Essence Restored

In recent years, libertarianism has been gaining much support throughout the nation. Many of their objectives are very noble-trying to reduce military spending, ending a needless and bloody war on drugs, reducing the debt, and ending unproductive bureaucracy and waste. However, there is a certain fantasy surrounding libertarianism- that if the government would just get out of the economy everything would be nice and rosy. The problem is that this system has already been tried and found to be wanting.

Now, I know those who support libertarian ideas will say that we never truly had libertarianism, and they might have some truth to this claim. However, we do have a picture of what a libertarian society would look like from the Gilded Age. There are few government regulations in the workplace, so workers get treated like animals. There is no quality public education system; so many children have to go to the factories to work. There are next to no environmental or food regulations, and so the environment and health of the nation suffer greatly as a result.

Another problem with libertarianism is that those who preach it cannot give one solid example of it working in the real world. Those who claim the positives of a more welfare state or socialist system can give the examples of Denmark, Finland, or Norway, which have some of the highest standards of living in the world. What examples can libertarians give? The only examples of societies that were close to libertarianism were not very good places for the majority of the populous. We could give the example of the U.S. in the 1800s or Latin American countries.

Another problem with libertarians is that those who push this economic idea are often led by ideologues and right wing think tanks rather than responsible economists. Why? Because any responsible economist realizes that libertarianism would be disastrous for the masses and ultimately bad for the overall society. After all, it was a lack of government regulation that led us to so much of the current mess we are in. Libertarianism has been pushed by the likes of past ideologues such as Ayn Rand, and modern ideologues like Peter Schiff. Libertarianism may look great on paper, but in reality, it would be disastrous, with a few people controlling everything and the masses struggling to merely  survive.

Bookmark to:

It seems we are in a national state of déjà vu with our new obsession with Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Usually you do not get to see history repeat itself within your own lifetime and certainly not in the course of only 8 years, but that seems to be the case with the new calls for war against Iran. This case, like all cases of war, starts with fear. Iran has become the new enemy, the modern version of the Soviet Empire, the thing we are to fear. It is pushed in the nightly news by government agencies and those who stand to profit from another war.

It was only a few years when Saddam Hussein was the scary boogey man that was going to destroy western civilization. If we didn’t act fast, he was going to wipe us off the face of the earth; he was going to launch biological attacks of anthrax and smallpox into our biggest cities and make our most awful nightmares a reality. We had to act, to use any type of caution or restraint was bringing us one day closer to our demise.

Looking back we realize that we feel victim to a media created paranoia. The war was never necessary; there were no weapons of mass destruction, and those who pushed that story were never held accountable for pushing us into war under false pretenses. Now Iran is our new target. While there is a general public that is more skeptical after 10 years of the War on Terror, there is unfortunately still a large percentage of the population which has no problem going in to another foolish and expensive war.

As the calls for war began expanding against Iran, it is time for us to think rationally instead of relying on our worst fears and paranoia. We need to learn the simple truth that we could destroy ourselves faster by “preventing” a hypothetical attack than if an actual foreign strike occurred. Let’s not waste thousands upon thousands of lives, billions upon billions of dollars, only to realize that once again we have played the part of the fool.

Bookmark to:

I would guess that the majority of the people involved with the new Occupy Wall Street Movement voted for Obama 2008. They were hoping, like so many of us, that real change could be made in the country by electing different political leaders. The country now is waking up to the reality that the whole system is rigged, and that we need a massive structural change in how we do government-simply hoping for a change because of who is elected president or which party controls Congress is no longer sufficient.

We have a system that has become so corrupt that no matter what party is elected, the special interests and corporations soon find their way into the system and set up their own rules. While certainly individual politicians bare partial responsibility for this system, ultimately we should not be upset with them; they cannot work honestly or justly when the whole system is designed to weed them out if they do. No, the ultimate problem is not the Republican leaders of the Democratic leaders; the ultimate problem is that we have a democracy in name only. When you allow corporations and special interests to give unlimited money to advertising for candidates, you are essentially letting them buy votes. You cannot call that type of country a democracy; it is nothing but a mere oligarchy. Until this is changed, needed reforms will never happen in the U.S. Healthcare in the U.S. will never be just because drug companies and private insurance will make sure that costs stay at outrageously high levels. Wars will continue to be fought because war profiteers and arms industries will create a new conflict we “have” to become involved in. Wall Street will never be reformed, because the banks have so many lobbyists in the halls of Washington that it would make Jefferson turn over in his grave.

If we want real change, we now realize the system has to be changed. The constitution has to be amended. No corporate funds should go to any political campaign and corporate lobbyists should be banned from the halls of Washington; it is a mockery of our democratic republic. Once this happens, so many of the other issues people are fighting for would fall into place and a more just society would begin to form.

Bookmark to:

In his famous book, Johnny Get Your Gun, Dalton Tumbo makes a very interesting point, “America fought a war for liberty in 1776. lots of guys died. And in the end does America have any more liberty than Canada or Australia who didn’t fight at all?..maybe a lot of guys with wives and kids died in 1776 when they didn’t need to die at all.”

As I am teaching U.S. History, it is amazing how ingrained the belief that the U.S. Revolution was completely justified and worth the bloodshed is in the minds of many students. The question I have as a U.S. citizen and teachers is what kind of message are we sending to our young people? What are we telling them about justifying war and violence? Are we continuing to choose war and conflict in the present because it is glorified in our history?

The reality is that during the Revolutionary War, a large majority of colonists were either Loyalists or did not want to take side in the conflict between the colonies and England. This is a fact that is often obscured in U.S. History. We want to make it sound like everyone was supporting the war effort; they were all just longing for freedom. The reality is that the revolution started by a small group of radicals in Massachusetts and eventually was spread to the other colonies, with many people resisting the revolution.

On one hand, I agree with the goal of the Patriots for self-government. They wanted to be free from the rule of Parliament and the Monarchy, and I truly believed they were justified in that desire. However, should we be teaching our students that this desire was worth the enormous bloodshed? In the end, where does the justification for violence end? There are lot of people that are being heavily oppressed by our own corrupted government and a financial system that favors the very few at the expense of the many. Are they justified to shed blood in the name of their freedom? Of course, all people in the U.S. government would say absolutely not. However, if we follow out the logic and justification of the Revolution, the answer would have to be yes.

We need to teach our young people that violence just creates more violence. Maybe one of the reasons our country has been bathed in so much violence is because from the very beginning we have taught that violence is justified. Perhaps for us to avoid more errors like the War in Iraq and a never ending War on Terror, we need to realize that violence is not a viable solution to create change. There is a greater way. Let’s teach our children the way of Jesus on the Sermon of the Mount. Let’s teach them the way of Tolstoy, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr. Real change can come without hate and violence; it can come through love, determination, and a desire for peace and justice among all men.

Bookmark to:

In my U.S. History classes we have studying the U.S. Revolution. Usually, this is the time where the teacher talks about all the brave patriots and why the war was absolutely necessary and justified. However, the more I have studied and examined the event, the less I want to glorify and sanctify what happened. One of the biggest problems is that we forget who really won in the Revolution. Yes, of course the patriots or the colonists won the war. But who really benefited? Like almost every war, the real winners were the rich and powerful, and the poor and common person were used as a simple pawns in their quest for more. As the old adage states, “It is a rich man’s war, but a poor man’s fight.”

The same could be said of the American Revolution. The reality was that the majority of the colonists did not have life off that bad. They had to pay simply taxes on certain products, which unlike historical myth, was not heavily burdensome on the majority of the population. In fact, many paid higher taxes after the Revolution than they did beforehand. The benefits of the country were not going to reach the lower classes. In fact, after the Revolution, many could not even vote. Unless they were landowners, they were barred from voting.

The Revolution was also a loss for the African-Americans and the Native Americans. No matter how much propaganda is created saying how certain African-Americans and Native-Americans supported the patriot cause. The reality is that the majority fought with the British, because a British victory would have granted them more freedom. Slaves and Native Americans lost in the “War for Independence”, because the war meant that their independence, freedom, and land would be taken away.

The U.S. Revolution was like any war. Some people profited greatly, but for the great majority life was not any better off, and in many cases, life was much harder. There obviously was injustice from the British, and the British crown was abusive of their power. The problem that we have when we glorify the Revolution is that we teach our students a falsehood- that after the Revolution, all humans were thought of as equal and there would be liberty and justice for all, that the war was fought so that everyone could have “freedom”. This simply was not true. We also teach a horrible lesson about war. Most wars are not really fought for freedom or the human rights of a population. While those may be used as justifications for a war, most wars are fought over power and money. This was certainly the case in the American Revolution. To celebrate the revolution and to teach our students to do so is a very poor lesson; it teaches them an improper view of the world, peace, and war.

Bookmark to:

Yesterday, it seemed that God wanted to send a message to me, and he decided to send it numerous times in the course of a few hours to get my attention. It started off when I was listening to a podcast from Mars Hill Church where Rob Bell is the pastor. I was listening to his sermon about his plans to leave the church and start a new venture creating television shows in Hollywood with the hope of presenting the message and way of Jesus in a completely different way with the hoping of reaching a broader audience with the message of the Kingdom of God. He was talking about how he was taking a risk. Perhaps, the whole venture would be a failure, and he would look pretty foolish. However, he talked about how he was willing to risk that, because it would be better than looking back at the end of his life and simply wondering: what if?

Well, this message was on my heart the rest of the night when the news that Steve Jobs died came up on my computer. As I was reading the article about his death, one quote that he had made a few years ago to a group of students at Stanford struck me, “”Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose.” We can’t live too safely, because in the end we are all going to die. We can choose to go to our graves with regrets that we never followed our dreams, or we can choose to live dangerously and make risk to follow our passions and dreams.

Later on in the night, my wife and I were reading the book Sex God together. This is a Christian book talking about the link between spirituality, sensuality, and the Kingdom of God. It is a great book. The author was talking about how love is always a risk. Whenever you choose to love, you are risking being rejected, hurt, and disappointed. However, in the end, choosing to love is worth it, no matter what hurt you may be risking. By this point, I think God had gotten my attention and had made the message pretty clear.

In the end, we have a choice. We can choose to live our lives in our nice, comfortable, and safe routine, never risking anything, never losing anything. We can choose to live that way, but in the end, we start to die a little bit inside, we lose our purpose in life. On the other hand, we can choose to take risks, abandon the safe, typical, and mundane, and run as fast we can into the Kingdom of God. I love how Paulo Coelho puts it, “A boat is safe in the harbor, but that is not what boats are meant for.”

Bookmark to:

Williams Jennings Bryan, Woody Guthrie, Upton Sinclair, John Steinbeck, and Dorothy Day- These were populous leaders, activists, writers, and musicians who fought for the rights of the common people against the interests of the powerful and wealthy. Unfortunately, we have abandoned their spirit and ideas for a long time, but I have a sense that we are now seeing a revival of their passion.

Most of the leaders of these populous movements rose to power in times of great inequality and economic depression. Some fought against a corrupt monetary system that was great for the bankers and wealthy, but was horrible for the common worker. Others fought against the large companies and land owners who exploited their workers. Others fought for humane living conditions in the inner-cities of America. There were others who wanted to expose the dark side of Capitalism and what could happen when all government regulation was absent. These movements sparked huge changes in the United States. They led to more factory regulations, government sponsored job programs for the unemployed, restrictions on big banks and Wall Street, better housing conditions for those in the inner-city, and a more fair tax code where the wealthy had to pay their fair share.

After World War II, the United States grew rapidly. The economy grew at an extraordinary rate and the money was more evenly distributed in the society. Successful progressive ideals were implemented in the nation, such as the right to unionize, Medicare, Medicaid, expansions in public education, the G.I. Bill program, and high marginal tax rates. This trend continued on until the early 80’s, when Reagan and his economic policies set the path for inequality and income disparity to skyrocket again. However, so many of the populous and progressive moments that were active in the late 1800’s, 20’s, and 30’s were nowhere to be seen. Perhaps, people thought this new direction was going to be good for the country. We assumed that we had already been granted our basic economic rights and that they could not be taken away, but we were wrong.

For the last 30 years, we have seen the disparity of income grow more and more. More of the social and economic protections have been stripped away, and so many jobs have been shipped overseas by the same multi-national corporations who are paying historically low tax rates. The top income tax rate has gone from 91% to 35%, so we went more and more in debt and had to cut more programs for everyone else in society. A few powerful people have bought out the halls of Congress, and because of an incompetent Supreme Court, this is not even illegal. For too long, the overall population, the bottom 98% of the country, has sat by idly while this has happened. However, as with anything, there comes a breaking point.

This past month as the Wall Street protests have grown, there is a sense that the populous and progressive spirit is being revived in the hearts of normal Americans. They are tired of their rights being taken from them. They are tired of the powerful and wealthy taking them as fools. They are tired of so much poverty in a country with so much wealth. Perhaps, the spirit of Steinbeck and Guthrie is back again. For the sake of our country and our world, we should all hope so.

Bookmark to:

Wal-Mart and other large supermarket chains have recently been taking over Costa Rica. It brings up some interesting questions. Does where we buy our groceries really matter? Is it a moral decision? Is it a real issue about justice? I believe it is.

Here in Costa Rica, multinational companies have come and taken over much of the food business. Where street markets and small shops used to once control most of the food market, there are now huge supermarkets-the majority of them controlled by foreign companies. What are the problems with this?

One of the biggest problems is the type of jobs which are created. While it was true that most small shop owners and fruit stand venders were never wealthy-many could make a fair and decent wage. This is often not the case in large corporations, where wages are always kept low, as the people who ultimately profit from the labor are not workers, but CEO’s and stockholders.

The earnings in return to not stay in the country, but rather are giving to stockholders who overwhelmingly reside in the developed world. On a national level, it does not create more wealth, but rather gives the appearance of economic development, while at the same time taking more of the wealth out of the nation.

On a practical level, it is often more difficult. It is easy to simple go to one of the large supermarkets and do all your shopping; it saves time and energy. It is more difficult having go down to the local seafood shop, then go to the local meat shop, than go buy your vegetables and fruits at another shop.

However, in the end, the extra effort we might have to do to shop more ethically has long reaching effects. As we move into a world that is becoming more and more corporatized with the wealth going to the hands of the very few, there needs to be some grassroots movement to save the small and local establishments, where people still are able to receive the fruit of their labor.

Bookmark to:

Are we blessed so that we can simply bask in the gift, or are we blessed so that we can help others? Is our blessing meant to be a channel to extend to others rather than something we actually receive and hoard? I think these are questions that are vitally important on both a spiritual and nation-wide level.

There has been a tradition in the church called Calvinism or Reformed Theology which basically takes the position that God has selected certain people for heaven and others for destruction or hell. Though actual logical thinking about this issue makes it seem quite hard to reconcile with the love of God and the whole life and message of Jesus, it is taught nonetheless and is actually had a large resurgence in the modern day. It seems that being elect means that God has simply chosen people for love or destruction, rather than “choosing” people that can be his vessels of love to heal the world. Obviously, not all reformed people take it this way, but it is an obvious consequence that often results from this type of teaching.

There is often the same philosophy that is seen in Western society. Though many may not believe that they were “predestined” to be born in North America or Western Europe, there is often an entitlement that comes along with it. Instead of seeing the fortune of us being born in a relatively affluent society and using our gifts to help out the less fortunate among us, we often decide to wallow in our own “exceptionalism” and simply forget those who were not given the same opportunities and resources as us.  We are often very angry at those that are trying to come into our countries, as we see them as “stealing” from our blessing. Instead of our blessedness making us more giving, it often makes us colder.

I love the way that Robert Kennedy put it, “Through no virtues and accomplishments of our own, we have been fortunate enough to be born in the United States under the most comfortable conditions. We, therefore, have a responsibility to others who are less well off.”

Bookmark to:

We often think about the Cold War in terms of the U.S. becoming more conservative and capitalistic with the threat of the Soviet Union. We think of the McCarthy trials, support for undemocratic right-wing leaders, and loyalty oaths. However, in another aspect, we actually became more progressive in the face of the Communist threat.

It was Eisenhower that blasted the discrimination in the South as he said it would be tool used by the Soviets and the Communist world to show the hypocrisy of the United States. Eisenhower was the president who sent in federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas to enforce integration in the schools after that state’s governor was trying to defy it. It was a pretty brave move by the part of the president.

It is also important to note how great labor unions and labor rights grew from the 1930’s to 1970’s. A large percentage of the population belonged to a labor union. Labor unions and labor rights were seen as necessary to keep moderation and to keep the country from the route of Communism. The fear that there could be a Communist revolution often compelled the country to seek more rights and justice for its workers.

Finally, the Soviets helped the U.S. go after the issue of poverty more strongly. Johnson was famous in his campaign to end poverty. We wanted to show the Soviets that we could have a prosperous and just society while still having a free market.

Unfortunately, today it seems we do not have any enemy like the Soviets to actually strive against or to keep us in check. There is little fear of a Communism, anarchy, or revolution. With the diminished fear has come more oppression and inequality. We have felt there is nothing to fear, and the powerful have simply walked over all the rights of the working and middle classes. In the future, we might be looking back at the Cold War as a time we had much of the social progress and the present day as a time we lost our values and sense of justice in the society.

Bookmark to:

Obama came in with the idea of being a unifier, someone who was going to bring the nation back together. He was going to reach across the aisle and work with his political opponents. He was not going to speak in absolute terms, rather he was going to deal with issues from a practical standpoint and not get bogged down in too much ideology. You could say he had a very positive, liberal outlook.

Two and a half years later, we can see how this excessive open-mindedness and need to always reach across the political aisle has cost him dearly. He has been walked all over by the Congress and the Republican Party in general. The Democrats had complete control over the Congress for his first two years, yet in reality, they achieved very little. Obama proposes progressive ideals, but he doesn’t seem to have the strong character or will to fight hard for them. He is too willing to compromise and concede his position.

What we need is a strong progressive fighter, not merely a liberal idealist. We need a FDR, Williams Jennings Bryant, Upton Sinclair, or Martin Luther King. We need someone who does not merely believe in progressive ideals, but it is also willing to fight for them even though will anger many people in the process.

I hope Obama can wake up to the reality that his current way of doing politics is not getting him  anywhere. The Republicans do not respect him; they know they can get him to cave into their extreme demands. Many Democrats do not respect him anymore either, as they see that does not have backbone to make the hard and strong decisions. If Obama could start being a progressive fighter, the nation would follow him in droves. He could be the next FDR; the next election would not even be an issue. However, if he continues on his current path, he will not only sacrifice his progressive goals, he will also see that his political career will soon come to an end.

Bookmark to:

1. We have been part of the problem of much of the poverty in Latin America. Our constant support for right-wing governments and “free trade” agreements have made it very hard for much of the population-who in turn try to come to the United States for opportunity.

2. The overwhelming majority of the land that we currently have is only ours because we have stolen it from others, often the people we stole it from are some of the same people we are now trying to keep out.

3. In the United States, most of us are descendants of immigrants (all the non-Native American population). Perhaps, those who are clamoring against immigrant rights should realize that they would not be here if it wasn’t for the immigration of their ancestors-who were probably  also hated when they came.

4. We are not special because of where we are born. We are not given a birthright to be wealthy, prosperous, and comfortable because we were born in the United States. We have been blessed, so we can bless others.

5. To simply make a whole class of people permanently undocumented and illegal, without any chance of citizenship defies human dignity, human rights, and what the country was founded on.

6. Our nation needs immigrants. Without new ideas and ways of seeing the world our country is headed towards failure. What we have created now is simply unsustainable, and far from beautiful- we need immigrants to come offer us a new perspective and new vision of the United States.

7.  In our process of catching undocumented workers we have blatantly defied the whole idea of freedom and liberty and instead made some type of police states- stopping people who look Latino, punishing owners who rent out to undocumented workers, making it “illegal” to transport undocumented workers-in the process of keeping out “immigrants” we have allowed ourselves to slip into a police state.

8. We have simply let hate be passed off as immigration or “border-control” rhetoric. This needs to end. Hatred against Hispanics and Latinos is just as wrong as hatred and bigotry against Jews, African-Americans, Caucasians, Asians, or any other group.

9. Our current failed immigration system is allowed to stay the way it is because of greed. Large companies want to keep their workers undocumented, so they can keep wages low both for the immigrant population and keep out any labor rights movements by the overall population.

10. Anti-Immigrant rhetoric by law makers is done greatly to distract the blame from the real culprits of our economic decline. Instead of going after the few wealthy who are making billions at the expense of the population, the politicians are bought out by corporate interests, and the companies who do whatever they can to suppress workers’ right-they scapegoat immigrants. If they can keep people’s anger towards undocumented workers-than they continue their oppressive actions.

Bookmark to:

The power of the state, far from being a security against the attacks of our neighbors, exposes us, on the contrary to much greater danger of suck attacks. –Leo Tolstoy

There is the conventional wisdom that if you have a large military, your nation will be safe from attack. While there are obviously some examples of this being the case, especially in traditional warfare between nations, there are also many examples when having such a large army actually exposes to much more risk and danger. There have always been examples of this, but it is especially true in the modern day with the issue of terrorism.

For example: Why did the terrorists attack the United States rather than Sweden, Denmark, or Italy? All these other nations are certainly not Muslim nations, and they are opposed to many of the policies of many Middle Eastern nations. The quick and easy answer is because there military never got involved in the Middle East to the extent that the United States did. They were not in the Middle East supporting Iraq, then going against Iraq, sending military equipment to Israel, and then setting up bases in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. What we think of as “making us safe” actually led us to be put in a more vulnerable position.

I think you can say the same thing regarding our latest attempted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan-have they really made us safer or have they just opened the gates for more hatred and anger, which will results in more danger in the future?

It seems that throughout our history we have gone back and forth on this issue. At the beginning of the country, many of the founders wanted a very small military and opposed strong military action as this would actually be fatal to the Republic. Throughout history, we have moved away from that position with many times of Imperialistic expansionism (Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, Cold War Era policies). However, there have also been times when we have decided to draw down our forces and military realizing the danger that having a large military can bring.

It simply amazes me that in the current budget talks, most Republicans and Democrats are barely touching the issue of cutting military spending. They are talking about cutting healthcare for the elderly, educational funding for the poor, and overseas aid for the starving-but just bring up cutting one cent for the military budget-and all hell is raised.

How did we get to this point? Well, after World War II and the Cold War that followed, the United States created the most powerful and expansive military in the world. However, we have never drawn that military back down to a reasonable level. We could cut our military spending in half and still easily spend more on our military than any other nation. Not only is this military spending robbing us financially and socially, perhaps we should wonder if it is really keeping us safe. Perhaps, it is actually doing the opposite.

Bookmark to:

Today in my English class, I was talking with one of my students, who is a lawyer here in Costa Rica in his early fifties. He was explaining how so much of the younger generation has lost all visions of political and social action. When he was younger, in the seventies, there was much more of an awareness among the youth about how government and politics affected their lives, and in return they were much more active in social change.

In the United States, this fact is especially frustrating, as so many young people do not even go out and vote. There are many who love to complain, or just talk about how the whole system is messed up, but it seems that fewer and fewer are actually going to take the time and effort to actually to go out and fight for change. We have been walked all over in the last couple of decades by a small group of the rich and powerful, and for the most part we have just taken it.

However, perhaps change is on the horizon. This past week, as Greece and Great Britain look to take care of their financial problems by cutting the pensions and benefits of their public employees, many people are fighting back. There is a realization that the working and middle class have been completely trampled on for the interests and the wealth of a few. There is a realization that unless a strong cry of resistance is actually made, the rich and powerful will not stop until they have won over all the goods in the society.

Perhaps, what is happening in Greece and England can spread across the Atlantic. I know this coming July 4^th, there is going to be a large rally at the Washington Monument to protest the corporate corruption that is destroying our system of democracy. If the masses actually rose up and refused to let the few continue to fight for their interest at the expense of the entire nation, there would be massive change. If the people actually would actually go out and take a stand against cutting health care and education to keep tax breaks for a huge wealthy, those in power would be defenseless to stop it. Their plans and ideas would be exposed for the foolishness, selfishness, and greed which they are. We need a little more anger, a little more action, a little more passion. Not until, we actually start paying attention and demanding a just system will the situations that are facing us change.

Bookmark to:

“Lord, protect our decisions, because making Decision is a way of praying. Give us the courage after our doubts, to be able to choose between one road and another. May our YES always be a YES and our NO always be a NO. Once we have chosen our road, may we never look back nor allow our soul to be eaten away by remorse.”-Paulo Coelho

There is a time to pass through a period of self doubt. There should be a time when we look back and reflect on our decisions we are making in our life. However, we should not live in that space. There comes a time where we need to make a decision and go with it, with the positives and negatives, gains and losses which are sure to come.

We live in a day of many choices. Most people in the past did not have much choice when it came to a career; you simply did what your father or your mother did. Most people did not even have much of a choice when it came to marriage. The bride or groom was usually selected for you, or at the best you chose the close family friend (or distant relative) that you had been with since the day of your birth.

Today, we have tons of choices. We go to the supermarket, and we have 100 different choices to choose from. We think that this abundance of choice makes us happy, but often leads to indecisiveness and an inability to be happy with our choices. The same is true in our careers, relationships, and big choices in life.

There is a time and place where we need to simply put the second guessing of our lives behind and simply follow the path that we have been put in to the best of our abilities. If we feel we should make a large change in our life, we should pursue it; however, we should never live our lives looking backwards with regret. So often our past successes and failures, keep us from being happy where we are at in this very moment. So much thinking of what “could have been” keeps us from experiencing joy and peace in this very moment.

Jesus told us told us that if we have faith the size of a mustard seed we could move mountains in our lives. However, the mountains will never move, greatness will never come, and our dreams will be realized if we cannot learn to move beyond regret, remorse, and second guessing and living fully and freely with the choices we have made. Let us seek the Spirit to help to make beautiful choices with our lives and the strength to not look back, but rather move forward, once those decisions have been made.

Bookmark to:

Who do you think pays a higher percentage of their income in taxes: the millionaire Wall Street investment broker or the average school teacher? Who pays a higher rate: Billionaire Warren Buffet or his secretary? Unfortunately, in our current system the school teacher and the secretary pay a higher percentage of their salaries in taxes than either the Wall Street Broker or Warren Buffet. How is this possible? Well, the Wall Street Broker and Warren Buffet make their money through stocks and investments, so the top tax rate they will pay on this is 15%. However, the average worker will be paying at a higher rate, because they earn their money through a simple traditional job.

There are arguments that people make for having lower capital gains taxes. Among these is that people will no longer invest if they know that their capital gains will be taxed at a higher rate. I find this extremely hard to believe. I am pretty sure Wall Street will not shut down if they raise the tax rates on the gains people make at the end of the year. The bottom line is that capital gains are the least deserved income. That income is made off the backs of the workers. However, while the workers are paying higher portions of their income in taxes, the people who are often reaping outstanding benefits from their work are paying a lower percentage in taxes. Does this sound fair or just?

The famous investor Warren Buffet commented on this and explained how he feels he is highly under taxed, and that it is simply not fair or even logical. I wish more people had the mindset of Buffet, but unfortunately the amount of people on Wall Street who think this way are few and far between. Our society is heading towards huge economic problems, yet those who are making some of the highest gains in society, are giving the least back. The inequality continues to grow, and our insane tax structure continues to favor the wealthy and powerful while strangling the poor, working, and middle classes.

Bookmark to:

In our society, we are at a time of the most inequality since the 1920’s. You would think that people would say that it is enough, at the very minimum try to keep it where it is or try to start bringing back the other direction. However, it seems that many are trying to keep on pushing it further and further. The problem is that when you try to push for more inequality in a society that is already drenched in extreme disparity you eventually throw the whole society over the cliff. Unfortunately, that seems to be what is happening now.

Some of the proposals by the latest Republican candidates seem so extreme that is almost comical. There is Bachmann’s plan to completely eliminate the capital gains tax, essentially giving many of our millionaires and billionaires tax-free status. Then there is the proposal by Pawlenty who wants to bring down the taxes on the top wage earners to under 10 percent. Obviously, neither one of these proposals could ever feasibly be passed, but the mere fact that they are being discussed is simply mind-blowing.

If we study the 1920’s and the time of extreme disparity of wealth, we realize that it soon led to the crash and depression of the whole economic system. We can only live in a 1920’s society for so long until we reach the reality of the 1930’s, we are approaching that time now.

Right now in the nation our economic policies are already to the far right, we have the lowest taxes on the wealthy and the corporations that we have had in decades, union representation is at an all time low, and we are being forced to cut more and more programs for the poor, while also cutting more government programs and jobs. So many of our jobs have been outsourced, and we are facing the prospects of extreme unemployment. If we push our nation any farther to the right we will greatly suffer. We don’t need the Tea Party, what we really need is a grassroots Progressive movement to somehow rescue us from the unequal society we have become. We already have our lesson from history; hopefully, we can wake up before we have to face the same terrible consequences again.

The link to the photo can be found at: www.expresso.pt

Bookmark to:

At the Republican Presidential Debate this week, one of the issues that surfaced was the issue of Muslims in the government. Some of the candidates, such as Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain suggested that all Muslims take a “special” oath to prove their highest allegiance to the United States. Obviously, it is deeply disturbing to make any one group have special scrutiny and rules only based on their religious belief. However, the thing that perhaps bothers me more is why Christians are not even considered in having to give a “special” oath. Has our allegiance to the country become so strong that governmental officials no longer have to worry about us following the Kingdom of God over the allegiance to the United States?

I know some Christian groups (Mennonites, Anabaptists) refuse to pledge their allegiance to the United States. They see this as a huge conflict with their allegiance to the Kingdom of God, especially because the two so often contradict one another. However, Christians overall in the United States have had no problem pledging their allegiance to the United States. It is as if that is where our ultimate allegiance lies, and the Kingdom of God will just have to fit into the mold that the U.S. society has placed for it.

It was not always this way. In the Roman Empire, Christians were often seen as subversive for their unwillingness to be involved in the empire building of the Romans. In fact, the spread of Christianity in many ways helped bring down the Roman Empire, because the Christians loyalty was no longer to a state but to the Kingdom. They refused to fight in Rome’s pointless and futile wars, and they essentially weakened the empire. Many of the early Christians were not persecuted as much for their “religious” beliefs as they were for their political and social actions, which threatened the Empire. Have we moved so far away from that today that the government just takes Christians ultimate loyalty for granted?

Obviously, Christians should live in peace and submit to the governmental officials. However, that does not mean that they simply give ultimate allegiance to that system. There are times when the laws of men conflict with the higher law of God and justice, and civil disobedience is called for. I would love in the future political debates that the presidential candidates would ask for “special loyalty” oaths from Christians because their love for justice and the Kingdom of God was so great that they were seen as subversive to the empire.

Bookmark to:

Alabama has never been known as a bastion of tolerance. There was of course their infamous governor turned presidential candidate, George Wallace, who wanted to keep segregation alive and well in the South. There were their famous resistance to the Civil Right’s Movement and Martin Luther King. While there is obviously still structural racism against African-Americans in Alabama, it seems to be lately surpassed by a racism and intolerance towards immigrants. This past month, Alabama signed into law new anti-immigration legislation which is more extreme than the infamous law signed by Arizona last year.

The new law would have many of the same provisions as the Arizona law, but it would also punish any tenant who rented out property to an undocumented worker, it would also require schools to check the immigration status of parents before the kids were enrolled. This of course will just keep many children from even going to school since their parents may be fearful of deportation.

What makes me most saddened and disgusted is that the new governor who signed the bill into law was the strong “Christian” candidate for governor. It almost seems that anyone who is going to run as a “Christian” candidate makes decisions that are the most un-Christian when in office. It is a sad and bitterly ironic reality.

Lynrd Skynrd wrote the famous song “Sweet Home Alabama” to defend Alabama and their racist governor against the comments that had been made against them, particularly by famous song writer Neil Young. The song states that in “Alabama They Love the Governor,” even when that state’s governor and politicians promote blatantly racist and discriminatory policies. In some ways, Alabama has made great advances since those days of the 1960’s and 70’s, and I know there are progressive voices there trying to fight for change; however, in other ways it feels like we are back in the days of Wallace again. And be sure that Alabama is not a sweet home for the many immigrants who trying to merely make ends meet and our having to face extreme xenophobia.

Bookmark to:

We have been told that if we can just educate our nation’s children more, poverty will greatly decrease. On one hand, there is some truth in this. Obviously, because of our advancements in society, we have dealt with many of the issues of poverty, hunger, and disease that were major concerns only 100 years ago, but today are essentially non-issues. Advancements in technology have allowed us to overcome many of the hurdles to having a more prosperous society.

However, there is also a danger in this philosophy. We cannot simply support “the importance of education”, but never deal with other issues such as labor rights, a strong social safety net, and government regulations to help lessen some of the dramatic effects of inequality. We can have the best education system in the world, with perfect teachers, outstanding scores, and high quality technology, but still have poverty if the extremely wealthy are essentially given free range over the economy.

I think we can see this happening now. Students are getting into large debt to fund their college and university educations, only to find out that their earning power is pretty low in the new economic market. Also, due to many of the free trade agreements and the tendency of companies to take all their jobs overseas, they are finding that a large number of people are competing for fewer and fewer positions.

The lie that was told us during this age of globalization, international free markets and trade, and unbridled Capitalism, was that if we just focused on education our problems would be solved. We are just now waking up to the reality that we have been tricked. Of course it is vital to have a good education system, but if we don’t have a just economic system to support it, than it will do little good in actually stopping poverty.

Bookmark to:

While the news and public are obsessing on another sexual exploit of a politician, real issues are just overlooked. Those in power and the media love to distract us with insignificant stories, so they can continue support the status quo.

Was what Anthony Weiner did pathetic? Yes. Should we be making this a large news story? No. Should he step down? Not unless every other corrupt politician resigns. In the end, Weiner, with his immature sexual exploits, is still much more of a force for good in the congress than the overwhelming majority who solely stand up for corporate interest.

It is funny that his actions cause so much more outrage than our congressional system which has essentially become a scheme for corporations and the wealthy to make out big.  When a Congressman sends some sexual photo himself, we are outraged; however, when they sell out our future, education system, and health for corporate profits, we just excuse it as business as usual in Washington.

It was an unfortunate situation, and it will certainly damage or even ruin Rep. Weiner’s reputation and mission. However, in the end, our political system has much more to worry about than a representative sending a sexual photo over Twitter. Our political system is essentially becoming an Oligarchy, our economy is becoming ruled by the very few rich, and we worried about stories that should really be reserved for the tabloids.

Bookmark to:

I have been reading an amazing book by Upton Sinclair (The Jungle) called “They Call Me Carpenter.” It is about the era of the 1920’s, when social inequality and injustice was at a great high in the nation. Workers were striking because of mistreatment by management, slums were filling up, and the rich were getting wealthier every single day. However, despite all the blatant injustice and exploitation of the era, the nation still considered itself a society greatly based on the teachings of Jesus.

In the midst of this environment comes Jesus Christ. He is accepted and loved by the poor, outcast, and workers, but he is soon despised and feared by the wealthy, powerful, and “Christian leaders.” He is accused of being a Bolshevik, a socialist radical, and a dangerous pacifist. The church is fearful of him, because he defies so many of their traditions and what they stand for. As the book progresses, the hatred and fear against Jesus soon turn to violence.

Even though this book was written in the 1920’s, the message is so relevant today, especially due to the fact that our current political state seems to be digressing to those days. The vital questions are presented in the book: How would Jesus really be accepted if he were to come back today? What would today’s Christian leaders think of him? Would he be rejected as some type of radical? The questions are disturbing, but something we should all consider. What would happen if Jesus was among us today, how would we treat him?

In the book, Jesus sums up the era he comes back to this way,

“Rome was rough, and crude, and poor. Rome was nothing to this. This is Satan on my Father’s throne, making new worlds for himself.”

But he also gives these words of prophecy, yet hope,

“The days of the exploiter are numbered. The thrones of the mighty are tottering, and the earth shall belong to them that labor. He that toils not, neither shall he eat, and they that grow fat upon the blood of the people-they shall grow lean again”

It is a quick read which is now in the public domain. If you any type of Kindle or e-book device, you can download it for free. I would highly recommend it. It is an eye opening look at historical fiction that is untold importance and relevance today.

Bookmark to:

There has been a backlash in much of the Christian community against relativism. However, it is often been replaced by something that can also be dangerous-absolute moral rules. Relativism can be dangerous by giving any type of idea, no matter how unethical or immoral, some type of credence. Absolute morals on the other hand, often mean not doing the most caring and ethical thing in a given situation, and are the direct opposite of what Christ called us to-Freedom.

In the Gospel of Matthew, an interesting story is told of a time where Jesus’ disciples were condemned for breaking that absolute moral law of not working on the Sabbath,

¹ At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. ² When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.”

³ He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? ⁴ He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. ⁵ Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? ⁶ I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. ⁷ If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’^[a] you would not have condemned the innocent. ⁸ For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

When Jesus came to earth, he started a new Kingdom where people are no longer under the law. They are now under a deeper, more freeing, yet greatly more demanding paradigm-called the Kingdom of God. However, we like to live our lives like we are still under absolute moral rules. Let me give a few examples:

Lying- There have been people that have made the very important value of honesty into an absolute moral rule that can never be broken. A video was released during Delaware Senatorial Candidate, Christine O’Donnell, campaign with a show she had with Bill Mahr in the 90s. In the video she states it is always wrong to lie, even in the most extreme situations; the example was presented about Nazis looking for Jews, and she stated that there would have to be some resolution to the situation besides lying, because it is always wrong to not tell the truth. Really??? I remembered we had a similar discussion when I was in 9^th grade, and many of the fellow students said it would still be a “sin” or “wrong” to lie in this situation. Even at a ninth grade level, I was simply dumbfounded. What type of system of morality do we have that allows innocence to possibly suffer for the sake of following in absolute moral law?

Violence- Though I definitely lean more towards more pacifist positions; I think there can also be a possible danger in them. I have read some books from Pacifists who say that they would not even use violence if it was for the cause of defending their own family. They refer to the Sermon on the Mount, and turn these new revelations of Jesus into strict moral codes. If someone was going after my wife or child, what kind of man would I be if I was not willing to use violence against that person to save them? I think the pacifists of the world are so needed and I deeply respect them. I have loved reading the works of such Pacifists as Leo Tolstoy. However, even something has amazing and pure as non-violence cannot be turned into an absolute moral values. The Sermon on the Mount shows a new way to live; if we turn into cold, inflexible laws, we are doing the words of Jesus a great disservice.

Laws and guidelines are important, please don’t get me wrong. But they are not there as the ultimate goal,; justice, goodness, and love are the ultimate goals. In those rare occasions where the guideposts of laws and rules we have been given interfere with the greater good, then there is a higher law. Jesus did not come to give us absolute moral values, he came to free us to live a pure, joyful, and grace filled life in the Kingdom of God.

Bookmark to:

We all want to be productive with our life and with our time. That is something very positive. I know I have a strong desire to be productive and make good use of my time and resources. However, there is also a danger in this. What if being productive, busy, and useful can actually hinder us from entering and accepting true life? What if in our pursuit of doing more, we miss out on the whole point of life?

In the gospels, a story is told about two sisters, Mary and Martha. It is recorded in the 10^th chapter of Luke,

“³⁸ As Jesus and the disciples continued on their way to Jerusalem, they came to a certain village where a woman named Martha welcomed him into her home. ³⁹ Her sister, Mary, sat at the Lord’s feet, listening to what he taught. ⁴⁰ But Martha was distracted by the big dinner she was preparing. She came to Jesus and said, “Lord, doesn’t it seem unfair to you that my sister just sits here while I do all the work? Tell her to come and help me.”

⁴¹ But the Lord said to her, “My dear Martha, you are worried and upset over all these details! ⁴² There is only one thing worth being concerned about. Mary has discovered it, and it will not be taken away from her.”

Martha doesn’t seem to have an unfair complaint. She is doing all the housework, and her sister is doing little to nothing. Why won’t she simply help her out? However, Mary is sitting at the feet of the Savior of the World, and all the things she could be doing start to seem irrelevant. She could be cleaning dishes and sweeping the floor or shecould be looking into the eyes of love and grace fully revealed.

In many ways, we are currently busier than at any other time in history. In some ways, we may actually have less “official” hours at work, but we find a way to fill up our schedules with more and more. We are busy being productive, but are we taking time to actually renew and refresh ourselves? We could be like Martha running from place to place and miss the most beautiful reality right in front of us?

Bookmark to:

Jesus told an interesting story in Luke about a farmer who had a great harvest; he decided that he did not have room for all his crops, so he built up bigger barns to hold all of his crops. However, as soon as he had finished up this project, his life was taken from him. He had saved up his riches, but he soon died and his striving and saving seemed foolish.

It is somewhat of a puzzling story and message. Should we not save up our money? Is it wrong to build up bigger barns? Is it not wise to save up for our retirement? Some will try to overspiritualize this passage, and deny any of the economic or social ramifications that it entails, simply seeing it as showing the importance of focusing on God. While I certainly think this is implied in the passage, we would be not doing the passage justice to simply leave it that.

Jesus preached a radical message of the Kingdom of God, one that made many people, especially the rich and powerful, very uncomfortable. He told a rich young ruler to sell all his goods and give them to the poor. He told parables which essentially denounced the wealth and excess of the few and favored the beggar, poor, and lame (Rich man and Lazarus). I wonder how Jesus would be received today? How would he respond when he told us how foolish we are to be spending all our effort and time accumulating more and more? How would he be treated when he told us to give our excess to the poor rather than hoarding it in our barns? Would we be outraged when he told us that our whole desire for more wealth was foolishness that would soon be revealed for what it was?

The irony is that if you turn the majority of the preachers on TV today, they would say that God wants you to be wealthy, and even to live in excess. However, how you can reconcile that with the teachings and life of Jesus is hard to imagine. It is a challenging message. It is one that is meant to make us comfortable. However, sometimes that through that feeling of unease real change can result. Is it wrong to save up for retirement? No, but the ramifications of our saving, wealth, giving, and greed are of utmost importance for the Kingdom of God and our own spiritual wholeness.

Bookmark to:

Sometimes the inequality of wealth is so disturbingly and blatantly displayed that we can’t help but notice-that is what happened today when I saw an article on a news outlet about a celebrities’ engagement ring. While our politicians are claiming how broke we are as a nation, how medical assistance needs to be cut, and how are debt is going out of control-the wealthy are paying the lowest taxes in decades and living in more extravagance than ever.

What is so disturbing about the reality star’s 2 million dollar engagement ring? It is the simple slap in the face; it presents the true reality that while the overwhelming majority of the population is fighting to get by, others are living in such luxury and excess that they can afford 2 million on an engagement ring. It is the fact that while Republican leaders complain about the “high tax” rates of the wealthy, the rest of the society is suffering.

The scary thing is that I don’t think we are even shocked or outraged much by this type of waste and excessive luxury. Back in the late 1800’s, when the extremely wealthy threw extravagant parties, they were often condemned by the greater public for their immoral flaunting of their wealth. Today we have whole shows and networks which are basically designed to show celebrities and the rich flaunting their wealth.

Instead of actually working for a more just society, we have basically resigned and accepted this disturbing excess of wealth. Hopefully, we will come to a point where we realize that extravagance and excess is not something we should worship, but rather that is a danger to having a true and just democratic society. As long as we worship wealth, we will never really confront the problems that we currently face.

Bookmark to:

In his famous novel, 1984, George Orwell describes his nightmarish totalitarian society, a police state with complete surveillance and control over its inhabitants. Last night, we took another step forward in that direction. Obama just renewed the Patriot Act that was originally created right after the events of 9/11. While the Patriot Act is supposed to protect us from terrorist attacks, it also opens the door for complete government surveillance, tracking, and power. Do I think that the U.S. is going to turn into a complete police state under Obama? No, but we are opening the door to allow untold liberties to be simply taken away in the future, especially if we are going through another type of crisis or disaster.

Let’s imagine what will happen when we enter a serious conflict; let’s say like another World War. In the past, the government turned from a free, liberal democracy into a type of police state very quickly. The worst example of this was in World War I with President Woodrow Wilson who essentially made it illegal to speak out our write against the war movement. Back then, it was somewhat hard to track people, can you imagine what would happen today with our technology and Internet communications? The government could have complete control.

The nightmare of 1984 could become more of a reality. People like to make the book, 1984, simply a critique against Communism. While it was certainly written in opposition to Stalin and the policies of the Soviets, Orwell himself had been a Socialist. It was not about the economic system; it is what happens when a police state takes over. This can happen in a left wing or right-wing government. It could happen to us.

One of my favorite podcasts comes from a man named Dan Carlin. He gives a great illustration about our growing military industrial complex and our growing police state. He compares it to a gun that we buy to keep our family safe, only later to find out to our own horror that the gun was the weapon used to actually kill our family. In the process of trying to keep ourselves safe, we could be endangering ourselves more than we ever know.

Bookmark to:

For our end of the year party here at the school, we went to the house of the U.S. ambassador. It was a very nice house, and they threw a very good party. However, there was something disheartening to see this extremely expensive house for the ambassador which takes up a whole city block in the most expensive part of the city. How much tax money is the U.S. government spending solely in Costa Rica? How much more are they spending in many other countries around the world to have a huge foreign service? How we can afford to build palaces in foreign lands and not be able to care for our own sick and elderly in our own culture?

There is a great example from Rome. Rome wanted to build the greatest empire in the history of the world, but in the process they forgot about their own society, and before they knew it, the city of Rome had fallen. They had tried taking over the known world, but in the process had let their own society fall.

The amount of money that we are currently spending on our military, embassies, and foreign presence in other countries is simply mind blowing. How we can afford a 592 million dollar embassy in Iraq, and then not afford to pay for medicine for our elderly? How can we afford to spend billions of dollars on a war in Afghanistan, and then not provide a sufficient safety net for our poor, unemployed, and disabled? What will happen if we continue to build up our empire overseas and our huge military at the expense of building up our society? The exact same thing that happened to Rome; we will come to ruin. Unless we can turn our sword and into ploughshares, until we can turn our empire building into a society with better educational opportunities for all, universal healthcare, and a secure safety net, we will never prosper a society. It is time to stop spending so much expanding our empire, and time to actually start building up our Republic.

Bookmark to:

Obama has been highly criticized by many on the right, including many of the Christian community, for not completely aligning himself with Israel’s position and goals concerning the Palestinians and Israeli territory. However, I wonder if Jesus were alive today if we be more criticized by the Christian Community for his position on Israel.

The reality is that when Jesus came to earth, he made the sons of Abraham very angry. He basically told them that their position as Jews and sons of Abraham was irrelevant if they did not live a life filled with justice and love. He did not come preaching a pro-Israeli message, rather he came preaching a message of the Kingdom of God, a Kingdom of justice that extends beyond any border, and which does not put one group of people above another. A Kingdom where there is no longer any Jew or Gentile.

Jesus always tended to always stand up for the oppressed and powerless; he was critical of those in power who used their influence to oppress others. I understand there is much complexity and grey in the current conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians. Neither side is without significant grievances and blame. However, I don’t believe Jesus would simply be pro-Israeli in this situation, rather he would be pro-justice. It is sad that in the Christian community, especially in the U.S, it is become more important to be pro-Israeli than pro-justice. Many think they will be on the side of God if they are on the side of Israel, even if the Israeli actions are unjust. However, if they really want to be on God’s side, they should be on the side of the poor and oppressed the side of compassion, fairness, and justice.

The reality is that Obama’s latest comments and positions are still highly pro-Israel; the individuals that he is saying that he is “throwing Israel under the bus” are either simply paying politics or are so blinded by a pro-Israeli agenda that they can’t see the need of compromise and justice for the Palestinian people. As long as injustice is allowed to prosper, there will never be peace.

Bookmark to:

In the gospel of Luke, a story is told of a time when Jesus made many Jewish people angry by his remarks, stating how their nationality was irrelevant to the Kingdom of God and how God was doing amazing works among other people, while they were missing out because of their own hardness of heart.

“²²All who were there, watching and listening, were surprised at how well he spoke. But they also said, “Isn’t this Joseph’s son, the one we’ve known since he was a youngster?”

^23-27He answered, “I suppose you’re going to quote the proverb, ‘Doctor, go heal yourself. Do here in your hometown what we heard you did in Capernaum.’ Well, let me tell you something: No prophet is ever welcomed in his hometown. Isn’t it a fact that there were many widows in Israel at the time of Elijah during that three and a half years of drought when famine devastated the land, but the only widow to whom Elijah was sent was in Sarepta in Sidon? And there were many lepers in Israel at the time of the prophet Elisha but the only one cleansed was Naaman the Syrian.”

^28-30That set everyone in the meeting place seething with anger. They threw him out, banishing him from the village, then took him to a mountain cliff at the edge of the village to throw him to his doom, but he gave them the slip and was on his way.” (The Message)

It seems that Jesus insulted their sense of nationality and patriotism, and he almost paid a heavy price at that very moment. Ultimately, he was killed by these people. Though an insult on their nationalistic ideas was not the only reason he was killed; it certainly was one of the factors. The Jewish people of the time felt that they had a special “in” with God, because they were sons of Abraham, and Jesus came exclaiming the Kingdom of God to everyone and that there was no favoritism with God.

As humans, nationalism has been one of the greatest sources of evil in the world; it has led to unknown wars, atrocities, and injustice. It has caused people to turn from the idea of a global community to a very ethnocentric point of view. It has caused people to assume that they have a special place with God or supernatural importance without having any merits for their claim. Just as nationalism was a problem in Jesus’ day; it is a problem today.

There is an unfortunate idea going around in the U.S. called American Exceptionalism, that somehow the U.S. is especially blessed by God in its endeavors and history. Obviously, this is embraced by many who have a strong sense of nationalism; however, it is a dangerous philosophy which basically justifies our actions, including our many unjust actions, as somehow not only sanctioned, but blessed by God.

What would Jesus say about nationalism today if he were here? Has the situation changed much from the time of Ancient Israel? Would he be hated as a traitor or unpatriotic citizen? Would he be despised because he came to bring the message of a Kingdom which often comes into strong conflict with nationalist interests? As we read through the gospels, the answers become clear. Jesus had little interest in promoting the greatness or blessedness of any nation; he was more concerned about spreading the Kingdom of God to people from every nation, tongue, and tribe.

Bookmark to:

Some people see spirituality as a very personal thing that should be kept that way, while others see it is something that should be loudly proclaimed in the streets. Who is correct? Well, both are right and both are wrong.

Throughout the scriptures, you see a mixture of both responses depending on the individual and situation. One of the most famous incidents is recorded in the book of Luke at the birth of Jesus. After the birth of Jesus, the shepherds are overjoyed by the birth of the Messiah, and they want to tell everyone; however, Mary decides rather than proclaiming the truth on the street that she would keep it to herself. The Message describes it this way,

“They (the shepherds) told everyone they met what the angels had said about this child. All who heard the shepherds were impressed. Mary kept all these things to herself, holding them dear, deep within herself.”

There are some individuals who see spirituality and faith as something very personal and then when it leaves that realm of the very personal it becomes somewhat profane. Others see faith and religion as something very public, which they need to always be proclaiming. There are strengths and weaknesses in both positions; the hope is that we can find some balance.

On one hand, Jesus talked about the Kingdom of God and shining your light to all men. There is something very important about spreading the message of Jesus as he stated to the very ends of the earth. Solely keeping your spirituality personal can lead to our own spiritual suffocation, as part of faith is sharing it. One the other hand, there is great wisdom in speaking only in wisdom and not just throwing out our thoughts and ideas on faith only to be “trampled” upon by people who are not desiring the message.

It always makes me cringe when I see some conservative pastor on a news show who is simply trying to preach the whole time regardless of the interviewer’s questions. They think they are doing the right thing by spreading the message of God, but they fail to see the wisdom in sometimes holding their tongue and keeping their spiritual message to themselves. However, there are other individuals who have a wealth of knowledge and grace to give other people, who simply keep it locked up inside because they are too afraid or too ashamed to speak out.

Perhaps, there is a time to speak out and a time to remain quiet. Neither position is inherently good or inherently bad. They both can be very positive and very damaging. Let’s pray that God gives us the wisdom to grow in our knowledge of him, and the wisdom to know when the time is to spread that message and when the time is to keep it deep inside and let it grow into something even greater within us.

Bookmark to:

“How many millions of such poor deluded wretches there were, who lives had been so stunted by Capitalism that they no longer knew what freedom was! And they really thought it was “individualism” for tens of thousands of them to herd together and obey the orders of a steel magnate, and produce hundreds of millions of dollars of wealth for him.” (Upton Sinclair-The Jungle)

Why do so many people in the lower and middle classes continue to fight for an economic policy which puts them at a huge disadvantage for the profit of a very rich minority? One of the reasons is that a lie has been propagated- if you work really hard, you can be one of those rich few. Would you want have to pay such high taxes if you worked your whole life to reach that point of wealth? We hear of the stories from books/movies such as the “Pursuit of Happiness” and assume that this is something that we are all capable of, when in reality it is a freak incident that only happens to one in a million.

We allow our economic system to become more and more unequal, because this false “hope” has been planted in people’s minds. This false hope is a nice dream put out by those who don’t want the status quo to change. If people could only realize that they need some type of redistribution if they have ever want a chance to succeed. Let me give a few examples.

One of the few ways that people have been able to rise up to a higher “status” in society is because of public education, a form of social redistribution of wealth. If we cripple our public school system and its employees (which seems to be the goal of many politicians) even this leveling mechanism of public education will fail. Public education has given many a more equal opportunity in society, but as public education goes down and public university education becomes more expensive, the chances of succeeding become but a dream for most.

Another example is programs like Medicare and Social Security. These programs have given the older generation a chance to actually live the end of their lives in some type of comfort and dignity, and less have to live in utter poverty. However, as these programs are being threatened, the chances of these older generation succeeding is startling to dwindle; instead what they may come to expect is a shorter life and a fight to simply survive.

Let’s expose the lie that “you could be rich too” for the simple falsehood it is. The only way most people are going to have a better life is if they live in a more just society where they are actually given opportunities to succeed and fair benefits and rewards for the work they put in. Pure Laissez-Faire puts a few people in grand palaces, while leaving the rest to beg and plead for the few pieces of bread they may choose to give out to their lowly servants.

Bookmark to:

I was talking to one of my fellow teachers today. She was born in Iraq and grew up in Pakistan. We were talking about her mother’s response to the killing of Bin Laden. Her mother, like many others from the Middle East, have a much different perspective than we might in the West. While most do not like Bin Laden, or even disdain him, they see him as a product of the United States, both in the U.S. direct training and arming of Bin Laden and the Taliban in the late 70’s and 80’s, and in the indirect way in which U.S. policy has led to the rise in terrorism.

I think we should take this to heart. It is easy to paint ourselves as good and our enemies as evil, but deep down we know that things are not so black and white. The terrorists have chosen to do terrible acts out of their hatred towards the United States. While their actions are horrific and never should be justified, we would be foolish to not take into account or own role in the creation of terrorism.

Jimmy Carter warned the U.S. people in 1980 about the dangers that we would face if we did not wean off our addiction to oil; he warned that we would be forced to engage in conflicts and situations that we never would have if oil was not an issue. His prophetic warning mainly fell on deaf ears, and Ronald Reagan was elected the next president. 30 years later, we now realize the wisdom in Carter’s words. Our entrenchment in the politics and power struggles of the Middle East have cost us dearly, have help lead to the rise of terrorism, and undermined our own security. If we want to move forward into a more peaceful world, we have to reduce our tendency to get involved in conflicts that we should stay out of which causes us to have many enemies in the process.

If we really want to stop terrorism; we cannot pretend that we are not partially responsible. It may make us feel good about ourselves, but it will not address and solve the underlying issues. With the death of Bin Laden, we have a choice- we can either see him as pure evil or we can understand the hatred and our own actions that led him to do evil and horrific things. While we need to pursue justice to go against terrorist, we also need to understand the actions we are doing that are creating them in the first place.

Bookmark to:

In my Ancient Civilizations class, we have been discussing about Ancient Rome and how the depravity of the society led the people to go to the arena and watch other individuals, enemies of the state, be torn alive. It was their entertainment. It was bloodlust, and it was justified because the people being killed were enemies of the state and deserved the death. Some of the individuals being killed were truly criminals and had done horrendous things, while others were simply political or religious minorities (most notably Christians)

There has been a recent call for the Obama Administration to release the pictures and videos of the death of Bin Laden. I sincerely hope that they refuse to do this. While we can all rejoice that an evil man is no longer to threat, to gloat in his death with the pictures and videos of his dead cadaver is something that should not be applauded in the 21^st Century. In one way it is understandable to understand people’s bloodlust over a man who did so many horrendous actions; however, on the other hand it is awakening the darkest parts of our soul that we should run from rather than explore.

While I do believe we have advanced morally and ethically since the days of Ancient Rome with the gladiator fights, wild animals tearing humans apart, and the chaos of the Coliseum, in another way, perhaps that same bloodlust still finds its self reappearing from time to time in our society. I hope that the death of Bin Laden helps bring a certain aspect of evil to an end; however, if we are not careful the death of this man could release something evil, sinister, and depraved inside of us. If we are trying to find satisfaction for our need for revenge, we will never find it- no matter how many pictures and videos are released or how many additional terrorists are killed. Bloodlust and the need for revenge are most tragic because they can never be satisfied until they destroy our own souls.

Bookmark to: