Archive for the ‘sounding off’ Category

Humanizing the Demonized

Monday, January 10th, 2011

People have a nice way of demonizing other people, whole groups of people even with statements such as “poor people are lazy”, “democrats just want to kill babies”, and “Pat Robertson is an idiot.”

If you don’t know better, God doesn’t like demonizing people.  Guess what.  He loves them, too.  And no matter what your political or religious persuasion, every person is worth treating like a human being capable of redemption.  Demonizing statements communicate ignorance and spiritual immaturity, and they are mostly instruments of division, not unity.

One of the most demonized people in America happens to be the wealthy, and it is generally an acceptable thing.  If any other group of people were so generalized and demonized, then it would be hailed as hate speech and a source of disgust than promoted as some progressive way of thinking.  It’s not.

And some of my more biblically-minded liberal friends will no doubt be thinking of the scriptures that deal with and warn the wealthy.  You’re right.  The Bible warns the wealthy time and again.  But Jesus also called the Jews of His day some harsh words … does that make anti-semitism now okay?  Or can I take statements from the Bible that oppose the homosexual lifestyle and now justify demonizing gays?  I don’t think so, and that’s why I attempt to refrain from doing it.  None of those scriptures exist for that purpose.

You can disagree without degradation.  You can champion a cause or express a need without assessing blame.

So in an effort to humanize a very vague group of people that gets blamed and punished for the ills of society (more based on the thoughts of Karl Marx than anything scriptural), let’s look at the research done on modern millionaires in America (taken from the book The Millionaire Next Door by Thomas Stanley and William Danko, if you want the source and to check on their research):

80% of millionaires are first generation.  In other words, they were “self-made”, generally over time.  Only 20% gained their wealth by inheritance.

How did they gain this wealth?  2/3 of them are self employed.  They started a business.  And anyone who has started a business or knows of someone who has done it successfully, knows that this is not overnight wealth.  This takes years of sacrifice to build.

What kind of businesses?  Welding contractors, auctioneers, rice farmers, owners of mobile-home parks, pest controllers, coin and stamp dealers, and paving contractors.

How do they spend their money?  They live far below their means.  They drive inexpensive cars and wear inexpensive clothes.  They cut coupons more than the average consumer.

And as an aside, if I remember correctly from Outliers, a great book by Malcom Gladwell, a high percentage of millionaires don’t have much more than a high school education.

So the most common millionaire in America started out as a member of the middle class (or below), took a risk, oftentimes with the money he or she should have used on college, started his own business, built it to a success, made a lot of money doing it, and lives a frugal life.

Wow.  Doesn’t sound so greedy and evil to me.

But some greatly resist things based on the facts, and humanizing a group of people gains resistance from those who find it convenient to have someone to blame.

Can millionaires be greedy?  Sure.  Just as possible to me that a poor person can be lazy, but I’m certain it’s not my mandate to make such broad statements and remove an individual’s right to prove their own worth of character for him or herself.  That goes for everyone, even the rich.

Peace.

Stealing isn’t Justice

Tuesday, December 14th, 2010

redistI shared a while ago about the biblical idea of justice, but a recent movie stirred the pot with me again.

I was watching the movie Wushu on a recommendation from a friend.  The movie wasn’t very good (sorry Tom, if you’re reading this!), but there was a statement in the movie that stuck out to me.

Wushu is about these Chinese kids who become close friends at a Kung Fu school by the name of Wushu.  And while still children, they form a group or gang dedicated to justice, which was only defined as “take from the rich and give to the poor!”  They say this with much conviction.

Now, as Chinese people growing up in a communist country, sure, that makes sense.  But what amazes me is that there is the same feeling among Christians that this is justice.  It’s not justice.  It is stealing.

Let’s say I have two neighbors.  On my right side is a poor family with eight kids.  They only have one car and probably need another one.  On my left side I have a wealthy family with two kids and three cars.  I think to myself, they don’t need three cars.  The third car is only for their own luxury and this poor family is in need.  So I decide to break into the rich family’s house, steal the keys and the car and give it to the other family for Christmas.

Might sound nice and fair and compassionate, but that is stealing and I’ll be going to jail.

As Christians, if we believe the Bible is a guide to these things, taking from the rich and giving to the poor is not justice.  The Bible describes justice as that rich family seeing the need in their neighbor and giving what they don’t need out of the compassion in their own hearts.  That is the biblical idea of justice as described throughout the scriptures, from Genesis to Revelation.

Would the family be greedy to keep the extra car knowing their neighbor’s need?  Absolutely.  Nothing Christian or Christlike about it.  That type of greed is the same as idolatry.  But taking the car from that family is taking it against their will.  Stealing.  And you don’t correct injustice with more injustice.  Or, as my momma used to say, two wrongs don’t make a right.

It doesn’t teach true compassion or create a compassionate people.  It teaches the rule of law and authority and “ruling over others” more than personal responsibility to know and love our neighbors.

Which is why these ideas of justice just won’t work … despite how cool and compassionate celebrities and liberal politicians make it sound.  God designed things to be done through relationship and personal choice of will.  Good luck trying it a different way.

And it’s one thing when a movie made in communist China makes a statement like that, or very worldly politicians or celebrities or supposed scholars believe this.  But true disciples of Christ should know better.

Peace.

Sounding Off 11.01.2010 Voting Tomorrow

Monday, November 1st, 2010

votingWell, I haven’t written anything on political subjects here on my blog in a while (on purpose), but been thinking about a few things and wanted to put a couple of those thoughts down here.

For those who were listening, the backlash against Obama and the Democrats shouldn’t surprise you.  Some can blame it all they want on misinformation and misunderstanding or anger, but the basic truth is that the majority of the country just doesn’t agree with the general direction the current administration and Congress is going.  A vast majority didn’t like the stimulus or choice of how health care would be reformed and a host of other things.

But unfortunately for the country, the Republicans haven’t appropriately taken advantage of this opportunity.  While the sentiment against the incumbents is similar (in some ways stronger this time), the Republican leadership in ’94 was able to make a list of things they would do if elected.  They were elected and then enacted most of them while the president of the opposing party, Clinton, takes credit for a lot of that good government to this day.

The modern Republicans are still in the midst of some serious soul searching.  They cant agree on the color of the sky, it seems like.  True conservatives are vying for a some real candidates to get behind, the result being the Tea Party movement, which if they were standing for socialistic or communist principles would be hailed as progressive revolutionaries (by the majority of the media except for FOX) but since they want such unreasonable things like lower taxes and controlled spending they are scary racists.

Other Republicans are trying more to save their own skin and careers than most anything else, so instead of trying to bring the party together, it is dividing at a time when it needs to stand for better government than we’ve seen over the last six years or so (that’s right, I’m including the last four years of the Bush administration, too).

So while I understand how abysmal the Democrats are running things, I’m also not sure the Republicans are unified enough to do much better … just maybe not as bad.  The choice seems to be the Democrats running our country into the ground at 100 miles an hour or the Republicans doing it at a modest 75.  Not sure I like either choice.  And the constant Republican message of “hey, we’re not as bad as those other guys!” is disappointing.

And as an aside … a lot of people seem to be frustrated with the amount of negative ads on TV.  The last few election cycles I hear it again and again.  Here’s at least two reasons why the negative ads are constantly run.

First, you set yourself up for criticism if you talk about what you’ve actually done or what you’re actually going to do.  It’s much easier to just put down the other side, and both parties do it mercilessly.

Second, it works.  I think it is funny how every two years now we hear how bad the negative attacks are and yet they just keep pumping them out.  These campaigns pay people to watch the polls and see how the ads do.  A sad statement about our society, but they work.

My encouragement is to vote … Vote according to candidates and not for or against a whole party line.  That can be dangerous … there’s some bad candidates on both sides.  And vote even if you feel it is the lesser of two evils, whatever your conscience dictates there.  Hopefully you get to vote for someone you think has already done a pretty good job or you think will really do a better one, but that choice isn’t always available.  Vote anyway.

In conclusion, my predictions:  The Republicans will gain control of the House but not the Senate.  I know that’s a safe prediction, but some of the Republican candidates, especially Tea Party related ones, aren’t as strong in the Senate races.  It will be a huge upset if the Democrats don’t hold at least a 51 seat majority there.  I also predict at least one or two races being drug out for months while votes are counted (or recounted) so we won’t know for sure about the Senate for a couple months.

Peace.

The Christianity of Thomas Jefferson

Thursday, August 12th, 2010

jeffersonimagesI shared some of these quotes on FB a little while ago, and I wanted to blog about it but I was in the middle of the previous series that I thought should take precedence.  So I’m writing about it now …

I majored in Social Studies in college, and taught that subject for several years.  Perhaps I’ll get to do it again one day.

So this is a subject that greatly interests me.

In reading some quotes from Thomas Jefferson, someone I love to read about, his thoughts on Christianity were very interesting to me, even inspiring.

As I studied up on Jefferson, I actually found a website dedicated to proving that Jefferson was this Deist who wanted a strict separation of church and state.  This was of course a liberal website trying to support their own modern secular idea of the separation of church and state.

They are wrong, but at the same time, I think these quotes are interesting because Jefferson was not the modern evangelical, either.  So modern Christian conservatives will have a hard time completely claiming his ideas either.  They might be better if they did.

“I had not supposed there was a family in this state [Virginia] not possessing a Bible, and wishing without having the means to procure one.  When, in earlier life, I was intimate with every class, I think I was never in a house where that was the case.  However, circumstances may have changed, and the [Bible] Society, I presume, have evidence of the fact.  I therefore enclose you cheerfully an order … for fifty dollars, for the purposes of the Society.” (1814)

“There was never a more pure and sublime system of morality delivered to man than is to be found in the four Evangelists.” (1814)

“My views of [the Christian religion] … are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions.  To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus Himself.  I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be – sincerely attached to His doctrines, in preference to all others …

I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus – very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its Author never said nor saw.  They have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man, of which the great Reformer of the vicious ethics and deism of the Jews, were He to return on earth, would not recognize one feature.” (1816)

“The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw in the mysticism of Plato materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and preeminence.  The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus Himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted upon them; and for this obvious reason, that nonsense can never be explained.” To John Adams 1814

“… when, in short, we shall have unlearned everything which has been taught since His day, and got back to the pure and simple doctrines He inculcated, we shall then be truly and worthily His disciples; and my opinion is that if nothing had ever been added to what flowed purely from His lips, the whole world would at this day have been Christian …” 1821

“The doctrines of Jesus are simple and tend all to the happiness of man:

1.  That there is one only God, and He all perfect.

2.  That there is a future state of rewards and punishments.

3. That to love God with all thy heart, and thy neighbor as thyself, is the sum of religion …

But compare with these the demoralizing dogmas of Calvin … The impious dogmatists, as Athanasius and Calvin, … are the false shepherds foretold as to enter not by the door into the sheepfold, but to climb up some other way.  They are mere usurpers of the Christian name, teaching a counter-religion made up of the deliria of crazy imaginations, as foreign from Christianity as is that of Mahomet.” 1822

So we see within Jefferson’s thought some interesting ideas.  First, he defined being a disciple of Christ, a Christian, as being a person that was dedicated to the teachings of Jesus (and by extension the first Apostles, from a much longer quote I chose not to include, since this was their goal), teachings which Jefferson himself found greater than all others.  Wasn’t this the “Great Comission”?  “Go and make disciples, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.”

Second, he was obviously against the bringing in of worldly philosophy to something that is fairly simple and easy to understand.  He saw the constant lofty thinking as a distraction from simply following the teachings of Jesus and a justification for a professional priest/laity division that was by nature corrupt and self-serving.

Which leads to third, that he saw the great religious and traditional structure of the Christianity of his day as a detriment to true religion, following Jesus.

Did Jefferson go to church?  Yep.  This is why I love Jefferson.  He was an ardent idealist but worked within the necessary reality of his day.

Peace.

Social Justice according to the Bible

Wednesday, May 19th, 2010

I know, I know.  Here I go actually reading that book we all say we believe and just taking what it says as true.  Silly in such a progressive age, sure, but I’m crazy that way.

I have a notebook of quotes from the Bible that I wrote down, freehand, as I read through the Bible a couple years ago.  They were all scriptures about the poor and justice, and some interesting things came out of it.  (I was going to write a book called God’s Heart for the Poor, which I still may write … but we’ll see …)

I’ll give a short summary here since this is a blog and not a systematic commentary and I don’t want to just copy and paste a billion scriptures.  Okay, that’s an exaggeration, but there is a lot.  The Bible talks about this issue A LOT.

To begin with, while poverty may be part of the curse of the Fall, the Bible never truly promises an earthly rid of poverty.  That isn’t the nature of why we have compassion on those in need.  A little more on that later.

Even Job, supposedly the first written book, a contemporary of Abraham, before any written scriptures or the Mosaic Law, talks at length about how part of righteousness is how you treat the poor and the widow and the orphan.  You can see this as Job defends himself for being a righteous man in front of his non-helpful friends.  This principle of personal compassion is consistent through the New Testament.

When you get to the Law, it is amazing the number of provisions made for the poor, everything from the Year of  Jubilee to rules on how you harvested crops or lent money.  The Law gets this bad rap f or being so strict and unmanageable, but Jesus calls the heart of the law “mercy and justice.”  And you can see that if you don’t fall asleep reading it.

But there was an important aspect to the Law that we have to see.  In the day to day operations, ie harvesting, lending, etc., the Law treated every man as a free man with a choice.  In other words, there was little enforcement by any authority on most of these principles, and almost no legal punishment if they did not follow.  It put the responsibility to follow these principles on the individual.  Of course a judgment from God was forthcoming if they wouldn’t follow them, but it wasn’t managed by an overarching beauracracy that forced compliance.  Even the Old Testament Law was designed to make the individual feel personally responsible and compassionate for his neighbor, hence the 2nd greatest commandment Jesus listed after loving God: to love your neighbor.

Other important principles in the Old Testament include the fact that poverty isn’t always the result of oppression.  Laziness and foolishness bring it on, as well.  In other words, sometimes poverty is the result of individual choice.  But interesting enough, whether or not it was by personal choice did not come into consideration when being compassionate and giving to those in need.

Justice reached not only to the poor, but to the rich, as well.  Biblically speaking, it was wrong to withhold justice from both the poor and the rich and not to judge according to either label.  Some considerations in religion were made for the poor if they could not pay or provide certain things under the Old Law, but any idea of requiring more from the rich because they are rich (like a progressive income tax) is biblically unjust.

Also interesting, especially when you get to the Prophets towards the time of the exile of Judah to Babylon and onward, part of the judgment of God was to raise up the poor and lay low the rich, to essentially make the poor rich and the rich poor.

There are also some amazing promises for giving to the poor, most amazingly that “you will never lack.”

All of these ideas were, in one form or another, carried over into the New Testament.  Ideas of individual obedience, personal compassion, and rights of property prevailed, even as teachings of extreme giving were common.

For instance, Jesus tells the rich young ruler to sell all he has and give it to the poor, a teaching Jesus actually made publicly to the masses, as well, as an indication of discipleship.  When asked, “Who is my neighbor?” as Jesus tells us to love our neighbor, Jesus tells a story about a Samaritan who took personal responsibility to meet another’s great and dire need, at great cost to the Samaritan, differentiated from the Jews who passed by and didn’t want to be inconvenienced.

Oh, and the very clear idea of what is a need?  “Food and clothing, with these be content”, the same standard mentioned by both Jesus and Paul.  No mention of housing, education, occupation, or health care is ever mentioned.

Ananias and Sapphira were killed by God for “lying to the Holy Spirit”, however, and not for their lack of giving.  Peter makes it clear that their property was their own to do whatever they wished.  Paul makes it clear that while he seeks that the Corinthians give according to their promise, he does not require it of them and wishes them to give under NO obligation.

One more major thing of note in the New Testament: the poor are never rebuked for being poor.  There are no warnings or dire judgments on them for being poor … but there are for the rich.  Read the “beatitudes” in Luke and the letter from James to see what I mean.

Also absent from any discussion in the scriptures (Old Testament or New) is any indication that we should expect those in need to respond in any specific way.  Their response is individual, like the responsibility of those able to give, and between them and their Creator, who will hold all accountable.

In fact, going by the Bible, Christianity is the only religion that does not promise a Utopian/perfect society on Earth if its morals were followed.  Continually promised are eternal and spiritual blessings for the individual far more than any worldly ones.  It could be argued that Judaism may have promised such a society, and that is probably the only difference between the teachings of the New Testament with the Old on the issue of poverty and “social justice.”  In truth, the New Testament promises persecution and trouble for the righteous way more than some peaceful or prosperous life.  That’s a big departure from the Old Testament.

So in conclusion, the common themes we have are individual responsibility to feel personally compassionate to those you see in need, regardless of how they came by that position, with little or no (New Testament: none) obligation or compulsion given by an authority over the individual to comply.  This is what the Bible clearly teaches.  You have to twist and misrepresent both Jesus and the Bible to teach anything else as Christian.

Peace.

The Rise of Hate Crimes During Recession

Tuesday, November 24th, 2009

Interesting article today in the USA Today detailing how hate crimes, which are somewhat problematic too define, have risen over the last year, more than likely as a result of the economic recession.

The article spent time talking about how hate crimes against blacks and gays and lesbians have risen, according to FBI reports, 8% and 13% respectively.

But the most interesting part of the article was that hate crimes against Catholics have risen 23%, more than any other group.  The reason given?  The targeted Catholics have conservative viewpoints, they are pro-life and anti gay marriage rights.

All hate crimes are wrong, but it is compelling to me that the sharpest rise of victimization are those with conservative religious moral viewpoints, and that total religious victims (which I’m sure included hate crimes against Muslims, Hindus, evangelical Christians, etc) were second only to those due to race (all racial groups).

Peace.

Politics and Compassion

Saturday, November 14th, 2009

If anything convinces me that I don’t want to be a liberal or a Democrat, it is the way they treat others who happen to disagree with them.

Ironic to me that those supposedly dominated by compassionate ideals would say such horrendous things about another human being.  And the only true distinction made is political beliefs.  Rapists and adulterers are defended ad nauseum if they happen to support liberal causes, and perfectly fine people, at least as far as we know, are accused of the most horrible motivations.

I’ll give an example.  For some reason, Sarah Palin is the beneficiary of such hate in ways that would appall liberals if the same actions were levied against one of their own.  How would they feel if conservatives made T-shirts calling Pelosi or Hillary Clinton a “c*nt” or hacking in her private email or burning down the church building she attends?  This doesn’t include the constant references to her being “stupid” or an “idiot” or her abilities as a wife or mother, which again, would be a reprehensible attack against feminism if done to a liberal female political leader.

Of course, the way George Bush was attacked for 6 or 8 years was borderline insane.  It is not insane to disagree with his political ideas, even all of them, but insane to interpret everything he does as not only wrong but motivated by some deep evil intent.

As I’ve made my own observations or opinions known, I’ve been accused of just blindly accepting all conservative beliefs, and someone who is supposedly my friend recently implied that any misgivings I might have about universal healthcare is related to a desire to see more poor people die.

Others might be different, but for me, that’s probably not the way I’m going to begin to consider a differing view, and that’s for two reasons.  Number one, it shows a lack of an ability to truly hear what another is saying, which by nature means that no intelligent conversation or exchange will take place.  And two, if you have to insult others to make your point, you don’t actually have one.

All of this has led to my stubborn refusal to question Obama’s deep motivations while disagreeing with his policies and ideas.  Because seeing the ugliness of that level pervasive in the media, I choose not to step down to it.

It is my right, and some might even say duty, to disagree with leadership where conscience dictates, and it is the duty of citizens and educated people to critically analyze the ruling power, but I cannot know the deep motivations of the heart of another man … unless God somehow reveals them to me.

There were things Bush did that I did not think were wise, but for all I know he did them out of a desire to help and do a good thing, as wrong as those things might have been.  I feel the same way about Obama.  He truly believes that doing certain things will help others.

And even my stubborn refusal to question Obama’s deep motivations have gotten dirty looks from my conservative friends at times.  Of course my conservative friends are just as capable of saying the same types of things.  Like “Obama wants to destroy our nation” or other things.  And when I open my big mouth to make sure I don’t take part in questioning aspects of character I can’t know, then an awkward vibe settles on the room.

And where Obama has done things that I think are good or positive, I have and will continue to acknowledge those things, something most liberals were not able to do for 6 years or so for the previous president.  And I will not oppose something just because Obama does it.  That is also a sign of closed-mindedness that is unhealthy in life, not to mention a republic.

To be honest, I kinda feel for Obama at times.  While I disagree with 90% of his policy, the dude can’t swat a fly at a speech or try to encourage students in education without someone making more out of it than it is.  So this is also a suggestion to my more conservative friends to disagree on issues of substance and be willing to listen and weigh things out before reacting.

And to those of my liberal friends who are willing to engage in real life and realize that politics is largely forgettable in the grand eternal scheme of things: thank you for listening to me express my view at times without questioning my character or intelligence.  I hope to continue to make informed decisions of my own and respect the rights of others to do the same.

Peace.

Some related thoughts on the health care debate

Friday, October 23rd, 2009

Been a while since I’ve weighed in, for various reasons, but it seems like Pelosi and the Democrat leaders won’t have the votes to get a public option.

As I’ve said before, I don’t mind a public option in the health care bill.  If all there was to worry about was a public option, I wouldn’t be so worried.  In fact, I would fully support a bill that ONLY had a public “option.”  The conservatives are making way too big a deal about the public option.

But the part that concerns me is the part that remains in the bill.  Penalizing people for NOT having health insurance?  It is in the bill even though a few months ago, Obama said he was against it.  Of course there are several other measures that limits the freedom of the public to make choices (or penalizes or taxes them for them), and puts the power in the hands of the government to choose those limits.  In other words, if it were just about more or better choices for the citizens, then fine.  But there is too much associated with this bill that goes beyond that to control over others, and I just can’t agree with that.

I’ve lived in a country with socialized health care.  And the Korean system was great.  But it didn’t seek control over people as it provided health care.  I’ve seen a system where you can have socialized health care without the communist control, and it was fine.

Peace.

Defining Neo-Communism

Friday, October 23rd, 2009

Obama isn’t a socialist or a communist.  He’s a neo-communist.

Now, before you think I’m calling him names, I am using these terms in their true sense.  I’m not trying to put Obama down as if he’s a “commie”, or even criticize him, but the correct terminology of his political philosophy and practice is neo-communism.

Socialism and communism are close enough that people get them confused.  They do overlap to a degree, but there is a significant difference between them.

Socialism is, simply, a political belief that it is the job and responsibility of the government, the state, to provide basic amenities for its citizens, especially for those that have not.  Things like housing, food, clothing, education, and now health care are all in this mix.  As many conservative Christians might find it hard to believe, many Christians were involved in the early stages of what socialism looked like in the West, i.e., the Social Gospel.

Communism differs on a couple key points.  While communism also sees the role of the state to provide, it goes even further to guarantee complete equality of station.  One person possessing more than another is inherently wrong, in their view.  In order to insure this, the state must have an inordinate amount of power to enact these changes and force compliance with their view, including the suspension of many of what are human rights, or the rights inherent in any free society: free speech, free press, freedom of religion, etc.  Communism is completely atheistic.  Communism believes it takes a revolution, usually violent, to achieve at least begin down the path towards utopia.

After WWII and through the Cold War, the initial manifestation of communism has utterly failed.  it’s been a failure everywhere it has been attempted.  Some of the most dismal places on earth are communist countries.

What about China and Vietnam? you might ask.  Good question.  Those two countries were extremely depressed economically until they began to embrace capitalistic ideas and morph them into their own.  In an ironic turn of events, China recently encouraged our current president to enact some free market solutions.  Hopefully he listens.

So as traditional communism failed worldwide, communists in democratic nations adjusted their methods, but not some of the basic belief system.  Gone are the notions of violent revolutions and atheism.  Communists realized they could slowly, step by step and without making a big deal about religion, achieve their goals by working within the system to overthrow it from within.  And as long as religion can be manipulated to move them down that path, all the better.

This is not, then, traditional communism.  So calling Obama a communist is not accurate.  But neither is he simply a socialist.  He is of this newer philosophy that I call neo-communism.  Others might use the term, but I haven’t heard it used before.

While the focus on a violent revolution, a revolution is still the goal, however evolutionary the revolution might be.  Behind this evolution are still very strong communist beliefs: the increased power of the state over individual freedoms that will insure equality of station.

The first liberal/leftist response is to call such a notion paranoid or some sort of conspiracy theory nonsense, but it doesn’t take much digging to see that the extreme left, while offended to the public eye, admits such things openly among themselves.  In an unprecedented time in history when everything is recorded and put on youtube, you can hear much of it from their own lips, or read it from their own books.

Obama and the extreme left believes, wholeheartedly, that it is in the best interest of the nation to have more control over the banks, private corporations, and the health care sector.  If there is a problem, or more specifically, if they feel there is a problem, the solution is always more regulation and government control and spending.  In spite of evidence of the failings of such things, things like public education and health care are sacred.  All dissenting opinion is dangerous and must be marginalized as much as possible.

This belief does not make Obama and other neo-communists evil or bad people, necessarily.  They act according to a strong conviction and their own perspective.

But if it looks, talks, and acts like a Marxist, it’s a Marxist.  And no amount of outrage at the term, which is Cold War loaded, i agree, changes the facts.  Obama and the extreme left are neo-communists.

And while the notions themselves are held by more of a minority in our country, because the bulk of the media and the entertainment industry is on board with these principles and the direction, it seems more prevalent than it is … and cooler than it is.

But despite the propaganda to the contrary, many still oppose these principles, both citizens and elected officials.  Even people within Obama’s own party oppose the most extreme of them.

Which is the beauty of a republic.  Differing opinions can exist freely.  And dissent keeps a republic healthy.  The pendulum will swing again and dissent will be healthy then, too.

Peace.

I know this has made the rounds before …

Monday, August 24th, 2009

but it was on my heart to share it again.  Penn (from the Penn and Teller act) has some video blurbs on youtube.  If you haven’t seen this, as a Christian, it really encouraged me to “speak the truth in love” to others and not be so afraid of offending.

Watch video here.

Penn also has some good things to say about the “party of hate” … I have to say I agree with his line of thinking here as well.

Watch the “party of hate.”

Peace.