Sunday, August 15, 2010
New URL
Because I am a terrible speller, I misspelled "Republician" in the URL of this blog. "Jesus Is't a Republican" is already taken. So I changed the name of my blog to "Thoughts from the Christian Left" http://www.thoughtsfromthechristianleft.blogspot.com/ I will be making new posts there from now on.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Why all the opposition building new Mosques?
It really bothers me when I see the pundits and other right-wingers being so opposed to building new mosques in the United States. The controversy doesn't just apply to the proposed Ground Zero mosque; some of the same people are opposed to a new mosque being built in Tennessee. Local pastors are speaking out against it. Don't get me wrong, it's not like I want more mosques to be built, I am an evangelical Christian… I don't like it when any religion but mine scores converts. But you better believe I am going to defend the 1st amendment rights of Muslims. Religious freedom is for every religion. Not just Christianity.
I suppose the controversy stems from an irrational fear of Islam. Understand this: we are NOT at war with Islam. We are at war with Muslim extremists. Comparing the terrorists we are fighting to mainstream Islam is exactly like comparing the KKK to mainstream Christianity. Think about it: the KKK claims to do what they do in defense of white Christians. They believe they are soldiers of God. But if someone judged you based on the hate and violence they have perpetrated you would probably be very offended. Another example is Eric Rudolph. In his mind, he was acting as a Christian doing God's will. What if someone called you a hate monger and sited Rudolph being a member of your faith as an example? I bet you would say, "He just says he's a Christian, he's not a real Christian. He has it all wrong." And, you would be right. But, that is how the vast majority of Muslims feel when you compare their faith and what how they worship to the terrorists of 911. There are over one BILLION Muslims in the world. 99% of them don't hate us and don't consider us the infidel.
You might say, "I don't mind building new mosques, just not so close to Ground Zero. That's rubbing salt in the wound." That's one way of looking at it. I say it would be an extraordinary testament to America's tolerance and willingness to accept mainstream Muslims as a part of our community.
I have said this before and I'll say it again: if you care about your freedom of worship, you have to care about the freedom of worship for those who you disagree with. Imagine if a misguided member of your church blows up an abortion clinic. Then imagine members of the public wanting to shut your church down as a result. Imagine them accusing your pastor of being a terroist. Then imagine the government wanting to freeze your church's missionary spending. Now you can perhaps understand what it's like to be a Muslim living in America. And THAT'S why defending the freedom of worship, wherever it is attacked, is so important to me. Because, one day, my freedom might come under attack too.
I suppose the controversy stems from an irrational fear of Islam. Understand this: we are NOT at war with Islam. We are at war with Muslim extremists. Comparing the terrorists we are fighting to mainstream Islam is exactly like comparing the KKK to mainstream Christianity. Think about it: the KKK claims to do what they do in defense of white Christians. They believe they are soldiers of God. But if someone judged you based on the hate and violence they have perpetrated you would probably be very offended. Another example is Eric Rudolph. In his mind, he was acting as a Christian doing God's will. What if someone called you a hate monger and sited Rudolph being a member of your faith as an example? I bet you would say, "He just says he's a Christian, he's not a real Christian. He has it all wrong." And, you would be right. But, that is how the vast majority of Muslims feel when you compare their faith and what how they worship to the terrorists of 911. There are over one BILLION Muslims in the world. 99% of them don't hate us and don't consider us the infidel.
You might say, "I don't mind building new mosques, just not so close to Ground Zero. That's rubbing salt in the wound." That's one way of looking at it. I say it would be an extraordinary testament to America's tolerance and willingness to accept mainstream Muslims as a part of our community.
I have said this before and I'll say it again: if you care about your freedom of worship, you have to care about the freedom of worship for those who you disagree with. Imagine if a misguided member of your church blows up an abortion clinic. Then imagine members of the public wanting to shut your church down as a result. Imagine them accusing your pastor of being a terroist. Then imagine the government wanting to freeze your church's missionary spending. Now you can perhaps understand what it's like to be a Muslim living in America. And THAT'S why defending the freedom of worship, wherever it is attacked, is so important to me. Because, one day, my freedom might come under attack too.
Friday, August 6, 2010
flawed right-wing talking point #2 "American Was Founded On Christian Principles"
I am a Christian. I realize that statement means different things to different people. I feel it is important to understand what it means to me. I don't just simply believe that Jesus was a good man and if I am a good man, I will go to heaven. I believe that I am a sinner and because of my sins, I deserve to go to hell, but God, in His grace, sent his Son, Jesus, to die in my place. As a result, my sins are paid for and it is for that reason, I get to spend eternity with God in heaven. Not only that, but my life on earth has a unique hope and joy that only comes from truly knowing your Creator. I say all that so that you can understand where I am coming from when I say this:
Nothing makes me want to throw the remote through the TV more than when I hear someone say "America was founded on Christian Principles." No, I take that back. I actually heard Sarah Palin tell Bill O'Rielly something along the lines of "the Constitution is based on Biblical principles." The worst part was, O'Rielly agreed with her. He even used the transitive property to prove that our founding documents come from the Ten Commandments! This angers the stew out of me. Do you know why? Because it's not true! I have read the entire Bible. I have read the entire US Constitution. There are no parallels. None. Any non-biased person would easily come to that conclusion. I can't find anything resembling representative democracy in the Bible. I don't know why Christians continue to make claims like this. We should stop saying these things because they aren't true. That's not very Christian.
O'Rielly and Palin were discussing this because President Obama declined to participate in or acknowledge the National Day of Prayer. What is up with the National Day Of Prayer? Do we NEED a national day to remind us to pray for our country? Shouldn't we be what Paul said in 1st Thessalonians 5:17 and always be praying? Isn't the National Day Of Prayer going against what Jesus says in Matthew 6:5-7?
Why are other Christians so eager to want to believe our Government was somehow set up with Christian principles? Do you want a theocracy? Aren't you glad the government can't mess with your faith? Are you not thankful for the freedom of worship that this country views as an absolute right? Do you think that if there were parallels, it would make your life easier? I am ok with the fact that there are no parallels between the Bible and the Constitution. One is a list of rules regarding how our federal government should operate. The other is the story of God relating to His creation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LahUxkyaRh8
Nothing makes me want to throw the remote through the TV more than when I hear someone say "America was founded on Christian Principles." No, I take that back. I actually heard Sarah Palin tell Bill O'Rielly something along the lines of "the Constitution is based on Biblical principles." The worst part was, O'Rielly agreed with her. He even used the transitive property to prove that our founding documents come from the Ten Commandments! This angers the stew out of me. Do you know why? Because it's not true! I have read the entire Bible. I have read the entire US Constitution. There are no parallels. None. Any non-biased person would easily come to that conclusion. I can't find anything resembling representative democracy in the Bible. I don't know why Christians continue to make claims like this. We should stop saying these things because they aren't true. That's not very Christian.
O'Rielly and Palin were discussing this because President Obama declined to participate in or acknowledge the National Day of Prayer. What is up with the National Day Of Prayer? Do we NEED a national day to remind us to pray for our country? Shouldn't we be what Paul said in 1st Thessalonians 5:17 and always be praying? Isn't the National Day Of Prayer going against what Jesus says in Matthew 6:5-7?
Why are other Christians so eager to want to believe our Government was somehow set up with Christian principles? Do you want a theocracy? Aren't you glad the government can't mess with your faith? Are you not thankful for the freedom of worship that this country views as an absolute right? Do you think that if there were parallels, it would make your life easier? I am ok with the fact that there are no parallels between the Bible and the Constitution. One is a list of rules regarding how our federal government should operate. The other is the story of God relating to His creation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LahUxkyaRh8
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Fox News "Charlie Rangel is sinking the Democratic Party"
I love how Fox News keeps saying how Charlie Rangel's ethics allegations are going to sink the Democrat's chances in the November elections. No, Fox, while it is looking like the Dems are going to lose a lot of seats come November, to say that voters will vote Republican across the country because of one corrupt Congressman in New York is a pretty big stretch. We are pretty used to corrupt politicians from both sides of the isle. If the Democrats lose ground in November, it will be because of the Tea Party's very well executed fear campaign.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
My Opinion on Gay Marriage
I have a very different opinion regarding the issue on a Constitutional Amendment to limit marriage to a man and a woman than most outspoken Christians.
First of all, I should start by saying I believe homosexuality is immoral. We know this because it is unnatural and, more importantly, the Bible says so. Of course I don't think homosexuals should get married. However, I do not think we have any right to say such a union would be illegal. Please don't take that to mean I believe I am somehow superior to homosexuals. I have sin in my life as well. God dosen't make different levels of sevearity of sin.
Marriage is a spiritual matter. To me, marriage is recognized by the Church, not the government. Therefore, since marriage is recognized by the church, we, the members of the Church, have no reason to recognize a homosexual marriage (spiritually, that is). We (the Church) will never be forced to spiritually recognize a marriage that is preformed by the government. This is guaranteed in the First Amendment. I believe that it should be none of the governments business whom is married to whom. If the government wants to recognize a particular marriage, who says we (the church) have to recognize it spiritually? Who are we to be enforcing our morals on other people in this case? Do we expect non Christians not to sin? That is like expecting someone with pneumonia not to cough.
My argument was that it is unwise for us, as Christians, to try to enforce our viewpoint on the law in this case. Laws should be designed to protect society and ensure personal freedom. When two consenting adults decide they want to "get married" who are we to say the government shouldn't recognize their union and grant them whatever tax and estate privileges that heterosexual couples get? That is the issue here. In what way are these two people threatening others? I still believe they are immoral, but my personal viewpoint is irrelevant. Just because something is immoral in my point of view, or even from a Christian perspective, doesn't mean it their behavior should be illegal.
We have laws against speeding because if you exceed the speed limit, you are more likely to get into an accident. Innocent people are hurt or killed in accidents, therefore it should be illegal to speed and it is right and necessary to enforce such laws. Who is hurt in a homosexual marriage? Who is forced to live their life a way that they don't want to? Nobody. The argument I always hear is "this amendment will protect the sanctity of marriage." Really? Who's marriage? Are you telling me that your Christian marriage is somehow weakened or threatened if two homosexuals get married? Of course not! Because your marriage is based on Christ and theirs is based on a piece of paper issued by the government. Therefore I believe it is simply unwise for Christians to be so zealous about the homosexual marriage position because it does nothing but re-enforce stereotypes that Christians intolerant and judgmental. If this amendment were passed today, do we expect the gay community will say "Gee, now that there is an amendment in the Constitution, I better stop being gay and find a Christian wife, live in a monogamous lifestyle, and raise Christian babies."?
In closing:
1) Just because the government may recognize a marriage legally for tax and estate purposes, doesn't mean we, as Christians, have to recognize the marriage spiritually, which should be the real issue with marriage.
2) Our laws are based on protection and personal freedom, not biblical morals. Our laws are NOT based on the Ten Commandments or the Bible. (More on this Right-Wing talking point in a later entry) Is there a law against worshiping other God's? no Is there a law against making false idols? No. Is there a law against using the Lord's name in vain? No. Is there a law against not honoring the Sabbath? No. Is there a law against not honoring your father and mother? No. Is there a law against murder? Yes. Is there a law against adultery? No. Is there a law against stealing? Yes. Is there a law against giving false testimony? Yes if you are under oath, no if you are not. Is there a law against coveting? No. That's 2 and a half out of 10. Why do we keep saying our laws are based on the Ten Commandments? I believe the 10 commandments and other biblical moral principles are a step above the law, and are not and should not be the laws of our government or society. Every time we say "our laws are based on the 10 Commandments," we (Christians) look and are foolish because it isn't true.
3) It is unwise to look foolish to the outside world. Paul writes in Colossians that we should be wise in the way we act towards outsiders. Fighting for these viewpoints to become law is foolish and does nothing to spread the Gospel or tell others about the LOVE of Christ.
4) We have to protect our right to express ourselves in whatever we do. This is a basic American principle. If homosexual couples are not allowed to live their lives the way they want, who's to say that one day my rights might be violated also? The way I make sure I can do what I please and worship however I want is to make sure that those who I disagree with can do what they please and worship however they want.
5) If the amendment were passed, it would accomplish nothing except giving the secular society more ammo when they claim Christians are judgmental and intolerant.
I am NOT saying Christians should not be active in our government. We should be. We should be more active. I just feel the things we have chosen to be active in are foolish. We should be trying to bring about change, within the boundaries of the Constitution, which benefit our society.
First of all, I should start by saying I believe homosexuality is immoral. We know this because it is unnatural and, more importantly, the Bible says so. Of course I don't think homosexuals should get married. However, I do not think we have any right to say such a union would be illegal. Please don't take that to mean I believe I am somehow superior to homosexuals. I have sin in my life as well. God dosen't make different levels of sevearity of sin.
Marriage is a spiritual matter. To me, marriage is recognized by the Church, not the government. Therefore, since marriage is recognized by the church, we, the members of the Church, have no reason to recognize a homosexual marriage (spiritually, that is). We (the Church) will never be forced to spiritually recognize a marriage that is preformed by the government. This is guaranteed in the First Amendment. I believe that it should be none of the governments business whom is married to whom. If the government wants to recognize a particular marriage, who says we (the church) have to recognize it spiritually? Who are we to be enforcing our morals on other people in this case? Do we expect non Christians not to sin? That is like expecting someone with pneumonia not to cough.
My argument was that it is unwise for us, as Christians, to try to enforce our viewpoint on the law in this case. Laws should be designed to protect society and ensure personal freedom. When two consenting adults decide they want to "get married" who are we to say the government shouldn't recognize their union and grant them whatever tax and estate privileges that heterosexual couples get? That is the issue here. In what way are these two people threatening others? I still believe they are immoral, but my personal viewpoint is irrelevant. Just because something is immoral in my point of view, or even from a Christian perspective, doesn't mean it their behavior should be illegal.
We have laws against speeding because if you exceed the speed limit, you are more likely to get into an accident. Innocent people are hurt or killed in accidents, therefore it should be illegal to speed and it is right and necessary to enforce such laws. Who is hurt in a homosexual marriage? Who is forced to live their life a way that they don't want to? Nobody. The argument I always hear is "this amendment will protect the sanctity of marriage." Really? Who's marriage? Are you telling me that your Christian marriage is somehow weakened or threatened if two homosexuals get married? Of course not! Because your marriage is based on Christ and theirs is based on a piece of paper issued by the government. Therefore I believe it is simply unwise for Christians to be so zealous about the homosexual marriage position because it does nothing but re-enforce stereotypes that Christians intolerant and judgmental. If this amendment were passed today, do we expect the gay community will say "Gee, now that there is an amendment in the Constitution, I better stop being gay and find a Christian wife, live in a monogamous lifestyle, and raise Christian babies."?
In closing:
1) Just because the government may recognize a marriage legally for tax and estate purposes, doesn't mean we, as Christians, have to recognize the marriage spiritually, which should be the real issue with marriage.
2) Our laws are based on protection and personal freedom, not biblical morals. Our laws are NOT based on the Ten Commandments or the Bible. (More on this Right-Wing talking point in a later entry) Is there a law against worshiping other God's? no Is there a law against making false idols? No. Is there a law against using the Lord's name in vain? No. Is there a law against not honoring the Sabbath? No. Is there a law against not honoring your father and mother? No. Is there a law against murder? Yes. Is there a law against adultery? No. Is there a law against stealing? Yes. Is there a law against giving false testimony? Yes if you are under oath, no if you are not. Is there a law against coveting? No. That's 2 and a half out of 10. Why do we keep saying our laws are based on the Ten Commandments? I believe the 10 commandments and other biblical moral principles are a step above the law, and are not and should not be the laws of our government or society. Every time we say "our laws are based on the 10 Commandments," we (Christians) look and are foolish because it isn't true.
3) It is unwise to look foolish to the outside world. Paul writes in Colossians that we should be wise in the way we act towards outsiders. Fighting for these viewpoints to become law is foolish and does nothing to spread the Gospel or tell others about the LOVE of Christ.
4) We have to protect our right to express ourselves in whatever we do. This is a basic American principle. If homosexual couples are not allowed to live their lives the way they want, who's to say that one day my rights might be violated also? The way I make sure I can do what I please and worship however I want is to make sure that those who I disagree with can do what they please and worship however they want.
5) If the amendment were passed, it would accomplish nothing except giving the secular society more ammo when they claim Christians are judgmental and intolerant.
I am NOT saying Christians should not be active in our government. We should be. We should be more active. I just feel the things we have chosen to be active in are foolish. We should be trying to bring about change, within the boundaries of the Constitution, which benefit our society.
Monday, August 2, 2010
flawed right-wing talking point #1 "Socialism is evil"
If you watch the pundits on Fox, listen to the Tea Partiers, or hear Republicans open their mouth during the campaign season, it is very likely that you will hear this common sentiment: "Socialism is EEEEVILLLLL." The logic they use is simple enough: Marx was a socialist. Communism has its roots in Marxian philosophy. Communism is BAD. Therefore, socialism is bad. This is a major criticism of Obama. "He's a Socialist!" But I believe all that is hogwash, and let me tell you why.
"Socialism" is NOT a system of government. Communism is. I agree that Communism is not the best system of government. Heck, I even agree with the generalized sentiment: "Communism is bad." It is too much government. It is too little personal freedom. Socialism is not Communism. Socialism is simply the government using its resources to serve the public. Think about it: The Post Office- Socialism. Public Education- Socialism. National Parks- Socialism. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Department Of Transportation... I can go on and on, but you get my point. Are you glad you can mail a letter across the country for 40someting cents? Are you glad Yellowstone National Park is not a multi-billion dollar profiteering enterprise? Are you glad you get to drive on our Interstate Highway System without paying a toll every few miles? Are you glad that every child in this country at least has the chance to get an education, regardless of their social-economic class? If you answered yes to any of these questions, you are a socialist. And, according to the Republicans, you are evil. I am not saying that all forms of socialism are good. I am simply saying they are not all evil, as the Republicans would have you believe. It is ok to suggest and implement ways that the government can better serve the public. You are not evil for doing so.
On the other hand, we have the opposite if socialism: Capitalism. Capitalism, Republicans are quick to tell you, is awesome! Wholesome. American. Freedom-promoting. Godly. Republicans hate government infringements on capitalism. The less the government tries to mettle in business, they argue, the faster the economy will grow, the stronger the economy will be, the more free we all are. They want to get back to a free market, with little-to-no government oversight. They want the government to "get off our backs!" But, they are quick to forget history. When this country was founded, the economy was designed exactly the way they want it to work now: businesses had total freedom to make their own decisions, without the government being "on their backs." However, this economy created a very small wealthy class, a very small middle class, and a HUGE lower class. The majority of Americans were living in poverty. 1% of the population had 95% of the wealth. This was no surprise. We are a greedy people. It wasn't until Teddy Roosevelt fought for government oversight and better pay for workers did conditions improve. After that, the middle class exploded in population. It was government oversight (socialism) that made it possible for the Average Joe to earn a livable wage and created the middle class as we know it today. In the years that follow, more regulations were passed. Each one designed to help the middle class get a larger share of the profits.
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying capitalism is evil. I believe rich people have the right to be rich. We have the right to start a business, be successful, and earn all the money we can. Free markets mean free people. I really believe that. But if we do not attempt to regulate some of the rules regarding our economy, we will digress back to the unbalanced class system of our past. In other words: without some socialism, pure capitalism is not what is best for this country.
To sum it all up, I am saying this: the Capitalism vs. Socialism Debate is not as simple as Republicans make it out to be. It shouldn't even a debate! It takes elements of both to have the society we all want. But Republicans have succeeded in dumbing-down this important discourse to a good versus evil dialogue, thus making their base afraid of government. As a result, we can't have an honest debate about healthcare reform, banking regulations, or anything else without getting labeled as "evil" or "un-American" for disagreeing with a Republican principle. They have made "socialism" a dirty word.
"Socialism" is NOT a system of government. Communism is. I agree that Communism is not the best system of government. Heck, I even agree with the generalized sentiment: "Communism is bad." It is too much government. It is too little personal freedom. Socialism is not Communism. Socialism is simply the government using its resources to serve the public. Think about it: The Post Office- Socialism. Public Education- Socialism. National Parks- Socialism. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Department Of Transportation... I can go on and on, but you get my point. Are you glad you can mail a letter across the country for 40someting cents? Are you glad Yellowstone National Park is not a multi-billion dollar profiteering enterprise? Are you glad you get to drive on our Interstate Highway System without paying a toll every few miles? Are you glad that every child in this country at least has the chance to get an education, regardless of their social-economic class? If you answered yes to any of these questions, you are a socialist. And, according to the Republicans, you are evil. I am not saying that all forms of socialism are good. I am simply saying they are not all evil, as the Republicans would have you believe. It is ok to suggest and implement ways that the government can better serve the public. You are not evil for doing so.
On the other hand, we have the opposite if socialism: Capitalism. Capitalism, Republicans are quick to tell you, is awesome! Wholesome. American. Freedom-promoting. Godly. Republicans hate government infringements on capitalism. The less the government tries to mettle in business, they argue, the faster the economy will grow, the stronger the economy will be, the more free we all are. They want to get back to a free market, with little-to-no government oversight. They want the government to "get off our backs!" But, they are quick to forget history. When this country was founded, the economy was designed exactly the way they want it to work now: businesses had total freedom to make their own decisions, without the government being "on their backs." However, this economy created a very small wealthy class, a very small middle class, and a HUGE lower class. The majority of Americans were living in poverty. 1% of the population had 95% of the wealth. This was no surprise. We are a greedy people. It wasn't until Teddy Roosevelt fought for government oversight and better pay for workers did conditions improve. After that, the middle class exploded in population. It was government oversight (socialism) that made it possible for the Average Joe to earn a livable wage and created the middle class as we know it today. In the years that follow, more regulations were passed. Each one designed to help the middle class get a larger share of the profits.
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying capitalism is evil. I believe rich people have the right to be rich. We have the right to start a business, be successful, and earn all the money we can. Free markets mean free people. I really believe that. But if we do not attempt to regulate some of the rules regarding our economy, we will digress back to the unbalanced class system of our past. In other words: without some socialism, pure capitalism is not what is best for this country.
To sum it all up, I am saying this: the Capitalism vs. Socialism Debate is not as simple as Republicans make it out to be. It shouldn't even a debate! It takes elements of both to have the society we all want. But Republicans have succeeded in dumbing-down this important discourse to a good versus evil dialogue, thus making their base afraid of government. As a result, we can't have an honest debate about healthcare reform, banking regulations, or anything else without getting labeled as "evil" or "un-American" for disagreeing with a Republican principle. They have made "socialism" a dirty word.
Blog Beginnings
I am what you would a call a born-again Christian. Evangelical, even. I go to a Baptist church. The things I believe about God come entirely from the Bible. But I am NOT a Republican. I do not see how the Church has come to believe that everything Republican is good and everything Democrat is bad. I am starting this blog to discuss politics from a "Christian-Left" perspective. Let the fun begin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)