While there are, undoubtedly, plenty of crazies out there that will follow the beck and call (pun entirely intended) of these vocal leaders (9-12 group anyone?), I feel that, for the most part, the conservative movement cannot be comprised of those that do indeed think like the vociferous commentators on the radio. I’m sure (perhaps I should say, I hope) that there are plenty of more moderate, more intelligent, voices out there that are simply being drowned out by the more vocal minority of the conservative movement. This is then magnified by the amount of airtime given to this vocal minority, which then propagates more focus on these fringe groups.

Thus the vocal minority gains hegemony is far more likely to win the cause for which they are fighting.

This cannot happen. The vocal minority needs to be disarmed.

How? Compassion. Which is apparently the antithesis of their approach to the health care movement.

My example of the lack of compassion in the vocal minority comes from listening to dear Neal Boortz yesterday. While discussing health care he received a call from a listener that was asking Neal what should be done with a case like his (the caller’s), where as a diabetic it is monetarily impossible for him to attain health care through the independent market. After spending several minutes explaining the issue to Neal, the response the caller gets is “How is it my problem? Why should I be concerned with it? Why should it cost me anything?”

I was floored. I’ve heard plenty of insensitive things on talk radio before, but I’ve never heard anything to reach a level like that before. One could argue on a logical level that we receive inter-related benefits if everyone is healthy (if your workforce is sick, then you suffer on a national, perhaps even global, level). This man also represents a possible drain on resources by not having insurance and thus having to resort to the ER as a primary source of care, which in turn takes needed resources off the ER floor (which could have been avoided were this man able to see a GP previously). On a logical level, it matters quite a bit if this man is unable to receive insurance or not.

But beyond simply the intellectual property of logic, which many of the conservative vocal minority seem to lack (I’m looking at you Birthers), there is the necessary component of the human psyche called “compassion.” The issue should never have reached a point of “what does it matter to me” being asked, it should have ended with “I’m sick, and I need care.” I don’t care if this is a Judeo-Christian society or not, there is a common societal necessity that requires us to have some amount of compassion for the other.

These fine folks need to be shown compassion in their own lives to understand the necessity of showing compassion to others. So, when you find a birther, or a vocal anti health care rights folk, or a pro-war-pro-kill-em-all person, love ‘em. Find where they need compassion and show it.

(I need to follow my own advice on this one.)

I’m invested into this debate, not as a progressive who wants to see his side win, but as somewhat that has debated the various outcomes of each side, seen the pros from either side, and not blindly listened to the leaders of the party I’ve most recently affiliated with.

I come at this debate from the perspective of a Christian- that is a follower of the Christ, and hopefully removed from the negative connotations and baggage that word now has- and as a follower, or a student of the Tao of Jesus, I come down on the reform side.

I sit and think through the words of Jesus, word on taking care of the weak, the sick, the hungry, the needy, the poor, the disenfranchised, the ones that we have hurt by becoming who we are. I think through those words and I can’t help but agree that giving up a higher portion of my salary to guarantee their provided healthcare isn’t something that should be mourned or fought. I sit and think through the words of Jesus, words about treating others as you would treat Jesus, and wonder if he would disqualify the illegal immigrants from the 47 million number (of un-insured). I wonder if the Christians of old, the ones from the first days of the Church that sold everything they didn’t need and shared everything they did, would say (As Sean Hannity does) that those who choose (because they cannot afford it) who do not keep healthcare to “save costs” shouldn’t be counted when we survey the need for healthcare.

I wonder, as followers of the way, if we should indeed care for the health of the other. I wonder if instead, as good christians, we should use “Single Payer system” as a term of disgust (As I heard in the church I attended the other day, by one of the “spiritual leaders”), or we should encourage others to break up healthcare town halls with vitriol and hatred. I wonder if Jesus would rather us support the profits of industry (by removing the public option) than the health of the human. I wonder if Jesus would have us holding onto our money for dear life instead of sacrificing for the “less thans.”

I mean, yeah Jesus talked about that taking care of the other thing, that loving and sharing thing, but come on, he wasn’t serious. He didn’t mean we should do that now, he meant that as a perfect utopian heaven. The “Kingdom is here” thing (you know, the kingdom as so close that you can touch it, you can grab it, you can hold it), he didn’t actually mean “here,” he must have meant, sometime after I can enjoy myself and my money. Silly progressives, you’re getting Jesus wrong.

No, my Jesus would want us to spread lies about death panels, my Jesus would want us to stop this reform in it’s tracks because it’s not his will,  Jesus would want us to ignore the immigrants in our health care system. Jesus wouldn’t want us to think through health as something we should care about for the other. He most certainly wouldn’t want us to explore the topic in the light of the “least of these” as Sojourners does here (launches into a .PDF download). No, thats not my Jesus. My Jesus doesn’t want us to care for the lesser fortunate, my Jesus wants us to help those who help themselves.

So, you dirty progressives, take your loving Jesus and shove it.

But… organic is a luxury that only a rich person can connect to. There is a large price discrepancy between the retail of organic foods and the retail of foods that result from our modern industrial techniques. Beyond the built in low costs (I’m talking a retail cost here, not a cost health-care dollars and whatnot) of the industrial food system, our government currently subsidizes the industrial system via corn subsidies. These subsidies are the base for our “cheap” cattle and chicken system, the industrial food supply has removed the cattle and chickens from their natural pastures to feedlots and feed houses full of corn (oh, and antibiotics), these animals cannot subside on corn alone (when they were bread to live on grass and worms) so we fill ‘em up with additives to make up for the deficiencies in their diets. Of course this changes the flavoring, so when it hits the mass market we have to coat it with plenty of salt (ever had a chick-fil-a sandwich?) and fats, both of which our bodies crave, to make up for the loss. (For more on this topic, read “Fast Food Nation” and/or “The Omnivore’s Dilemma“)

But, me? I can avoid it all. I have the option to purchase my organic bread (at three times the cost of white wonder bread), I can buy my organic jelly (four dollars a jar), and my organic peanut butter (upwards of five dollars a jar, but the only ingredient is peanuts!), I can buy my bacon with a humanely treated seal (at three times the cost), and my half gallon of organic milk (with no hormones, additives, or anything nasty, all for more than double the cost). You see, I can buy myself out of the industrial food complex, but then I think about those that cannot, those that need to go to the taco bells for their “value” menus, those that have to buy the cheapest milk in the store, and those for which white wonder bread is the only option.

In the Christian tradion, we call this group the “least of these”, we’re told that we are to treat them in a way that respects their personhood and their humanity. In the terms of coroporate businesses, it means those businesses probably shouldn’t make all the crap available that they do, but those of you reading this blog probably aren’t part of that industrial food system. What can you do? How can you help?

Vote– with your dollar. How many times have you heard that every dollar you spend is a vote? Often times it doesn’t matter (your dollars spent on macs? yeah… they really don’t change the world, sorry), but when it comes to food, it matters very much. Every time you purchase an humanely raised, organically raised, or fair trade food item instead of one that comes from the industrial food system, you bring us one (small) step closer to making those products affordable to all. Every time you forgo stopping at Chick-Fil-A for your evening meal and instead cook something (preferably organic) for yourself, you send a message to the system, you scream out the need for change. Every time you buy an organic item at a grocery store, they notice. They see what products “move” and those that dont. A few years ago the organic items at my local store were limited to a few isles isolated by themselves, now many organic items have made their way to other isles, sitting proudly next to their industrial brothers.

The world is changing, it’s moving away from CAFO (concentrated animal feeding operations– the inudstrial food systems) towards pastoral farming techniques. The industrial food companies are noticing the trend, some have begun changing small portions of their overall production capacity to organic, this lowers the cost of organic foods for all. We’ve seen the transition in the chemicals market move towards providing a cheap(er than it was) environmentally friendly alternative, the same thing needs to happen in the food market.

The revolution is coming, the question is how long will it take? Will you sit back and watch it come, or will you help me (and others) bring about change by committing to organic, to fair trade, and to environmentally friendly? Or will you continue to stall the revolution with your fast food meals? Every meal you eat is an ethical decision, a political decision, and a religious decision. Think it through, make the right decision.

The flavor of the month this time? “The Great Disappointment” by Nick Fiedler, of  “The Nick and Josh Podcast” fame.  Nick’s been out of the country lately, and was disappointed with the lack of change within the emerging movement since he’s been gone. And who can blame him? While the change has seemed rather large to me, I can see from another vantage point, that of one who has been part of this conversation far longer than I, where it wouldn’t seem like much change has come.

Beyond just this one post, we have some interesting “waves” working their way around the emergent/ing blogosphere, but there are really two (perhaps three) sets of accusations being lofted.

The first, which you can see run a bit through Nick’s post, and then a bit harsher through Josh’s response, is “The ‘leaders’ of the ‘movement’ have failed us, they have sold out, they blog/write/speak for money.” (I may be considered one of them, as I do use advertising on my blog, but I would hope that my readers understand my advertising is to help pay for hosting fees, and I don’t even make enough to cover those!) My response to this argument (if I’m not considered one of the sellouts… though I was never, and will never be, a leader in the/this movement): They aren’t the leaders anymore.

Harsh? Probably.

This conversation should have never turned into a money making opportunity, but it did. I understand the desire to make a little money off something you enjoy, but you lose a fair bit of prophetic ability when you start relying on sponsors to support you. It cuts off your ability to speak out, it, to use Josh’s words, neuters you. Game over.

But, on to my point. They aren’t the leaders anymore. (On a seperate issue, who “they” are is up for debate, I probably wouldn’t lump McLaren into that pot) New leaders will/have emerged, and the fuel that keeps us going, our networking ability, has continued without those leaders. (Forgive me for falling into a bit of “us vs them” mentality, I still consider “them” part of “us” but feel that “they” are not the leaders, that’s all).

We knew this moment would come. We’ve been talking about it for a while. I remember all those posts about what happens when “the emerging church” becomes sustainable and loses it’s ability to speak prophetically. The solution? We acknowledge this has happened, but continue to embrace new “leaders” that will continue to speak prohpetically. Leaders who would refuse that term.

On the other hand we have this whole “new crowd” vs “old crowd” thing going on. (blog posts on this here and here, original comment that started this here) I don’t know what that’s all about. In fact having to use the terms “new crowd” and “old crowd” when talking about emergent pisses me off. I guess I’m part of the new crowd, I’ve only been part of the “conversation” for two years now, but I’ve looked up to and respected those who have held this conversation for longer. I’ve learned from them, I’ve hoped for patience from them as I rehash things they’ve already covered, and I’ve hoped that they’d keep me under their wings and offer a little protection as I ask the questions I have never been allowed to ask.

For two years I’ve gotten that, and it’s been great.

Now you wanna bring in new vs old?

Sorry, but that won’t work with me.

We (the emerging church) have always accepted new guys into the fold, this was never ment to be members only club, and if someone acted out of hand they weren’t rejected, they were loved. Now you want to start talking about new guys pushing you out of the circle? What the hell, we don’t even like cirlces here, and if we do draw them, we make them so effing big we put people in them that don’t want to be.

To all the (other?) new guys: You’re welcome here, I’ll make some room at my table, we’ll call it the “kid’s table” it was always more fun there anyways. Besides, I think we have some good people willing to sit at the kids table already.

A few notes before I close

I mentioned before, emergent can die. If this movement ends, we’ll carry on. My cohort friends will keep meeting, I’ll keep working on the communal theology project, I’ll keep networking via the blogosphere. It doesn’t end with the leaders, it wasn’t their movement to begin with. And for my official input on the topic: Emergent is not dead, nor do I think this will kill it, we’ll move on, we’ll keep embracing the new guys, and we’ll keep working for change in the mainstream.

EDIT:

Ok, maybe Tony Jones is still a leader.

After a conversation with my best friend about the film and this post, I feel I should clarify- Take this more as a review than an indictment on those who liked it, or the entirety of the genre in general.

My best friend had some other friends over to his house a few days ago, they grilled out and then had a “Taken” watching party after the meal. Becky and I weren’t able to make it to make it to the first part due to it conflicting with our cohort meeting, but we were able to show up a couple minutes into the movie.

If you haven’t seen the movie, or live under a rock and haven’t seen a preview, let me offer this brief synopsis. A former FBI agent has a daughter that takes a vacation to Paris with her friend. They are then kidnapped and sold into the very real human trafficking sex slave business. The FBI agent then uses his abilities to track down his daughter and kill all those involved.

It’s the last part of that synopsis that quite bothers me. Kill all those involved. Oh, and we’re to cheer for him whilst he does kill everyone that gets in his way, including shooting a woman innocent the whole crime, simply because he needed her husband to talk. Cheer for that. Right…

Don’t get me wrong, I love action movies. The new Star Trek? Amazing! (Although in this same vein, Kirk absolutely had no need to fire on Nero’s ship at the end, by doing so he risked his own ship for the shallow feeling of essentially shooting [without killing] an enemy that’s already about to die) Batman? Loved it. New Terminator? I’ll be there at midnight.

Like I said earlier, I love action movies, however there is an point at which I can no longer cheer for the protagonist, that is if s/he continues to commit acts of senseless violence, or wanton disregard for any life. Throughout Taken the protagonist does not help any of those held captive in the trade unless they can help him find his daughter. This single sighted goal doubtlessly led to the death of plenty of innocents, either in the gunfights or the aftermath when everyone is dead and these girls are still chained to beds.

Prevailing thought in our society is the shedding of others blood in the protection of innocents is an acceptable ideal, it is a good thing. On top of this we also have the idea that neccesary shedding of innocent blood for the sake of (many) other innocents is acceptable. This movie takes both of those ideals and pushes them to new levels. The extent became about how many “evil” lives must be destroyed, and how many innocents it was necessary to harm in the salvation of one singular innocent.

Perhaps if the protagonist had made any effort to help those held captive, or bring down the system that allowed these atrocities, I would have had more respect for him. Instead, I’m faced with a protagonist that disgusts me, that fails to understand the very nature of humanity, and by doing so devalues so greatly the thing he is serving to protect.

One final caveat with the film: About halfway in we find that the friend of the protagonists daughter dies, yet we see no humanity in the reaction to her death. Instead of mourning the loss of a friend, or spending time recovering from the trauma of being paraded around naked and put up for bid, the protagonist sets up an meet so his daughter can explore a career in singing. This final peice breaks, what may have been possible (if you had a twisted ex FBI agent who only cares about his daughter and nothing else) and shows the impossibilty of the whole thing. In reaction to such a tramatic experience, the daughter would most likely to one of two things: Subvert into a shell and try to cope with the trauma, or join one of the many anti-trafficking organizations to prevent the same acts from continuing.

The title, “Are Christians Theologically Prepared to Accept Torture?” is provocative, and may, to some extent, presuppose that all Christians hold similar theological positions (I say may because the author herself is a pastor, and probably does not hold to the theological positions she latter discusses, although she never specifies her belief system). Sarah Sentilles explores the notion that the theological Atonement Theory prepares it’s adherents for the graphic nature of torture. When we become so enthralled with the idea that blood must be shed for our supernatural “salvation,” it stands to reason that our natural “salvation” coming from bloodshed is also acceptable.

Our theoloticing doesn’t end there, we could explore the current life implications of thoelogical standpoints on young earth creationism, or pre-millenial dispensationalism, even Biblical literalism, as having actual current world/life implications.

I’m not advocating the abandoment of theological standpoints due simply to there current world/life implications, but instead asking that we think through how our theology is really theolotics, and if our theolotics are causing current world/life harm.

You see, right now there’s a race going on, a race in which many evangelicals are becoming disheartened with the political party that has held their sway for decades. This sway is certainly scaring those in charge of both the party, and those with whom the party has place  “in charge” of the evangelicals. With little over a week left until the election, both the party and the evangelical leaders are fearful losing this election.

These evangelical “leaders” decided that the best way to win an election was to continue the fear mongering that the party they are aligned with has begun. This letter is a “fictionalized” account of what may come should the Muslim Obama win the election.

What do you think, Matt?

————

This letter is brilliant.

Brilliant.

You see, for years the foundation has been laid which enables this letter to work to the fullest effect. Evangelicals have spent years discussing the ways in which they are persecuted, maligned and targeted for extinction, all the while continuing the enjoy the fact that one of their own is in control of the White House, one of their publishing companies (Zondervan) has one of the largest market shares in publishing, and they represent the largest sect of the largest religion in this country. All this and still, they insist that they are persecuted. Thus we end up with the persecuted hegemony.*

I remember looking for persecution around every corner when I was growing up, after all, I was told that it existed. This idea of the persecutorial boogie monster has actually done more harm than any true persecution committed against either Christians or the church.

Now that the base has been exposed, lets take a look at the letter.

————

We open with the author lamenting over the current state of the union, saying that they can no longer sing the national anthem without crying. This idea amuses me, that (just under) two millennium after Christians died after refusing to sing the anthem of Rome, Christians think it OK to partake of this empirical nations anthem.

Anyways, the author quickly begins to discuss the Supreme court appointments made by Obama during his first few months in office. Unsurprisingly Obama appoints a set of left leaning judges (the author note that these judges have close ties with the devilish ACLU). We are then subject to a series of “worst case scenarios” in which two more conservative members of the S.C. step down are are replaced by more of the crazy liberals. Thus tipping the balance of power towards the liberals. This sets the stage for the court decisions that take up the next seven pages (nearly half the document).

We are first exposed to the virus known as homosexuality. This “virus” has been accepted constitutionally by this new liberal court, thus causing a series of maladies in which the state of the union is severely degraded. All because it’s OK for gays to marry…

Before we look at these I want to point of this statement:

After many of these decisions, especially those that restricted religious speech in public places, President Obama publicly expressed strong personal disapproval of the decision and said that the Supreme Court had gone far beyond what he ever expected. But he has also stated repeatedly that he had sworn to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,” and, now that the Supreme Court had ruled, he had no choice but to uphold the law, for these decisions were the law of the land.

It’s interesting that they should mention that, it seems that they would expect Obama to act in a manner contrary to the constitution. Something that they are accusing these liberal judges of doing. But when your target audience knows very little about the Constitution** it’s not that hard to make statements like this hit with full effect.

1. The boy scouts. It’s stated that the boy scouts disband, due to the no required hiring of Homosexual scout masters, who then subject children to being in the same pup tents as them. This is, for lack of a better term strong enough term, complete bull-shit. The scout masters code is as follows:

When staying in tents, no youth will stay in the tent of an adult other than his or her parent or guardian.

I find it interesting that the boy scouts would change their policy to allow scout masters to sleep with scouts, only to then disband once they realize that this policy may infect their children with the gay virus.

Focus on the family also shows their deep-seeded mistrust of the different here. They assume that if someone is gay, they cannot control any impulses, and are more prone to sexual molestation. Sometimes it’s better to look to your own flock before accusing others of what’s not there. We’ll talk about this idea in depth at a later date.

2. Sex education. Apparently once homosexuality accepted as constitutional it will then be taught to first graders. This no doubt comes from the accusation that Obama wants to teach about the birds and bee’s to first graders, which has been shown as false. Another example of fear mongering and intentional dissinformation. Nothing else to see here, move along, move along.

3. Adoption. Here we get the first taste of the idea that Non-profits will be subject to governmental tampering. “Christian” adoption agencies will not be able to pick through parental candidates. I find this idea preposterous, I think you’ll find it rare to really encounter any person trained in law that feels the government can interfere in these sorts of ways. The separation of church and state, as most liberals see it, is desirous of keeping the two entities as far apart as possible. They’d prefer Christians just keep to themselves, and will do the same gladly.

4. Business is now forced to prove that they do not discriminate against same sex couples. I think that’s a no brainer… that should be required TODAY, but when you don’t think that same sex couples are as human as heterosexuals, it’s easy to think they don’t deserve the same work benefits as heterosexuals. (Keep this one in the back of your mind… it will come into play later)

5-9 are similar to 3, Governmental interference with churches. Again… not going to happen.

10. The military (part A). Obama will immediately begin actively recruiting gays into the military. The author derides that “sensitivity” training towards homosexuality that has become part of military boot camps. Funny… I wonder of the author is willing to deride the “sensitivity” training towards the killing of other humans in the same way.

11-13 deal with the silence of religious speech at educational facilities. I can’t say I’m against this, if it means the silence of all religious points of view. It would certainly remove quite a lot of the dissent and distress that religions are infamous for when confronting each other. This sort of distress doesn’t really have a place in our schools… But hey, I’m a liberal… Focus on the Family doesn’t care what I think.

14 talks about the pledge of allegiance. I’m against the pledge in it’s entirety, I pledge no allegiance to any country, as it’s very hard to give your allegiance to many entities. I would swear my allegiance to God, and go no farther. But when “Country First” is your motto, it’s very easy to see why allegiance to your country is so important. (Jesus held no allegiance to Rome nor the literal nation of Israel***)

15-17. Here we begin to discuss abortion. I find myself agreeing with the author more here, as I am against abortions. I guess I should write a separate post about abortions, as my views on it are somewhat different from mainline Christianity. So for now, we’ll move along.

18. Pornography. Apparently Obamas supreme court will nullify all FCC laws regarding obscenity, thus enabling the slippery slope which lets sexual perversion run rampant from the airwaves to the grocery stores. The author pretends that it’s not easy enough to access sex already, any child with an internet connection can see whatever he or she wants. I would say if you don’t like what the government approves then you have to personally take steps to “protect” your children. I know there are already Internet filters, christian satellite companies, and christian radio out there, all of which could provide “clean” “filtered” viewing pleasures for your family. More fear mongering is all this point turns out to be.

19. Guns. Focus on the family is vehemently pro-gun and pro-gun ownership, and feel that an Obama presidency would end gun-ownership rights nationwide. Obama himself has stated that this should be a decision for local municipalities and states, and I agree with him there. As far as the gun control issue goes, I find myself on the side of higher regulation, but not the abolishment of ownership rights. I do question the need for ownership of an assault rifle, as well as a Christian who is fine with drawing down another human.

20. Home schooling. This one is interesting, I support homeschooling, as I probably learned more during my time as a homeschooler than during either my private school years or my public school years. I would agree with the author here, that the requirement that a parent have a teachers license in order to school their child is inane.

21-25 Deals with the military. Obama being weak willed has apparently let the US fall away from it’s role as the military superpower of the world. First off, Obama is actually far more pro-military action than I’d like him to be, and he as stated before that he would be willing to use military force. Here we find that I agree with neither the Obama or the author. The military should not be the answer.

I would like the point out the author anti-approach to open conversation with entities that don’t agree with you. I find this idea that we can only talk with those who agree with us quite modern in approach, and not very successful in the end. We need to understand that discussing viewpoints with people those who disagree with you does not mean that you agree with them. Social cooperation would require us to work with those whom we disagree with. What is more a more beautiful thing, inter religion cooperation to solve a social justice issue, or a religious leader refusing to work with another because of ideological disagreeances.

26. Health care. Let me share this little gem with you.

The great benefit is that medical care is now free for everyone — if
you can get it. Now that health care is free, it seems everybody wants more of it.

It seems that the author does not like the idea that everyone is trying to get the health care they need. Social Darwinism seems to be at work in the authors mind, and a breath after saying that it’s good that health care is free, the author decries the usage of said health care by those who need it. Asinine hypocrisy at it’s best right here folks, but what I find more remarkable is that it’s coming from a Christian source. Health care for all should be our goal, not our fear.

27. Health care rationing. The author plays up fears that the elderly cannot get health care due to rationing. The sad truth is, as Sara Robinson of Our Future points out (here) is:

Don’t look now: but America does ration care. And it does it in the most capricious, draconian, and often dishonest way possible.

Mostly, the US system rations care by simply eliminating large numbers of people from the system due to an inability to pay. Last year, one-quarter of all Americans didn’t go to a doctor when they needed one because they couldn’t afford it. Nearly that many skipped getting a test, treatment, prescription, or follow-up appointment recommended by a doctor. In Canada, those same numbers are in the 4-5% range; in the UK, 2-3%. Also: nearly 20% of all Americans had a hard time paying a medical bill last year; and these stresses now trigger over half of all personal bankruptcies in the country.

28. Taxes. We’ve heard a lot lately, from conservative talking heads, about Obama’s tax policy, and how insane it is to give tax breaks to those which currently pay no income taxes. Again we have a nice manipulation using the lack of public knowledge on our (complex) tax system. Most Americans who receive checks from their employers will notice that a portion of their checks are taken out. This is known as the payroll tax, which includes Federal income taxes and FICA, as well as state income taxes if your state requires them. In this way working Americans actually do pay income taxes, however at the end of the year your taxes are calculated and credits are applied. Some of these credits are known as refundable tax credits, are returned to you several weeks after you file, however if you don’t pay enough throughout the year you are required to send the IRS a check for the remainder of your federal income tax liability.

This system of credits and refunds enables conservatives to say that 40-50% of those living in the US do not pay income taxes. It’s a flat out lie.

———–

I think we’ll stop here for today. We’re sitting at a hefty sized post as it is. We’ll resume sometime in the next few days, in the meantime lets hear your opinions on this propaganda letter.

————————————————

* I cannot take credit for this term, I must refer you to the Slacktivist, where I picked it up from.

** I am not stating that everyone knows very little about the Constitution, but I am certainly comfortable in stating that a vast majority of ALL Americans don’t know much about the Constitution.

*** I am drawing a distinction here between Israel as a literal nation with borders and boundaries and the idea of the Nation of Israel meaning followers of Judaism. I would say that Jesus would certainly not swear allegiance to any nation.

I’ll start by saying that I was quite shocked when the Governor was announced, and was somewhat convinced that the whole thing was a joke. I assumed that the election was going to be quite over with after reading about her stances on the issues, but I have been quite surprised as to the outpouring of support that she has garnered John McCain. I had assumed that McCain was already going to receive the support of the conservative base (as he has sufficiently changed his stance that he does fall under the umbrella of conservatism now), while I may have been wrong (or perhaps not) it does appear that the final nail in the coffin (… not the best analogy) has been driven in, and the conservative base will indeed support John McCain quite willingly.

In the first few days after the announcement, websites like Daily Kos, Talking Points Memo, and yes, even my beloved Huffington Post, engaged in some deep attacks against Palin (that was after they were able to find out something about her, other than she was a woman, which seemed to be all anyone knew the first few days). Looking back, these attacks are about as bad as I’ve seen against McCain (and on conservative sites such as Fox News Town Hall, Drudge Report, and the awful site World Net Daily against Obama), but seemed much worse because of the short amount of time in which they were perpetrated. Some of these attacks were laughable, but others were, I think, quite important to the office of the President of the United States.

Now, as far as Palin as a person/the Palin “worldview.”

One quick side note on worldview- I am getting tired of that term. It was cool at first, now it’s quite overplayed, yet I can’t really think of any simple world to use interchangeably, thus worldview stays (for now… your days are numbered overused phrase!).

One other side note- Proximity to Russia does not an experienced Foreign Policy resume make.

Ok, back on topic. Here is my reasoning for the lack of (my) support for Palin.

First, Palin does not believe Global Warming is man-made (link), or at least pre-VP pick she expressed doubt over the issue. This would coincide with her worldview (I may be off base right here, but she appears to fall in line with the Darby-ist end time escapist eschatology) that the world’s going to end anyways, so why bother doing anything about it? The environmental issue holds a big spot in my heart, so I want politicians in office who will work for environmental change. Sarah Palin seems to fall short here.

Palin on Iraq as God’s will (link) is another issue which she is severely at odds with me. I’m not of the opinion that the murder war on anyone is God’s will. Now, I know that she went was hit with this by Charlie Gibson, and responded by invoking Lincon (and politifact finds that these two phrases are similar), I would say that her statement doesn’t ring like Lincon to me. She does seem to be (in her speech) implying that Iraq is, in fact, God’s will. I can admit there is some room for budging here, but I’m calling like it appears to me.

On the issues Palin appears to be a lock-step conservative, both economically and socially, an idealogical viewpoint that I find myself more and more distanced from each day. John McCain, you could make the argument, is more of an independent (I say could, I feel like he’s moved more to the right whilst chasing the Presidency). Because of this staunch conservatism, I don’t think I’d ever bring myself to vote for Palin, nor encourage anyone else to do so.

—

A note about the comments section, lets keep it clean in here, now vicious attacks against Candidates (or other commentors), if your family I’m gonna request you read over your comment BEFORE posting it. I’d prefer not to have to shut down a comment section on another one of my posts.

There was a rich man who had three sons. He decided that it was time his sons left his household to make their way into the world. Growing up rich, these sons never learned to provide for themselves, but still, their father told them it was time to make it on their own.

The three sons decided to move to a town known for its fisheries, under the impression that this was the best course of action to provide for both their stomachs and wallets. When they arrived at the town, the three sons went their own ways.

The first son was met by a local fisherman, who taught the son how to fish, thinking that he would then be able to provide for himself. But this son would run into days where he couldn’t catch sufficient fish to both feed himself and sell to make a living, so days went when the son starved.

The second son met a fisherman who agreed to provide enough fish for him to both eat and sell at market. On some days, however, this fisherman could not provide enough fish to support both the son and himself, so days went when the son starved.

The third son met a fisherman who taught him how to fish, and also offered to provide him fish on the days when the son was not able to bring in enough to get by. This son worked hard and was never forced to starve.

In these months when the donkey fights the elephant on the workings of the economy, it’s important for us to remember that neither teaching a man to fish nor giving a man a fish is enough to help that man out. We need to be able to do both.

Wish me luck.