Politics
Back
March 2012
There is an American old adage that says, “Your freedom stops where it infringes on mine.” In an earlier form it said, “Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins.” The earlier form of the phrase was used during the Christian Temperance movement in the late 19th century, but during the 20th century became a general motto about personal freedom. I thought about this statement in regards to the ballot initiative “Amendment One,” which will be on the primary election ballot on Tuesday, May 8th.
The amendment to the North Carolina constitution reads, “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.” There is already a law that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Same-sex marriages are not legal in North Carolina.
This amendment takes a big step further. It is not defining marriage (that was already done in the law mentioned above); but it is declaring no other types of household unions will be recognized other than marriage. This amendment is about taking away the few rights cohabiting heterosexual couples and same-sex couples have. In declaring that marriage is the only domestic partnership that will be recognized for any purpose, the amendment “punches a lot of noses” and infringes on the freedoms of others. Not only does it violate an American sense of personal freedom, it violates some of Jesus’ basic teachings – the Golden Rule and to love your neighbor as yourself.
Would Jesus have us take away the right of an AIDS patient to have his same-sex partner by his bedside in the ICU at the hospital? Would Jesus have us remove domestic violence protections for a woman if a live-in boyfriend beats her up, simply because they weren’t married? Would Jesus want us to risk domestic partner insurance benefits that unmarried and same-sex couples may receive through their employers? Would Jesus want us to nullify legal protections for children of unmarried couples?
This amendment isn’t about protecting marriage; it is about hurting unmarried and same-sex couples. It is time for Christians to stand up to those who would use God’s name and God’s word to hurt and to hate. I will be voting against Amendment One on May 8th, and I hope you will join me.
January 2012
The 2012 Presidential Election got underway this week with the Iowa Caucus. Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney finished in a virtual tie while Ron Paul held onto their coattails. From now until November (with the national media making a September pit stop in Charlotte for the Democratic National Convention) the election will be the main news story. By then we’ll be so sick of it, we’ll all be just glad it’s over.
Unfortunately, the election will be a distraction from serious discussions we should be having about our nation. For whether President Obama wins re-election or not, the challenges we face as a nation, as a people are beyond what politicians can do in Washington, D.C. If the economy continues to creep back into healthier ground, chances are he will be re-elected. If not, he’ll follow Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush. But the real issues about our economy have little to do with the office of the President.
Until the manufacturing sector of our economy begins to stabilize and expand our long-term economic forecast will be dim. But I fear we will not hear any serious discussion on this issue during the election campaigns. There will be photo-ops at manufacturing plants and there will be sound bites about magic tax cuts or ‘miracle-grow’ targeted spending, but alas no serious discussion on the topic.
Manufacturing has been declining for two generations, it will take at least one to get it expanding again. But to do that we’ll have to raise our children to love science and mathematics more than sports and video games. We’ll have to restore our work ethic and admire inventors more than Hollywood celebrities (or at least make more inventors like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates celebrities). We’ll have to decide that corporate responsibility includes the community as well as the shareholders. We’ll have to make business decisions based on long-term prosperity instead of short-term profits. We’ll have to save more and borrow less.
These decisions won’t be decided by presidential politics. They’ll voted on by every woman, man and child in America in the way they go to school, live at home, make priorities at the office, and handle their checkbooks and 401k’s. Jesus once said that it’s only the house built on solid bedrock that withstands the storms of life. What’s true in personal faith is also true for national health.
September 2011
“The response to tragedy is much more important than the tragedy itself.”
I wrote those words a week after 9/11. They are even more appropriate as we approach the 10th anniversary. While the tragedy will be memorialized once again on Sunday, our response continues to shape its historical significance for our common future. Lincoln understood the power of memorials, but as he dedicated the Gettysburg National Cemetery he noted that it would be the living that would prove a nation “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal… can long endure.”
That first week after 9/11 encouraged all of us with signs of generosity, patriotism and courage. But it was not to last. Many thought that 9/11 would forever change life in America. Other than long security lines at airport terminals, I can’t see that life has changed much in the past decade. Instead of coming together as a nation to fight a common enemy, we have become even more fractured.
In some ways you could say we lost a decade. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq continue to be waged. The Dow Jones is barely above where it was the weeks before 9/11. Wages for middle-class workers have been stagnant for the decade. Church attendance is lower than what it was the Sunday before the terrorist attacks. The Federal Surplus disappeared just before 9/11 and now Federal Deficits have soared past the $1 trillion mark. And politics are more partisan and less civil.
As we approach the 10th anniversary of 9/11 I believe we have a second chance. “If we as a nation choose justice over revenge, freedom over fear, empathy over apathy, love over hate as we pursue the perpetrators of this massacre,” I said in that column ten years ago, “then we will have created a fitting memorial for those who died.” It’s not too late. We can still choose justice, freedom, empathy and love as a fitting 9/11 memorial to those who died and particularly to those who willingly and courageously gave their lives for their fellow citizens. Some have made great sacrifices to serve our country, some even though they weren’t sure about the wars, but did so out of duty and honor. It’s time for all of us to sacrifice for the principles of justice, freedom and peace. Those who died at the Pentagon, the WTC & Flight 93 deserve no less from us.
May 2011
The death of Osama bin Laden at the hands of US Navy Seals marks the end of a chapter in our nation’s struggle with terrorism. Terrorism did not begin with bin Laden and it won’t end with him, but a chapter has ended. It won’t end with his killing because terrorism never ends in another’s death. Killing only perpetuates terrorism. As Gandhi once said, “An eye for an eye eventually leaves the whole world blind.” Terrorism only ends when life is chosen instead of death.
Bin Laden’s death coming at the same time that revolutions are sweeping across North Africa and the Middle East creates a contrast between the conclusion of one chapter and the hopeful beginning of another chapter. Hundreds of thousands of Muslims across that region of the world are choosing life instead of death. The peaceful regime changes in Tunisia and Egypt offer hope not only to those countries but also to the region as well as for North America and Europe. Nations where freedom and opportunity increase see a decrease in the numbers of persons willing to invest themselves in terrorism. Given hope and the chance to better their lives, most people would rather invest their lives in life – in love and marriage, children and grandchildren – rather than in death. The violence in Libya, Syria, and Bahrain serves notice, however, that those who do choose death over life are willing to destroy everyone and everything if they cannot remain in power.
Bin Laden’s death offers our nation the chance to begin a new chapter as well. It gives us a chance to reinvest ourselves in life rather than death. For nearly ten years we have been on a hunt for one man and his terrorism ring and we have left in our path a huge swath of destruction. Now, maybe, we can refocus on a more life-giving path. This is a chance, an opportunity, not a certainty. We have to choose hope over fear, life over death in the way we invest our nation’s dollars and fan either our populous’ hopes or fears.
This is a time for national prayer, a time for all of us, not only Christian, but Jewish and Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist as well, to pray that tolerance not terrorism would mark our future, that justice and peace not oppression and war would reign throughout the earth. We have a chance to take another direction. Let’s grab the opportunity while available. The God who defeated death and evil and sin on Easter Sunday still has much to offer the world.
February 2011
The events of 9/11 changed the way that we talk about war and peace and religion. One day events may change them again, but for now those of us who call ourselves Christian must grapple with this new era and the implications it has for our discipleship under Jesus Christ. Two generations ago war was fought between nations, under recognized leaders with legitimate armed forces. The aim of war was either to steal, murder and take your enemy’s land, or to defend your homeland from being taken. Many look upon the Allied response to Germany’s aggression in World War II as an example of when war, with all its evils, has moral justification. The first Gulf War was viewed with similar perspectives as an allied force drove Iraq’s army out of tiny Kuwait.
But 9/11 has changed the playing field, or maybe it is just the final turn in a military race that had been changing for decades. Were not the military actions in Korea, Vietnam and Somalia foreshadowing events for what we are now experiencing in Iraq and Afghanistan? Our nation’s forces are not fighting standing armies, usually not even guerilla warfare, but pockets of insurgents, resistance to occupation. How does a nation use war upon a small group of terrorists without murdering thousands of innocents living in the same land? Or at what point does the response to a terrorist action become as morally repugnant as the original act? The 9/11 terrorists despicably took the lives of roughly 3,000 innocent people. Those who participated in the planning and funding of that event along with those who forged the organization behind the events should have been brought, and still should be brought, to justice. Yet, by now tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Iraqi and Afghani civilians have been killed. Is this not also morally depraved? Do we, as Christian citizens of a democracy, not have blood on our hands as well?
The all-volunteer army allows most of the population to wash its hands of this. It allows us to hoist this moral question, not to mention the personal sacrifice, on the backs of a small number of soldiers and their families. And having an all-volunteer army may make our elected leaders and the civilian population as a whole more casual about going to war – soldiers, we can say, have already chosen to make themselves “expendable.” Maybe the draft wasn’t so bad. It made the moral choice of war very personal. Which is what it always is whether we realize it or not. Can we as disciples of Jesus justify war on terror without becoming terrorists?
September 2010
Our most treasured ideals are always tested at their borders. This is, of course, true for all things in life. The weak link is what always tests the strength of the chain. If one link breaks, it doesn’t matter if all the other links could take 1,000 more pounds of pressure; the chain is broken nonetheless.
American anger at Muslims in general has been rising over the past year and may be higher than in the weeks following 9/11. At that time President Bush spoke well for us, “Those who feel like they can intimidate our fellow citizens to take out their anger don’t represent the best of America, they represent the worst of humankind.” He made it clear that we should not confuse Al Qaeda with Islam. “The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam,” he added. We could use his clear words now.
The headlines noting the church in Florida that planned on burning the Koran and the controversy over the proposed Islamic cultural center (known as “the mosque” in the news) near Ground Zero are just two instances of an increasingly frequent questioning of Muslims in America. Our cherished First Amendment rights of religious liberty are being threatened, not by government intrusion, but by our own silence in the face of religious bigotry. It’s easy to stand up for the religious rights of the majority. The weak link is whether we will stand up for the religious rights of the minority.
The proposal to put an Islamic center near Ground Zero may not have been wise. But not because in some way it dishonors the dead of 9/11 – which it would not. Sadly, it was probably an overly optimistic view of America’s tolerance for religious liberty.
It is interesting that we quickly label the 9/11 madmen as “Islamic terrorists,” but would be outraged if Timothy McVeigh were labeled a “Christian terrorist.” Yet, the similarities of his motives and actions with those of the 9/11 terrorists are striking, differing only in scale. But no one would protest the construction of a Christian church two blocks from the former federal building in Oklahoma City. We understand the difference between the Timothy McVeigh’s of the world and Christianity proper. If we recognize the same between Al Qaeda and Islam proper maybe the weak link won’t break.
July 2010
The continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have brought Americans together at least in one aspect – we wish they would go away. We may be divided about how we would like to see these wars go away, but we are all in agreement that we are weary of them.
Those who were against the wars for political reasons do not understand how President Obama can basically follow the Bush administration’s strategy on the wars. They are apt to wonder why they voted for Obama, when he hasn’t made the changes he promised. Those who were against the wars for moral reasons, now find themselves equally dismayed that we may simply pull our troops and money from those countries and leave them in a worse situation than when we invaded. Do we not have a moral obligation to put back together the things that we broke? Those who were for the wars for political reasons are less supportive of the wars now that a different administration is in charge. Those who were for the wars as a response to 9/11 think we should finally finish the jobs we started and get out. Victory and go home.
This is one of the problems of war. Things almost never turn out as planned and unintended and unforeseen consequences almost always get the last word. This is because war pushes people to one of their most basic of instincts – survival. Human beings will do almost anything to survive. When you back an adversary into a corner, expect him to fight back by whatever means possible. In war, survival trumps the Geneva Convention and all other laws and codes of conduct. People use whatever means they have to protect their family and home.
This is what makes Jesus’ death on the cross so much more difficult for us to understand. We who live in a society that conquerors oppressors are confused by a Savior who gave up his life to those who persecuted him. If we followed Jesus’ example, wouldn’t that turn us all into “doormats?” But after nearly 9 years of war in Afghanistan and over 7 years in Iraq with all our military power – we have merely proven the futility of war. Would following Jesus’ example for conflict prove any more futile? Maybe if we loved our enemies, prayed for those who persecuted us, and carried our crosses daily, maybe we could do away with wars.
November 2009
Question authority.
It’s one of the mantras that survived the hippie era of the ‘70’s. Surprisingly, it has a biblical advocate. “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God….” [I John 4:1] For the writer of this passage, it simply meant, “Don’t believe every word a preacher says.” Baptists, I should add, are at their best when they follow this dictum. A sermon is not meant to be the end of a discussion, but the beginning of it. Questioning authority is a democratic responsibility.
Unfortunately, in our information age we find it difficult to “test the spirits.” If we read an article in the New York Times, many are apt to toss it aside as liberal spin without ever looking at the research that developed the story. Similarly, something from the Wall Street Journal may be tossed aside as conservative spin before its data is considered. Or a multi-year research study from a major university may be discounted by the pejorative words of a radio celebrity.
Meanwhile, we’re apt to take at face value the email chain letter sent to us from a friend or relative from an unknown source. Or we treat internet website information as fact, though the narrative does not cite a single primary source. Advertisers come up with important sounding words or acronyms that stand for something that also sounds important and we just assume that the manufacturer has our best interests in mind.
Or journalists, with a poor attempt at being objective, tell two sides of a story, giving both equal weight even though one is based more on conjecture than on research. The so-called debate between evolution and creationism is a perfect example. One side has the weight of 150 years of scientific research and all major university biologists, while the other can only point to a few scientists with strong religious presumptions and no peer reviewed work.
It is as if the more researched, the deeper the study, the more apt it is to be shunned as “elite,” while the less academic, the more frequent use of emotionally charged sound bites, the more likely it is accepted as fact. It’s as if we’ve become a nation of kids who didn’t do our homework but got really good at making up stuff off the top of our heads.
Maybe we should change “Question Authority” to “Question Stupidity.”
June 2009
One avenue the critics of South Carolina Governor Sanford have taken is the hypocrisy street. Here’s a family values, religious right conservative who tells others to live by the straight and narrow, but doesn’t live that way himself. The charge generally hits Republicans harder than Democrats because of their family values platform.
Unfortunately, Governor Sanford isn’t so unusual – except for Argentina. It seems that the conservative politician has plenty of conservative company. An article by Charles Blow in the New York Times took a look at three moral thermostats – divorce rates, teenage birthrates and online pornography subscription rates. The statistics ranked states from the highest to lowest rates in each category. Then, the author looked at which states voted for President Obama or Senator McCain.
You want to guess which states had the higher ‘sinner’ rates?
• For divorce, 8 of the 10 worst rated states voted for McCain. 8 of the 10 states with the lowest divorce rates voted for Obama.
• For teenage birthrates, 8 of the 10 states with the highest rates voted for McCain. Of the 10 states with the lowest rates of teen mothers, 9 voted for Obama.
• When it came to pornography, 8 of the 10 states with the highest internet subscriptions were McCain voters. 7 of the 10 states with the lowest ratings voted for Obama.
What does this mean that states that usually vote for the conservative, family values candidate have the worst rates of divorce, teen pregnancy and pornography? It seems the people, the regions, the pulpits that talk about these problems the most, have the most problems with them. While those who talk about them the least, have the least problems with them. Or maybe it’s the way different regions talk about those problems that is the difference.
When moralists were denouncing cigarette smoking and drinking from pulpits and school podiums they never had much of an affect on general population. When the conversation changed from morality to health and safety people’s attitudes about smoking and drunk driving changed. Both of those rates dropped in a generation. Maybe preachers and moralists and churches could learn a lesson from this.
May 2009
The more you attend church, the more you like torture.
Unfortunately, this is not a back-handed jab at bad preaching.
The Pew Research Center did a study back in April about people’s opinions regarding torture. They asked folks if torturing a suspected terrorist to get information can often be justified, sometimes…, rarely… or never justified?
Turns out that almost half (49%) said torture is often or sometimes justified. Those who regularly go to church, however, were more likely to approve of torture (54%). Among white evangelical Christians, 60% approved of torture.
I guess the WWJD craze is over. Jesus, who said, “love your enemies” and “bless those who persecute you,” doesn’t condone torture. Just in case you’re ready to label Jesus a liberal softy, remember he knew something about torture. If you’ve forgotten, go rent Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ.
How is it that the people who follow Christ in this nation are more likely to let fear, or revenge or hate get the best of them and approve of the worst and most deplorable of human acts? Have we lost our way?
If the 9/11 terrorists could see us now, would they be laughing at us? Would they snicker at how quickly we shove aside our professed values in the name of nationalism? Would they howl with delight at how quickly we adopt their tactic of terror to get what we want?
Reading such a poll makes me wonder if we are losing what President Bush called the “war on terror,” losing it in our hearts and minds and souls.
I think of the preschool child that uses all his dexterity and creative skills to make a beautiful tower from building blocks only to have a proud smile ripped off his face by the bully that knocks it down with one destructive blow. In a moment they’ll be rolling on the ground pinching and punching till the teacher pulls them apart. It’s a fight the creative child can never win with destructive power. The only way he wins is to build his beautiful tower again, and again, and again until the bully realizes it’s futile to keep knocking it down.
Nietzsche once wrote, “Beware when you fight a dragon, lest you become a dragon.” It’s not scripture; but it’s close.
January 2009
Inauguration Day is always an historic event for our nation. The peaceful transfer of power from one leader to another, one political party to another is one of the great hopes for humanity. If it is possible here, it is possible anywhere.
This January 20th will have special meaning for our country with the inauguration of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States. One of our nation’s stains is the subjugation of Africans into slavery and the long journey from slavery to segregation to discrimination and prejudice. The election of an African-American man as president says a great deal about how far America has come. It was one of the dreams Martin Luther King saw forty-five years ago – that persons would be judged by their character, not their skin color. If that dream is possible here, it is possible anywhere.
Of course the election of one man does not mean that we have achieved racial equality. That one man has risen above prejudice and discrimination does not mean that those powers have been neutralized in our society. The disparity between white Americans and Hispanics and African-Americans continues to be stark. That one man has broken through the racial barrier in American politics means that anyone – no matter race, gender, religion, ancestry – can become president. It doesn’t mean everyone can.
We still have a long way to go. But Obama’s election means that we have come a long way as well. And that is cause for celebration, no matter your political party. Change is possible. Attitudes, prejudices, presumptions as stubborn as those things are in us; it is possible for us to change them. That is amazingly good news. Of course, it’s biblical good news as well. “If anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation… everything has become new.” [II Cor. 5:17]
None of this means Barack Obama will be a good president. We’ll have to wait to see what he does, just as we have to do every four years. The color of his skin won’t make him better or worse. The color of his skin just means that we are better people than we once were.
President Bush said it best when he hosted the President-elect and the three living former presidents at the White House, “One message that I have and that I think we all share is that we want you to succeed… Whether we are Democrat or Republican we care deeply about this country.” Well said, Mr. President, well said.
November 2008
In many ways the election of Senator Barack Obama as President of the United States is a historic moment in American history.
It’s been said that America’s original sin was slavery. Our nation was nearly torn in half because of it. Racial segregation persisted for another century, hobbling the country with the burden of bigotry. Now, we have elected a person of African-American descent. Obama’s election does not mean that we’ve solved all our racial problems. It does mean that the highest office in that land truly is attainable to all of this nation’s children – white, black, Hispanic, poor, rich, male, and yes, one day, female. This is a good thing for our country. When all of our children can dream big dreams, we as a people reap the rewards.
It is a transitional moment in our nation’s history. The overwhelming electoral college vote and the solid popular vote with a high turnout sends a clear message to our politicians – both to Republicans and to Democrats. This is the third time in the past 16 years that our nation has chosen same party president and the houses of Congress. The other two will be remembered for their resounding ineffectiveness. The inability of the Democratic Congress to work with President Clinton and with their Republican colleagues resulted in the “Republican revolution” in 1994. The partisan governing President Bush and the Republican Congress produced decisions ultimately rejected by the populous, resulted in the Democratic resurgence two years ago and was the contributing factor in Obama’s major victory this week.
President-elect Obama and the new Democratic Congress have the potential of ushering in a new age in American politics, if they govern effectively during the next two and four years. The New Deal era ran from 1932 to 1968; the Reagan Revolution from 1980 to 2008. Both of those eras began during difficult economic times. They both spoke of hope not fear, of a bright future not a troubled present.
We are at such an opportunity again. Times are troubles. The nation has clearly spoken. It remains to our newly elected leaders to work together – not because they have to, but for the good of the nation – in order to direct us out of the mess we have created. Now that we have voted let us resolve to pray for our leaders and to stay in touch with them – by email or letter – about our views, our hopes and fears.
November 2008
“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God.” [I John 4:1] Every time we vote as a nation I am less concerned about the candidates running and more concerned about the shallow reasons many cast their votes. John’s advice to test every spirit to see if it is from God works well in the voting booth. “Testing the spirits” means that you critically evaluate the candidates.
When you stand in the voting booth forget the silly notions that Obama is a socialist or a Muslim, and forget all about George W. Bush – he’s not running; John McCain is.
Take time to evaluate McCain’s health care plan which will offer a tax credit for health insurance payments, but will also tax health benefits, which are now tax-free. Do you think that market forces will bring down health premiums? Will it be better for you? For the poor?
Take time to evaluate Obama’s federal income tax plan. Tax cuts for those making $200,000 net income or less. For those making a net income of $250,000 there will be tax increases to the point they were under the Clinton administration. This means a person making $300,000 will have to pay roughly $1,500 more in federal income taxes. What do you think of a more graduated income tax structure? Is it better for you? Is it better for the country? How does it affect the poor?
These are the kinds of questions Americans should be asking themselves. And the same sort of critical thinking should be applied to state and local races. The Charlotte Observer has provided fairly neutral information about local candidates on its news pages (I’m separating this out from the editorial pages). Take time to go to their web site and search information about local judges, for instance, or City Council races.
I’m taking next Tuesday off as a vacation day. School is out. The kids and I will pick up Magay from her office and head to our precinct. We’ll wait in line and talk about voting and our country and the responsibilities of living in a democratic republic. My children will be out of school, but they’ll be receiving an education that day.
Test the spirits. Think. Evaluate the substance. Ignore the sound bites. Most importantly, vote.
October 2008
After the Berlin Wall fell Magay and I wanted to travel to Eastern Europe before it was overwhelmed by western capitalism. One of my memorable images during that first trip was the old East German car, the Trabant.
I was enjoying driving on the German Autobahn – a road with no speed limits – when soon after crossing over the old West and East border we began flying past these little, boxy, slow cars. The Trabi, as it was commonly called, couldn’t have been doing much above 50 miles per hour. It rocked from the wind of speeding BMWs. We saw one with two large Germans riding in what looked like the back seat. The two-cylinder car was so small we figured this couple had just taken the front seats out! The Trabant became a casualty of unified Germany. It couldn’t compete in an open market place.
Reading Bill Bishop’s The Big Sort has me thinking about the Trabi and the first time I saw one nearly twenty years ago. Americans have been sorting themselves out for the past forty years. Our schools, neighborhoods, churches are more and more segregated – not just by race or ethnicity, but by lifestyle and ideology. We can’t even watch the same news stations!
While there’s nothing morally wrong with spending time around like-minded people, it is not especially good for a democracy. Studies for the past 100 years have shown that the more like-minded people stay together the more extreme their views become. Conversely, the more time heterogeneous groups spend time together, particularly if they have a common cause, the more moderate or tolerant their views become.
Bishop quotes a Minnesota Republican State Senator saying, “What we have today is idea segregation.” This is dangerous for American society. Democracy is really a marketplace of ideas. But when the best conservative or moderate or liberal ideas do not really compete with one another in the art of debate and compromise, but are manufactured in isolation from each other, what you end up with is the idea equivalent of the Trabant. If the solutions to the federal debt or terrorism or global warming or health care only sound good to one political party, you can bet it’s a Trabi.
Do yourself and your country a favor before we vote in November. Civilly talk about politics with someone who holds different ideas than you – not to persuade, but to understand. Who knows? One day this might save us from a Trabi economy in a BMW Autobahn world!
April 2008
The Charlotte Observer celebrated Tax Day, April 15th, with a brief listing of what our money buys. The list is eye-opening. The paper quoted the Heritage Foundation for its research – a conservative think-tanks. So, no one can complain about “liberal bias” in the story.
This year the federal government will spend roughly $25,117 per household in our country. However, we only collected $21,604 per household. That’s roughly a $3,500 gap for every family or household in the country. And that gap does not even include the special “outside-of-the-budget” spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which will cost about $700 per household this year. It doesn’t matter whether you are a Democrat or a Republican this is bad news. Some day, someone is going to have to pay for our national debt.
We are setting up our children and grandchildren for failure because we will not pay our bills. Every dollar our national government borrows will eventually cost us three or four dollars because of interest.
We are already hearing our presidential candidates talking in one way or another about tax cuts – which will only make our annual deficit even worse! Of course everyone says, “Cut wasteful spending.” But that’s like cutting out ice cream and cookies so you can pay the mortgage. You can’t cut enough to balance the budget.
Look where our money goes. Over a third of our federal spending ($9,600) is on Social Security, Medicare and other retirement benefits, which for the time being are paying for themselves with a surplus (which we spend for other things). We pay roughly $2,000 in interest on the federal debt, which has to be paid. Each household spends $6,000 towards defense and the two wars. All of our anti-poverty programs comes to only $3,700. And everything else, that’s everything, education, NASA, highways, unemployment, agriculture, justice system, health, national parks adds up to $4,600. If we keep defense and anti-poverty programs and cut out absolutely everything else, only then could we balance the budget. Or we could cut out all poverty funds, and keep defense and everything else, but then we’d still have a deficit.
The biggest chunk of our spending is on defense and our two wars. Jesus once said, “Those who live by the sword, will die by the sword.” [Matt 26:52] Maybe for us we’ll just go bankrupt by the sword. Just like the Soviets did….
February 2008
The problem with Global Warming and the accompanying Climate Change is that it is occurring too slowly. At least for its PR campaign. Scientists may be alarmed by what they call rapid changes, particularly at the poles, but most folks see this as some danger way off in the future.
When we are told that the North Pole may completely lose its summer ice within a few decades, we lose a sense of urgency. Scientists, studying trends over hundreds of thousands of years, may see unprecedented changes. But ordinary folks have only seen small changes over their entire adult years. When we are told that the earth’s temperature is a degree or two warmer than it was a hundred years ago and that terrible things will begin happening should the temperature raise a few more degrees, it sounds like Chicken Little is upset about an acorn hitting his head. When we walk into a room and the temperature is 68 or 69 or 70 degrees, we do not even notice the difference. What could a degree or two do? Most folks do not understand the delicate balance of temperature, precipitation, evaporation, polar ice and a handful of other variables on the environment.
Subtle change rarely alarms us.
Now if Global Warming would raise the sea levels ten feet in five years and wipe out everyone’s beachfront property and half of Manhattan, our government would forget the futile war on terrorism and marshal all our nation’s resources to solving the problem. Every church, school, and neighborhood organization would join in the fight against Global Warming. TV would run public announcements on how to do your part, save energy and cut your carbon emission. But of course when the change becomes that dramatic and drastic the vicious cycle will probably be impossible to stop.
That’s what the grandchildren of today’s children will face if we do not do something about the subtle change that is happening now.
Of course we could say that it won’t make much difference in my lifetime, so why should I care? That’s what King Hezekiah said when Isaiah told him of future calamity for Judah, “If there will be peace and security in my days, why care?” [II Kings 20:19] Jesus, however, gave us another image. “Whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant…” [Mark 10:43] The question is will we be servants for the generations to follow, or satisfied with our own safety?
July 2007
When I visited Jamestown with my family last week I became as interested in the monuments and memorials placed on the site at its 300th anniversary as I was in the archaeological findings at the original 1607 settlement. The original settlement is just now giving up many of its secrets as significant archaeological work has only been done in the last dozen years. A new archaeological center was dedicated a couple of months ago to celebrate the 400th anniversary. The May issue of the National Geographic reports they now have a million 17th century artifacts at Jamestown.
The artifacts are revealing an amazing portrait of the struggles of English settlers, Native American tribes and African slaves as these three cultures tried to live together. Though they co-existed on unequal terms, there is no doubt that each influenced the other and changed the course of history by their presence. That the American ideals of liberty and justice for all got started in a place where Anglos took and stole land that didn’t belong to them and bought kidnapped persons and enslaved them to then work that land is truly an ironic paradox. The economic success of Jamestown came in the form of a Caribbean tobacco plant that they introduced to Powhatan land and farmed by African slave labor. And we think globalization began with us!
The 1907 memorials, however, do not tell us any of these stories. The towering obelisk and the Memorial Church and the copper frieze depicting a scene of an Anglican priest preaching to Native Americans project upon Jamestown ideals we imposed upon that little fort. The memorials a century ago portrayed a virgin land barely touched by human beings and just waiting for civilized life. It spoke of the colonists’ desire to Christianize the savages – to give them a better life. There is no mention of the backbreaking slave labor upon which the colony survived. It’s as if we didn’t need Africans at all.
It seemed to me that the objective of those memorials was to perpetuate the myths of our nation’s beginnings, whether they had anything to do with the facts or not. That’s always a dangerous thing. Defending our constructed myths – about family, God, country, self – without facing the facts erodes the truth in those myths. If we continue to lie to our children about grandpa, for instance, to protect his “myth,” his image, when the facts come to light (as they finally always do) we’ll throw out the image as well. However, when we integrate the facts as we know them into our images or myths the truth in them stays amazingly resilient. So it is for God and country as well.
March 2007
When Jesus said, “You will always have the poor with you,” he wasn’t prescribing an economic policy. Sometimes we treat it that way. Problems of poverty never seem to go away and critics of social programs point to the futility of such initiatives. You will always have the poor. So, why bother trying to help?
One reason we have the poor is because our government wants a segment of our population to remain poor. Let me be clearer about that. WE want a segment of our population to remain poor and we allow or encourage our government to create policies to do this.
The Federal Reserve dampens the economy from growing too fast in order to keep wages and inflation down. When the Reserve does that, it keeps companies from hiring more and more workers. In fact, that is exactly why it keeps interest rates high enough to be a disincentive to overly aggressive company expansion. We as a nation, through our government (and this has been the policy through both Democratic and Republican administrations), have chosen a stable, low inflation monetary policy as opposed to a more laissez faire policy which would create greater fluctuations in wages and employment. Our current policy nearly guarantees that at least 4% of those seeking employment will be unemployed.
Our immigration policy encourages illegal aliens to sneak across our borders and work at low wages for jobs that would normally be filled by Americans living in poverty. The huge addition of illegal workers helps employers keep wages down and retail prices down, which keeps demand for products high. Everyone wins – employers, consumers, illegal aliens – except American citizens living in poverty.
Our education systems across our nation tend to provide the best education to the people living in the best neighborhoods and the worst education to people living in poverty. We purposely choose this and in doing so we continue the cycle of poverty for another generation.
I do not deny the fact that individual persons living in poverty have made personal decisions that contributed to their situation. But neither will I deny the fact that the rest of us have contributed as well. Lent calls me to confess my sin to my Lord. Awareness is the first step to change.
January 2007
The polls tell us that Americans are now solidly against our government’s plan for the war in Iraq and a majority wish we would just get out. The papers are more likely to show anti-war protesters than they were four and five years ago. The implied idea is that the anti-war crowd is gaining strength. I wish that was true, but I believe it’s false. Americans are not against the war in Iraq because they have suddenly come to believe that the war is morally wrong. They are against the war because it is failing. When we thought we were winning the polling numbers showed strong support for President Bush and his plans.
As Christians our beliefs about war should come from faith principles deeply held, not from watching a scoreboard.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may be revealing a post-modern reality that we Christians should have already been proclaiming. War doesn’t work.
Korean, Vietnam, Somalia, and now Afghanistan and Iraq. These are five wars since 1950 where we have tried to occupy a country and change its government through war. Each of them failed or is failing. The only occupying military action that has been successful in the past generations has been the NATO action in the former Yugoslavia. And there political diplomacy, not war, is what finally brought peace. If the world’s only superpower has a war track record like that, shouldn’t we start to question the efficacy of war?
The lone military success in America’s age of being the world’s superpower was the first Gulf War with its very limited agenda. Push Iraq out of Kuwait and then return home. No occupation. No regime change. That should tell us something.
I’m not a pacifist, yet. But it is clear in the New Testament that Jesus specifically chose a pathway other than war with Rome. And his teachings in the Sermon on the Mount support pacifism or non-violent resistance. Our futile attempts at changing things through war ought to make us as Christian citizens take a closer look at Jesus’ way and start proposing new ways to look at global conflicts. Otherwise more young men and women, along with countless billions of dollars will go the way of Vietnam and Iraq in futile wars to come.
June 2006
Democrats and Republicans try to give us the impression that they are 180º apart, when in fact they agree on most matters with regard to governing our country. Instead of one or the other, we could choose anarchy, or communism, or fascism, or monarchy. On the wide spectrum of things Democrat and Republican really aren’t so far apart. So why is it that we emphasize where we disagree, rather than acknowledging where we agree?
One author said men and women are like creatures from different planets, when in fact men and women are 99% the same. That one percent in DNA makes the difference in gender, creates physiological changes unique to male and female, but it pales in comparison to the overwhelming commonalities men and women share in our human species. So why is it that we emphasize where we differ, rather than highlighting our similarities?
Small differences can determine outcomes. Race car drivers can run their cars for 500 miles and finish just a car length apart – not even a second difference after 500 miles – and one pops the champagne as the winner and the other no one remembers. A seven game championship series can come down to the last shot or last swing after hundreds of points or pitches and one team will celebrate and the other will walk quietly to the locker room.
Differences do set us apart, make us stand out. And at times that matters. If I’m having delicate brain surgery, I want the surgeon with the steadiest hands, not the one with fairly good ones. But I don’t have brain surgery everyday; maybe I’ll never have it.
Most of the time focusing on what we hold and have in common benefits us more by building up community and creating collaborative efforts. Unfortunately, we often identify ourselves by how we differ from others, rather than by what we hold in common.
The truth is that if you are looking for a reason to disagree, a reason to pick a fight, you will find it. There’s always going to be those exceptional differences. On the other hand if you are looking for reasons to work together, find common ground, you will find that as well. They are far more numerous and available. The question is, are we the kind of people who nit-pick or build common ground?
July 2005
President Bush’s statement that “Intelligent Design” should be taught in school was a troubling statement.
But not because of the faux debate over evolution. There is no scientific debate about evolution. The only persons who keep alive the question of evolution are those with religious presuppositions. As a Christian I look to the Bible to tell me WHO created the universe and WHY; I look to science to tell me HOW. But none of this is why Bush’s statement was troubling.
Bush’s statement is symptomatic of a conservative Christian mindset that doesn’t understand or is hostile to science as a whole. Whether it’s evolution, global warming, or stem cell research, this administration constantly finds itself opposing the scientific community. It’s my impression that his base voters are just as antagonistic.
How far we have come from the post-Sputnik days when Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy pushed and prodded American schoolchildren into mathematics and the sciences so we could win the “space race.”
Since 9/11 we’ve feared that terrorism threatens our way of life. I think that’s mistaken. At least it’s not the greatest threat.
Last year Intel (the computer processing company) hosted an International Science and Engineering Fair with forty countries participating. There were 65,000 American schoolchildren who participated at the local level. In China there were 6,000,000. That’s 2 more zeroes than us. Sixty-five thousand to six million. At the same time Infosys (another computer company) opened a plant in India and had nine thousand new tech jobs. It received one million applications. One million educated and qualified persons in computer technology for nine thousand jobs.
In an era when science and computer technology are the driving forces of innovation and economic prosperity, we have a religious subculture that is antagonistic to science, while China and India have millions upon millions of youngsters hungry to learn more about our world. Friends, that’s the real threat to our national security.
Since God is the truth, ANY pursuit for truth will ultimately lead to God. Share that with your children and grandchildren – for their future’s sake.
February 2005
Last week I listened to a fascinating discussion on science and religion on National Public Radio. For me, the best part of listening, while I was driving around town, was to hear published scientists and religion professors talk about finding the common ground on which both science and religion can thrive. That was refreshing to hear.
Science wants the same thing religion wants. The truth. The two just go about searching for it in different ways, using two different languages.
This shouldn’t frighten Christians. We believe that “the truth will set you free,” and that “[Jesus Christ] is the… truth.” If God is the source of all being, then all pursuits towards the truth about our being can only reveal the truth and the wonder about God.
That scientists may talk about their discovered revelations without talking about God should not concern us. It’s not their job. They talk about HOW. It’s the faith community that talks about WHO and WHY.
The century and a half debate about evolution has been back in the news recently as a few more school systems take action regarding evolution and “creationism.” Thankfully, CMS is not one of them. Bad science does not make good theology.
The physics that creates nuclear energy and radiation therapy for cancer is the same physics that describes the Big Bang and Evolution. If the science is wrong for one, it’s wrong for both. So far, I haven’t heard about “creationists” seeking an alternative “creationist” radiation therapy to treat their cancer.
To whom then will you liken God, or what likeness compare with him? An idol? A workman casts it… then seeks out a skilled artisan to set up an image that will not topple… Have you not known? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary; his understanding is unsearchable.” [Isaiah 40:18-20, 28]
The only god who needs to be propped up is an idol. God doesn’t need skilled artisans (no matter how well intentioned) developing alternative, faith-based science to prop up God’s image. The LORD our God is big enough to handle all types and pursuits of truth because God is truth.
October 2004
Democracy wasn’t even imagined in biblical times. It was all monarchs and military leaders. The people didn’t vote. If things became bad enough, they revolted, if they could. The closest bible people came to voting was when King David’s grandson, Rehoboam, inherited the throne.
Representatives from the northern tribes of Israel informed the new king that their allegiance was dependant upon his fairness and justice as a ruler. The young king told them he would be harsher than his father and if they knew what was good for them they’d quickly obey. Unfortunately for Rehoboam, he didn’t have the military to make such a bold statement. Fortunately for the people, he didn’t. The northern ten tribes of Israel walked away from David’s grandson in revolt creating a divided kingdom that lasted 40 times longer than our Civil War. [I Kings 12:1-19]
Voting is a revolutionary act. Without it, revolutionaries act.
Vote. Vote early or wait till Election Day, Tuesday, Nov. 2nd, but vote.
The best thing for our nation at this time would be for clean voting, clear winners and a large turnout. You and I may only be able to plead for the first and hope for the second. The third is totally up to us.
One of the best statements we can make to terrorists, critics and allies around the world would be to turn out in droves by Election Day and vote. Vote our conscience. Vote our freedom.
Terrorists can’t take away our freedom. We can only let it slip through our fingers. Since 9/11 it is common to talk about our security. We want to make sure our country is safe from terrorism and keep the terrorists from taking away our security. The candidates talk about it everyday.
Security is easier to provide than freedom. The Taliban made Afghanistan roads a safe place to travel again. Hussein kept the Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis from civil war. Tito did the same with ethnic groups in the former Yugoslavia as did Stalin in the Soviet Union. None of them provided freedom.
I’m more concerned about our freedom. The most important security and freedom issue in America is the protection and popularity of free and fair elections. Do your part this week – vote!
September 2002
Not withstanding the special memorial observances this week, life has returned to normal a year after the terrorist attacks last September 11th.
And maybe that’s a good thing. The terrorists who murdered nearly 3,000 civilians in a strike against the United States of America probably intended for our society to cower in fear or be swallowed by hate and revenge – a black hole that had swallowed them.
Thankfully, we have not struck back in revenge. The very precise strikes against the Taliban and al-Quaida hiding in Afghanistan and ultimate liberation of that country have proved that we have restrained ourselves to seeking justice. President Bush has made it clear that the US has no fight against Islam, nor will it generally and broadly strike the Middle East in revenge.
Steps have been taken to increase security in the country causing a few minor inconveniences. And the tragedy is often on our minds. But largely life on September 11, 2002 is returning to life as it was at dawn on September 11, 2001.
Flag sales are up; but voter turnout is still low. Prayer services this week are numerous; but average worship attendance has returned to pre-9/11 numbers. News still highlights 9/11 and our nation’s response, but the headlines have returned the usual sensational fare.
But maybe things are too normal. While armed service personnel and their families made sacrifices to defend our country, citizens as a whole have not had to sacrifice. If we are about to enter a new phase in the war on terrorism, a phase that will put more American soldiers at risk and take innocent lives labeled as collateral damage, we as a people must be willing to bear some sacrifice. To live as if little has changed while across the globe others may die on our behalf and by our attack is immoral.
I think we’d like to believe that 9/11 itself would transform our nation. But events that happen to us rarely do. It is our response, our chosen response, to tragedy, to loss, to defeat that transforms persons and even nations. A hundred years from now 9/11 will be footnoted in history. What we do in the years ahead will determine if the readers of that history live in an America championed by freedom and justice, or one trapped in a cycle of hate and terrorism.
January 2002
Last Friday was the application deadline for Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools’ “choice program.” The results won’t be announced until March, so parents and students will spend the next six weeks wondering if they received their top school choice.
With that decision a year or two away for my children I’m personally interested in how “choice” will affect the schools. I have some hopes and fears for children and for our community.
Five years from now I hope that test scores are
