20081119.ChurchLies

Ah, it's been a while. The ill will do that to you. So in the week and a bit that I've been sick, I really didn't want to continue in the political vein when I got back, but there was one last piece leftover from the recent elections. I'll try to make it less political and more... er, relevant.

So in the wake of California's election, Proposition 8 (the constitutional ban on gay marriage) passed by a resoundingly slim margin. Like 52% or something. The actions of the church in very vocally supporting Proposition 8 has drummed up all kinds of stuff, most notably numerous protests from a previously largely dormant segment of society. In this post, I will try not to say, "I told you so."

One of my issues with Proposition 8 and the Evangelical charge in its honour was that a victory would do very little save for stick it to people we don't prefer. And while the the proposition itself came off as rather petty, the propaganda used to support the prop seemed pretty, well, unconscionable for a group that purports to uphold Truth and Love above all. More on this in a bit.

In any case, while Evangelical Christians may have won a small battle in their war for a culture that has nothing to do with them, I think they've sealed their fate here. It's my guess that more than just make the church look like a bunch of evil people (which is what we look like to much of the world), the rabid support of Prop 8 and its narrow success at banning gay marriage will have mobilized the gay-friendly community to such an extent that it's only a skinny matter of time before gay marriage is legalized nationally and some of the liberties whose removal the religious right has long feared begin being assaulted.

See, here's the thing. The Christians' campaign against homosexual marriage was not landed with anything that we might actually report as quote-unquote honesty. Lies, exaggerations, and untruths. That is the legacy of the Yes on 8 campaign. At one of the protests last week in front of Saddleback Church (since Rick Warren was a Yes on 8 supporter), picketers held signs aloft that said among other things: YOU LIED. On the one hand, the church has shown that it is as deft as any at playing the game of Politics-as-Usual; on the other hand, well... there's really only one hand isn't there?

In case you're not ready to hop on board with the idea that the church played in the mud like the rest of the world, here's an example from an official Yes on 8 mailer we received days prior the election. Imagine. Bold, fearful text. Warnings that if 8 failed to pass, teachers would be required to teach even kindergartners that having two dad's was a perfectly acceptable. And to demonstrate what the future would hold, they pointed to current state law:

Instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships.

If marriage were open to same sex unions, they argued, teachers would have to teach that it would be perfectly fine if little Susie grew up and found she had a taste for the fairer sex. The thing is, even after the passing of 8, this is still the case. Note the Committed Relationships bit there. Teachers have to teach respect for any kind of committed relationship. Gay. Straight. Liquid. So long as there's commitment, it's considered on the up-and-up to the state.

For the Yes on 8 campaign to use scare tactics as they did is a diminishment to the reputation of the church and a defamation of the name of Christ by their association to him. Really, some honesty would have been refreshing. Maybe,

Support Yes on 8 because homosexuality is sin.

And leave it at that. Then people know what you're all about. Of course the campaign's fear was that such honesty wouldn't garner votes, so they dipped their toe then and waded flailingly into the mire of the political. They dirtied themselves for a vote. Politics is a known whore and in its embrace of the Yes on 8 campaign, the church at large bedded said harlot. Let's just hope the church stops contracting political VDs.

Do your part, readers, don't get suckered by the lies and spiritual treasons of those who speak loudly.

20081106.ObamaTax

Ahh. Perhaps the best thing to come out of this election are the reactions. Some positive. Some negative. Of course the negative ones are far more amusing. And really, I hadn't realized it but days like election day and the morning following are what Facebook is made for.

For some reason, people show almost no restraint when it comes to posting things on the internet. If they're feeling it, Facebook will know it. And, as election season is often a season of passion (and this one more particularly than others!), Facebook was absolutely alive with status update mania. While watching and observing from the storied heights of my wry tower, I culled out some favourites.

Bon apetit!

________ thinks that if obama wins...say good bye to america.

Please dont make a poor mistake america! vote mcCain.

Ok thats over...bring on the snow...or will that be illegal too?

Elections are OVER! And thinks McCain should've had more of a chance of winning =(.

ugghh. Stupid politics and democrats! I couldn't really find any flaws with Obama winning, but then, oh yes, he's a democrat =(. blehh

________ will be praying for our new president...and those who say they follow Christ yet have shown nothing but hate this evening

________ saw the news and feels she wasted time voting ... now we have an EVIL president ... I guess you get what you deserve

________ is sad that so many Christians voted for the economy AND abortion

What's the difference between Simba and Obama? Simba is an African Lion...and Obama is a Lion(Lyin)African. Ha! =P

Wow....I 've heard a lot of the youth went for Obama...I'm contemplating how things have changed. I remember vivdly livng under the Carter adminstration... My Mom paid 18 percent for her home mortagage, if your license plate ended in an odd nummber you could get gas that day (in a 3 hour line). ________ and I are by no means wealthy, but we are going ... Read Moreto be taxed to the point where we will probably have to move out of So Cal. Also, where did this idea come from that the government should be so involved in our lives? His ideas of a civilian force funded to the same point of the US military...I just don't get it (welcome to Germany). His view on infanticide is beyond the pale. I know he's cool, but I am so baffled....

Healthcare, Taxes, Education.. really now. Sometimes I wonder if others really understand the consequences. I have a feeling that people voted based solely on a war not realizing the effects on other aspects of their everyday lives. And about taxes... ouch! It's 9am and I need a cocktail.

I am literally sick to my stomach about the outcome of this election. I know God's word is true. God is true. It still does not change the fact that I am grieving over the impending future of America, especially for my children's sake. There is no point in listing all the disturbing things concerning our new president and even our upcoming government. Psalm 46 is my hope right now. I need to cling to God and His mercy and His sovereignty.

________ wonders how he can grab his ankles while still clinging to his guns and religion!

The last one was my favourite (!!glee!!) and put up by a plainly disappointed church elder. Good times.

So far as the tax thing goes, am I missing something huge? Was there a big change in Obama's plan? The Washington Post did a story in June comparing McCain's plans for taxes vs. Obama's and under Obama's plan, taxes don't even go up until someone passes $603,000.

Now maybe all the people complaining make significantly more than I do or maybe they're just getting their info from elsewhere. Or maybe they're just plain crazy.

Which may be the case.

20081103.Obama08

Now this year probably won't experience volatile comment fisticuffs like last election when I apocryphally claimed to vote for the youth pastor at my church rather than for Bush or Kerry (neither of whom I cared for, though in retrospect, perhaps Kerry was the way to go). My voting record goes something like this: Perot ('92), Browne ('96), Browne ('00), and youth pastor/no one ('04). The slash-no-one is how 2004 really played out as I was boxing up to move and lost my absentee ballot. I wasn't particularly overwrought because I didn't like Kerry and couldn't in good conscience vote for Bush (especially after the debacle of his former term). I was however surprised that the Democrats couldn't put together a candidate to take on the guy who pretty much did more harm to America and international relations than any president in the last hundred years.

*shrug* It's not like my vote mattered anyway.

So then, we come to this year and the explanation for why I, a registered Republican who has never voted for a Republican candidate (save for in the primaries) consistently opting for Libertarian candidates, am voting for Mr. Obama. The choice wasn't really as difficult as one might think. And it helps that my vote means nothing.

First of all, we may note a couple items mentioned in posts precursory to this.

Namely, abortion is not a reasonable issue in this election. Neither candidate cares for abortion. Neither candidate is willing to oppose Roe v. Wade. Obama is more likely to pass both laws making abortions easy to obtain and laws making the quote-unquote necessity of abortion less likely. McCain is more likely to pass laws making abortion slightly more difficult to obtain but will do little to make abortions seem less necessary to those who might make the effort to abort. The upshot is that with either candidate abortion rates will in all likelihood continue their fifteen-year downward spiral.

And Obama's response to net neutrality and government transparency are forward-thinking and good for America. McCain's opposition to such means more hidden information, more hidden agendas, and a ground ripe for the sowing of further civil and human rights violations.

Now to stuff we didn't talk about. McCain is about as socialist as Obama. Which means little since neither of them are socialists. In fact, socialists across the nation scoff at accusations of Obama's so-called socialist tenancies. I scoff when I remember that Republicans criticizing Obama's quote-unquote socialist agenda have for eight years supported a president who just subsidized failing banks to the tune of 700 gazillion dollars. Right or wrong of him, people in glass houses ought not throw stones.

Add to this the fact that McCain is much more likely than Obama to initiate another gratuitous war in the Middle East in which we are required to liberate a people from tyranny (this means, chiefly, forcing democracy on the ones who survive our liberating efforts). One Vietnam was enough. Two is Reason #1 why the world hates us. A third? Can we really afford that at this point?

Throw in McCain's running mate and I can't see how I could possibly vote in any conscience on the upside of neutral for a McCain ticket. I cannot even imagine a Palin presidency. But I can remember W's and then just think "Worse than W's." I think that'd probably be a fair estimation. With neither McCain or Obama having great odds at surviving their terms, I'd have to say that between Palin and Biden, I'd choose Biden. Heck between Palin and Bush II, I'd choose four more years of Bush's blight, famine, and war (and him blaming it on God as has been his wont).

Add to this the fact that Obama inspires both the future of America (the young) and encourages the watching world and I think we've got a candidate who might be able to help us out of the horrible mess we've created for ourselves. If we elect another president cut from Bush's cloth, we're basically giving the finger to the citizens of the world and saying that another four years of American arrogance and brutality are just what the doctor ordered.

So yeah: Obama '08. No excitement really, just the way it is.

20081031.NetNeutrality

Yesterday I hinted that in this election, Abortion should be a non-issue. Well, not so much hinted, but revealed. And now I shall reveal what I believe to be the most important single issue facing Americans this election. It's also the issue that will be the most sadly overlooked this election.

Unlike many issues that people think are important, Network Neutrality is a big one that will actually quite possibly be decided within this next presidential term. Abortion, as important as it is, won't likely be affected at all in this coming term. Gay marriage won't be at all affected by the president's opinion on things. Taxes, education, and special needs all pale in comparison to the importance of Net Neutrality. Heck, though Obama's no hawk, even an end to our stupid involvement in Iraq isn't anywhere on the visible horizon. So anyway, what is Net Neutrality and why is it so important?

Okay, so you know how right now when you have internet, you can go wherever you like on the internet and read whatever you like? This is (in a very simplistic way) due to Net Neutrality. This is what makes the internet the amazing thing that it is. You or I or anyone can say whatever we feel like and anyone in America has the ability to read it.

What many major telecommunications corporation wish to do is limit the internet depending on how much subscribers pay. One of the common models runs something like this:

Subscribers who pay a minimal amount (say, $25 per month) will get access to some basic websites Gmail, Wikipedia, Amazon. Subscribers who pay a little more (say, $50 per month) will get access to a little more, like Gmail, Wikipedia, Amazon, plus maybe Facebook, Myspace, Flikr, Youtube, and a news source (like the LA Times). Only subscribers who pay top dollar (say, $100 per month) will get unlimited access to the internet.

Part of why the internet is so great is because of its information-spreading abilities. In the last ten years especially, the internet has been invaluable in uncovering abuses of power and discrediting people who would use the power of lies to harm the less powerful. The internet is the average Joe's best means of holding power in the wider world. And that all goes away if Net Neutrality goes away.

The people who host blogs and write for their own personal websites (where all this protective information comes from) do so because of the chance that people from the internet will visit. A site that is of only mediocre popularity still gets at least 200 visitors a day. But that's because the people visiting have the freedom to do so. If, say, ninety-five percent of those on the internet can't actually see your site, you won't have a whole lot of reason to continue paying monthly and yearly fees to produce a website that no one reads. Within months of Net Neutrality going away, the internet (as a source of information) dies.

And the people with power who are acting in evil or irresponsible ways continue getting away with their wrongdoing. I believe that the removal of Net Neutrality would cause great harm to the weak in the world. As a Christian, I believe its important for us to stand up for the weak, for the victims.

NOTE: Net Neutrality is a far more complex issue than I've represented here. Even the primers are complicated. So, please forgive the simplification. Save the Internet has a pretty decent FAQ on What Is Net Neutrality.

20081030.ProLifeChoice

So Pro-Lifers. What's the deal huh? You now have an election in which abortion isn't the main issue. What are you gonna do? You're suddenly free to vote for whomever you like. Are you going to branch out or just continue with tradition?

Okay, so let's back up. Why is this election not really about abortion like every election before it? How did the number one issue affecting Christian voters get back-burnered? Just a little thing really. It's called John McCain's beliefs.

Certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade.

Here's the thing. Every time in the past when I've pointed out that the long string of pro-life presidents has done nothing to curtail abortion, the reply has been: Well a pro-life president can put a pro-life justice on the supreme court and if we get enough judges, they'll overturn Roveywaid.

Now nevermind for a minute that it's pretty doubtful that a 5-of-9 pro-life Supreme Court would even take the case, in our present election the placement of a pro-life justice isn't a likely scenario. Why? Because McCain doesn't think that Roe v. Wade should be turned around. In fact, philosophically, he's not far off from Obama. Neither of them want to overturn 1973 and both of them dream of a day when it doesn't even matter that abortion is an option because society just won't feel any need to use that option.

So then. If abortion won't be affected by a vote either way, we have the first election in ages in which single-issue (pro-life) voters may actually have to think and consider what they're voting for. And tomorrow, I'll talk about what I think the most important issue of this election is. The savvy of you may actually be able to guess this one.

20081029.prop8ganda

The other day I was driving with a couple people. Something like the following dialogue occurred.

PASSENGER #1:
Oh, you remember my pastor, right?

DRIVER:
Of course.

PASSENGER #1:
Well, Sunday my husband and I were having lunch with him and we were talking about the state of the world and the politics.

DRIVER:
Oh man...

PASSENGER #1:
I know, huh. Anyway, were talking about this Proposition 8 and he was saying how if it fails, then he will have to perform gay weddings and how—

PASSENGER #2:
Oh, actually that's not true.

PASSENGER #1:
Yes it is.

PASSENGER #2:
No, it's really not. If Prop 8 fails, things will be exactly as they are right now. Does your pastor have to perform gay marriages right now?

PASSENGER #1:
No.

PASSENGER #2:
Then he won't have to perform them if Prop 8 fails.

PASSENGER #1:
Yes he will. It's all a part of the agenda.

DRIVER:
Yeah.

PASSENGER #2:
No, see that's all just propaganda. The stuff about pastors being forced to marry gay people or kindergartners being taught about homosexuality and how good it is. People like propaganda because we like being afraid and getting riled up over things, but the fact is that if Prop 8 fails, nothing is going to be different than it is right this very minute.

PASSENGER #1:
You're just being naive.

PASSENGER #2:
No, really. This is the way propositions work. If a proposition fails, the law remains unchanged. Because the point of a proposition is to change the law.

PASSENGER #1:
So you think that homosexuals should get married?

PASSENGER #2:
...

I swear to you, living in this world is like working with children sometimes. We went back and forth for who knows how long and every single time I offered an argument, she responded with either "You're just being naive" or by wondering why I think homosexuality is fine. Oh, and there were the couple of times that she pulled the age card on me ("In my fifty-five years, I've seen...").

I'm constantly astounded at how irrational people become when politics enter the conversation. And not just irrational, but emotionally invested and even belligerent. It's as if your disagreement as an individual with their understanding of policy is the cause of all the world's ills. I wish adulthood was a mark of maturity. But it just isn't. *sigh* More's the loss.

So quick rundown of the things that went wrong in Passenger #1's responses to me:

1) Constant response to me that I was being naive. That may be, but Passenger #1 never made any attempt to demonstrate this beyond simply stating the fact. This is not an example of persuasive argumentation.

2) Changing the subject. What I actually think of Prop 8 was not at issue. What I think of homosexuality was not at issue. Whether homosexuals would like to shut down churches is not at issue. What was at issue was this: whether the propaganda associated with Prop 8 bears any resemblance to reality.

3) Referring to her age as an argument. This is the same old patronizing "you'll understand when you're older," "you'll understand when you're married," "you'll understand when you have kids" argument. Which is, of course, not an argument. If you don't think I understand, then explain it to me. I'm smarter than you, I guarantee that I'll understand the words coming out of your mouth.

4) Making reference to The Slippery Slope. I hear this one All the Time. In response to my charge that if Proposition 8 fails, the law will not change, I was handed the old argument: "Well, you don't understand. It's a slippery slope. It's just one step. In ten years, homosexuals will have special rights and churches will be forced to hire homosexual pastors." I think people are forgetting that the slippery slope is a logical fallacy. In other words, not a tactic used in honest debate.

5) Oh yeah, and there was much raising of voice on her part. As if volume equals a better argument.

Sigh. What a world.

Anyway, if anyone is interested in a rundown of the propagandist sentiment and examination of those individual claims, check out this helpful article on the matter: A Commentary on the Document "Six Consequences...if Proposition 8 Fails.

20081020.Rhetoric

People (as a people) are particularly adept at expressing opinions in dogmatic terms, eschewing rational discussion in favour of, well, being loud. And, as it happens usually, proud. Now there are really far too many instances of this for me to pick on and neither I nor you have that kind of time, so in the interest of being a kind and benevolent future dictator, I'm only going to mention two here. Both in the political realm.

1) The Sanctity of Marriage
Apparently there is some piece of prospective legislation out there going by the ultra-cute and tidy nickname Prop 8. This is California's bid to change the state constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. You know what? Fine. Whatever. That's not what I'm talking about here. Whether one thinks the proposition is stupid or not, the full-blown and unalterably stupid... uh, stupidness(?) comes into play in the rhetoric people are using in support of the prop.

The idea that Christians are demanding YES on Prop 8(!!!) because they are all about the sanctity of marriage is laughable.

If these Christians really cared about the sanctity of marriage and its reflection of the covenant relationship between God and man, then they would stop getting divorced. Of conservative non-denominational Christians, thirty-four percent have been divorced. Thirty-four percent have given up their ability to be considered anything remotely like a good example of the sanctity of marriage. If the sanctity of marriage was such a grave concern, divorces would be a steep bit more rare.

And let's just say that a believer in the sanctity of marriage really felt the need for this stuff to be legislated? (And I'm not for one minute presuming here that it should be.) What would be a good start to legislating the sanctity of marriage. Why the outlaw of divorce of course. After all, what impinges more on the sanctity of the institution? People deciding that vows made before God mean little enough that they can be cast aside over something as piddling as irreconcilable differences? People deciding that despite the fact that marriage is meant to be a sign of the loving relationship between God and his people, that they would feel better pissing all over that covenant? Or people entering into a covenant with one another that has nothing to do with the sign that God created?

Those of you who still think that same-sex civil unions are the bigger diminishment to the sanctity of marriage can go out and wait in the shed. Uncle Steve will be along shortly so your lessons can begin.

2) Palin as Special-Needs Hero
Sarah Palin, who will hopefully never be our president, has been touted as the saviour of quote-unquote special needs children. Because she has a baby with Down syndrome. A baby who she will rarely see and will be too busy to take care of. I'm not really sure if I need to go on here.

But I will. I gotta tell you, if I were five and my mom was always at work or out of town on business, I would absolutely not be a happy child. I needed the care and nurturing given me by my mother during my youth. I wouldn't be half as well-adjusted as I am today (and blog's evidence to the contrary, i am so well-adjusted it should scare you). Now if I would have had a tough time with a mom exiting Stage Right every other day, I cannot imagine how tough it will be on... [don't make fun of his name, don't make fun of his name, don't make fun of his name] little, uhm, Trig.

Fact is, if Palin had a whole heckuvalot of concern for these children with special needs, she just might think of taking care of the one in her own backyard. Where I presume she keeps him.

20080919

"Was Jesus in fact a community organizer?" So asks Debi from the Scriptorium. On the face of it, the question means little. I mean, really, who cares what kind of label we give him?

But then there's this whole flash-in-a-pan political hubbub to give the question the colour we need.

Apparently, ill-suited-vice-presidential-hopeful Sarah Palin ruffled feathers by poking fun at Obama's past work as a quote-unquote community leader, saying that her work as a small-town mayor was very similar to that of a community leader, but add in responsibility. The world soon erupted in a towering inferno of bruised feelings and indignation as the nation's actual, living community leaders pretended to be deeply offended and hurt and took things personally. It's a weird world we live in.

To sweeten the deal, those pretending to be offended started saying things like, "Ooh, Palin hates community leaders! That means she hates people like Martin Luther King Jr! And Mother Teresa! She totally hates that old lady! Who's dead. Why would she hate a dead lady? Who's old! And who else... who else? Oh yeah, Palin must think Jesus is a loser too and that her job as small-town mayor was tougher than being Jesus!" That's my synopsis of what has gone on through the internets the last few days.

And this is why, I'm presuming, Debi has asked the question. So then, let's find out, shall we, whether the King of the Universe was also a community leader.

The short answer is no and yes. But short answers are boring.

So then, how is Jesus not a community leader. Well, for one, he did absolutely no social organizing of the greater metropolitan area of Judea. None. Yes, he would help out the poor and heal the sick, but he didn't organize any sort of community works program. He wasn't really seen in any capacity by the culture to be a community leader. You think I'm kidding, but I'm not. Okay, none of you think I'm kidding. But I'm still not.

What Jesus could be considered by the society around him was a religious teacher. Perhaps even a religious leader. He had his followers, but they weren't concerned with provide social solutions to everyday problems. Really what they were all about was just hearing what Jesus would say next. That's why they were always following him around and asking him questions and wondering what he'd say next. They were pretty straightforward guys, his followers.

So yeah, Jesus was not a community leader in any conventional sense of the term.

He was, however, such a leader according to a very unconventional use. Jesus, would be so intimately involved with his spiritual nation, his heavenly community, that we almost can't help but see him as leader of that community. His concern for social justice within his community. His desire for the welfare of those in his community. His offer of assistance and arbitration on behalf of his community. In fact, so involved is Jesus in this community that we don't even usually stop at calling him a community leader. Instead, we forge on whole-hearted and apply terminology like ruler or lord. Because yeah, that's what we call that level of quote-unquote community leader. We also call it a national leader.

So yeah, while Palin may be entirely unfit to lead our nation, so are her critics in this instance. Which is fine. We can't all be president after all.

Well, in our hearts we can. I know I am.

20080204

We're waiting to get our voter info still. It should have arrived by now. I'll be sad if I don't get to vote in this primary, but don't worry: I'll live. But it's always fun to have the chance to put in a vote against evil. The primary system has always struck me as hopelessly inadequate. People don't vote for the best candidate, they vote for who is most likely to defeat the worst leading candidate. So you have people voting for Huckabee (a hopelessly inadequate candidate) just because they would suffer any indignity not to have McCain as president.

My guess is that I'll be voting Democrat in the Fall. My other guess is that I'll have no one to vote for at all. We live in a lunatic world.

20071210

Why is Mike Huckabee scary? The answer's pretty simple actually. He hopes to carry his religious ideology into his rule over the land.

The first red flag was when I heard that he was a pastor at one time. Unless he really just wasn't cut out for the pastorate, it's rather disconcerting to hear that someone whose chief occupation was devotion to the heavenly kingdom sat down and thought one day: "Hm, you know? It would be a much better value for my time to ditch the whole kingdom of heaven enterprise and work for the kingdom of the here and the now."

Of course, this alone isn't cause for real concern. People turn their eyes from ministry all the time and do a great job in whichever arena they choose to labour, so maybe Huckabee could do a great job as president, right? Wrong. Because Huckabee carries with him something that would render any future presidency a damage to the world around him. Quite frankly, it is this: he is devoted to a Judeo-Christian moral ethic. And that is the death-nell to the possibility of a good presidency.

I mean sure he supports things like the prenatal rights of infants. Sure he supports things like justice (sort of). Sure he supports the rights of immigrants, illegal or otherwise. But he also supports things like bringing the ten commandments into courthouses. He also supports Israel for religious reasons and says "the Jews have a God-given right to reclaim land given to their ancestors and taken away from them." He supported the Covenant Marriage Act. The key propellant to his campaign is faith.

And that right there is scary.

Do I want a president who is making decisions based on an errant view of my faith in office? Or more accurately, do I want another one. The more recent Bush couched the terms of so many of his decision in language that speaks of right and wrong and faith and God and justice. Decisions that were abhorrent to me. I suspect that Huckabee would accomplish the same feat. Essentially, he seems like he's supporting Theonomy Lite. He doesn't want to institute the whole Mosaic law, but maybe just enough of it.

Really, the support of the Ten Commandments as a civil instruction are a big sticking point for me. If America wants to maintain the illusion of a country at liberty (something that's becoming more and more passé under the current administration), then we must not harbour notions that the Ten Commandments are at all appropriate for our courthouses. The first 40% of the Decalogue are by themselves inappropriate for any government that purports to support freedom of religion. Now sure, if we were a Christian nation...

But that's not what America is about. Nor what it is meant to be about.

Freedom vs. Theocracy. That's the choice at stake when one considers Huckabee. I choose freedom.

A Voter's Dilemma

From that political questionnaire I mentioned a few posts back, the question was asked whether voting in elections was a required qualifier for the status of "good citizen." It was presumed by several that such was the case. I, however, take a different view.

I think that I am a better citizen for the fact that I don't generally vote. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I have a hard time believing that it is responsible for me to make an active decision on an issue that I haven't spent uncounted hours researching, on whose outcome (either way) the fruit I cannot predict. How is it responsible for me to contribute to decisions that will affect the lives and welfare of others if I don't understand how those people will be affected? How could that possibly make me a good citizen?

A vote for George Bush is an easy example. Many voted for him solely for his ostensible stand against abortion. Yet his presidency has not (to my knowledge) diminished the rate of abortion or affected its legality and has instead ended the lives of hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children. How am I supposed to choose between the two: a possibility (some would say slim) of saving hundreds of thousand or perhaps millions of infant lives vs. the probable saving of hundreds of thousands of lives that we are ending in addition to abortion? Now, not being versed in politics, news, probability, and the realistic casualties attributable to a yea or a nay vote in regard to Bush, how can I be expected to decide? How dare somebody suggest that I have to choose who dies in order to be a "good" citizen?

I am not competent to vote and neither are bulk of the teeming hordes that do.

To this, I've been asked whether I don't trust myself (a spirit-led follower of Christ) to make better decisions than the uninformed pagan on the street—whether I don't think my vote is a better vote than the non-believer's vote.

Actually, no. I don't trust myself to make a better choice than the equally uninformed person on the street. It has been said to me that "the ones who vote, get their votes counted and the people they vote for are elected to office." I completely agree and that is why I cannot in good conscience take part. By voting my ignorance, I am actively deciding on something I should not be deciding. It's for this reason that the PCA (my church denomination) isn't congregational in its government. As a church, we recognize that some people aren't qualified to be the deciding vote on matters of doctrine; doesn't it make sense that there are people who are equally unqualified to be the deciding vote on matters of state?

I am not, in fact, saying that "Christians are being good citizens by letting elections be decided by people who more than likely spend even less time than they did." I am saying that two wrongs do not make right and that for me to vote out of my ignorance just because other people are doing so would fly in the face of that very cliché.

Politics is the only realm of life I can think of in which the unknowledgeable are encouraged to act as experts—and chastised if they don't. Chemistry? Auto repair? Financial management? Theology? Psychology? Medicine? In none of these areas is ignorance given a pass. And the political realm may be even more intricate and complicated than the majority of other fields, and yet we treat it as if its something in which anyone should engage. That just strikes me as irresponsible.

'Til All Success Be Nobleness

Somebody named Craig is preparing to write about American politics and twenty- to thirty-somethings in the PCA. He asked some questions and I offered my perspective. I was gonna post it here on the 4th of July, but I was busy sleeping off a game night from the slightly less illustrious holiday, the 3rd of July. Anyway, here are his questions and my responses.

I wonder what you all think about the American body politic in general, and to what degree do you (and friends you know) involve yourself (mentally, physically, emotionally, spiritually) in its goings-on? My goal is to use this week for research into how twenty- and thirty-something PCA-types (and others) think politically so as to formulate questions to go deeper in understanding and representing your perspectives.

I'll be 34 in three weeks. In my twenties (especially late twenties) I was far more politically interested than I am now. I saw a horrifying number of things wrong with both of the two big parties and began looking into lesser party politics in my idealism. This sometimes alienated me from fellow members in several bodies. Over the years, my confidence that political involvement of the citizenry matters in any meaningful way has waned to the point where I may talk politics with friends, but I find it hard to care about elections (as every result seems to fall under the heading: More of the Same). And it doesn't help that there aren't really any news sources that aren't agenda-driven, from which one can garner "pure" news. If one had no job or responsibilities, I can see how they might be able to sift through everything out there and have an inkling of an idea what is going on, but I don't see how the average player can possible responsibly vote with any sense of honesty within his conscience.

What I'd like to see from the PCA is an active distancing in the leadership (and following their example, the membership) from several ideas implicit to much of conservative American Christendom:

• that American international interests coincide to large degree with the church's extranational interests
• that Republican interests are church interests
• that political involvement is our Christian duty
• that a worldly political/economic system (e.g., capitalism) is somehow Christian or uniquely compatible with Christianity
• that democracy and/or the "spread of democracy" is somehow Christian or uniquely compatible with Christianity
• that America is now or ever was a "Christian nation"
• that the church's involvement in the civil realm is a good (read: righteous) thing.

From my vantage point, when one looks at Christian involvement in the political realm, it looks as if the bride of Christ is in bed with the world. I think it's embarrassing that people can presume the political party I would support simply by looking at the denomination from which I come. I know PCA members-in-good-standing who are Democrats and I know one who considers himself an anarcho-socialist—whatever that is ;P and they fairly consistently feel alienated by the believers around them. Occasionally from the pulpit but more often from offhand comments made by fellow members and officers. Most of us keep our political thoughts a quiet secret for fear of unhappy and inappropriate reactions (I was once accused of being a nihilist simply because I couldn't find it in my heart to vote for Bush).

And really, how healthy is it for some church members to live in fear of other church members for something as trivial as a political perspective?

Do you remember a time when you didn’t feel disenfranchised by or cynical regarding our current democratic political system/process? What was different? What changed in your political understanding and when? Who influenced you the most in the midst of this transition and how?

The last time I didn't feel cynical toward the American politic and disenfranchised by the church in regard to the political realm (for the two unfortunately go hand-in-hand) was as I was leaving high school. Up until that point, I bought into the system and the primacy of the Religious Right. As I entered the workplace, the change began to come on gradually. I was no longer merely feeding off what I was told but absorbing information (in large quantities) on my own.

At first my cynicism was directed toward the Republican Party, as I saw that it very little resembled my Christian beliefs and in many ways was stood antithetical to the Christianity I saw represented in Scripture. I felt betrayed by those in the church from whom I learned that the Republican way coincided with the Christian way, but I still held hope for political good. For a few years anyway. I dabbled in supporting a variety of forms of socially conscious libertarianism (or classical liberalism) and voted in ways appropriate to my newfound political hope.

By the end of my twenties, however, political interests had nearly entirely lost their sheen for me. I recognized that political movements were powerful in what they could accomplish but I did not see myself in any movement that was actually accomplishing anything. I also saw a degree of unhealthy mania in those who looked to political solutions for their hope in this world. Otherwise stable people would become apoplectic at the merest mention of the opposition party's candidate. It seemed like madness to me.

And madness with precious little fruit to show for it. For every good that a movement accomplished, it also ushered in ill. For every tyrant's regime that was crushed tens or hundreds of thousands of civilians lay dead for the sake of another man's democracy. For every trade success, some got richer while others suffered (the poor in one country or the poor in another).

There are too many questions that have no pat or adequate answers. Illegal immigration hurts the livelihoods of the poor in our nation, but the prevention of it hurts those in other nations. How can I be asked to decide an issue that I cannot understand? How is it responsible for me to judge these things if I don't have adequate information with which to render judgment? I work full-time, have a wife with whom I spend time, spend myself on a variety of projects in the evenings, and minister to my local congregation. I am a responsible member of my community - which shows by the fact that I don't have the time to research these political questions (and moreso by the fact that I do not vote for that which I have not adequately researched).

That the church (sometimes officially, most times unofficially) expected to dictate to me the answer to all these abstract questions of political theory angered me. It discouraged me that those who were meant to show me the heavenly kingdom were trying to get me to help them take over the earthly. I see no impetus for that in Scripture (though I see plenty of it in church history).

So to quickly answer the first question: The difference between when I wasn't cynical and now is simply that I was naive then and am less so now.

As for who influenced this change in me? I don't think I can attribute it to anything greater than the fact that I was studying everyday. Both Scripture and secular concerns. As my comprehension of the biblical record grew, I noted the it fit less and less the life and system to which I had accustomed myself. Rather than change what Scripture meant by ignoring it, I allowed Scripture to change me. I am, quite obviously, not wholly a work of Scripture and the work of Christ in me, but I am enough changed that I could not accept my beliefs as they were.

Spectator Sports & Gardening vs. the Awesome Might that Is Power Chompsky

I've been reading more in Chomsky's Understanding Power. It's kinda cool because the way it's laid out, you can just flip around and read on whatever subject you want - since he's basically just taking random questions from a variety of audiences. So the other night, I ran across an interesting subject of which I completely agree with one facet of his discussion and pretty much disagree with the other facet. He's kinda like Leithart in that.

So he's talking about spectator sports. You can read the whole thing on the internet (it's only a page and a half), probably illegally. He's talking about the role of sports in de-politicizing people (which is a pretty dicey concept, if you ask me), but when he's talking about the nature of sports team support, I think he's right on the money.

I remember very well in high school having a sudden kind of Erlebnis, you know, a sudden insight, and asking myself, why do I care if my high school football team wins? I don't know anybody on the team. They don't know me. I wouldn't know what to say to them if I met them. Why do I care? Why do I get all excited if the football team wins and all downcast if it loses? Anti it's true, you do: you're taught from childhood that you've got to worry about the Philadelphia Phillies, where I was. In fact, there's apparently a psychological phenomenon of lack of self-confidence or something which affected boys of approximately my age who grew up in Philadelphia, because every sports team was always in last place, and it's kind of a blow to your ego when that happens, people are always lording it over you.

I spoke of this penchant we have for identifying ourselves with arbitrary communities way back when in discussing team support in the Olympics and it essentially boils down to Yay-This-Side-of-the-River and Boo-Your-Side-of-the-River. In 1963's Cat's Cradle, Kurt Vonnegut describes these imagined communities as granfalloons and says (through story device) "If you wish to study a granfalloon, just remove the skin of a toy balloon."

Essentially, the truth is that there is no rational reason for me to root for one athletic club over another. Real Madrid vs. Barcelona? Who cares. Cards vs. Tigers? Who cares. Flyers vs. Sabers? Who cares. Well the thing is: people care and they care by the masses.

Chomsky's answer for why they care, though, is a bit off, I think.

In our society, we have things that you might use your intelligence on, like politics, but people really can't get involved in them in a very serious way - so what they do is they put their minds into other things, such as sports. You're trained to be obedient; you don't have an interesting job; there's no work around for you that's creative; in the cultural environment you're a passive observer of usually pretty tawdry stuff; political and social life are out of your range, they're in the hands of the rich folk. So what's left? Well, one thing that's left is sports-so you put a lot of the intelligence and the thought and the self-confidence into that. And I suppose that's also one of the basic functions it serves in the society in general it occupies the population, and keeps them from trying to get involved with things that really matter.

Rather than point to what I think is probably a more readily intuitive answer - that people might actually really and honestly like either watching sports or the idea of competitiveness - Chomsky presumes that people are encouraged to devote themselves to something meaningless like sports fanaticism by the power structure in order to prevent them from mucking around in things that matter. I think this is what happens when one takes on a dogma. All things becomes filtered through dogma-coloured lenses. This is why for conspiracy theorists, everything becomes a conspiracy and for persecutionist Christians, every movement by the government or society is seen to be a particularly designed sleight to their way of life.

This is one of the things I'm observing in Understanding Power. Chomsky has a lot of interesting things to say and sometimes has a compelling view of the facts as he presents them (this topic deserves another post), but essentially, you know that no matter what he's talking about, he'll tie it into the US power structure and how it's all designed to keep power out of peoples hands. I'm awaiting pretty anxiously the part where he explains how the invention of Americanized pizza is evidence of power conspiracy.

Anyway, to be fair, I think there may be some people for whom sports fanaticism is an escape from a world out of control. But I think that to generalize that this is the case for the masses is inaccurate and a pretty big leap. It's a judgment of motive that really probably doesn't bear itself out under any real scrutiny. In support of the idea, I had a friend once who worked with troubled teens at a youth shelter sort of place. He would get home everyday from work completely drained. The job, as rewarding as it was, was also completely deflating. He recognized that the baby steps he was able to make with these truly disturbed and, indeed, broken kids were mere drops in the bucket. These were kids he could never fix. So, in order to not grow despondent himself, he would throw himself into gardening in the evenings and weekends. We had a large garden and we could watch it take shape as he took control over it. It was a relief for him to have control over something - for him to see the benefit of his actions.

Gardening, for him was a coping method. More on coping methods in a second.

Still, it would be inaccurate to say that everyone - or even most people - dive into gardening as a coping method. Some people, and there are a lot of them, really just love flora. Gardens can be especially fun for people who love plants but are trapped in areas where plants don't naturally find themselves in abundance. A friend of mine is leaving for Japan this week to view the cherry blossoms (something for which I may be eternally envious). It's not because his life is out of control. It's 'cause they're freakin' beautiful.

Myself. I know far more about comics and movies than the average citizen. I have poured a lot of my waking life into studying in these fields. I am not unlike the sports fanatic in my affection for comics and film. And you know what? Psychologically, there's little more to it than the fact that I enjoy those things. I really enjoy storytelling, but even more I enjoy the way stories can be told through these two media. It's not an act of escapism. I'm pretty grounded and disillusioned. And I'm content in that. I don't feel the need to reillusion myself. I don't specialize in this way because better things are unavailable to me.

As well, most sports fanaticism develops in childhood (the human era when many obsessions are developed). My brother, The Li'l Dane, developed into a sports statistician early in elementary school. And I think we can comfortably say that this didn't happen as a coping mechanism for him to deal with the fact that he held little political influence as a fourth grader.

And now that we've come back to coping mechanisms, a point I made a couple years ago is similar to Chomsky's but has, I think, a little more real world validity. Political interest itself is, for many, a coping mechanism.

Nobody is happy with the world around them. We live in a cursed world, so this lack of contentment with a world filled with death, disease, pain, and other people is expected. Simultaneously, people come to believe with conviction that the things they believe about government, its purpose, and where its goals ought to lie - they begin to believe that these opinions they hold are more than just correct - they are right. Now this conviction is not of its own a problem, but when combined with the lack of happiness in one's world, he comes to believe that the reason he is not happy is that the world is not run according to the way he believes it should be run.

I think that what Chomsky is doing, in many ways, is exactly that for which he chastises (indirectly) the sports fanatic. He feels powerless in the face of the world-machine that operates entirely without his say-so; and so he throws himself into something he feels he can keep a pretty good expert's grasp on: power conspiracy. The difference is that he chooses to label his fanatic's interest as worthwhile while the sports fanatic's interest is trifling. In the hierarchy of things, political interest and commentary is probably actually more important than sports commentary. But probably not by some overwhelming degree. It's probably up there with a fanatical interest in cooking or health food or the stock market.

Land of Confusion

One of the problems that often crops up in those who are political active (whether in government or merely from the decrepit old office chair upon which their perch before their computer) is an acute lack of perspective. I've spoken before about the reasons for this deficit in the realm of a Well-Ordered Sense of Reality, but today I was driving behind a simple example of this myopia in practice. It was a bumper sticker.

While its true that the sloganeering in bumper stickers is by its nature imperfect and we shouldn't expect a brief juxtaposition of words and symbols to carry the finely honed nuance of a full-bodied ideology - still, the choice of a bumper sticker says something about the individual who sees the sticker and thinks: "Oh, man! I so completely want to put that on the back window of my SUV. Yes!"

Now it's one thing if your window is less window than sticker and you have almost an indiscriminate selection of slogans, perpetrating a rainbowed galaxy of ideologies inconsistent with any hegemony or movement. If this is the case, you can be forgiven the content of your selections - if not for the absence of taste that birthed your rear-window monstrosity in the first place.

But this guy was different. Only a single sticker. That means that out of all the stickers he could have gotten, he chose this one in particular because he like it better than everything else he could have put there. This sticker is the One that best defined his ideology:

Huh. Where to begin?

Forget politics. Forget whether you think that Bush is a great president or that Bush is perpetuating the slaughter indicative to the world-dominating terrorist state that is the U.S. of A. That doesn't matter, really. This guy professes love for a social construct. And then he doesn't love a human being.

That, in a nutshell, is the problem I'm talking about. George Bush is a filthy, rotten human being. Just like you. just like me. And just like the author of that bumper sticker's slogan. He's also crafted in the image of God. Just like you. Just like me. And just like the author of that bumper sticker's slogan.

What is he talking about when he says he loves America? The nation: some socio-political construct that exists only as a fabrication we've socially devised as a means of organizing ourselves? The geography: a chunk of real estate that is artificially demarcated in such a way to keep others from enjoying the real estate as much as we do? The ideology: a winner-take-all, scrape-yourself-from-the bottom -at-the expense -of-all-others type of success glorification?

The sticker might as well say:

It would be equally sensible.

It's Not Just for Liberals Anymore

As more and more once-supporters of Bush turn on him, realizing, Holy cats! It was a tremendous error putting him in the White House. Again. I'm struck by an irony. Now this is not a surprising irony.

It's rather obvious and I'm sure you've heard it before. But, really, this is just the kind of blogger I am.

When his last election rolled around, I abstained from voting for him on moral principle and wrote about voting for someone other than The Big Two. Resultant of this, I was roundly chastised for not contributing to the defeat of John Kerry. Because John Kerry was pro-choice.

Accusing me of nihilism, one commenter critiques:

Nihilism, as in nothing matters, as in the fact that getting a pro-life candidate in the presidential office is apparently meaningless because you'd rather indulge in frivolous little nitpickings rather than help save babies' lives.

So the irony is this: Christians promoted Bush because he was pro-life. A vote for Bush was a vote for saving lives. So far as I know, abortion is still legal. Bush being pro-life hasn't had any effect on the lives of infants. Bush being president has, however, had some effect on the lives of around fifty thousands brown people. That effect being their deaths. And we won't even go into their maimings and the general destruction of their stuff. Life, liberty, and property: but only on this side of the river.

If about 50,000 dead = pro-life, then I think we need to re-evaluate the usefulness of this impoverished language we call, English. And this isn't even to start in on the whole thing with Lebanon and Israel. In any case, I find myself vindicated in my decision last November by what we term, "Recent History."

So, yeah, my candidate lost. But I'm not too broken up over it. I know that God uses even bad things for good - and so, I am pacified.

So then, despite bets to the contrary. I did indeed vote. Just on propositions. Oh yeah, and I did also vote for the president. I had been hearing over and again how Christians should vote for the morally upstanding before voting for the pragmatic and sensible, so I did just that. I voted for the youth director at my church. He's maybe the most upstanding person I know over thirty-five, so that makes him a far better choice than the filth most people will be voting for. Plus, he's one of the funniest people around, you can bet your hat on that.

But again, do we really need a president?

One thing that I get a real kick out of are those who clammor for the Christian's moral responsibility to vote, to make their beliefs known through the electoral process, and yet they do the opposite by using a voter's guide. Listen, I don't care if you think the Christian Coalition is aces, but giving them your voting right is a far, far cry from actually voting. You know those people who find the recently deceased and vote for them, ghost-voting? If you are voting a guide, you are the equivalent of one of the recent dead and the publisher of your guide is the one stealing a dead voter's choice. I mean, I'm okay with it if you don't really care all that much and just want to follow some guide, but if you do then please don't ever let me hear you speak of voting as a moral thing - because you have stripped all moral decision-making from the process.

Ah, my new bumper sticker has arrived for the 2004 Pennet Race...

I think it's subtitle should be: "Does it really matter?" I was browsing through Jon Stewart's America (The Book) and caught upon a line in the second paragraph of the first chapter: "As heirs to a legacy more than two centuries old, it is understandable why present-day Americans would take their own democracy for granted. A president freely chosen from a wide-open field of two men every four years; a Congress with a 99% incumbancy rate; a Supreme Court comprirsed of nine politically appointed judges whose only oversight is the icy scythe of Death - all these reveal a system fully capable of maintaining itself."

Why the Marriage Protection Amendment Is a Bad Joke
Forget for a moment that marriage - whether hetero- or homosexual - just flatout should not be legislated period. Forget that tax breaks for being married are not a right but some sort of bonus (it's like extra credit for entering into an economically stable relationship that will benefit the state somehow). Forget that the only legal involvement in marriage ought to be the same kind of legal involvement in any solemb contract. Forget that marriage is between people and perhaps between their church and God - and really not any business of the government.

Forget all that and enjoy together with me the level of retardation required to hear "Marriage Protection Amendment" and imagine it to be an apt or in any way fitting name for the obliteration of homosexual marriages.

First things first. Are you married? Is the fact that Jim and Robert wish to marry and do all sorts of nasty things that neither of us want to hear about - does that present any sort of real danger to your marriage? Will your relationship to your wife suddenly suffer in the aftermath of such a matrimony? My bet is: No, it probably won't. And if it does, then homosexual unions are The Least of your problems. Are you single? Do you think that that special someone you've had your matrimonial eye on these past months will be diminished because of gay people? Do you think that when you do marry, that your honeymoon will be less special than it would have been twenty years ago when it was still mildly acceptable to poke someone in the jaw for being gay? Is so, you're more snacky than I'd previously believed and the fact that you can read is surprising.

Now I could see an amendment of this name being used to actual protect marriage. I mean, wouldn't it be great if politics believed in Truth in Advertising? What would this amendment do then? Well, it might make divorce illegal. That would protect marriage! Or yeah, adultery! Adultery would be so illegal it would make your head spin. That too would protect marriage. Hm, and maybe spats and quarrels could be outlawed. Most dead or dissolved marriages have some notable contentions in their history - we'd need to get rid of those. Yeah, and getting fat. Nobody would be allowed to get fat or be anything other than beautiful people of mind, body and soul. Then couples would be so continually interested in each other that marriages would naturally protect themselves. Hip. Oh yeah, and sin. We would totally have to get rid of sin if we wanted to really get in there and protect marriage.

Hm, maybe I'm taking the wrong tact here. See, if we actually persuaded the government to outlaw marriage, then nobody would ever marry and therefore, nobody would be able to damage marriage either! It would be a utopian society and all would be wonderful.

So yeah, as patently stupid as my suggestions are, they are unequivocably more sensible as regards the name of the Marriage Protection Amendment. But I s'pose it made good propaganda - which I'm coming to see is all politicians and PACs are about anyway....