I care, but I also don't care. Yes, it would be a historic milestone - but that is in no way enough to make me consider her a good candidate. (I'm watching CNN's re-airing of the Democratic debate at UNLV.) I'm feeling so frustrated because, at least in the frontrunners, I don't find at all the kind of demonstrated leadership and integrity, the kind that stands out and makes you notice, that I want to see in my President. I don't see that Clinton or Obama are really going to make America's stated values be the real things that characterize our decisions as a country and our reputation around the world. I feel like they're both popular, good in front cameras, good at making speeches, but that they're also business as usual, the same kind of politicians we already have who promise change and deliver nothing. If the two of them are such leaders, how have they been leading all the change that we were promised by Democrats in the 2006 midterm elections? Where have they been out in front, willing to take a political risk for things they believe we need to do in order to be a more just, sustainable, educated, equitable country?
And then I see folks like Richardson or Kucinich, and while I don't agree with everything they say, I see them doing a lot less pulling punches and crafting messages for ultimate palatability, and more saying what they really believe, even if it's risky and challenging to the American people. That's what I want from my President, and it matters a lot more to me than their gender or skin color. But then I get so discouraged because I feel like those people will never be given serious consideration because they don't have the image machine and the deep-pocket supporters, and I get so mad because I don't know how to change the way the world is weighted, or make change within a system like that.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Mike Huckabee says what he believes, and what he believes seems to fall in line with Biblical values.
What do you think the purpose of government is? Or what do you think the purpose of government should be?
Also, what is the purpose of the church?
Also, on what do you base your ideas/convictions concerning the above questions?
I'm not as familiar with Mike Huckabee; he may well be one of those politicians I'm looking for, but even so, he's not really one of the front runners, which was more my point. I think politicians of integrity exist ... I just feel like they have a hard time winning elections.
The purpose of government - rather a large question, but I suppose it's there to make and uphold the rules that keep us together as a healthy, functioning corporate entity, and to do things that are better done when we leverage our collective resources rather than our individual ones. Two easy examples of these functions are making and enforcing laws that keep us from harming each other's person and property, or helping to distribute resources across the vast distances of our national territory, be they money or food or other goods.
Government is clearly reflective and representative of the people being governed and the people in power; but one hopes that our governing leaders always seek to point us toward the highest and best expressions of ourselves.
As for the purpose of the church ... that's a topic for another post. Such a list of questions; I feel like I'm being interviewed! :-)
I hope that my direct questions are not perceived as unfriendly. ;) I found your blog through HarvestBoston. I believe as God's people that we need to love God with all our mind (and heart and soul and strength). As we do so more and more, we will be "transformed by the renewing of our minds" (Romans 12:2). So... let me be upfront. Since we live in two different states, and since I only "know" you online, when I talk to you online, I'm mostly going to be discussing ideas in the arena of ideas. If during that time, we develop a sort of friendship, then great. But for me, blogging is more of an intellectual hobby - not a ministry - and not a social life. When I focus on my friendships, I think it is important to do so in flesh and blood - not online.
So... just so that you have a clear understanding of where I'm coming from. I'm sure if I wear out my welcome, you'll let me know.
You say, "The purpose of government - rather a large question, but I suppose it's there to make and uphold the rules that keep us together as a healthy, functioning corporate entity, and to do things that are better done when we leverage our collective resources rather than our individual ones."
I partially agree with you, but I mostly disagree with you here. When you talk about government this way, you seem to be inviting government to take on a sort of parental role over the governed. Historically, in the vast majority of cases, any time this has happened, it led to very bad things.
You use the word "healthy." Well, who determines what is or is not "healthy"? The idea that Bill and Hillary would be the one to determine what is or is not healthy for me makes my skin crawl.
You mention that the government's purpose is to "keep us together." What exactly do you mean by this? As believers in Christ, why would we want to be bound together with those who have rejected God? Clearly, we are called to holiness - that is, we are to be set apart for the purposes of God. Our identity and citizenship is in Christ. And so, we should be very wary of patriotism. Not that patriotism is a bad thing necessarily. God tells us in his word to honor and respect and obey the governing authorities, but from the whole counsel of Scripture, we are to respectfully disobey authorities when those authorities would insist on us doing anything that goes against God OR when those authorities insist on us not doing that which God has called us to do.
You speak of "our collective resources." This concerns me. Do you believe that you "own" my property or that you have any claim whatsoever on any of my property?
I challenge you to reconsider what the purpose of government should be. Try this on for size.
The purpose of government is to make and pass laws that are just (which is objective and absolute - not subjective), to enforce those just laws, and to protect the citizens from all foreign and domestic threats. As much as possible rights should be defined negatively - not positively. That is, rights should imply negative obligations, not positive obligations. In other words, my right to life puts a negative obligation on all other people not to murder me. My right to own property puts a negative obligation on all others not to steal my stuff. To make laws that say that people have the right - the just claim - to demand sacrifices of others is to deny people their rights. For instance, to make laws that say that we have the "right" to "affordable housing" is to violate other peoples' rights. How exactly do we enforce those kind of laws? Those laws put positive obligations on other people to make sacrifices in order to make sure that people get affordable housing. But the same people who are making sacrifices so that their neighbor gets afforable housing also have the right to affordable housing, so they have the right to make demands of their neighbors to make sacrifices so that they themselves can have afforable housing.
This is the kind of thing that becomes a beaurocratic mess, and it leads to everyone becoming enslaved to the state.
The government should focus on making just laws and enforcing those laws. We the people will reap what we sow - without government oppression please.
Of course, reaping what we sow can be scary when we consider how much (or how little) we the people sow. That's why we also need to discuss the purpose of the church.
Our current government has way overstepped her bounds.
There are some great essays about a plethora of topics at www.credenda.org.
This one is a good one about government:
http://www.credenda.org/issues/7-5magistralis.php
By the way... Mike Huckabee can win. It all depends on the evangelical community.
Thanks for sharing your perspective.
bb,
ya know....
My opinions and perspectives do not really matter. That is, my opinions and perspectives will not alter or change the truth. Same with you. Same with everyone.
One of the big reasons why there is so much difference of opinion and disagreement among those who profess to be Christ-followers is that sinful people have this bad habit of imagining a god in our own image and then thinking that we have a right view of God. When a person has wrong ideas about God and then uses the name of God, more likely than not, that person is taking the name of the Lord in vain.
On any given point of any given dispute, two disagreeing parties can never both be right. Note: I am saying that this is the case on any given point. A party that is wrong might be right about a separate point, but on any given point, two antithetical assertions/beliefs/doctrines/creeds can not both be right. So, whenever there is a dispute, on any given point, either one party is right, and the other is wrong, or vice-versa, or they are both wrong. But they both can't be right.
It is left for us then to discern between right and wrong, truth and lies, good and evil, sound doctrine and heresy. And then, as God gives us the spirit of wisdom and revelation, and as we stay focused on the cross of Christ, we need to make sure that we stay on God's side in all circumstances and on all issues.
This calls for wisdom, courage, and authentic humility. God help us.
Have Merry Christmas!
How odd; I can't fathom at at all the purpose of your posting, except to try and pick an intellectual fight with me. You probably won't find what you're looking for here, so it may be best to move on.
The purpose of my posting is to declare the gospel and to challenge you to defend your positions with Scripture and logic. All Christians should be ready and willing to do so, because all Christians should be basing everything in their lives on Scripture and logic. I'm not serving myself (as much as I admittedly enjoy a good debate), but I am serving you by instructing you in the way of righteousness. 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
You have a responsibility to God to be wise and responsible in the worldview to which you hold and in the manner in which you vote.
Cheers!
Post a Comment