Some things are just too easy to say...
Whether you'll admit it or not, I know that some things are just too easy to say. Yes, go on, spout off your words hoping beyond hope that they will bring you the comfort and refuge that you seek; but I won't be so easily deceived by your antics and disillusion - no sir. I know what I need to say and when I need to say it. Do you see adults wasting time counting to three?
No, wait. Please wait - don't leave. I didn't mean that... it's just... well... fine. I'll say it.
I...
You know, some things are just too easy to say.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Freedom and Government (from a Christian Perspective)
Yesterday I had the opportunity to attend one of Calvin’s “Unlearn Week” events entitled What Does It Mean to be American: Considering Glen Beck. Various attendees contended that Beck is an outsider, patriotic, an individual who “means what he says and says what he means”, and/or charismatic. This leads into a discussion on the question: “Is Glenn Beck radical?” This line of questioning turned out to be rather unproductive and left a great deal of disagreement of two questions: “Should the founding fathers be revered/respected?” and “What was America founded on (what’s the crux of the constitution) and have we lost this quality?”
Addressing the first may be more difficult than some would imagine. It would seem the majority of Americans have been raised in a tradition of putting America’s founding fathers up on a pedestal - I myself feel as if I have been raised in this tradition. I contend that while the founding fathers were extremely important in forming this country, they are in fact only human and shouldn’t be idolized. We should show respect for their (sometimes) heroic action and courage to stand up for what they believed in, but we shouldn’t go so far as to think they were infallible and always knew what was best. For instance, a number of them were involved with the persecution and violation of Native Americans and their rights. It may also be argued that they pushed a white male, upper/middle class hegemony that is emulated by many conservatives to this day. The list goes on of questionable, shameful acts that some of them participated in. Yet, despite these acts I can’t condone, I do believe that we can still look to what they valued/founded our country on along with their sacrifices and bravery. There are bad apples in every orchard. To burn the entire orchard down because of them seems like a bit of a waste from my point of view.
I think it fairly safe to say that a key point in the battlefield of American politics has been the question of what value(s) the country was founded on and what exactly we should do with the constitution. It seems to me that America was founded upon the idea of freedom. The constitution is a document written in that spirit, laying out a way to practically give freedom during the time period of the late 1700’s. We can see freedom being pursued throughout American history by various groups that came to America in the hopes of escaping persecution - examples include groups such as the Puritans and Jews. I won’t really try to pursue/prove this point any further because I think it to be pretty obvious and self-explanatory. I will though touch on a complaint in response to this. If America was founded on freedom, then why did it allow slavery through its first seventy to eighty years of existence? In this valid complaint we see the common clash of what is ideal versus what is practical/possible. Often times, we as a society have to (rightfully or wrongly) make a compromise between these two qualities. I don’t know if there is an adequate answer I can give on whether or not we should compromise - and if we do what that balance should look like. I will say though that if slavery (which a great number of founding fathers opposed) had been banned, the United States likely would never have gotten off of the ground. If our country barely survived the Civil War after establishing itself, how would it have endured a similar struggle when it was such a weak fledgling country? It would seem that the founding fathers were faced with the choice of having a country with legalized slavery or not having a country all together.
Coming back to the point of freedom, we get into the constant argument of the role of government and what its definition should be. Essentially, the argument between having a large, powerful government versus having a small, weaker government boils down to how individuals think individuals can be most free and what government should be (simply a means to individual freedom or something else). I myself stick to a definition where the government allows us to be free and make healthy choices that don’t violate others. Even if we can agree this in principle, we can’t always agree on what it means in practice. For instance, does the new healthcare program infringe upon our freedom by taking away some of our choice regarding our own healthcare, or does it promote freedom – allowing individuals to make healthy choices and not be bogged down with the concerns of not having healthcare? Does it do a good job promoting our right to life (which is an essential component of freedom)?
Going in this direction I think it's important to examine how Christians view government. First of all, let me be very clear that I believe the Bible teaches both social justice and personal responsibility. This leads me to think that both need to be upheld and pursued in the world. How is this done? Well, again we come down to an argument of what the role of government should be; in this case, what are the roles of both government and the church? How do they overlap, and if they do, should they at all? I find it interesting that the Conservatives are the ones who are often accused of bringing their religious views into politics (often on issues such as abortion and gay marriage) while liberal Christians seem just as “guilty” of bringing the Bible’s message of social justice into politics. Let me state that I believe in the separation of Church and State as it was intended and that this idea is of vital importance - protecting all religions (theoretically) from governmental prejudice and persecution. However, asking someone to leave religion out of their values is equivalent to asking a white, middle-class, small-business owner from Texas to forget that he’s all of these things when he interacts with the world and makes political decisions. It’s pretty darn hard to do. So, while religion shouldn’t directly dictate government, it is unavoidable that some aspects of religion seep into politics. Anyway, back to the argument of the role of the church versus government (from a Christian perspective).
In an ideal world I think it should be rather obvious to most that the church should be in charge of social justice. I think we would see a church that is willing and able to help everyone with their financial needs; in essence, one would see the church practice its own form of socialism (as we see the apostles doing in the New Testament). However, we can also quite clearly see that we don’t live in an ideal world. Throughout history the church has proven to be ineffective at its mission and often hostile, violent, and insensitive. With this in mind, many Christians see the government as a way to enable the social justice that the world and this country lack. This all boils down to whether we should try to use the government to enforce social justice; if so, is this approach right from a political standpoint? Here I will leave everyone to their own thoughts; I’ve rambled on quite long enough.
(Thanks for reading. I’m trying to write more for the blog but due to this, quality of posts may be reduced - so please bear with me. Also, what do you think of the new look?)
Addressing the first may be more difficult than some would imagine. It would seem the majority of Americans have been raised in a tradition of putting America’s founding fathers up on a pedestal - I myself feel as if I have been raised in this tradition. I contend that while the founding fathers were extremely important in forming this country, they are in fact only human and shouldn’t be idolized. We should show respect for their (sometimes) heroic action and courage to stand up for what they believed in, but we shouldn’t go so far as to think they were infallible and always knew what was best. For instance, a number of them were involved with the persecution and violation of Native Americans and their rights. It may also be argued that they pushed a white male, upper/middle class hegemony that is emulated by many conservatives to this day. The list goes on of questionable, shameful acts that some of them participated in. Yet, despite these acts I can’t condone, I do believe that we can still look to what they valued/founded our country on along with their sacrifices and bravery. There are bad apples in every orchard. To burn the entire orchard down because of them seems like a bit of a waste from my point of view.
I think it fairly safe to say that a key point in the battlefield of American politics has been the question of what value(s) the country was founded on and what exactly we should do with the constitution. It seems to me that America was founded upon the idea of freedom. The constitution is a document written in that spirit, laying out a way to practically give freedom during the time period of the late 1700’s. We can see freedom being pursued throughout American history by various groups that came to America in the hopes of escaping persecution - examples include groups such as the Puritans and Jews. I won’t really try to pursue/prove this point any further because I think it to be pretty obvious and self-explanatory. I will though touch on a complaint in response to this. If America was founded on freedom, then why did it allow slavery through its first seventy to eighty years of existence? In this valid complaint we see the common clash of what is ideal versus what is practical/possible. Often times, we as a society have to (rightfully or wrongly) make a compromise between these two qualities. I don’t know if there is an adequate answer I can give on whether or not we should compromise - and if we do what that balance should look like. I will say though that if slavery (which a great number of founding fathers opposed) had been banned, the United States likely would never have gotten off of the ground. If our country barely survived the Civil War after establishing itself, how would it have endured a similar struggle when it was such a weak fledgling country? It would seem that the founding fathers were faced with the choice of having a country with legalized slavery or not having a country all together.
Coming back to the point of freedom, we get into the constant argument of the role of government and what its definition should be. Essentially, the argument between having a large, powerful government versus having a small, weaker government boils down to how individuals think individuals can be most free and what government should be (simply a means to individual freedom or something else). I myself stick to a definition where the government allows us to be free and make healthy choices that don’t violate others. Even if we can agree this in principle, we can’t always agree on what it means in practice. For instance, does the new healthcare program infringe upon our freedom by taking away some of our choice regarding our own healthcare, or does it promote freedom – allowing individuals to make healthy choices and not be bogged down with the concerns of not having healthcare? Does it do a good job promoting our right to life (which is an essential component of freedom)?
Going in this direction I think it's important to examine how Christians view government. First of all, let me be very clear that I believe the Bible teaches both social justice and personal responsibility. This leads me to think that both need to be upheld and pursued in the world. How is this done? Well, again we come down to an argument of what the role of government should be; in this case, what are the roles of both government and the church? How do they overlap, and if they do, should they at all? I find it interesting that the Conservatives are the ones who are often accused of bringing their religious views into politics (often on issues such as abortion and gay marriage) while liberal Christians seem just as “guilty” of bringing the Bible’s message of social justice into politics. Let me state that I believe in the separation of Church and State as it was intended and that this idea is of vital importance - protecting all religions (theoretically) from governmental prejudice and persecution. However, asking someone to leave religion out of their values is equivalent to asking a white, middle-class, small-business owner from Texas to forget that he’s all of these things when he interacts with the world and makes political decisions. It’s pretty darn hard to do. So, while religion shouldn’t directly dictate government, it is unavoidable that some aspects of religion seep into politics. Anyway, back to the argument of the role of the church versus government (from a Christian perspective).
In an ideal world I think it should be rather obvious to most that the church should be in charge of social justice. I think we would see a church that is willing and able to help everyone with their financial needs; in essence, one would see the church practice its own form of socialism (as we see the apostles doing in the New Testament). However, we can also quite clearly see that we don’t live in an ideal world. Throughout history the church has proven to be ineffective at its mission and often hostile, violent, and insensitive. With this in mind, many Christians see the government as a way to enable the social justice that the world and this country lack. This all boils down to whether we should try to use the government to enforce social justice; if so, is this approach right from a political standpoint? Here I will leave everyone to their own thoughts; I’ve rambled on quite long enough.
(Thanks for reading. I’m trying to write more for the blog but due to this, quality of posts may be reduced - so please bear with me. Also, what do you think of the new look?)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)