Tag Archives: politics

Christian and Torture

Posted on by
1

If you’re a Christ follower then you’ve got to be seriously worried about the valid statement made by CNN in a recent report:

The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new survey.More than half of people who attend services at least once a week — 54 percent — said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is “often” or “sometimes” justified. Only 42 percent of people who “seldom or never” go to services agreed, according to the analysis released Wednesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

Something has gone wrong. We’ve somehow missed something crucial to the gospel message. Brian McClaren sites these statisitics:

Consider this question: Is it ever justifiable to intentionally target innocent civilians in order to achieve other political or military ends? 86, 81, and 80% of Pakistani, Bangladeshi, and Iranian citizens say never. But only 46% of Americans say never! In contrast to the 6% of Americans who say civilian attacks are completely justified, only 2% of Iranians or Lebanese would agree, and only 4% of Saudis.

I sure am glad we’re a Christian nation! I feel like we should write one of those coffee table books that says “you know you’re not a Christian nation if…” and we could have the first page say “…54% of your citizens want to kill innocent people to acheive their ends.” The second page could say: “…a majority of the Christians in your Christian nation are cool with torture.”

This grieves me terribly. May Gods mercy lead us to repentance, renewal, and an uprising to practice the pressence of God in our world.

Guest Post of a Guest Post: I Don't Get the Tea Parties

Posted on by
Reply

This was a good blog post. So good, that I copied it from a guy who copied it! It just brings up some good questions and observations. The original author is here. Thanks Ariah for cross posting it so that I saw it.

I honestly do not understand this Tea Party business going on around the country lately.

There seem to be a lot of Republicans get very excited about joining in on these Tea Parties, but I can’t figure out what exactly they are protesting.

The original Tea Party, the Boston Tea Party, was all about Taxation Without Representation. England was imposing a tea tax on the colonists in order to increase their revenues from the East India Company. The colonists resented this taxation because they believed they had the right to only be taxed by their own elected officials, hence the Boston Tea Party, where in protest they dumped three ships’ worth of tea into the Boston Harbor.

So fast-forward to today. These groups have latched onto this name Tea Party, I guess recalling this great protest in our American history, but I fail to see the connection.

Are they protesting the fact that they are being taxed without representation?

No, because they aren’t. We have a democracy, and we had an election, and our elected officials are in charge of our taxes.

So are they protesting because our taxes are too much?

No, they shouldn’t be at least, because our taxes just went down! Starting April 15, 2009, President Obama’s tax cut for 95% of Americans just started taking effect. Almost everyone that’s protesting just got their taxes decreased by President Obama. Check your pay check, I bet yours went up too! 95% of Americans just got a tax cut, it’s the biggest tax cut in American history! Why would they be protesting about taxes being so high now when their taxes are less than they were during Bush’s presidency? Why weren’t they holding Tea Parties when Bush was president?

So are they protesting because taxes are being raised for those who make more than $200,000 a year?

I don’t know why there would be this much outrage over this. The taxes of the really wealthy are being raised so that practically every other American can get some tax relief! And how much is it getting raised? 3%. Yeah, that’s right, just 3%! The rich, instead of being taxed 36%, are going to be taxed 39%. 3% more. And not even yet…this won’t even take effect for another couple years. And it wasn’t really even something Obama did, this was when the tax break for the wealthy Bush passed was set to expire. It was going to revert back to 39% either way, unless the new president renewed it. I’ve heard a lot of people claim that this is socialist! Taxing the rich more! Well, all it does is bring the tax rate back to what it was when Clinton was president. We weren’t a socialist country then, why are people all the sudden saying this is going to make us socialist? It’s just back to the way we were in the 90’s! Remember the booming economy back in the ‘90’s, by the way?  Also, during Reagan’s presidency, the champion of conservatives, the tax rate for the wealthy was even higher than this!  Is Reagan a socialist?  (No, by the way, neither of them are).

So are they protesting because President Obama’s budget proposal is a record 3.6 trillion dollars over the next 10 years?

Again, why now? Why weren’t the Republicans holding Tea Parties when Bush proposed his 3.1 trillion dollar budget? Is 3.1 trillion acceptable and 3.6 going to burn American down? And besides, Bush did not include Iraq spending on his budget. He’s allowed to keep that number separate and secret for national security reasons. So although we were spending that money, it wasn’t included in his budget. Obama’s budget decided to disclose and include Iraq spending. So Obama’s 3.6 trillion dollar budget includes Iraq spending, and Bush’s 3.1 trillion dollar budget does not include Iraq spending…so the difference between them isn’t much, if anything. Why protest now?

Are they protesting because Obama’s spending is pushing our National debt higher and higher?

They can’t be, because if so, where were the protests before? During Bush’s presidency we went from a budget surplus to double the national debt in 8 years. There weren’t any tea party protests then. We spent a trillion dollars in the war in Iraq, and these Tea Partiers didn’t protest.

So are they protesting Obama’s stimulus bill or the bailouts of the banks?

If so, almost every conservative and liberal economist alike disagrees with them. Almost every economist agrees that capital needs to be injected into the economy in order to avoid exponential collapse, and also that the major banks have become too big to fail. If we let the banks go down, our economy goes down with it for many years to come. And besides, our former President was bailing the banks out as well, where were the protests then from Republicans?

Are they protesting because they believe Obama is walking all over the constitution?

This one makes the least sense to me. These people were overwhelmingly in support of our last president who authorized warrantless wiretaps and the suspension of habeas corpus, both in direct contradiction to our Constitution. What has Obama done to violate the constitution?

I really believe at this point that the only reason for these Tea Party protests is a simple one: they do not like Barack Obama, and they will protest anything he does. Regardless of what policies he supports or actions he takes, they will continue to protest, because they have made up their minds that they do not like him. I don’t know what happened to all the people that told liberals during Bush’s presidency that it’s wrong to criticize your president during war times and that it was unpatriotic to be so against the president. That’s what these conservatives are doing now.

There’s a survey I would like to see done, and I think the results would be very telling. Everyone would be asked their political affiliation. One half would be asked what they thought of President Obama’s support for the NEC resolution, if they agree with his support for it, disagree, or are neutral. The other half would be asked what they thought of President Bush’s (or McCain’s) support for the NEC resolution. No one would be told that there is in fact no such thing as “the NEC resolution.” I believe that you would find that many conservatives asked the first question would heartily disapprove of Obama’s support of this fake resolution, and conservatives asked the second question would heartily approve of Bush’s (or McCain’s) support of it.

They just don’t like Obama, that’s what it all comes down to.

The Difference Between Good and Best

Posted on by
2

I won’t attempt to give a template for figuring out this blog titles dilemma, but I do have some reflections concerning that idea. I get so tired of how people have politicized some of the discussi0n between good and best. It’s not just relegated to politics though…well…let me just attempt to explain.

Conservatives say that global warming is a myth. Many conservatives (and I thought it pretty funny…but for reasons different than them) planned to “stick it to the liberals” by leaving all their lights on and racking up the electricity bills on earth days while many more liberal folks were shutting off their lights by 8:30 or so. I find this incredibly odd. I wish I was more up to date on some of the politics concerning endangered species, oil drilling, protecting old growth forests, etc. because my guess is that I’d have more to say concerning some of that, but as it is I’d come off most ignorant of the facts. Anyway, concerning conserving electricity, why has this become a political issue? Conservatives (and undoubtedly Christians) should be all for conserving energy, it’s just smart. It’s best. It’s not mandatory, it’s not obligatory, it’s best. It’s best not to waste. Duh. I know it’s blasphemy in our American culture, but it’s best not to be wasteful. Being wasteful is foolish. Do you have the freedom to be wasteful? Of course! But you’re choosing to settle for less than best. And it shouldn’t even matter if global warming is a hoax or not should it? Screw global warming! If there were no such thing as global warming, if Al had never made his smug video, shouldn’t we still be concerned with how we treat our environment? Isn’t our environment a gift from God? When I give my children a toy and I notice that they are not taking care of it, that they are destroying it, in my mind I have two options. Take away the toy before they ruin it or be very cautious about what toy I give them next (knowing that it will probably get destroyed). So lets depoliticize all of this and just start taking care of what God has given us. Let’s not disrespect the creator by destroying his creation. Anyway, I think or hope that this point was made without laboring too much. I don’t want to bore you because I really think that this next idea is where its at…

Many people worry when pastors or churches talk about green living, sustainability, simplicity, etc. And for good reason. They worry that pastors and churches are teaching something that is not gospel (that is, not the life saving, hope giving message that you’re loved by Jesus), that they are adding something into the simple message of Jesus that does not belong. This is a very valid point to make because I think that often Christians do get caught up in some of this stuff and forget that Jesus didn’t die so that we could recycle. But here is my strong belief, I think that there is and should be a place for churches, Christians, and ministers to talk about sustainable living, simplicity, and frugality within the context of following Jesus. As Christians we have the gift challenging each other and the world around us to always pursue what is best. To pursue that which embodies beauty. To pursue that which embraces truth, wholeness, and perfection. Jesus talked about some of this and tended to use the word Kingdom. The kingdom of God t is Christs transforming presence among us in real and tangible ways. His presence frees us to always choose what is best for our lives even when it isn’t easy or fun. But the most important distinction that must be made is that we are freed to make these choices not required. The danger comes when Christians, churches, or pastors teach that you must take care of the environment to be a Christ follower, or you must live sustainably, or you must cloth diaper, or you must…fill in the blank to really be the type of person that Jesus likes. This is called heresy. What if we viewed it like this: God has given us the gift of being able to make new choices, of being able to make better choices. And the blessing associate with that gift is not a better place in heaven, a better standing in his church, or more jewels on your ruby encrusted crown in heaven. The blessing is more similar to the “blessing” Jesus speaks of in Matthew 5 where he says

Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are they who mourn,
for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are the meek,
for they shall possess the earth.

Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for justice,
for they shall be satisfied.

Blessed are the merciful,
for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the pure of heart,
for they shall see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they shall be called sons of God.

Blessed are they who suffer persecution for justice sake,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven

The word “blessed” that Jesus uses isn’t someting that is bestowed on his audience, rather it is a state of blessedness. Catch the difference? The reward is found in the blessed state itself. It’s blessed to mourn because when you mourn you’re able to really experience comfort. It’s blessed to be a person who desires justice or rightness because if you’re someone who pursues it, you will find it.

Ok, wait, I’m cutting myself off right now ’cause I’ve already typed on way too long and I could go so much longer.

peace.