Regarding Stupid
As to not Hi-jack a friend's blog please use this post as a forum for any discussion regarding my following response, addressing the John Stuart Mill quote posted on http://philipmywaterbottle.blogspot.com . ( <-- click on link for post with quote) Below, my response - in brackets - to the J.S.M. quote and its adoption by the "herd" (can you say moo?) as commented on the above linked blog.
["If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain."
- This has been questionably attributed to Winston Churchill - opinion varies on its origin, but I am sure we are all familiar with it.
I understand many of you reading this will not really get it. Ten years from now, after you get out of the propaganda crammed into your brain via "scruel" * and then if you could pay your taxes in one lump sum just once - on your own then you will begin to grasp part of this concept. Some of you may never have the opportunity to do so - many will not expend the effort to do so. Please feel free to open this discussion on my blog http://lightpassingthrough.blogspot.com/ as I do not want to hi-jack Phil’s – unless he warrants it, try not to use any talking points - they show a lack of real knowledge of the issue.
* (google it connected to Rush Limbaugh for those of you in “Rio Linda”- please note I could insert a direct link but if you are too lazy to find it on your own that may be a confirmation of a lack of true concern regarding evaluation of information)]
posted by john at 9:31 PM
5 Comments:
feel free to use mine as well, as I have already posted a response in the form of a new entry.
The trail as seen on http://philipmywaterbottle.blogspot.com/
Philip Prewitt said...
As a disclaimer let me first say that I am in no way starting an argument with John Boles with the sole purpose of arguing. I think that this is a discussion that modern people of faith need to have. I respect John's opinions and value his insight, and desire to have an intelligent discussion on a relevant topic. Please feel free to comment on the topic, but keep the comments focused on the topic.
12:38 PM
john said...
Likewise, the purpose of this discussion should remain on the issue of searching the basis of mindsets. It is not my desire to offend any that engage in this discussion, but rather to introduce ideas that are not new – but may be new to some. In this discussion I acknowledge that Christians have varying opinions on many issues and we have that ability – it’s free will – any non believer should not misconstrue this as a hole in the faith as that would be to miss the central point all Christians agree upon – Our Salvation is Christ. “For by Grace you have been saved through faith and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast (Eph. 4:8-9).”
11:11 PM
john said...
Part of the reason I begin this discussion is because at one time I too believed pacifism was the correct attitude. Possibly due to exposure to a combination of society’s attempt to geld men via current attitudes in schooling, pop culture, and toward gender – of course these 3 areas are not exhaustive. Fear of physical and social reprimands makes it easier to walk down the road of pacifism. What triggered the change? I’m sure it was a combination of things that culminated with a question if I were to observe the beating, rape, killing of a loved one and I had the ability stop that but it meant I had to physically harm or kill the individual inflicting the abuse would you do it. Of course as a pacifist the “right” answer is “no – that would only validate the violence and would make me as bad as the oppressor”. If you really believe this I wouldn’t share it with your family, wife, etc. as odds are they may not be real impressed if they are honest with themselves.
The real answer is the very opposite stopping the oppression is evidence that it is not an approved of act.
Now in regards to the Scripture addressed regarding Gov’t/Pacifism… I’m with you Phil on Deut. 17:14-17 in respect to the goal of many wives and riches. However I am unsure where the issue of the military came in here – as I read the verse it states that the king shall have a “copy of this law in a book” and is to observe it. Systematic Theologian, R.C. Sproul, expounds on the possibility of “this law”.
“The phrase this law may refer to the book of Deuteronomy as a whole, or perhaps to the Book of the Covenant (Ex. 24:7) or to the other parts of the Pentateuch. As a covenant nation, Israel was to be governed according to the covenant laws.”
Where in any of this does it state a King is to not have a military? In fact to continue in the book of Deuteronomy a few more chapters you will find that Chapter 20 (all 20 verses) is primarily focused upon the Principles Governing Warfare – read it – these principles don’t seem to advocate pacifism.
I would say to state that Christ’s death on the cross, conquering death, and resurrection being chalked up to merely a pacifistic statement would be cutting the SACRIFICE and TOTALALITY of Jesus a little short…I can’t imagine you mean to limit it to an honorable death Phil but wanted to clarify for some that may read.
On to other things-
The statement, “The more I read the Bible, the less politically conservative I am”. Is the basis for this due to the fact you do not support the war? Do not like the President? I guess the link just seems a bit narrowly arrived upon. If your statement is you don’t like war as seems the end focus of the post – ok - patriots died for you to be able to have that opinion and not be jailed or killed for it (as the Iraqis lived in fear for many years of). If it is because you don’t like the President that’s your right to not like him – I myself wish he would be more conservative. If your withdrawal from a conservative perspective is because of only these two things you have neglected quite a few. Following are some of the scathing ones.
-As a Christian how can you side with a movement that in an overwhelming majority approves of the killing of unborn children?
-A growing disregard for the sanctity of marriage?
-The selfish attitude that the war is not worth the removal of a dictator that killed thousands upon thousands – what about those oppressed under the former Iraqi dictator? Are their lives of no value? Doesn’t our action “Bless a Nation?”
Fiscally, Socially, Religiously Conservative – not a pacifist – don’t care for violence – but would have no qualms protecting my family if required and I’m pretty sure they all appreciate that. As might a “pacifist”…
1:21 AM
Philip Prewitt said...
What I was refering to in the military piece was the fact that God did not want the King, when established to amass an army as shown by his desire to not have a cavalry (horses).
I see Jesus' example as being non-violent as well as teaching non-violence to Peter who drew his sword to defend Jesus. That is my answer to protecting my loved ones. I would gladly take a bullet for my friends and sacrifice, but I will not take a bullet for my country, which sees its role as imposing on others "the greatest form of government" democracy. Democracy where we have to choose between parties that advocate the killing of the unborn, or killing those who "oppose" us and our way of life.
I see Christianity as being a belief system where we take care of the hungry, give money to the poor, and support each other the way we know we should. Government spending has consistently been cut against humanitarian aid under the regimes of republicans.
In the Deuteronomy passage on going to war the passage says first that the nation should offer peaceful resoltuion before battle. I wonder where we did that before the "war on terror".
As morally bad as Bill Clinton was he eventually admited his mistakes, has our current president been able to admit one?
I am diametrically opposed to most of the domestic and foreign policies that this nation has held as conservative republican. I think that those policies have continued to ostracize nations and people groups, which in turn causes event like September 11th. Palestinians will continue to feel like we are their enemy the longer we blindly side with Zionism.
Furthermore, I understand man's role on this planet to be one of care and stewardship of this earth. Our current government feels otherwise. The Bush administration is notorious for cutting funding, refusing to believe in global warming (2005 tied for the hottest year on record)and has lowered environmental protection to ridiculously extreme levels. I know that I love climbing the mountains in my state, but I have seen at least three 13er's being mined down to rubble and I would like to see it stop. Those are the many reasons (with many omitted) I will never be republican. When I am 35 and am in a higher tax bracket I hope that my taxes are increased so that I can give money to my government to support better domestic, international, environmental, and humanitarian policies, because what is wealth for if not to bless others with.
My Response
Phil, I love you man – that’s why I continue this conversation – Tony your funny…
I recognize your response to armies as related to governments. However I would suggest that a huge army is not our government’s goal but rather an army to insure protection of its citizens as best it can. Of course if you despise a military presence - one soldier is too many.
If I understand correctly, you would in essence fold your hands given the opportunity to stop the killing of a loved one? If you had to stand in front of a bullet as opposed to fighting back – how many more bullets can be chambered against your friend after you die? I really think maybe this specific conversation is at a dead end should you not see the error in the preference to stand in front of the bullet and die as opposed to removing the threat.
It’s your right to not “take a bullet” for the country. That’s a great thing about the country – you’re allowed to voice your opinion. Another great thing about the country is that you do have the opportunity to leave if you really don’t like it - as does not exist in other lands. I’m glad I live in the US – much rather prefer it then say Pakistan.
It seems a pretty glaring generalization to state that the conservative party advocates the killing of thousands who “oppose” us. Funny thing is as I recall and is still the truth many of the democrats support the war (check out the voting record-not the headlines) By the way you never answered the question previously posed - are the Iraqi’s lives of no importance? I understand why it may have been disregarded…
Could you please provide the facts you have to back the statement regarding the cut in humanitarian aid during years of conservatives in the presidency? I’m curious and it may be of value to your position to provide this basis for the statement. Possibly a link or something… Let’s not disregard the foreign aid that has been dealt out by the Bush administration - Tsunami Aid, Malaria vaccinations, and AIDS to name a few.
Let’s take a look at the difference in how liberals and Conservatives view the government’s role. Conservatives goal is to minimize government. Liberals on the other hand see more government involvement as a positive thing. This is one reason why spending increases under liberal rule. The programs they promote primarily in the US, enable dependence upon the gov’t and if you want votes and power what better way to get that than to boost gov’t spending on dependence programs such as SS, welfare, etc. It looks good on the surface and not many folks fully understand the expense of the programs. And let’s not fool ourselves about how uniformed many voters are.
There is a call for a peaceful resolution I agree in Deut. 20 - what is the context of this verse? In those times ancient walled cities could withstand attack for some time. The thing here is that the two opposing forces were easily recognizable and both forces identified themselves. Terrorists do not identify themselves prior to an attack
(Other than in the typical video case – maybe we could send videos back and forth) – if they did the story may be different. Perhaps the conversation would go down over a cup of coffee? “Hi, Mr. Terrorist – thanks for coming by this afternoon. How would you like me to fix things so you don’t hate me and my country?” C’mon now – We see how well this strategy has worked out in past years in the Middle East when employed by the UN.
And now in the last post - as most liberal arguments do, we have reached the point at which you have revealed your true opinion that the US is the enemy and that it has brought its troubles upon itself.
As the post continues, it is obvious that you are beginning to operate on a talking point or liberal based media source for your information on the recent environmental standards addressed under W’s time so far in office. If you reviewed the standards reports yourself you would begin to understand the reasoning behind some of the lowered standards. Believe it or not – it actually ensures and allows for in reality a greater protection of the environment by big industry. This obviously is a bigger discussion. For the record I believe too it is our responsibility to take care of the earth we have been given and it saddens me to hear that some of your mountains are being chewed up. Areas such as these do insight some emotional response of varying degree in their familiarity.
I believe you will be a liberal as long as you would rather give your money to the gov’t for them to spend (increased gov’t). I would prefer to choose where and who benefits from that same money (limited gov’t) - As you said in your last entry “support each other the way WE know WE should”.
The discussion continues...
Studioguy said...
Dang.... I'm enjoying this. It's like a reality blog show. But I need a snack and a coke. If you could just cut away to commercial for one moment, I'll be RIGHT back.
8:21 AM
Studioguy said...
mm.. honey bunches of oats. . . I didn't really need the coke. please continue.
8:33 AM
Philip Prewitt said...
Actually my source for the statistics on the environment are from a non-partisan source.
Many democrats do not support the war in Iraq now while they did support it before, much like many of their collegues across the aisle. That is a bent statistic to say that they support the war. They whole country advocated the war when we thought that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which we have yet to find, and Bush has yet to admit he was wrong about.
Ironically you are right about agendas for government. Conservatives say they want smaller gov't, but continue to propose and pass bills that are the opposite of what they say--patriot act is one example. I have to go to a class so ill write more later...it was good to catch up with you last night, john
5:59 PM
john said...
It was good to talk last night – we just had the Asian beef stir fry from “Eating for Life” – you ought to give it a shot if you haven’t already – that and the sesame beef stirfry are pretty solid.
If everyone advocated the war why as you suggest should Bush admit anything about the war – is a pride issue underlying there?
I agree with you in that the conservatives could and I believe should do more to minimize government. What are other bills proposed and addressed that encourage more gov’t? What are your specific issues with the Patriot Act? I’m curious.
As I was thinking today I began to wonder what party would you say you most identify yourself with? What would you do if you could completely change what we know as our government today and why? How do you see your ideas as socially and fiscally feasible?
10:11 PM
Philip Prewitt said...
Party lines for me are not very good. I do not in fact identify myself with either. I voted for Ralph Nater 2 elections ago, and last election I voted for Kerry. I believed Kerry to have a better solution for foreign policy and for environmental policies. I do not agree with Kerry's stand on abortion, but I also don't believe a president has much power over abortion due to Roe vs. Wade being in the hands of the supreme court.
As far as the War, I think many politicians have since changed their opinion on the war in Iraq, and in doing so admitted to either being wrong, or to being deceived (WMD).
As far as the patriot act goes:
In section 213 it allows the government to search your home without telling you.
in section 215 it allows the government to collect data about you including (but not limited to) medical info, financial info, educational info without probable cause of a crime.
in section 505 it allows for seizure of business records and membership lists including the one from your church without probable cause and institutes a gag order on recipients of the seizures.
in section 216 it allows for the government to read your email, and show the surfing habits without probable cause (yes Luke, they know you like gay porn).
Yes I admit both sides of the aisle passed this without debate, but both sides are now trying to reform it and are opposed by the president.
12:04 PM
john said...
Yep there are a few things that may have potential to not be real convenient with the Patriot Act. But I have nothing to hide so I'm ok with it though - I figure it’s only a small price for an increased measure of safety.
While it would be much more dramatic to compare it to 1984 and big brother - deep down does anyone really believe that is what is going on? – Well maybe if you suffer from paranoia or have some issue to hide.
I agree the president doesn’t have a first hand influence on abortion and the judges do – but W is the one nominating the judges.
10:50 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home