Wendell Berry once so wisely wrote, “Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy.” Though that is the way society should work, there are many that are on the top of society who prefer the survival of the fittest model to be the way we run our world. Perhaps, it is not said that blatantly, but in the policies and rhetoric it comes out.

Essentially, this idea of taking Darwin’s ideas on evolution and applying them to human society is nothing new; this was a growing movement at the turn of the century both in the U.S. and Europe. The idea was that the weak should basically fend for themselves, and those on top are there because they deserve it. It was the justification given for the massive colonialism and domination of indigenous groups. At the end, Hitler took these ideas of Social Darwinism to their most extreme, and the theory was basically exposed for the evil it was.

No politician will blatantly say they are a Social Darwinist, but many hold to the majority of the beliefs of this system. It seen in the writings of right wing heroes like Ayn Rand and her philosophy of Objectivism, where selfishness is the highest morality. The poor are that way because of their own fault, and the wealthy and powerful are there because of their hard work. It can be seen in the current budget plan of Congressman Paul Ryan who basically want to shred the safety net to nothing, while making sure more wealth is funneled to the wealthy through large tax cuts.

It took people in the labor movement and progressive movements to stand up to the rise of Social Darwinism at the beginning of the century and make real reforms in the country, and I believe it will take another large scale movement to say that we are not animals. We do not operate by a system of the survival of the fittest. We are humans, and all people should be treated with dignity, care, justice, and equality.

Bookmark to:

“They were always fighting for something the bastards and if anyone dared say the hell with fighting it’s all the same each war is like the other and nobody gets any good out of it why they hollered coward. If they weren’t fighting for liberty they were fighting for independence or democracy or freedom or decency or honor or their native land or something else that didn’t mean anything. The war was to make the world safe for democracy for the little countries for everybody. If the war was over now then the world must be all safe for democracy. Was it? And what kind of democracy? And how much? And whose?”

So wrote Dalton Trumbo in his famous anti-war book, Jonny Get Your Gun. The famous book was written after the horrible events of World War I. Before the war, many had forgotten how atrocious war really was, and many countries haphazardly entered the war without any real reason. After the war, those who fought realized that war was hell; it was something that should be avoided at all cost.

It seems that in many ways, we are living in the same era as those who were so quick and foolish to rush into the First World War. We have forgotten the horror of war. For one, most of so are removed from the actual conflict that we do not even have to worry about it. Foreign Middle Eastern civilians and unfortunate U.S. soldiers will have to experience the conflict, but not the average western citizen. So many support whatever new war effort because they see war as something heroic, purifying, or even righteous. They have never lived through war, so they have no problem supporting another one. They have forgotten the atrocities, evil, suffering, pain, and death that war brings both to those who it is inflicted on and those who are inflicting it, to both the victims and perpetrators.

As so many in the U.S. public blindly support another horrific war with Iran, a war that could be much bigger and far reaching than our previous wars with Afghanistan or Iraq, we should at least contemplate the horrors of war. Are we really willing to so nonchalantly enter another deadly conflict?

Simon Weil says it so perfectly,

“War perverts and destroys you. It pushes you closer and closer to your own annihilation—spiritual, emotional and finally physical. It destroys the continuity of life, tearing apart all systems—economic, social, environmental and political—that sustain us as human beings.”

Bookmark to:

With the Oscars for 2011 over, there was one movie this past year which certainly should be honored, and more importantly discussed. The movie is called the Conspirator. It is a film by Robert Redford about the trial of Mary Surratt after the assassination of President Lincoln. However, it is far from a mere historical retelling; it is a timely story that cuts to the very heart of many of the issues we are dealing with today.

In the film, Redford paints Surratt as innocent of the crime she was convicted of, conspiring to kill Abraham Lincoln. While this is certainly an issue that is up for historical debate, that is not the essential point of the film. What is extremely relevant today was how the U.S. government wanted to find Surratt guilty and hang her, so they did. They refused to try her in civilian court, and instead put her in a military tribunal where her fate was sealed before the trial even began.

It is a story where the law of the land, the Constitution, is simply disregarded in a time of distress and conflict. The Bill of Rights with its guarantee to a fair trial by jury is exchanged for the will of Washington. It is amazing how we have done the same thing today, even though we do not even face a fraction of the turmoil, bloodshed, or danger they faced back then. It stands to reason that if was a real threat, today’s U.S. would turn into a complete police state in a matter of weeks, or even days.

If you have not seen the movie, I would highly suggest it. It is not only a well-directed and historically intriguing film; it is a film that we need to see today. In an era of Guantanamo Bay, indefinite detentions, and unlimited executive power, we need to wake up and realize that our own rights and values are slowly slipping away.

Bookmark to:

In the U.S. it often seems that the Civil War is honored or even celebrated. For those who still hold onto the illusion of the Confederacy, it was a war of liberty and state’s rights. For most Americans, the Union cause is celebrated. Lincoln is seen as a hero for keeping the union together.

However, let’s take a look back at the deadly war. It was a horrid bloodbath where men from the same country were killing one another and in the end….for what? Yes, the war eventually was used as a tool to end slavery, but that certainly not the reason it was fought. It was fought over the right to secede vs. keeping the union together. Thousands upon thousands of men gave up their lives for whatever their sectionalist or nationalistic ideology was. Men who claimed themselves as part of the Christian faith were killing their own brothers in the faith.

In the end, like all wars, it was started for the rich and fought by the poor. Many northern business leaders would profit greatly from the Confederate States in the union for their commercial and trading interests, and the ones who would really benefit from a southern victory were a small group of elitist slave owners. On this point, it is the most disturbing of all. For the sake of a few wealthy slave owners, young southern men breathed their last breath and killed their fellow men.

The real problem is that when we obsess about wars in the past and honor their memory, we in a way sanctifying them. Instead of teaching the next generation about the awful and horrid nature of war, we justify it, saying that it was fought for a righteous cause.

As our national history is littered with one war after another and with more talk of another war with Iran on our way, we would do good to mourn our past wars, not honor them and sanctify them. We should mourn the fact whenever we choose war over peace, when we forced the young in the nation to go and kill and die. We should mourn and weep, and perhaps, we could actually find sanity and peace.

Bookmark to:

To many evangelicals and conservative Catholics today, the term the separation of church and state is seen as something dangerous for the country. However, if we take a look back at history, these were some of the groups that pushed hardest to have the separation of church and state, because they were being persecuted by the state churches.

In fact, Jefferson’s famous letter that held the ideas of the separation of church and state was not written to agnostic leaders who were concerned about religion in the public square. No, it was written to the Danbury Baptists, who had previously written to Jefferson about their desire for religious liberty in the State of Connecticut.

Jefferson responded with the famous words, “…I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

Catholics were another minority who were persecuted by some states in the early colonies. The separation of church and state was essential to them being granted religious freedom. Both the Baptists (and other “evangelical” groups) and Catholics were the minorities, and for many of them, Jefferson and his hope to build a wall between church and state was heroic and a gift from God.

It is amazing to see many modern day conservative evangelicals and Catholics decrying the separation of Church and State and actually fighting to limit religious freedom and break down the barrier of church and state, whether it is freedom to build mosques and Islamic religious centers, pushing for government funding for private religious institutions, trying to make church teachings the law of the land, and using theological litmus tests for political office.

Santorum, Gingrich, and the other conservatives who decry the separation of Church and State, should review the history surrounding the issue and realize that the separation of church and state is there to protect all people from theocratic government, both religious and non-religious people. For those who are pushing a more theocratic or religiously based government, they need to realize that in doing so, they are going against the hard fought victories of many of those who went before them.

Bookmark to:

All the talk recently has been about how the dollar is going to fall, and the U.S. is heading towards massive economic decline. This should not come as any surprise. All great empires eventually fall, whether it was the Romans or Greeks or more recently, the Spanish or British. Many see this as the end of the world, an Armageddon that is coming. However, if we choose to look it from another perspective, it is possible that the U.S. decline could actually be what rescues the country from the direction in which it is going.

My favorite podcast, Common Sense, is by a man named Dan Carlin. On his latest show he was talking about this issue. He brought up an interesting point. If you went and asked the average citizen in Great Britain, Spain, or France whether they would have rather lived in the time of the imperial greatness of their country or now, what would they say? Undoubtedly, the majority would say they prefer their government the way it is now. Imperial power and might may make a country look great on paper, but it does not necessarily mean it is in the best interest of its citizens.

Usually the most important and positive changes that have occurred in history have come in times of distress. It took the Great Depression to cause the U.S. government to limit the powers of big business and set up a responsible welfare system. It was in times of economic peril that some of the most important progressive reform was passed.

If the U.S. does start heading for a massive decline and the dollar drops  as many people suspect, the U.S. will be forced to stop being the empire of the world. The massive and insane military spending will simply no longer be a choice. The giveaways and handouts to the wealthy and corporations will be feasibly impossible. The irresponsibility of what the government has become will not be accepted. Perhaps, we will actually get democracy if the U.S. government’s power declines.

It doesn’t mean the U.S. will cease to exist, but it will have to go through some hard times like all great empires when they fall. However, hopefully, we can be like so many other countries that were able to make positive changes after their empires fell, they had stop worrying about controlling the world and they could actually listen to and respond to the voice of the people.

Bookmark to:

In my classes, we have been discussing the Mexican-American War in the mid 19^th Century. If you had to pick the most unjustified war in U.S. History, this conflict would certainly rank at the very top. It was a war that was waged by the U.S. for more land while they attempted to keep the illusion  of being the victim.

Essentially, many in the U.S, especially President James K. Polk, wanted to expand U.S. territory in the modern day southwest, and they were going to find whatever possible way to do so. However, it would look bad to just blatantly and unjustifiably strike another country. So, Polk decided that the U.S. would provoke Mexico into firing the first shot to make them seem like the aggressors. They sent troops into land that was still “disputed” after the Texas Revolution (where Texas was essentially stolen from the Mexican government), but which Mexico considered their own land. They tried setting up a military fort. Polk knew this was a move that would provoke the Mexican government. Some American troops were killed by the Mexican army, and Polk came to the Congress with the message that the U.S. had been attacked, and war was the only option.

In reality, it was a war solely to spread land; the hope of many southerners was that it would give more land for the expansion of slavery. Though some resisted the war, especially in the North, in the end most of the country walked in step out of fear of not appearing patriotic and fought a greedy and unjustified fight for the lands which are now the southwestern United States.

Here is how one of the U.S. Colonel’s, Colonel Hitchcock, put it,

“ I have said from the first that the United States are the aggressors..We have not one particle of right to be here…It looks as if the government sent a small force on purpose to bring on a war, so as to have a pretext for taking California and as much of this country as it chooses.”

I think there is a deep relation between what happened with Mexico and what is happening with Iran. The U.S. has Iran surrounded on all sides, especially with the strong presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are putting sanctions on Iran and convincing other nations to do the same. U.S. politicians are making startling remarks about attacking Iran. We are spying on them and flying over their airspace. In short…we are provoking them. Many are hoping that Iran will attack some U.S. or Israeli vessel, thus giving justification for the war on the grounds of us “defending ourselves”.

To paint Iran as the aggressor is simply mind blowing, but when that day comes and war begins, I fear many will simply drink the Kool-Aid of the media and support a war, all the while willfully ignorant of the steps that led to the war. We look back on history and say how dishonest Polk was in his dealings with Mexico and with the American public. However, it seems we have not learned from our mistakes. We are heading to another unjustified war, where though we are the aggressors, we will be able to paint ourselves as the innocent victims.

Bookmark to:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

“Here is a man who was the world’s first revolutionist..a man whose whole being was one flame of hatred for wealth, and all that wealth stands for-for the pride of wealth, and the luxury of wealth, and the tyranny of wealth; who was himself a beggar and a tramp, a man of the people, an associate of saloon-keepers and women of the town; who again and again, in the most explicit language, denounced wealth and the holding of wealth” (Upton Sinclair, The Jungle)

Do you feel discouraged that so many of the professed Christian leaders in the country stand on the side of the rich and powerful at the expense of the poor and oppressed? This is exactly the frustration which can be seen in the page of Upton Sinclair’s book, The Jungle. Towards the end of the book, the main character is talking to a minister who explains to him how the words of Jesus are very relevant to economic issues today and that far from being a simple promoter of the status quo and the rich and powerful, he was a person who stood up for the poor and oppressed and stood against those who were gaining and storing the wealth at the expense of the rest of society.

The minister goes on to explain how the words of Jesus have been used by the rich and powerful to keep up and justify their oppression, but that this is simply a perversion of the true words of Jesus. He goes on to state how this has happened, “This man (Jesus) they have made into the high priest of property and smug respectability, a divine sanction of all the horrors and abominations of modern commercial civilization! Jeweled images are made of him, sensual priests burn incense to him, and modern pirates of industry bring their dollars, wrung from the toil of helpless women and children, and build temples to him, and sit in cushioned seats and listen to his teachings expounded by doctors of dusty divinity.”

The minister concludes with these words, “Here is an historical figure whom all men reverence and love, whom some regard as divine; and who was one of us- who lived our life, and taught our doctrine. And now shall we leave him in the hands of his enemies (the rich and powerful)-shall we allow them to stifle and stultify his example? We have his words, which no one can deny.”

For all those Christians who have found the current Capitalistic system which puts the wealth in the hands of the few and leaves many impoverished as incompatible with the message and life of Jesus-take heart. There has been a long history of those in the Christian faith who have chosen to really speak out and promote the true message of justice for the poor and oppressed that Jesus promoted. There is a history of people who have refused to accept a status quo Christianity which simply allows injustice to flourish in the veil of religion.

Bookmark to:

This past Sunday, Christians around the world celebrated the Passover. We know the story of how Jesus was initially welcomed into Jerusalem with palm branches only to be crucified a few days later. The crowds were expecting Jesus to be a Simon Bolivar, George Washington, or Che Guevara. They wanted a revolutionary; they weren’t necessary looking for a Savior.

Jesus wept that Israel refused to accept the truth and life he was offering. Their hearts were so hardened that even when the light of the world was amongst them, they simply refused to see him. Jesus also wept over what he knew was going to happen to Israel if they decided to continue on in their militarism and revolutionary plans against Rome- they would be utterly destroyed.

As it states in Luke 19,

“But as he came closer to Jerusalem and saw the city ahead, he began to weep. “How I wish today that you of all people would understand the way to peace. But now it is too late, and peace is hidden from your eyes. Before long your enemies will build ramparts against your walls and encircle you and close in on you from every side. They will crush you into the ground, and your children with you. Your enemies will not leave a single stone in place, because you did not accept your opportunity for salvation.”

Jesus offered them another way, a peaceful way, one where people refuse to pick up the sword, choose to love their enemies, and follow the Kingdom of God instead of working for the greatness of a nation; however, overall Israel rejected this message. They preferred to fight for their freedom, instead of accepting the author of freedom standing before them.

During this holy week, let us not forget this. Jesus is here offering us the way to life and peace. We can choose to accept or reject it. However, when we reject the way of peace, compassion, and life, we shouldn’t be surprised if our lives are soon in disarray. Jesus came to offer us that life that we might live and live more abundantly. Jesus also speaks a strong word about the militarism that is still a large part of our world, especially our society in the U.S.

Are we refusing to see the way to peace in society? Are we so concerned about building up our military and “securing” ourselves that we have forgotten about the poor and vulnerable in society? Are we so concerned about power that we have forgotten justice? As Jesus lamented over the city of Jerusalem, perhaps we should be lamenting over our own society. If we refuse to go in the way of peace, we may find our own destruction. It may not be from an outside empire, but it could be an inward collapse of our values and decency.

Bookmark to:

Our system of government is based largely on the ideas of Rome, which had the first true Republic in the history of the World. However, before Rome, we learn about the society of Athens which had a form of direct democracy. A Republic is essentially where we select leaders to make decisions for us, and a democracy is where the people actually vote on the issues themselves.

In some ways, we do have forms of direct democracy in some states through referendums and the like. Democracy has been seen as radical by many, as the rule of the masses, something that would lead to chaos. We could see this fear and controversy from the very start of the country. Others have basically seen a direct democracy as unmanageable in a large society.  

However, what would have been practically impossible 30 or 40 years ago has been made possible with the internet. What would happen if our country moved closer towards a direct democracy and further away from a Republic that has been distorted by corruption, greedy and prideful men, and a trend towards Oligarchy? What would happen if we actually started putting decisions into the hands of the people?

I realize that direct democracy has a lot of down sides; however, I am starting to wonder if those negatives would be less detrimental than the corrupt and completely money driven republic we have today. Are the men and women in power any wiser in making the decisions for the country than the actual people would be?

With the invention of the new technology, Direct Democracy is actually a real option. Obviously, most of those in power, on all shades of the political spectrum, will try to stop any movement towards a more “democratic” system, because it would mean a loss of their own power and importance. However, can you imagine some of the possibilities? A public health option could not simply be thrown out because of lobbying by healthcare companies. A prolonged war would not just be allowed to continue with only 30% approval. This week will look at some more reasons why moving towards a more democratic form of government could actually help save the nation.

Bookmark to:

Sometimes people believe certain ideas no matter what proof and evidence proves that it is inaccurate or wrong. A perfect example of this is the theory of trickle-down economics or “Reganomics” which George H.W. Bush once described as voodoo economics. He was straight on, because it has no basis in reality.

The basic idea is that if you let the outrageously rich people keep most of their money, it will actually greatly help out the poor and middle class. Though you may have to cut the benefits for the lower classes, with more money in the hands of the rich, more jobs and opportunities will be given to the poor eventually. George W. Bush greatly subscribed to this belief, and it was his basis for his large tax reductions for the rich. However, as we have seen, since the Bush tax cuts and an increase in trickle-down economics, there has been a huge rise of unemployment, an even greater increase in income disparity, an outrageous deficit, less innovation and entrepreneurship, and overall economic decline. Trickle-down economics has been tried and it has been found wanting. More than being found wanting, it has shown to be an immoral system that hurts the bottom 98 percent at the expense of the rich and powerful in power.

However, many conservatives will hold to this theory no matter what. We heard it in the last tax debates- “Just give tax cuts to the rich and the economy will grow.” There is no proof to this, but proof and evidence is irrelevant to the true believers in trickle-down economics. There is no point to even have a rational argument about it. Reagan economics is like an irrational and false religion; it has disastrous effects, because those who are dedicated to its cause will spread its ideas no matter what basis it has in reality. I love how one of the richest man in America, Warren Buffet, put it, ““The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we’ll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you, but that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on.”

Bookmark to:

The disturbing trend that has taken power away from workers and given it to the rich and powerful is nothing new in U.S. History. In the late 1800’s it was called the Gilded Age or the Second Industrial Revolution. The leaders of industry were making insane sums of money while their workers were barely being able to support their families. As a result of this, the labor and progressive movements really took off in the nation. The masses finally realized they had power in numbers. Presidents such as Teddy Roosevelt start to limit the power of big business and gave more rights to the common worker. Another example of this was in the 20’s with its excess and the 30’s with the economic downfall that followed. The working and middle classes had enough of the excess wealth and inequality in society and decided to make major changes. They elected FDR who gave much more power to labor unions and also help the stage for the many social programs and business regulations we have today.

Today, we are faced with a similar struggle. Since the 1980’s with the election of Ronald Reagan the country has gone further and further in favor of business leaders and the wealthy and taken away more and more rights, opportunities, and wealth from the middle and lower classes. In fact, the income disparity now is the greatest it has been since the 1920’s. Perhaps, it is time for another age of progressive and labor movements. Those in power will listen if enough people rise up against the greed that has come to define our system. As we have seen in Egypt and Tunisia, the masses do have power in numbers. It is time to quit buying into the lies, fears, and false promises of those seeking to enrich their own wealth. Let us follow the path of history and limit the power and strength of the modern day robber barons. As the famous Labor Leader, John Lewis, so greatly stated, “Let the workers organize. Let the toilers assemble. Let their crystallized voice proclaim their injustices and demand their privileges. Let all thoughtful citizens sustain them, for the future of Labor is the future of America.”

Bookmark to:

Did you know Ancient Israel had a form of welfare, debt cancelation, and a complete redistribution of land? If you find yourself studying the ancient world, you will find that the nation of Israel had a care for the poor and a sense of economic justice far beyond most nations of the day, and I would contend more than most today.

According to the Torah, 1/3 of all the tithes in the country went to help out “the aliens, the fatherless, and the widows.” In a time in history where most poor and needy were left to die or fend for themselves, ancient Israel was commanded to help out the poor and needy among them. Amazing, even by today’s standards, all debts were forgiven every seventh year. Debt was considered a form of slavery, and the idea of people living their whole lives paying off debts to others was not considered congruent with justice. Any collateral “deposit” that needed to be taken for the land was also given back to the original owner whether he had paid back all the debts or not.

All the landowners were required to allow the poor among them to gather some of the crops from their land. The land owners were not allowed to take up all of their own crops; that would have been considered unjust towards the poor and immigrants among them.

The most amazing and revolutionary idea was the concept of Jubilee; every 50 years, all land had to go back to the original family and tribes that originally owned the land when the Israelites had come out of Egypt. No matter what had happened economically, whether you had done very well or very poorly, every 50 years the land would be redistributed so that every family and tribe was a given a fair chance to start again. Can you imagine this happening today? Every 50 years there is a massive redistribution; the rich have land taken from them, and the poor and needy have land given back to their family.

I have been reading this book called Generous Justice by Tim Keller which is really a great read and deals greatly with this subject. Keller states in his book, “The poor man was not to be given merely a token “handout.” Rather, credit and help were to be extended until he was completely out of poverty. The generosity extended to the poor could not be cut off until the poor person’s need was gone and until he reached a level of self-sufficiency. Now we can understand how the passage could say, “There should be no poor among you.” God’s concern for the poor is so strong that he gave Israel a host of laws that, if practiced, would have virtually eliminated any permanent underclass.” Perhaps if our society practiced just a small portion of this we wouldn’t have the disgusting inequality and injustice that so often prevail.

Bookmark to:

When we think of the idea of civil disobedience, we usually think of Martin Luther King and Gandhi. While these are some of the most powerful examples of someone willing to break the law and suffer the consequences for the cause of justice, there is one less known example which I think is equally as powerful. It is the story of the great American writer Henry David Thoreau and his resistance to the Mexican-American War.

While we may love to celebrate the Mexican-American War in many U.S. History Classes, it is nothing close to something we should be reveling in. As Ulysses S. Grant stated, ” it was one of the most unjust wars that a powerful nation waged against a weaker nation.” Essentially, the U.S. wanted land and used God’s name in vain (Manifest Destiny) to justify gaining it. Many in the South also wanted the land as it would be a good way to gain more territory to expand slavery. President James K. Polk, who himself was a Southerner, provoked the Mexicans to attack U.S. soldiers who were on their land, and thus justified waging a bloody and imperialistic war against Mexico.

Thoreau, like many Northerners and progressives, was against the Mexican-American War. However, while many Northerners eventually gave into pressure and supported the war because of the fear of not appearing patriotic, Thoreau stood his ground. He not only spoke out strongly against the war, but when time came to pay the poll tax, Thoreau refused to pay the tax as it was largely being used to support the Mexican-American War which symbolized nothing but imperialistic greed and the extension of slavery. He was arrested and put in jail for this action.

While I am in no way calling for people to not pay their taxes (though if someone was really willing to openly do this as a matter of principle and suffer the consequences, we might start seeing some real change), the example of Thoreau should really make us reconsider what we support and what we oppose in our own government and society. Most people, like most Northerners at the time, just give in and support the unjust cause because it is the popular or “American” thing to do. However, it takes some individuals like Thoreau to really show that there is another option and sometimes civil resistance and disobedience is the only way to give a real voice to legitimate social change.

Bookmark to:

It was January 2007; I went on a ski trip with some friends from Illinois out to Colorado. Everyone was going to get up early one of the mornings to go to a different ski resort, but I decided I would sleep in and go to the mountain near the apartment where we were staying. I was by myself, but soon found myself on a chair lift with a group of three Jehovah’s Witnesses. I had always heard different things about what they believed (usually in a negative context), so I wanted to use this occasion to really understand more about their faith and beliefs.

While I strongly disagree with many of the beliefs of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, there was one thing that they talked about that I still can’t get out of my head- the great spiritual danger of nationalism. One of the famous metaphors they talk about in reference to nationalism is the Great Serpent which is described in Revelations 12. “A serpent that has come to deceive the nations.” Whether John when he penned Revelations was talking about nationalism is something I do not have an answer to; however, it is clear that nationalism has led to the deception of the nations. Nation rises up against nation, even members of nations that supposedly have the same Christian beliefs. Christians have killed countless other Christians in the name of their nation and cause. No matter how many ways we try to justify that, it is extremely troubling. It is certainly the complete opposite of what Jesus was talking about when he told us to be peacemakers and love one another. How often has love for our country causes us to ignore the cries of others around the world, including others of the Christian faith?

Jehovah’s Witnesses take this idea to an extent which I strongly disagree with-including a refusal to vote or hold public office. However, perhaps we could really learn something from these individuals who refuse to fight in wars, pledge allegiance to any flag, or give their loyalty to any one nation. Perhaps, we have become callous to how nationalism has often supplanted our true call of being Disciples of Christ, lovers of our enemies, and a true spiritual family. As I am teaching U.S. History and we go over how two “Christian” nations were constantly fighting and killing each other, whether it was World War I, the wars between the British and the French, the American Civil War, the Mexican-American War, etc-it fills me with great disbelief- let’s make sure we don’t let our flag and nation over take the message and story of the Savior. Let us not allow the red, white, and blue to supplant the radical and redeeming message of the Kingdom of God which knows no border, language, or nation.

Bookmark to:

In my U.S. History classes, we are currently studying about the Irish Americans and the hysteria and discrimination that occurred during their early days in the United States in the 1800’s. From the pictures that try and compare Irish to monkeys to the unfair stereotypes that all Irish were drunks, the immigration rhetoric was certainly heated. In fact, a whole political party (the Know Nothing Party) was established with the main goal of limiting immigration. Many businesses openly discriminated against Irish employees and customers.

We look back on this hysteria as foolish. The Irish Americans became great contributors to U.S. society and actually are an essential part of the fabric of the United States. We realize that all fear that came with the new groups of immigrants was not only unjustified, but from a distance actually quite comical. Today, we see the fear of the Irish immigration as something that was blown out of proportion and the discrimination of the Irish people as something horrific.

I wonder what future generations will say about our current immigration rhetoric. Will they look upon it as silly and irrational? Most likely. Will they see the deeply racist elements of the much of the immigration debate which many currently try to deny? Certainly. They will see a country that allowed a whole “under class” to develop, because they never allowed individuals the chance to become full fledge members of the society, even those individuals who came into the country as small children under no choice of their own. They will see a complete disregard for human rights and social justice.

We always hear that we should look to the past in order to not make the same mistakes in the future. Immigration is a great example of this. Those who try to push fear about illegal immigration and revel in xenophobic rhetoric need to realize that this is not some new or unique issue. There is always resistance to change, but that resistance is usually seen to be foolish and unwarranted. Most importantly, our current refusal to deal with the unjust immigration system will be looked upon with a mixture of pity and disbelief by future generations.

Bookmark to:

Perhaps you think I am going out on a limb, but I think the famous story that Jesus told of the Rich man and Lazarus has a very ironic or even comical element to it, while driving home a very important point in terms of our modern society, political concerns, and inequality.

The story of the rich man and Lazarus has been used over and over again by preachers and evangelists to drive home the point of literal flames of hell. I remember this story use to scare me to death when I was a young. However, it has turned out to be one of my favorite parables that Jesus ever told. Essentially, there are two men- the rich man and Lazarus. The rich man has everything in his life, and Lazarus has nothing. In fact, Lazarus just waits outside of the rich man’s gate begging for food. When they die, the rich man goes to hell, and Lazarus goes to heaven. The rich man is so hot and in so much pain that he asks Abraham to send the poor man down into hell with some water on his finger to help cool his misery. I use to read this over without even thinking about it. But just think about a second….the rich man wanted Lazarus to come down into hell so that he could feel some comfort. Even in death, he never got over his disdain for Lazarus, he still saw him as worthless and someone who was just there to serve him. I think Jesus was trying to place an insult right in the faces of the rich and powerful of his day; they were the rich man who had so little regard for the poor man that even in the afterlife, he was asking them to go through hell to comfort them. It was a type of bitter irony or maybe we could say dark comedy.

There is no question that this story applies so much for today. We lose much of this story if we are taking it literally, rather than taking it in the symbolic and powerful way it should be interpreted. The story is not about that the rich go to hell and the poor go to heaven. It is about how we treat the poor and needy in our society.  How do we treat those who have been laid off or uninsured? How do we treat the orphans, the widows, and the immigrants (legal and illegal) in our land? It often seems that the more wealth we obtain the more dismissive and agitated we become with the poor. The almost comical disdain the rich man has for the poor must be watched for in our own lives. In the wealthy western world, we are very much representative of the Rich men, yet there are Lazarus’s all around the world who we often just forget about or write off. We can either choose to be kind, generous, and pursuers of justice or we can have be disdainful of them and reap our own destruction. There is no doubt that is a huge issue, not only from a personal perspective, but also from a political and social perspective. Let’s make sure we are not electing “rich men” into our offices who simply pass by with disdain the needy and helpless among us. Let’s not gain our world of wealth and yet at the same time lose our passion, values, and soul.

Bookmark to:

I know on this blog that I mainly deal with the issues pertaining to the United States and its politics. Much of that is due to my own background, the audience I am writing to, and my own job as a U.S. History Teacher. However, I think there is a great danger in putting the hope of the world or even this generation on the shoulders of the United States. The world was around way before the United States was formed, and it can continue to go on regardless of what happens in the United States.

This does not mean that I don’t love my country. The U.S. has contributed much to the world with so many of its ideas and ideals. The U.S. was one of the first nations in the world that really supported ideas like the freedom of religion, freedom of conscious, and democracy. I think many of the founding fathers such as Jefferson, Franklin, and Madison were brilliant and visionary individuals. However, I do think there is a tendency from Americans to associate the fate of the United States with the fate of the whole world, and this is greatly damaging and incorrect.

The United States is only one of many nations, and we should never put our hope or give our complete allegiance to any one nation, tribe, or society. From a Christian point of view, our ultimate loyalty should be the Kingdom of God and its values. You can love your nation without giving it too high of a value. The United States has justified many of its actions in History with this idea of American exceptionalism, whether it was the idea of Manifest Destiny ( that it was God’s plan for us to extend from the Atlantic to the Pacific) which propelled us to start wars with Native American tribes and the Mexicans, using third world nations and populations as pawns in our battles with the Soviets, or in our modern War on Terror where we automatically see our side as the side of good, justice, and freedom.

It is easy to blow things out of proportion; I am sure I have done this from time to time on this blog as well. However, ultimately the future of the world does not rest in the U.S. hands, the kingdom of God extends much further than Virginia to California, and humanity is much more important than any one nation. For all the Americans reading this blog; love your country, support your country when it is standing for the cause of justice, oppose the country when it is doing wrong, but ultimately live with a gaze beyond a disappointing and disillusioning nationalism; it will certainly let you down and disappoint. Instead, put your hope in a kingdom that spreads beyond any one country or nation and focus your time and attention less on the blessing of one nation and more of the blessing of the entire world.

Bookmark to:

Bush is a war criminal, Obama is a tyrant, the Republicans are walking all over the Constitution, the Democrats are leading the nation towards a Socialist state- so are the opinions may hear on the national media. While I don’t think the constant bombardment of these very subjective opinions is good for our national discourse, the bottom line is that it is opinion. What scares me much more than outrageous opinions is when facts start being invented and fabricated by news station for their own particular political purposes. You can’t even have a rational debate, because everyone is working with different facts and no one knows what the true news is.

This recently happened with Obama’s trip to India, right wing media sources like Rush Limbaugh, the Drudge Report, and Fox News took the random statistics from an untrustworthy and uninformed Indian source that said the trip was costing the nation 200 million dollars a day (which there was no hard evidence to back up). Of course, they didn’t actually check to see if the story had any validity, because it was a good source to attack their ultimate opponent- Barack Obama.  

An even worse example was the claims by Sarah Palin and the right wing media that Obama was setting up “death panels” for the elderly through his Health Care program. There are two explanations for this- either Sarah Palin and the right wing media is filled with so much hatred for Obama that they can’t think straight, or they are just making up blatant lies and then spreading them to the public. Either way it is greatly damaging to the American people, instead of having a rationale debate on health care and other tough issues- we are filled with fear mongering and irrational fear and hatred.

The 1^st Amendment protects the rights of the Press or Media; however, I am starting to wonder if this really applies if news stations are actually making up stories to make the public angry and afraid. What is next? Could they fabricate a threat from Iran for a justification to go to war? Of course this already happened (the most famous case with the yellow Journalism leading to the Spanish-American War and a case could be made that the same thing happened in the last Iraq War with the “weapons of Mass Destruction). The news stations can give whatever opinion or “spin” they want; however, when facts just start being made up- that is when they become extremely dangerous to our democracy.

Bookmark to:

In my U.S. History Classes, we usually discuss two different religious groups in early U.S. History-the Puritans and the Quakers. The Puritans emphasized the evil nature of man, and somehow tended to find that nature-both within themselves and others. The Quakers, on the other hand, emphasized the light of God that was in all men- that even the most evil of men had goodness in them. The Quakers seemed to find that goodness within themselves and others. While the Puritans were executing people of opposing beliefs, fighting in bloody wars against the Native Americans, and preaching the evil of man, the Quakers were extending tolerance to people of all religious beliefs, creating peace with the Native Americans, fighting to end slavery, and preaching the love of God to all.

Perhaps, one of the greatest steps to implementing goodness in our own lives is choosing to find goodness in others, including our enemies. It is easy to label our enemies as pure evil; however, we have to realize that there is the image of God in all men. Man is neither pure good nor pure evil; it is always a mixture of the two. Every human being has that own conflict within their being. A huge step to becoming more like God and growing in goodness is to purposely try to find that goodness within people. A good activity which I like to do with my students for this is to have them right out the positive attributes of someone they do not particularly like, or even strongly dislike. It is often hard for them to do, but if they allow themselves to engage in this way of thinking-they can find their own lives being changed into individuals who are more caring, loving, and peaceful. Somehow in the mist of finding goodness in others, we find ourselves becoming better human beings. As we learn to find goodness in our neighbor, friend, or enemy, we are allowing the goodness of God to overcome our own spirit.

Bookmark to:

In the midst of puritanical anger and liberal enthusiasm in the light of Proposition 19 in California, let’s not forget what actually makes common sense on the issue of the legalization of marijuana. Right now, the U.S. spends 7.7 Billion a year on marijuana enforcement- this according to a study from Harvard University.

Can you even imagine how many positive ways this money could be used in society? Building schools, hiring teachers, creating infrastructure, and helping out the needy; the amount spent is mind-blowing. This does not even take into account the additional violence and crime which keeping marijuana illegal causes. It creates a whole underground crime network that not only cripples our nation, but adds to the violence in the “drug war” which is devastating countries such as Mexico.

On the other hand, if we legalized marijuana and taxed it- the revenues of the government could be extraordinary. Again, in our financial crisis with our looming debts, do we even have the financial capacity to keep fighting this unwinnable war? And it is unwinnable. Marijuana is rampant in society and often very easy to obtain. When I was in high school, it seemed it was easier for the students to obtain marijuana than even alcohol. This was in Illinois, a far distance from the source of much of the marijuana produced.

Perhaps, we just need to look at our past and see our last failed prohibition on alcohol. Not only did crime grow up, but much money was wasted fighting another unwinnable cause. The U.S. government finally wised up and realized that they could be making money on alcohol instead of spending enormous sums of money trying to stop it and creating a whole other set of problems in the process. I think the same realization will eventually occur with marijuana, it is only a matter of time. However, the longer we wait, the more money we will waste and the more crime we will cause.

Bookmark to:

Lincoln once stated, “As a nation we began by declaring “all men are created equal.” We now practically read it, “all men are created equal, except Negroes.” When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read “all men are created equal, except Negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.”

Lincoln’s comments came at a time when Nativism and anti-Catholic rhetoric had reached a new extreme in U.S. politics. In fact, a whole political party named the Know Nothing Party had been formed on a platform of anti-immigration and anti-Catholicism. While some people were genuinely terrified of the Catholic immigrants coming into the country, many were simply spreading fear and anger among the masses to help their own political ambitions. Politicians warned of the Pope taking over the nation and Catholic teachers turning schools into a place of “catholic indoctrination” which was seeking to destroy the Republic. Later on, groups such as the KKK used this fear of immigrants and Catholics to gain more traction and support.

We look back on this today, and most of us see this as quite silly-an irrational fear that led people to deny the ideals of freedom and tolerance which the nation was founded on. The racism and intolerance is looked upon with disdain in our history. However, is the exact same thing happening today? It seems that Muslims have become the acceptable target of intolerance in the 21st Century. Right-wing media outlets such as Fox News are constantly spreading anti-Muslim rhetoric, spreading fear and anger among the populous. Obviously, there are political reasons for doing this. If you can paint Muslims as dangerous the other party as “pro-Islamic” than you can get people to go out and vote for your party, even if that party is going to actually hurt the interests of the voter.

Men such as Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly, both whom are Catholic, would have been on the other side of the issue if this was the 19th Century. They would be the ones accused of being a threat to the United States and the Republic. Perhaps, by looking at history, we can see that this anti-Muslim rhetoric is nothing new. The targets have changed, but the tactics stay the same. Hopefully, we can have a more evolved and mature view on the way we view new religious and cultural minorities in our nation and not repeat the exact same fear, bigotry, and intolerance.

Bookmark to:

The United States was established as a Democratic-Republic, where the legislators and representatives were supposed to be the voice of the people. However, it has been transformed into an oligarchical system of “legalized-corruption” where the organization or corporation that gives the most money gets to decide the legislation.

Though corporations and special interest always had way too much influence on the legislators, now with the recent Supreme Court decision, corporations can give as much money as they want to support advertising for candidates. Legislators in turn vote for the projects and interests of the groups giving them money. Though they are elected by the people, their decisions are more influenced by their campaign donors. It makes the illegal corruption of the past look like child’s play. It is the most blatant and dangerous form of corruption- but it is legal.

The recent moves by the Supreme Court and the corporations seeking to change elections for their own monetary gain is making a mockery of a democratic form of government; Jefferson would be turning over in his grave. This should be an issue that is beyond left and right, conservative and liberal; it is in reality an issue between democracy and oligarchy; self-determination vs. corporate profits. If there is any issue that the Tea Party and the Progressives should get together on it is this. Because the reality is the voice of the average citizen is becoming worthless in a society where votes on issues are sold to the highest bidder.

There still seem to be some politicians with some values and morals; however, they are often the ones that are forced out by special interests. It is hard for good and honest politicians to survive, because the system is so deeply flawed. There are simply changes that the country can make if they want to reverse this un-democratic trend in the nation. These include: public financing of campaigns and term limits. If the country decides to do this, they might still be able to retain the republic that the nation was founded on. If not, the Republic could dissolve into a type of Banana Republic, where the few rich and powerful control everything, and the voice of the people means nothing.

Bookmark to:

As a History teacher, Columbus Day is one of the most frustrating days of the year. It continues to promote a mystified version of history and purposefully distorts the true facts. As the great historian, Howard Zinn, stated, “To emphasize the heroism of Columbus and his successors as navigators and discoverers, and to deemphasize their genocide, is not a technical necessity but an ideological choice. It serves — unwittingly — to justify what was done.”

We have been taught the heroified version of Columbus; however, we might not have been taught the other side of the story. Here are some quotes from one of the Spanish priests, Las Casas, who came over with Columbus. He details what happened to the poor indigenous people that got in the way of Columbus and the Spaniards greed,

 “Endless testimonies . . . prove the mild and pacific temperament of the natives . . . .But our work was to exasperate, ravage, kill, mangle and destroy; small wonder, then, if they tried to kill one of us now and then . . . .The admiral, it is true, was blind as those who came after him, and he was so anxious to please the King that he committed irreparable crimes against the Indians . . . .

 After each six or eight months’ work in the mines, which was the time required of each crew to dig enough gold for melting, up to a third of the men died. While the men were sent many miles away to the mines, the wives remained to work the soil, forced into the excruciating job of digging and making thousands of hills for cassava plants.

 Thus husbands and wives were together only once every eight or ten months and when they met they were so exhausted and depressed on both sides . . . .they ceased to procreate. As for the newly born, they died early because their mothers, overworked and famished, had no milk to nurse them, and for this reason, while I was in Cuba, 7000 children died in three months. Some mothers even drowned their babies from sheer desperation . . . .In this way, husbands died in the mines, wives died at work, and children died from lack of milk . . . and in a short time this land which was so great, so powerful and fertile . . . was depopulated . . . .My eyes have seen these acts so foreign to human nature, and now I tremble as I write . .”

After reading these quotes, there is little left to say. At the very minimum, the name needs to be changed, like it is here in Costa Rica (the rough English translation is the “day of cultures”). To continue to promote a holiday, while ignoring the true historical facts is doing a disservice to our children and an honest view of History. History should not be celebrated just because it is “our History”- this does nothing but promote the myth of us as good and them as bad. It also does not allow us to realize the evils of the past and take measures to change these from happening again. This Columbus Day, take some time and think about life and History of the forgotten people, the unjustly killed, and the slaves used in the name of “progress.” Learning the “true version” of history is not always comforting, but it helps us live in the true reality of our world and make better choices for the future.

Bookmark to:

This week, Israel decided that they were going to resume building their housing projects in the West Bank, even though it is going to seriously jeopardize the peace process. The sheer egocentric and narcissistic nature of the move is simply outstanding to me. After the world community granted Israel the right to be established again as a nation, they have started to take advantage of this position and have started to rule unjustly- therefore endangering the overall Middle East peace and the peace of the entire world.

For too long, many in the U.S., especially the evangelical community, have blindly supported the moves of the Israeli government and equated supporting Israel with following God and disagreeing with Israel with anti-Semitism. Both of these assumptions are completely false. Since when does any nation get to do whatever they want and still keep the “blessing of God” for their actions? We wouldn’t apply that standard to any other nation, nor should we apply it to Israel. Also, being against the actions of the current right-wing Israeli government does not equal anti-Semitism. In fact, many Jewish people and actual Israelis disagree with the moves of the current government and see it is dangerous for the Jewish people overall the overall peace of the world. Disagreeing with the current moves of the current right-wing Israeli government is actually the opposite of anti-Semitism, it is seeking the best for the Jewish people over all, instead of supporting a dangerous nationalistic movement.

The U.S. cannot be the friend who simply backs up Israel no matter what; they have to be the friend that tells Israel when they are going too far and not only endangering their own peace, but the security of the United States and the western world as well. I firmly believe Israel has the right to exist and they have to take care of their security. However, moves such as these new settlements being built on land where the Palestinians formerly lived is just another example of narcissism by the part of the Israeli government and a total disregard for the wishes and security of the other nations involved.

Hopefully, the Israeli people will realize that these types of right-wing nationalistic governments will not give them more security in the long run, but simply more violence, heartache, and chaos. Hopefully in the Western World we will learn the same lesson. Nationalism is a dark cancer that eats away at any chance of real security or peace. Seeking justice should be the number one concern-justice for the both Palestinians and Israelis. If this is done, a more peaceful world can come to be. During this difficult time, let us not support unjust actions by the Palestinians or Israelis-but instead seek justice and peace for both sides.

Bookmark to:

Recently, the newest Republican senatorial candidate from Delaware, Christine O’Donnell, has received criticism for a video that she was in with Bill Maher about a decade ago, where she stated that it still would not be justified to lie even if it was to someone like Hitler in order to save lives. Her thoughts are that it is always wrong to lie, and there always has to be another option.

I remember a similar discussion when I was in 9^th grade at the conservative private school I attended. The real issue is that this type of reasoning represents a view on morality and ethics which is still in an immature stage of development. In Psychology, we learn from Lawrence Kohlberg “Stages of Moral Development”one of the lower stages of moral development is simply following a rule because it is a rule, without wresting with the meaning and purpose of the law or rule or what would be best for everyone. In the New Testament it is referred to as following the letter of the law. As we move up the levels of moral reasoning, we learn that our moral decisions should go far beyond a strict interpretation of a law or rule to the reasoning behind the law, what would be best for everyone in the situation, and what would be best for humanity as a whole. The New Testament refers to this as the Spirit of the Law.

I am afraid that sometimes the Christian push for “absolute moral values” has actually led Christians into a more simplistic and immature way of viewing morality. However, this actually takes away from the whole message of Christianity- where the Spirit of the Law influences our decisions rather than the letter.

This is hard for some people to accept, and there is certainly danger in having people “make up their own morality”. However, it is even more limiting when we can’t think outside of the box and realize that the ultimate values of love and justice should win out. Living by the Spirit of the Law is not necessarily the easy way out where you don’t have follow strict rules; in fact, if truly applied it is much harder. I think a perfect example of this could be Martin Luther King Jr.

He could have said that it was wrong to break any laws, because the government was put in place by God so it should be respected. He could have also said that starting demonstrations was wrong because it was going to cause conflict and unrest. He could have said that defying the orders of the elected officials was setting a bad example for his children. However, he saw something much more important, something much deeper than a simplistic view on morality. He saw the cause of justice and the need to protest against unjust laws. His willingness to live by the Spirit of the Law, cost him his life, but at the same time it helped bring justice to a nation filled with discrimination and oppression.

We have a choice today, we can stay at the “not lying to Hitler” stage of moral development, or we can move on to the stage of moral development where the rules are simply there to guide us in order to really pursue the cause of love and justice. In reality, the second option is much more difficult, because it causes us to really have to wrestle with ethical issues, and in the end, it causes us to give ourselves for others- which is the ultimate test of goodness and morality.

Bookmark to: