Politics
California Props Part 2
10/31/08 17:59
So, here is the second part of the props:
1a: For
6: Against
8: Against
9: Against
10: Against
11: For
R: For
A relatively lame list this does not do justice to the wonderful discussion and time we had together talking about these props. I do not advocate for churches to get uber-political, but we should all be informed voters, and a lot of these issues relate directly to social justice.
1a: For
6: Against
8: Against
9: Against
10: Against
11: For
R: For
A relatively lame list this does not do justice to the wonderful discussion and time we had together talking about these props. I do not advocate for churches to get uber-political, but we should all be informed voters, and a lot of these issues relate directly to social justice.
|
W
10/28/08 17:17
I saw W the other day with Emily. Although the reviews called it a fair portrayal of Bush the Younger, I could not believe the Oliver Stone would not be a bit more... negative in his depiction. Instead, I witnessed a very well written, performed pseudo-biography. I have had a particular animosity towards Bush these last few years (really since the beginning of 2005, after I had re-elected the fellow). Watching this film gave me a compassion towards him that would make Anne Lamott cringe.
Stone suggests that the really motivational force behind W is trying to please his father, whose approval he was never able to get to a satisfactory level. I do not know how accurate the portrayal of their relationship is, but it is an understandable conclusion. Stone suggests that W blamed his father’s refusal to take out Saddam Hussein when he had the chance as a show of weakness which subsequently lost the election. Interestingly, just prior W had become an evangelical Christian. I wonder
Stone suggests that the really motivational force behind W is trying to please his father, whose approval he was never able to get to a satisfactory level. I do not know how accurate the portrayal of their relationship is, but it is an understandable conclusion. Stone suggests that W blamed his father’s refusal to take out Saddam Hussein when he had the chance as a show of weakness which subsequently lost the election. Interestingly, just prior W had become an evangelical Christian. I wonder
California Props
10/24/08 17:09
My church this week started a two week conversation about the California ballot propositions. Folks were each assigned a prop, which they research and then share with the group - including the personal bias used to approach the issue (for or against), a summary of the proposition and its effects, as well as summaries of arguments for and against. We made it through half of them, and it was a pretty great time. It was very informational, and we found that the research done was unable to answer the questions that people have (not to the fault of the folks doing the research, but more related to the lack of information on the props, particularly if one has a hard time reading ‘legalese’). The best moments were the moments where we got to discuss our reactions to the props. We had to constantly cut this short (or risk being there all night long), but there was good discussion. I think this experience along with time I have been spending with Jon Damiani disagreeing about politics has been very helpful. Not in a sense of particularly changing my political and economic opinions, but in terms of learning how to be friends with folks I do not agree with. That has always been a bit difficult for me: learning how to truly enjoy being with folks with whom I bitterly disagree.
Anyways... for anyone who cares here is where I am at with the props so far:
2: For
3: For
4: Against
5: Against
7: Against
12: For
We will be talking about the others next week!
Anyways... for anyone who cares here is where I am at with the props so far:
2: For
3: For
4: Against
5: Against
7: Against
12: For
We will be talking about the others next week!
Politics and Christians
10/09/08 11:20
Watching the debate the other night sparked a great many thoughts in my every running brain (quiet up there). One thing I was struck by was the conversation about humanitarian crises. I felt like both candidates were similar to each other in their positions, and that position seemed contrary to the Gospel. Essentially, I understood the conversation to be one of moral responsibility and sacrifice. They were asked about the responsibility of the United States to get involved with genocide, such as that happening in Darfur, that which has happened in Rwanda, with undertones reaching back to the Jewish Holocaust. Both candidates agreed that we have a responsibility, presumably not just as a country but as a a world and as individuals, to pursue peace and to protect others from violence. That is all well and good, but there was a fascinating and subsequent divergence from that philosophy when it came to nationalism and protection of our own. For instance, (and I can’t remember this exactly), but one of the candidates implied that the killing of our own troops for the sake of rescuing/stopping genocide would be too much. That is too much sacrifice to be made.
Now, I’m completely dubious of the notion that violence can stop violence, but the point that I would like to make is that of nationalism. Why is it that our own lives, our own country, is more important than all others? Why are the lives of those that live here not worth sacrificing for others?
This springs from a heartfelt frustration that I have had ever since I became a Christian. I have always thought that it would be worth it (if possible) to sacrifice myself for others, particularly in death. To be specific, I used to ask God if I could suffer hell instead of others. Could I go to hell instead of my friends and family? At first this seems like such fantasy and naivete, but I think there is some real truth in these matters. For one, somehow God is in charge of the modes of salvation and redemption - though there may be some constrains by his own character and the necessity of propitiation/expiation. Second, this seems to be exactly the heart of Jesus (thus, of God), that he would sacrifice himself for the sake of others, and so our emulation of that desire is good.
It is in such a manner that nationalism can be a very dangerous thing for Christians to engage in. We become more concerned with those in our own tribe than with all of humanity, with other folks who need love and help. This is particularly clear when we see the demonizing of whole countries like Iran, Libya, North Korea, Russia, China, when the vast majority of people living in those countries are not involved in the wrongs that our country identifies. Thus, military engagement (and often times the media) engage in this hubris of nationalism whereby we, the United States, are the great country who is wronged and never admit the times when we wrong others, particularly the innocent (or the killing of the innocent is considered an unfortunate by product of fighting evil).
Now, I’m completely dubious of the notion that violence can stop violence, but the point that I would like to make is that of nationalism. Why is it that our own lives, our own country, is more important than all others? Why are the lives of those that live here not worth sacrificing for others?
This springs from a heartfelt frustration that I have had ever since I became a Christian. I have always thought that it would be worth it (if possible) to sacrifice myself for others, particularly in death. To be specific, I used to ask God if I could suffer hell instead of others. Could I go to hell instead of my friends and family? At first this seems like such fantasy and naivete, but I think there is some real truth in these matters. For one, somehow God is in charge of the modes of salvation and redemption - though there may be some constrains by his own character and the necessity of propitiation/expiation. Second, this seems to be exactly the heart of Jesus (thus, of God), that he would sacrifice himself for the sake of others, and so our emulation of that desire is good.
It is in such a manner that nationalism can be a very dangerous thing for Christians to engage in. We become more concerned with those in our own tribe than with all of humanity, with other folks who need love and help. This is particularly clear when we see the demonizing of whole countries like Iran, Libya, North Korea, Russia, China, when the vast majority of people living in those countries are not involved in the wrongs that our country identifies. Thus, military engagement (and often times the media) engage in this hubris of nationalism whereby we, the United States, are the great country who is wronged and never admit the times when we wrong others, particularly the innocent (or the killing of the innocent is considered an unfortunate by product of fighting evil).
One Hundred Years of Solitude
07/18/08 16:06
Today I finished Gabriel Garcia Marquez’ One Hundred Years of Solitude. I’m still hesistant about the book. I enjoyed a great many parts of it, but I’m not sure I really understood it. There are a few interesting tidbits I noticed:
First, there is a theme in the book about the cyclic nature of history - or, we are doomed to repeat forgotten mistakes. Many of the characters are very similar to prior characters (the book follows 7 generations of the Buendia family), and repeat the same mistakes of their ancestors. These mistakes are repeated because no one has a relationship with each other where they reflect upon their mistakes and instruct children and grandchildren how to move past those issues. Implied is the idea that we will have similar characters as a our parents and grandparents and should glean what wisdom we can from them in order to live better lives.
Second, there is also a theme running though the book about the lack of trustworthiness of government. The point is not just the obvious truth that the government is not fully trustworthy, but that the government inherently requistions events and truth for its own gain. This is brought up in two significant ways. In the first half of the book, Col. Aureliano Buendia is a rebel general, who fights many battles but is eventually defeated. He is honored by the government and awarded medals, in order to innoculate him and create him into a puppet of the state. In the second half, one of the Buendias tries to organize a labor strike. The government kills all the dissenters and dumps them in the ocean, and manages to cover up the whole situation through the media. The larger point is that what people believe is the reality of a situation can be changed. Or, as it is said in Braveheart, “History is written by those who have hanged heroes” - or, history is written by those who survive.
Third, and this is what I found most compelling, is that the whole family line ends after 100 years (thus the title). It leaves on with a great many questions. The family leaves nothing behind - no heirlooms, no memories. There is even a scene towards the end where the famous Col. Aureliano Buendia is not remembered by anyone. So, Marquez is bringing questions to the floor: What constitutes a lasting change? What impact do we make, what impact can we make, what impact should we want to make in the world?
Do the means justify the ends?
03/10/08 08:18
I am surprised by how often this simple idea comes to bear. Do the means justify the ends? Does the result justify how we get to it? I suppose this concept is most easily broken up into its three main linguistic groups: the subject, verb and direct object.
The Ends
It is fascinating how those who would vehemently deny this ideology are tempted by it when the ends are so productive and positive. When the end enables solving world hunger, when it reduces violence by preventative means (phone tapping), or other such positives. Sometimes the ends are so attractive, that the means become irrelevant. In evaluating the means, should we take into account the ends? There is necessity in teleological thinking, particularly in terms of moral development, but for any goal minded individual. If the ends of decisions are not considered, then the means are completely unimportant. The ends are, ultimately, the goal. (Although the means are exceedingly important, they must be secondary otherwise no direction, progress or organized movement could be achieved. Even BASE communities, house churches, and the most organic organizations have a mission.) So, the question then is not “Do the means justify the ends?”, but “What sorts of means are acceptable for the ends that we have in mind?”
The Means
We most often think of means in terms of direct actions that conclude in results. I want to suggest the means as more intimately connected with the character of the individual or organization which is pursuing some sort of telos. The ends and the means are so tightly connected together that they cannot be taken apart to evaluate separately. The means dictate the sorts of ends that are possible to achieve. Peace cannot be achieved with a sword. Love cannot be attained by coercion. The sorts of means we engage directly defines the sorts of ends that result.
The Justification
This idea of the entwined nature of means and ends leads to a reinterpretation of justification. Justification is not solely focused on the result, but on the way to achieve that result. This is part of the ideas of being vs. becoming. The becoming is the end: who we are becoming is intensely important, but who we are now (our being) defines in part who we become. (I leave here only a mention of the supernatural, though at the moment I am unsure how God works in these ways.) So, if one wants to become a virtuous person, or if a community wants to engage in peace and reconciliation, or if a nation desires economic justice and international cooperation, how they are acting in the present defines how those teleological goals will or can come into being.
More on Nonviolence
11/28/07 07:04
A few quotes from Kurlansky’s book:
“The early Christians are the earliest known group that renounced warfare in all its forms and rejected all its institutions.”
“For 284 years… Christians remained an antiwar cult. Christian writers emphasized the incompatibility of warfare with Christian teachings.”
“Active practitioners of nonviolence are always seen as a threat, a direct menace, to the state.”
“…once the state embraces a religion, the nature of that religions changes radically. It loses its nonviolent component and becomes a force for war rather than peace. The state must make war, because without war it would have to drop its power politics and renege on its mission to seek advantage over other nations, enhancing itself at the expense of others. And so a religions that is in the service of a state is a religion that not only accepts war, but prays for victory. From Constantine to the Crusaders to the contemporary American Christian right, people who call themselves Christians have betrayed the teachings of Jesus while using His name in the pursuit of political power.”
Nonviolence
11/27/07 09:08
I am reading an excellent book by Mark Kurlansky entitled Nonviolence. Kurlansky writes, “The first clue… on the subject of nonviolence, is that there is no word for it…. while every major language has a word for violence, there is no word to express the idea of nonviolence except that it is not another idea, it is not violence.” There is, essentially, no ideological embodiment of nonviolence in language. Even the idea of peace is not the same as nonviolence, but it can suffice for this example. Imagine a world where instead of having war, we had ‘nonpeace’.Kurlansky is quick to point out that nonviolence is not the same as pacifism, which is associated with being passive. Nonviolence is a political means to an end, just as violence is, but it refuses to dehumanize others. Essentially, it tries to take seriously every great religions’ teaching of love your neighbor. If you do love your neighbor you will not invade, you will not wage war, you will not steal or cheat. The reason that we do invade, steal, bomb, kill is because we love ourselves more than our neighbors.The counter argument is an argument of justice. If you truly wish to love your neighbor then you must reveal the consequences of their actions. Thus when Iraq invaded Kuwait, we were loving not only Kuwait but showing Iraq tough love by invading. This is identified as the myth of redemptive violence: that performing a violent action can bring about nonviolent results.It is interesting that the first Christians never used the symbol of the cross, the symbol of violence against Jesus. They used the fish. That was their understanding of what Christianity was: following a fisherman, which often meant going to a cross. Now we follow the Christ of the cross, with few of us (in the West) ever going to one ourselves.
The American Dream
11/13/07 08:12
There is a study recently completed which suggests that the American Dream is not so easily come by as thought. More importantly, it reveals some of the lingering racism in our country. I don’t mean to simplify such a complex issue, but at the same time thee is some truth in the claim: we still suffer from racial divide.
Alain Badiou
11/07/07 12:45
I’m just getting into Alain Badiou’s Ethics. Here are some quotes from Badiou:
“A Truth is the subjective development of that which is at once both new and universal. New: that which is unforeseen by the order of creation. Universal: that which can interest, rightly, every human individual, according to his pure humanity.”
“Evil is the interruption of a truth by the pressure of particular or individual interests.”
“Evil is the moment when I lack the strength to be true to the Good that compels me.”
“Liberal capitalism is not at all the Good of humanity. Quite the contrary; it is the vehicle of savage, destructive nihilism.”
“Our democracy is not perfect. But it’s better than the bloody dictatorships. Capitalism is unjust. But it’s not criminal like Stalinism. We let millions of Africans die of AIDS, but we don’t make racist nationalist declarations like Milosevic. We kill Iraqis with our airplanes, but we don’t cut their throats with machetes like they do in Rwanda, etc.”
“It is necessary to examine, in a detailed way, the contemporary theory of Evil, the ideology of human rights, the concept of democracy. It is necessary to show that nothing there leads in the direction of the real emancipation of humanity. It is necessary to reconstruct rights, in everyday life as in politics, of Truth and of the Good. Our ability to once again have real ideas and real projects depends on it.”
“The ethics of Truth always returns, in precise circumstances, to fighting for the True against the four fundamentals forms of Evil: obscurantism, commercial academicism, the politics of profit and inequality, and sexual barbarism.”
“Evil is the interruption of a truth by the pressure of particular or individual interests.”
“Evil is the moment when I lack the strength to be true to the Good that compels me.”
“Liberal capitalism is not at all the Good of humanity. Quite the contrary; it is the vehicle of savage, destructive nihilism.”
“Our democracy is not perfect. But it’s better than the bloody dictatorships. Capitalism is unjust. But it’s not criminal like Stalinism. We let millions of Africans die of AIDS, but we don’t make racist nationalist declarations like Milosevic. We kill Iraqis with our airplanes, but we don’t cut their throats with machetes like they do in Rwanda, etc.”
“It is necessary to examine, in a detailed way, the contemporary theory of Evil, the ideology of human rights, the concept of democracy. It is necessary to show that nothing there leads in the direction of the real emancipation of humanity. It is necessary to reconstruct rights, in everyday life as in politics, of Truth and of the Good. Our ability to once again have real ideas and real projects depends on it.”
“The ethics of Truth always returns, in precise circumstances, to fighting for the True against the four fundamentals forms of Evil: obscurantism, commercial academicism, the politics of profit and inequality, and sexual barbarism.”
International Justice and War (or Why Every Country Should Invade the United States)
11/05/07 10:41
I have a hard time with the Iraq war. I know that many people do. The cost alone scares me. The claims that we are making those folks lives better, or saving them from an evil regime seem preposterous. Reports that Hussein had offered to leave the country into exile are scary. These things seem to iterate the United States’ supremacist view of itself as the holy protector of the world. We consider our way the best way, the only way (we do allow countries with a parliamentary system to be our friends too). This sort of pride is alarming and cannot be easily fixed. In a minor plug, I feel like Obama would be the best next leader of our country, with a proper amount of humility and compassion for others to counter our current trend.
My real point here, though, is this fellow and the international actions against him:
.
Ahmadinejad is the leader of Iran, and a fairly foolish man. He hates the Jewish people, as many conservative Muslims do, and he is currently trying to get nuclear power, and probably nukes, for his country. The International community is doing everything possible to stop him. It is interesting that the international community consists of countries who all have nukes, and who all can very easily wipe out ahmadinejad’s country without a second thought. The United States have about 7500 active nuclear weapons - ranged all over the world on subs, in the United States, and in a few select bases overseas.
Moreover, we have recently attacked a country on the suspicion of weapons of mass destruction. I do not support Ahmadinejad’s ideology, but the injustice of his situation is interesting. My solution is not to enable him to get nukes. My suggestion is that we get rid of more of ours, both as a sign of good will to all of life and also as a means of reducing our inherent threat to countries without nukes. Lastly, in order to gain respect on the world stage and close attention from the United States and other economic superpowers like the EU and China, a country needs to get nukes or move in that direction. We would be completely ignoring Iran right now if not for the nuclear situation.
However, to contradict myself, I am not sure what gives us, the United States, the right to nuclear technology and knowledge and not others. It seems that part of the inalienable rights that we give to ourselves (or claim to give to ourselves) we deny to others. It is also interesting that in the midst of global warming, etc., we should probably be helping others attain the cleaner resource of nuclear power. (On the subject of its disposal, I continue to suggest sending it to the sun, where ‘nuclear waste’ is constantly being generated and destroyed. There is about 148,000,000 kg of nuclear waste on earth.)
So, what is my point? That our hypocrisy is reaching new and disturbing levels. Instead of setting the example, both internationally and for the common good, we are attempting to mandate actiions by others and rely upon our ever weakening economy.
The Upcoming Elections
08/07/07 14:51
Here is a great graph showing the politicians’ views on different issues. It only affirms how much I like Barack Obama, who it turns out Rudy Guiliani’s daughter will vote for.
I emailed the folks at www.2decide.com for permission to put up this graphic and never got it, but go check out their website - it is pretty interesting.
July 4
07/05/07 17:32
So, maybe it is a bit passe to critique this country. I know I’m good at it. But at the same time, this week where we celebrate our indpendence is an excelled opportunity for some critical thinking.
I’m not a political scholar, nor a politican, but as a concerned citizen, there are some aspects of the United States that I really worry about. The first of these has to do with my own camp: the Christians. (Even that Christians are considered a camp is a huge problem) The Religious Right/Moral Majority has a tendency to push two policies: abortion and homosexuality. These issues are used to create a moral image whereby those who agree are considered God-fearing and safe. Those that do not agree with the supplied stance are abused, ignored, or maligned. Instead of creating any sort of unity, the divide between these opinions seems to have grown to a point where discussion, argument or disagreement is impossible. The issues are more important than the community. Theologically, the unacceptable nature of this attitude is evident. I do not mean that the religious right is not right in their stances, but being right is never as important as being loving.
This attitude is exhibited on the left as well as the right. The ability to compromise for the sake of others is slipping away. The predicament of our current government should suffice. Because Congress is dominated by Democrats and our president is a Republican, less has been done because of the lack of ability to compromise. Why is this? Surely the issues today are not any more serious or dire than in previous generations or decades. Neither is it the case that people are more passionate about the issues. But there seems to be a part of the attitude with which the sides engage with each other that is different. What I mean is that we have forgotten that both sides are trying to fight for the good of our country. Both the left and the right (and those caught in the middle) have a serious belief that their policies are beneficial.
The good things for me now would be to suggest some sort of a solution. That I do not have. I wonder if the problems are not systemic. Because things require a 50%+1 vote to pass, the goal becomes attaining the majority which (due to a non-parliamentary system) does not require alliances but pure warfare. I am not suggesting that the parliamentary system does not have similar problems, but the left and right are generally co-opted by the extremes (like the religious right) and people in the middle are left without a candidate. For instance, there are 20 semi-possible candidates for our next presidency, and probably 6 serious candidates. If we look at these 6 candidates (Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Romney, Guiliani, McCain), they vary so incredibly that it is hard to believe that they are split into two parties.
So, I suppose I’m arguing that a sort of solution is a parliamentary system. The problem is such a system will not solve our issues! They may aid a form of dialogue over warfare by forcing coalitions and alliances, but the deeper issue seems to be a lack of grace and concern for the ‘other-side’. This is a deeper problem with which I will not concern myself.
Tired, this must conclude the critique. I’m sure I will engage with this more, but not at this time!
I’m not a political scholar, nor a politican, but as a concerned citizen, there are some aspects of the United States that I really worry about. The first of these has to do with my own camp: the Christians. (Even that Christians are considered a camp is a huge problem) The Religious Right/Moral Majority has a tendency to push two policies: abortion and homosexuality. These issues are used to create a moral image whereby those who agree are considered God-fearing and safe. Those that do not agree with the supplied stance are abused, ignored, or maligned. Instead of creating any sort of unity, the divide between these opinions seems to have grown to a point where discussion, argument or disagreement is impossible. The issues are more important than the community. Theologically, the unacceptable nature of this attitude is evident. I do not mean that the religious right is not right in their stances, but being right is never as important as being loving.
This attitude is exhibited on the left as well as the right. The ability to compromise for the sake of others is slipping away. The predicament of our current government should suffice. Because Congress is dominated by Democrats and our president is a Republican, less has been done because of the lack of ability to compromise. Why is this? Surely the issues today are not any more serious or dire than in previous generations or decades. Neither is it the case that people are more passionate about the issues. But there seems to be a part of the attitude with which the sides engage with each other that is different. What I mean is that we have forgotten that both sides are trying to fight for the good of our country. Both the left and the right (and those caught in the middle) have a serious belief that their policies are beneficial.
The good things for me now would be to suggest some sort of a solution. That I do not have. I wonder if the problems are not systemic. Because things require a 50%+1 vote to pass, the goal becomes attaining the majority which (due to a non-parliamentary system) does not require alliances but pure warfare. I am not suggesting that the parliamentary system does not have similar problems, but the left and right are generally co-opted by the extremes (like the religious right) and people in the middle are left without a candidate. For instance, there are 20 semi-possible candidates for our next presidency, and probably 6 serious candidates. If we look at these 6 candidates (Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Romney, Guiliani, McCain), they vary so incredibly that it is hard to believe that they are split into two parties.
So, I suppose I’m arguing that a sort of solution is a parliamentary system. The problem is such a system will not solve our issues! They may aid a form of dialogue over warfare by forcing coalitions and alliances, but the deeper issue seems to be a lack of grace and concern for the ‘other-side’. This is a deeper problem with which I will not concern myself.
Tired, this must conclude the critique. I’m sure I will engage with this more, but not at this time!