Recently, I have engaged an interesting political discussion with another blogger. My comments pertain to what I have written here recently, so I will re-post them here with a link to the original blog entry. Feel free to jump in and join the discussion!!!
Original Blog Entry: http://rachelshaffer.blogspot.com/2008/09/hypocritical-politics.html
My First Response:
"Karl Marx had "good" ideas to help the "poor and down-trodden". Men like Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong [sic] ran with these ideas, and millions of Americans died in the later half of the 20th to protect freedom from the forces of communism and socialism.
Do a little research on Barack Obama (and Karl Marx, socialism, communism, etc.). Like Marx, on the surface, his ideas sound good, but after pealing away the layers of rhetoric, he wants to take away freedoms in order to preserve the "greater good". Its called socialism, and he really hasn’t tried to hide it (i.e., his friends, his pursuits). It is the same "wealth redistribution" plan, or a strategy described in the words or Marx, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".
To site Jesus' disregard for legislating morality, to reference His disengagement of politics, and then to say that Barack Obama is a good candidate because of his ideas to help the poor is quite an imbalance. Obama says he wants to "help" others. He argues that he will do so by using the engine of government. As Jesus carried out his ministry without government, wouldn't a more consistent action be to just go out and help the poor, the sick, etc. Why do you need Obama?
Obama wants to raise taxes. He wants to increase the size of government. How many more resources would Christians have to help those "in need", if the government kept its hands out of its citizens' pockets. Name one success government has had when it got involved. FDR tried to help Americans with retirement plans. Where is social security now? Medicare and Medicaid are in shambles. Government run businesses such as the Post Office and Amtrak are only huge money suckers that taxpayers are forced to subsidize. Why, in the name of all that is good, would Christians turn to government, to politicians to impact the world with the message of Christ. Why not just go out and impact the world with the message and love of Christ?
Thomas Jefferson sited three "inalienable" rights: "the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness". Millions of unborn babies are denied these rights every year when they are mutilated and murdered in their mother's wombs. What could be more Christian than to protect the most innocent and defenseless human beings, unborn babies? Which is more compassionate? To induce labor, impale the child's skull, suck out the brain matter, crush its bones, all so that it will not be "unwanted"; or to stand outside of an abortion clinic and protest this inhumane and grotesque practice? What would have happened had the world chosen to react to the Holocaust by "working around" the Nazis rather than demanding immediate change? Is there any difference especially when considering the genocidal numbers? Is fighting abortion really the legislation of morality?"
The Blog's Author Responded: http://rachelshaffer.blogspot.com/2008/09/hypocritical-politics.html
My Response:
"It is hard telling what Republicans believe now. When Ronald Reagan was in office, there was a strong conservative message (i.e., less government, more freedom). Since then, liberalism has infected the party and the term "moderate" has been born. John McCain is a moderate. It is ironic, yet expected, that some of the same liberals to whom he extended the "olive branch" to gain his moderate and "maverick" status are the same ones that are going for his throat now (i.e., Harry Reid).
I never said that "smaller government" was a Christian idea. Unfortunately, it is not even a Republican idea any more. It is a conservative idea. It was also an idea shared by the Founding Fathers of this country. Coming from the tyranny of England, it is well documented that they had an overwhelming distrust of government. It was the primary force behind the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution (especially the Bill of Rights). For more info. on this subject, research materials such as the Federalist Papers.
Deferring power to the local and state governments instead of one all-powerful federal government is not a "control issue"; it is called Federalism. The theory behind it is that by sharing power between several smaller entities (i.e., states) with a larger uniting entity (i.e., the federal government), checks and balances will exist to prevent any one faction from becoming too powerful. It is a system that is meant to protect the rights of citizens.
I think you may misunderstand conservatism, which used to be a Republican philosophy. Conservatism says that the government (state, federal, etc.) should stay out of peoples lives. It is there to protect rights, not to take them away. If people want to engage in homosexuality, it should be of no concern to the government. Civil unions? Sure. I won't vote for them, but it is not our place to control other human beings. God gave us all free will; who are we to do any different. While not a direct democracy, the Founding Fathers set up a form of government that conceded that immorality could sometimes sometimes have the majority vote. To have freedom, we have to accept this (another conservative idea).
The argument does creep into the living room of the Church when people want to have homosexual marriages. The concept of marriage comes from Judeo/Christian history. We (human beings) did not invent marriage. It was ordained by God (that of "Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob"). This really exposes the folly of the whole subject. Why do homosexuals want to get married in the first place? They obviously aren't concerned about Judeo/Christian values; what then is the need to validate their relationship with a Judeo/Christian sacrament and tradition?
Often Christians are not trying to prevent homosexuality; instead, they are trying to protect the institution of marriage. As far as this Christian conservative is concerned, people could have sex with animal carcasses as long as others don't have to see it. It is not the Christian's job nor the government's to control them.
It is inaccurate to say that Christians do not protect the institution of marriage by citing divorce rates. Countless Christian ministries exist that aim to prevent divorce: Focus on The Family, America's Family Coaches, Real Relationships, Smalley Relationship Center, etc., etc. Numerous marriage support ministries exist in local church bodies. The Roman Catholic church does not even recognize divorce.
These are all successful organizations that help people without the help of government. Government should only exist to protect the rights of such organizations (and all citizens) to do what they do. To get involved as a participant only creates an unhealthy dependency that inevitably arrives at corruption (social programs for votes).
Unfortunately, there is not a conservative candidate in this election, one that wants to remove the obstacle of government to allow a free people to do good things. Neither Barack Obama nor John McCain fit the bill. It is quite frustrating for those of us who still agree with the Founding Fathers..."
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Saturday, September 27, 2008
The Boiled Frog
The other day I heard Rush Limbaugh say something that he has said many times, that ignorance is the most expensive commodity that we have in this country. As almost always, Rush is right, yet the contemporary brand of ignorance in the current culture is one that, if it continues and grows at the current rate, will change this nation into the antithesis of its original existence. Furthermore, what it is becoming will make reformation a difficult task.
Ignorance is part of life. We all have ignorance regarding something. Plainly, it means not to know something. When it relates to cars, I am ignorant. I can put gas in a car. I can put oil in a car. I can check the air pressure on the tires, but after that, don't ask me to fix anything.
Why don't I know much about cars? Is it because I have never had the opportunity to learn? No. Is it because I don't have the ability? No. So why am I ignorant about cars? This is why: I don't care. When it comes to how a car works, how to fix it, what kind it is, etc., etc. I am completely apathetic. I am perfectly fine to explore expertise in other areas so that I can earn money to pay other people who actually do care about cars to fix any problems that may arise.
In many scenarios, there is nothing wrong with being ignorant. We are not God, and we do not have time to know everything that there is to know even if we were able to do so. That is why we pay doctors to know how to fix us, why we pay architects to design our buildings and houses, why we pay auto mechanics to fix our cars.
On the other side, if I know nothing about cars, should I make decisions on how cars are made? How they are fixed? How they are sold? I know how to do some computer programming. Should I determine how doctors should do surgeries? I know how to transpose a song from one key to another. Would you feel safe in a building which was built from plans on which I had overridden the architect and changed?
Sounds crazy? These things happen every day, and like the frog that is boiled, the heat continues to rise and the frog legs will soon be served.
In last Sunday's sermon, the guest preacher sited statistics that said that the entertainment industry has surpassed all others in the amount of money that it grosses from American consumers. There's nothing wrong with entertainment, but our culture's obsession with Hollywood and anything "pop" is a large part of the gas used on the stove to cook the frog.
For example, ask an MTV viewer about Sara Palin? He or she may be able to regurgitate some soundbite from P Diddy who implied that she should not be elected because she is from Alaska, and that because Alaska doesn't have "crime" and "black people", she should not be the vice-president. This comment alone was enough for me to see that P Diddy was not a "political" architect, yet he is an architypal source for policatical information for many in our society.
If the above excersise sparks your interest, go out and do a personnel poll. Include a question that asks a person to describe the difference between socialism and capitalism. Ask him to describe the role of "the Fed" in the economy. Ask him about inflation and unemployment rates. It is highly likely that, if it were a test, most of the class would fail; yet these are fundamental, elementary concepts that relate to our economy, and these people vote.
These are the people who will be voting in the next election, yet they are totally ignorant to the issues about which they claim to care. These voters will influence policies and laws that will affect the economy, whether there is more socialism or capitalism, what will happen to inflation, etc. These things affect their lives daily, but they are more interested in whether or not Brittaney Spear's "come-back" will be successful.
It is this ignorance, that causes these people to vote against their own interest. The union member votes for the candidate that says that he is for the "working family" and he will raise the minimum wage, not knowing that this action hurts himself in the long run causing inflation. His food costs more. Materials costs more. Sometimes, the company has to make cuts, and he loses his job, all because he was ignorant about the things that affected him the most.
It is this ignorance that has everyone on the "bail-out" bandwagon. We have politicians that want to take 700 billion dollars of tax-payer money (for those who get their news from MySpace, this is the money taken out of your paycheck each month, the government doesn't have its own money) and turn to government to fix a situation that was caused by corrupt politicians in the first place (i.e., do some research on Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, and Chris Dodd's as they relate to the current situation). The government has already taken over Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac and has again successfully reduced the size of the free and private market in favor of a government-run economy ( for those who spend more time watching E TV than reading the Wall Street Journal, this is Socialism, as in the kind of economy in Communist China).
It is ignorance that had people voting for Hillary just because she was a woman. We care about her gender, but the fact that she wanted the government to take over the entire healthcare industry was not anywhere on their maps of understanding. It would have been a big step toward socialism if she were to carry out her plan to REQUIRE every American to have health insurance...what's wrong with that, that is exactly what the Founding Fathers had planned, having the government control the life of its citizens...
...or is it ignorance from apathy (not caring as in me and cars) that facilitates the above scenarios that continue to cook the frog, that continue to move this country from a free and democratic one to a socialist and government-controlled one? In some cases it is, but in other cases, some choose to remain ignorant because the truth does not fit their agenda. In the words of Al Gore, the truth is "inconvenient"; it is an obstacle. I will likely spend more time on this type of ignorance in a future post...
What does one do when the same people who are campaigning and voting favor candidates and policies that will inevitably, at most, hurt them, and at the least, contradict their values and interests? They exist this way because they don't care. How does one get them to care? At this time, I don't know...
Ignorance is part of life. We all have ignorance regarding something. Plainly, it means not to know something. When it relates to cars, I am ignorant. I can put gas in a car. I can put oil in a car. I can check the air pressure on the tires, but after that, don't ask me to fix anything.
Why don't I know much about cars? Is it because I have never had the opportunity to learn? No. Is it because I don't have the ability? No. So why am I ignorant about cars? This is why: I don't care. When it comes to how a car works, how to fix it, what kind it is, etc., etc. I am completely apathetic. I am perfectly fine to explore expertise in other areas so that I can earn money to pay other people who actually do care about cars to fix any problems that may arise.
In many scenarios, there is nothing wrong with being ignorant. We are not God, and we do not have time to know everything that there is to know even if we were able to do so. That is why we pay doctors to know how to fix us, why we pay architects to design our buildings and houses, why we pay auto mechanics to fix our cars.
On the other side, if I know nothing about cars, should I make decisions on how cars are made? How they are fixed? How they are sold? I know how to do some computer programming. Should I determine how doctors should do surgeries? I know how to transpose a song from one key to another. Would you feel safe in a building which was built from plans on which I had overridden the architect and changed?
Sounds crazy? These things happen every day, and like the frog that is boiled, the heat continues to rise and the frog legs will soon be served.
In last Sunday's sermon, the guest preacher sited statistics that said that the entertainment industry has surpassed all others in the amount of money that it grosses from American consumers. There's nothing wrong with entertainment, but our culture's obsession with Hollywood and anything "pop" is a large part of the gas used on the stove to cook the frog.
For example, ask an MTV viewer about Sara Palin? He or she may be able to regurgitate some soundbite from P Diddy who implied that she should not be elected because she is from Alaska, and that because Alaska doesn't have "crime" and "black people", she should not be the vice-president. This comment alone was enough for me to see that P Diddy was not a "political" architect, yet he is an architypal source for policatical information for many in our society.
If the above excersise sparks your interest, go out and do a personnel poll. Include a question that asks a person to describe the difference between socialism and capitalism. Ask him to describe the role of "the Fed" in the economy. Ask him about inflation and unemployment rates. It is highly likely that, if it were a test, most of the class would fail; yet these are fundamental, elementary concepts that relate to our economy, and these people vote.
These are the people who will be voting in the next election, yet they are totally ignorant to the issues about which they claim to care. These voters will influence policies and laws that will affect the economy, whether there is more socialism or capitalism, what will happen to inflation, etc. These things affect their lives daily, but they are more interested in whether or not Brittaney Spear's "come-back" will be successful.
It is this ignorance, that causes these people to vote against their own interest. The union member votes for the candidate that says that he is for the "working family" and he will raise the minimum wage, not knowing that this action hurts himself in the long run causing inflation. His food costs more. Materials costs more. Sometimes, the company has to make cuts, and he loses his job, all because he was ignorant about the things that affected him the most.
It is this ignorance that has everyone on the "bail-out" bandwagon. We have politicians that want to take 700 billion dollars of tax-payer money (for those who get their news from MySpace, this is the money taken out of your paycheck each month, the government doesn't have its own money) and turn to government to fix a situation that was caused by corrupt politicians in the first place (i.e., do some research on Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, and Chris Dodd's as they relate to the current situation). The government has already taken over Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac and has again successfully reduced the size of the free and private market in favor of a government-run economy ( for those who spend more time watching E TV than reading the Wall Street Journal, this is Socialism, as in the kind of economy in Communist China).
It is ignorance that had people voting for Hillary just because she was a woman. We care about her gender, but the fact that she wanted the government to take over the entire healthcare industry was not anywhere on their maps of understanding. It would have been a big step toward socialism if she were to carry out her plan to REQUIRE every American to have health insurance...what's wrong with that, that is exactly what the Founding Fathers had planned, having the government control the life of its citizens...
...or is it ignorance from apathy (not caring as in me and cars) that facilitates the above scenarios that continue to cook the frog, that continue to move this country from a free and democratic one to a socialist and government-controlled one? In some cases it is, but in other cases, some choose to remain ignorant because the truth does not fit their agenda. In the words of Al Gore, the truth is "inconvenient"; it is an obstacle. I will likely spend more time on this type of ignorance in a future post...
What does one do when the same people who are campaigning and voting favor candidates and policies that will inevitably, at most, hurt them, and at the least, contradict their values and interests? They exist this way because they don't care. How does one get them to care? At this time, I don't know...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
