40 posts tagged “politics”
It seems like the same people who are so vocal about this fear of Shari'a law being implemented in Western countries are the same fundamentalist Christians who vehemently support the death penalty. They claim the Levitical law of the Old Testament in the Torah, as well as the Noahic Covenant, supports putting to death those who kill others.
This is a fallacious argument to be sure considering there are myriad laws deserving of capital punishment within the Jewish Law, including rebellious teens, and adultery. However they are perfectly fine in dispensing grace in this area.
Tying into the Shari'a law, the Levitical law is very similar calling for similar punishments. Yet the fundamentalist Christian is appalled by the application of this law; severing hands for theft, killing for impropriety. They seem to be appalled when viewing an even more fundamentalist, more conservative version of themselves.
If we are to acquiesce to the Old law concerning application in contemporary courts, should we not then lay the full course of judicial action in the hands of Mosaic dispensation? Or perhaps we should consider today's secular law apart from God's law in both practice and application. The legislation and execution of such secular law should then accomplish the consensus of citizens within this jurisdiction, and should be for the peace and prosperity thereof. We should not appeal to an outside source for divine support of laws.
And this is the problem: fundamentalists say, "it is thus or naught." They do not leave room for compromise in this institution where they have previously compromised in all other parts of Levitical penalties. For the Christian is a citizen of a spiritual nation, a sojourner in this land. We must live according to our conviction and faith and let secular humanity, in its unregenerate state, to live as their depraved hearts will.
The Christian duty is to speak the Gospel into this darkened world that the Kingdom of God may increase against the gates of Hell.
Tertullian is an early church father (known as ante-Nicene) from the period circa 160-225 C.E. He was one of the first Christian apologists, and the first to write in Latin. This is what he says regarding the Christian's view of earthly affairs:
This essentially explains how when we are born unto Christ, we are born into an international community with no earthly boundaries. All of humanity is in service to the Lord, and all nations answer unto Him. The Kingdom of God goes out to all nations, and all tongues. When we have solidarity through Christ amongst the varied nations, how can we support one nation's triumph over another?Unless I mistake the matter, the prevention of such associations [of illicit societies] is based on a prudential regard to public order, that the state may not be divided into parties, which would naturally lead to disturbance in the electoral assemblies, the councils, the curiae, the special conventions, even in the public shows by the hostile collisions of rival parties; especially when now, in pursuit of gain, men have begun to consider their violence an article to be bought and sold. But as those in whom all ardour in the pursuit of glory and honour is dead, we have no pressing inducement to take part in your public meetings; nor is there aught more entirely foreign to us than affairs of state. We acknowledge one all-embracing commonwealth--the world. ( Apology XXXVIII)
A little known American Christian activist from the 19th Century named Adin Ballou is a personal inspiration to me (I actually started and wrote most of the beginnings of the Wikipedia article on him). Ballou expounded on this idea, bringing it into the discussion of morality.
These are some serious thoughts in the face of the new American imperialism. To whom do we give allegiance. In whom do we trust? It is the Lord of Hosts and his son, the Prince of Peace.How many does it take to annul the commandments of God, and render that lawful, which HE has forbidden? How many does it take to metamorphose wickedness into righteousness?
One man must not kill. If he does it is murder. Two, ten, one hundred men, acting on their own responsibility, must not kill. If they do, it is still murder. But a state or nation may kill as many as they please, and it is no murder. It is just, necessary, commendable and right. Only get people enough to agree to it, and the butchery of myriads of human beings is perfectly innocent.
This morning I found it sad that I can recite the Pledge of Allegiance but not the Apostles Creed (at least not all of it).
I was thinking a bit more about this. I think it's a difficult challenge for Children to distinguish between devotion to the nation and devotion to God. This is especially hard when Christians say it is a "good Christian duty" to vote or "protect" the country. When churches display the flag and sing patriotic songs. We teach our children to be devoted to the country and to God, and I don't know if they can separate the two - and our nation is a real thing we deal with every day in the physical as adults when we complain about the government, talk about the President, vote, etc. It seems devotion for country has overwhelmed devotion to God and the two are inseparable.
And then these kids grow up and they are Americans, not Christians. Christianity is just a part of the American identity, it is a secondary title, a lower allegiance.
I cannot kill for this country, and I won't die for it. As a Christian I am a citizen of the Heavenly Kingdom which is not of this world. It has no borders to protect, it has to economy of goods, no voting booths, no military. My first identity is found in Jesus, the Christ, Savior of the world. He said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight" (John 18:36). If I will not fight to defend this Kingdom of eternal importance - if I will not invade to expand the borders of this Kingdom of Peace - how can I fight for an empire that is worth nothing to God?
Isaiah 40:17
Before him all the nations are as nothing;
they are regarded by him as worthless
and less than nothing.
I think there is a huge misconception that needs to be addressed. Everyone thinks that Iraq had WMDs and posed a threat to the USA. This was false of course. What we've learned recently is that when Saddam was interrogated he said he didn't have the resources to make WMDs but he wanted the world to think he had them, which is why he kept out weapons inspectors. Why would he do this? Iran is Iraq's biggest enemy, remember who was fighting whom in the 1980s. Saddam claimed he wanted to keep Iran at bay, to keep them from attacking for revenge from the last war.
But America thinks everything is about us. We think Saddam wanted WMDs to use on us. Why? Why would he want to attack the strongest country in the world when he was crippled? Doesn't make sense.
Turning to Iran, I heard someone say that if we didn't go to Iraq that Iraq and Iran would have worked together on a bomb to attack us. WTF? These two countries are mortal enemies. Hell, don't they realize that our biggest problems in Iraq are from Iranians stirring up trouble in that State? Why would they work together when they hate each other? Because we think everything is about us. Iran canceled their weapons program in 2003, when Saddam was no longer a threat. They were preparing for Saddam again. Remember, Saddam used WMDs (we provided mind you) against Iran in the '80s.
But somehow everything is about us, and that's why we've been making a huge stink out of it. I keep hearing people say, "With Iran's history of kidnapping Americans." Again, WTF? One time, and only as a bargaining chip to bring back the dictator we supported so they could bring him to justice. We were protecting him.
We need to get over our ego. I remember a friend I met in Poland who was an Englishman living in Scotland. He said when he thinks of the US he is sad. He says he can't judge because Britain was the Empire and now we are. His nation has been what we are, so it would be hypocritical to judge us. He says we'll learn sometime and be humbled. Every evil person in the world isn't out to get the USA.
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed; those who are cold and are not clothed."
President Dwight D.Eisenhower,
in The Chance for Peace, a speech given to the American Society of Newspaper Editors on April 16
1953
For some reason the Media is now saying John McCain is the Republican favorite right now. Why? Mitt Romney has three state wins and two second place finishes, McCain has two wins and hasn't placed higher than third otherwise. More importantly, Romney has a significant lead in delegates.
But at least the Media is getting over Rudy.
On the other side of the aisle, Hillary is now pretending to be the Obama with experience. Yeah, right. She keeps saying she has 35 years of experience. That's a joke. She graduated from Yale Law School 35 years ago and was a lawyer for the next 6 years when she became First Lady of Arkansas. Her "experience" is being married to a politician.
I've been disappointed by the films that strive to do what This is England has done. Forget Football Factory and Green Street Holligans, those are s myopic and petty they can be logged in the forgettable files. Where these other two films had violence and frivolity as their base, England has characters with soul.
A rag-tag bunch of skinheads in the early '80s are truly living lives racked with pain and loss. I can't get over the tremendous performances of the young Thomas Turgoose and the intense Stephen Graham. These are not archetypal characters, they have so much depth and emotion I was emotionally pained at the conclusion.
These are men and children who have had a life with troubled families brought together seeking a connection with this new family. But this family is ripped apart in several ways. These are ordinary people doing ordinary things, but they need a connection with something bigger to give their lives purpose. They've been dumped by fathers and the government and they're sick of it. You can feel for them in their anger, but you're also repulsed by their conclusions.
And more than the emotions, we have an unintended social commentary of today's debate in these United States twenty-five years later. The characters in the film are sick of immigrants coming into the country and not assimilating into Englishmen while millions are jobless. Today we have the same thing going on. It's been reflected in almost every nation throughout history. If there's one thing that ruins our world more than anything else it is nationalism.
I give this one 5 stars.
It's funny that Hillary is trumpeting her victory in New Hampshire. See, it's funny because in reality the primaries are for delegates. In New Hampshire, both Obama and Hillary tied with 9 delegates apiece. In Iowa it was also a tight finish, and it's nothing for Obama to be particularly proud of gathering 16 delegates to Hillary's 15. Edwards, on the other hand, should be ecstatic, and he is for he got 14 delegates in Iowa. He did only get 4 in New Hampshire though. This leaves the race at 25 delegates for Obama, 24 for Hillary and 18 for Edwards. I'd say it's a tie right now.
On the Republican side, it seems as if the media went all out for Giuliani a little too early. He hasn't got one delegate so far, and got 4% of the vote in Iowa and 9% in New Hampshire. I guess you could say he surged in NH, but Iowa is quite a bit more conservative than the East Coast state so it's not likely. Hell, Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter both have earned more than Rudy. Oh Rudy 9:11, you're a mean, silly man. On the interesting side of things, Romney actually leads in number of delegates coming in first in Wyoming, and second in both Iowa and New Hampshire. It confuses me because a lot of Republicans are now behind McCain even though he's trailing both Romney and Huckabee. I guess they just don't want either candidate who is making their entire campaigns about their respective faiths. As it stands now, Romney leads with 24 and Huckabee is holding onto second with 18 delegates. McCain and Thompson have 10 and 6 respectively. I expect Thompson might just beat out McCain. Ron Paul surprises everybody with 2 delegates, but even more surprising is California State Senator Duncan Hunter with 1. Funny because these last two candidates beat out Rudy (with 0 delegates) and are still rejected for seats at the debates while Rudy keeps talking about 9:11 - I think people are over it, you can't turn this tragedy into your golden ticket.
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is." - Ronald Regan, 1975
