Get out your tin foil hats, because you don’t want the government to use their satellites to read your brain while you read this. It could get you in big trouble—oh yes—big trouble. In fact, I had better switch to a stealthy spy font. But you know what, even with the spy font, I am willing to type this. I am willing to risk myself to spread knowledge.
The government exists for a limited time but the individual is eternal.
What? Chuck Colson said that already? Well then. I guess he would know, wouldn’t he. So… um… sorry about the unnecessary tin-foil-hat warning. I guess you can put them back into the lead-lined hat box under your floor panels.
Shall this be a twenty year late book review instead? Born Again by Chuck Colson is brilliant. Truly brilliant. I had the privilege of growing up going to church and getting “born again” not very many years after I was born the first time. But Chuck Colson. He got saved in the middle of the 20th century’s biggest American political scandal—and he was the bad guy! For a number of reasons, including that he is still active as a leader of the conservative church on the east coast, I would wager that his new-found salvation wasn’t just a means to wiggle his way into the public’s good side. Another reason I would suggest that he was sincere, he plead guilty to his crimes and spent time in jail. It would seem that after being born again, he realized that was the right thing to do. And that is what his book is about. How Christ changed his life so entirely that he actually turned from his previous ways and began a lifetime of living anew. Just like he was born all over again.
That concept up there, in the stealthy font, was a big eye opener him. It was a big eye opener to me as well. I think it is a very good explanation of the difference between republican and democrat. It would seem to me that democrats want to do everything they absolutely can to improve the experience on earth of their fellow man. And it might seem that republicans want to preserve the wealth of the individual at all costs. But on the philosophical level, both parties want to do absolutely everything they can to improve the experience on earth of their fellow man. Democrats believe that the government is the appropriate entity to do this job. Republicans believe that the individual is the appropriate entity.
So I take the concept of eternity, and apply it to the two entities. The state will dissolve or at least evolve beyond recognition over time. Nothing that the government applies to itself will last forever. But people are eternal. When their life here on earth is over, their spirit lives on in community and relationship. A study of the book of Revelation (that one at the end of the Bible) will show that after our life on earth ends a new earth will exist where what we have done here determines what we get to do there.
What the individual chooses to do to better mankind will affect each eternal individual. It will also affect the eternity of the acting person.
So I vote republican because I believe that fewer taxes means more money in the hands of the people. And money in the hands of the people means opportunity for everyone to serve each other.
The earlier version of this post was very stream of conscience and left me unsatisfied. It is still true that I think Barak Obama could be a good president for our country. But it turns out that that wasn’t what was meant to be the point of all this. It was much more valuable to me to think over again why the responsibility to look after the less fortunate belongs to the individual.
The government exists for a limited time but the individual is eternal.
What? Chuck Colson said that already? Well then. I guess he would know, wouldn’t he. So… um… sorry about the unnecessary tin-foil-hat warning. I guess you can put them back into the lead-lined hat box under your floor panels.
Shall this be a twenty year late book review instead? Born Again by Chuck Colson is brilliant. Truly brilliant. I had the privilege of growing up going to church and getting “born again” not very many years after I was born the first time. But Chuck Colson. He got saved in the middle of the 20th century’s biggest American political scandal—and he was the bad guy! For a number of reasons, including that he is still active as a leader of the conservative church on the east coast, I would wager that his new-found salvation wasn’t just a means to wiggle his way into the public’s good side. Another reason I would suggest that he was sincere, he plead guilty to his crimes and spent time in jail. It would seem that after being born again, he realized that was the right thing to do. And that is what his book is about. How Christ changed his life so entirely that he actually turned from his previous ways and began a lifetime of living anew. Just like he was born all over again.
That concept up there, in the stealthy font, was a big eye opener him. It was a big eye opener to me as well. I think it is a very good explanation of the difference between republican and democrat. It would seem to me that democrats want to do everything they absolutely can to improve the experience on earth of their fellow man. And it might seem that republicans want to preserve the wealth of the individual at all costs. But on the philosophical level, both parties want to do absolutely everything they can to improve the experience on earth of their fellow man. Democrats believe that the government is the appropriate entity to do this job. Republicans believe that the individual is the appropriate entity.
So I take the concept of eternity, and apply it to the two entities. The state will dissolve or at least evolve beyond recognition over time. Nothing that the government applies to itself will last forever. But people are eternal. When their life here on earth is over, their spirit lives on in community and relationship. A study of the book of Revelation (that one at the end of the Bible) will show that after our life on earth ends a new earth will exist where what we have done here determines what we get to do there.
What the individual chooses to do to better mankind will affect each eternal individual. It will also affect the eternity of the acting person.
So I vote republican because I believe that fewer taxes means more money in the hands of the people. And money in the hands of the people means opportunity for everyone to serve each other.
The earlier version of this post was very stream of conscience and left me unsatisfied. It is still true that I think Barak Obama could be a good president for our country. But it turns out that that wasn’t what was meant to be the point of all this. It was much more valuable to me to think over again why the responsibility to look after the less fortunate belongs to the individual.
5 comments:
LOL! Can't wait to read the new revised version. ;)
I take a slightly different tack, I think. I feel that given the opportunity, most individuals are selfish and self-serving. Lord knows I am. Given unlimited wealth, I would probably give it to those I know in need, and probably spend the bulk of it on frivolous "me" things. Now, I may be the only one to admit this, but it's the way I've observed most individuals to operate.
We have a couple at church who are fabulously wealthy. They give when asked, and I'm sure pay their tithes, but they also have a 150 ft yacht, three ferraris, a lamborghini and an astin martin. That roughly $4 million could have been better spent, I believe in paying for the church's land, funding our men's missions to Kenya, Peru and Madagascar or many, many other things. I feel like the community, which has in the past been the standard by which generations are measured, and not by individuals trumps our selfish natures. We may not like how each dollar is spent, but it pays for things like infrastructure (something in bad need of overhaul), health insurance for poor children, free lunch programs, etc. I think not taxing, and leaving these programs to donation is negligent, given what I believe to be the selfish nature of human beings.
Republicanism bears little resemblence to republicanism (note the little -r) which is something I believe you're touting in your post. Big R republicanism, I believe protects the insanely wealthy by convincing the Big C conservatives that they're really looking out for their best interest. Little r republicanism is about civic duty, responsibility, alas, a lost concept in our highly individualistic society.
xaphd, as I was tidying up my train of thought post, an alternate line of reasoning was flowing through my brain. It seems that one of the many things we could do to help our fellow man is to vote in support of things that benefit the community. I am a huge supporter of local schools, in particular and think that the private school thing Christians get involved in is a real pity.
And with the recent bridge collapse in MN, how could anyone think of shortchanging infrastructure?
But I do think our government makes bad funding decisions.I have had friends on wellfare who bring home three times the grocery money that we budget for, even though our families are the same size. The welfare system is flooded with families that are heavily overweight (such as my friends.) But there is no compimentery funding to teach the families how to budget their grocery money or cook healthy foods. When I was on WIC, I played a game each month where I tried as hard as I could to spend my full WIC check by buying the highest priced brand food every month, but I never could do it, because the amount of money we were given was just much higher than the number of specific items I was allowed to use the money on. Welfare is a very broken system. As, of course, is social security, veterns hospitals, and the prison system. Not that all of those things are the province of the Church. But the money spent wrongly in those systems could be spent to maintain the health of our children and elderly, or other important thaings that are being neglected. It seems like there are so many things that could be run better and with less money, personal wealth in the middle class could increase. After all, hot economy means jobs, fewere people on welfare and more people able to pay taxes.
I think of the national children's medical program that is being worked on. The underprivelidged children in Oregon and Washington have their medical covered already. I am fair to certain that a national program will duplicate, but not replace these state programs. The health of the poor children in my area will not improve but my taxes will increase and the money I can send to my missionaries or for my new church building will decrease. And not because medical care for poor children is a bad thing. Just because it could be handled on the state level, instead of the national level.
I could go on and on, but you probably get the picture. I have a rudimentery understanding of how all of this works. But the things I do know slightly more about don't seem to be in good working order.
Maybe I'll hit some of my favorite hot button issues in the next couple of weeks.
Traci
i've been thinking about this one, T...but i don't quite follow the connections you're making. to me, they sound like wishful thinking - in the sense that if others really were like you, then perhaps the foregrounding of the individual might really serve everyone well, because you're a generous, thoughtful, intelligent person. but seeing as not everyone is like you...and i agree with your comment to xaphd that the ways governments spend money often seems unfortunate...i prefer to err on the side willing to care for others as (despite the fact that i'm a heathen of sorts) as i believe Jesus would have done, regardless of their worthiness.
The Church really did start at a socialist unit, and I do think that socialism is consistent with Christianity. It would seem that voting in favor of social programs would be one of many ways that individuals can be generous.
And yet... when I lived in Sweden, the churches we did work with were often frustrated in their efforts to serve. A group like a church was not allowed to organize people for shovel the snow at the homes of the elderly, (for example) because it was a protected government job. I wonder if the US is already at the precarious balance between what the government does for us and what we do for each other. Most repub-fundies (ew, that has a really yucky sound. Try saying repub-fundy wasp and it sounds like something you should spray against.:)) Would say that Canada has already crossed that line.
Side note: My dear friend Jill is a Minnesota Democrat who votes her conscience married to a British Columbian Conservative. He votes party line and really gets on her case for being a liberal--except she has discovered that his party line is more liberal than her conscience. And I'd consider her pretty liberal myself.
The concept that individuals are good is clearly wrong, and yet it is the foundation for republicanism. I can't even attempt to make it fit in with what the Bible says. Ther probably is a strong case for this idea of mine being wishful thinking.
And thanks for the compliment Bon. If I could have that on my tombstone, that would be enough.
Post a Comment