The American Dream

I'm not a historian, not even close, so this blog may ring very wrong in your ears.  But regardless I am writing this, and hoping that there is at least a portion of truth within it.

When the colonists came to the Americas they came because they wanted a place where they could practice freedom and liberty for all men.

When Americans began expanding West, they did so because they wanted to find a life and wealth for their own.

When wealthy land owners began partaking in the African slave trade, they did so as a means to increase production, lower production costs, and thus receive a bigger slice of the American Dream pie they so desperately wanted.

When John is working full-time, and his wife puts their kids in daycare so she can also work a full-time job, it is to bring them closer to the dream of being able to give themselves and their children anything they could ever want.

When Ted Stevens accepts bribes, he does so in pursuit of wanting wealth, power, and freedom that could be associated with a twisted form of the American Dream.

I'm not saying the American Dream is an evil thing, or was wrong in its inception (at least as an idea, not a phrase).  But it becomes increasingly apparent in our country that the American Dream has strayed from a desire for basic human rights and opportunity.  Instead it has been individualized in our minds.  The focus of the American Dream is no longer country or appealing to a higher truth; but, rather, me.  

Our dream is one that looks out for our own immediate self-interest.  We want no law or person hindering what we can do.  It appears we have a thought process that says, "Laws are so other people can't impede on my freedoms."  But that is as far as we want the laws to serve us, their application against us is unfair in our eyes.  Just look at the example of illegal downloading of music.  This is something I point back at myself for.  I wouldn't want anyone stealing from me, but I don't want anyone to hinder my ability to steal from others.  The American Dream, it's all about me.  And we are even destroying our families and relationships, as we try to satisfy and provide what the "American Dream" and Darwin would have us believe is most important.

It also drives us to our division in politics.  Now surely this isn't 100% true, but one can certainly see a trend in what party a person is registered for, based on their income levels or affiliations.

When Sherman Alexie was interviewed on The Colbert Report, he said something that made me think...

Unlike other groups of people in this country, we Indians vote for the good of everybody, and not just for the good of our little group.

-  Sherman Alexie

If you watch the clip you will see he was speaking about why McCain is a better choice for the Native American population, and yet why the Native Americans generally were pushing for Obama.  Now regardless of your or my political views, you can't deny this statement contains a dose of caffein to wake up our minds.  We do vote for ourselves.  Christians vote for the person that seems the most moral (sometimes putting their ability to run the government further back on the list) so they can have the moral character they want to see in office, much of the upper-class vote for the republican candidate, so they can get tax breaks they so desperately want, and many of the low-class citizens vote for the democrats so they can get the handouts they want.

We make our decisions with a form of presupposition.  That is, "whatever helps me or my cause the most, is the best answer."  To find a way to better our country, don't we need to lay those aside?  Shouldn't we do what is right, regardless of whether or not we are the ones who will most benefit or least benefit.  Can we be objective without first denying our self?

Let's stop the American Dream from being focused on what we WANT, and rather, let's keep it at what it started at.  Fair opportunity, liberty, and democracy.  Liberty doesn't ensure you the things that you want.  Opportunity does not afford you the right to break the law to succeed.  And surely democracy was not meant for us to selfishly mandate that our individual desires be satisfied, rather it ignites an obligation for us to educate ourselves and seek true wisdom, ignoring any presuppositions not arrived at in the truth of reason, so that we may look to the good of all before the good of ourselves.

We'll never see the America we're dreaming of unless we forsake this selfish rendition of the American Dream we have so tightly embraced.

This Is How We Vote

Every election year politics capture the attention of the American people, mesmerizing us with its hypnotic chants of civic duty, and instilling the fear of "the other guy" deep within us.  Everyone is affected by this quadrennial holiday of sorts; whether they react with gusto toward their man, concern of who to vote for, or apathy due to the overwhelming information or a disheartened state from deceptive promises and corruption in our political parties.  However we act in response to this time of year, we all are all made aware of what is happening, and thus we make our choices of how to react in accordance with our stance; whether it appears as action or inaction, we are in fact making a decision that involves us in the process.

So,   how  will  you   react?

Does your vote make a difference?  Will either candidate fulfill all your hopes and dreams for this country?  Is Democracy no longer effective, rendered paralyzed in its ideality by a straying from Constitutionality and a bureaucratic roadblock in the way of true choice?  When only the Republican or Democratic picks ever have a chance of becoming President, do we really have the choice we should as Americans?

Does any candidate fully represent you?  Are you voting for a lesser of two evils?  Are you compromising some of what you hold as truth, voting for him that comes closest in the areas that you deem as most important.  Wouldn't it be great if there was a candidate that held all of the right perspectives on what really matters?

Good news!  You can be the President.  Perhaps not of the United States; we'd have to be pretty crazy to elect you, but you can be President of your own life.  After all, isn't the President the one chosen to act out the Constitutional truths of this land, upholding justice through knowledge, wisdom, and perhaps God.

No matter who you are, you can make your vote known everyday.  Not for a politician or other elected official, but for truth.  Make an informed decision on what merits your vote in your heart and in this world.  Every word we speak and action we present casts a ballot.  When the chads of our life are counted, do our votes match our "politics?"

If you are a Christian, this remains true, but takes an entirely new perspective and depth.

9 So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please him.10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil. 

11 Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade others. But what we are is known to God, and I hope it is known also to your conscience.12 We are not commending ourselves to you again but giving you cause to boast about us, so that you may be able to answer those who boast about outward appearance and not about what is in the heart.13 For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you.14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died;15 and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised. 

16 From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer.17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation;19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. 
- 2 Corinthians 5:9-21

If we really know the Lord, we fear Him, in understanding that he holds us accountable to these votes (actions) we take in our lives daily.  And thus we persuade others, for we have been given the truth, and along with that truth the duty of being ambassadors to the Truth.  We testify to the forgiveness of sins and the grace of God for those who believe.  We do this to be Christ's righteousness to the world, and in doing so you would know who we our, in our intentions for truth and love of others, within your conscience

No candidate can take your duty for you.  No man on Earth can act in your stead and alter the judgment set forth for you.  Obama or McCain, if elected, will have a new set of responsibilities pinned to his chest, but none of them will be your responsibilities.

Let's stop pointing fingers.  If America is in moral decay, and if our leaders are corrupt or unwise, let us assess what part we have played in the state of our country, rather than pretending the problem originates in politics.  The problem originates in our individuals and our families forsaking the truth by not living it and not sharing it as they should.  Politicians are puppets that find their power in appealing to the populus.  Any corruption or ill-decisions is a direct result of the heart of the people.  Christ is in the business of changing hearts, and we are called to the business of making Christ known.

Let's purify ourselves.  Let us vote for our officials to the best of our ability, but let us not find our hope in politicians or politics.  Let us find our hope in moral virtues, righteousness, forgiveness, and a God who holds a truth stronger than any man's convictions and any legal document ever penned.  Vote everyday, in everything you do.

How About A Straight Talker Who Can Actually Straight-Up Talk?

I don't know who of you watch SNL, but election year spoofs are certainly the show's bread and butter. And you can't deny that SNL has hit the jackpot with the Sarah Palin/Tina Fey look-alikes. Although obviously exaggerated, Fey certainly has a very spot-on portrayal of the governor, glasses, accent, mannerisms, and all.

The thing that I take note of, is that many times the exaggerations on SNL's part are not as great as one might think. For instance the Katie Couric interview spoof vs. the actual interview are not as dramatically different as one would think and expect. They expose Palin's cutesie talk, which reminds me often of a high school cheerleader discussing politics in their government class, as well as her reiteration of the question as an answer and her reliance on key words like Freedom, Democracy, and Terrorists to give an answer that says very little, even having word-for-word excepts of the actual interview in the sketch. Now this said, once again, SNL adds much to the report that is conjured from nowhere.

Then there was the recent VP Debate and the subsequent spoof. Certainly again, this was a mixture of pulling very true aspects from the debate, and fabricating comedy from nowhere. The winking, user of the word "maverick," denying to address questions asked for those she decided to talk about, her "zingers," and her reliance on appealing through "straight talk" were all very true in the essence of what her side of the debate incorporated. Not so fair or true were their depictions of overly overt religiosity, Israel, and homosexual marriage. Biden's constant declaration of respect for McCain followed by his criticizing of him had some truth but was over exaggerated a bit too much. Making fun of his stance on homosexual unions and his pointing to Scranton as his hometown were very correct in what they exposed. Taking a step back to look at these portrayals, the sketch is much harsher on Palin than Biden; however, at the same time Palin lends herself to mockery more than Biden.

The media's depiction of Palin lines up greatly with their depiction of George W. Bush. Bush has been labeled as unintelligent by media spoofs and clip choice. You cannot help but blame this partially on Bush's ability (or lack of) to speak publicly in a way to conveys intelligence. I do not doubt that Bush is a smart man, and able to do his job, but his pronunciation, word choice, and stumbling over himself during speeches promote a market for "poking fun," which in turns eventually makes people believe the joke is true.

Palin does the same thing, but in a slightly different way. She is folksie in a way that conveys naivete, unprofessionalism, and a sub-par education in foreign policy, economics, and government structure. Perhaps McCain, who is well experienced is smart to pick a candidate who is relatible to the general population in the way she speaks and how she interprets current happenings in the country and world. But from her interviews you can see that her rhetoric doesn't effectively cover he lack of knowledge, and if anything, often exposes it.

I fear Palin does not have a tight enough grasp on vast and varied segments that make up political and governmental current events, as well as historical events. Without being able to put all the pieces together and understand how one action will impose upon all the others in a domino effect, you cannot effectively make intelligent decisions. And also with history, we can see the past is cyclical, and thus without understanding it, we are doomed to repeat it. Palin brings a lot to the table, and would quite possibly make an excellent Vice President. My fear is her ability to make a capable President if the need arises.

Many of the questions I raise about Palin can definitely be asked of Obama. And it is more serious with him, since he is running for President and not Vice President. Strangely enough, the media is not painting Obama with the same brush as Palin. I would attribute this to how Obama carries himself, and not what he is actually made of, in the abilities and knowledge he possesses or does not possess.

You have to feel for Palin. If McCain is elected, I'm sure Bush's mantel will be handed down to Palin, labeling her "idiot," no matter what she does in her carreer to prove or disprove such a title... but at least Tina Fey will have job security.

Papa Government Will Take Care Of Everything

I don't know how many of you watched Bush's Presidential Address given last night, but it's pretty big. I'd recommend taking a look at it below.




I only caught the last few minutes of this address last night, so after it was over I called my grandfather, who is pretty up on this stuff. He definitely gave me some good insight and things to think about.

Here's a basic history of how we got here, as I understand it...

In the past the real estate companies and banks would require a sizable down payment when someone was buying a house, condo, mansion, shack in the woods, etc. Typically they had to put down around 20-25% of the total cost to buy. So if you're buying a $100,000 house, you would be required to give a down payment of $20-25 thousand, and the bank would loan you the rest.

Now what that did was allow the bank/lender to come out on top whether you could pay or not. If you are able to make all of your payments, then they are paid back all their money plus the interest included in the loan. If you are not able to pay and go into default, they can seize your house and sell it for its value. In that case they will have whatever money you have already paid them, and the value of your house, which as a general rule would increase in worth (appreciate in value) as time and inflation went on.

Things were going so well that companies got a little ahead of themselves. Reel estate was going well and people were buying houses, credit was becoming more and more popular, so they increased the credit you can get on a house. Where you used to give about 20% upfront, now they would give you a 100% loan... but wait, more. They wouldn't just give you 100% of what you needed for your house, but they'd give a 125% loan, which the purchaser could use to buy furniture, peanut butter, kittens, and whatnot. And this is the real problem.

With the banks and lenders giving so much money, like the white trash hick that gets approved for his first credit card, people felt like they had free money. They didn't even need to have anything saved up to buy a house. When a bank gives a crazy good loan like that, you can expect some crazy hard interest. Plus you have all these people who aren't financially intelligent celebrating in their free money and not looking down the road. After the first 6 months their loan payments tended to get much higher, to the point where often times people could not afford them. They would default on their payments and their house would be seized.

When the lenders seized the house, they would need to get 125% of the initial worth of it (or something around there depending) in order to break even. And that would be possible under the normal way of real estate, where it increases in value over time. But due to so many people buying houses, the supply went way up... lots of houses being built. But people who were initially excited started to not have the finances to afford them, or realize they wouldn't be able to make the payments. With a high supply and a small demand, the value goes down. Houses started losing value or staying the same with time, instead of gaining value. All of this left banks and lenders in a tough place where they couldn't get their money back because of the housing market.

This is a big reason you have heard recently about banks shutting down and all this stuff about real estate lenders. And when the banks don't have money, credit doesn't work. Credit depends on your bank/lender being able to pay your bill until you can pay them back, when the bank can't pay the bill, you can't have credit. If you can't have credit, people will stop buying things; if people don't buy things, others will lose jobs; if people lose their jobs they can buy even less; if no body is buying much of anything or working then we're in a bad bad place.

What the government has done, is decide to put $700 Billion into buying these properties that are mortgaged, but nobody is buying, so the bank can make back their money. If they didn't do this, the real estate market would crash, builders wouldn't build, electricians wouldn't install electric in houses, plumbers would plumb, realtors wouldn't sell houses, and millions of people would be out of work, which would cause basically the same chain reaction seen above.

The businesses that decided to up the credit so high are at fault here. It isn't the governments responsibility to act, as the president said, in a free-enterprise economy. But it's either give up some of what we believe in or face The Great Depression again. So the government is purchasing these mortgages, and in a sense acting as the lender, the one responsible for the financial essence of the property. They are hoping that as the economy picks up, and the housing market picks up, they will be able to get paid back (same as anyone who gives a loan) as the properties are sold, and will be able to get more return as the properties will be worth more than what they are buying them for. There's a good chance it'll work, but not 100%.

The government is taking some serious looks at socialistic control tactics to keep businesses from causing such a threat to American economics. The fact that the decisions of so few companies could impact the entire country in such a dire way blows my mind. It's also why I personally am not a fan of big business in most cases. The government is also going to potentially limit executive income in these businesses, to try to eliminate "bad" business decisions that will put the company in jeopardy, but reward the executives running it. Even in the situation we're in now, the executives could make a lot of money at the expense of others, by receiving/buying more stock once it goes down, and sitting on it until it goes up again, or a type of corporate bail-out getting paid tons in the collapse of the business.

So what is better... the integrity of the democratic system... or compromising ideals instead of compromising the American standard of living?

I am somewhat torn. I do not pledge my allegiance to the democratic system. I think it's worked fine, but that it will at some point fail or be replaced with something better. It's inherent greed will be our destruction (as it is about to destroy us already). The government is building safe-guards against such free-enterprise greed by stripping away some of our democracy. It seems all systems fail at a certain point, and new ones will emerge as we learn. Everyone is afraid of communism, mostly because they don't quite understand it... but here we have our own political officials, under a republican president, taking a big step toward communism, as our only foreseeable way of solving our crisis. It's just interesting.

See, this is why I don't have a credit card!


So some questions for discussion...

- Which is more important, the integrity of our government structure or the integrity of our financial means?

- What would you do if things aren't resolved in the next few days and everything crashes.

- Is this the beginning of more mixing of democracy with other systems? If so, how long will we continue to call it democracy? If not, how will democracy deal these emerging issues?

Ron Paul... He May Not Be A Winner, But He's Got Integrity

Ron Paul...

I had heard nothing about him dropping out of the race, but in every way it seemed like he had vanished. I thought there would at least be some recognition if he had dropped out. Apparently I wasn't the only one confused.




How refreshing to have someone running for President, who is concerned most with winning. Paul is just desiring that the message continue to move, inspire, and transform the people of The United States. Doesn't it make you want to trust him? Doesn't it show you that he fully believes in what he is preaching?

Ahhh, refreshing. It's like a nice glass of water with a spritz of lemon on a hot summer's day.

I do still hope that Ron will run as an independent. He's said much to make us believe he won't be doing any such thing, but he hasn't given an absolute negative to that possibility.

I did stumble upon this old 1970's government conspiracy video. I was shocked that people have thought this for so long. This is the crap that people are making documentaries on now and Ron Paul is trying to expose (although I don't think he's privy to the word "Conspiracy"). I had no idea that these thoughts had been around so long.





I feel that this documentary is based in truth. There may be a few over-embellished aspects, but over all, I agree with the governments misuse of money, building up of itself, misdirection with "enemies," and so on.

Are you sick of me talking about this topic? Do you think it's nuts that anyone could think our government could be misusing our money or deliberately distract us with other incidents? Do you agree with me? Speak now or forever hold you peace.

Holy Hillary!

My gosh do I love Photoshop!

I'm learning something about politicians. When all is said and done, they are people.

When someone is running for office, it is so natural to assume they are lying. How can you gauge their sincerity? What about that gut reaction you get every time you see them on TV, whether positive, negative, or hungry.

Thanks to another one of my better-liked bloggers/authors Matthew, I am gaining more perspective on other candidates.

As much as I would love to deny it, I'm biased to a sinful extent. I am denying candidates their humanity, and stamping them with their policies, their pasts, and even their political parties.

Every time I see or hear Hillary Clinton, my grandfather's voice creeps into my head saying "What a sad sack of sh*t she is!" "She's just a socialistic baby-killer." It's like I have to cringe when she appears because, much like Pavlov's dogs, I have been conditioned my whole life for this reaction. But I must come to the place where I realize Hillary Clinton isn't evil... well no more than you or I at least. She is a person with feelings, dynamics, beliefs, convictions, and humanity.

Hillary does not hope for the downfall of America or morality, as some might think.


And, despite her husband's fall into a sin made public, that was not Hillary's sin. It is unfair to label her immoral because of an action her husband did, and did against his wife as well as himself.

In an interview Hillary talks about her faith, which seems genuine, and whether or not it truly is genuine, I want to believe her. She talks about the role of her faith in shaping her life. She answers questions very clearly, without stumble, about her beliefs in scripture, God, and other faith-based topics.

"I think the whole Bible is real. The whole Bible gives you a glimpse of God and God’s desire for a personal relationship. But we can’t possibly understand every way God is communicating with us. So I’ve always felt that people who try to shoehorn in their cultural and social understanding of the time in the Bible might actually be missing the larger point that we are actually supposed to take from the Bible."

- Hillary Clinton

I spoke of the religious right losing it's solid hold on the republican party, and instead having something that is a combining of the right and left into what Jesus really addresses. Where we often associate Republicans with being strong Christians, and Democrats with being without any substantial faith, this really takes away a persons name. This takes away who they are, their nature, their individuality, and it labels them.

"Well I was bewildered by it, that it was somehow illegitimate to talk about faith as a democrat. I just found that so bizarre, that we were being written out of the whole faith experience. So much of the faith journey in this country are people who put their faith into action on behalf of others; people who fought for abolition, people who fought for women’s suffrage, people who stood up on behalf of the concepts of justice and so much more."

- Hillary Clinton

Perhaps in some ways the Republicans have been the faith and the Democrats have been the works. I believe James makes specific mention of how necessary and interconnected the two must be.

In some ways I think adding the Democratic sympathy of the weak to the Republican notion of God's goal of justice can create a satisfying stew. It will allow the two to check each other, not too unlike how I mentioned in this post. It would appear Hillary is at least somewhat in line and prepared for this bonding together. Once again realizing that Christ is available to all... neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, neither Republican nor Democrat...

"I’ve always been skeptical of people who wear their faith on their sleeves. I think it’s a good skepticism to have. But we’ve gone too far the other way where it was somehow illegitimate to express your faith in the public square. So many of us… we’ve been trying to search for the common ground where we can have these discussions without falling into the trap that is too easily tempting; that we are somehow judging based on our personal experience instead of trying to offer a perspective to kind of move forward together on."

- Hillary Clinton

I don't care who you vote for, and I probably won't vote for Hillary... but let's get to the point where we can appreciate everyone; where we can appreciate differences; where we can recognize that we are all unique, but equal, humans made in God's image.

I ♥ Huckabees

Alright, so it's not really true that I ♥ Huckabee. In fact, I'm still more of a Ron Paul guy. However, some things have come to light about Huckabee, too late for somethings, but not for others.

I half rolled my eyes when good ol' Mike jumped on board the presidential election train. Here is a guy who is going to make his platform all about religion. He will use his "faith in Jesus" to appeal to the masses, who will mindlessly follow a man who indirectly claims to be God's wingman. For me, that's what it was with Bush. I was at the place where Bush had used enough Bible quotes and the Christian news had showed him to be a dedicated, church-going man of the Spirit, that I believed God had ordained this man to be our leader toward His will.

When I finally woke up and realized that George is just a man, and actually not a great President, who made decisions very opposed to what Jesus would show the heart of God to be, I questioned my decision. I also questioned voting for someone for those reasons. After all, doesn't every politician these days say what is necessary to get into office? Who can you trust?

The person you trust is the one who doesn't automatically appeal to the majority of his party, addresses real issues, makes sense, and has integrity. For me I felt, and feel, that Ron Paul holds those keys better than any other candidate; however, I do think I didn't get a clear view of Huckabee, from what I'm reading.

"Unquestionably there is a maturing that is going on within the evangelical movement. It doesn't mean that evangelicals are any less concerned about traditional families and the sanctity of life. It just means that they also realize that we have real responsibility in areas like disease and hunger and poverty and that these are issues that people of faith have to address."

- Mike Huckabee

Mike sounds like someone who actually looks at what's going on with Christians, and acknowledges, dare I say it, our past, as well as where we're going. Sure all candidates will claim these things, but it's far too often in a distorted view. Huckabee realizes that Christians are realizing how we have built ourselves into a corner, totally missing major Christian issues. The others aren't unimportant, but new things are also being noticed as important, and previously ignored.

"When Huckabee was governor of Arkansas, he advocated spending money on poor people - behavior which is offensive to the economically conservative wing of the Republican Party. While Huckabee is a consistent social conservative, he is suspect by the party's economic conservatives who, of course, don't support spending any money on overcoming poverty. Huckabee disagrees with them."

- Jim Wallis

Even when it comes to illegal immigrants, Huckabee wants what's best for the children... he wants to give them a chance.

"I wouldn't be standing on this stage; I might be picking lettuce; I might be a person who needed government support."

- Mike Huckabee

It's refreshing when a president acknowledges that without the help and opportunities of education, he would not be on the stand, but picking lettuce. It's almost like he's saying that a little illegal immigrant, Mexican child could contribute something great to this country, given the proper education and opportunities.

"That there's now a pitched battle for the soul of the religious right is a horrifying thought to Republican leaders long familiar with the old religious right, a hierarchical group dominated by larger-than-life figures who'd anointed themselves Jesus's political representatives. But that movement is withering at the top and in revolt at the grass-roots. … What's new is how widespread social justice issues are in the evangelical world. Leading New Testament theologian N.T. Wright, a conservative, says that the greatest moral issue today is not abortion but the economic inequality between the U.S. and Europe and the developing world."

- David Kuo, The Washington Post

I don't think Mike is done. He won't win this election, but he's pretty young. Many opportunities can come in the future for this guy. Maybe he'll win an academy award for best documentary or something. Wouldn't be the first time.

I do hope that this doesn't become the new religious right or religious left. These are good things he's thinking as far as equality of all men and addressing poverty... but saving babies is a good thing too, and we turned that into something it shouldn't be. This cannot become a religious mandate, it must become a moral way that everyone can agree on.

Government is not the place for religion, but that doesn't mean you must check faith at the door. Huckabee's direction is very hopeful. It concerns itself in finding out the wrong and doing the right thing, instead of doing the "right wing" thing. I know there is belief that our old way of left and right politics are draining into a combined central political realm. Maybe soon our two party system will be gone... but we must keep watch on ourselves, as to not corrupt this whole thing.

I am also aware that some of the progressive drive I'm speaking of is readily found in the democratic side. What I'm ultimately speaking of, is having the right and left humble themselves enough to examine what they say, what the others say, what history says, and what no one is yet saying, to derive what will truly make things better.

Huckabee is expectedly starting this.

This post is based off information from a blog at God's Politics.

A New Perspective In The White House?

I was drawn to the power of the African American religious tradition to spur social change. Out of necessity, the black church had to minister to the whole person. Out of necessity, the black church rarely had the luxury of separating individual salvation from collective salvation. It had to serve as the center of the community's political, economic, and social as well as spiritual life; it understood in an intimate way the biblical call to feed the hungry and clothe the naked and challenge powers and principalities. In the history of these struggles, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death; rather, it was an active, palpable agent in the world.

- Barack Obama

I could be ok with our next President being aware of this faith.

It Borders Something Naughty, But I Might Like It

Jim Wallis is a man that is in close contact to a lot of books I read. It seems he's usually writing the forward or mentioned in many books, mainly because of his political and social action involvement.

I have never read one of his books yet, although I recently bought God's Politics.

This interview sounds like it should be wrong. "Religion has no monopoly on morality." I guess this goes to suggest that those who are not religious can be more moral than those who are. I do believe this to be true. Certainly some very immoral things were done in the name or religion, but also some great things and even healing things were done in the name of a same or different religion or no religion.

I think Jim is on to something straight from the Bible. Maybe you can see it in Jesus a bit, like when he talks to the Samaritan woman, using the whole "living water" analogy, rather than insisting on religious doctrine (even though some is present); also appealing to her morality by mentioning the man she lives with whom she isn't married to.

You see it eve more with Paul, who travels all over the place and meets all kinds of peoples who have varying beliefs and histories. He speaks of morality rather than religion when he warns not to do anything that will cause someone else to stumble. Everyone has their own practices that help them live right, don't mess with that, but join them. He also welds together religious outlooks by finding commonalities. You might say he makes his faith flexible to incorporate others rather than mandating a need for religious conversion in order to participate.

Wallis is very correct that you will exclude and divide people if you make this primarily about a religion (religious right vs. left). If this is people of faith who are foremost about restoring righteousness and beauty to the world, and they are opening to everyone who can comprehend the moral truths of life, then no one is left out. We all will have en equal opportunity to venture into something very spiritual, but not so religiously exclusive.

I'm sure this will spark some major thoughts, but mostly disagreements. Please share with some comments!

Kind of a Ron Paul Plug

Evangelicals, Wake Up For The Election

:::I started this back in mid January and finished it today:::

Well, we’re almost two weeks into 2008, which means we are nearly two weeks into an election year. I must say that a year ago I was largely apathetic to the notion of choosing a new president, but I must say I now have the bug. I see this year as an opportunity for change in the U.S., or we may just maintain the same course we’ve been on for a while. New times mean new issues. New issues are ways of showing the deficiencies in our prior decisions/laws/declarations.

Everyone has the answer though. Every single presidential candidate has their own solution for the problems at hand, and all the future problems to come. This is certainly hailing as the election for change. I would say there is much desire for change coming from the Democratic party, which makes sense since they haven’t been running things for eight years. There is also a fair amount of talk for change coming from the Republicans, although on a much smaller level. As much as a party desires to uphold their own, there are certain consequences from G.W.’s administration that can’t be overlooked (although most of these decisions are not all from George, but have been handed down from president to president, sometimes in a snowballing effect). The Democrats certainly point the finger at George a lot, while the Republicans do their best to point the finger at Clinton wherever possible.

I wonder how important the Evangelicals will be perceived in the upcoming election, since they were widely credited as a (or the) major support in getting Bush elected for a second term. Are they still a driving force in our country? What do they look for in the President? What contributes to their common ideals? What are those common ideals? If Eric Clapton shot the Sheriff, who shot the deputy?

I found a website detailing what the “Evangelicals” in general are looking at as key issues, and answers to those issues.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51686

Here’s a brief summary…

The Candidate must be:

- A social/fiscal conservative

- Strongly opposed to abortion

- Strongly opposed to same-sex marriage

- Adamant about religious freedom

- Desiring to unite the government and private sectors

- Desiring to unite government and religious institutions (Christian, Jewish, Muslim? I wonder what Evangelicals mean by that.)

- Very strongly supporting the war on terror, both at home and abroad in countries like Iraq

- See the terrorist enemy as inhuman killers and incapable of rationality or being appeased civilly

- Immigration

o Close border with a $10 Billion fence

o Stricter laws for getting into the country/kick out illegals

- Use our country’s own oil

o “But a handful of environmental alarmists have convinced many lawmakers to pretend the oil is not there. I want to preserve the beauty of our nation as much as anyone, but I also think we need to utilize our God-given resources and thus liberate the U.S. from dependence on many nations who hate us”

Okay, let’s break this down. Since the most inherently unifying commonality of Evangelicals is Jesus, let’s get him in the mix.

I’m going to skip the first one for the time being.

Opposition to abortion and homosexuality is key to the followers of Jesus. To my understanding Jesus never directly addresses the issue of homosexuality. It doesn’t mean he’s in support of it, but it must not have been at the top of his priority list. I have some of my own thoughts on it, but that’s pretty irrelevant here. Other followers of Jesus have commented on homosexuality, just as many of his followers today have, but Jesus never mentioned it.

Abortion, by the definition could be considered murder. I know the word “could” in there might make people angry, saying “IT DEFINITELY IS!” The definition speaks of killing another person with malice aforethought, characterized by premeditation. Abortion is probably usually done without malice toward the child, but in the view of the one(s) making the choice, merely a sense of grace upon the child who would have an unfair life due to the parental situation. Often times it’s done from selfishness, where it isn’t convenient. And I’m sure sometimes it’s done with little to no thought. So the potential good-will or the supposed mercy of the abortion could negate it by definition as “murder.” I would go as far to say that many mothers know that what they’re doing is wrong, but consider it a necessary evil.

This takes me to the war on terror. Abortion is often justified by saying the fertilized egg is just a clump of cells and not a real human or child yet; an argument that evangelicals traditionally disagree with. How is it that Evangelicals could support the killing of full-grown, completely developed humans? Sure one could say that it is in the desire for safety and security that we must commit less than desired acts on others. But isn’t this similar to the necessary evil that a mother might take into consideration in order to secure her economic/education safety and security to help her ensure a better future for herself and the possibility to raise other future children in a more proper, less dysfunctional home? I don’t think it’s much different, and I don’t think either is justifiable by humanity (especially Evangelicals).

I do believe it was Jesus who said “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword.” Maybe today we could put it, “he who lives by the easy way out that disregards others, dies by the easy way out that disregards others.” We have undeniably made enemies out of terrorists. Didn’t Jesus say to love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you. Didn’t Jesus make a huge stand and a huge impact by being at peace with those killing him, even forgiving them? Didn’t Jesus end up fine in the end, despite his lowly, humble position when faced with Roman injustice? I thought the Evangelicals were the ones who followed Jesus’ teachings. Why are they some of the greatest advocates of war, and then hypocritically against abortion? They are for the life of unborn children and opposed to the life of adults who have different belief systems.

Love could go a long way in this “war.” Considering a major cause of the hatred of America by Islamic fundamentalists is our progressive economic and dominating military imposition on the more traditional ideals of their own territory. Love and respect would go a long way… as well as perhaps learning lessons on how to live from their culture.

Religious freedom is the reason this country was formed. We certainly uphold this ideal to a point of near idolic worship. In our 21st century billboard infested culture advertisement rules. Sometimes advertisement might become a bigger concern than even quality control. We're all about winning... winning equals fame, pride, superiority, power, money, and probably some others. Religious freedom has become the right for me to advertise my belief system. It's not about what I practice, it's about what I believe in.
This goes right along with the evangelical desire to unite government and religious institutions. It's all about how much clout I can gain for Jesus. Christians have no desire for the Hindu religious affiliations or the mosque-run organizations to be holding hands with the United States government. After all, we're a CHRISTIAN nation!
I would agree that when our nation's first ancestors took their first few steps off the Mayflower they had trouble walking straight after being on a ship for a few months. But after that I think they had the intention for a theocratic society of sorts. Run differently than in England, but surely a nation of people like them. The problem is that it didn't work all that great, although we did survive... there were those darn witch trials though; the spawn of a theocratic society.
A while later this was all remembered, as well as how things were in England, and also the consideration of known history. The Constitution was not written for a theocracy, it was written for a democracy. If we're a Christian nation, we run the risk of deeming anyone who is not Christian as an evil threat to our society. If we are a nation that is filled largely with Christians, well that should be very different. It allows us to set up laws based on Christian morals one might say, another might say Natural Law that is common knowledge to all (or most) of humanity.
As long as a religious institution is conducting itself by means of this Natural Law it should not be judged any differently than another organization, Christian or not. We are not a Christian bully nation. We are not a Christian favoritism nation. We should not be a huge billboard for Christianity. But we should allow all people and groups abiding by the laws to represent themselves on their own, perhaps partnered with the government, but not specially endorsed by it.
Another issue is the illegal immigration. Who is our biggest culprit here? If I have read things correctly I believe it is Switzerland. Do you believe that? Why not? What about Canada? Who do you think the country with the most illegal immigrants in the U.S. is?
I should look this up, although I'm not, but I'd say it's probably Mexico. Why would Mexicans as opposed to the Swiss or Canadians by trying to sneak in? Because it's freakin' hot down there! Ok, not really. Probably because it's poor down there. Bad health care, bad living conditions, bad gas from all the burritos. So our idea to keep those people who are unfortunate away from our great stuff that is ours and not theirs is to build a 10 billion dollar fence.

Alright, I'm probably an idiot, but how about this. What if we put 10 billion dollars into their economy. What if we gave loans to their people to start business, to initiate trade, to better conditions, to promote better health care into the country? Will it solve everything? No, but it'll help. It should at least keep most of them occupied so they don't feel the need to come to the U.S.

Also, for all you Jesus lovers, I think Jesus told a story about a poor beggar that was outside this rich man's house. The rich man had walls separating him from the poor man, but when they died things reversed. The rich man tried to keep his superiority and authority over the poor, but it was no longer there. Maybe someday Mexico will rise up and become a power. How will we be treated by them? How are we treating them? Is this impossible? Was it impossible for China not too long ago? The Bible talks many times about allowing foreigners into your land. I do see an economic problem with that, and even some overcrowding. My solution is to reach out and make their land inhabitable for them, then we can live in peace. I kind of think Jesus would have liked that. He tends to support interaction between the rich and poor, where they both share what they have.

It's also kind of funny that these Evangelicals who are very conservative want the GOVERNMENT to build the 10 billion dollar wall. Why not have the states effected raise money for that. The immigration problem isn't in Nevada so much, ya know? But I'm against the wall anyway.

I think Evangelical conservatives can do so much to lessen government control. Just like the whole wall senario... they can share. The government just distributes money, with some corruption and improper spending mixed in there too. We wouldn't need them for many things if we'd seek out those in need and share. Welfare, health care, social security, unemployment, education, etc etc etc. These are things we can share. If someone can't afford a necessity and you are planning a nice vacation, give. If you're in a medical profession and someone needs looked at or treatment, give. If someone is without a job and you know of one or can create a job for them, give. Better yet teach them a trade so they can get a job. We're all about disconnected higher education, with its standards and tests; but we've lost the personal training found in an apprenticeship. We're spending thousands and thousands of dollars on an education you can learn from a mentor for free. Or how about this. Instead of both the mother and father in a family having a job, just let the mother get one, and the father can stay at home and cook/clean. That way more people can get jobs, instead of having them taken up by families who don't need the money, but just get bored at home all day. That's conservative. Think big, think different. In Acts 2 no one had any needs cause they shared. They sold their possessions to make sure no one was without.

And finally, oil. We are fools. We trick ourselves into thinking we're being ecologically friendly by getting the car that gets 35mpg, but we forget that we haven't walked anywhere in 3 years and that we have 3 cars for our 4 person family. It's overabundance that is draining our earth of resources and filling it with pollution. Oil wouldn't be such an issue if we hadn't sucked up over half of the worlds energy for our %5 of its population. Sure we need to get cleaner and more renewable energy, but we also need to stop producing so much. I don't care how recyclable a car is, if you make billions of them, you will have waste and pollution. Americans believe we deserve it because we're so strong, but we're wrong. Evangelicals, you guys are building 7, 10, 20 million dollar facilities. Could you build with less and save the Earth some? Maybe God wouldn't mind your house for him not looking as lavish in exchange for his tabernacle of the Earth not being dilapidated.

I know this is long, and congrats if you made it this far. I don't mean to be a downer, but I just want to expose hypocrisy along with what doesn't make sense. I believe in the words of Jesus, although I get much criticism for what I say, even (especially) from Christians. I find they tend to have trouble seeing the big picture, being creative, and having hope toward new ways of living, God's ways of living. Just like the prophets who seemed to have bad news, I am presenting our woes. It's the opportunity to repent and find joy in repentance.