kc bob: IDEOLOGY

Showing posts with label IDEOLOGY. Show all posts

Reflections on Gandhi's Seven Social Sins

Wealth without Work
I sometimes think that the gold standard should be replaced by the work standard.

Pleasure without Conscience
It seems that Western Civilization has gotten more materialistic and hedonistic.

Science without Humanity
The real question always seems to be not whether it can be done but if it should.

Education without Character
The intellect seems so insignificant when compared with ideas like integrity and love.

Politics without Principle
True leadership embraces humility while political power is all about pride.

Commerce without Morality
Greed is bad. Why do we want more? Why do we want to get the best of each other?

Worship without Sacrifice
Cheap grace is not grace at all. Worship that does not cause us to bow is fake.

... first posted June 22, 2012

Am I a Blue Dog?

I first posted this question on January 29, 2010. Six years later I still resonate with much of what I wrote then.
Consider what I recently posted in a comment.

I am no socialist but I am grateful for our democratic socialist programs that care for the poor and the elderly. I told a friend last week that I wish programs like Medicare and Social Security were/are not needed. I wish more charitable people and decent insurance companies existed. In the end it is not an either/or proposition for me. I would love to see the private sector step forward and reduce the need for big govt programs. I am not sure what is preventing people from doing so.

In our town we help a clinic that cares for the poor, a Christian homeless shelter, a group that provides bus passes to people needing to go on job interviews as well as other more traditional ministries. The opportunities are out there if we simply look for them.

So I think that the Blue Dog moniker is still somewhat descriptive of my views. What about you?

Ever heard the term "Blue Dog Democrat" and wonder where the term came from? According to the wiki:

Former Texas Democrat Rep. Pete Geren is credited for coining the term, explaining that the members had been "choked blue" by "extreme" Democrats from the left.

The wiki also describes them like this:

The Blue Dog Coalition describes itself as a group of moderate-to-conservative Democrats committed to financial and national security, favoring compromise and bipartisanship over ideology and party discipline.

I like that description and wonder if I am a Blue Dog. I am in favor of those aspects.. I am a huge believer in financial security if it means balancing the budget and paying down the national debt. I think that we should be have a strong national security policy. I think that compromise is not a bad word. I think that ideology and party discipline are not bad but I think the lack of bipartisan governance has created a cynicism in our nation.

So maybe I am a Blue Dog. Albeit a Blue Dog Independent. I do feel that the extremes have choked me blue. :)

What do you think? Are extremes in politics, religion and life choking you blue?

Is Healthcare a Moral Issue?

Responding to the recent court events in Florida that declared federal healthcare legislation unconstitutional, Joe Scarborough, conservative host of Morning Joe on MSNBC, said this:

"Anybody that goes to an emergency room at 11 o'clock at night and sees the people who have to use that as their primary care providers, it shows two things: the inefficiency and the immorality of the system... There are two Americas when it comes to healthcare -- and it is immoral."

It got me to thinking and wondering if healthcare should be classified as a moral issue? Also caused me to ponder that old overused phrase "you cannot legislate morality". Of course we in America absolutely do legislate morality. The issue is what ideological morality are we legislating. So I think that the answer to the question will be different depending on what ideology you might embrace.

Many years ago congress passed Social Security legislation and years later Medicare was passed. The morality of these seemed to embrace the idea that people in their senior years should be cared for by our country. Later on people with disabilities were added to the roles of those covered by these two programs.

So, when I think about the 11pm emergency room scenario that Joe speaks of, I wonder if there is a moral reason to add other folks to the ranks of Medicare. Remember that legislation both reflects and defines America's morality. And it seems to me that our laws should reflect a consistent morality. Possibly the poorest amongst us should be covered by Medicare for the same reasons that seniors are covered.

Do you think healthcare is a moral issue? Please let me know why you think that it is or isn't.

... originally posted February 2, 2011

Politics and Church Attendance :: Which comes first?

The religious affiliation of candidates (or lack thereof) is at least a minor point of discussion in virtually every election, and pundits regularly pour over data about the “Evangelical vote,” the “Catholic vote,” and even the “nonreligious vote.” Implicit in all of this number-crunching is the idea that when it comes to a American voter’s political opinions, religion matters. But despite all the attention given to the voting patterns of the faithful, the question remains: does where you go to church (or temple, or mosque, or service, etc.) actually dictate your political views?

That is the way that an article at Think Progress starts. I find the question to be thought provoking. I have always been attracted to churches that have certain political views. Social-political issues like abortion have always been a factor in my church attending decisions. And I think that issues like homosexuality drive church attendance for many folks.

These days I think that I am more attracted to churches that do not take black and white positions on political candidates and issues. I feel that the leadership of the church I attend these days fosters an environment that attracts people of differing politics because they present balanced views of social and political issues. They also present a balanced view of these issues in the scriptures. Great to be a part of a church that fosters cooperation instead of polarization.

So what do you think? Does a church's political positions play a role in where you go to church? Or do you feel that the church you attend takes certain positions on political issues because you (and folks like you) attend there?

Is God mad at America?

What do you make of this sign? Did God once love America and now not so much? Here is a clip from a comment I left at a friend's blog:

Do you not find it odd how some always seem to be speaking of how God is mad at, and will judge, our country because of things like abortion and homosexuality. It is like God didn't care about the ways that we treated slaves for hundreds of years. It is like he gave people who hated a pass and somehow found a way to bless America. Yet now He has decided to be mad at America.

My point is how people fixated with wrath and judgment have warped the gospel message. It is like wrath and hate are on the same level as love and mercy. And as a sad result Christians have become known more for their strong advocacy of judgment rather than mercy. So my concern is not all that theological but more pragmatic. What if we only preached love and let God deal with the topics of wrath and judgment? What if Christians were known for our love?

Yes, I know that I am dreaming! How could we ever love those who seem to be (to some anyway) our enemies?

Is hate speech a form of free speech?

This image causes one to think, doesn't it? None of us ever want to be associated with or condone hate speech. Interesting thought in light of the events in Libya this week. My Cincinnati blogging and facebook friend Brian pointed me to a post by Dr Robert Cargill titled "On Faith, Freedom of Expression, and the Muslim Brotherhood’s Statement in Response to the Protests in Egypt and Libya". I thought that he made several great points and suggest that you read his article. Here is an excerpt:

I understand the Egyptian government’s frustration. Unfortunately, the Muslim Brotherhood’s proposed solution only exacerbates the underlying problem that is quickly coming to the forefront in Egypt and around the world:

“We denounce abuse of all Messengers of God, Prophets and Apostles, and condemn this heinous crime. We further call for criminalization of assaults on the sanctities of all heavenly religions.”

The solution proposed by the Muslim Brotherhood is the prohibition of criticism (which they define as “assaults on the sanctities of all heavenly religions”) of all religions. However, categorizing criticism of any religion as “abuse” and as “heinous crimes” is not a viable solution in a free society. In fact, it would only serve to resurrect the totalitarian suppression of freedom of thought and expression that they experienced under Hosni Mubarak.

All individuals – both those who express faith in various deities and those choosing to adhere to no religion – should have the freedom to debate, criticize, and yes, joke and satirize all forms of ideology, including economic, political, and yes, religious. ... Simply put, truly free citizens of any state should have the freedom to practice and profess the religion of their choice, but should not have the power to criminalize those who do not profess their religious faith.

The God Particle

Did anyone catch the news a few weeks about the discovery by physicists at the European Organization for Nuclear Research in Switzerland who say that they have all but proven that the "God particle" exists. Here is an excerpt about it from a piece titled: "Higgs Boson: 'God Particle' Discovery Ignites Debate Over Science And Religion" ...

"One thing is clear: The July 4 discovery that marked a new chapter in scientific knowledge also reignited debate over the universe's origins -- and the validity of religious faith as scientific knowledge expands. The Higgs boson explains why particles have mass -- and in turn why we exist. Without the boson, the universe would have no physical matter, only energy."

Here are a few quotes from the article that show how diverse reactions are to it:

"Humans, with their remarkable tools and their remarkable brains, may have just taken a giant step toward replacing metaphysical speculation with empirically verifiable knowledge." "That's the difference between science and religion." "We don't require the universe to be what we want -- we force our beliefs to conform to the evidence of reality." -Lawrence M. Krauss, an Arizona State University theoretical physicist

"The mysteries revealed by modern science are a constant reminder that reality is bigger than our day-to-day lives." -Vatican astronomer Guy Consolmagno

"It only strengthens the notion that the universe comes out of a nothingness which is everything. -Alternative medicine guru Deepak Chopra

"The awe we feel with this heady topic causes even nonreligious people to use religious language." Humans are really fascinated with what we know scientifically and what lies right at the boundaries of what we can know." "The fans and the foes of religion ... are overreaching on both sides. The quest for the Higgs boson, and its ultimate discovery, neither proves nor disproves God." -Philip Clayton, dean of Claremont School of Theology and a researcher of science and religion.

I love the idea that there is something physical that came out of nothing. It speaks to me of the Genesis story and how God spoke the world into existence. Even so, I agree with Philip Clayton that such discoveries neither proves nor disproves God. I am one who agrees with the writer of Hebrews when he writes: "By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible."

Are we a World without a Conscience?

I sometimes think that mankind has progressed so far and then I read an article titled "Factory workers in China: A Pyrrhic victory for a world that lost its conscience". Sigh. The look on the woman in this image speaks volumes.
Here is a clip from the article:

As much as I would like to believe that costs are going to increase due to the possibility of human rights conditions improving in China, the reality is that from a systemic perspective, that nation is such a long way off from improving the lives of its people to the level of a Westernized nation that it will likely take decades before we will ever see an economic impact on the supply chain.

That’s great for companies like Apple, but it sucks for the human beings that feed our thirst for electronic gadgets. Better work conditions are only part of the variables linked to overall costs of the goods being produced. Wages, benefits and and working hours do factor into the overall picture but these are more than offset by tax advantages and reduced regulatory costs imposed by the Chinese government as well as the price of energy and other raw materials that are needed to produce durable goods in that country.

One only has to look at the overall picture in China to fully understand the magnitude of the human rights problem and why it is unlikely to abate anytime soon. The vast majority of Chinese — hundreds of millions of them — not only work in conditions that most of us would consider barbaric but their living conditions make many of the people in our own country living in near poverty look like they are living in comparative luxury.

Hard to know how to respond to an article like this without going to dark places. One response is a bit of moral outrage and a vow to boycott everything made in China. Yet most everything we buy has some connection to that country across the sea. Another response is apathy and indifference. Like simply not thinking about it changes anything.

I am not sure that the world has ever had a global conscience. We all seem to want a "great bargain" when we buy stuff. And we all seem to have an unquenchable desire for bigger, better and more stuff. So I am wondering how we should respond to reports like the one that I excerpted from. Are we really a world without a conscience?

Are there really two American Dreams?

Always interesting to read about a pop theologian who is reading one of the books by my pastor Adam Hamilton. Such was the case when I came across Brian McLaren's Naked Theology blog post titled "The Beloved Community vs. the Beloved Economy". Here is a clip from it:

Over the weekend, I was reading Adam Hamilton's book, and I couldn't help but notice what he said about there being two versions of the American Dream. One, of course, was Dr. King's dream of beloved community, of racial equality, of justice and peace and character and solidarity. It was a dream about a quality of life. The other was what we might call the Wall Street version, the dream of getting more and more stuff, faster and faster, with less and less effort—what we might call a style of life. ... So, here we are as a nation, caught between two American Dreams: Beloved Community and Beloved Economy. Here we are, torn between two pursuits—a spiritual quality of life and a materialistic style of life.

Interesting how he contrasts quality of life with style of life calling one spiritual and one materialistic. Causes me to ponder which dream I embrace the most and whether the two are really at odds with each other. I wonder if there is a moderate middle ground that embraces both dreams? Is it possible that the contrast is not that sharp? Can one own a large home and still care about the ideals of the Beloved Community? Is it possible for a person to value racial equality and still make a lot of money on Wall Street?

I think that it is possible but maybe not in the ways that we imagine. Because we all lose if those who fly the banner of the Beloved Community declare war on those who fly the Beloved Economy flag. And those who embrace the Beloved Economy can find themselves existing in a sad place if they reject the principles of the Beloved Community. So I suggest to you that there are really not two American Dreams because each dream needs each other. One dream without the other becomes a nightmare.

Why are Americans so Partisan?

I think that the quote in this image could be applied to either side of the political spectrum. I am not sure that America is any more partisan than it has always been but it does seem that our differences have been magnified by the media - both the public and social varieties. Reading Facebook this morning I was appalled by the judgmentalism expressed in comments that some made about the death of Whitney Houston. People often accuse religious folks of being judgmental but I think that unbelievers are even more self-righteous.

Yet the question about our partisanship is a puzzling one. In many respects our culture has become more accepting of diverse gender and ethnic perspectives. But I think that the incessant bickering in DC and the inability to work together for the good of the nation speaks to a systematic brokenness in our country. Years ago it the words 'moderate' and 'compromise' were good words. These days they are portrayed in the most pejorative light. I believe that we are at a proverbial crossroads and the way forward may be the road less taken. At least I hope it is. A nation divided against itself can not stand.

The Politics of Birth Control

I was surprised to see a commentary piece, titled "An open invitation to Rick Santorum" by Aimee Patton in the Saturday edition of the Kansas City Star that referenced a post from my blogging friend Shane. Here is the Santorum quote that she cited:

“One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. … Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s OK, contraception is OK. It’s not OK. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

I really did not know that candidate Santorum had such a political position on birth control. Most of the Roman Catholics that I know (evidenced by the size of their family) do not seem to have this view. Yet it reveals to me how this view (i.e. that sexual intimacy in marriage is all about procreation) is still alive and well on planet earth. I do not agree with that view but suspect that some of you might or maybe know a person that holds that view. Even so, do you think it odd that a candidate would make an issue of it?

Can a Christian be a libertarian?

“It’s a far stretch and a great distortion to use Christianity in any way to justify aggression and violence.”

I lifted that Ron Paul quote (written in his book Liberty Defined) from a Washington Post blog post titled "Can a Christian be a libertarian?" The post tries to explain what a Libertarian is and how this ideology synthesizes to biblical Christian views. Here are a few clips from it:

Christians from the left and the right are increasingly turning to libertarianism not because it is a “middle ground,” but because it is an entirely different way of thinking about government and power.

The core of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle: that the initiation of force against person and property is immoral, and it is in many respects a kind of political corollary to the Golden Rule. Thus, Christian libertarians think that government power should be limited, sound money and truly free markets should return, aggressive war must cease and civil liberties must be preserved.
...
Libertarianism treats man’s sinful nature realistically. James Madison famously quipped that if men were angels no government would be necessary. Christian libertarians take this a step further, saying that it is precisely because men are not angels that government must have extraordinarily limited powers.
...
It is truly unfortunate that modern American churches seem to think the state’s means of “spreading democracy” through aggressive war is more important than spreading the peaceful message of the Gospel of Christ. Jesus came to bring “peace on earth, good will to men,” and by extension the Christian’s goal ought to be the same.

Norman Horn, the writer of this post and the founder of LibertarianChristians.com, obviously believes that a Christian can be a libertarian. I, of course, agree with that answer. Being a Christian is all about a relationship with Christ and not about embracing a political ideology. It is true that there are Christians in conservative, liberal and libertarian circles.

My struggles, however, with libertarianism is about how passive and isolationist it appears to be - not only in foreign policy but in domestic policy as well. I heartily endorse the idea that we are our brothers keeper and Christians do well when we help the poor - both here and in other countries. And I heartily wish that people of faith would care for the poor so much that government assistance would not be required. But history teaches us that people of faith spend more on religious buildings and teachers than they do on the poor.

Now, for my libertarian leaning friends, I am not saying that I endorse a bloated entitlement driven federal government. All I am saying is that the answers to caring for the poor are complex and excluding governmental help may be a bit short sighted. And perhaps it is all about the kind of government that we, the people, want?

The Public Face of Atheism

Christopher Hitchens was born in the same year that I was. He lost his long battle with cancer and died a few weeks ago. I mourn his passing. Many have written much about him but I thought that Preston Gillham's comments about Hitchens on his blog were very thought provoking. Here is a clip from it ...

He gambled to the end that he was right about there being no God. Now he knows for sure, something he asserted vehemently that was not knowable in this life.

Joel Siegel of ABC News writes of Hitchens:

“Hitchens became the public face of atheism. Critics assumed his cancer diagnosis, in 2010, would lead Hitchens to relent and embrace God. But he remained a proud non-believer to the very end, as he made clear in an early October 2011 speech at the annual Atheist Alliance of America convention in Houston, as he accepted the Freethinker of the Year Award. His body gaunt from the ravages of cancer, Hitchens said, ‘We have the same job we always had: to say that there are no final solutions; there is no absolute truth; there is no supreme leader; there is no totalitarian solution that says if you would just give up your freedom of inquiry, if you would just give up, if you would simply abandon your critical faculties, the world of idiotic bliss can be yours.’”

Lots of humanity in that quote, huh? Lots of misconceptions about what becoming a Believer means. Lots of hostility. Lots of strong words—too strong.

Strong words can belie doubt. Not always, of course. But I’m just saying: the superlatives in Hitchens’ acceptance speech caught my attention.

Lots of Christianity’s brightest minds debated Hitchens, ostensibly believing that by intellectual argument they could convince heartfelt assent. Apologetics are for Believers. Unbelief isn’t about belief at all. Unbelief is a conflict of wills—the divine in tension with the human.

Life and death are a wager. Pascal said in essence, if I believe in God, and govern my life according to that belief, only to die and discover I was mistaken—i.e., there is no God—then what have I lost? On the other hand, if I live a life of unbelief, and die to discover I was wrong, then I have lost all eternity.

Are Evangelicals Warmongers?

I came across a post on Chuck Baldwin's blog where he asks the same question that I have proposed in the title of this post. Consider a few things that he has to say on the subject:

I do think it is more than fair to say that, historically, Christians have always attempted to be–and have always publicly taught the importance of being–peacemakers. Historically, Christians have preached–and tried to practice–love and brotherhood.
...
The vast majority of Christian believers understood the Biblical, Natural Law principle of self-defense. But believing in the right of lawful, God-ordained self-defense was never to be confused with warmongering.
...
The biggest cheerleaders for the unprovoked, unconstitutional, pre-emptive attack and invasion of Iraq were evangelical Christians. Ditto for the war in Afghanistan, the bombing of Libya, the attacks in Yemen, etc. Who is calling for the bombing of Iran? Evangelical Christians.
...
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but more Christians have been persecuted under the US-imposed regime in Iraq than were ever persecuted when Saddam Hussein was in power. Oh! And don’t forget that it was the US government that was responsible for putting Saddam Hussein in power to begin with.
...
I never thought I would hear myself say what I’m about to say, but the truth is, the term “Christian” today means anything but Christ-like. To many people today, “Christian” refers to some warmongering, mean-spirited, throw-anyone-to-the-wolves-who-crosses-them person, who then has the audacity to look down their nose in contempt against anyone who disagrees with them for even the smallest reason.

You can read Chuck's post in full here. I think that he poses some great questions for Christians to consider in it.

I am not a dove or hawk in these matters. I think that sometimes a country needs to be involved in wars like the first two world wars. And sometimes wars need to be fought to gain independence or to insure the rights of the helpless. On the flip side I am very uncomfortable with the way that our country has waged the "war on terror" because of the rationalizations and faulty justifications that have been used to invade countries.

How about you? Are you uncomfortable with warmongering? I am.

The Values Debate

Richard Cizik was the vice president for governmental affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals from 1998 to 2008. He left that group and started the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good. He understands the political issues relevant to evangelical voters at a very detailed level. So I was interested in his Washington Post editorial titled "The values debate we’re not having". Here are a few clips from it:

As an evangelical Christian who believes the Republican Party does not have a monopoly on moral values, I believe this discussion is long overdue. The “compassionate conservatism” espoused by President George W. Bush and many prominent evangelical leaders has been supplanted by a Tea Party ideology that bears more resemblance to the anti-Christian philosophy of Ayn Rand than it does to the Gospel.

Whether the Christian duty to love our neighbors is compatible with a political movement that embraces radical individualism and rejects the ethic of collective responsibility is a central question as the GOP attempts to cement the Tea Party and the religious right into a cohesive base. Tea Party activists and Republican leaders have consistently targeted for cutbacks vital government programs that protect the poor, the elderly, children and other vulnerable Americans. Yet calls for shared sacrifice and proposals to modestly raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans in order to fund investments and protections that promote the common good are derided as “class warfare.” This is what passes for family values?
...
At a time when our nation is plagued by the worst poverty rates in decades, religious leaders are not buying this narrow ideological agenda. In fact, evangelicals, Catholic bishops and Protestant leaders are leading a “Circle of Protection” campaign to defend government programs that provide a basic measure of dignity and security to those struggling to make ends meet. We are also urging a balanced approach to deficit reduction that doesn’t put the greatest burden on those hit hardest by the economic crisis.

I suggest you read the rest of the article here. And if you are one who says that the government should not be involved in the welfare of the poorest I suggest that you point me to religious institutions (i.e. churches, mosques and synagogues) that spend more money on the poor than they do on brick, mortar and salaries. They may be out there but most of these institutions look more like fraternal organizations than advocates for the poorest amongst us.

Why Occupy Wall Street?

This cartoon reminds me that the protests against the greed embodied by Wall Street executives is all about the rampant unemployment on Main Street. Despite the nefarious motives of some I think that these protests are a cry for help from hurting people.

Even so I do not think that anyone really has a handle on why people are protesting. Even if the marches and sit-ins originated from left-wing factions they seem to have morphed into something different all together. Why do you think people are protesting?

Zebra Think

Sometimes I read something (like the title of this post) and just break out with a huge inner smile. Consider this excerpt from a post by Therese Borchard titled Authenticity and Integrity: Two Spiritual Pillars..

I try to be subtle, nuanced, and horribly honest – so honest that my prose comes off sounding at times confusing and neurotic … much like my brain. I try to stay away from black and white as much as I can, because I know that the majority of my recovery exists n the gray.

I remember being interviewed for the “Hannity & Colmes Show,” back when it aired on the Fox News Channel. The producer was grilling me on the topic of women’s ordination. I think I must have said, “I don’t know … I guess I see it both ways ….” a few too many times because, with an annoyed huff, he said, “You are way too wishy washy for our show … sorry,” and hung up.

I took it as the highest compliment. Yes! My therapy has paid off! I no longer suffer from zebra think! I have been cured!

Sometimes people in our lives, even the ones not on the television, compel us to process life and issues with black and white "Zebra Think". And when we capitulate to them we often lose a bit of ourselves in our desire to be decisive and focused on issues that are important to them and not us. Did you catch that last part? Them and not us. So often our lives can be captivated by issues that are important to political punsters, narrow religious thinkers and people who care more about their opinions than yours.

I invite you to shed your mental zebra stripes today and enter elephant gray thinking.
And no, not the political elephant type of thinking.

Don't Say 'The Bible Says So'

Christian leader Chuck Colson, in a Christian Post article titled, Don't Say 'The Bible Says So', quotes Oswald Chambers, noted author of My Utmost for His Highest, saying:

“My strong advice to you is to soak, soak, soak in philosophy and psychology, until you know more of these subjects than ever you need consciously to think. It is ignorance of these subjects on the part of ministers and workers that has brought our evangelical theology to such a sorry plight...The man who reads only the Bible does not, as a rule, know it or human life.”

Mr Colson ends the column with these thoughts:

The sad fact is that today, starting a conversation with “the Bible says” will often cause the listener to stop listening. So what you do is make arguments based on what the Reformers called common grace, or what historically has been called natural law.

This is what Paul did when he gave his famous sermon at Mars Hill, his first foray into the Greek culture. He quoted Greek poets; he referred to Greek artifacts. He thoroughly engaged their culture. And then he used their beliefs to lead directly into the gospel.

This is why we must study biblical worldview, to compare how the Bible works out in life versus how other systems of thought do. I assure you: You will see that the biblical way is the only way to make sense of the world, to live rationally in the world, and eventually, your friends will see this as well.

I like what Mr Colson is saying here. Yet communicating biblical thoughts to others can be very difficult at times. Sometimes in my life I have so cloistered myself and found it so difficult to find any common ground to build a conversation with others on. In times like those I did not feel a need to understand why people thought the way that they did and did not see a need to know any other view than my own. Yes, I was pretty arrogant.

These days I am a bit more secure in my beliefs and enjoy discussing topics with others. On spiritual matters I enjoy a good natured debate with folks who do not think like me. In the political spectrum I feel that I have learned much from people that I once closed my ears to. What has resulted in my life is the ability to see past the dull blacks and whites as I gaze at the many beautiful colors of our world. And it is beautiful you know.

Good Friday Shrugged

Michael Gerson had an interested editorial in yesterday's Washington Post titled: Ayn Rand’s adult-onset adolescence. In it he opines about conservatives and their attraction to the recently released cinematized version of Ayn Rand's book "Atlas Shrugged".
Here is a clip from the editorial:

The appeal of Ayn Rand to conservatives is both considerable and inexplicable. Modern conservatism was largely defined by Ronald Reagan’s faith in the people instead of elites. Rand regarded the people as “looters” and “parasites.” She was a strenuous advocate for class warfare, except that she took the side of a mythical class of capitalist supermen. Rand, in fact, pronounced herself “profoundly opposed” to Reagan’s presidential candidacy, since he did not meet her exacting ideological standards.

Rand cherished a particular disdain for Christianity. The cross, she said, is “the symbol of the sacrifice of the ideal to the nonideal. . . . It is in the name of that symbol that men are asked to sacrifice themselves for their inferiors. That is precisely how the symbolism is used. That is torture.” Yet some conservatives marked Holy Week by attending and embracing “Atlas Shrugged.”

Reaction to Rand draws a line in political theory. Some believe with Rand that all government is coercion and theft — the tearing-down of the strong for the benefit of the undeserving. Others believe that government has a limited but noble role in helping the most vulnerable in society — not motivated by egalitarianism, which is destructive, but by compassion, which is human. And some root this duty in God’s particular concern for the vulnerable and undeserving, which eventually includes us all. This is the message of Easter, and it is inconsistent with the gospel of Rand.

It will be interesting to see how this movie is embraced by conservatives.. especially those on the religious right. I do not think that solutions to the problems that we face are all that easy though. Many conservatives emphatically believe that the government should get out of the welfare business and let religious institutions take over. Others think that the government originally got involved because those organizations dropped the ball.

Politics aside, I suggest that we all take a few minutes on this Good Friday to contemplate the sufferings of Christ on the cross and to remember the nobility with which he died. In doing so I pray that we will each be moved to do something compassionate towards another human being.. even if it goes against our political ideology.

Coulds and Shoulds

I sometimes think that life is all about the coulds and shoulds. The idea that we can do something is one thing but the notion of whether we should do it is something else altogether. We all know that we should not yell fire in a crowded auditorium even though we can.. the courts agree that it is a criminal thing to do. Yet sometimes the delineation is not so clear.. sometimes the ethics or morality of a should is not evident to everyone.

Consider the recent burning of the Qur'an by a man in Florida. Like Voltaire, many would defend the right of this man to do such a thing.. hard to argue with them.. the logic also holds firm for the burning of the US flag.. and the logic works even if it is in defense of the Fred Phelps group as they picket the funerals of fallen soldiers.

But questions remain concerning the wisdom of such actions. It goes back to the issue of whether one should do something just because they can. I think that the question of should hits to the issue of motive. I think that the actions of one being energized by a love motive will look very different than one being moved by another kind of motive. Love always considers the impact of our actions on others because love is selfless.

Pages