Mostly, I've found them to say, "I'm remarkably insecure, unwilling to be identified with my own (often judgemental) words of criticism, and am unable to carry on an intelligent conversation." Please be warned now, if you make an anonymous comment to this post - it will probably be deleted. But, if you'd like to carry on a conversation (which is always welcome whether you agree with my opinions or not), please leave your name.
Recently, on a blog I frequent, one such Anonymous commenter left words that "Mean no disrespect at all." Yet those words are at the heart of what I believe is wrong with our discussion of faith and politics in this country. This idea of lobbing 'catch phrases' from the 'Right' without thinking about the whole scope of issues that we face is infuriating to me.
It seems whenever James Dobson (Please keep in mind that Dr. Dobson is neither a trained theologian or political scientist.) says something about theology or politics, the evangelical right just mindlessly nod their heads, get bumper stickers, speak high and mighty around those who agree with them, *and post anonymous comments on peoples' blogs who disagree*.
Let us be clear - Life is of greatest value to God. Given the choice between death and life - we (His followers) are to choose life.
Abortion -or- No Abortion --> We choose no abortion.
Abusive relationships -or- Healthy relationships --> We choose healthy relationships.
War -or- Peace --> We choose peace.
Death Penalty -or- Mercy --> hmmm.... another post, another time. (Two guesses where I think the church should stand on this.)
Now, how then should we respond to our Presidential choices that we face? We face two (pretty soon anyway) choices.
One side seems to dodge what they really think and wants to tow the party line. When questioned about "family conference" time... if his daughter decided to get an abortion, John McCain answered, "I am proud of my pro-life record in public life, and I will continue to maintain it. I will not draw my children into this discussion. As a leader of a pro-life party with a pro-life position, I will persuade young Americans [to] understand the importance of the preservation of the rights of the unborn..." (GOP Debate in Manchester NH Jan 26, 2000)
The problem with this 'philosophy' is that it is not a philosophy. It is merely a political facade to appease the 'conservative' voters. And beyond the familiar rhetoric, these politicians offer no clear plan on how to fight the causes of abortion or address the reasons why women feel the need to get abortions in the first place. Instead, they have just had a history of making election year policies with no results once the get into office. Don't believe me? Do a little math and count the number of years a Republican has been in office since Roe v. Wade and then count the number of Supreme Court Justices that have been put into power by those presidents. Sorry - but so called 'one issue voting' hasn't been working. If it had, the decision would have been overturned long ago.
But, let us look at the other choice for president who has "suggested that perhaps we could agree on ways to reduce the number of women who felt the need to have abortions in the first place." (The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.197-8 Oct 1, 2006) He has also stated that "[he] think[s] that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don't make them casually. And [he] trust[s] women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy." (2007 South Carolina Democratic primary debate, on MSNBC Apr 26, 2007) Now, before you jump to conclusions - think about that statement. He believes that this is a choice to be made in conjunction with families and clergy. Now, where would you as a family member advise your sister on this issue? LIFE. Where would clergy stand on this? I presume LIFE.
Also remember that there are numerous issues that we face when we vote for a candidate.
Mis-directed war -or- Re-directed justice and peaceful dialogue?
Policies that benefit the richest in our country and the richest in the world -or- policies that help pull people out of the grasp of poverty?
Benefits to corporations that continue to pollute our world while trusting them to choose environmentalism over profits -or- an approach that requires conservation?
Give lip-service to those who will vote for one issue -or- actually work on issues (chiefly poverty and education) that our country faces that perpetuate the perceived need for abortion for some --> we choose the latter... I HOPE.
13 comments:
Dude!
Preach.
Zowie.
That was amazing!
Glad to see you blogging again, brousin, and glad that my unexpected guest provoked such articulate musings.
love you.
I've been educated.
I love you my brother, and I love how you think.
Yeah... the whole Muslim thing... and race... actually read the books before you quote them please. You may possibly get the actual words and context correct.
Oh - if you want to discuss these things, I'd love to... what was your name again?
You have one day... then the nameless comment will be deleted.
I'm only asking these things because I'm searching. Are those comments taking out of context?
I've never been so afraid to vote in my life. America isn't mentioned in Revelation. I just have a feeling that America will fall apart soon. I'm not of course saying that Barack will play any particular role in it. Actually, I think it is good that he is openly accepting many different cultures. He seems to be the epitome of many different ideas and backgrounds. However, the 'unknown' does scare me. And what of his Reverend, with whom he is so close to. He married, BO and his wife. Now, I understand BO is trying to distance himself from his Pastor, for good reason. I just don't understand the whole situation. I've tried to educate myself, but it's hard to know what is true and what isn't. The press, (and everyone else) is saying lots of negative things and it's just hard to know what is accurate, though I've tried to figure these things out. I'm trying to take it all with a grain of salt, including BO himself. I cannot stand Hilary in any way shape or form. In fact, she seems immoral to me. And of course, I'm not finding comfort with McCain either. So this time, for the first time ever in my life, I'm afraid to cast my vote. It's a sad day for me.
Why does it matter if James Dobson is a trained theologian or political scientist? Do you have to be trained in order to study the Bible? Were the disciples 'trained theologians'? If I remember correctly many if not most were not trained in 'theology'. Our Christian faith was founded on the work that the disciples did teaching and preaching about Jesus. Do you have to be trained to put forth your opinions into the public forum? If people hold to the same beliefs as Dobson does that mean they are mindlessly following him? I do not listen to Dr. Dobson, but I think it is entirely unfair for you to paint him in a picture as a pied piper for the evangelical right. There was no mention of Dobson in the anonymous comment yet you have made him out to be some right wing wacko that has no idea what he is talking about and has duped millions of people into believing crazy theology. Do you have any quotes or instances of what Dobson has said that the evangelical right has 'mindlessly' followed as a result of what he said? And how do you measure that what he said the evangelical right followed mindlessly? I am not saying that everything Dobson says is correct and I would agree with but your paragraph depicts him in a negative light that is off base.
My thoughts on the political portion.
Not even sure where to start. This post makes it sound like you think McCain only has things to say that will get him elected and Obama is speaking from the heart and means everything he says and is going to change the world. NEWSFLASH - In politics in America today every politician campaigning for the White House will say what he needs to in order to get elected. They are trying to relate to as many people as possible. Yes, some of what they say will be true to what they believe and what they hope to accomplish, but every platform with every angle has been meticulously planned behind the scenes with very specific answers ready when needed. To think otherwise is naive.
This section:
'Now, before you jump to conclusions - think about that statement. He believes that this is a choice to be made in conjunction with families and clergy. Now, where would you as a family member advise your sister on this issue? LIFE. Where would clergy stand on this? I presume LIFE.'
I did think about that statement before I jumped. There are families out there that will NOT choose life. There are clergy out there that will NOT choose life.
This along with some other issues I look at party platforms. The republican party is pro-life. The democratic party is pro-choice. Any person who makes it to the White House will in large part follow the party on major issues. Has McCain been on the far right with the pro-life movement? No, but is he going to follow the republican party and be better for the movement than any democratic canidate? Yes.
'policies that help pull people out of the grasp of poverty?'
There are not policies in place that pull people out of poverty. The democratic party are the ones that are paying lip service to this issue. They say alot about helping but the policies and programs pushed by the democrats have not worked and do much to keep the minorities stuck in those situations where they are so they keep voting for the democrats. Does Obama have some special new welfare plan that will help rid the problem of poverty? If so, I have not heard about it.
'Policies that benefit the richest in our country and the richest in the world -or- policies that help pull people out of the grasp of poverty?'
This statement seems to make the assumption that policies that benefit the rich are completely antithetical to helping with the problem of poverty. The problem of poverty is only going to be solved when the sin of selfishness is solved. Taxing/punishing the rich will not help the poverty problem. Maybe if the Christians in our country had done a better job of being 'Christian' than being religious the last 50 100 years this would not be a problem. But alas we must lay in the bed we have made. I do not know how to solve the problem of poverty but I am pretty sure that Obama does not either.
Since I'm not entirely educated on most of these subjects, I would truly love to hear what Ryan's opinions are. My opinion is this: Pro Life all day long!
C: Why does it matter if James Dobson is a trained theologian or political scientist?
R: Because he is one of the most influencial evangelical leaders in the country.
C: Do you have to be trained in order to study the Bible?
R: No. Never said that.
C: Were the disciples 'trained theologians'? If I remember correctly many if not most were not trained in 'theology'. Our Christian faith was founded on the work that the disciples did teaching and preaching about Jesus.
R: Right. Most of them were not 'highly educated professionals'... and yet our 'Theology' today is based on their writings and teachings. They were the first people who walked with Jesus (a.k.a. God - 'Theos') in his public ministry, listening to him teach and sharing life with him.
I think we agree on this. However, I wouldn't exactly use this as an argument for Dr. Dobson's (as respected as he is) qualification to guide the evangelical voters in politics.
C: Do you have to be trained to put forth your opinions into the public forum?
R: No. But I do think that any highly respected, influencial counselor/teacher/author should have a sense of accountability to the masses that listen....not to use his enormous influence in areas for which he is not qualified.
On a side note: I do think there are too many self-proclaimed Theologians. That is why we have so many Joel Osteens running around with a year college training teaching the Gospel in a distorted manner. This is not to say that there aren't some who are truly gifted that aren't trained - it is just a rarity.
C: If people hold to the same beliefs as Dobson does that mean they are mindlessly following him? I do not listen to Dr. Dobson, but I think it is entirely unfair for you to paint him in a picture as a pied piper for the evangelical right. There was no mention of Dobson in the anonymous comment yet you have made him out to be some right wing wacko that has no idea what he is talking about and has duped millions of people into believing crazy theology. Do you have any quotes or instances of what Dobson has said that the evangelical right has 'mindlessly' followed as a result of what he said? And how do you measure that what he said the evangelical right followed mindlessly?
R: A couple of sites that point to Dobson's influence as a political leader for the evangelical right - particularly in the last election:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/10/09/dobson_spiritual_empire_wields_political_clout/
http://mustv.com/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4287106 (listen to part two)
C: I am not saying that everything Dobson says is correct and I would agree with but your paragraph depicts him in a negative light that is off base.
R: Maybe negative; but off base? I think he has a lot to say about raising children and child psychology - much of it is good. I just don't like his special political alert programs that are needed to inform the Christian masses in what they should be thinking politically. (Keep in mind that Dobson has said publicly in the past that he won't even vote for McCain.)
C: My thoughts on the political portion.
Not even sure where to start. This post makes it sound like you think McCain only has things to say that will get him elected and Obama is speaking from the heart and means everything he says and is going to change the world. NEWSFLASH - In politics in America today every politician campaigning for the White House will say what he needs to in order to get elected. They are trying to relate to as many people as possible. Yes, some of what they say will be true to what they believe and what they hope to accomplish, but every platform with every angle has been meticulously planned behind the scenes with very specific answers ready when needed. To think otherwise is naive.
R: Yes, I believe that if you are running for President it is almost impossible to not 'sell-out' in one way or another. I am not naive enough to have missed this truth. Frankly, I like what I've seen of Obama and I like that he hasn't waivered on his positions. Remember, I ended the post with the words "I hope."
C: This section:
'Now, before you jump to conclusions - think about that statement. He believes that this is a choice to be made in conjunction with families and clergy. Now, where would you as a family member advise your sister on this issue? LIFE. Where would clergy stand on this? I presume LIFE.'
I did think about that statement before I jumped. There are families out there that will NOT choose life. There are clergy out there that will NOT choose life.
R: Sadly, yes. But again - I am talking about ways to reduce the felt-need for abortion for some. (See http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2006/05/04/index.html) We as followers of Christ should personally do all we can to promote a message of life in our circles of influence. Note: Abortions overall have been dropping since Roe v. Wade, but among those below the poverty line they have been rising. So - what problem should we be dealing with?
C: This along with some other issues I look at party platforms. The republican party is pro-life. The democratic party is pro-choice. Any person who makes it to the White House will in large part follow the party on major issues. Has McCain been on the far right with the pro-life movement? No, but is he going to follow the republican party and be better for the movement than any democratic candidate? Yes.
R: Right, because McCain has been a champion of Republican policy? Even among those in his own party he is often criticized as a sell-out. An example of why not to simply follow 'party platforms'?
C: 'policies that help pull people out of the grasp of poverty?'
There are not policies in place that pull people out of poverty. The democratic party are the ones that are paying lip service to this issue. They say alot about helping but the policies and programs pushed by the democrats have not worked and do much to keep the minorities stuck in those situations where they are so they keep voting for the democrats. Does Obama have some special new welfare plan that will help rid the problem of poverty? If so, I have not heard about it.
R: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/poverty/
C: 'Policies that benefit the richest in our country and the richest in the world -or- policies that help pull people out of the grasp of poverty?'
This statement seems to make the assumption that policies that benefit the rich are completely antithetical to helping with the problem of poverty. The problem of poverty is only going to be solved when the sin of selfishness is solved. Taxing/punishing the rich will not help the poverty problem. Maybe if the Christians in our country had done a better job of being 'Christian' than being religious the last 50 100 years this would not be a problem. But alas we must lay in the bed we have made. I do not know how to solve the problem of poverty but I am pretty sure that Obama does not either.
R: You are right, the sin of selfishness cannot be solved in the here and now. People are inherently evil and selfish and Christians should spend more time being Christ to a world that desperately needs Him... So as much as that may baffle some, this truth leads me to vote for Obama.
But enough about all this stuff... we don't see each other enough to bicker about politics via blogger. Although, I admit that I love a good political discussion. So, thanks for commenting with a lot of thought and leaving your name. Maybe we can talk in person over one of the Red Wings games?
Besides, you aren't 'Anonymous all day long' are you?
I could go back and try to clarify some of what I said but that would lead to another lengthy comment then another lengthy comment back from you. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.
Praise God we live in a country where we can agree to disagree...
Post a Comment