sorry... i forgot to include what I am currently reading in my previous post. Granted, I could have just edited that post to include this bit of info... but, i didn't. For the past couple of months, since people started declaring for the 2008 presidential election, I have found myself intrigued by one Barak Obama. I have enjoyed listening to him speak when I've seen him on TV, and given the Christian upheaval over his "Muslim" background, I thought he would be a candidate worth checking out and reading for myself. I must say, from what I've read... I kinda like Obama. I'll be honest... I'm more than a one issue voter, which means I don't decide on a person based solely upon his/her position on abortion (this is, it seems to me, what many Christians do). I think violence is violence, whether it be unleashed on an unborn fetus, a Muslim woman living in Iraq or on the environment, and I don't know how much the difference matters to God. So, I have to pull on more than just the one issue. I'm reading Audacity of Hope. I'm only about half way through, but Obama is clearly a great communicator and writer. The book has come across genuinely sincere and very uplifting. The book really doesn't feel forced at all, but very authentic and comfortable. Even in areas where I disagree with him, Obama is still clearly respectful and gracious to those with whom he disagrees. Good stuff!
16 comments:
Yeah, but he's a muslim.
Which reminds me of a funny thing that happened with me and my parents the day after you and were talking about Obama, and I'll tell you next time we speak.
so why does your non-1 issueness allow you to vote for anyone that is not actively against all violence. and don spout out pragmatism to me, that we only have the choices put in front of us, that we have to choose between the lesser of two evils. i dont have to choose evil, aint that salvation. you can join with me with the no vote, that is my campaign. just go and leave it blank, if enough of us do it then perhaps some power hungry pragmatist will change his/her platform and become non-violent, or better yet maybe it will encourage someone who is righteous to make a move into the political
This will probably start another firestorm, and I know we've talked about this a billion times before, but sometimes, as the last resort, don't you have to kill the evil? Not that it's done with glee or even any enjoyment, but isn't it necessary, at least at the national level? (I'm talking about putting evil, i.e. a Hitler-type, where systematic destruction of a people is taking place).
It's this question (along with a few disagreements with the global warming crowd) that keeps me slanted conservative (politically).
Oh, the question being:
Does this candidate have the guts and/or fortitude to end violence with violence when (and only when) it's necessary?
i've often wrestled with this question, but i think it comes down to this... individually & corporately, violence is never stopped by violence, only increased. I think this is what Jesus is getting at in the garden, when he tells his disciple to put away their swords because "those who kill by the sword will be killed by the sword". He says that he could call legions (a roman term) of angels to his defense (to destroy the roman empire) but he doesn't. Violence, it seems, is not the way of the kingdom. And many can affirm this on a personal/situational level, but i think it holds true at any level. I also think its why we "need" Armageddon with the final battle and tanks and blood everywhere. We simply cannot conceive of another interpretation of the end than God engaging in violence to establish his kingdom. This, I do not believe to be God's character. I do not know how to reconcile it with OT stories, so I am open to any suggestions, but i'm not sure I even need to reconcile it. I have more to say about this, but its getting late.
OK...so I have to weigh in here. It seems that there are at least three things going on here. No. 1, ndfugate seems to suggest that not voting (which, of course, is a vote) will eventually get everyone's attention. This is the most idealistic position represented here. It is a viable position and one which I have taken in the past. But it seems to me that this is a position to take in less desperate times, for instance in local elections for Omsbudsman or some such office. When there is much at stake, the 'making a point and hoping everyone else sees it' approach is, it seems to me, way to optimistic about human nature.
Secondly, there is the choice between 2 evils (I take it what most mean here is 'abortion' and 'war'). This is a false choice, to quote SJL. These 'issues' are not individual compartments. They are integrated and connected. For instance, not enough is made of the statistic that abortion numbers go up when conservative agendas are pushed forward because conservative agendas do not serve to alleviate poverty, a, if not the, primary reason for abortions. Poor people cannot afford healthcare, remember. Poverty is as much a pro-life issue as is abortion. Besides, I don't think this will even be a choice in this election. The Republican front-runners are all pro-choice with multiple marriages or immorality issues in their past!
Thirdly, Brandon raises the issue of 'just war', which is not an issue at all in this contemporary situation. NO WMD's, Saddam has been executed and the war is escalating. Not even Augustine would see this war as just.
Lastly, and I'll shut up (for now), if the Kingdom of God is our highest priority, and the mission of God is our impetus, how can we ever justify supporting an agenda that kills those who've never heard the gospel? (And don't forget that Iraq had one of the highest Christian populations in the Muslim world and, now, they are among the most persecuted in Iraq).
Enough.
that last lecture was from me.
well then lets ask the larger question of what is our (church) role in the political, secular context of america and the world? can we join in and still speak prophetically to it?
Woo Hoo a discussion on politics and God. Can I play?
I agree with everyone.
Issues are not independent of other issues. I'm sure that poverty is linked to abortion. Although, the 3 people I personally know of who had an abortion (I'm sure there are more I am not aware of)did so not because of money at all. They all 3 grew up in church and were afraid to tell anyone. It was the convenient option for them.
War is bad. I feel the church should neither endorse, condone nor support violence. A government however may have to choose an act of war to protect the helpless (I'm not speaking of Iraq). Doesn't mean the church has to be happy about the violence.
No easy answers are there?
Mike is right as he often is! I am not saying that one issue trumps another. I'm just troubled by the lack of critical thought (not on this post of course!....lots of critical thought here) going into most decisions, votes, campaigns and worse yet the support of candidates. I'm also sick of the arrogance of those who think because they oppose abortion they are righteous. Their speech betrays them...they are whited sepulchres filled with....well, you know. We may have to vote based on one issue, but that doesn't mean we should give a blanket endorsement to the candidate who is straight on that one issue. That's what I see in the church right now. LBJ was right on many, many issues but very wrong on Vietnam and had the morals of an alley cat. "War, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing."
"A government however may have to choose an act of war to protect the helpless"
why? and if governments must make these choices, why should i willingly participate in such government?
I may have waited to long to rejoin this discussion.
Nic asked "why?" and must he participate in this government?
Because governments make war. There is no communal utopia called Earth in which we can all live in harmony. "Imagine all the people living for ...."
In Bazarro Ideal World perhaps this is an option, but not in the real world. Again, I'm not saying the church should be happy with it. There's one of those great tensions that we must hold.
Must you participate in it? We are in the world but not of the world. You tell me.
Remember when we used to use these things?
Blogger: The Next Angelfire.
So you don't vote on one issue-that just shows that your now a complete fool, congratulations! The truth is, by voting on one issue (that one being abortion) Candidates haven't done anything against abortion once elected. To any who say it's our Christian duty to vote for someone who speaks against abortion, please remind the candidates that it is their "Christian Duty" to act when they speak.
As far as Obama... I might have to agree that he seems sincere. My favorite piece of his whole is the view he has on religion. Our country is so religiously diverse, even to those who choose to denounce religion, they still have a view on religion, so it's inevitably a huge issue. Though I haven't read his book (It's on my Que) his website offers a great speech http://www.barackobama.com/issues/faith/
To Brandon, who seems appalled by his "Musli-ness", watch it... even if you were joking.
Interesting conversation...
I watched the video that Kelly referred to and had a similar reaction. Obama does seem sincere and has a logical perspective for his "political" stands.
I guess the question I have then is how does one reconcile their beliefs in a political context?
On many issues I tend to take the republican position, and, on many others I tend to align with the democrat position. Historically I have ranked issues according to how important the issue is to me personally, collectively evaluated the results, and then voted accordingly.
Assuming others use a similar approach, what are the consequences of NOT ranking moral issues the highest? I'm concerned that, as Kelly suggests, we as Christians allow the foundation of our beliefs to slowly be chipped away.
As an aside, I also believe that the church has shifted the responsibility of taking care of the poor, sick, hungry, etc. to our government. In doing so, we now must consider the fact that if our government doesn't provide social programs, it won't get done.
:(
Post a Comment