Tuesday, July 10, 2007

JASON IS MY HERO!!!!

So, I think I broke my template. I can't add a title to any new posts. What have I done? I do like that I found ways to change up my template a wee bit. I'll keep messing with and perhaps I will find a way to get titles back. We'll see.

I just finished Barack Obama's book and it was good. It wasn't until the epilogue that his readers find where the title of the book comes from:

"It wasn't just the struggles of these men and women that had moved me. Rather, it was their determination, their self-reliance, a relentless optimism in the face of hardship. It brought to mind a phrase that my pastor, Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., had once used in a sermon.

The audacity of hope.

That was the best of the American spirit, I thought - having the audacity to believe despite all the evidence to the contrary that we could restore a sense of community to a nation torn by conflict; the gall to believe that despite personal setbacks, the loss of a job or an illness in the family or a childhood mired in poverty; we had some control - and therefore responsibility- over our own fate.

It was that audacity, I thought, that joined us as one people. It was that pervasive spirit of hope that tied my own family's story to the larger American story, and my own story to those of the voters I represent."

I dare to take it one step further. The audacity of hope to me suggests that each American, dare I say human, has the responsibility to all humankind to restore a sense of community in the world, despite our differences. All of humankind should live life recognizing that we are more alike than we are different.

28 comments:

Tim said...

The title shows up in my blog reader, just not on your page, so it's publishing it, it's probably just the code that shows it in your template is missing. I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard a fix just finding the right code.

As for Obama's words, humankind is broken and seperated from God by sin. The only thing that can change that is Jesus, not the human spirit. The human spirit will only bring more brokenness and death (which is the wages of sin). Humans have no hope apart from God, and can only be with God by Jesus Christ.

Rebecca said...

I agree. But an attitude that suggests to people that no one cares about you unless you believe the same thing I do isn't getting anyone anywhere fast.

When my life is transformed by a reconciliation with Jesus Christ, I can't help but care about my neighbor, whether or not they agree with me. So until I meet my neighbor where she is and love her as she is, as Jesus would have be to do, I cannot expect her to be open to hearing the message of Jesus.

Let's stop correcting everyone for their "flawed language" and get on the same team of helping one another through this life. Let's stop pointing out our shortcomings and start loving one another. Let's build relationships with people so they will see why we have a hope that transcends any earthly understanding. Let's believe it ourselves first before we expect other people to buy into our dried up, condesceding religious attitudes. Perhaps when I believe that Jesus loves me even though his people often do a piss poor job of showing it because his people are all too busy pointing out what everyone is doing wrong (self included, but I'm trying hard to stop it...). Maybe when the world hears that we care about them, with no pretense, when they see with our actions that it matters to us that the single mom needs help. When Christians aren't saying "Welp, she did this to herself." and say to her instead "You are my responsibility and I will help you". They might believe the message we are trying to share. The human spirit I consider myself to have is one given to me by the Spirit. My belief that we all come from God and we are all His children, demands that I treat others better than myself. I believe we were all made to care for one another. My spirit demands it of me as does my God.

Now I will breathe.

Tim said...

Those who love Jesus should show an attitude that Jesus loves everyone, and it should show through our actions, but it has nothing to do with human effort. We are different because of Jesus. We should let His love show through our actions, but not telling people they need Jesus while we do so gives them nothing.

It all comes down to our actions. We can sit around and complain about it all we want, but words are cheap. I think James 2 says much about this. We tend to love people who agree with us more than those that don't, but I see recently lots of Christians going the other way and loving unbelievers and not loving their brothers. What does this say to non-Christians? Let's love everyone and let God sort them out, but let everyone know why we love. Jesus Christ.

Rebecca said...

You're right. We need to love everyone, including our brother who is trying to share a message of hope to people who don't understand God or who have been hurt by those who call themselves God-followers. I think that if you had him in a room talking about this he would agree with you but he's also trying to speak a language that is inclusive. You have to start somewhere and writing an entire political book about how having hope in God can restore America surely wouldn't get him far - I don't think it would get Rudy Guiliani very far either (although I don't think he would write such a book even if it would...wait, it's worked for Bush thus far. People have bought it hook, line and sinker...but Guiliani's three wives...another topic entirely).

I don't see what he is saying as being any different (well the message is different but the idea is the same - hope you understand what I mean...) than the message I hear from our current administration that to not agree with their ideas or question what they are doing is unAmerican (I happen to think it's totally American to have the freedom to disagree) or that my second allegiance after God needs to be to my country. I think that line is often blurred in Christian circles. Is it God or Country first? Sometimes I'm not sure. I don't have to agree with the way Bush wants to do things but I also shouldn't have to worry about people around me calling me unChristian or unAmerican for disagreeing. It's not right. I don't think Obama's message of the American Dream is any more or less wrong than conservatives using it in their "ad campaigns" for their advantage. Does it make him more or less Christian than those on the other side of the aisle?

I'm processing as much for myself as you. :) I love you.

Unknown said...

While it ought to be our joy to share the love of Jesus with others, many of us sense it as more of a responsibility. It seems that we try to get a list of 'things to do' to show Jesus' love and the hope we have in God and then work very hard to complete the tasks on this list. This usually makes the list-maker feel pretty good and that they are pulling their weight, so to speak. In this effort, we focus on social issues and correcting the wrongs done to people and we may see some success in those things. But it likely won't be the life-changing success of Jesus' redemption. When the focus is restitution for wrongs, there will never be complete healing because, using the world's eyes, there will never be complete restitution. The only complete healing comes through the restoration of the relationship between one and God; restitution is thrown out the window because the things of God are far above the things in this world that one has 'lost.'

The danger of doing this politically in order to create a kind of utopia is that a controlling group desires to dictate how, when, where, and to whom 'restitution' is to be accomplished. You are right, Rebecca, that the only avenue for change it to just care about the people we meet. Sometimes, though, the people on the receiving end don't want to receive the hope/help that you have to offer. It is not always a person doing a poor job of showing love. Sometimes the people "hurt by those who call themselves God-followers" are ones who don't want to accept the help or love offered. For example, we have a friend who is a policeman in Portland and when they are working on clearing out an area with a lot of transients, they hand out literature and talk to the people about housing and centers to go to for help. Often, the people will give some excuse as to why they can't go to the housing or they will state that they don't want to work. Does this entitle them to feel hurt by those who didn't help? If they would be happy and accepting of those who help in the form of money or gifts of drugs and alcohol, does that mean the only way to help them is to buy them drugs and alcohol? (I'm sure flaws can be found in my example, but I hope you see my point.)

Sometimes the result or reaction to the help does not always relay the truth, honesty, or goodness of the action. As Christians, we know that people will 'insult us, persecute us and falsely say all kinds of evil against us.' Satan does not want Christ followers to be liked or accepted, and the devil is the father of lies and deceit. He twists truth and reality for his own gain and those who are not seeking after the Lord can be swayed and deceived into believing falsehood. When we focus exclusively on the voice of the receivers and neglect to look at and hear the voice of the helper, we may not perceive the goodness or rightness of the helper.


Please don't read the above statement as a commentary on the political culture in our society. I'm am referring to individual behavior. In the political realm, we cannot expect that all things will or even can be good. People are flawed, and, as Tim said, the human soul will only bring more brokenness. People who are lead by their soul and not by the Spirit will never be able to resolve all of the problems of our society. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make it better, but it will never be completely good because there are some people who don't want and don't seek good. If we put the entire burden of making our society 'good' on the political leaders, we will end up with a group who controls what they believe that good to be and forces it on the all members of the society. Who are those members of the group who decides the good? Typically, they are 'elites' or people with a great deal of political power. An honest look at those with political power on either side of the political spectrum will show that most, if not all, are in the 'elite' class.

How, then, do we deal with the political culture? Do we bury our head in the sand? Do we accept and include all people regardless of philosophical and spiritual beliefs? Do we all just work together? (As an aside, 'inclusion' in the way it is used in the political culture equates to 'you are inclusive if you agree with me; if you don't agree with me, you are being exclusive.') How can Democrats and Republicans just all get along and work toward the same goal for society when they have completely different philosophical and sometimes spiritual ideologies? In broad generalities, if it is the goal of the Democrat party to create a society in which the results and the lifestyle for everyone must be the same, and the government it the only entity that can control such things, how is that freedom? Disagreement is this ideology is viewed as evil (evil republican, evil capitalist, etc.). Also, in general, if it is the goal of the Republican party to create a society in which opportunities are equal for all and the results depend on what one makes of the opportunities, it sounds a lot more like freedom to me. The sentiment among republicans that people who don't agree with this view are evil is slim. They think that those who disagree are wrong, but rarely evil (as in malicious and intent on causing harm to others). The very idea of disagreement is that each party thinks the other party is wrong. Wrong is not the same as evil.

Honestly, there seems to be more hostility from those with liberal ideologies towards those with more conservative ones. There are a surprising number of accounts where people with conservative signs at demonstrations are insulted, punched and physically assaulted, and are forced to leave, denying them their right to voice their opinion. (These accounts are readily available, if interested.)

One more thought: for those who believe that there is no absolute morality, anyone who believes there is an absolute morality is causing the other 'hurt.' By virtue of the fact that one disagrees, the first party receives 'harm' because of some sort of intellectual infringement. That is dangerous in any society. For those who believe there is an absolute morality, the other is misled or wrong and viewed to be hurting themselves. Usually, Christians don't force their beliefs down the throats of people (in fact, we often don't do enough talking about our faith in a more conversational way). That is obviously unlikely to win anyone for Christ. As stated, showing love is the only way to accurately portray Christ to the lost. Another vital aspect to showing Christ and freeing ourselves from the burden of a to do list for the Lord is to let the Spirit lead in all situations. Those who have ears to hear and can see the source of the love we show are the ones the Spirit prompts. The Spirit's work in the situation will result in fruit (fruit which we may actually never see). That doesn't mean that we don't show love to all people, but it does mean that not all will accept the shown love as good.

(Please take this entire comment and a means of discussion and processing!!)

Rebecca said...

Jenny - thanks for stopping by. I just read all that you had to say and it will take time for me to formulate my thoughtful response. :)The one thing that I would like to correct you on is that the party is the Demoocratic party, not Democrat Party. I will probably be back with more thoughts later!

Alan said...

The audacity of hope. Do I dare to believe that the world can be better? I sure hope so.

We have had 6 years of terror terror terror terror terror if you don't agree with me you are unamerican and evil because you are on the side of the terrorists.

I find it amusing that Christians who want their brand of Christianity to be the "official" brand of Christianity vote in large measure with those who are the most greedy, self-consumed, my way or the highway free market with no rules to stop us Republicans.

I don't want to be preachy but while we are not perfect beings God does perfect us. Jesus came and spent his time with sinners. He fed, he healed, and he controlled the natural forces of the world. The people he confronted where not the lepers, women caught in adultery, people we would not be caught dead hanging out with. Jesus confronted the political, social, and religious rulers, and I suspect he would do the same thing today.

Obama's pastor is correct. Through the perfection of our hearts by allowing God to have control of our life we can have the audacity to hope our world can be better. It will always have evil in it, but that doesn't mean we live as if there is no hope. We need to have faith, hope and love.

Tim said...

I think the question God or country first, for Christians, isn't quite the right question. It should be God alone, and no second. The 2nd commandment.

I think I know where you're coming from. For a long, long time the church has done a good job of teaching the truth, but they haven't done as much of the loving. Some have gone the other way and preached love, but have left out the truth of Jesus. The problem is when we love without truth, it isn't love at all, for God is love. We must be speaking the truth in love.

Speaking of Christians thinking their brand of Christianity is the official one, have you read any articles about the recent happenings of the pope? Basically he is saying that unless you believe the way they do and follow what the pope says, you're not a real Christian. I was going to write a blog post about it, but it's appropriate here.

http://www.comcast.net/news/international/index.jsp?cat=INTERNATIONAL&fn=/2007/07/10/710968.html&cvqh=itn_pope

Anonymous said...

To Rebecca:
Actually, the American system of government is Democratic. People who call themselves "Democrats" (with an 's') are those who belong to the Democrat party, just as those who call themselves "Republicans" (with an 's') are members who identtify with the Republican party. The reason why Democrats are as sensitive to the terms Democrat Party vs. Democratic Party is because the latter implies that any other party is not democratic, which is patently untrue.

To Alan:
Obama's pastor also said the following:

"I use his [Marvin Gaye’s] words today on the third Sunday of a New Year to keep before you the painful truth of who we are and where it is we are in this racist United States of America! What’s goin’ on? …The reality, however, is that the entire war in Iraq and the larger “war on terror” have been based on lies, half-truths and distortions to serve the agenda of the United States imperialism. Where is the public outcry? Where is the outrage? What’s goin’ on?
(http://www.tucc.org/upload/tuccbulletin_jan21.pdf)

I'm not sure that it helps your argument to quote the words of an obvious race-baiter. Not meaning to derail the current line of comments, but the problem with racism in America is not exclusive to those who harbor racist attitudes or act out due to racist attitudes, it also due to people like Obama's pastor who invoke their own racist tendencies in order to advance their own agenda.

Back to Rebecca:
Earlier in your comments, and also to the post on our blog about HIV, you commented that you are responsible -- in the first instance, for the single mother; in the second instance, for the spread of HIV (which I did note the smily face, so I'm not sure how to take that comment). What I ask is this: If you feel responsibility for these situations, at what point do you try to impose, if at all, your feeling of responsibility on the society as a whole? It is one thing for you to feel responsibility and do something in your private life to help people in that situation. It is another thing for you (along with large segments of the voting population) to impose your feeling of responsibility on the rest of the nation's citizenry through the levying and use of tax dollars in order to assuage your personal feeling of responsibility. It is great for you to use your private funds, time and energy to assist someone who is in a worse situation in life to get better. It is tyranny for you to force me or someone else to do it.

Back to Alan:
"I find it amusing that Christians who want their brand of Christianity to be the "official" brand of Christianity vote in large measure with those who are the most greedy, self-consumed, my way or the highway free market with no rules to stop us Republicans. "

Actually, the free market does more and is better equipped to handle society's ills than government will ever be. And again, I remind you that to use the force of the government -- that is, to take money from your fellow citizens through taxes -- so as to enact your vision of what Christianity is is just a tyrannical, perhaps even moreso, than you accuse Republicans of being.

I myself am not a Republican, but I am proudly a conservative, and conservatives believe, not without cause, that when you empower and enrich the government to solve society's ills, not only does the money go more to benefit the government than it does the society, but you create a bureaucracy that needs to justify it's existence. Thus, instead of eradicting the problem (which would, ideally, eradicate the need for the bureaucracy), the policies of the government actually perpetuate and exacerbate the problem. That is why conservatives favor limited government and the private markets or charities to solve social problems. If they succeed, then those who created the solution or charity will move on to another work. But the government doesn't move on or shut its doors. It simply becomes bloated and continues to operate in order to justify its existence.

Lastly, when you politicize social problems, which usually flow from spiritually problems, then you politicize faith even moreso than you accuse the Republicans of doing. Suddenly, the solution to social and spiritual ills becomes a political football. And who decides which ills need attending, or even what it is that constitutes an "ill"? It won't be Christians, but elected (or worse, appointed) politicians.

Unknown said...

As believers, we definitely can have faith, hope, and love. That is one of the things that Christians have that unbelievers don't. The source of love is God and is dramatically displayed in the sacrifice of Christ. We are called to live that love as we interact with people in this world. We have faith in the power of God to overcome evil (and that He has already conquered evil). We have faith that we will be saved through the blood of Jesus and nothing else. We have hope in the resurrection and in eternal life. We have hope that though we suffer trials, we will be with the Lord face to face.

The term 'hope' in the Bible and particularly in the NT is not a wishful thinking or a desire that may or may not come about. '[H]ope is an indication of certainty. “Hope” in Scripture means “a strong and confident expectation.”' (from www.bible.org).

We can want this world to be better and we can indeed act in such a way as to bring love and goodness into this world, but we don't really have a basis to place our hope in the overall goodness of society. Satan has been given a certain degree of power over this world for a time. Our hope is much better placed in the day when the Lord Jesus comes to restore His followers to His Father. A hope (wishful thinking) placed in a good society is destined to be dashed as history can attest. No society has endured the test of time and has walked a path to higher and higher morality. Most have done the opposite - a decline.

None of this is to say that we can't make an impact for good in this world. By living and walking in the Spirit, and in the truth of God, God can have a powerful impact on individuals and our society. The only way, however, for this world to be good would be if all people followed the Lord. It is interesting to read Moses' final words to the Israelites in the first few chapters of Deuteronomy. He tells them what will result in a good society. Over and over he states that they must follow the commandments of the Lord. The commands of God are not meant to appease His eternal anger toward them. He loves them and wants them to live in a good society because it will be good for them. God is telling man exactly what to do to have a good society (don't steal, don't murder, don't follow other gods - those other gods are not about love).

Ahhh, I am digressing! When we mix spiritual matters with political matters, things get sticky. When looking at the right and left sides of politics, in general, the left would like more federal government control of things. The right would like to have less federal government control, giving more control to the citizens of the states to determine what people living there need to order and organize their society on a micro-scale. (Note, this doesn't mean that there is so little federal control that a state can just choose to be completely opposite to all things that make the US the US.) In general, more governmental control means less choice for citizenry. In the realm of business, removing the free market would mean that you are not free to chose how and where to spend your money. It also affects how you are compensated for your work. Working hard doesn't mean anything, so why not put in as little effort as possible?

Are there problems with the Republican party? Of course! I don't really like big business and I choose to let them know how I feel by not giving them my money. I choose to benefit my society by buying local and supporting small business. Do I have a right to tell you what to do with your money, however? No.

As far as big business and free market goes, for all of the foul that the Democrat party cries, the actual elite of the Democrat party often participate in big business. Either their own or through the participation in the stock market (a function of a free market) in order to make more money. They can't have it both ways.

Both of the big parties have their major flaws and it would be really nice if another more morally and socially sound party could gain enough power to oust the current powers that be. Each person, however, has the right to examine the parties that are available to choose from and make a decision for themselves.

Incidentally, Alan: 1 - Republican states are far more charitable and giving than Democrat states. 2 - Brands of Christianity are a tool of the enemy to divide the church. Leaving a current group of people to find a group believers that are committed to seeking unity may be the only solution. 3 - And the killing of innocent children in the womb is an undebatable and measurable reality, unlike the philosophical discussion of whether free market, socialism, communism, or Marxism is better. I believe that is a far worse evil.

Mike Lewis said...

"I have never met a political party that followed God very well." -- Mike Lewis

I would say more, but the talking points are old.

Mike Lewis said...

Jenny,
Great words.

Rebecca said...

Jared:
1. Sarcasm is a great thing...you should try it sometime...I was attempting to use humor, because, I, in fact am not responsible for HIV. Loosen up!!!
2. If you go to the Democratic National Party's website (or any other register of political parties in this country) you will see that it is in fact called the DemocratIC party.
3. I believe you and I will have to agree to disagree on these issues. This is the beauty of our country. We don't have to agree. BUT...
4. Don't come to my website and be snarky. I don't come to your website and speak to you or your visitors in a rude and disrespectful manner - don't do it on mine.
5. I believe that you are doing what you believe to be the best to honor your values and your God as am I.
6. I will pray to our God that you never need any assistance from the government you so obviously abhor.

Alan said...

There is no such thing as a free market.

No one does business today that does not take advantage of government-created infrastructure paid for by our taxes. Taxes that we pay as part of living in a civilized society as investments.

Let us not talk about the fact that we have stable electrical power, water and sewer systems, that are mostly subsidised by government. That road you drive on to go work was provided by government, at least for now. There are places now where roads are being sold to business interests where you will be charged to drive on.


Jesus himself said to pay your taxes, when he asked whose picture was on the coin. Give to Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's. The notion that if we eliminate taxes to the rich it will somehow trickle down to the poor is a false notion. I have lived and worked under Reagan's economics and it was devastating to my family. In our country today the gap between rich and poor is increasing, not decreasing and the conservatives have basically been in control of government nationally for nearly 20+ years.

Liberals operate under the principle that government can make a difference and often fall short.

Conservatives say that government doesn't work, get elected, and prove it.

The fact remains this country is still basically racist. No one gets out of guilt in regards to this. However, my family hasn't had to suffer being hanged for being black and in the wrong place either, while the law looked away or in some cases took part under the hoods.

As for politicizing social policy, the scriptures are full of condemnation of the powers to be for not taking care of the poor, for not giving justice to the poor and powerless, and for turning their back on the stranger passing through their land. Through the prophets God said (to paraphrase) don't come to me with your sacrifices while you oppress the poor. Religion isn't a bunch of things we do in worship...it is how we relate to the those we come in contact. Justice is a "religious" issue as much as a political issue.

As for business doing a better job than government, ask the former employees and stock holders at Enron how well business treated them. Non-competitive bidding for Halliburton..and government contracts where huge amounts are being paid out for privatized work that our soldiers used to do for far less. Doesn't hurt that the Vice President still is profiting from stocks held from when he was CEO of Halliburton. Bush was elected as the first MBA president and we have more debt now than all previous presidents in history.

With so much deregulation, we are very much returning to the days of the Robber Barons of the past. You might remember that time when you studied American History.

We might also recall the Great Depression which came into being during a period of unregulated business.

Or how about a Christian president who lies about going to war in Iraq where thousands have died so that oil companies can profit? Free enterprise?
(No, there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. There were no weapons of mass destruction because they had been destroyed during the years of sanctions and we were told that that was the case by the experts who were doing the inspections)

The record is very clear that totally free markets come with a huge price. The record is also very clear that after the stock market crash and the depression that it was FDR and his "socialist" programs that saved capitalism.

Government is not the be all and end all, but it can do it's part to make a better society. The conservative notion that government is not the best way deal with social problems basically only have conservative or neo-conservative governments to look to. (No, Bill Clinton is not the most liberal president we have had in the last 40 years. That distinction still resides with Richard Nixon a Republican. Jimmy Carter was a conservative Democrat with liberal religious views closer to the words and actions of Jesus than the present occupant of the White House).

I have to agree with the assessment that those vying for power today on all sides are elites in that one has to be extremely wealthy in order to be able to afford to run for office. That is not an indictment of government, but an indictment of a system of electing our representatives. The fact that only elites are running should be a cause of concern for conservatives and liberals. I personally think that air time should be given to ALL candidates for free on tv and radio. The airwaves are, after all, owned by we the people. If the media (which is not liberally biased, but corporately biased) doesn't like it they can surrender their FCC license to broadcast and go off the air. That is where most of the obscene amounts of money are spent on campaigns.

As for the argument that conservatives are physically abused when they carry protest signs there is plenty to go around. I have witnessed plenty more liberals physically assaulted for their views by conservatives. I have also been the recipient of strong verbal abuse by conservatives. You see, I was against going to war in Iraq prior to our invasion. I received conservative wrath for daring to say no. I was told by other christians that I was evil for not supporting the president. I was told that I was aiding terrorists (even though there was no connection to Iraq). While liberals may speak out with a great deal of passion about that which they believe, I don't recall hearing on the radio or tv (correct me if I have missed one) a liberal stating that they wished conservatives would be killed. Or selling a book that says Liberals are Godless, while stating that she wished Edwards would be killed in terrorist attack , or that Edwards is a fag. She is such a darling of the liberal-bias press for saying such things. Coulter is just one example. O'Reilly regularly lies and bullies anyone who does not agree with him on his show. Savage hates with a passion anyone who is liberal. Limbaugh hates anything liberal. He hates drug abusers while being one himself. Haggard, former pastor, hates homosexuals while he pays a man to have sex with him. Vice President Cheney tells a United States Senator to f-himself on the floor of the congress. Calling Max Clelland a traitor for disagreeing with Bush's war (a man who lost 3 limbs in Vietnam). And the biggest one of all is all the conservatives and religious folks that cheer on war like it was a spectator sport. Repeat after me....Iraq was not connected to 9/11 and Al Quida. Killing children for oil is not a Christian act. War is violence. Iraqis are paying the price. American soldiers and their families are paying the price. No other Americans are. Our instructions are to go shopping.

I have the audacity to hope for a better world.

Alan said...

The American form of government by definition is actually a Republic not Democratic.

The definition of a Republic is a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general.

This means that we are not a direct Democracy in that the will of the Majority has all rights over the rights of the Minority. By being Representative the rights are the Minority and minority opinion is protected as having as much value as the majority opinion. Those values are are comprised in the Constitution. That is why all elected representatives affirm or swear that they will uphold and defend the Constitution. No one, including the President conform to the constitution not the other way around.

Anonymous said...

Rebecca:

I'm sorry that you read my comments as being snarky or rude. That was not at all intended.

1. About the sarcasm: when I read your comment here about your feeling of responsibility, and the comment on our blog, I wasn't sure if it was in fact a joke or not ("which I did note the smily face, so I'm not sure how to take that comment"). I apologize for my uncertainty.

2. It's fine that the Democrat Party calls themselves Democratic, but it's a misnomer. That's my only point there.

3. You're absolutely right about our freedom to disagree. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't talk these things or do so with animosity.

4. I'm not sure what you read in my comments that you felt was snarky or rude towards you or any of your visitors. I've re-read my comments and I don't see it. Please show me which comments you feel are snarky or rude and I will reflect on them. The one thing I did notice was that I used the word "you" which would be easy to assume was used specifically about Rebecca or Alan, but was used, in my mind, as a general, impersonal group "you." Sorry for that confusion and if it was that that was the cause for the feeling that I was snarky or rude.

5. I hope you didn't mean to imply that my God is different than yours.

6. Thank you. I think. Your comment seems a little backhanded ("that you so obviously abhor")because I realize that there are legitimate needs people have for which they can receive help, but my comments were simply about relying solely on the government for providing those needs, often against the will of citizens who are required to fund government regardless of how they feel about it.

Again, I'm sorry that you felt I was being snarky or rude. If you would like, I'll refrain from commenting at all if that will help soothe the atmosphere.

Anonymous said...

Alan:

I'd like to respond to your assertions, but I'll wait to hear back from Rebecca about my above response.

I will say that you cherry-picked your examples of the private market being evil. I also noticed that it is those organizations that have some connection to President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

I think your comments are riddled with further inaccuracies and spiteful invective against conservatives and Republicans. I'll respond later after i hear from Rebecca.

Anonymous said...

One more thing about sarcasm: It's not my form of humor, so I don't always get it, but that doesn't mean I don't have a sense of humor. I know at the time that you left the comment on our blog that you had recently read Barack's book, which was another reason why I wasn't sure how you intended the comment.

Anonymous said...

A clarification on #3 above:

You're absolutely right about our freedom to disagree. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't talk about these things; and I think that we can do so without animosity.

Rebecca said...

The over all tone of your comment was accusatory. I also read it with prejudice because I read your blog on a consistent basis. The tone on your blog suggests your own personal disdain and condescension toward any liberal, who is clearly less intelligent than you or the other conservatives in your opinion. I keep coming back because I like you and Jenny and enjoy hearing about what is going on in the lives of the Ranums. I am however finding that more and more of your posts are about politics and am finding fewer reasons to stop by because, well, we disagree. The tone of your blog is turning uglier and uglier, in my opinion, as time goes by to anyone who might have an opposing viewpoint. The tone of your comment does not sound like you want to have a conversation, rather, wish to correct my father and me for having an opposing point of view.

I do not at all believe that we have a different God, not at all. I believe that there is one God who is the God of all, “even those evil excuses for human beings” as you called the terrorists in one of your posts. I do believe that we have interpreted our relationships with Him and His people in different ways. I believe that we both feel strongly that our way is better.

Perhaps my prayer should be that you DO in fact need to use the services of the government you clearly hate. I think you would change your tune a little if you came back from this war that you strongly support and find that no one here gave a rip that you have serious mental distress from your tour of duty. If you are killed and no one cares to make sure that Jenny and Jasmine are taken care of, wouldn't you find comfort in knowing that there are safeguards in place rather than hope that they've found their way. I think you might feel differently if you suddenly found yourself out of work, no savings, Jasmine with a serious disease that you can’t help her with or afford the medical bills for and needed help keeping the electricity in your house on because the only job you could get was at McDonalds and you only made minimum wage. You can no longer make your house payment and the medical bills are piling up.

Will there be people who abuse the system? Of course. Does that mean that no one should receive assistance when necessary and too bad for those who should be helped? I think not.

I think we can agree that all people “want their cake and to eat it too”. I think that you want to pick and choose which services you are ok with the government providing and I’m sure that you could find an argument for me doing the same. I don’t think anyone is arguing that the government has the sole responsibility to provide all services, all needs, etc.

I don’t know how this turned into such a ridiculous conversation. All I was trying to say about the book was that America (and the world) can do a better of job of living in this world together. Perhaps this thread of comments suggests otherwise. I hope not.

Anonymous said...

Fair enough.

I disagree about the tone of my original comment, though I found Alan's statements to be accusatory towards conservatives and Republicans, to which I felt inclined to defend conservative positions and policies, especially as I believe they better serve the individual, even those who are beset with difficulties in life, than do liberal policies.

Alan: if you would like to engage in further conversation about your statements, I'm happy to do so at another venue than this post or Rebecca's blog.

Rebecca said...

Jared:

I want you to know that I do not have any animosity towards you. I think politics and religion are difficult subjects to discuss with people, especially with those you do not know super well. I think with Tim, my father, and even Jenny, I understand where each of them is coming from. I don't know you as well and so it's difficult to read your intention and demeanor. I think I got defensive because you began your post with "Actually" as if to correct me. I could go on and on explaining why I didn't like the way you approached things but what purpose does it serve at this point? This is where the peacemaker in my personality comes in! :)

I am not opposed to having a discussion of differing opinions but I am not interested in debating issues to define a winner. I don't think we would ever be able to change anyone's point of view here on this blog. These are topics that individuals are clearly passionate about and easy to get worked up over.

I wish you well in your endeavors and hope to see you here again as I will continue to stop by yours.

Unknown said...

I'm not writing this to have a last word or anything, I just couldn't fall asleep last night because a post was composing itself over and over in my head and it wouldn't stop. So to justify a semi-sleepless night, I just want to say a couple of things :o)

I have to claim full responsibility for turning the discussion into a political one! Sorry that it caused frustration. Two of the three topics most deeply rooted in opinion were being discussed (the third being the best brand of peanut butter) and there is often an underlying (possibly subconscious) convincing tone that comes through for everyone.

In the interest of aiding in understanding each other, when Jared read his first post to me before posting it, there really was no 'in your face' attitude. On our blog, when he reads his posts to me, it is almost always with a tone of 'by the way' or 'you may be interested, but may not have heard about...' That's one of the difficulties with communicating via email or blogs, tone and facial expression can't shape our words. Being more of an observer and thinker and less of a talker, many people don't know the tone Jared uses in everyday situations. I'm still learning, too!

I'm so glad to hear that you will still be stopping by our blog. Whenever you comment, good memories flood my mind of when we worked together. What times...

Hope to see you again soon - it was fun to hang out a bit on Tuesday. Take good care, friend.

rebecca marie said...

huh.

what do i do when several people that i love and respect (yes, i mean ALL of you... real-becca, tim, alan, jenny, jared i love you all either by direct relationship or by proxy) are being mean to each other??? no no no, not all of you were mean... but as an innocent bystander who read rebecca's original post and thought "huh, i'd like to read that book, because i agree with the sentiment she is waxing on in this post!" it was quite shocking to read what developed in the comments.

oh well, we all have bad days, i guess.

rebecca marie said...

ooops... mike, i love you too, i swear.

Jason Hill said...

Silly me. I've been hanging onto this post until I had time to investigate the missing title problem. I have a suggestion so I thought I'd drop it in the comments. However, I now have to go the the computer store and get a new scroll-bar, you guys just wore my old one out. (BTW, that was an attempt at humor.)

Anyway, Rebecca, go into the settings for your blog and look under the formatting section. See if you have a choice to "Show Title Field", is it set to "yes"?

Rebecca said...

Jason! I went into the formatting section and it said yes to show the title but I reselected it JUST IN CASE and saved the changes. Apparently I needed to REMIND blogger that I wanted to be able to add a title. THANK YOU!!!!

Jason Hill said...

awesome.