's Mormon faith was a deal breaker. "I'm a Christian," Doren said. "I don't think a Mormon is a Christian."' "Suzanne Clackey, who home schools her children, echoed similar theological concerns. "My understanding is they don't believe in the triune God, and so that would bother me," she said."

Seriously, what does believing in trinitarianism have to do with running the United States??? Based on this logic, and considering the current administration, one of the next presidential nominees better be wiccan or an atheist or I'm not voting.

What I want to be when I grow up

2007-07-31T15:53:00.000-07:00

So I job shadowed some social workers at Spectrum the other day. Ever since I decided upon this field, I have grown more surer that it is what I am made for. I wanted to actually experience what it was like for myself, so the care management department at my work allowed me to hang out with social work for six hours in the ER. It was everything it expected it to be. I got to see them counsel a mother whose child had been molested, and a patient who attempted suicide by ODing on some prescription drugs.

There was also some good conversation. We discussed a patient that came in recently who attempted suicide twice. The first time was by carbon monoxide poisoning. He failed because someone found him. The second time he did the same thing, but brought a shot gun. Someone found him that time also. The social worker who counselled him told me that he was extremely calm, analytical and logical as to why he tried to kill himself. He felt he had no other choice. It made me wonder what kind of culture we live in that convinces us that we must have a certain lifestyle or other wise life is not worth living. The suicide attempt patient, whose assessment I watched, told us that there was no one for her to talk to. Nobody understood her depression and that everyone just made fun of her. I wondered if she had people to simply be there for her, if she would have attempted suicide. If she would even be depressed? Are antidepressants even really necessary?

Another thing I learned was how similar a feel social work has compared to process serving. I was a process server for two years, and I'm starting to realize how valuable those years were. I often thought the only worth that job had in my life was character building. Perhaps it was preparation for the future.

Hopefully I'll be starting school in February. This experience has confirmed that this is what I'm supposed to do. My only regret is that I didn't continue going to school for this in the first place.

On Being a Skeptical Believer

2007-07-02T22:16:00.000-07:00

An ongoing battle of mine is that of faith and reason. Six or seven years ago I questioned whether or not I would still be a Christian by now. I struggled with this because years ago I let go of my fairy tale understanding of Bible stories, that I acquired in Sunday school. Back in those days I was obsessed with Superman, Spiderman and others, but in reality I knew that super powers were make believe... except in Bible times. Thousands of years ago God broke open the sky and talked audibly to people. There were real super heroes that had real super powers and their names were Samson, Moses, Jesus and his disciples. And God was the biggest super hero of all, He could just think things into existence. He would say the word and a universe would instantaneously appear. The world, at one time, was a magical place, complete with talking animals and giants.

I don't mean to be disrespectful. I mean to point out a way that many Christians, including myself, grew up thinking about the Bible, and, in many ways, I think that some of those Christians go on thinking this way. When we get older we realize that Abraham Lincoln and George Washington weren't perfect, shiny role models. They were EFFed up humans, that lied, were racist, got depressed and scared just like all of us. But, at some point, we realize that things back then are a lot like they are today; and that our child-like understanding of these men were fairy tales. But for some reason, I don't think that some Christians make this transition with the Bible. They retain a fairy tale understanding.

This defairytalization of the Bible is something I am constantly wrestling with. I grew up in a pentecostal church where "miracles" were commonplace, as were anecdotes about miracles. After researching the "behavior" I grew up with, I've come to the conclusion that a lot of it is a form of hypnosis. It also seems that much of what is labeled as demonic, supernatural etc. such as talking to the dead, auras and other weird stuff are easily debunked and/or are psychosomatic. This has seriously jaded me when it comes to accepting the supernatural. In fact, I don't really believe in the supernatural as it is commonly defined.

I think God does things that are beyond our comprehension, but I think it's totally in the realm of what is possible. God exists in all dimensions. Like the two dimensional flatlanders we have a very limited comprehension of reality, and God could interact with us in ways that are perfectly with in the bounds of what is natural; we just can't understand it. Furthermore, I think that if we went back in time and witnessed some of the miracles in the Bible we might find that the Israelites were witnessing natural phenomena. For instance, Sinai sounds very much like an active volcano. In the desert there exists gas pockets under the sand. When people are walking in the desert they sometimes step on these gas pockets, and when these gas pockets erupt they fling sand that causes tiny sparks. The sparks ignite the pocket and create a pillar of fire. I'm not saying that I think these are the explanations for these miracles; only that it's a possibility. Also, just because it's a natural occurrence doesn't mean that God didn't plan it that way. It just sounds more realistic that God used nature to give his chosen people victory over Egypt rather than magic.

What I know is that God is real, and that Jesus is the incarnation. I do believe that God heals people, and that He is constantly involved with His creation. I also believe that the Bible was written by ancient people with an ancient worldview, and while it is inspired, God did not edit out the way his people viewed reality. The Bible wasn't written specifically for 21st century American Christians, it doesn't cater to our science-based understanding of the natural world, and it certainly isn't a fairy tale. It really happened, I don't know how, but that's were my faith begins.

Current Reading List

2007-06-09T11:17:00.000-07:00

It's very uncommon for me to read only one book at a time. I think this is evidence of my A.D.D., but I oftentimes come across others who do the same thing, so who knows? The problem with this habit, however, is that it's also rare for me to finish books, at least within the span of a few months. I still have yet to finish -even though it's listed as one of my favorite books- The Soul of Politics by Jim Wallis, 1776 by David McCullough, The Last Word by N.T. Wright, several books by C.S. Lewis, and A Generous Orthodoxy by McLaren. That said, I'm making a strong effort to finish the current books I'm reading, and not purchase any more until I've finished some of the others I already own. I also decided that it would be a good exercise to blog about what I've read in my current books, hence my current post.

On my lunches at work, I've been reading Banker to the Poor by Muhammad Yunas. I'm just over half way through, and have enjoyed it so far. It's basically the story of how he started the Grameen bank, which is a bank out of Bangladesh. Yunas, an Econ professor, was passionate about eradicating the poverty he saw in his country, and after visiting with several poor families he found that many depended on selling baskets. The problem was the loans they needed to buy materials were acquired from corrupt money lenders who had created a situation that kept the poor indebted to them for life. What Yunas discovered was the the poor were enslaved to these money lenders with no hope of breaking their cycle of poverty. To make a long story short, he started giving loans -tiny sums of money in American currency- to these poor people and charging them fair interest rates. This eventually evolved into a full-fledged bank, and Yunas won the Nobel Peace Prize. Among the struggles Grameen faced was attracting women borrowers, as Grameen started in Muslim areas that restricts women to the home. Another was constant criticism and ridicule by bank heads, and the economic establishment. One thing I've been pondering as I've read this book is how do the poor in America compare with the poor that Yunas works with? Yunas maintains steadfast faith in the poor that borrows from him, and with good reason as Grameen's repayment rate is nearly flawless. But would Grameen work in a setting such as the U.S.? This gets back to the worthy and unworthy poor discussion, as well as, provides a striking contrast between the poor here and the poor there. What kinds of oppression cause poverty here, and what kinds of oppression cause it there? But I digress.

The second book I'm reading is Democracy Matters by Cornel West. I'm only a chapter and a half into this one, but I love it already. West's prose reminds me of Jim Wallis' aside from the occasional obscure big word. I've read a lot of criticism of West claiming him to be an anti-American -a term that, I think, can be a good thing-, leftist, extremist. However, I've found him to be quite fair. He's spoken well of America throughout what I've read, treated Israelis and Palestinians fairly, and even mentioned Regan without slamming him. The only statement I raised an eyebrow to was his rosy portrayal of anti-war protesters as, "fellow citizens of goodwill, demonstrating in the streets." Without getting into a lengthy summary of what I've read, I'll mention a few insightful observations West makes about post-9/11 America.

I liked what West had to say about "free-market fundamentalism" and aggressive militarism in present day America. West rightly points out that the free-market drives the media, policy and values. Profit and wealth is held higher than the common good and the quality of life. West also discusses the championing of unilateralism and pre-emption by the Bush administration; the willingness to put young men and women on the line rather than finding other solutions. Some of West's solutions include Socratic questioning -constant examination of authoritative institutions-, prophetic vision -a love and commitment to justice-, and a "tragicomic hope," which is maintaining joy and hope in the face of adversity and oppression rather than resorting to revenge and hatred. I think this last "solution" is the most profound. Dr. West uses the example of the invention of the blues as a response to white supremacy. I would contrast West's example with Toby Keith's response to 9/11 with his redneck, dumbass, everything-that's-wrong-with-America anthem Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue. There is much more I could say, as I've only touched on a few topics that West writes about. Needless to say, I'm looking forward to getting further in this book.

The third book I'm reading, I will no doubt be reading for a long time. It's Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel. Guns, Germs and Steel, according to Diamond, are the tools that Westerners used to dominate other civilizations, and this book attempts to answer the question as to why people of Eurasia -people occupying Asia and Europe- acquired those tools. I recently made it through the first chapter which was a brief summary of the history of modern man. Essentially, what Diamond does is show the rescources that people, on each of the inhabitable continents, started out with. It was an extremely fascinating chapter, and showed that it would be relatively impossible to guess what civilization was destined to dominate the planet.

Well, so much for a nice liesurely post. I hope that anyone who decided to read this wasn't too bored, and will maybe be encouraged to check out one of these books themselves.

In the Spirit of Not Being Theologically Ambiguous...

2007-05-28T19:11:00.000-07:00

You scored as Emergent/Postmodern, You are Emergent/Postmodern in your theology. You feel alienated from older forms of church, you don't think they connect to modern culture very well. No one knows the whole truth about God, and we have much to learn from each other, and so learning takes place in dialogue. Evangelism should take place in relationships rather than through crusades and altar-calls. People are interested in spirituality and want to ask questions, so the church should help them to do this.

Emergent/Postmodern

82%

Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan

79%

Neo orthodox

71%

Classical Liberal

54%

Roman Catholic

50%

Modern Liberal

36%

Charismatic/Pentecostal

32%

Fundamentalist

21%

Reformed Evangelical

What's your theological worldview?
created with QuizFarm.com

The Tragedy of Jerry Falwell

2007-05-23T21:20:00.000-07:00

I've been mulling over Falwell's death for the past week now. I think he had and enormous amount of zeal, passion, courage, and vision. I also think that he used those gifts to create a monster. Overall, Falwell was a tragic figure, in that, he could have created a movement that truly was a moral majority, and instead created an image of Christianity that much of the country has come to fear and hate. Because of Falwell I grew up believing that being a Christian also met voting Republican (and no, I don't conversely believe that being a Christian now means voting Democrat). And even more dangerously, because of Falwell I grew up believing that being a Christian meant being pro-American. While I don't think Falwell hated gays, his rhetoric about their effects on the family, and his battle against their rights, didn't exactly foster a loving and accepting posture among Christians towards homosexuals. On abortion, Falwell did much for single, unwed mothers, and promoted adoption as an option. But I think leading Christians into the endless screaming match that is the Pro life - Pro choice debate, and trying to overturn Roe v Wade has been an exercise in futility, and has created resentment and division rather than common ground and solutions.

I have mostly been pondering one question. Was it Falwell's marrying of Christianity and politics that was the problem, or was it marrying bad theology with conservative political ideology? I've been reading Greg Boyd's website and he would say that there needs to be a firm boundary between the Kingdom of God and politics. While I know Boyd isn't oppose to Christians being involved in politics, I haven't read enough of his stuff to know exactly how he thinks Christianity should influence politics. On the other hand Jim Wallis has been accused of being the leader of the "Religious Left." While I'm a big fan of Wallis, and I know he doesn't seek to be the Antifalwell, sometimes I do get leery about his close ties with the Democratic party. All I know is that the Gospel is political, but I'm still working through how I think Christians should engage in the political sphere. What I do know is that Falwell has taught us what not to do. I'll end a couple quotes I've come across in some articles I've read on Falwell's passing.

From Jim Wallis: "Ralph Reed said that Jerry Falwell presided over the “marriage ceremony” between religious fundamentalists and the Republican Party. That’s still a concern about the Religious Right for many of us, and should be a warning for the relationship of any so-called religious left with the Democrats. But perhaps in the overly partisan mistakes that Jerry Falwell made - and actually pioneered - we can all be instructed in how to forge a faith that is principled but not ideological, political but not partisan, engaged but not used. "

This quote from Time, I think, nails it.

From Time: "His great American invention was not the marriage of religion and politics... It was that he married political friends with religious enemies in the pursuit of a common goal. Falwell, who died on May 15th, didn't care that Jimmy Carter was a Bible-believing Baptist if he still had the soul of a Democrat or that Ronald Reagan was a divorced cinemactor, as long as he was a kindred political spirit... Falwell founded the Moral Majority on the argument that fundamentalist Christians, Orthodox Jews, Conservative Catholics and Mormons had so much in common politically that they should overlook their theological differences."

"Oh, so are you, like, religious?"

2007-04-27T08:40:00.000-07:00

I have a Labarum tattooed above my left wrist, and whenever people ask me, "what's that symbol on your arm?" I always get a little flustered. It's not because I'm ashamed that I'm a Christian, but rather I am ashamed at what Christianity has come to mean to so many people. Some days I find myself trying to hide my tattoo when I'm around people I just met. The church has done a great job at getting the story of Jesus to the masses, but has done an abysmal job of communicating the truth of Christianity, and living Jesus' teachings (myself included). After studying the medieval church in my Western Civ class, I've really began to wonder whether or not most of the Christianity that has existed through the centuries has been an impostor. If ever I were to become an agnostic, it wouldn't be from studying science; it would be from studying history.

So, what is a Christian? If this question was posed to most Christians, I doubt many would have a good answer. And, if someone who was clueless about Christianity asked this, they would be more confused than ever. I've thought long and hard about this question, as many Christians have. How do you explain Christianity to a person who is unfamiliar to it, and in a way that makes sense? To Christians and most Americans, it sounds normal to say, "well, God sent His son, in the form of a first century Jewish rabbi, to die for our sins, and then resurrected Him." But, to the uninitiated, this might sound just a little weird.

Aristotle taught that something was good, if it was doing what it is supposed to do, and becoming what it is supposed to be. In other words, if an acorn was becoming a tree, then it was a good acorn. This applies to humans as well. If one is being a human and becoming more human, then they are a good human being. When someone does something that is cruel to another living thing we usually call that person inhumane. We instinctively know that hurting another living thing is out of character with what it means to be human. This truth -that humans were created to be human- is at the core of Christianity, and in the person of Jesus, God demonstrated how to be human.

Genesis teaches us that humans were created in the image of God. Most Christians have no clue as to what this means. We were discussing this in class once, and my prof said that this didn't mean that God looks like a human, because God is spirit. One student raised his hand, and said, "but, doesn't it say that God walked with Adam and Eve? I've heard that this was Jesus, so God must look like us." I'm usually reluctant to speak in class, but I just had to say something at this point. The Genesis creation poem is painting a picture, and the picture is of God as King over everything. In the Ancient Near East, where this story was written, kings would erect statues of themselves in remote parts of their kingdom. This statue represented their rule. When the people of that city would see that statue, it would remind them who was ruling. This is the picture being painted when it says we were created in God's image. Being human is to represent the rule of God.

So, then how does one represent God's rule? John says that, "God is love." Jesus says that the greatest command is to love God with all your heart, mind and soul AND to love your neighbor as yourself. John also says that if you say you love God but hate your brother, then you are a liar. Paul says the greatest of faith, hope and love is love. The very nature of God is love, and so is his rule. Put very simply, being human is to be in a loving relationship with God, people and creation. This is what you find throughout scripture starting with Adam and Eve.

I know there is much more to get into theologically, but this is how I would start to answer the question: What is a Christian? Being a Christian is truly being human. Perhaps in another post I'll get into what I think about Christ's death, resurrection and what it means to be saved, but I think this is a good start.