And at Rep. Ron Paul, the 2008 presidential candidate who had the zany idea -- as many laughing people thought -- that the Federal Reserve system could become a sizzling political issue. Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Fed, who does not laugh promiscuously, knows that it is no laughing matter that Paul has 317 co-sponsors (180 Republicans, 137 Democrats) for a bill to open the Fed's books to "audit" by the comptroller general.
The canny congressman cannot accomplish what the title of his best-selling book recommends: "End the Fed." But he probably hopes that if the Fed's transactions with financial institutions were publicized, he and kindred spirits could stir populist resentment of the mysterious institution. Although profoundly mistaken in his objective -- breaking the Fed to Congress's saddle -- Paul is not frivolous. His rage against the Fed is rooted in his rejection of fiat money -- paper money backed by nothing but confidence in Congress (really), and his libertarian enthusiasm for maximizing the role of unmanaged markets in allocating social rewards.
Bernanke on Monday told the Economic Club of Washington that Congress already can examine the Fed's balance sheet. His worry is that Congress, by ordering audits when it dislikes Fed monetary policy decisions, might make the Fed seem subject to, and eventually actually make it subject to, congressional pressure.
At Bernanke's recent confirmation hearing on his nomination for a second four-year term, Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican who is co-sponsoring a Senate version of Paul's bill, asked Bernanke: "Do you believe that employment should be a mission, a goal of the Federal Reserve?" Bernanke, who had already noted Congress's "mandate" that the Fed "achieve maximum employment and price stability," answered that the Fed "can assist keeping employment close to its maximum level through adroit policies."
That mandate was, however, improvidently given. Congress created the Fed and can control it, and eventually will do so if the Fed eagerly embraces the role of the economy's comprehensive manager. America's complex, dynamic economy cannot be both "managed" and efficient. Attempting to manage it is an inherently political undertaking, and if the Fed undertakes it, the Fed will eventually bring upon itself minute supervision by Congress.
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), has, as usual, a better idea: Repeal the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act of 1978 that, he says, "dangerously diverted the Fed from its most important job: price stability." For 65 years after its creation in 1913, the Fed's principal duty was to preserve the currency as a store of value by preventing inflation from undermining price stability. Humphrey-Hawkins gave it the second duty of superintending economic growth.
Before the recent downward tick in unemployment from 10.2 percent to 10 percent, Democrats said: The absence of downward movement proves the urgent need for more stimulus spending. After the downward tick they said: The improvement proves the urgent need for more stimulus spending lest the momentum stall. For such people, "more spending" is a verbal tic. Let such people begin managing the Fed and they will mandate low interest rates, regardless of circumstances. The currency will fail as a store of value.
Is the Fed's independence (de facto, not de jure) "undemocratic"? Somewhat. So what?
America is committed to democracy -- and to circumscribing democracy's scope in order to minimize the damage it can do by improvident responsiveness to untempered gusts of public passion. Thus the government is replete with restraining mechanisms -- three branches of government, rival chambers of the legislative branch, vetoes, supermajority requirements, judicial review, etc. And there are extraconstitutional circumscriptions of democracy, such as allowing the Fed an independence that exists at the sufferance of Congress.
If Time magazine has a lick of sense, Bernanke will be its Person of the Year because his leading role in stabilizing the financial system enabled the president to pursue other objectives. He did not do it perfectly, but he prevented paralysis.
On Monday, he reminded his Economic Club listeners of John Maynard Keynes's hope that "economists could manage to get themselves thought of as humble, competent people, on a level with dentists." But humble people do not claim -- as Bernanke does, under Congress's mandate -- the competence to simultaneously produce, with "adroit" policies, price stability and full employment.
Like the Fed, dentists are always important and urgently desired when pain is intense. But they are rarely objects of their patients' affections.
georgewill@washpost.com
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Monday, December 7, 2009
Obama, the anti-Churchill? By Fareed Zakaria
If you take out just one sentence, Barack Obama's speech on Afghanistan last week was all about focusing and limiting the scope of the U.S. mission in that country. The objectives he detailed were exclusively military: to deny al-Qaeda a haven, reverse the Taliban's momentum and strengthen the Kabul government's security forces. The nation that he was interested in building, he explained, was this one.
And then there was that one line: "I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan." Here lies the tension in Obama's policy. He wants a clearer, more discriminating foreign policy, one that pares the vast commitments and open-ended interventions of the Bush era, perhaps one that is more disciplined than Bill Clinton's approach to the world. (On the campaign trail, Obama repeatedly invoked George H.W. Bush as the president whose foreign policy he admired most.) But America is in a war that is not going well, and scaling back now would look like cutting and running. Obama is searching for a post-imperial policy in the midst of an imperial crisis. The qualified surge -- send in troops to regain the momentum but then draw down -- is his answer to this dilemma.
This first year of his presidency has been a window into Obama's worldview. Once most presidents get hold of the bully pulpit, they cannot resist the temptation to become Winston Churchill. They gravitate toward grand rhetoric about freedom and tyranny and embrace the moral drama of their role as leaders of the free world. Not Obama. He has been cool and calculating, whether dealing with Russia, Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan. Obama is a realist by temperament, learning and instinct. More than any president since Richard Nixon, he has focused on defining American interests carefully, providing resources to achieve them and keeping his eyes on the prize.
ad_icon
"In the end," the president said last Tuesday, "our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms." He explained that America's economic and technological vigor underpinned its ability to play a world role. At a small lunch with a group of columnists before his speech last week, he made clear to us that he did not want to run two wars. He seemed to be implying that the struggles in Iraq and Afghanistan were not the crucial path to America's long-term security. He explained that challenges at home -- economic growth, technological innovation, education reform -- were at the heart of maintaining America's status as a superpower. In fact, throughout history great nations have lost their way by getting bogged down in imperial missions far from home that crippled their will, strength and focus. (Sometimes even when they won they lost: Britain prevailed in the Boer War, but it broke the back of the empire.)
It is clear that Obama is attempting something quite ambitious -- to reorient U.S. foreign policy toward something less extravagant and adversarial. That begins with narrowing the "war on terrorism"; scaling back the conflict with the Islamic world to those groups and countries that pose serious, direct threats to the United States; and reaching out to the rest. He has also tried to develop a better working relationship with major powers such as Russia and China, setting aside smaller issues in hopes of cooperation on bigger ones. This means departing from a bipartisan approach in which Washington's role was to direct and hector the rest of the world, pushing regimes large and small to accept American ideas, and publicly chastising them when they refused. Obama is trying to break the dynamic that says that when an American president negotiates with the Chinese or Russians, he must return with rewards or concessions -- or else he is guilty of appeasement.
For his policy to succeed, Obama will need to maintain his focus come July 2011. Afghanistan will not be transformed by that date. It will not look like France, with a strong and effective central government. The gains that will have been made will be fragile. The situation will still be somewhat unstable. But that should still be the moment to begin the transition to Afghan rule. We can find ways to secure American interests in that region more manageably. By the end of 2011, the United States will have spent 10 years, thousands of lives and $2 trillion trying to create stable, democratic governments in Iraq and Afghanistan, two of the most difficult, divided countries in the world. It will be time to move on.
Fareed Zakaria is editor of Newsweek International. His e-mail address is comments@fareedzakaria.com.
And then there was that one line: "I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan." Here lies the tension in Obama's policy. He wants a clearer, more discriminating foreign policy, one that pares the vast commitments and open-ended interventions of the Bush era, perhaps one that is more disciplined than Bill Clinton's approach to the world. (On the campaign trail, Obama repeatedly invoked George H.W. Bush as the president whose foreign policy he admired most.) But America is in a war that is not going well, and scaling back now would look like cutting and running. Obama is searching for a post-imperial policy in the midst of an imperial crisis. The qualified surge -- send in troops to regain the momentum but then draw down -- is his answer to this dilemma.
This first year of his presidency has been a window into Obama's worldview. Once most presidents get hold of the bully pulpit, they cannot resist the temptation to become Winston Churchill. They gravitate toward grand rhetoric about freedom and tyranny and embrace the moral drama of their role as leaders of the free world. Not Obama. He has been cool and calculating, whether dealing with Russia, Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan. Obama is a realist by temperament, learning and instinct. More than any president since Richard Nixon, he has focused on defining American interests carefully, providing resources to achieve them and keeping his eyes on the prize.
ad_icon
"In the end," the president said last Tuesday, "our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms." He explained that America's economic and technological vigor underpinned its ability to play a world role. At a small lunch with a group of columnists before his speech last week, he made clear to us that he did not want to run two wars. He seemed to be implying that the struggles in Iraq and Afghanistan were not the crucial path to America's long-term security. He explained that challenges at home -- economic growth, technological innovation, education reform -- were at the heart of maintaining America's status as a superpower. In fact, throughout history great nations have lost their way by getting bogged down in imperial missions far from home that crippled their will, strength and focus. (Sometimes even when they won they lost: Britain prevailed in the Boer War, but it broke the back of the empire.)
It is clear that Obama is attempting something quite ambitious -- to reorient U.S. foreign policy toward something less extravagant and adversarial. That begins with narrowing the "war on terrorism"; scaling back the conflict with the Islamic world to those groups and countries that pose serious, direct threats to the United States; and reaching out to the rest. He has also tried to develop a better working relationship with major powers such as Russia and China, setting aside smaller issues in hopes of cooperation on bigger ones. This means departing from a bipartisan approach in which Washington's role was to direct and hector the rest of the world, pushing regimes large and small to accept American ideas, and publicly chastising them when they refused. Obama is trying to break the dynamic that says that when an American president negotiates with the Chinese or Russians, he must return with rewards or concessions -- or else he is guilty of appeasement.
For his policy to succeed, Obama will need to maintain his focus come July 2011. Afghanistan will not be transformed by that date. It will not look like France, with a strong and effective central government. The gains that will have been made will be fragile. The situation will still be somewhat unstable. But that should still be the moment to begin the transition to Afghan rule. We can find ways to secure American interests in that region more manageably. By the end of 2011, the United States will have spent 10 years, thousands of lives and $2 trillion trying to create stable, democratic governments in Iraq and Afghanistan, two of the most difficult, divided countries in the world. It will be time to move on.
Fareed Zakaria is editor of Newsweek International. His e-mail address is comments@fareedzakaria.com.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Politik Americano
Between the troop escalation in Afghanistan and the fudging of some documents and destruction of others in order galvanize support for Global Warming; we have now proven the theory of “circular relativity”. It states that if you go far enough to the Left, eventually you will hit the Right side of any issue. Liberals and conservatives at times mirror an old married couple, they disagree on everything, but after a certain amount of time they start to look alike.
I understand the idea of being fiscally conservative, low taxes and responsible spending, but since we haven’t had a President from either party that could effectively reduce spending in quite some time. Perhaps we should stop screaming for lowering taxes. The Left’s modus operandi is “tax and spend”, the Right’s should be “don’t tax and spend anyway”.
Why does the Tea Party crowd keep saying that they want their country back? It didn’t go anywhere. You lost the election, this is what happens when someone you disagree with gets elected President (voted in by a majority, not stolen, not taken away, not even decided by Floridians who can’t fill out ballot sheets), things begin to happen that you disagree with. You never heard President Bush say, “Since all of you Al Gore supporters don’t agree with my plans for the country, I’m going to respect that and in turn I will refalect (Bush speak for reflect) Al Gore’s ideas in everything I do.”
Someone told me the other day that these large gathering of Tea Party protesters is an indication that the President is destined for only one term. I was watching some Tea Party coverage on Saturday and I’m just guessing, but I’m willing to bet large sums of money that a super large majority of those people didn’t vote for Obama the first time around.
President Obama is a true inspiration to me. He is a Kenyan-Muslim-Communist-Nazi, which proves that America truly is a melting pot. This helps me to believe that even I, a Religious-Liberal-Chink-With Impulse Control Issues, can do anything.
Sarah Palin is no threat in 2012. She lacks media savvy, and a true in depth (we need to hear more than talking points) understanding of the most pressing issues of our time. She is very exciting and she energizes the right. Can anyone say Pat Buchanan?
When President Bush would give a speech on the challenges we were facing as a country, Conservatives would hail his optimism and his inspirational spirit. When President Obama states that unemployment rates moving from 10.2% to 10% “is a step in the right direction” they say he is out of touch with the reality of the situation. Perhaps, next time when speaking to the American people the President should say, “The economic situation in our country is bleak. We face a hopeless and impossible challenge. Soon we will all DIE!” I only fear that if he spoke in these terms pundits from the right would then say he wasn’t showing leadership.
I used to like Glenn Beck. When he was on headline news I didn’t always agree with him but he had a good understanding of politics and a pragmatic approach to the issues. Today he has become a true caricature of himself, a cartoon character to inspire ratings. Last week he spoke for almost 15 minutes about the White House party crashers and somehow managed to link it to a conspiracy between the Obama Administration and Bravo Television, all while stating more than 6 times that he didn’t believe the conspiracy was true.
Lenny Bruce. Shame on us, shame on our government, shame on the police, and shame on our justice system, what we did to that man is no different than what we did to the Japanese during World War II, suspected communists in the 50’s, homosexuals now, or blacks for centuries. Again and again we destroy what it means to be American, in order to protect America. Who’s next? Can anyone say Islam?
I understand the idea of being fiscally conservative, low taxes and responsible spending, but since we haven’t had a President from either party that could effectively reduce spending in quite some time. Perhaps we should stop screaming for lowering taxes. The Left’s modus operandi is “tax and spend”, the Right’s should be “don’t tax and spend anyway”.
Why does the Tea Party crowd keep saying that they want their country back? It didn’t go anywhere. You lost the election, this is what happens when someone you disagree with gets elected President (voted in by a majority, not stolen, not taken away, not even decided by Floridians who can’t fill out ballot sheets), things begin to happen that you disagree with. You never heard President Bush say, “Since all of you Al Gore supporters don’t agree with my plans for the country, I’m going to respect that and in turn I will refalect (Bush speak for reflect) Al Gore’s ideas in everything I do.”
Someone told me the other day that these large gathering of Tea Party protesters is an indication that the President is destined for only one term. I was watching some Tea Party coverage on Saturday and I’m just guessing, but I’m willing to bet large sums of money that a super large majority of those people didn’t vote for Obama the first time around.
President Obama is a true inspiration to me. He is a Kenyan-Muslim-Communist-Nazi, which proves that America truly is a melting pot. This helps me to believe that even I, a Religious-Liberal-Chink-With Impulse Control Issues, can do anything.
Sarah Palin is no threat in 2012. She lacks media savvy, and a true in depth (we need to hear more than talking points) understanding of the most pressing issues of our time. She is very exciting and she energizes the right. Can anyone say Pat Buchanan?
When President Bush would give a speech on the challenges we were facing as a country, Conservatives would hail his optimism and his inspirational spirit. When President Obama states that unemployment rates moving from 10.2% to 10% “is a step in the right direction” they say he is out of touch with the reality of the situation. Perhaps, next time when speaking to the American people the President should say, “The economic situation in our country is bleak. We face a hopeless and impossible challenge. Soon we will all DIE!” I only fear that if he spoke in these terms pundits from the right would then say he wasn’t showing leadership.
I used to like Glenn Beck. When he was on headline news I didn’t always agree with him but he had a good understanding of politics and a pragmatic approach to the issues. Today he has become a true caricature of himself, a cartoon character to inspire ratings. Last week he spoke for almost 15 minutes about the White House party crashers and somehow managed to link it to a conspiracy between the Obama Administration and Bravo Television, all while stating more than 6 times that he didn’t believe the conspiracy was true.
Lenny Bruce. Shame on us, shame on our government, shame on the police, and shame on our justice system, what we did to that man is no different than what we did to the Japanese during World War II, suspected communists in the 50’s, homosexuals now, or blacks for centuries. Again and again we destroy what it means to be American, in order to protect America. Who’s next? Can anyone say Islam?
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
CBO: Three-Quarters Of Stimulus Unspent By Ryan Grim ryan@huffingtonpost.com | HuffPost Reporting
Only $100 billion of the $787 billion stimulus package passed nine months ago has actually been spent by the federal government so far, with another $90 billion of stimulus coming in the form of tax reductions, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported Monday evening. That leaves three quarters of the package -- and its stimulative effects -- yet to come.
Slow as that pace may seem, it's in line with initial CBO estimates.
But much of the spending hasn't had the full impact it could, the report says, because "it appears that stimulus funds substituted for some spending from regular appropriations."
Despite the limitations, the CBO estimates that between 600,000 and 1.6 million people were employed in the third quarter of 2009 who otherwise would not have been. The spending and tax cuts raised the Gross Domestic Product by somewhere between 1.2 and 3.2 percent, it found, and reduced unemployment by 0.3 to 0.9 percent.
In Washington, the stimulus is often discussed as if the entire $787 billion was all spent on the first night -- with some pundits expressing shock and dismay that the economy hasn't already bounced back as a result. That three quarters of the stimulus has yet to be felt undermines their positions.
Shortly after the stimulus was passed, the GOP began declaring it a failure, a conclusion the party has stuck to since - even if some officials take credit for what it's accomplishing when they're back at home
Democrats in Congress have been stung by the criticism and even while pushing for more stimulus spending have worked hard to avoid calling it a stimulus, dubbing it a "jobs" bill instead.
Michael Steel, a spokesman for Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), told HuffPost Monday night that he's not buying the CBO estimate.
"The White House claimed that if we passed the trillion-dollar 'stimulus' unemployment would stay below 8 percent and jobs would be created 'immediately.' Instead, unemployment is over 10 percent, more than three million more Americans are out of work, and folks are asking 'where are the jobs?'" he wrote in an e-mail.
The White House had been mocked for its flawed reporting of how many jobs the stimulus created - which included jobs in congressional districts that don't actually exist. But the CBO said it used a different model than relying on the word of bureaucrats.
"Estimating the law's overall effects on employment requires a more comprehensive analysis than the recipients' reports provide," the CBO said. "Therefore, looking at the actual amounts spent so far (where identifiable) and estimates of the other effects of ARRA on spending and revenues, CBO has estimated the law's impact on employment and economic output using evidence about how previous similar policies have affected the economy and various mathematical models that represent the workings of the economy. On that basis, CBO estimates that in the third quarter of calendar year 2009, an additional 600,000 to 1.6 million people were employed in the United States."
That could be a tremendous underestimate, as the CBO's thinking doesn't take into account the possibility that the economy might have fallen off a cliff if the stimulus hadn't been passed, with world markets panicking and employers continuing to eliminate jobs at an eye-popping pace.
Similarly, the reason the CBO failed to predict the rise in unemployment that has taken place since February is that the model it uses doesn't take into account the fact that the banking system collapsed.
Slow as that pace may seem, it's in line with initial CBO estimates.
But much of the spending hasn't had the full impact it could, the report says, because "it appears that stimulus funds substituted for some spending from regular appropriations."
Despite the limitations, the CBO estimates that between 600,000 and 1.6 million people were employed in the third quarter of 2009 who otherwise would not have been. The spending and tax cuts raised the Gross Domestic Product by somewhere between 1.2 and 3.2 percent, it found, and reduced unemployment by 0.3 to 0.9 percent.
In Washington, the stimulus is often discussed as if the entire $787 billion was all spent on the first night -- with some pundits expressing shock and dismay that the economy hasn't already bounced back as a result. That three quarters of the stimulus has yet to be felt undermines their positions.
Shortly after the stimulus was passed, the GOP began declaring it a failure, a conclusion the party has stuck to since - even if some officials take credit for what it's accomplishing when they're back at home
Democrats in Congress have been stung by the criticism and even while pushing for more stimulus spending have worked hard to avoid calling it a stimulus, dubbing it a "jobs" bill instead.
Michael Steel, a spokesman for Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), told HuffPost Monday night that he's not buying the CBO estimate.
"The White House claimed that if we passed the trillion-dollar 'stimulus' unemployment would stay below 8 percent and jobs would be created 'immediately.' Instead, unemployment is over 10 percent, more than three million more Americans are out of work, and folks are asking 'where are the jobs?'" he wrote in an e-mail.
The White House had been mocked for its flawed reporting of how many jobs the stimulus created - which included jobs in congressional districts that don't actually exist. But the CBO said it used a different model than relying on the word of bureaucrats.
"Estimating the law's overall effects on employment requires a more comprehensive analysis than the recipients' reports provide," the CBO said. "Therefore, looking at the actual amounts spent so far (where identifiable) and estimates of the other effects of ARRA on spending and revenues, CBO has estimated the law's impact on employment and economic output using evidence about how previous similar policies have affected the economy and various mathematical models that represent the workings of the economy. On that basis, CBO estimates that in the third quarter of calendar year 2009, an additional 600,000 to 1.6 million people were employed in the United States."
That could be a tremendous underestimate, as the CBO's thinking doesn't take into account the possibility that the economy might have fallen off a cliff if the stimulus hadn't been passed, with world markets panicking and employers continuing to eliminate jobs at an eye-popping pace.
Similarly, the reason the CBO failed to predict the rise in unemployment that has taken place since February is that the model it uses doesn't take into account the fact that the banking system collapsed.
A courageous call for civility By E.J. Dionne Jr. Monday, November 30, 2009
The most surprising and disappointing aspect of our politics is how little pushback there has been against the vile, extremist rhetoric that has characterized such a large part of the anti-Obama movement.
President Obama's White House has largely ignored those accusing him of "fascism" and "communism," presumably believing that restraint in defense of dignity is no vice.
Republican politicians, worried about future primary fights, have been reluctant to pick a fight with a radical right that seems to be the most energized section of their party. Their "moderation" has consisted of a non-benign neglect of the extremists and of accusing the president merely of "socialism." And so it is that the first genuinely ringing call for moderation has come from a man who is effectively without a party and whose own demeanor and career define temperance.
Jim Leach spent 30 years as a Republican member of Congress who went his own way. If this meant standing almost alone against his caucus, he was content to do so.
But he was never bombastic about it, as befits an extravagantly understated guy. The characteristic Leach look is a comfortable sweater worn under a tweed jacket, in season and out. That's about as fashionable as the persona of old Mr. Chips, the warmhearted and mildly Victorian headmaster who was the hero of James Hilton's 1934 novel.
Leach lost his Iowa seat in the 2006 Democratic tide, but he emerged relieved rather than bitter. He turned to academia, not the lobbying trade favored by so many defeated politicians, and in 2008 engaged in the ultimate act of a maverick (a real one) by becoming a Republican for Obama. The new president in turn appointed Leach chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities.
It was in this role that Leach offered his critique of extremism in a speech at the National Press Club titled "Bridging Cultures" a few days before Thanksgiving. It deserves far more attention than it ha
"Little is more important for the world's leading democracy in this change-intensive century," Leach argued, "than establishing an ethos of thoughtfulness and decency of expression in the public square.
"If we don't try to understand and respect others, how can we expect them to respect us, our values and our way of life?" But our own political practice belies anything remotely like "civility," a word that Leach has as much a right to use as anyone in public life.
"It is particularly difficult not to be concerned about American public manners and the discordant rhetoric of our politics," he declared. "Words reflect emotion as well as meaning. They clarify -- or cloud -- thought and energize action, sometimes bringing out the better angels in our nature, sometimes lesser instincts." But what are we doing in this great democracy? "Public officials," Leach observed, "are being labeled 'fascist' or 'communist.'
And more bizarrely, significant public figures have toyed with hints of history-blind radicalism -- the notion of 'secession.' " This last is a reference to Texas Gov. Rick Perry's effort to ride to reelection by invoking a concept that we thought had been discredited in 1865.
Leach has no problem with a vigorous debate, but he's right that much of what passes for argument right now is mere calumny.
"There is, after all, a difference between holding a particular tax or spending or health-care view," he said, "and asserting that an American who supports another approach or is a member of a different political party is an advocate of an 'ism' of hate that encompasses gulags and concentration camps. One framework of thought defines rival ideas; the other, enemies." As a result, "citizens of various philosophical persuasions are reflecting increased disrespect for fellow citizens and thus for modern-day democratic governance."
Leach still has a lot of the old moderate Republican in him, and he is critical of a political system that, by creating so many safe one-party seats, has produced strong incentives for politicians "to remain firmly positioned far from the center." He adds: "Institutional polarization is the inevitable result." That's true, too, especially in the GOP.
Leach's speech is the kickoff for a 50-state "civility tour," and my hunch is that this very civil man may have to put up with a lot of incivility along the way. It's strange that a call to consider respecting each other more might become a controversial endeavor. This is precisely why Leach's witness to moderation requires an immoderate dose of courage.
ejdionne@washpost.com
President Obama's White House has largely ignored those accusing him of "fascism" and "communism," presumably believing that restraint in defense of dignity is no vice.
Republican politicians, worried about future primary fights, have been reluctant to pick a fight with a radical right that seems to be the most energized section of their party. Their "moderation" has consisted of a non-benign neglect of the extremists and of accusing the president merely of "socialism." And so it is that the first genuinely ringing call for moderation has come from a man who is effectively without a party and whose own demeanor and career define temperance.
Jim Leach spent 30 years as a Republican member of Congress who went his own way. If this meant standing almost alone against his caucus, he was content to do so.
But he was never bombastic about it, as befits an extravagantly understated guy. The characteristic Leach look is a comfortable sweater worn under a tweed jacket, in season and out. That's about as fashionable as the persona of old Mr. Chips, the warmhearted and mildly Victorian headmaster who was the hero of James Hilton's 1934 novel.
Leach lost his Iowa seat in the 2006 Democratic tide, but he emerged relieved rather than bitter. He turned to academia, not the lobbying trade favored by so many defeated politicians, and in 2008 engaged in the ultimate act of a maverick (a real one) by becoming a Republican for Obama. The new president in turn appointed Leach chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities.
It was in this role that Leach offered his critique of extremism in a speech at the National Press Club titled "Bridging Cultures" a few days before Thanksgiving. It deserves far more attention than it ha
"Little is more important for the world's leading democracy in this change-intensive century," Leach argued, "than establishing an ethos of thoughtfulness and decency of expression in the public square.
"If we don't try to understand and respect others, how can we expect them to respect us, our values and our way of life?" But our own political practice belies anything remotely like "civility," a word that Leach has as much a right to use as anyone in public life.
"It is particularly difficult not to be concerned about American public manners and the discordant rhetoric of our politics," he declared. "Words reflect emotion as well as meaning. They clarify -- or cloud -- thought and energize action, sometimes bringing out the better angels in our nature, sometimes lesser instincts." But what are we doing in this great democracy? "Public officials," Leach observed, "are being labeled 'fascist' or 'communist.'
And more bizarrely, significant public figures have toyed with hints of history-blind radicalism -- the notion of 'secession.' " This last is a reference to Texas Gov. Rick Perry's effort to ride to reelection by invoking a concept that we thought had been discredited in 1865.
Leach has no problem with a vigorous debate, but he's right that much of what passes for argument right now is mere calumny.
"There is, after all, a difference between holding a particular tax or spending or health-care view," he said, "and asserting that an American who supports another approach or is a member of a different political party is an advocate of an 'ism' of hate that encompasses gulags and concentration camps. One framework of thought defines rival ideas; the other, enemies." As a result, "citizens of various philosophical persuasions are reflecting increased disrespect for fellow citizens and thus for modern-day democratic governance."
Leach still has a lot of the old moderate Republican in him, and he is critical of a political system that, by creating so many safe one-party seats, has produced strong incentives for politicians "to remain firmly positioned far from the center." He adds: "Institutional polarization is the inevitable result." That's true, too, especially in the GOP.
Leach's speech is the kickoff for a 50-state "civility tour," and my hunch is that this very civil man may have to put up with a lot of incivility along the way. It's strange that a call to consider respecting each other more might become a controversial endeavor. This is precisely why Leach's witness to moderation requires an immoderate dose of courage.
ejdionne@washpost.com
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Black and White are Simple, the Real Questions Lie in the Gray Areas
This was written in response to a comment made about "Liberty is Intrinsic to the Divine"
The first point about the persecuted church, I can't disagree with. Many Christians have made a very difficult and noble choice. I only hope I could do the same, though I pray I will never have to.
As for the second point, I never said that we should not teach people about morality. It is necessary for those that know to teach those that don't know. However, as a body, the Church has proven many times that they do not always have an enlightened view on moral issues. Quite frankly, the Church has been on the wrong side of many moral issues over the last two thousand years. This doesn’t make Christians bad people, just people, and every person on this planet is still learning. Of course we know the basics, don't kill, don't steal, and don't lie. Most people know these basic tenets of humanity. Even those that don't care to follow a path of civility know these rules. It's the gray area were everyone gets confused.
The Churches' view on these gray areas change. We (by we, I mean the Church) have gone through our own Era of Christian Jihad, we have murdered in the name of God, we have used the Word to rationalize bigotry and in the past we have tortured and thrown people in dungeons. We have proven many times that the Church does have the capacity to use poor judgment when it comes to morality and we are still learning. We continue to deepen our understanding of what God wants from us.
I couldn't agree more when you say, "In America, we get to have our own views on life so why not teach a good biblical concept of morality. Where the choice and freedom arises is at the point where people accept the teaching or reject it. The church should be a moral compass in a nation, not bring judgment on those who disagree but leading the way to truth." Of course we should teach our children and those that seek it, our best understanding of these issues.
When you say, "We don't take a stand to be obstinate but to obey God!" The reality is that we often try to force others to obey God as well. We do this by trying to create laws that prohibit people from exercising their free will to follow or not to follow God's law. I'm not naive enough to think that we don't need laws. However, I am idealistic enough to believe that our laws should be used to protect us from each other, not to protect us from making choices that others, who don't know us and have never tried to know us, don't approve of. This is most apparent in the Church's continuous support of laws that impede upon the free will of homosexuals and gamblers.
I’m not arguing the merits of God’s Law. I’m speaking to the contradiction that if an all powerful God does not force us to follow His laws, should we force His laws upon others. Conservatives often claim that liberty is under attack by the Left. The truth is the idea of free will has been under attack by the Right for quite some time. Perhaps conservatives are interested in only protecting the liberty to do things that they like to do. Too many people on the Right believe any other behavior is not liberty, it’s just liberal.
The first point about the persecuted church, I can't disagree with. Many Christians have made a very difficult and noble choice. I only hope I could do the same, though I pray I will never have to.
As for the second point, I never said that we should not teach people about morality. It is necessary for those that know to teach those that don't know. However, as a body, the Church has proven many times that they do not always have an enlightened view on moral issues. Quite frankly, the Church has been on the wrong side of many moral issues over the last two thousand years. This doesn’t make Christians bad people, just people, and every person on this planet is still learning. Of course we know the basics, don't kill, don't steal, and don't lie. Most people know these basic tenets of humanity. Even those that don't care to follow a path of civility know these rules. It's the gray area were everyone gets confused.
The Churches' view on these gray areas change. We (by we, I mean the Church) have gone through our own Era of Christian Jihad, we have murdered in the name of God, we have used the Word to rationalize bigotry and in the past we have tortured and thrown people in dungeons. We have proven many times that the Church does have the capacity to use poor judgment when it comes to morality and we are still learning. We continue to deepen our understanding of what God wants from us.
I couldn't agree more when you say, "In America, we get to have our own views on life so why not teach a good biblical concept of morality. Where the choice and freedom arises is at the point where people accept the teaching or reject it. The church should be a moral compass in a nation, not bring judgment on those who disagree but leading the way to truth." Of course we should teach our children and those that seek it, our best understanding of these issues.
When you say, "We don't take a stand to be obstinate but to obey God!" The reality is that we often try to force others to obey God as well. We do this by trying to create laws that prohibit people from exercising their free will to follow or not to follow God's law. I'm not naive enough to think that we don't need laws. However, I am idealistic enough to believe that our laws should be used to protect us from each other, not to protect us from making choices that others, who don't know us and have never tried to know us, don't approve of. This is most apparent in the Church's continuous support of laws that impede upon the free will of homosexuals and gamblers.
I’m not arguing the merits of God’s Law. I’m speaking to the contradiction that if an all powerful God does not force us to follow His laws, should we force His laws upon others. Conservatives often claim that liberty is under attack by the Left. The truth is the idea of free will has been under attack by the Right for quite some time. Perhaps conservatives are interested in only protecting the liberty to do things that they like to do. Too many people on the Right believe any other behavior is not liberty, it’s just liberal.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Same Tired Argument, Same Result
Saturday, November 11, 2009 is a historical day in the fight for those that can’t fight for themselves. The Senate healthcare reform bill appears to be headed to the floor for debate. This debate will hopefully begin a new chapter in American history. If this bill passes healthcare will stop being about money and start being about our humanity and civility.
The news cycle will be filled with Senators, Representatives, Governors, future White House hopefuls, Fox news anchors and even half term Alaskan Governors railing against the evils of a public health option. Socialized medicine, destruction of the doctor patient relationship, the end of personal freedom, and the rationing of our essential healthcare needs will be the central argument. It’s 1965 all over again and the oppositions’ screams of the end of the America we know and love has not changed. In the words of DMX it’s the “Same old s*** dawg, just a different day.”
For the last 44 years Medicare, a public health insurance plan, has provided care to all of its enrollees from coast to coast. It has provided health and financial security to millions of older people, people with disabilities and their families. For two generations Medicare has provided affordable insurance to those who otherwise could not afford it. Communism is not knocking at our door, seniors do not have to meet with death panels that get to decide who lives and who dies and the only people who are suffering without proper medical attention are those without insurance and those whom insurance companies consider high risk.
Those in the media and those in politics, who would rather see the current Administration fail in its attempts to fix this growing and largely unchecked problem, are being irresponsible. They are using the oldest political technique in the book, scare them into surrender. It is the easiest road to take whenever change is involved. The fear of the unknown has always been greater than the fear of the familiar, even when the familiar is unhealthy and unwise. Left in the hands of the conservative status quo, healthcare will never be fixed, because lowering taxes with impunity and deregulation, though an enticing sound bite can not solve all of the problems that we as a nation are suffering from.
We have to make sacrifices for the generations that will come after us. We should strive to leave a better world and a better nation than we received. Hard work should allow our citizens to reap the rewards of a more comfortable life, but all Americans deserve the right to live without the fear of financial ruin when catastrophic illness strikes. Don’t be afraid of rationed care now, because it has always been here. It is based on a socio-economic divide that underlines the worst values in our society. It is time to lend a hand to all of our American brothers and sisters and to reflect our greatest values, the generosity of our character and the deepness of our compassion.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Liberty is Intrinsic to the Divine
“It is by God’s own will that we get to choose our own fate. He has given us the rules, now it is up to us to win the game.” - L
There are a lot of ideas within the humanist and liberal movement that I feel are intelligent in design. They lack the humbleness of the saints (at least what God had hoped for us), but can not be completely denied based solely on this one argument. The humanist view that truth and morality is sought through human investigation; as such, views on morality can change when new knowledge and information is discovered and the liberal belief of self-determination in human existence are both divine in nature.
I am not certain that morality can change. However, I think it is very apparent that our view and understanding of morality can deepen. The Old Testament laid out a set of laws and rules to follow to a very naive and ignorant society. As they progressed (for better or for worse) so did their understanding of right and wrong. In the New Testament God defined these laws in a different light. He told us if we love one another and treat each other well and hold God as the most high, then we could not disregard the law, henceforth they are one and the same (not different, just more complex). As our understanding of sin and morality increased and became more complicated in nature, so did God’s commandments to us. The church of antiquity (and America less than fifty years ago) thought it was okay to suppress and belittle women, propagate racism, and indulge in king worship (theocracy or papacy), by today’s standards that is immoral. More evidence that we as a body of believers can better define the nuances of moral questions as they become more complex and we become more mature as a people.
While the liberal and humanist reliance on self-worth is extravagant to say the least, as a religious man I do believe in self determination. Many intellectuals from the Enlightenment, including those most influential in creating our country; George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and many more, believed that individual liberty was not only humanly moral, but a God given entitlement presented to us and proven in His own actions in our history. God gave us a choice. This is never more apparent than in our freedom to worship. If the divine creator of all that exists insisted that we believe and worship faithfully, than we would. The fact that we all do not can be most apparent when believers at times exhibit extreme lapses in judgment and morals. Therefore, I can not understand why the church feels the necessity to propagate and espouse its moral authority upon the rest of the world (or at least our country). If God gave individuals the freedom to choose, how could we rationalize otherwise? Perhaps we as the body of Christ suffer from a form of narcissism or at the very least delusions of grandeur. We should not choose to destroy that which God has created and self determination is ever apparent from Adam and Eve to Revelation.
Intellectual progress is what God wanted for us. Reason, understanding and rational inspection of self evident truths can be seen from the writings of Moses to John. It is our nature and duty to progress; this is why we are not saved from birth. Liberty and free will are an essential part of life on this planet. We might not like the choices that others make but God did not intend for us to stand in between another man’s intellect and his actions. We choose and suffer the consequences of our action, God does not choose for us. He gives us the knowledge to succeed and we choose to listen or deny. It is our commission as saints to provide the information necessary to present the steps of salvation to the world, God never gave us permission to oppress those that choose otherwise.
There are a lot of ideas within the humanist and liberal movement that I feel are intelligent in design. They lack the humbleness of the saints (at least what God had hoped for us), but can not be completely denied based solely on this one argument. The humanist view that truth and morality is sought through human investigation; as such, views on morality can change when new knowledge and information is discovered and the liberal belief of self-determination in human existence are both divine in nature.
I am not certain that morality can change. However, I think it is very apparent that our view and understanding of morality can deepen. The Old Testament laid out a set of laws and rules to follow to a very naive and ignorant society. As they progressed (for better or for worse) so did their understanding of right and wrong. In the New Testament God defined these laws in a different light. He told us if we love one another and treat each other well and hold God as the most high, then we could not disregard the law, henceforth they are one and the same (not different, just more complex). As our understanding of sin and morality increased and became more complicated in nature, so did God’s commandments to us. The church of antiquity (and America less than fifty years ago) thought it was okay to suppress and belittle women, propagate racism, and indulge in king worship (theocracy or papacy), by today’s standards that is immoral. More evidence that we as a body of believers can better define the nuances of moral questions as they become more complex and we become more mature as a people.
While the liberal and humanist reliance on self-worth is extravagant to say the least, as a religious man I do believe in self determination. Many intellectuals from the Enlightenment, including those most influential in creating our country; George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and many more, believed that individual liberty was not only humanly moral, but a God given entitlement presented to us and proven in His own actions in our history. God gave us a choice. This is never more apparent than in our freedom to worship. If the divine creator of all that exists insisted that we believe and worship faithfully, than we would. The fact that we all do not can be most apparent when believers at times exhibit extreme lapses in judgment and morals. Therefore, I can not understand why the church feels the necessity to propagate and espouse its moral authority upon the rest of the world (or at least our country). If God gave individuals the freedom to choose, how could we rationalize otherwise? Perhaps we as the body of Christ suffer from a form of narcissism or at the very least delusions of grandeur. We should not choose to destroy that which God has created and self determination is ever apparent from Adam and Eve to Revelation.
Intellectual progress is what God wanted for us. Reason, understanding and rational inspection of self evident truths can be seen from the writings of Moses to John. It is our nature and duty to progress; this is why we are not saved from birth. Liberty and free will are an essential part of life on this planet. We might not like the choices that others make but God did not intend for us to stand in between another man’s intellect and his actions. We choose and suffer the consequences of our action, God does not choose for us. He gives us the knowledge to succeed and we choose to listen or deny. It is our commission as saints to provide the information necessary to present the steps of salvation to the world, God never gave us permission to oppress those that choose otherwise.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
"Going Rogue" or Not?
Apparently, in “Alaskan folksy” speak; Going Rogue means more of the same. It's not unusual for politicians to blur the lines between fact and fiction. It happens all the time. The current administration does it, as did the past. However, when your entire political platform is based on being different, you might expect something different. It looks to me like different just means more of the same, but louder. Name calling, flip flopping, fictitious facts (something I like to call fict-facts), and of course the shout from the rooftops mantra of EVERYTHING MUST CHANGE. We don’t really want it to change though; this is all much more fun. Below is the Associated Press fact check of Governor Palin's new book.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Yesterday
I yearn for yesterday. Though it seems so distant, I know it’s near. I remember a time when our leaders led. They motivated us to be better, to want more, and to love more. Each day of our lives were seen with a childish optimism, a chance to redeem ourselves and honor our country. Our leaders have become like minded. They are sycophants, eager to impress, but lack morals. Their party’s ideology and rules are more important than their underwhelming desire to protect the unprotected. They don’t fight for us today. They fight for ideas, disinterested in the pragmatic process required to change anything that won’t pay off before the soapbox is removed from beneath their clinched toes.
Yesterday I had hope, an all encompassing desire to be part of something more important than myself. Today’s climate is frigid. I can’t see the goal, to be better, through the blanket of snow falling from the clouds. However I can see each and every flake. Riding on the crystals are the ideas of men. Each idea pointing to “me.” We have become a culture of self-serving “me” followers. Every political and philosophical idea is wrapped around the essence of what can you do for me. Gone are the questions of Jack Kennedy and the dreams of Dr. King. The hopes and aspirations’ of a generation, that once lived among the circumstances of life, have been replaced by the wants and excesses of the “me” and the “now.”
I truly want to believe again. I want to live within the comfort of the fight for the weak. Where the wounds may run deep, but the softness of an eager soul and the warmth of a youthful exuberance for something bigger than “me” keeps us safe and parts the clouds. Tomorrow, I hope for a retroactive approach to today. I pray for a leader to fill the void, that the chill of this winter has left behind. A Utopian society may be a Trojan horse, but we can strive to be better, we just need someone to stand up and ask us.
Yesterday I had hope, an all encompassing desire to be part of something more important than myself. Today’s climate is frigid. I can’t see the goal, to be better, through the blanket of snow falling from the clouds. However I can see each and every flake. Riding on the crystals are the ideas of men. Each idea pointing to “me.” We have become a culture of self-serving “me” followers. Every political and philosophical idea is wrapped around the essence of what can you do for me. Gone are the questions of Jack Kennedy and the dreams of Dr. King. The hopes and aspirations’ of a generation, that once lived among the circumstances of life, have been replaced by the wants and excesses of the “me” and the “now.”
I truly want to believe again. I want to live within the comfort of the fight for the weak. Where the wounds may run deep, but the softness of an eager soul and the warmth of a youthful exuberance for something bigger than “me” keeps us safe and parts the clouds. Tomorrow, I hope for a retroactive approach to today. I pray for a leader to fill the void, that the chill of this winter has left behind. A Utopian society may be a Trojan horse, but we can strive to be better, we just need someone to stand up and ask us.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
How to Right the Right
It seems like it has been forever, but in the 1994 elections, Republicans were in a position to take control of Congress for the first time in almost 50 years. With an electorate that was shying away from President Clinton’s fast acting legislative platform, the Grand Old Party found two things that they are lacking now: a message and a leader.
“Contract with America” was that message and Newt Gingrich was that leader, and the right handed the left a decisive defeat. For 10 of the next 12 years, Republicans held the majority in both chambers. By the end of the 2006 and 2008 elections, the GOP found themselves back on the book shelf of irrelevance. If the 2006 election was an indication of the electorate’s disapproval of President Bush and the war in Iraq, the 2008 election was an indication of the beginning of the end of the unity of the right as candidates quickly distanced themselves from the President.
Going into the 2010 election the Republican Party is still very much fractured (a description often saved for the left). On one side, you have conservatives accusing moderates of turning their backs on the core values of the party. On the other side, moderates are slamming conservatives for drawing partisan lines. Then you have the Tea Party fringe groups that are attacking both sides – moderates for being moderates and conservatives for not being conservative enough.
These various groups have developed different platforms and look to different members of the party for leadership. What the GOP needs is - one voice and one leader. And I don’t mean Sarah, Rush, or Beck, at least not if they want to be taken seriously again outside of tea parties and town halls. The party needs a leader that brings people together, not a pundit that divides and conquers. Before the right can right the ship, they have to see and understand were they have gone wrong. They controlled both The White House and Congress, and where thrown out quicker than Sarah Palin can say lip stick.
Some on the far right say the problem is that they weren’t conservative enough. I see this as backing oneself into a corner, the more conservative the party becomes the more of a fringe player they become, because quite simply the American electorate is, and always has been moderate. There also is a perceived lack of tolerance for diversity of opinion on the right. It has become apparent that there is a litmus test within the party on certain issues that magnifies the moderates view that they are a party of exclusion. This has become underlined in the recent budget standstill in California and within the health care debate in Congress. In both cases the party leaders were not shy about telling their conservative brothers and sisters, if you vote with the Democrats you will lose our support, more specifically through party funding for reelection, and current and future chairmanships within their respective chambers. Also the right needs to STOP turning disagreements over issues into attacks on people’s morals (i.e. gun rights and gay rights).
Going forward, the GOP needs to moderate its extremes and clarify its message. They need to become the party of national unity, national security, fiscal responsibility and individual freedom again. The Republicans need to come forward with a clear agenda and platform to get America moving forward and to shake the label of the “Party of No” given to them by the left. The next clear move for the party is to progress from simply disagreeing with the President to bringing forth ideas that are positive and that are going to help people. They must change the cover of the book, from the party of prevention to the party of progression, if they ever want anyone to read their book again.
“Contract with America” was that message and Newt Gingrich was that leader, and the right handed the left a decisive defeat. For 10 of the next 12 years, Republicans held the majority in both chambers. By the end of the 2006 and 2008 elections, the GOP found themselves back on the book shelf of irrelevance. If the 2006 election was an indication of the electorate’s disapproval of President Bush and the war in Iraq, the 2008 election was an indication of the beginning of the end of the unity of the right as candidates quickly distanced themselves from the President.
Going into the 2010 election the Republican Party is still very much fractured (a description often saved for the left). On one side, you have conservatives accusing moderates of turning their backs on the core values of the party. On the other side, moderates are slamming conservatives for drawing partisan lines. Then you have the Tea Party fringe groups that are attacking both sides – moderates for being moderates and conservatives for not being conservative enough.
These various groups have developed different platforms and look to different members of the party for leadership. What the GOP needs is - one voice and one leader. And I don’t mean Sarah, Rush, or Beck, at least not if they want to be taken seriously again outside of tea parties and town halls. The party needs a leader that brings people together, not a pundit that divides and conquers. Before the right can right the ship, they have to see and understand were they have gone wrong. They controlled both The White House and Congress, and where thrown out quicker than Sarah Palin can say lip stick.
Some on the far right say the problem is that they weren’t conservative enough. I see this as backing oneself into a corner, the more conservative the party becomes the more of a fringe player they become, because quite simply the American electorate is, and always has been moderate. There also is a perceived lack of tolerance for diversity of opinion on the right. It has become apparent that there is a litmus test within the party on certain issues that magnifies the moderates view that they are a party of exclusion. This has become underlined in the recent budget standstill in California and within the health care debate in Congress. In both cases the party leaders were not shy about telling their conservative brothers and sisters, if you vote with the Democrats you will lose our support, more specifically through party funding for reelection, and current and future chairmanships within their respective chambers. Also the right needs to STOP turning disagreements over issues into attacks on people’s morals (i.e. gun rights and gay rights).
Going forward, the GOP needs to moderate its extremes and clarify its message. They need to become the party of national unity, national security, fiscal responsibility and individual freedom again. The Republicans need to come forward with a clear agenda and platform to get America moving forward and to shake the label of the “Party of No” given to them by the left. The next clear move for the party is to progress from simply disagreeing with the President to bringing forth ideas that are positive and that are going to help people. They must change the cover of the book, from the party of prevention to the party of progression, if they ever want anyone to read their book again.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Whose Side Are You On?
Isn't it amazing, the President of the United States has won the Nobel Peace Prize. The troubling thing about this is the loudest protests for this award have been coming from the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, the Iranian government, oh and of course the increasingly predictable Republican Party. These groups have something in common, it is more important for our President to fail than for our country to succeed. I have been a Republican since I first registered to vote in 1991 and I have never been more ashamed of what this party stands for. When did the politics of our political party become more important than the success of our country? Our loyal opposition has apparently become a bunch of hate filled boo-birds.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Die! You un-American Swine (or Who Cares If You Have the H1N1 Virus, You Bum)
When did the number one, absolute priority in this country become, making sure that not one person whether man, woman, or child gets anything they haven’t earned? I understand the logic behind this kind of reasoning, and I understand the necessity for people to work for what they get. However we as a nation have adopted a new cause, “Do what needs to be done to be certain (even if it punishes the hard worker down on his or her luck) that nobody gets anything they don’t deserve.” Allowing people to live off of the system undeservedly is a problem, I get that.
Some people in this country take advantage of the wealth we possess and the grace we as a nation provide to those in need. I understand all of this, but with our problems in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, the credit crisis, cancer, obesity, aids, global warming, illegal immigration, poverty, prison overpopulation, government and police corruption, the San Francisco 49ers lack of decent talent, the war on drugs, the war on terror, the war on poverty, the war on liberalism, the war on Obama, record high unemployment, falling home values, and out of control medical costs to name a few, why has our focus shifted to making sure that nobody gets a free lunch? When did we start throwing the baby out with the bathwater on this issue? Somewhere in our history we became a culture that would rather see a bum starve than widows eat. Today it is more satisfying for us ideologically to prevent someone from receiving a hand out needlessly than to give something to those in need. When did it become better to see thousands of those who are undeserving die from sickness, than see one helpless soul live in peace? In a nation that overwhelmingly calls it self God fearing and Christian, this amazes me.
As believers we have received so much we don’t deserve. If we truly believe in God then we understand that we are nothing more than a people that have received the greatest entitlement ever given. We have been given eternal life through no sacrifice of our own. All we have to do is ask for it and we get it. We receive this great hand out on the shoulders of great sacrifice. Not our sacrifices mind you, but the sacrifice of another. We are granted this on the blood of someone else’s suffering. It would seem to me that before we judge others for accepting what they do not deserve, simply because it is made available, we should consider those gifts that we have also received and accepted whole heartedly, undeservedly, and without regret, solely on the grace and love of another.
Some people in this country take advantage of the wealth we possess and the grace we as a nation provide to those in need. I understand all of this, but with our problems in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, the credit crisis, cancer, obesity, aids, global warming, illegal immigration, poverty, prison overpopulation, government and police corruption, the San Francisco 49ers lack of decent talent, the war on drugs, the war on terror, the war on poverty, the war on liberalism, the war on Obama, record high unemployment, falling home values, and out of control medical costs to name a few, why has our focus shifted to making sure that nobody gets a free lunch? When did we start throwing the baby out with the bathwater on this issue? Somewhere in our history we became a culture that would rather see a bum starve than widows eat. Today it is more satisfying for us ideologically to prevent someone from receiving a hand out needlessly than to give something to those in need. When did it become better to see thousands of those who are undeserving die from sickness, than see one helpless soul live in peace? In a nation that overwhelmingly calls it self God fearing and Christian, this amazes me.
As believers we have received so much we don’t deserve. If we truly believe in God then we understand that we are nothing more than a people that have received the greatest entitlement ever given. We have been given eternal life through no sacrifice of our own. All we have to do is ask for it and we get it. We receive this great hand out on the shoulders of great sacrifice. Not our sacrifices mind you, but the sacrifice of another. We are granted this on the blood of someone else’s suffering. It would seem to me that before we judge others for accepting what they do not deserve, simply because it is made available, we should consider those gifts that we have also received and accepted whole heartedly, undeservedly, and without regret, solely on the grace and love of another.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
A Prayer For Action
Hooray hooray, I pray for health care today.
My heart tells me it’s soon on the way.
Children and widows don’t fear,
A doctor is near.
Some people don’t want it,
Some people don’t care.
We fought a war in Korea; we fought a war in Vietnam; we fought two wars in Iraq.
We’ve made so many mistakes that we can never take back.
Let’s do the right thing, let’s stand up and fight.
Let’s put ourselves second, and put first what is right.
I like what I have, bud I’d gladly give it up for another.
The Bible has always taught me that I’m the keeper of my brother.
My heart tells me it’s soon on the way.
Children and widows don’t fear,
A doctor is near.
Some people don’t want it,
Some people don’t care.
We fought a war in Korea; we fought a war in Vietnam; we fought two wars in Iraq.
We’ve made so many mistakes that we can never take back.
Let’s do the right thing, let’s stand up and fight.
Let’s put ourselves second, and put first what is right.
I like what I have, bud I’d gladly give it up for another.
The Bible has always taught me that I’m the keeper of my brother.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
God Bless America?
The deeper our (and by our I mean yours AND mine) country’s debate on the health care crisis becomes, the more disenchanted I become in the ability for us as a nation to mend the divide between those that have and those that have not, those that care and those that do not, those that want to help and those that will not, and those that seek the help necessary from others that they can not provide for themselves and those that should not. It saddens me that many in this country have chosen to ignore a very serious crisis that has befallen us all, a crisis that we can not endure, a crisis that will lead to our economic demise, simply because we refuse to look at the long term consequences of our inaction.
I speak to people every day that have spent the last decade of their lives suggesting that the United States of America is a nation founded upon Christian principles. I have been told that without the grace and favor of God that we as a country would not have the glorious and carefree existence that we have grown accustom to. I have been preached to by my own pastors that in order to remain in God’s favor we must seek, not only as individuals but as one nation under God, to please our maker by our behavior and by our laws. Yet, our nation’s inability to decide weather or not it is right or wrong to provide somebody with quality care when they are ill is astounding to me as an American, as a Christian, and as a human being. When did we become so consumed with our own self satisfaction, our own need to have what is ours (after all we earned it), and our self righteous mentality that if they wanted it bad enough, they could get it on their own?
Some would answer this question by telling you that entitlements go against the deeply engrained ideology that this country was founded upon, some would call this socialism, and still more would simply say, “It’s not my problem.” I would ask you this, if we are a nation base in the belief of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then how does health and well being of our citizenry fit in? Isn’t life based upon our state of well being? If liberty is the ability to choose our own path, should ones inability to pay into a system that is wholly overpriced and largely ineffective, determine the path that they choose? Why, in a Christian nation, is our ability to pursue happiness base solely on what we can and what we can not afford to pay for? How have we come so far (the Emancipation Proclamation, Social Security, fair labor laws, women’s suffrage, and civil rights), yet fallen so fast?
I believe if we had to look into the eyes of those whose lives have been shortened because of our short sighted and selfish choices, and watch as they die from diabetes without medication, cancer without chemotherapy, and heart disease without blood pressure medication, and watch as they live with intense pain without treatment, we would then be unable to ignore those in need. Because we would have to weep for those being strangled by a system that determines a humans life span by how much money they make. I have to tell you though that I am beginning to question that belief in the empathy of my fellow Americans. As this debate goes on, it seem to me as a country, we are more consumed with our fears of that great unknown called "change", than in the reality of the suffering of so many people we choose to call brothers. Why should God bless America, when we choose not to bless those of us we call Americans?
I speak to people every day that have spent the last decade of their lives suggesting that the United States of America is a nation founded upon Christian principles. I have been told that without the grace and favor of God that we as a country would not have the glorious and carefree existence that we have grown accustom to. I have been preached to by my own pastors that in order to remain in God’s favor we must seek, not only as individuals but as one nation under God, to please our maker by our behavior and by our laws. Yet, our nation’s inability to decide weather or not it is right or wrong to provide somebody with quality care when they are ill is astounding to me as an American, as a Christian, and as a human being. When did we become so consumed with our own self satisfaction, our own need to have what is ours (after all we earned it), and our self righteous mentality that if they wanted it bad enough, they could get it on their own?
Some would answer this question by telling you that entitlements go against the deeply engrained ideology that this country was founded upon, some would call this socialism, and still more would simply say, “It’s not my problem.” I would ask you this, if we are a nation base in the belief of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then how does health and well being of our citizenry fit in? Isn’t life based upon our state of well being? If liberty is the ability to choose our own path, should ones inability to pay into a system that is wholly overpriced and largely ineffective, determine the path that they choose? Why, in a Christian nation, is our ability to pursue happiness base solely on what we can and what we can not afford to pay for? How have we come so far (the Emancipation Proclamation, Social Security, fair labor laws, women’s suffrage, and civil rights), yet fallen so fast?
I believe if we had to look into the eyes of those whose lives have been shortened because of our short sighted and selfish choices, and watch as they die from diabetes without medication, cancer without chemotherapy, and heart disease without blood pressure medication, and watch as they live with intense pain without treatment, we would then be unable to ignore those in need. Because we would have to weep for those being strangled by a system that determines a humans life span by how much money they make. I have to tell you though that I am beginning to question that belief in the empathy of my fellow Americans. As this debate goes on, it seem to me as a country, we are more consumed with our fears of that great unknown called "change", than in the reality of the suffering of so many people we choose to call brothers. Why should God bless America, when we choose not to bless those of us we call Americans?
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Some Things Are Black and White
How can one preach about justification without talking about grace, judgment without talking about atonement, or sin without talking about the love our Father in heaven has for all of mankind? That is an egregious form of malignancy within ourselves that we use to apply human principals to those of the divine. By providing insight into the workings of God based entirely on our current belief of the way the world is suppose to work for us, is our inadvertent need to reinvent God. I am not sinless in this, I am the worst of the worst, I spend everyday thinking about how I can rationalize circumventing my need to obey God with my humanly need to serve myself and my family. Today, I am filled with all kinds of depravity.
“If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us… If we claim we have not sinned, we make Him out to be a liar and His word has no place in our lives.” – 1John 1:8, 10
I battle everyday with the notion of grace. Could I as a father deal with the worst of the worst if it were my son committing despicable acts? If my son were to molest a child, would I still love him? Would I give everything I have for the hope that someday he would come back to me and say, “I’m lost, please help me”? And if that call was made would I answer? I would like to think so. I pray everyday that I will never know. But, I do know of one who has the capacity to love so much, to show everlasting grace and mercy upon his children. Our father in heaven has more love and grace for us than we could ever comprehend. Our humanity is finite, His Holiness is infinite. To think any more of ourselves or less of Him is to put the nose before the face.
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” – John 3:16
“Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” – John 1:29
How could a father love someone so completely that he would sacrifice so much? Could I sit by while my son is tortured and murdered? I doubt it. As a saint in Christ I would break several commandments to save my son from the hands of a murderer. I would most certainly ask for forgiveness for my need for justice, revenge, and malice upon anyone who would hurt my child. He did not. The scripture is clear, without contradiction, inspired by God, and written with the hands of men. He forgives us, he forgives us all. No purchase required. He gave us a coupon in His love and no one can take it away, not ever.
“He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” – 1John 2:2
“Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!” – Romans 5:9-10.
We all sin and we all fall short of the glory of God, so why do we feel compelled to point out the indiscretions of others without talking about the grace given to us. Our biggest enemy is ourselves, we are self serving, contemptuous people, lucky to be loved, but lacking love for others, at least those that we judge unworthy.
“The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased grace increased all the more…” – Romans 5:20
How can we see ourselves as better than the lost? Is it not true that we were once lost? To talk to someone about sin without explaining grace is not sound doctrine. They are as entwined as night and day. You can not have one without the other. To separate the two is to separate God from his children. Isn’t that what devil is trying to do?
“If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us… If we claim we have not sinned, we make Him out to be a liar and His word has no place in our lives.” – 1John 1:8, 10
I battle everyday with the notion of grace. Could I as a father deal with the worst of the worst if it were my son committing despicable acts? If my son were to molest a child, would I still love him? Would I give everything I have for the hope that someday he would come back to me and say, “I’m lost, please help me”? And if that call was made would I answer? I would like to think so. I pray everyday that I will never know. But, I do know of one who has the capacity to love so much, to show everlasting grace and mercy upon his children. Our father in heaven has more love and grace for us than we could ever comprehend. Our humanity is finite, His Holiness is infinite. To think any more of ourselves or less of Him is to put the nose before the face.
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” – John 3:16
“Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” – John 1:29
How could a father love someone so completely that he would sacrifice so much? Could I sit by while my son is tortured and murdered? I doubt it. As a saint in Christ I would break several commandments to save my son from the hands of a murderer. I would most certainly ask for forgiveness for my need for justice, revenge, and malice upon anyone who would hurt my child. He did not. The scripture is clear, without contradiction, inspired by God, and written with the hands of men. He forgives us, he forgives us all. No purchase required. He gave us a coupon in His love and no one can take it away, not ever.
“He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” – 1John 2:2
“Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!” – Romans 5:9-10.
We all sin and we all fall short of the glory of God, so why do we feel compelled to point out the indiscretions of others without talking about the grace given to us. Our biggest enemy is ourselves, we are self serving, contemptuous people, lucky to be loved, but lacking love for others, at least those that we judge unworthy.
“The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased grace increased all the more…” – Romans 5:20
How can we see ourselves as better than the lost? Is it not true that we were once lost? To talk to someone about sin without explaining grace is not sound doctrine. They are as entwined as night and day. You can not have one without the other. To separate the two is to separate God from his children. Isn’t that what devil is trying to do?
Thursday, August 6, 2009
The Rules Do Not Apply
The law is simply an expression of the nature of God, His holiness and moral perfections. The best efforts of man to live according to this standard are futile.
“What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one. Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.” – Gal 3:21-25
Even in OT times the Jews were always saved through faith, not adherence to the Law. They kept the Law as an expression of obedience and fellowship with God. As we hopefully realize today it is not nor has it ever been possible for the blood of animals to take away sin.
“...because it is impossible for the blood of bull and goats to take away sins.” – Heb 10:4
Christ died for our sins
“Jehovah…laid on him the iniquity of us all.” – Isa. 53:16
“Christ died for our sins” - 1Cor 15:13
“...who His own self bore our sins in His own body” – 1Peter 2:24
“...layeth down his life for the sheep.” - Mark 10:45, John 10:11
Jesus has satisfied all the demands of the law against all people, even those who reject Him. The law is no longer in effect as a moral judge to condemn us. The Bible is very clear that Christ lifted the law from us all (including the unsaved). A person is no longer condemned for breaking the law.
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” Matt 5:17 The Greek word translated “to fulfill in the Bible is “pleroo” which mean to fulfill in the context of completing something, or to finish.
“...having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.” Col 2:14
“...by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations….” Eph 2:15
Christ did not destroy or abolish the Law; it still has its place in the world today. It is there to remind us all that we are and will always be sinners. We are forgiven though grace (nothing required from us), we are saved by faith (we are required to believe). We have never been nor will we ever be righteous or worthy of holiness (Jew or Gentile). We are as bad as and at times worse than the lost
Tolerance is an ugly word. God has not tolerated his children he has loved us all, always. Why do we as a church shy away from loving sinners as God loves us? Why do we choose not to accept things, but rather to put up with them (tolerance), when God scripturally is never tolerant, He has always shown us unconditional love and acceptance. We should not show tolerance for someone that is lost, because that just isn’t good enough. We should show love. We should not preach fear and judgment upon those who sin. We should preach about God’s acceptance for us even when we are stained by sin.
We are not commissioned to make the sinner stop sinning, after all we continue to sin ourselves and our sins are just as bad as anyone else’s. Sin ain’t gonna send nobody to hell. And loving and accepting sinful people in your life is not going to send you to hell. Jesus never spoke against the sinners in His ministry, He spoke against the church leaders who created rules and regulations that judged and condemned others for their sin. In them, faith was dead. Sounds eerily familiar to many messages you hear in church today, when pastors speak about, homosexuality, pornography, infidelity, premarital sex, masturbation, sodomy, cohabitation, and liberalism (HA HA). Although within the church, gossip, contempt, judgment, prejudice, intolerance, disobedience, lying, anger, vanity, lots and lots of vanity, and my personal favorite denominational prejudice go largely unnoticed. Scripturally, these violations are no better or worse than the previous.
“For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.” – James 2:10
Propitiation is turning away wrath by an offering. Our offering is Christ. He didn’t just die on the cross for our sins; He gave Himself up for God’s wrath. The death of Christ satisfies the justice of God that must be poured upon sin.
So trying to live a life without sin (emphasis on trying) is noble to say the least. However it doesn’t guarantee you a closer spot in the line to see God. We are all equally undeserving of His enduring love, but we receive it anyways. We are giving ourselves too much credit if we think otherwise. No one is holy enough to deserve the grand prize. God doesn’t believe in equal pay for equal work and he doesn’t grade his love for us on our desire to impress him with our lives. Unfortunately for all the saints who want more love or need more blessing for their Christ driven lives, they must remember…
“...Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!’" - Luke 15:29-30
From God’s mouth to our brains.
“What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one. Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.” – Gal 3:21-25
Even in OT times the Jews were always saved through faith, not adherence to the Law. They kept the Law as an expression of obedience and fellowship with God. As we hopefully realize today it is not nor has it ever been possible for the blood of animals to take away sin.
“...because it is impossible for the blood of bull and goats to take away sins.” – Heb 10:4
Christ died for our sins
“Jehovah…laid on him the iniquity of us all.” – Isa. 53:16
“Christ died for our sins” - 1Cor 15:13
“...who His own self bore our sins in His own body” – 1Peter 2:24
“...layeth down his life for the sheep.” - Mark 10:45, John 10:11
Jesus has satisfied all the demands of the law against all people, even those who reject Him. The law is no longer in effect as a moral judge to condemn us. The Bible is very clear that Christ lifted the law from us all (including the unsaved). A person is no longer condemned for breaking the law.
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” Matt 5:17 The Greek word translated “to fulfill in the Bible is “pleroo” which mean to fulfill in the context of completing something, or to finish.
“...having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.” Col 2:14
“...by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations….” Eph 2:15
Christ did not destroy or abolish the Law; it still has its place in the world today. It is there to remind us all that we are and will always be sinners. We are forgiven though grace (nothing required from us), we are saved by faith (we are required to believe). We have never been nor will we ever be righteous or worthy of holiness (Jew or Gentile). We are as bad as and at times worse than the lost
Tolerance is an ugly word. God has not tolerated his children he has loved us all, always. Why do we as a church shy away from loving sinners as God loves us? Why do we choose not to accept things, but rather to put up with them (tolerance), when God scripturally is never tolerant, He has always shown us unconditional love and acceptance. We should not show tolerance for someone that is lost, because that just isn’t good enough. We should show love. We should not preach fear and judgment upon those who sin. We should preach about God’s acceptance for us even when we are stained by sin.
We are not commissioned to make the sinner stop sinning, after all we continue to sin ourselves and our sins are just as bad as anyone else’s. Sin ain’t gonna send nobody to hell. And loving and accepting sinful people in your life is not going to send you to hell. Jesus never spoke against the sinners in His ministry, He spoke against the church leaders who created rules and regulations that judged and condemned others for their sin. In them, faith was dead. Sounds eerily familiar to many messages you hear in church today, when pastors speak about, homosexuality, pornography, infidelity, premarital sex, masturbation, sodomy, cohabitation, and liberalism (HA HA). Although within the church, gossip, contempt, judgment, prejudice, intolerance, disobedience, lying, anger, vanity, lots and lots of vanity, and my personal favorite denominational prejudice go largely unnoticed. Scripturally, these violations are no better or worse than the previous.
“For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.” – James 2:10
Propitiation is turning away wrath by an offering. Our offering is Christ. He didn’t just die on the cross for our sins; He gave Himself up for God’s wrath. The death of Christ satisfies the justice of God that must be poured upon sin.
So trying to live a life without sin (emphasis on trying) is noble to say the least. However it doesn’t guarantee you a closer spot in the line to see God. We are all equally undeserving of His enduring love, but we receive it anyways. We are giving ourselves too much credit if we think otherwise. No one is holy enough to deserve the grand prize. God doesn’t believe in equal pay for equal work and he doesn’t grade his love for us on our desire to impress him with our lives. Unfortunately for all the saints who want more love or need more blessing for their Christ driven lives, they must remember…
“...Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!’" - Luke 15:29-30
From God’s mouth to our brains.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Liberty Shlibetry
This letter is in response to Mr. Michael J Karaffa who wrote Always obey officers.
In his letter the author states, in response to the recent situation in Boston, that, “We live in society of law and order and our responsibility as a citizen is to submit to and obey lose laws and the people who are tasked with upholding them. That submission and obedience is not contingent on how we feel at the time or what mood we’re in. When a policeman tells us to do something, we do it, we don’t argue with him. To do so is to take the first step towards anarchy.”
There is a lot of truth in his statement. We live in a society of law and order; some would say we are a nation of laws. The one thing that sets us apart is our ability as a country to rely on the law to judge fairly and without regard to who our friends and family are, race, culture, social or financial standing. At least most of the time... Okay at least sometimes. And we should obey those laws and the people who uphold them, because they are always right. Oh yeah except for that whole American Revolution generation and those radicals in Alabama in the sixties. Submission and obedience is a must and without a doubt, necessary to keep all citizenry safe. That sounds similar to a recent speech by the Ayatolla. When the police tell us to do something don’t argue just do it. Unless they ask you to jump off of a bridge, or you are black man in Mississippi and the cop in the police car is dangling a noose from the trunk. If we don’t follow these rules anarchy will reign. There is no other possible solution than absolute obedience and conformity. Hmm, now China comes to mind.
The creators of our constitution (men of laws themselves) created 10 amendments that were put into place because, while they believed in government, they also believed in liberty. These amendments were put in place not to defend the men of authority from the people, but to protect the people from men of authority. Our founding fathers came to this determination because they believed that people had the right to speak their mind and protect their property, life and liberty. Due process is an inconvenient truth to those who are looking to protect us from ourselves. However, it is what we rely on to protect those less represented by the government from tyranny and oppression. Yes, we should listen to the authorities, but if we disagree with their actions we have an absolute right as Americans to argue that point until we can speak no more.
In his letter the author states, in response to the recent situation in Boston, that, “We live in society of law and order and our responsibility as a citizen is to submit to and obey lose laws and the people who are tasked with upholding them. That submission and obedience is not contingent on how we feel at the time or what mood we’re in. When a policeman tells us to do something, we do it, we don’t argue with him. To do so is to take the first step towards anarchy.”
There is a lot of truth in his statement. We live in a society of law and order; some would say we are a nation of laws. The one thing that sets us apart is our ability as a country to rely on the law to judge fairly and without regard to who our friends and family are, race, culture, social or financial standing. At least most of the time... Okay at least sometimes. And we should obey those laws and the people who uphold them, because they are always right. Oh yeah except for that whole American Revolution generation and those radicals in Alabama in the sixties. Submission and obedience is a must and without a doubt, necessary to keep all citizenry safe. That sounds similar to a recent speech by the Ayatolla. When the police tell us to do something don’t argue just do it. Unless they ask you to jump off of a bridge, or you are black man in Mississippi and the cop in the police car is dangling a noose from the trunk. If we don’t follow these rules anarchy will reign. There is no other possible solution than absolute obedience and conformity. Hmm, now China comes to mind.
The creators of our constitution (men of laws themselves) created 10 amendments that were put into place because, while they believed in government, they also believed in liberty. These amendments were put in place not to defend the men of authority from the people, but to protect the people from men of authority. Our founding fathers came to this determination because they believed that people had the right to speak their mind and protect their property, life and liberty. Due process is an inconvenient truth to those who are looking to protect us from ourselves. However, it is what we rely on to protect those less represented by the government from tyranny and oppression. Yes, we should listen to the authorities, but if we disagree with their actions we have an absolute right as Americans to argue that point until we can speak no more.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Liberty is Intrinsic to the Divine
“It is by God’s own will that we get to choose our own fate. He has given us the rules, now it is up to us to win the game.” - L
There are a lot of ideas within the humanist and liberal movement that I feel are intelligent in design. They lack the humbleness of the saints (at least what God had hoped for us), but can not be completely denied based solely on this one argument. The humanist view that truth and morality is sought through human investigation; as such, views on morality can change when new knowledge and information is discovered and the liberal belief of self-determination in human existence are both divine in nature.
I am not certain that morality can change. However, I think it is very apparent that our view and understanding of morality can deepen. The Old Testament laid out a set of laws and rules to follow to a very naive and ignorant society. As they progressed (for better or for worse) so did their understanding of right and wrong. In the New Testament God defined these laws in a different light. He told us if we love one another and treat each other well and hold God as the most high, then we could not disregard the law, henceforth they are one and the same (not different, just more complex). As our understanding of sin and morality increased and became more complicated in nature, so did God’s commandments to us. The church of antiquity (and America less than fifty years ago) thought it was okay to suppress and belittle women, propagate racism, and indulge in king worship (theocracy or papacy), by today’s standards that is immoral. More evidence that we as a body of believers can better define the nuances of moral questions as they become more complex and we become more mature as a people.
While the liberal and humanist reliance on self-worth is extravagant to say the least, as a religious man I do believe in self determination. Many intellectuals from the Enlightenment, including those most influential in creating our country; George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and many more, believed that individual liberty was not only humanly moral, but a God given entitlement presented to us and proven in His own actions in our history. God gave us a choice. This is never more apparent than in our freedom to worship. If the divine creator of all that exists insisted that we believe and worship faithfully, than we would. The fact that we all do not can be most apparent when believers at times exhibit extreme lapses in judgment and morals. Therefore, I can not understand why the church feels the necessity to propagate and espouse its moral authority upon the rest of the world (or at least our country). If God gave individuals the freedom to choose, how could we rationalize otherwise? Perhaps we as the body of Christ suffer from a form of narcissism or at the very least delusions of grandeur. We should not choose to destroy that which God has created and self determination is ever apparent from Adam and Eve to Revelation.
Intellectual progress is what God wanted for us. Reason, understanding and rational inspection of self evident truths can be seen from the writings of Moses to John. It is our nature and duty to progress; this is why we are not saved from birth. Liberty and free will are an essential part of life on this planet. We might not like the choices that others make but God did not intend for us to stand in between another man’s intellect and his actions. We choose and suffer the consequences of our action, God does not choose for us. He gives us the knowledge to succeed and we choose to listen or deny. It is our commission as saints to provide the information necessary to present the steps of salvation to the world, God never gave us permission to oppress those that choose otherwise.
There are a lot of ideas within the humanist and liberal movement that I feel are intelligent in design. They lack the humbleness of the saints (at least what God had hoped for us), but can not be completely denied based solely on this one argument. The humanist view that truth and morality is sought through human investigation; as such, views on morality can change when new knowledge and information is discovered and the liberal belief of self-determination in human existence are both divine in nature.
I am not certain that morality can change. However, I think it is very apparent that our view and understanding of morality can deepen. The Old Testament laid out a set of laws and rules to follow to a very naive and ignorant society. As they progressed (for better or for worse) so did their understanding of right and wrong. In the New Testament God defined these laws in a different light. He told us if we love one another and treat each other well and hold God as the most high, then we could not disregard the law, henceforth they are one and the same (not different, just more complex). As our understanding of sin and morality increased and became more complicated in nature, so did God’s commandments to us. The church of antiquity (and America less than fifty years ago) thought it was okay to suppress and belittle women, propagate racism, and indulge in king worship (theocracy or papacy), by today’s standards that is immoral. More evidence that we as a body of believers can better define the nuances of moral questions as they become more complex and we become more mature as a people.
While the liberal and humanist reliance on self-worth is extravagant to say the least, as a religious man I do believe in self determination. Many intellectuals from the Enlightenment, including those most influential in creating our country; George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and many more, believed that individual liberty was not only humanly moral, but a God given entitlement presented to us and proven in His own actions in our history. God gave us a choice. This is never more apparent than in our freedom to worship. If the divine creator of all that exists insisted that we believe and worship faithfully, than we would. The fact that we all do not can be most apparent when believers at times exhibit extreme lapses in judgment and morals. Therefore, I can not understand why the church feels the necessity to propagate and espouse its moral authority upon the rest of the world (or at least our country). If God gave individuals the freedom to choose, how could we rationalize otherwise? Perhaps we as the body of Christ suffer from a form of narcissism or at the very least delusions of grandeur. We should not choose to destroy that which God has created and self determination is ever apparent from Adam and Eve to Revelation.
Intellectual progress is what God wanted for us. Reason, understanding and rational inspection of self evident truths can be seen from the writings of Moses to John. It is our nature and duty to progress; this is why we are not saved from birth. Liberty and free will are an essential part of life on this planet. We might not like the choices that others make but God did not intend for us to stand in between another man’s intellect and his actions. We choose and suffer the consequences of our action, God does not choose for us. He gives us the knowledge to succeed and we choose to listen or deny. It is our commission as saints to provide the information necessary to present the steps of salvation to the world, God never gave us permission to oppress those that choose otherwise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)