After recently posting "An Email to a Concerned Friend" regarding my support for presidential candidate, Barack Obama, I received a separate email inquiring about Senator Obama's Pro-Choice stance. Here was my response:
Dear Hillary Fay,
Great to hear from you! Thanks for taking the time to read what I wrote to my friend, it was definitely an impassioned email. And thank you for writing me. I think it's neat the way people our age seem to be open to talking about these complicated matters. That is one of my hopes that our generation will be more open-minded about working together to improve the status quo.
So let's get to it! I'm going to try my best to respond, but I'm not very intelligent. And please don't take any of my explaining as though I would be attempting to educate you on the matter. I just feel the need to explain myself thoroughly on such a complex topic!
You are correct that the abortion issue is important. Personally I am pro-life and I would love to see women choose birth over abortion. I don't think that aborting a child is the ethical thing to do, and I too consider it murdering a human life.
Now, when we consider a fetus to be a human life then abortion is murder. That's easy. Right? Right. And I agree. And I don't think that many people would disagree with the idea that murdering human life is wrong. Most people would agree. So I don't think that the issue finds its complications here. (That is, on the "Murder" argument. Thanks to science and medicine I think most people would agree that abortion is killing a human life)
I do, however, think that the issue of abortion gets complicated when we begin the discussion of a government's right to force a citizen- well actually TWO citizens (the mother and the unborn child) - into a situation that the citizen does not want. This is extremely complicated because our original notion as a country was that the government would not control its citizens. If Roe v. Wade were overturned and women were forced to bear their children then this would be compromising one citizen's freedom for another's.
(I don't agree with my argument, I'm just pointing out the complexity)
Also, if Roe v. Wade were overturned and a law were passed to mandate childbearing, I really don't think abortions would cease. It MAY decline, but we both know it would not stop. Laws don't change people.
That being said, this is where I start to come to the issue from a different angle. And that is that abortion is a symptom. It is a symptom of a greater issue: unwanted pregnancy. And unwanted pregnancy is actually a symptom of irresponsible sexual behavior. So... the issue just got more complex!
If men/women are having sex outside of marriage then there are always going to be unwanted pregnancies. The issue of abortion then BEGINS with sex. (Obvious, yes, I know!) But I think this should have some affect on how we look at the issue. How should we then promote safe sexual behavior? How should we encourage male responsibility as opposed to men using women for their bodies and then leaving them with the decision-making? These are good questions to consider that may help prevent the unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
Then, I find myself attempting to empathize with one of these women. Wow. I can't imagine what it would be like. And when I try, I can almost understand why it would be easier to abort a child than to birth it. There would be so many things to consider. To name a few: relations with father, personal goals (job, school, etc.), economic status, pressure from family/community... That would be a lot to handle. Even if I did see abortion as murder, it might just look like the easiest thing to do.
Then, I try to imagine how women feel before, during, or after having an abortion. I cannot imagine the burden they must bare. I suppose that they are so distressed physically, psychologically, emotionally, and spiritually that only God could ever empathize with their pain. It makes me wonder how much good an "ABORTION IS HOMICIDE" sweatshirt would really do for a woman who has experienced this. It makes me wonder just exactly what impact the protesters standing outside the clinic have on the women entering/exiting the clinic. (My personal opinion is that it must feel pretty terrible to be those women)
One small problem I have with many "Pro-Life" advocates is that they seem to care only about birth and not life altogether (as if to say "We just want the child to be born, then it's your problem"). The right to life should be granted as long as we live, not just at childbirth. So, in turn that should cause us to work for a heathy environment into which the child may be born. Better communities, healthcare, etc. And, personally, my Pro-Life stance means I am opposed to the death penalty (a completely other issue!) because I am FOR LIFE in all circumstances.
It is also very difficult when candidates use broad terms like "sanctity of life." Well, what does that mean? Does it mean you value ALL human life or just fetuses? Does that mean you don't want to see another civilian die in Iraq or that you're willing to sacrifice some lives for freedom? Does that mean that you want to save the thousands in Africa from dying of simple needs like water and basic healthcare or do you view their lives as less valuable? These are tough issues and I don't like that nonspecific rhetoric about "sanctity of life" that so many candidates use. It allows them to sound universally ethical.
So basically I've only discussed a little of the abortion issue. You asked me how I balance my political views with this very important matter. It's a good question... I'll do my best to respond.
When it comes to politics no one gets a Cinderella candidate, we all have to sacrifice in some areas. For me, I try to compromise in areas where I think I can still make a difference, even if I disagree with my candidate. I think that the citizens of the US can impact the abortion issue more significantly than our foreign policy. I mean, if 10's of 1,000's of protesters can't even budge our governments' foreign policy then I'm going to vote for an anti-war candidate!
What could we do as citizens even if our President is pro-choice? Well, that's tough. Maybe write letters to congress. Maybe try to investigate and treat the CAUSES of unwanted pregnancies instead of just discussing abortion alone. Maybe that could come through sexual education classes, supplying contraceptives, after school programs that keep kids busy, or other community aide. Or maybe through funding adoption agencies and orphanages. I don't know. It's difficult. But I think that we could do a better job to begin healing the causes of unwanted pregnancy - that just may take a President who rebuilds communities and gives people more self-value and purpose.
And, I also think that no President is going to overturn Roe v. Wade. I just really doubt that will happen. Therefore, I don't believe most campaign promises that are made about abortion. Take Bush for example, our Christian president for 8 years has done nothing except pass the Partial-Birth Abortion Act. Albeit that's great, it's probably not exactly what most Pro-Lifers hoped for, and it certainly has not ceased abortions in America.
In the end, Hillary Fay, I think that the abortion issue is going to take a brand new conversation. I think it's going to take a willingness to see the seekers of abortion as real women with real needs, not just murderers. And I think we're going to have to trade our "firm stances" and condemning bumper stickers for listening ears and loving dialogue that asks questions like "What can I personally do to help a woman who desires an abortion? What can I do to make sure this newborn child receives good care? How can I help others begin to see the abortion issue as complex and messy, not black & white? How can I help heal the broken hearts of mothers who have aborted children?"
It's not easy. Not at all. But I'm gonna stand with you on the Pro-Life side of things because I believe that all human beings are valuable and deserve life. The question is, what can we do whether Obama or McCain or Romney or Clinton become president? Because I don't think the election of any of them will be the once-and-for-all solution to this problem.
I'm sorry this was so long. These matters are too complex to write a paragraph on! I hope this helps a bit.
see goodness in the land of the living. ::: hear music in the key of the life. ::: know and be still.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Armed and Lucrative!
Everything must change.
As I drove to work this morning I reluctantly reached for the volume knob on my stereo and turned up NPR. I hate listening to NPR but I feel obligated to do so every morning during my commute just because it's a quick way to hear recent news. It's probably the low point of my day. Hearing news about elections in Pakistan, campaigning here at home, violence in Iraq, and spending in Washington: it all significantly boosts my optimism before going to school to educate the minds of middle-schoolers about "things that matter."
This particular morning I heard news of our Senates inability to pass the new Stimulus spending package. The goal of this bill is to put money immediately back into the economy in hopes of slowing a recession. This, of course, was viewed as too expensive and was haulted by members of Senate; namely, Republicans who argued against wasteful spending.
The bill would cost $204 billion over two years and would contribute to an extension of unemployment benefits, tax credits for the coal industry and increased subsidies for home energy costs.
Following this update on the stimulus package NPR moved to the release of the 2009 Pentagon budget. The new budget is the highest it has been in history: $515.4 billion. This budget does not include costs for the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. Shocking.
I continued my commute and learned that the Pentagon is richer than the entire country of Australia and the United States spends more on defense than all the other countries of the world - combined.
As I was driving down the slushy roads and bombarding myself with hot air from the vent panels, I found myself asking aloud, What the hell is wrong with us!!? Why can we spend billions of dollars on defense but not on domestic aide? Why can't we help the poor with their heating bills instead of buying F2 attack fighters that the US doesn't use anymore and cost $300million?
The answers to these questions are quite clear when one comes to see the business of war/defense and the immense profit to be gained through war. However, in addition to the mere acknowledgment of this, one must also take a look at the United States' ingenious role in recent Middle East history.
I'm no historian nor a political science guru, so forgive me for my lack of knowledge. Here some specific examples of the brilliant, military involvement in other countries by the US.
In 1979 Iranians overthrew the tyrant that the U.S. was backing and took some hostages for over a year. This may be one of the strong reasons for bad relations with Iran, but it goes much deeper that this.*
The relations between the US and Iran have a history over 50 years. In 1953 the U.S. overthrew the parliamentary government and installed a brutal tyrant, the Shah, and kept supporting him while he compiled one of the worst human rights records in the world—torture, assassination, anything you like.*
Of course, Iranians have this odd way of remembering what happened to them and who was behind it. When the Shah was overthrown, the Carter administration immediately tried to instigate a military coup by sending arms to Iran through Israel to try to support military force to overthrow the government.*
Then, we immediately turned to supporting Iraq, that is, Saddam Hussein, and his invasion of Iran. Saddam was recently executed for crimes he committed in 1982, by his standards not very serious crimes—complicity in killing 150 people.*
Moving on. 1982 is a very important year in U.S./Iraqi relations. That is the year in which Ronald Reagan removed Iraq from the list of states supporting terrorism so that the U.S. could start supplying Iraq with weapons for its invasion of Iran, including the means to develop weapons of mass destruction, chemical and nuclear weapons. A year later Donald Rumsfeld was sent to firm up the deal.* Backing Iraq not only secured business for defense contractors, but also put more pressure on Iran. This is a classic example of the philosophy: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Well, Iranians may very well remember that this led to a war in which hundreds of thousands of them were slaughtered with U.S. aid going to Iraq. They may well remember that the year after the war was over, in 1989, the U.S. government invited Iraqi nuclear engineers to come to the United States for advanced training in developing nuclear weapons.*
What is interesting about all this Mid-East history is the United States' brilliant playing of all angles and all sides. By demonizing certain figures or people groups, the USA can disguise itself as the "good guy" and pursue the "bad guys" in the style of an old western film.
We are led to believe that the United States is a leader for peace and freedom in our world, but in reality our government has no use for it. As far as the economy goes, peace would simply be bad for business. What I am arguing is that the United States actually desires military conflict in the world so that certain people may profit from it. That does not necessarily mean that the US wants to be directly involved, but as long as their is conflict, our companies will be selling the weapons!
What is the business? It is the sales of military weaponry and the contracting of big time construction projects.
Who are the sellers? Lockheed Martin. Boeing. Northrop Grumman. Halliburton. Bechtel.
Who are the buyers? Saudi Arabia. Israel. Pakistan. China. Egypt. India.
Who profits? The CEO's and politicians with deals tied to these companies. And ultimately, yes, the 10's of thousands of employees of these companies do profit as well. Lockheed Martin employs some 10,000 people in the US. The loss of this company would surely hurt them all.
But, we cannot go on this way. This business is ultimately bound for destruction and failure. It is suicidal to think our economy can sustain itself depending on violent conflict. I fear that we are heading toward mass destruction.
Everything must change.
Instead of turning war into a business, could the United States turn peace into a business? Could these Arms companies instead build new and creative airplanes for the commercial airline industry? Or perhaps special planes designed for humanitarian aide? Could the Federal government fund the restoration of the commercial airline industry so more Americans could afford to fly? Could engineers of Arms companies create new modes of transportation? Could the Federal government invest in public transportation and buy back the national rail system from automotive companies?
Could companies like Halliburton and Bechtel employ US citizens to rebuild cities like New Orleans, Camden, Detroit, and Buffalo? Or perhaps re-engineer parts of America that FEMA defines hazardous? Or design new precautions to natural disasters? Or perhaps be hired by developing nations to assist in big time construction projects for hospitals, schools, office buildings, etc.? Instead of selling them weapons, could we sell them our services?
These are just a few off the top of my head. I'm sure the intelligent minds in DC could create a thousand ways!
So as I'm listening to NPR broadcast on about our spending, and I learn more about this business of war, I find myself asking another question aloud to myself: Is this all our incredibly brilliant minds can come up with? Making money off of war? Selling guns and missiles? Bombing, destroying and then rebuilding? Is this the limit to our economic savvy?
I hope not.
For more information see:
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/BigBusiness.asp
* Taken from Noam Chomsky article found here:
https://www.zcommunications.org/zmag/viewArticle/16101
As I drove to work this morning I reluctantly reached for the volume knob on my stereo and turned up NPR. I hate listening to NPR but I feel obligated to do so every morning during my commute just because it's a quick way to hear recent news. It's probably the low point of my day. Hearing news about elections in Pakistan, campaigning here at home, violence in Iraq, and spending in Washington: it all significantly boosts my optimism before going to school to educate the minds of middle-schoolers about "things that matter."
This particular morning I heard news of our Senates inability to pass the new Stimulus spending package. The goal of this bill is to put money immediately back into the economy in hopes of slowing a recession. This, of course, was viewed as too expensive and was haulted by members of Senate; namely, Republicans who argued against wasteful spending.
The bill would cost $204 billion over two years and would contribute to an extension of unemployment benefits, tax credits for the coal industry and increased subsidies for home energy costs.
Following this update on the stimulus package NPR moved to the release of the 2009 Pentagon budget. The new budget is the highest it has been in history: $515.4 billion. This budget does not include costs for the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. Shocking.
I continued my commute and learned that the Pentagon is richer than the entire country of Australia and the United States spends more on defense than all the other countries of the world - combined.
As I was driving down the slushy roads and bombarding myself with hot air from the vent panels, I found myself asking aloud, What the hell is wrong with us!!? Why can we spend billions of dollars on defense but not on domestic aide? Why can't we help the poor with their heating bills instead of buying F2 attack fighters that the US doesn't use anymore and cost $300million?
The answers to these questions are quite clear when one comes to see the business of war/defense and the immense profit to be gained through war. However, in addition to the mere acknowledgment of this, one must also take a look at the United States' ingenious role in recent Middle East history.
I'm no historian nor a political science guru, so forgive me for my lack of knowledge. Here some specific examples of the brilliant, military involvement in other countries by the US.
In 1979 Iranians overthrew the tyrant that the U.S. was backing and took some hostages for over a year. This may be one of the strong reasons for bad relations with Iran, but it goes much deeper that this.*
The relations between the US and Iran have a history over 50 years. In 1953 the U.S. overthrew the parliamentary government and installed a brutal tyrant, the Shah, and kept supporting him while he compiled one of the worst human rights records in the world—torture, assassination, anything you like.*
Of course, Iranians have this odd way of remembering what happened to them and who was behind it. When the Shah was overthrown, the Carter administration immediately tried to instigate a military coup by sending arms to Iran through Israel to try to support military force to overthrow the government.*
Then, we immediately turned to supporting Iraq, that is, Saddam Hussein, and his invasion of Iran. Saddam was recently executed for crimes he committed in 1982, by his standards not very serious crimes—complicity in killing 150 people.*
Moving on. 1982 is a very important year in U.S./Iraqi relations. That is the year in which Ronald Reagan removed Iraq from the list of states supporting terrorism so that the U.S. could start supplying Iraq with weapons for its invasion of Iran, including the means to develop weapons of mass destruction, chemical and nuclear weapons. A year later Donald Rumsfeld was sent to firm up the deal.* Backing Iraq not only secured business for defense contractors, but also put more pressure on Iran. This is a classic example of the philosophy: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Well, Iranians may very well remember that this led to a war in which hundreds of thousands of them were slaughtered with U.S. aid going to Iraq. They may well remember that the year after the war was over, in 1989, the U.S. government invited Iraqi nuclear engineers to come to the United States for advanced training in developing nuclear weapons.*
What is interesting about all this Mid-East history is the United States' brilliant playing of all angles and all sides. By demonizing certain figures or people groups, the USA can disguise itself as the "good guy" and pursue the "bad guys" in the style of an old western film.
We are led to believe that the United States is a leader for peace and freedom in our world, but in reality our government has no use for it. As far as the economy goes, peace would simply be bad for business. What I am arguing is that the United States actually desires military conflict in the world so that certain people may profit from it. That does not necessarily mean that the US wants to be directly involved, but as long as their is conflict, our companies will be selling the weapons!
What is the business? It is the sales of military weaponry and the contracting of big time construction projects.
Who are the sellers? Lockheed Martin. Boeing. Northrop Grumman. Halliburton. Bechtel.
Who are the buyers? Saudi Arabia. Israel. Pakistan. China. Egypt. India.
Who profits? The CEO's and politicians with deals tied to these companies. And ultimately, yes, the 10's of thousands of employees of these companies do profit as well. Lockheed Martin employs some 10,000 people in the US. The loss of this company would surely hurt them all.
But, we cannot go on this way. This business is ultimately bound for destruction and failure. It is suicidal to think our economy can sustain itself depending on violent conflict. I fear that we are heading toward mass destruction.
Everything must change.
Instead of turning war into a business, could the United States turn peace into a business? Could these Arms companies instead build new and creative airplanes for the commercial airline industry? Or perhaps special planes designed for humanitarian aide? Could the Federal government fund the restoration of the commercial airline industry so more Americans could afford to fly? Could engineers of Arms companies create new modes of transportation? Could the Federal government invest in public transportation and buy back the national rail system from automotive companies?
Could companies like Halliburton and Bechtel employ US citizens to rebuild cities like New Orleans, Camden, Detroit, and Buffalo? Or perhaps re-engineer parts of America that FEMA defines hazardous? Or design new precautions to natural disasters? Or perhaps be hired by developing nations to assist in big time construction projects for hospitals, schools, office buildings, etc.? Instead of selling them weapons, could we sell them our services?
These are just a few off the top of my head. I'm sure the intelligent minds in DC could create a thousand ways!
So as I'm listening to NPR broadcast on about our spending, and I learn more about this business of war, I find myself asking another question aloud to myself: Is this all our incredibly brilliant minds can come up with? Making money off of war? Selling guns and missiles? Bombing, destroying and then rebuilding? Is this the limit to our economic savvy?
I hope not.
For more information see:
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/BigBusiness.asp
* Taken from Noam Chomsky article found here:
https://www.zcommunications.org/zmag/viewArticle/16101
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
An Email to a Concerned Friend...
My friend emailed me, asking me why I support Barack Obama. Here's my reply:
Dear "Marmiduke,"
Obama is a representative of the newer generation; OUR generation. More specifically, he represents the "emerging"/"postmodern"/"global community" in which we now live. (please don't get hung up on any of those imperfect terms) I think Obama voices more clearly the mindset which younger (30 and below) Americans have: we're tired of the old, white-male-dominated government, we're tired of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, and we're tired of a divided America that continues to spew on about "red/blue, liberal/conservative, left/right, etc." We want, you guessed it, "change." (i'm fully aware that that word has become the cliche of his campaign, but it still means HOPE for the future)
(if you're interested in this "emerging" culture check out books by: Brian Mclaren, Dan Kimball, Thomas L. Friedman, or David Kinnaman's "UnChristian")
While all of the above thoughts are generic, ideological ones, I believe they sum up the majority of the upcoming generations' views in a broad stroke. The mere lack of political involvement by young Americans is evidence that we're all too jaded by the way things go in this country. It's time for something new. I think we do want change and I'm hoping people come out to vote for it this year.
I believe Obama represents these views due to his unique background. Personally, I love hearing a political candidate speak so openly about his/her past, i.e.: drug-use, religious wandering, self-searching, personal joys/sorrows, etc. He comes off as genuinely intelligent. He's a self-made lawyer, author, state senator. That's impressive. He's the definition of liberal arts educated. He is a gifted man in whom I see character, integrity, and wisdom.
These qualities in his character resemble those of Martin Luther King Jr., Ghandi, and JFK. I like that because I like those guys too (I don't know many who hate MLK or Ghandi!). Barack Obama understands that their can be such thing as an "economy of Justice" or and "economy of Love" (I'll explain below).
When it come to his policies I'm extremely concerned with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Healthcare, and Education.
Education: Obama realizes the failed policy of the "No Child Left Behind." If you think it's great just talk to Chuck Massy, the guy knows his stuff! Obama wants to instead reform NCLB by putting the necessary funding into and make it less about standardized testing. He also wants to get rid of federally mandated curricula that merely make profit for Washington lobbyists. He also wants to provide childcare for families whose parents work (this is in my opinion the hardest part about reforming education: poor families' parents are never home to help the children because they must work to pay the bills)
Healthcare: There is no reason whatsoever that American shouldn't have socialized medicine. We CAN afford it. If we reduced defense spending we could easily afford it. And it's not a crazy "socialist" idea: we have socialized police, firefighters, postal services. Why not a minimum level, universal healthcare? (I just recently watched Michael Moore's "SICKO." It made me want to cry, you should check it out) Nonetheless, if you want a detailed description of his healthcare plan, go here:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
War: I have never been for the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere. I believe we as a race have outgrown our use for war. It simply does NOT work anymore. Our weaponry has far surpassed our judgement. Our recollection of history persuades us that war works, when in reality it does not anymore (i.e. When war was successful was when one "side" of the battle had superior weaponry, like when white men dominated native peoples through the use of guns) However, nowadays this tactic is useless. This is partly why we refuse to let others have nuclear weapons: because it allows us to have the upper-hand. The quid pro quo war does not work, it merely increases death and in the long run creates more enemies than friends. So how is it serving our "security?"
In October 2002, Obama led an Anit-War rally and called Bush's invasion(s) "dumb war." Obama was fervently against the war(s) from the beginning. This was when I was drawn to him back in 2004; especially after his speech at the 2004 DNC. But, having to play politics in the race for the whitehouse he has lessened his anti-war rhetoric in order to win the votes of many. I don't like this, but I understand that he must do it to have a shot to win. And still, I believe him to be the most anti-war candidate (aside from Ron Paul, whom I like a lot).
Obama has openly expressed his willingness to talk with leaders of other nations, even the "axes of evil." At this point in history we MUST learn to dialogue and work out problems peacefully through compromise. Not just label other countries as enemies - that is dehumanizing. In Obama I see man with the friendliness and sincerity to do so.
So I think that with Obama's ideals it would be possible to begin an "economy of love," a term that I get from Brian Mclaren's new book (and I think he may have taken it from Martin Luther King Jr.). What is meant by an Economy of Love is this: a status quo that is constantly working for Justice and Peace, not war and domination. But what is particularly important about this Economy of Love is that it finds ways to "profit" off of the quest for Justice and Peace. In simple terms it means that instead of making money off of war and defense spending, we would be able to find ways to employ people with jobs that HELP people, work for Justice, make Peace, etc. The problem with times of peace in history is that humans usually get bored with it, they have no purpose, no enemies, no reason to pursue systems of security, etc. What MAY be possible in the future is a global community of social action that pursues Peace and Justice for all.
However, this can never happen if we continue to think in the same paradigm that we currently do. We cannot see the world in terms of enemies and terrorists, we must find a common ground to unite the world together. Even through economy, but no war. I believe Barack Obama can get us on that path. Of all the candidates, he has the ability to break down walls and unite people, and then lead us in a direction of community.
Now, I know that this all sounds extremely idealistic. But what else do we have? Are we not sick of the same old same old? We need a completely new way of thinking about the world crises. We certainly don't need more of the same, look where that has gotten us.
Not only am I FOR Obama, but I don't like any of the other candidates because I think they're all the SAME. They all think within the same paradigm, the "old" paradigm. Even though I like John McCain the most of the Rep., I think he's an old-school defense hawk who will only keep things the same. Spending billions of dollars on our military will only keep our economy dependent on war. It is pathetic to think that war has become an industry in America. It is pathetic to think our self-proclaimed "Christian" president would ever initiate war and violence for the purpose of generating economic growth. (We produce 53.4% of the world's weapons - usinfo.state.gov/infousa/politics/pres/fpolicy.htm)
But what if money was redirected to constructive matters? Healthcare? Clean water? Foreign aide?
I think Hillary is very intelligent and could do good things for America, but I don't think she'd ever win in a general election against a John McCain or Mitt Romney. People either love her or hate her. She can't get independent voters or swing voters. Obama can.
And please note that I've said nothing about Christianity because I couldn't give two shits about which candidate is "Christian" and which isn't. Don't get me started on Mike Huckabee who said "The Bible doesn't say there's anything wrong with being rich." and "If they [Iranians] come one step closer again [to our boats] then they'd better be prepared to see the gates of hell." Anyone who has to run on a "Christian" platform obviously has no clue what it means to be a follower of Jesus.
Now, I realize that I have thrown in heaps of visionary, Utopian ideals, and I don't believe Obama can bring them all to be reality. But I hope he can get us started. I hope he can get us on the right track. Unfortunately that's up to the voters to determine.
Lastly and MOST importantly:
In the end, what else is there to have than hope??? 1 Cor. 13:7 - Love always Hopes. I refuse to think within the current paradigm. I refuse to think that we've exhausted all our possible options and solutions. We can do better. I believe in the Kingdom of God working here and now. And that just might take a little faith in the unseen. In the words of Mclaren: "By 'seeing the invisible' I don't mean practicing make-believe where you try to see things that aren't there. Instead of delusion, I mean vision: a way of seeing things that aren't there YET."
So... these are some of the reasons why I believe Barack Obama should be president of the US.
If you're curious, take a look here: http://www.barackobama.com/index.php
or here: http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm
or here: http://www.selectsmart.com/president/2008.html
Cheers,
Josh
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Jesus Claus!
My parents never tried lying to me about Santa Claus. I think they just wisely avoided the topic altogether and let me figure it out on my own. I have to admit, I haven't found any suppressed childhood damage... yet. But I have always found the folk tale of Santa Claus to be a bit strange anyway, so hopefully I will never one day feel incomplete about not having given much thought about the jolly old saint.
Having just passed the Christmas holiday the effects of Santa Claus are still lingering a bit. And recently I was pondering some different takes on Atonement Theology so, naturally, one may see how the two are so closely related. Actually, I was just recently discussing some thoughts with a friend when it occurred to me that the average American Christian views God much like our favorite North Pole resident. Maybe in trying to refocus the Christmas celebration on Jesus we accidentally copied the Santa story.
When it comes to Santa Claus it all comes down to one thing: the reward-the gift that sits under the $75 Douglas Fur on Christmas morning. That is what it's all about. For the Santa fanatic the end is the gift. For many Christians it is the same. When it comes to God it all comes down to one thing: the reward of "eternal" life. For the God fanatic the end is the gift.
But of course not everyone receives Santa's gifts. Only those who make Santa's Nice List will receive gifts. Those who are on Santa's Naughty List receive nothing, or perhaps coal as the tale suggests. This pattern of thought implies that Santa's gift may be earned by good behavior. Similarly, many Christians view God's gift in the same regard: to earn God's gift one must act accordingly.
The Santa Claus style of considering God is a very clean-cut way to view things. It provides conditions, standards, and just rewards. However, I cannot convince myself that it is anywhere near the Truth of God nor His Purpose for our lives. It just isn't that easy. I thought we were all on the Naughty List ?(Rom. 3:23) I thought that Jesus died to sin once and for all of creation? (Rom. 6:10) And I thought that nothing we did made us good (Mk 7:1-13) or bad (Mk 7:14-23, Rom 8:38)? I thought that our reward was immediate, and developing, and alive in us, not something that came after we died (Mt 5:1-12, 6:25-33, Rom 6).
What struck me most while thinking about this Santa Claus view is that, for me, my favorite parts of Christmas experiences were never the gifts that waited for my greedy hands to tear open. In reality the best parts of Christmas are always the fellowship, the family, the community, the friends, the traditions that overflow with meaning, the food, the conversations, the fights, the laughter, and all the other parts of the journey along the way. Those are the True gifts and the Good things about Christmas. Perhaps those are the True gifts and Good things about a life that pursues God as Father, Lord, and King.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)