We all know that many corporations do many unethical and immoral activities, whether it is related to their workers, customers, or the environment; however, is the whole corporate structure immoral? Essentially, the corporation’s main goal is to earn money. That is why they are created, and that is why they exist. Money trumps any other concern. It is more important than what is ethical, compassionate, or just.

In the end, it is not even the fault of the actual leaders of the corporation. If they wanted to do the “right thing” and forgo profits to be more ethical, they could be sued by their stockholders for not looking out for the best interest of their investments. If a CEO tries to do the right thing, it usually means that profits will not be able to continue to increase. However, if the CEO does this, you can be guaranteed they will be out of a job very quickly.

There is something anonymous about the corporate structure that “frees” people of moral and ethical obligations. You may never personally pollute the environment, exploit workers, or sell dangerous products to others; however, if you are a stockholder in many corporations, you are in fact playing a role in doing this by demanding that the corporation maximizes your profits no matter who is hurt in the process.

In many ways, we have created a monster that now controls us. We can make villains out of different corporate leaders, but the real villain is the corporate system itself. Until we can change that, our world and society will continued to be damaged under the demand of profits by the few in society who control the market.

I love how Wendell Berry put it, ““A corporation, essentially, is a pile of money to which a number of persons have sold their moral allegiance.”

Bookmark to:

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:

Last night, the U.S. House rammed through an “anti-hacking” bill which in reality does much more than stop hacking; it basically allows the government and military even more control and oversight over all our internet activity. It basically makes a policy that internet companies like Google or Facebook will share any information which the government asks for. They will also be required to share this information with the military.

Though I am sure there are few that doubt that the government already does this large scale spying on their citizens, this law basically just makes it legal. The government is setting up a police state in the name of protecting our security. However, the reality is that they are taking away all our liberty and privacy. It is amazing how the biggest proponents of bills like these are often those who scream about “smaller government”. Well, there is nothing small in the government tracking and monitoring all the conversations, messages, and insubordination of its populous.

This is all being done quietly, without much fuss in the corporately owned media. We do not realize how much closer and closer we are getting to George Orwell’s 1984 society. All it will take is one revolution, one big terrorist attack, one large scale disaster, and the police state will be right there to monitor, censure, and punish any dissent. This is not a conspiracy theory; it is a reality that is happening before our eyes.

Bookmark to:

The Supreme Court of the U.S. was set up for one reason- to defend the Constitution, not to make, confirm, or reject laws they disagree with out of personal political ideology. However, recently, judges on both sides of the bench, conservatives and liberals, have decided to become legislatures and activists. This undermines our whole system of democracy.

The real sad fact is that policies that clearly do violate the constitution are not touched, issues such as indefinite detention, warrantless wiretapping, and the denial of the right to due process. Instead the judges are busying making their laws, whether it is more left leaning rulings such as Roe vs. Wade or more conservative rulings such as Citizens United. At the end of the day, whatever you view is on abortion, gay marriage, campaign finance, health care or a whole range of issues, it should be up the people to decide those issues not a highly ideological and partisan group of nine individuals.

As the current health care law is brought to the Supreme Court, and the Court once again looks to become activist legislators, the people of the country need to stand up and say that enough is enough. If people do not like the health care legislation, then elect people to overturn it. Our whole country should not suffer because of the decisions of nine individuals, especially when the majority of them seem to be more concerned with protecting the interests of the wealthy and corporations than the Constitution.

Bookmark to:

We know if there is a war with Iran, many soldiers on both sides will lose their lives, and thousands upon thousands of citizens will lose their lives, homes, and health. However, some people are going to become filthy rich, and these are the people pushing for a war.

Oil speculators and defense contractors are some of the groups looking to make a killing on another war. While the nations goes further in debt, funds are cut for the poor and needy, public education is defunded, and our society collapses due to the expense of war, the greedy and wealthy will be lining their pockets laughing at our stupidity. War makes money for many, which is certainly one of the main reasons, some would argue the only reason, that war is even waged.

It becomes even more disturbing when you realize that those who are going to become even filthier rich in the next war are buying out congress. Defense contractors have so many members of congress bought out, and many former military personnel go to work for these companies when they get out of the military. It is almost amusing watching the news and seeing how former military officials, who are now spokespeople for the defense contractors (men such as former defense secretary, William Cohen) are the ones speaking out on cable news about the dangerous “threat of Iran”.

It should be something that outrages us. Already wealthy men are going to become even wealthier at the expense of the young soldiers of our nation and other nations, and the hundreds of thousands or even millions of civilians who may die. The old Proverb rings true, “the love of money is the root of all evil.”

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:

Do we really believe what Jesus said when he said we should love our enemies? That we should bless those who curse us? That we should not return evil for evil, but instead return evil with good? It amazes me that so many of those who claim the name of Christianity are the first to call out for war against whatever the new national enemy may be. They might call themselves Biblical literalists or fundamentalists, but they certainly have not taken Jesus seriously with what he said on the Sermon the Mount?

So, what do these teachings of Jesus mean? Are they just nice sayings to work out family rough patches? Do they have no application to real struggle and violence in the world? If the teachings of Jesus are worthless on a grand scale, they are pretty insignificant on a personal scale. If it is morally justified to create a pre-emptive war and kill hundreds of thousands of people in the name of stopping a “hypothetical threat” then all the teachings of Jesus about loving our enemy, about how those who live by the sword will die by the sword, and turning the other cheek are pretty much worthless, and the teachings of Jesus should be abandoned.

So many in the Christian community have focused their social and political attention on issues that Jesus never even addressed like birth control, abortion, and gay marriage. While I am not saying that none of these issues are important, what I am saying is that the actual teachings of Jesus on violence, peace, and revenge are ignored. We are ready to go to another war with a Bible in hand justifying our actions. However, the teachings of Jesus are nicely brushed aside so that we can justify killing others to “defend” ourselves. Let’s take the teachings of Jesus and actually apply them to the way we treat our enemies. If Christians fail to do so, they are denying the faith they claim to follow. Even for those outside the Christian faith, Jesus’s teachings about peace, love for enemies, and the futility of revenge is the only path to follow to get us out of this crazy cycle of war.

Bookmark to:

Do you remember what you were doing when the attacks on Iraq began in 2003? I remember that I was at my friend’s house with my eyes glued to the TV monitor. If there is one way to get people to start watching the news, it is a war. Farmville, quirky youtube videos, or that latest novel seem pretty irrelevant when a new war is beginning.

Drumming up war is great business for media outlets. Even if a war doesn’t take place, they will drive people to watch their stations anyways in the anticipation that there could be a war. If people are glued to the news stations it means more money from advertisers. From the media perspective it is a win-win situation; however, for the country and the world for that matter, it is a pretty deadly game to be playing. They already helped solidify people against the war in Iraq, and they have come close to doing the same against Iran. I was actually watching a little CNN the other day, and it said that in some polls almost 60% of the public favor military action against Iran if they are developing nuclear weapons. I was enraged by this type of statistic; has the media really been that thorough in brainwashing the American public?

The media has been positive of getting us out of some conflicts once the excitement from the war dies down. They were instrumental in turning the American public against the Vietnam War. However, while they might not favor staying in a country for long (because no one really is watching the news after 10 years of occupation), they are more than willing to start another conflict. The news media loves new wars because it creates news, which in turn drives up their popularity and cash flow. It is great deal for them, but not so much for the hundreds of thousands that will die and the nations that will be left in ruin.

Bookmark to:

It seems that many in the U.S. and Israeli governments are moving closer on another way with Iran, out of sheer and irrational paranoia. If we were to look at it objectively, there is no real reason to go to war with Iran. They have not even developed a nuclear weapon, there is debate if they are even going to, and even if they did, there is no legitimate threat to the U.S. or Israel.

However, this call for war is not based on objective rationality; it is based on a subjective and irrational fear. That fear could lead us to major problems. In the processes of protecting ourselves from a “possible threat”, we could be bringing real disaster and a costly and widespread war. More people could be killed than would ever be killed in an airstrike from Iran.

There is a lesson to be seen here for all of us. How much of the time do we act or fail to act out of mere paranoia and thinking of the worst possible outcome? How many great possibilities have we missed out on in life because we live in fear of something go wrong? How many mistakes have we made out of the motivation of protecting ourselves, our families, and our assets from an irrational threat?

Obviously, this needs to be put in balance; we should not make foolish decision or purposely put ourselves in harm’s way. However, I am convinced if we lived more of our lives out of optimism and reaching for possibilities instead of running away from our fears, we could do amazing things. Maybe, we could even change the world.

The next time you hear the paranoia about Iran, do not only think about the foolishness of the political rhetoric, consider how we make our own decisions out of paranoia and fear. The disease that plagues many in the U.S. and Israeli governments is something that plagues all of us from one time or another. Let’s pray that the U.S. and Israel move past their paranoia and let us resolve to not let paranoia hinder us from doing something great with our lives.

Bookmark to:

The horrific and mind-blowing actions of a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan this past weekend should deeply disturb us, but I do not think it should really surprise us. If anything, we should be surprised that it does not happen more often. What do we expect when we send young men to a culture they do not know and expect them to serve as a police force?

I will never forget a discussion I had with one of my cousin’s friends who was a soldier in Iraq. I remember him telling me with viciousness in his eyes how much he hated all the Iraqis and by extension-all Muslims. On one hand, it is hard for me to blame him. I am sure if I had been fired at and my friends had been shot and killed, I would not have a very objective view of the Iraqi people either. And here lies the problem with the whole idea of foreign invasion and occupation. You are simply asking for these types of atrocities.

I do not know what led this soldier to commit this horrible act. Perhaps, he simply snapped under the pressure of war and violence. Perhaps someone he knew had been killed by Taliban forces and decided to just take his rage out on the innocent civilians. Perhaps, he was simply so screwed up in his head and never was given or offered help.

The bottom line is that we cannot condemn the soldier while failing to thoughtfully critique the whole military system we have. We send young, inexperienced civilians into treacherous and completely foreign situations where they are mentally damaged for the rest of their lives. Suicide, depression, and family problems are extraordinarily highly in military men. We have asked them to fight and police the world and many of them have no idea why they are even fighting. As we stand in shock and horror of what happened this past week, let’s take this an opportunity to realize that war is hell, and when we create war, we create a hell on earth. This is particularly relevant as the drum beat of war grow louder towards Iran.

Bookmark to:

I volunteered on the campaign for Invisible Children in 2006 in Anderson, South Carolina. We slept outside in the streets to raise awareness. I definitively think the people behind this organization have great intentions. I have shown the Invisible Children to my students for the last 3 years, and I think the passion that is growing especially among the young people is so laudable and exciting.

However, there are some precautions that should be taken. Many people have come out, including people on the ground in Uganda, saying that the strategy that Invisible Children are pushing could actually make the situation worse. And many things are not clear, such as the fact that the Ugandan Army itself has been accused of war crimes and that the Lord’s Resistance Army is not even in Uganda anymore. Here are a couple of articles with this perspective-

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/03/07/guest_post_joseph_kony_is_not_in_uganda_and_other_complicated_things

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/uganda/9131469/Joseph-Kony-2012-growing-outrage-in-Uganda-over-film.html

Here is a response from one of the bloggers,

“Suggesting that the answer is more military action is just wrong,” said Javie Ssozi, an influential Ugandan blogger.

“Have they thought of the consequences? Making Kony ‘famous’ could make him stronger. Arguing for more US troops could make him scared, and make him abduct more children, or go on the offensive.”

Taylor Marvin put it this way,

“Just because a cause is fashionable doesn’t make it wise. Invisible Children’s efforts to raise awareness is laudable, but its faith in military solutions isn’t.”

At the end of the day if Joseph Kony is killed, would the Lord’s Resistance Army really die out, or would someone else just take the place? We like to focus on villains, whether it was Osama Bin Laden, the Iranian Ayatollah, or Joseph Kony, but at the end, will taking them out really change the underlying issues and problems?

I am torn as a teacher as my student come and talk about the film. On one hand, I am overjoyed that they are involved and passionate about the issues of suffering and injustice in the world. On the other hand, I am afraid that they could be getting the message once again that we could rid all the world’s problems with more military action, an attitude that is especially dangerous as more talk is growing to attack Iran. In the end, I am still very torn on this issue and would love to hear your feedback.

Bookmark to:

It seems that most in the U.S. Congress and Senate are oblivious to the real needs of working people and the insanity of our foreign policy. Ohio Representative, Dennis Kucinich, is one exception to that rule. He was forced out of office by the redistricting scheme of his state’s GOP. He lost last night in a primary election.

Kucinich is one of the few congressman who was actually willing to stand up to presidential administrations and party leaders, both republican and democratic, whether it was against military buildup, the Patriot Act, or the latest defense act which legalizes indefinite detentions. He has pushed to end disastrous trade agreements such as NAFTA. He has been a vocal critic on the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the impending war against Iran. He was one of the few that really stood up for the working man and progressive values.

He has been labeled a Communist, extremist, unpatriotic, and naïve; however, despite all the labels, he is one of the few leaders in Washington who has actually represented the people, not the corporate wealth and militaristic special interests. He will be missed, and I truly hope he finds the way back into the discussion. More, now than ever, the U.S. needs his prophetic voice.

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:

As Benjamin Netanyahu and his right-wing allies move closer and closer to war with Iran, many in the U.S. Christian community still equate supporting Israeli policy with supporting the Kingdom of God. And here is one of the greatest tragedies not only on a spiritual level, but also on a social, political, and a military level.

Jesus preached a message of peace, turning the other cheek, and loving one’s enemies. He warned the Jewish community of his day about the dangers in pursuing war and violence and how it would lead to their own destruction. He told his followers that those who live by the sword will die by the sword. Jesus had the opportunity to pursue Israel’s political objectives during his time on earth, but he chose not to. His goal was the Kingdom of God, not the Kingdom of Israel, even when Israel was facing a real enemy in the Romans (compared with the fabricated enemy of Iran).

Somehow over the years, the mind of many in the church (particularly the U.S. church) has become very skewed towards the Israeli state. “Supporting Israel means supporting Jesus”. Perhaps, it is in part a reaction to the horrible way that the church has often treated Jews throughout history. However, it is also pushed by a literalist reading of Revelation and a new end-times philosophy that was never seen before in church history, an eschatology that really reflects a lack of scholarship. Of course, this type of “Left Behind” philosophy is pushed in the Christian community by popular books, movies, and TV preachers.

For those Christians who are afraid to call out Israel on their militaristic ways in the fear of offending God, just look at the life of Jesus. Most of my Jesus’s life was a fight against the political and religious leaders of Israel. I believe if Jesus was here today, he would have no problem being the first to call out Netanyahu on his militarism and his appeal to trust military might over God. We have a choice. We can choose the way of Jesus, refuse to fall for the fear and propaganda which is seeking to lead to another war, and try to be peacemakers. Or we can blindly follow the Israeli government, a government led by right-wing leaders that many in Israel itself find dangerous, and abandon the teachings and message of Jesus.

The Kingdom of God’s purpose is for us to love all people and seek justice and peace for all people-Israeli, Palestinian, and Iranian. Let’s let the message of Jesus take over the message of Netanyahu and the pro-war factions of the U.S. and Israel. In the end we have a choice, follow the teachings of the Prince of Peace or a militaristic government hungry for another conflict.

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:

“War is Hell, and Christ did not come to justify the creation of Hell on earth by his disciples. The justification of war may be compatible with some religions and philosophies, but it is not compatible with the nonviolent teaching of Jesus. I was wrong. And to those of whatever nationality or religion who have been hurt because I fell under the influence of the father of lies, I say with my whole heart and soul I am sorry. I beg forgiveness.”

These were the words of Father George Zabelka, who had served as the U.S. Navy chaplain in the Pacific for the forces that would drop the atomic bomb. He spoke out years later in regret for his choice to essentially “bless the bombs” that would destroy thousands upon thousands of lives.

As the rhetoric picks up towards another war with Iran, the U.S. church has a choice. They can choose to be the voice of empire and war, making another pre-emptive attack “sacred” or they can stand with a prophetic voice and state that those who live by the sword will die by the sword, and if our country wants to follow the path of militarism, we too will come to ruin.

Regarding the most recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, many in the U.S. church were largely supportive of the war, with a minority standing with a prophetic and decrying the militarism and violence. Of course, in the eyes of the rest of his world, the name of Jesus is cursed when his church uses him to promote and defend their nationalistic wars. Instead of loving our enemies, we have said it is morally acceptable to kill them. We have said that pre-emptive attacks are justified, out of the slight possibility that our enemy could pose a threat in the future.

I hope and pray that in this new conflict, the U.S. church will not be cowardly and remain silent or even worse, play the role of warmonger and openly push and support a new war. Instead, I pray they choose the way of peace, the way of Jesus, and realize that this war is not the answer.

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:

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

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

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

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

Bookmark to:

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:

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:

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

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

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

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

Bookmark to:

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

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

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

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

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

Bookmark to:

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

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

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

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

Bookmark to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bookmark to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bookmark to:

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

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

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

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

Bookmark to:

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

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

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

Bookmark to:

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

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

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

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

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

Bookmark to:

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

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

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

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

Bookmark to:

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

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

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

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

Bookmark to:

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

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

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

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

Bookmark to:

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

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

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

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

Bookmark to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bookmark to:

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

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

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

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

Bookmark to:

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

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

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

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

Bookmark to:

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

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

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

Bookmark to:

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

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

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

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

Bookmark to: