:: Some thoughts... ::

:: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 ::

Proper Government

Alas, as dark tides return, I feel compelled to start blogging again, mainly because I think we need to rebuild what has been slowly torn asunder and what will be demolished if Barack Obama becomes President of the United States.

Now you are wondering, what in the heck is he talking about?

Well before you read too much into it and my assumptions let me explain. The beginning starts with the proper role of government.

What is the proper purpose of government? I doubt that Mr. Obama or any of his fellow travelers on the left have really thought that way. I asked my friend that, and she (very left leaning) did not really have any answer, because the left does not think of government as having a purpose other than meet specified ends. It is merely one tool among many to meet specific notions. The left is driven largely by this sense of what it would term social justice, in fact, that is a determinant by which Mr. Obama proposes to select his judges. Our founders would be rolling in their graves when they heard that remark. And that is, I guess to me what makes Mr. Obama so more fundamentally unsettling than any other President or candidate I have ever listened to. Beneath his smooth veneer is a fundamentally different conception of government than we currently have or that this country was founded on. Put simply, government's proper purpose is not social justice as a nebulous ideal, nor is it the policies of "fairness" that Mr. Obama supposes, for "fairness" is a construct of the person looking for fairness, because they are the ones defining fair. More to the point, Mr. Obama wants his government to abide by his notions of fairness which is far different than treating everyone equally.
The real purpose of government is as Thomas Jefferson put it, to secure life, liberty and the pursuit of happines, but what does this mean. It means that government is not an instrument for outcomes, or favoritism, but government's primary purpose is to ensure the liberty of the people who make it up (a government of the people). That's why government in our constitution is supposed to be for the people, and by the people, for it is the peoples of this republic which goverment represents.

The philosophical perspective of this borrows a lot from the thinking of John Locke, and it was he who partially influenced others like John Stuart Mill (though Mill had strong influences from Jeremy Bentham).
I do not want to bore you with the names of old philosophers, but my main point is that their concept of government came from the idea that each man was endowed with free will, and government was an imperfect form of God on earth, and therfore government's purpose was to create an environment for the exercise of free will, contra the current state of affairs at the time of the founding of the United States, which was one primarily of despotism and divine rule (the theoeretical construct from which kings derived their authority).

Barack Obama does not see government as an instrument of liberty, but one through which favors are imparted, and "fairness" is instituted. This is in opposition to the proper purpose of government which is to secure the lives (life), property (liberty), person (liberty), and ensure equality of opportunity (meaning the government does not have favorites).
:: Nathan 8:55 PM [+] ::
...

The Case For Optimism

The cries of doom and despair are always ever present both in our personal lives and in the world around us. How many trumpets have sound signalling the end of the world as we know it, or stated with utter seriousness that we might as well accomodate (read: give up) and come to terms with "reality." History has a way of teaching the doubters a lesson they never seem to learn. During the Cold War and even before, socialism/communism was seen as trendy, desirable and best of all for its supporters, inevitable.

In the movie the Matrix, the agent of Matrix, agent Smith, states to our hero Neo, that "do you hear that Mr. Anderson, that is the sound of inevitability."

The inevitable never happened. In 1991, the last breath of inevitability blew away to great dustbin of history. Communism died before the clenched fist of Boris Yeltsin before a tank. We like to credit great leaders such as President Ronald Reagan, Lech Walesa, Boris Yeltsin, Mikhail Gorbachev, President George Bush, Pope John Paul as the agents of change.

While there is a small crumb of truth to this, it was really the people, the "masses yearning to breathe free," striving for the fresh air that they saw and dreamed about, freedom.

It is these people, the people of this country. Not its governments, not its leaders, not its elites. It is the so-called 'simple' folk which give me hope. It is they who open their doors, their wallets and their hearts. It is they, who in times of distress hold this country afloat. The people of this country hold it afloat time after time. That is why, in all this, I am confident that America will come back from Hurrican Katrina because of these people. You see them every day....

:: Nathan 10:34 PM [+] ::
...

Stop the real Pol Pot.... aka Robert Mugabe.

Recently in the news we have heard the fine Senator from Illinois, Dick Durbin compare American troops to the Nazis, Pol Pot, etc. Here's a link to a short bio of that lovely gentleman. Well, it turns out he has been reincarnated in Africa in the form of Robert Mugabe. Mugabe's ZANU-PF party has now taken to mass killing and starvation of the opposition because well, they are opposing their own starvation and murder.

We do not need to intervene militarily at this point, but I don't think it would hurt to arm the opposition and distribute food aid outside of government circles. Mugabe's regime has crossed the line from despicable to murderous. It is high time for the civilized world to do something about it.
:: Nathan 9:08 PM [+] ::
...

Warning: This post is strictly religously themed

On Purity And The Doctrine Of Accountability

In North American Christadelphian circles there is a great dispute between the so-called Unamended and the Amended. To the outsider this situation seems very confusing. These two groups both claim the name Christadelphian yet refuse to associate with one another. Their beliefs are largely the same except for a clause that was amended. Hence the notion of amended and unamended. So, ostensibly these two groups are arguing over this clause. Over a time a historic thing has been occuring. It is called reunion. Many Christadelphians realizing that the dispute is largely esoteric have been reconciled in union. And indeed have embraced one another in love. This polemic is not directed towards these people. It is directed toward those who hold on to the Pharasaic doctrine of purity. I purposely use the word polemic so one can understand this piece for what it is. It is argument coming from one side of the issue.

I see the brotherhood heading a unscriptural direction. I do not mean in this in detail of doctrine. I mean in it spirit of doctrine. Like the Pharisees that Jesus rails against, a good many Christadelphians have adopted a framework of legalistic purity at the expense of the true faith. This is what I call purity and the doctrine of accountability.
Purity in the sense that these Christadelphians seek to better themselves by exclusion. Their logic as best I can follow is that if they associate with "bad" people they themselves will become corrupted. Their cover is one of defending the faith. For example, if we let this divorced person into our meeting, we wil be corrupted by their presence.
Hmmm... I am not sure if that is what Jesus had in mind when he said the healthy do not need a doctor, but he had come for the sick.

First let's get this straight. It is not OUR church, meeting or whatever you want to call it. Jesus is the foundation, and we are the bride of Christ. We are God's children, not the serving brother's. Secondly, we are all bad people in a religous sense. For none of us is good. Ipso facto, what exact purity are we now defending on the basis of exclusion? Thirdly, how exactly is having a scarlet A sinner in our midst going to change our sinning nature? Is it going to make it worse?
I understand that marriage is to be encouraged and divorce should never be taken lightly. I think that all Christadelphians understand that. And by seeing what divorce has done, many "regular" people in America understand this too.
A better policy is one of pre-marital counseling. Should fellowship be conditional on this? No. People are free to take an offered hand and equally as free to refuse it.
I digress, I just wanted to illustrate that there are better ways to uphold marriage rather than blunt edge of disfellowship. I am not sure that this have ever worked to bring back marriage, but rather has served to drive away those who need it most. If this is purity in action, I would rather be dirty.
Purity also emphasizes rules. And encourages the very people Jesus preaches against. How many things are not discussed within Christadelphia that are very real and very present problems? I can name, let's start with my favorites, sex, drugs and rock and roll. My parents are relatively liberal as far as Christadelphians go, and I never received and never discussed with my parents anything about sex, beyond my Dad's famous comment, that if I spend too much time with a girl, I might get carried away. Well, I spend all day with women at work, and so far this hasn't let to anything untoward going on at my desk. I understand his point, and there is something to it, but let's be honest and straightforward here.
On to drugs, how many Christadelphians (baptized and unbaptized) use and abuse drugs. I would say it's something of an issue, but this is never discussed in meetings, or mentioned in Sunday School for young people would never do such a thing.
My point here is not so much specific issues, but an attitude. An attitude, that well good Christadelphian raised kids don't do those things. An attitude my Uncle Bob perfectly laid out to me at Bible School this year. The young people (defined as 14-21) and said that they were getting nothing from the 4th class at this Bible School. It was a discussion class where the young and old were mixed. We were discussing Malachi and all it's intricate details. Half the stuff was a snooze to me and a good many other adults. And it was way over the head of most 14 year olds.
In fairness, let me repeat what my uncle said. He said that the class was a way for the young and old to bond and that they might learn something. Ok, given there was a mix of young and old people in the classes, even though many of the young people were skipping class. True, I can put oil and water in a bowl too, but that doesn't make it mix. Second, he argued they might learn something. True, hard to argue with that, but I also might learning something from kicking my bed and breaking my toe.
His final message was that they should just deal with it. HELLO!!! This is why we are losing so many young people. Christadelphians are not people friendly. We don't deal with people with problems as a whole. There are a great many exceptions, my parents being one of them. Don't get me wrong, I am all for tradition, but Sunday School and preaching have to be relevant. I can't speak Russian to a Mexican and expect him to get the gospel. I might impart one thing though, I am a real nut.
All I am saying, is that if you want to reach people you have to speak their language. You have to tailor the message of the gospel to what is relevant to them. You have to deal with the issues that they are dealing with. With teens, this might mean sex, drugs and rock and roll. Talking about the issues isn't just saying no to peer pressure. I wonder how many people didn't use drugs because of "see red, say no." Likely, zero. My point is we need to educate our young people, why it's good to wait till your married, not just, hey don't do it, and never talk about it again. And if they do slip up, parents, be available, uncritical and ready to listen. It's not something one can undo, but it can be a lesson. Same with drugs or whatever. Don't just say drugs are bad. Say, hey I understand you. God is listening to you. Some kids will rebel, and run away. It doesn't mean we lock the door for the sake of our own purity. It's ridiculous and most important of all, it is un-Christ like. Yes, I did write that and I do mean it. Jesus didn't love us for no good reason. He didn't die so we could hide with the truth of his sacrifice in our cellars waiting for Armageddon to arrive. He loved us so we could know how to love others. He died, so that we may live, and get this, even tell others about it. Purity is not about keeping our lamps hidden so they don't get blown out, but letting it shine forth so all can see.

So what is wrong with the current attitude of purity? It's great to be "pure" and all, and it's great that you're holier than me, but so what? So now, you can feel all righteous and self justified? Fine, read Job again and we can talk. Read the life Jesus. It'd be all pretty boring if Jesus decided that well since preaching was tough and he was a bit afraid, he might as well not do it. Better for his spiritual health to stay home and reflect on it. This is not only the opposite of what Jesus commanded us, but it dulls the values and arguments we claim to hold dear. A mind is a terrible thing to waste as it said, but so is the truth. If you are keeping it to yourself out of fear, you are wasting it. Why do you fear? I ask that question. In fact, I pose it to all who use disfellowship as a weapon? What are you scared of?

And on to accountability. Accountability is a foolish doctrine. It is always seeking


:: Nathan 1:35 PM [+] ::
...

This is one link to pass on (again about Michael Moore):

Click here

It's by James Lileks. I hadn't read Michael Moore's editorial in the LA Times before this, but his contempt for Americans and anyone who disagrees with his view of how America should be is to put it simply, distasteful and ugly.

:: Nathan 7:26 PM [+] ::
...

Michael Moore:

One up front note. I haven't seen the movie. I have read plenty about it to know what it's about. So I do plan on seeing the movie at some point, but only if I can figure out a way to not make Michael Moore any richer. What makes me sick is that we have people who consider Michael Moore a great American. He is the same man who sits in Europe and says Americans are idiots among many other things. He is the one rooting against America in Iraq. He is in my humble opinion not worthy being called an American. By providing aid and comfort to our enemies and rooting against America, he has declared his allegiance.

To call him patriotic or whatever else, flat out misses who Michael Moore is. He is not a patriot for a patriot loves his country and the people in it, nor is he some kind of dissenting hero. We have plenty of other people that dislike the war in Iraq or our President. He is not the first to say so out loud. Just take a listen to Ralph Nader or John Edwards or John Kerry, Dick Gephardt, etc. Michael Moore is a flat out, blame America, and especially Right America first kind of guy.

I find it outrageous that many on the left fete him like he is some hero.

I suspect many others in fly over America will think the same as I. The revolution is coming Michael Moore, but it won't be in Iraq, it'll be here.
:: Nathan 10:04 AM [+] ::
...

Thanks for visiting. I had a thought yesterday. Every day or every few days as the case may be I end up reading the Arizona Republic's "Plugged In" column at azcentral.com.

It is billed as a weblog by informed Arizonans. Well, after reading I tend to feel less informed. The Arizona Republic has done a poor job of picking "informed" people. Most of the bloggers tend to fall into the anti-Bush crowd. Yet it is not an "informed" but rather an emotive anti-bushism that springs from their mouths. The latest example was "King George" by Earl de Berge who does public opinion and market research apparently. He compares the US Supreme court to the minutemen of the American Revolution and President George Bush to King George III. Well, why not, Bush has been compared to Hitler (see Al Gore's statements on brown-shirts, moveon.org, etc.), so why not King George III, who was the King of England during the American Revolution. I love how he cites Sandra Day O'Connor, "We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens." Last, I checked with the exception of Jose Padilla, Hamdi and the Marin County kid, none of the terrorists held at Gitmo were citizens. And they are most definitely enemy combatants. It isn't like they are innocent people. There is a reason they are at Gitmo. They took up arms against the United States of America. Not as soldiers in a defined army but as terrorist. These are the same people who want women in Burqas (head to toe garments for uninitiated), the same ones who debate on the best way to kill homosexuals, and the same ones who praise Septemeber 11th. And where is the liberal left on this, well as we can see by our friend de Berge, they are busy comparing the Bush to King George III and as Michael Moore said, the terrorists in Iraq are the minutemen, the "revolution." Just to clarify things, this is the same Michael Moore who half the Democratic leadership in Washington DC was busy praising.

Now, I don't know that de Berge supports the Michael Moore view point, but by his deliberate comparison of King George III to the President, I have to wonder why?

Anywhow, that's enough for now. I'll post more in a little bit.


:: Nathan 4:05 PM [+] ::
...