I was wondering today what constitutes mainstream. You hear politicians, pundits, the media, and others all talk about mainstream America. When this is used, they are usually talking about what they consider to be views that are somewhat consistent with themselves. After all, they can't really be talking about anything else...can they? Is there some kind of mainstream out there upon which a politician or someone in the media can cling to in order to justify their positions? How would one define mainstream even? I don't know, but it seems to me that mainstream constitutes something upon which at 50.1 percent of Americans can agree on. The dictionary states that mainstream is "the principal or dominant course, tendency, or trend". Therefore, I see many things in our society where one could call something mainstream...things in pop culture...slang...etc. However, politics and political positions don't seem to be one of these things. So, I did a little research.
One of the first articles I found was this one. It is an article discussing a Gallup Poll on the political leanings of Americans. It is flawed in one glaring aspect. It only condsiders those who self identify as conservative, liberal, or moderate and only those who self identify with Republicans, Democrats or as Independents. However, it is a very interesting starting point for my research.
So...it seems that, as of 2011, Americans self identify as 40 percent conservative, 35 percent moderate and 21 percent liberal. Does this give us a "mainstream"? With 300 million Americans, this means that 120 million Americans identify as conservative, 105 million as moderate and 63 million as liberal. However, this still doesn't give us a 50.1 percent anything. One could argue, based on this, that there isn't a mainstream, or at least there certainly isn't a liberal mainstream, but there is more to this than that, isn't there? After all, do these identifications translate to political affiliations? What is the number of Republicans, Democrats, true independents, Socialists, Communists, Libertarians, Anarchists, etc.?
A Rasmussen poll, here, sheds some light on this question. As of April 2012, this poll shows that 35 percent of Americans identify as Republicans, 33 as Democrats, and 32 percent are unaffiliated with either party. Unfortunately, this doesn't tell us much about the unaffiliated group, which I think would shed a huge amount of light onto the question of mainstream. Obviously, neither party can claim to be mainstream. After all, while the Republicans currently have a slight edge, Democrats have historically had an edge. None of that really means anything though because the unaffiliated group has just as much power, as a block, as either of the two parties since it has just as many people. Therefore, there is no way either party can claim the mainstream.
Then there is this interesting tidbit. USAToday actually looked at the registered voters in the various states and found that there are 42 million registered Democrats, 30 million registered Republicans and 24 million registered independents. In 2008, there were nearly 228 million Americans of voting age. Accounting for various reasons why someone couldn't vote (they've been convicted of a felony, etc.), I'll round down to about 220 million. That means that only 96 million are registered? Probably not, because a lot of states allow you to register as "unaffiliated" which isn't the same as "independent". However, not knowing USAToday's methodology, it is possible that this is what that means. This is why it is important to look at "registered voter" numbers at election time rather than overall numbers. However, this is a rather poor indicator of our political system. Consider this. In 2008, there were 220 million people who were eligible to vote. Of those people, 69.5 million voted for Obama, 60 million voted for McCain and 2 million voted for some form of "other". Therefore, 132 million people voted, give or take. That's about a voter turnout of 60 percent. The official number for that year is 58.3 percent. This is rather interesting. It seems the one thing we can say exists in the mainstream politically is that a majority of people vote. But that isn't saying much. When you analyze these numbers, it means that nearly 42 percent of the people who can vote, decided it was too much hassle to bother. That means, rather than Obama getting 53 percent and McCain getting 46 percent, it should really look something more like this:
Obama 31.6%
McCain 27%
Other .01%
Not participating 41.39%
So, we can't even get mainstream here.
It seems to me that whenever you hear someone talking about the opposition not being mainstream or themselves being mainstream, you can almost certainly know that they are lying. The one thing that someone might be able to say is that a particular position is mainstream. No political party or ideology can claim to be mainstream. They may claim historical realities or precedents, but they can't claim mainstream.
So, what is mainstream? Let's look at a few individual positions as examples of what could constitute mainstream America. A Gallup poll found that 50% of Americans identify as pro-life while only 41% identify as pro-choice. That could suggest that the mainstream is actually anti-abortion. Of course, I don't think anything that is this close could constitute mainstream, but that's just me. However, this doesn't tell the whole story. The same poll found that 51% think abortion is morally wrong while 38% find it morally acceptable. That is close to how people self identify. More from this poll shows something even more interesting. It seems that only 20% believe abortion should always be illegal, 25% think it should be legal in all cases for any reason, and 52% think it should be legal under "certain circumstances". In other words, 52% said there may be at least one justifiable reason for abortion, but abortion at any time for any reason or banned outright is not acceptable. Therefore, I'd say you do have something mainstream here. The mainstream is clearly a compromise position. Sure, 72% are opposed to abortion on demand, which is why you'll hear abortion supporting politicians say things like "it should be rare but legal" because they also know these numbers and that 77% think it should be legal in some form or another.
Another issue to look at could be the war in Afghanistan. What is the "mainstream" on that topic? Well, it seems that 59% of Americans believe going there was the right thing to do, with 35% believing it was the wrong thing to do and 6% undecided. This shows a clear trend that people still support going into Afghanistan. However, this gets a little bit more dicey when it comes to whether we should continue to be there now. 24% say we should follow the current 2014 withdrawal timeline while 21% think we shouldn't have any timeline at all and remain there until the mission is accomplished. This includes 4% who are undecided as well as 50% who think we should withdraw faster than the established 2014 date. So, that means that 74% favor withdraw now or in 2014 or somewhere in between while only 21% think we should stay. So...we support the war, but we support withdrawal. Okay, there goes a typically wishy washy outcome to complex issues.
And there you have it. The real reason there is no mainstream America is because issues are complex, not cut and dried. This is part of human nature as well. Nonetheless, we might be able to form consensus on issues if we didn't have politics getting in the way, but as long as there are only two dominant political parties and as long as we insist on categorizing everyone into the conservative, liberal and independent ideologies without having a real understanding of the nuances involved, we will never be able to move away from the partisanship and the deadlocked bickering that exists in Washington.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Friday, May 18, 2012
What are you?
It seems to me that many, if not most, people don't actually know where they fit in terms of what they believe politically. They seem to have a vague understanding of concepts, but do not have a full grasp of issues. This makes them very malleable for a politician. It has been said that "unless we stand for something, we shall fall for anything." This can be no more true than in the realm of politics. How many people really know what they believe and why they believe it? After all, if you have a vague idea that you want to help people, you might support policies and politicians that are inconsistent with other beliefs that you hold just because it sounds good. That would be one of the more benign outcomes. At any rate, if we don't know what we really think on issues, then how are we supposed to make educated judgements. We aren't, and the politicians know this, which is why they tend to appeal to our populist and communitarian sides...because they sound good when they do.
It is important to make these distinctions. After all, most issues have a spectrum or range in which you can fall. If you don't know where on the range you are, then you can be swayed in either direction much more easily. Take abortion. The two extremes of this belief are abortion on demand at anytime for anyone or no abortion ever for any reason. Most people do not fall at either of the extremes and politicians know this. However, politicians will use phraseology specifically crafted to sway you in one way or another. For instance, a politician who wants abortion but wants to appeal to people on the no abortion end of the spectrum will use things like abortion should be rare but legal, whereas a politician who is closer to the no abortion end of the spectrum will use phrases like I value life, but a woman has to make her own decision thus implying choice. Neither of these statements say anything in reality, because the guy who values life will vote against abortion more often than not and the guy who wants it to be rare will vote for it. If you think otherwise, I submit you are naive.
Nonetheless, this is a specific example of why people should know what they stand for and why. If you can state your reasons to yourself and justify them to yourself, then you are less likely to be swayed by the propaganda of politicians. So, to assist in this, I will provide some context to commonly misunderstood political and economic concepts. First of all, some definitions.
Democracy - A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
Republic - a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them or in recent years, this has been horribly misdefined as a state whose head is not a monarch.
Tyranny - a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler.
Anarchy - the absence of government or a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority.
Oligarchy - government by the few or a government where a small group exercises control.
Communism - a theory advocating the elimination of private property and a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed.
Socialism - a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole or
Keynesianism - The main plank of this theory is the assertion that the aggregate demand created by households, businesses and the government and not the dynamics of free markets is the most important driving force in an economy. This theory further asserts that free markets have no self-balancing mechanisms that lead to full employment. Keynesian economists urge and justify a government's intervention in the economy through public policies that aim to achieve full employment and price stability.
It is important to make these distinctions. After all, most issues have a spectrum or range in which you can fall. If you don't know where on the range you are, then you can be swayed in either direction much more easily. Take abortion. The two extremes of this belief are abortion on demand at anytime for anyone or no abortion ever for any reason. Most people do not fall at either of the extremes and politicians know this. However, politicians will use phraseology specifically crafted to sway you in one way or another. For instance, a politician who wants abortion but wants to appeal to people on the no abortion end of the spectrum will use things like abortion should be rare but legal, whereas a politician who is closer to the no abortion end of the spectrum will use phrases like I value life, but a woman has to make her own decision thus implying choice. Neither of these statements say anything in reality, because the guy who values life will vote against abortion more often than not and the guy who wants it to be rare will vote for it. If you think otherwise, I submit you are naive.
Nonetheless, this is a specific example of why people should know what they stand for and why. If you can state your reasons to yourself and justify them to yourself, then you are less likely to be swayed by the propaganda of politicians. So, to assist in this, I will provide some context to commonly misunderstood political and economic concepts. First of all, some definitions.
Democracy - A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
Republic - a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them or in recent years, this has been horribly misdefined as a state whose head is not a monarch.
Tyranny - a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler.
Anarchy - the absence of government or a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority.
Oligarchy - government by the few or a government where a small group exercises control.
Communism - a theory advocating the elimination of private property and a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed.
Socialism - a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole or
in Marxist theory, the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
Austrian School - Forerunner of unrestrained free market (libertarian) economics, its central concept is that the coordination of human effort can be achieved only through the combined decisions and judgments of individuals and cannot be forced by an external agency such as a government. It emphasizes complete freedom of association and sovereignty of individual property rights.Keynesianism - The main plank of this theory is the assertion that the aggregate demand created by households, businesses and the government and not the dynamics of free markets is the most important driving force in an economy. This theory further asserts that free markets have no self-balancing mechanisms that lead to full employment. Keynesian economists urge and justify a government's intervention in the economy through public policies that aim to achieve full employment and price stability.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Is opposing homosexuality hate?
So, the title expresses the dilemma many people find themselves in today. On both sides of the question. Nobody wants to think they hate someone else and nobody wants to be hated. I will concede right now that there are those who claim to be Christians who hate, all sorts of people, for all sorts of reasons, homosexuals included. However, rarely do I find someone on the opposite side of the argument who is willing to concede that people who speak out against Christians, Muslims, Jews or any other religious group that opposes homosexuality are hateful. Yet, time and again, I find examples of exactly that...Dan Savage anyone? That isn't really the point of this post however. My point is to decide if opposition to homosexuality makes a person homophobic or hateful of homosexuals.
First of all, this entire premise seems ludicrous to me. Time and again, I see people complain because a Christian (interesting that nobody seems to complain about Muslims when they oppose homosexuality, but I digress) has stated a position, using the Bible, that considers homosexuality to be wrong or sinful or whatever you want to call it. People have used the Bible to justify all sorts of hatred in the past, so I am not naive enough to think that this is never the case. Obviously, people who hate homosexuals will find a way to justify their hatred. However, the media and lately, several of my friends, don't seem to distinguish a difference between those who actually hate and are using the Bible as justification versus those who don't hate, but believe in what the Bible says. It seems to me that many people these days think they are one in the same. This is NOT the case. In fact, I'm opposed to asteroids raining down on me, but I don't hate the asteroid. It isn't about what you say or even how you say it. It is about what's in your heart...your motives.
Generally, I follow the premise that it is better to keep my mouth shut and be thought wise than to open my mouth and prove myself a fool (a paraphrase from Proverbs). I fail at this more often than I'd like and end up in pointless arguments with people I don't even know. However, God helps me succeed at it a lot too, which is more in line with His will anyway. When it comes to talking with other Christians though, I have to also keep this verse in mind: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16). This tells me that Christians should correct Christians when their behavior is unbiblical. I generally avoid this task except when specifically led to say something. Today is one of those days. People generally oppose the Christian viewpoint on homosexuality because it comes from Leviticus and we've dropped so much from Leviticus already, what's one more thing. Well, I'll explain exactly why this is NOT a conundrum as so many think.
First of all, the New Testament, on several occasions, changes the Levitical law. Christ says he did not come to condemn, but to save. He said he came to fulfill the law. He came to free us from the law. Some say Christ is referring only to the ten commandments while others say it is all of the Old Testament law. That argument doesn't really matter, but for the sake of argument, I think it is referring to ALL the Old Testament law. Therefore, when we look at the New Testament and we see Christ speaking of freeing us from the law, we can argue that Christians are not subject to the law at all. However, a very early disagreement broke out in the early church over this very thing, some arguing exactly this and therefore doing whatever they pleased. Paul, in his writings, clarified this position for the church. He wrote about the weak brother, strong brother. He stated that some things are sinful for some people but not all things are sinful for all people. A strong brother will not be tempted in certain areas and therefore those areas don't offer sin opportunities, whereas a weak brother, who is easily tempted in certain areas should avoid and abstain from them because they will lead them into sin. Likewise, a strong brother should avoid and abstain from those same areas lest they lead their weak brother into sin. If the strong brother causes the weak brother to sin, then he is equally guilty of that sin. This is a very hard concept for some, especially considering Paul had specifically stated that Christian were free from the law. However, the law was given so that man would know what was right. You don't hear anyone say they can go out and commit adultery or murder or theft because they are free to do as they please in Christ. Therefore, the argument that we are free from homosexual sin doesn't hold up.
That brings us to the argument that the New Testament doesn't mention homosexuality at all or that Christ never mentioned it. Sure, Christ never mentioned it, but he didn't speak about pedophilia either, so does that make it okay? Of course not, so the argument that Christ didn't mention it and so it is okay is beyond the bounds of common sense. However, does the New Testament speak about it? Well, we come back to Paul. In Romans 1:26-27, he states: "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." There are other versus in the New Testament that have been used to condemn homosexuality, but this one specifically refers to the act as being unnatural, indecent and an error. I've always found this to be perfectly clear. Some in the gay community have argued that this verse is only referring to heterosexuals choosing to do these things, which always seems a bit disingenuous to me. After all, that would certainly condemn bisexuals, would it not? At any rate, clearly the New Testament does speak on the act and it does seem to be saying it is sinful.
So, if a person is opposed to homosexuality because they believe it is a sin, does that make them homophobic? Of course not. Homophobia is a fear of homosexuals. There are plenty of homophobic people, but you can't label someone that way simply because of their opposition to homosexuality. Making such a claim is the act of an ignorant person. It would be like stating a person has a fear of Republicans just because they oppose Republicans. It is ridiculous on its face. At any rate, the next question is this. Does a person that maintains opposition to homosexuality hate homosexuals? Again, I think there are plenty of people who hate homosexuals and will use the Bible to justify their hatred, but you can't say that a person who is opposed to homosexuality hates homosexuals. That's ridiculous. Do you hate the adulterer, idolator, drunkard, murderer, or whatever? Surely some do and that is very unfortunate when it happens, but that is not the way of Christ or of Christians in general. Christ calls us to love others. Would I welcome homosexuals into my church? Absolutely! People come to God in all places and states. Only through the Holy Spirit does God lead people away from their sinful natures, and this is an ongoing process. Therefore, I would welcome them into my church. Would I tell them or teach them that homosexuality is right and honorable and acceptable before God? Absolutely not, because I don't believe that is what God has taught us and I do believe that I would then be guilty of that sin because I would have led my weak brother into sin. Many churches do not behave in this manner and I find that tragic because they just provide fuel to the fire when it comes to those who want to hate and condemn Christians for our position, but that is because the church is made up of people. There is a great bumper sticker that states: Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven. This is so true. It is also something that Christians often forget. They fall into the sin of pride or idolatry and consider themselves better than their fallen brother. While tragic, it is very human. This is what led the lead singer of DC Talk (a Christian rap band from the 80s-90s) to state that Christians were the greatest threat to Christianity and a relationship with God because they profess Christ with their lips, but deny him in their living.
So, all of this to correct an error of a Christian friend of mine. He condemns some boxer for being opposed to homosexuality. I don't know the boxer, nor do I know said boxers position on homosexuals. However, my friend called him a hypocrite and a [insert swear word beginning with b here]. The boxer may well be a hypocrite when it comes to having tattoos but being opposed to homosexuals. However, I've yet to meet someone who isn't a hypocrite about SOMETHING in their life, so that isn't really surprising. I caution my friend though with this. We don't know the boxers heart and can't know whether he got the tattoos (Lev. 19:28) before or after he became a Christian. If he got them before, he is NOT a hypocrite, but rather someone who has been washed clean. If he got them after, the reference may be correct, but still irrelevant. After all, he may be a strong brother in this area. You can tell who are the weak brothers, they are the ones covered from head to toe in tattoos. Even if he is a strong brother though, he should still modestly cover the tats or simply not get them in the first place in order to prevent his weak brother from falling into sin. Finally, my friend quoted "judge not lest ye be judged" and then proceeded to use the b word in reference to the boxer and stating that he needs to read the whole Bible rather than just rely on one verse. Well, apparently, my friend also needs to read the entire text since he is apparently unaware that it says in Ephesians "Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear" or in Colossians "But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth". It is ironic that my friend chose to judge a person he doesn't even know simply because of their public stance on an issue of personal salvation while spouting a biblical verse saying do not judge. Perhaps the boxer has behaved in a discriminatory or hateful way. I don't know. But if he is condemned solely for his convictions, well, that is unacceptable.
First of all, this entire premise seems ludicrous to me. Time and again, I see people complain because a Christian (interesting that nobody seems to complain about Muslims when they oppose homosexuality, but I digress) has stated a position, using the Bible, that considers homosexuality to be wrong or sinful or whatever you want to call it. People have used the Bible to justify all sorts of hatred in the past, so I am not naive enough to think that this is never the case. Obviously, people who hate homosexuals will find a way to justify their hatred. However, the media and lately, several of my friends, don't seem to distinguish a difference between those who actually hate and are using the Bible as justification versus those who don't hate, but believe in what the Bible says. It seems to me that many people these days think they are one in the same. This is NOT the case. In fact, I'm opposed to asteroids raining down on me, but I don't hate the asteroid. It isn't about what you say or even how you say it. It is about what's in your heart...your motives.
Generally, I follow the premise that it is better to keep my mouth shut and be thought wise than to open my mouth and prove myself a fool (a paraphrase from Proverbs). I fail at this more often than I'd like and end up in pointless arguments with people I don't even know. However, God helps me succeed at it a lot too, which is more in line with His will anyway. When it comes to talking with other Christians though, I have to also keep this verse in mind: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16). This tells me that Christians should correct Christians when their behavior is unbiblical. I generally avoid this task except when specifically led to say something. Today is one of those days. People generally oppose the Christian viewpoint on homosexuality because it comes from Leviticus and we've dropped so much from Leviticus already, what's one more thing. Well, I'll explain exactly why this is NOT a conundrum as so many think.
First of all, the New Testament, on several occasions, changes the Levitical law. Christ says he did not come to condemn, but to save. He said he came to fulfill the law. He came to free us from the law. Some say Christ is referring only to the ten commandments while others say it is all of the Old Testament law. That argument doesn't really matter, but for the sake of argument, I think it is referring to ALL the Old Testament law. Therefore, when we look at the New Testament and we see Christ speaking of freeing us from the law, we can argue that Christians are not subject to the law at all. However, a very early disagreement broke out in the early church over this very thing, some arguing exactly this and therefore doing whatever they pleased. Paul, in his writings, clarified this position for the church. He wrote about the weak brother, strong brother. He stated that some things are sinful for some people but not all things are sinful for all people. A strong brother will not be tempted in certain areas and therefore those areas don't offer sin opportunities, whereas a weak brother, who is easily tempted in certain areas should avoid and abstain from them because they will lead them into sin. Likewise, a strong brother should avoid and abstain from those same areas lest they lead their weak brother into sin. If the strong brother causes the weak brother to sin, then he is equally guilty of that sin. This is a very hard concept for some, especially considering Paul had specifically stated that Christian were free from the law. However, the law was given so that man would know what was right. You don't hear anyone say they can go out and commit adultery or murder or theft because they are free to do as they please in Christ. Therefore, the argument that we are free from homosexual sin doesn't hold up.
That brings us to the argument that the New Testament doesn't mention homosexuality at all or that Christ never mentioned it. Sure, Christ never mentioned it, but he didn't speak about pedophilia either, so does that make it okay? Of course not, so the argument that Christ didn't mention it and so it is okay is beyond the bounds of common sense. However, does the New Testament speak about it? Well, we come back to Paul. In Romans 1:26-27, he states: "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." There are other versus in the New Testament that have been used to condemn homosexuality, but this one specifically refers to the act as being unnatural, indecent and an error. I've always found this to be perfectly clear. Some in the gay community have argued that this verse is only referring to heterosexuals choosing to do these things, which always seems a bit disingenuous to me. After all, that would certainly condemn bisexuals, would it not? At any rate, clearly the New Testament does speak on the act and it does seem to be saying it is sinful.
So, if a person is opposed to homosexuality because they believe it is a sin, does that make them homophobic? Of course not. Homophobia is a fear of homosexuals. There are plenty of homophobic people, but you can't label someone that way simply because of their opposition to homosexuality. Making such a claim is the act of an ignorant person. It would be like stating a person has a fear of Republicans just because they oppose Republicans. It is ridiculous on its face. At any rate, the next question is this. Does a person that maintains opposition to homosexuality hate homosexuals? Again, I think there are plenty of people who hate homosexuals and will use the Bible to justify their hatred, but you can't say that a person who is opposed to homosexuality hates homosexuals. That's ridiculous. Do you hate the adulterer, idolator, drunkard, murderer, or whatever? Surely some do and that is very unfortunate when it happens, but that is not the way of Christ or of Christians in general. Christ calls us to love others. Would I welcome homosexuals into my church? Absolutely! People come to God in all places and states. Only through the Holy Spirit does God lead people away from their sinful natures, and this is an ongoing process. Therefore, I would welcome them into my church. Would I tell them or teach them that homosexuality is right and honorable and acceptable before God? Absolutely not, because I don't believe that is what God has taught us and I do believe that I would then be guilty of that sin because I would have led my weak brother into sin. Many churches do not behave in this manner and I find that tragic because they just provide fuel to the fire when it comes to those who want to hate and condemn Christians for our position, but that is because the church is made up of people. There is a great bumper sticker that states: Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven. This is so true. It is also something that Christians often forget. They fall into the sin of pride or idolatry and consider themselves better than their fallen brother. While tragic, it is very human. This is what led the lead singer of DC Talk (a Christian rap band from the 80s-90s) to state that Christians were the greatest threat to Christianity and a relationship with God because they profess Christ with their lips, but deny him in their living.
So, all of this to correct an error of a Christian friend of mine. He condemns some boxer for being opposed to homosexuality. I don't know the boxer, nor do I know said boxers position on homosexuals. However, my friend called him a hypocrite and a [insert swear word beginning with b here]. The boxer may well be a hypocrite when it comes to having tattoos but being opposed to homosexuals. However, I've yet to meet someone who isn't a hypocrite about SOMETHING in their life, so that isn't really surprising. I caution my friend though with this. We don't know the boxers heart and can't know whether he got the tattoos (Lev. 19:28) before or after he became a Christian. If he got them before, he is NOT a hypocrite, but rather someone who has been washed clean. If he got them after, the reference may be correct, but still irrelevant. After all, he may be a strong brother in this area. You can tell who are the weak brothers, they are the ones covered from head to toe in tattoos. Even if he is a strong brother though, he should still modestly cover the tats or simply not get them in the first place in order to prevent his weak brother from falling into sin. Finally, my friend quoted "judge not lest ye be judged" and then proceeded to use the b word in reference to the boxer and stating that he needs to read the whole Bible rather than just rely on one verse. Well, apparently, my friend also needs to read the entire text since he is apparently unaware that it says in Ephesians "Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear" or in Colossians "But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth". It is ironic that my friend chose to judge a person he doesn't even know simply because of their public stance on an issue of personal salvation while spouting a biblical verse saying do not judge. Perhaps the boxer has behaved in a discriminatory or hateful way. I don't know. But if he is condemned solely for his convictions, well, that is unacceptable.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Afghanistan disaster!
The war in Afghanistan has been going on since the end of 2001. Initially, it was intended to be a small counterinsurgency war designed to root out Osama bin Laden. Bush had a significantly difficult time with this and was never able to achieve the two stated goals. Capturing or killing bin Laden and defeating the Taliban.
Obama took over following his inauguration in January of 2009. He followed this up with a troop surge strategy reminiscent of how Bush managed to calm things down in Iraq. I criticized that move at the time because I believed it was a wrong decision. A surge was not the answer, rather, it was a path toward ending up like the Soviets during the 1980s. There has been some reporting on the casualty figures, including some reporting on how Bush didn't know what he was doing, that we were losing in Afghanistan. Maybe we were losing and giving credit where it is due, Obama has certainly succeeded at making the situation on the ground safer with his surge. Or, at least that is what we are meant to believe. I think what the surge accomplished was to be able to secure certain areas as well as force the Taliban into hiding, but has it achieved a victory? This is an important distinction, because nothing short of complete victory will result in peace in that country, in my opinion. Ironically, that also seems to be the opinion of this writer.
I suppose whether or not it is a disaster largely depends on how you define success. If you define success based on casualties per capita, then perhaps you could argue this war has been a success. However, I'm generally pretty straightforward in looking at this issue, so I pretty much just go by the numbers. This chart shows the growth of troops in Afghanistan over time. Note the "quiet surge" of Bush in '07 and '08. In other words, the surge that nobody ever announced until it was already done. However, the Obama "surge" started in March of 2009 and apparently didn't end until March of 2010. That's a heck of a "surge". This is more like committed troop deployment. The whole point of a surge strategy is that it is supposed to be temporary. Obama recognized this when he announced the surge, stating that we'd begin drawing down the troops by December of 2011. Well, this hasn't exactly happened. In fact, in his visit to Afghanistan, the President made it clear he hopes to have Afghanistan on track to where we can significantly draw down troops by the end of 2014. That's three years LONGER than his initial strategy. That isn't a surge.
In Iraq, the surge was started in 2007 and the country was stable by 2008 and we had all troops withdrawn by 2011. That's not a 4 year surge, but rather a strategy for winning and getting out. So far, the Iraq government remains viable, although I continue to withhold final judgement on whether or not we "won" anything there. Here, the surge started in 2009 and to his credit has become more stable. Stable enough that a sitting President thought it was safe enough for him to "visit" a warzone. I disagree with him on this decision, but that's just my opinion. I thought it was a rather foolhardy thing to do actually. Nonetheless, if he is successful in getting our troops out by 2014 (this assumes he gets another term to do it), then this surge will have taken 5 years from beginning to end. I still see no evidence that this 2014 deadline is anything more than a political hope. After all, we still have over 90 thousand troops there.
Finally, let's just look at the numbers. The media made a huge deal out of every single soldier's death when Bush was President. I'm not opposed to this. Since I am generally not in favor of war, highlighting and honoring as many of our war dead is noble and necessary. However, in recent times, the media seems to have forgotten that anyone is dying over there at all. Is that because of who is President or because this is an election year or both? I don't know, but it is awfully convenient. After all, the President has always stated that this is the war he supports. Therefore, many people see this as the "good" war. Ridiculous to me, but that's the way things are. Now, here's an interesting statistic. Would you believe me if I told you that Bush had fewer casualties than Obama in Afghanistan? Probably not. After all, Bush had 8 years and Obama has just over 3 years. Also, Bush had a disaster on his hands according to the media which Obama's surge fixed. Well...I have to admit that reality also surprised me. It seems that 67 percent of the dead and over 82 percent of the wounded soldiers in the Afghanistan war have come in the 3 years since Obama took over. That's astounding! You can't define that as success. Can you? Sure, per capita figures are probably much better for Obama, but 2/3 of all the dead in the war in 3 of the 11 years? And this isn't just deaths early on in the surge. There were 41 deaths in April of 2012. That's the most since October, but I bet you hadn't heard about that. So fine, maybe we have a political victory like we seem to have won in Iraq? Not really, the Taliban don't seemed deterred, as evidenced by their attacks following the President's visit yesterday. At any rate, I leave it to the individual to decide if we are being "successful" in Afghanistan, but to me, it seems like we are just being political. Rather than throwing everything we have at the Taliban, we seem content to secure most of the country and try to "negotiate" with an enemy that would just assume nuke us all (yes, I know that is opinion stated as fact). This strategy didn't work in Europe, it has yet to be proven that it'll work in Iraq and I highly doubt it'll work in Afghanistan.
Here's our actual casualty figures to date.
Afghanistan casualties:
Obama took over following his inauguration in January of 2009. He followed this up with a troop surge strategy reminiscent of how Bush managed to calm things down in Iraq. I criticized that move at the time because I believed it was a wrong decision. A surge was not the answer, rather, it was a path toward ending up like the Soviets during the 1980s. There has been some reporting on the casualty figures, including some reporting on how Bush didn't know what he was doing, that we were losing in Afghanistan. Maybe we were losing and giving credit where it is due, Obama has certainly succeeded at making the situation on the ground safer with his surge. Or, at least that is what we are meant to believe. I think what the surge accomplished was to be able to secure certain areas as well as force the Taliban into hiding, but has it achieved a victory? This is an important distinction, because nothing short of complete victory will result in peace in that country, in my opinion. Ironically, that also seems to be the opinion of this writer.
In Iraq, the surge was started in 2007 and the country was stable by 2008 and we had all troops withdrawn by 2011. That's not a 4 year surge, but rather a strategy for winning and getting out. So far, the Iraq government remains viable, although I continue to withhold final judgement on whether or not we "won" anything there. Here, the surge started in 2009 and to his credit has become more stable. Stable enough that a sitting President thought it was safe enough for him to "visit" a warzone. I disagree with him on this decision, but that's just my opinion. I thought it was a rather foolhardy thing to do actually. Nonetheless, if he is successful in getting our troops out by 2014 (this assumes he gets another term to do it), then this surge will have taken 5 years from beginning to end. I still see no evidence that this 2014 deadline is anything more than a political hope. After all, we still have over 90 thousand troops there.
Finally, let's just look at the numbers. The media made a huge deal out of every single soldier's death when Bush was President. I'm not opposed to this. Since I am generally not in favor of war, highlighting and honoring as many of our war dead is noble and necessary. However, in recent times, the media seems to have forgotten that anyone is dying over there at all. Is that because of who is President or because this is an election year or both? I don't know, but it is awfully convenient. After all, the President has always stated that this is the war he supports. Therefore, many people see this as the "good" war. Ridiculous to me, but that's the way things are. Now, here's an interesting statistic. Would you believe me if I told you that Bush had fewer casualties than Obama in Afghanistan? Probably not. After all, Bush had 8 years and Obama has just over 3 years. Also, Bush had a disaster on his hands according to the media which Obama's surge fixed. Well...I have to admit that reality also surprised me. It seems that 67 percent of the dead and over 82 percent of the wounded soldiers in the Afghanistan war have come in the 3 years since Obama took over. That's astounding! You can't define that as success. Can you? Sure, per capita figures are probably much better for Obama, but 2/3 of all the dead in the war in 3 of the 11 years? And this isn't just deaths early on in the surge. There were 41 deaths in April of 2012. That's the most since October, but I bet you hadn't heard about that. So fine, maybe we have a political victory like we seem to have won in Iraq? Not really, the Taliban don't seemed deterred, as evidenced by their attacks following the President's visit yesterday. At any rate, I leave it to the individual to decide if we are being "successful" in Afghanistan, but to me, it seems like we are just being political. Rather than throwing everything we have at the Taliban, we seem content to secure most of the country and try to "negotiate" with an enemy that would just assume nuke us all (yes, I know that is opinion stated as fact). This strategy didn't work in Europe, it has yet to be proven that it'll work in Iraq and I highly doubt it'll work in Afghanistan.
Here's our actual casualty figures to date.
Afghanistan casualties:
| Wounded | Dead | Percentage | Obama | Bush | |||||||||||||||||||
| Bush | 2696 | 645 | Wounded | 82.4 | 17.6 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Obama | 12626 | 1312 | Dead | 67 | 33 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Total | 15322 | 1957 |
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
So much for Dan Savage!
However, his recent speech to a bunch of high school kids at a journalism conference showed his true feelings, not just on bullying (he's against it when directed against him but for it when he is doing it) but on the Bible and Christians. I must say, I was shocked at the duplicitousness of Savage. Even worse, was the reaction of a majority of the crowd, behaving like a bunch of kids on the playground cheering on the bully who's beating up a kid. I don't care who you are or what you've been through, you don't solve the problem of bullying by being a bully. In fact, the Christians in this video did the very Christian thing. They turned the other cheek and walked away. Here's the video of Savage's speech, at least a portion of it. I've read the entire speech includes such things as being unable to keep his hands off his husband if he were there on stage with him. The inappropriateness of that comment (for gay or straight couples) given in front of a teen audience notwithstanding, this video speaks for itself.
Clearly, Savage has an uninformed view of the Bible. He also seems to be feeding off the fact that some of the kids chose to walk out on him. However, he is completely oblivious to the fact that he is bullying those Christian teens just as much as he was bullied as a kid and it is shameful. The cheers from the crowd are even more shameful. I'd be happy to address Savage's uninformed view if comments here ask for it, but that isn't the point of this post. It is likely that he was mistreated and bullied by Christians as a kid and that they used the Bible to bang him over the head. While this may explain his obvious disdain for Christians in general, it doesn't excuse his comments. It is shameful on the part of the individual Christians who he believes wronged him so severely and I am sorry for him. However, you don't blame the Bible, Jesus, God, Christianity or any large group of people for the actions of individual members. Especially members who are behaving in a way that is incompatible with the teachings of Christ. The existence of people within Christian ranks who condone bullying of someone for any reason is tragic, but it is by no means proves anything about the group as a whole, nor does it allow him to condemn an entire group because of it.
This man was winning hearts and minds with his very effective campaign to combat a very real problem. Many people will see this and make excuses for him...those are the people who would stand by while a kid gets beaten up on a playground. I choose to be the person who breaks up the fight and say this is unacceptable. His choice to be part of the problem removes him from the moral high ground and places him squarely in the camp of bully. This heart and mind has been effectively driven away, not from the cause of ending bullying, but from this man playing a serious role in achieving that goal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)