Showing posts with label separation between church and state. Show all posts
Showing posts with label separation between church and state. Show all posts
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Post No. 98: Jesus Christ and the Democrats
We recently asked our readers to submit possible topics for discussion, and we received numerous responses. We posted one of them earlier today entitled, "Jesus Christ and the Republicans."
One of our regular readers felt that it might be interesting to examine this issue from another perspective. The following is the question presented by this reader:
"Taking into account the liberal social values of the Democrats, are they consistent with the teachings and practices of Jesus Christ?"
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Post No. 97: Jesus Christ and the Republicans
In our last post, we invited our readers to examine an article by a university professor entitled, “What Makes People Vote Republican?”
Although the title may have suggested that it was about Republican Party members, by examining their views, the author distinguished and articulated the views of members of the Democratic Party, or at least as he sees them.
We recently asked our readers to submit possible topics for discussion, and we received a very good response. Thank you. We had to choose one for our first topic, and we will present the others later, down the road.
You will recall that in a post last year, we examined whether Jesus Christ would have discriminated against people who engaged in activities which might have been deemed inappropriate or unacceptable by the Church.
One of our regular readers presented us with a topic for discussion which raises similar issues. The following is the question:
“In recent times, conservative Christians, particularly evangelicals, have played a significant role in formulating and articulating the core values of conservative/Republican politics in this country. Taking into consideration the conservative economic values, and the conservative geo-political agenda, are they consistent with the teachings and practices of Jesus Christ?”
We have purposefully chosen not to delineate or define the "economic values" and "geo-political agenda" to which the reader refers. We'll leave that up to you.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Post No. 16: Never Underestimate the Power of Laughter.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
We are all aware of the numerous instances, during the past year, where prominent individuals were severely criticized for comments that some termed “offensive,” or “inappropriate.” (One of the most widely covered was the comment by Don Imus regarding the predominantly black female basketball team which won the National Collegiate Athletic Association championship.
Ironically, in that instance, the Rev. Al Sharpton, who typically argues that there are numerous ways to view situations, recommended one of the harshest forms of response, thus suggesting that there was only one “right thing to do.”)
Many commentators suggested various responses to deal with the offending speakers, essentially saying that we as a society need to make a statement and ensure that folks do not regularly engage in such speech.
The ladies in question were the essence of grace. They had, after all, just brought home a national basketball championship to an academic institution that invests precious little in sports championships of any sort. Their composure and compassion under attack shamed Shock Jock Imus into a rarely observed heart felt apology.
Virtually all of us would agree that there was virtually no explanation, or justification, for his statement that would have made sense to us.
Following the revelations about the comments of Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Rev. John Hagee, the talkingheads had much to say about how the respective candidates should have responded.
However, no one suggested that their churches be “taken away.” It is my understanding that Wright is retired, and thus there is nothing to take away, and Hagee is far too integral to remove him from the church which he built.
However, following the mocking, by a Catholic priest, of candidate Clinton in Chicago recently, not only did the local Archbishop chastise the priest, but so did a representative of a group of Catholic women. She said, in essence, that the priest’s comments did not reflect the Catholic faith, did not reflect the Catholic Church, scandalized them, and that he should have his church taken away from him.
Ever since she reacted in that fashion, I thought of this issue in free speech, legalistic terms. Of course, my colleague, the Laughingman, brought me back to reality, and provided instant clarity to the whole situation.
I called him up and asked him how should we, as a society, deal with this type of situation, so that we ultimately do the right thing. His response, which follows, was instructive:
“The worst conceivable way to silence one with whom we disagree is to stop him from talking. By doing so, you create a martyr to his similarly warped followers, and take him off the radar screen of the rest of the public.
"Had we, as a society, a bit thicker skins, we would broadcast these lunacies far and wide, with an appropriate apology to the more sensitive among us, demonstrate a little Common Sense for our fellow man, and let the fringe element drown in the laughter and public ridicule generated by their own thinking or lack thereof.
"Along with the right to free speech comes the right to make a public fool of oneself; and like the naked, fools have little or no influence on society.”
Laughingman is a tad more of an activist than I; however, he is essentially correct. Let me show you how.
Yesterday, I heard a news report regarding some Minnesota high school kids who took a Confederate flag to school. The kids were banned from their graduation exercises because of their conduct. One of them, as he sat on the back of a pick up truck, said that he was about as far away from being a racist as one could get. However, they both said that they wanted to make a statement about independence, and the freedom of one to express oneself.
Appearing on CNN yesterday morning, I’m sure that they now have a following consisting of hundreds of thousands of sympathizers. It probably would have been better to simply let them attend their graduation ceremonies, assuming that no further conduct was involved which might have lead to violence or some other disruptive behavior.
I considered entitling this article, “Ignoring People – A Novel Thought,” and then I remembered that as Americans, we always have to make sure that we punish folks with whom we disagree. It, unfortunately, is built into who we are as a people. Perhaps once we learn to ignore those making statements which we consider offensive or inappropriate, they’ll flog themselves, and we as a public will find no need to punish them.
In the immortal words of the famous Forrest Gump; “Stupid is as stupid does.”
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
We are all aware of the numerous instances, during the past year, where prominent individuals were severely criticized for comments that some termed “offensive,” or “inappropriate.” (One of the most widely covered was the comment by Don Imus regarding the predominantly black female basketball team which won the National Collegiate Athletic Association championship.
Ironically, in that instance, the Rev. Al Sharpton, who typically argues that there are numerous ways to view situations, recommended one of the harshest forms of response, thus suggesting that there was only one “right thing to do.”)
Many commentators suggested various responses to deal with the offending speakers, essentially saying that we as a society need to make a statement and ensure that folks do not regularly engage in such speech.
The ladies in question were the essence of grace. They had, after all, just brought home a national basketball championship to an academic institution that invests precious little in sports championships of any sort. Their composure and compassion under attack shamed Shock Jock Imus into a rarely observed heart felt apology.
Virtually all of us would agree that there was virtually no explanation, or justification, for his statement that would have made sense to us.
Following the revelations about the comments of Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Rev. John Hagee, the talkingheads had much to say about how the respective candidates should have responded.
However, no one suggested that their churches be “taken away.” It is my understanding that Wright is retired, and thus there is nothing to take away, and Hagee is far too integral to remove him from the church which he built.
However, following the mocking, by a Catholic priest, of candidate Clinton in Chicago recently, not only did the local Archbishop chastise the priest, but so did a representative of a group of Catholic women. She said, in essence, that the priest’s comments did not reflect the Catholic faith, did not reflect the Catholic Church, scandalized them, and that he should have his church taken away from him.
Ever since she reacted in that fashion, I thought of this issue in free speech, legalistic terms. Of course, my colleague, the Laughingman, brought me back to reality, and provided instant clarity to the whole situation.
I called him up and asked him how should we, as a society, deal with this type of situation, so that we ultimately do the right thing. His response, which follows, was instructive:
“The worst conceivable way to silence one with whom we disagree is to stop him from talking. By doing so, you create a martyr to his similarly warped followers, and take him off the radar screen of the rest of the public.
"Had we, as a society, a bit thicker skins, we would broadcast these lunacies far and wide, with an appropriate apology to the more sensitive among us, demonstrate a little Common Sense for our fellow man, and let the fringe element drown in the laughter and public ridicule generated by their own thinking or lack thereof.
"Along with the right to free speech comes the right to make a public fool of oneself; and like the naked, fools have little or no influence on society.”
Laughingman is a tad more of an activist than I; however, he is essentially correct. Let me show you how.
Yesterday, I heard a news report regarding some Minnesota high school kids who took a Confederate flag to school. The kids were banned from their graduation exercises because of their conduct. One of them, as he sat on the back of a pick up truck, said that he was about as far away from being a racist as one could get. However, they both said that they wanted to make a statement about independence, and the freedom of one to express oneself.
Appearing on CNN yesterday morning, I’m sure that they now have a following consisting of hundreds of thousands of sympathizers. It probably would have been better to simply let them attend their graduation ceremonies, assuming that no further conduct was involved which might have lead to violence or some other disruptive behavior.
I considered entitling this article, “Ignoring People – A Novel Thought,” and then I remembered that as Americans, we always have to make sure that we punish folks with whom we disagree. It, unfortunately, is built into who we are as a people. Perhaps once we learn to ignore those making statements which we consider offensive or inappropriate, they’ll flog themselves, and we as a public will find no need to punish them.
In the immortal words of the famous Forrest Gump; “Stupid is as stupid does.”
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Post No. 10:How Rev. John Hagee’s Comments Reminded Me of Better Times (The Perils of Being an Information Junkie)
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
John Hagee – interesting guy. However, before I address the controversy surrounding his recent comments (and being politically incorrect might be a good thing), I must reveal a character flaw, with which I have wrestled all of my life. In fact, my Mother, a junior high school teacher and former librarian, is responsible for my condition. You see, I’m an information junkie. It is absolutely essential that I receive new information all throughout the day. My Mother contributed to my affliction in that she actively encouraged me to read anything and everything.
You wouldn’t believe some of the things that I have read. The identity of the writer does not matter. The message does not matter. Offensive materials? Sure, I’ll read them. I am always fascinated with how everyone with whom I come into contact has a position, and a point of view, with respect to virtually every written publication. If I mention a particular book, paper, author, or website, they immediately launch into why they admire or hate the work. Just the mere mention of a work evokes all sorts of emotions, and by simply mentioning it, people naturally assume that I found the work compelling and agree with the content. It appears that similar principles also apply to the spoken word.
In the late fall of 1977, I was watching an episode of 60 Minutes. Someone mentioned that virtually all people could be “defined” or perhaps more accurately, “consumed,” by one of three words, those being identity, stimulation, and security. For some of us, finding ourselves consumes us. For others, nothing is more important than a sense of security. And there are those who seek constant stimulation.
I wrote them down at the time in the front of my Day-Timer, and was therefore forced to revisit the concept on a daily basis for years. Of course, I asked myself repeatedly whether any of the categories applied to me. At least from my perspective, identity and security were of no interest to me. I entertained the possibility that stimulation was applicable to me, and yet I repeatedly dismissed the notion. You tell me.
Some people like music, and others visual images. Me? Give me radio. I love the auditory. Give me Gunsmoke or The Lone Ranger on radio, and I’m in heaven. I learned the game of hockey while attending the University of Michigan, by listening to the radio broadcasts on Saturday nights, just before I went out. Radio commercials occupy a special place in my heart. Even when the Lakers were in the playoffs, those many years, on their way to world championships, I preferred to listen to Chick Hearn do the simult-cast on the radio. For some reason, the spoken word gets my attention. I’m more engaged, and the message is more effectively communicated, from my perspective.
My favorite radio stations of all time? KFWB and KNX-FM, both of which are twenty-four hour, all news stations operating in Los Angeles, with the occasional exception of a radio drama and a game. I woke up to one or the other of the two stations for almost thirty years, and went to sleep the same way. Quiet at bedtime just never worked for me.
What I’ve figured out is that I’m basically an observer, and a loner, who loves to be in a crowd. Interestingly, because of some aspects of my personality, perhaps my unending curiosity and tolerance, I always had lots of folks around me during the day time. But radio time was my time. My time to reflect. Have to drive for four or five hours? Nothing better than a news station. “All news, all the time. You give us twenty-two minutes; we’ll give you the world.”
Now that I am no longer in Los Angeles on a regular basis, there is probably nothing that I miss more about the city than those radio stations. Talk radio is just not the same. Too many opinions and too much spin. Too many personal agendas. Too much anger and tension. But news, coming at you in a steady stream, takes one to a different place.
It forces one to ultimately process and focus. But while it’s coming at you, it forces you to simply absorb. You don’t’ encounter opinions or attitudes which turn you off, causing you to turn off the stream of information. I can’t imagine anything worse in life than tuning out. Isn’t that one of the benefits of higher intelligence, our ability to think for ourselves?
I’ll even admit that news took precedence over, and complicated my relationships with, most of my girlfriends. In fact, if a woman was able to distract me away from the news, it was probably an indication that she was not long for the relationship.
First thing in the morning, I wanted to hear the news. None of that hugging and cuddling stuff. Same thing at night. In fact, I never wanted to be at home until just before I retired. Walk in, brush my teeth, wash my face, and turn on the news station. Don’t cut off my circulation; don’t mention the concept of spooning, and keep the decibel level down so that we can hear the news. Obviously, I had to have some pretty good-natured gals in my life, who also loved the news, or rather information.
So here I’m traveling in the car the other night, and I hear that presidential candidate John McCain has finally severed his “ties” to the good Rev. John Hagee. This guy is interesting, and requires a little introduction. Rev. Hagee is the Founder and Senior Pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas. The church has 19,000 active members. No, that not a typo, 19,000. He is also the CEO of a non-profit corporation, GETV (Global Evangelism Television), which disseminates his message around the world. He has power with a capital “P.”
Candidate McCain, out of concern that he was not the favored candidate amongst religious conservatives, actively sought the endorsement of Rev. Hagee. This is a guy who, after Hurricane Katrina, interpreted it as an Act of God, designed to punish the people of New Orleans, for committing a “level of sin offensive to God.” That was before the current presidential race. Several weeks ago, McCain had to somewhat distance himself from his endorser, when it was revealed that Rev. Hagee had referred to the Catholic Church as the “Great Whore.” However, the axe did not fall.
So I’m driving down the street listening to this talk radio station, and the news segment comes on. This is the closest thing to “all news all the time” that I can get in the Southeast, and I hear this story. McCain had to formally, and completely, sever his connection to Rev. Hagee.
Why? Because the good Reverend, during a series of sermons in the 1990s, indicated that God sent Hitler to Europe and orchestrated the Holocaust, to force the Jews to return to the Holy Land. (In fairness, it should be noted that Rev. Hagee is pro-Israel, and that is one of the factors that motivated McCain to seek his endorsement. If you want to understand the reason for his statement, and how the return of the Jews to Israel purportedly benefits humankind, I would suggest that you conduct a little research on your own. I just want you to appreciate that a simplistic conclusion, that Rev. Hagee is a racist, may not be particularly appropriate in this instance. It goes deeper than that. After all, we should always dig deeper.)
Actually, upon hearing this, the first thing that came to mind was not revulsion, condemnation, or surprise, but rather the pleasant memories of my old news radio stations. I recalled how I could experience any emotion, travel to any place, go anywhere intellectually, when I was engaged with the radio broadcast.
There’s something about that constant stream of information that just works for me. (Of course, there is spin associated with all media, and someone obviously selected the topics to be covered. However, it is about as close as one can get to pure information in the media. ) What I later realized is that I was simply storing information on my cranial hard drive, and not processing it until much later, when I then compared certain bits of information to others.
So here I’m listening to this Holocaust story, and because it was only a five minute news segment, I had the opportunity to gradually process the story shortly thereafter. The first thing that I did was to start chuckling, somewhat out of disbelief. The quasi-chuckle went on for about five minutes, then ten, and then twenty.
Plus, I kept remembering how I found myself over the years listening to hard news, with the same reaction. So now I’m saying to myself, this guy Rev. Hagee is wild; but he at least says what he actually feels. In my view, this was not a slip of the tongue. This was a carefully thought out position. I was also convinced, after a few minutes, that he really believes this, and that it represents truth for him, and perhaps many others.
So here I am reliving the joys of radio consumption, when I had the steady stream of news pumped into my brain, and I could always find out instantly what was going on in the world. There was a bit of nostalgia. Then something else came to mind. I recalled one of the first books that I ever read that most folks might deem “offensive.” It was a book written in the 1950’s by a southern segregationist, explaining why Negroes should be subject to Jim Crow laws.
I recalled reading it with as much relish as Don Quixote. (Well, may be not quite.) Remember, my Mom taught me to read everything. The value judgments came much later.
It always amazed me that black folks would choose to remain in the South and be subject to discrimination, even after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, in discussions with many of my black friends, they said that they would rather know that someone was a racist, than live amongst people who called themselves progressives, or functioned with all of the trappings, but really were just closet racists.
In processing Rev. Hagee’s comments, I immediately asked myself, “Why should he have to explain or apologize for such a statement? “ This, once again, was not a slip. It is pretty clear that he feels that way, and I am absolutely certain that there are thousands, if not millions, who feel similarly. That’s when the concept of political correctness came to mind. (One of my buddies simply called him an “idiot,” although he did not consider Rev. Jeremiah Wright to be of the same “lodge.”)
Over the years, I heard various friends of mine complain about political correctness, but I really hadn’t given it much thought. Being a lawyer, I realized that the law prohibited certain types of conduct in certain situations and that part of the whole political correctness concept was derivatively related to some of our social engineering goals. I also recognized the possibility that we, as a society, might not want our children exposed to certain language or symbols. However, in the grand scheme of things, it just never seemed to me to be that important that someone address me a particular way, or refrain from using certain words. (I have sometimes wondered whether we spend so much time and energy fighting the symbolic battles, because of our insecurities, as a society, about our ability to really wage battle on the real, substantive issues.)
I also did not quite get it when some of my friends also spoke of political correctness as potentially bringing on the death of America. Well, in my mind, this seemed a bit much. But as I drove down the street, I began to think about the reverend’s comments and the concept of political correctness. He clearly has a right to make the comments. I learned long ago, through my international travels, that the concept of reality is situational. I also learned that belief systems are what they are – belief systems, and the last time I checked, no one currently serves as the belief police. You couple that with the fact that there are probably millions who agree with Reverend Hagee, and we have a dilemma.
If we agree that we can not regulate the belief or the thought process, then our concerns must lie with the expression and its form. Are we better off simply letting people speak their minds, and letting the chips fall as they may? Who gets to say what’s too far? Who gets to say what is appropriate? Who can prove that Hagee’s comments aren’t true? Aren’t we better off knowing what people really feel? Aren’t we more likely to be able to effectively “deal” with them? Isn’t there a value to transparency, instead of hiding behind a mask or a robe? Doesn’t the truth set you free?
As a buddy of mine once said, imagery is king in Los Angeles. I often watched buddies of mine try to date actresses, or professional “babes,” and I would remark, “You’re a better man than I.” Wouldn’t you want to know, in dealing with someone with whom you are pursuing an interpersonal relationship, that you’re really dealing with them, and not a script which they were instructed to read, or chose to read to accomplish an objective? Hey, I’ve got a solution. Maybe we should give people a choice. Maybe we should divide our schools, places of employment, governmental offices, and other institutions, into those for individuals desirous of adhering to politically correct principles, and those not. Quite frankly, being politically correct occupies too much of my time, and perhaps that of others. Just seems to me like the time would be better spent on addressing some serious problems, and once we address them to our satisfaction, then we could return to the symbol, word, and image battles.
I don’t know. Once again, I’m confused. It just seems to me that being straightforward and direct can’t be anything but a good thing in the long run. My partner, Laughingman, keeps saying that “doing the right thing is not rocket science.” Maybe being straightforward and direct is what he really means. I guess that’s Rev. Hagee personified. At least you know what you’re dealing with. Quite a few of us are a little tired of the dance.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Post No. 7: You Asked for Religion, You Get Religion (and Politics)
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
It has been said that if one wants to maintain good relations with others in social conversation, one should avoid a discussion of religion or politics. That is unless, of course, everyone in the room feels somewhat similarly about the subject matter. I’m a guy who never saw any reason for anger or tension in interpersonal relationships, and consequently I avoided discussing religion in the past. Why get into an argument unnecessarily that will not advance anyone’s interests? That being said, four recent events prompted me to share my thoughts, or perhaps I should say, my observations.
The first was obviously the frequent reference to religious issues in the current campaign for the presidency, above and beyond Mormonism, Jeremiah Wright, and John Hagee. The second was a surprisingly large number of regular readers of my blog who were interested in whether I thought God existed. Interestingly, all of the readers were women in their late forties or early fifties, who I had known for over twenty-five years. I was immediately intrigued by the fact that they would even ask the question. I gained the impression that they were not inquiring as to whether I believed, but rather whether there is a God. The mere asking of that question poses significant risks. I imagine that only friends over such a lengthy period can ask another friend a question so fraught with potential complications.
The third event was a simple, innocuous, two minute conversation in a gas station earlier this week. I asked a driver at an adjacent pump for change for a bill. He responded that, at that particular moment, he was doing the Lord’s work, and with his blessing, by providing it to me. I vaguely recall responding by saying, “Well good,” or something along that line. However, he surprised me by stating that my response and the tone of my voice suggested to him that I was a non-believer. He further indicated that it was my choice of words that led him to that conclusion. There was an accusatory tone in his voice, and a sense of disappointment that I had not yet chosen to believe, even though I said absolutely nothing to lead him to that conclusion.
Moving on to the fourth and most recent event or series of events, I watched two programs on C-Span2 Book TV, where the authors discussed religion. The first featured Randall Balmer, the author of God in the White House (http://books.google.com/books?id=MjvJGwAACAAJ&dq=%22God+in+the+White+House%22&lr=&ei=8GswSLW0K5CkzgTm3NC1Cg). During his discussion, Balmer suggested that politicians use and manipulate religion, in any manner that they see fit, to advance their political interests and goals. He also told the story of how evangelicals became a force in American politics. Apparently in the early 1960s, they were unsuccessful in having any influence on the abortion debate. However, according to Balmer, during the Johnson administration, the Voting Rights Act was passed. Shortly thereafter, the Internal Revenue Service issued a ruling to the effect that any organization that practiced racial discrimination did not qualify as a charitable organization. Balmer further indicated that he had it on good authority, from the individual that sought the involvement of evangelicals in politics, that the IRS ruling was the precipitating event.
The second book discussion took place at the Discovery Institute. David Berlinski discussed his new book, The Devil's Delusion, wherein he argues that science does not disprove the existence of God or refute the Intelligent Design concept. (http://www.amazon.com/Devils-Delusion-Atheism-Scientific-Pretensions/dp/0307396266). Roughly two years ago, I pulled out my sister’s old college philosophy textbook, and I started reading the section on the existence of God. There were many discussions of the issue by the great philosophers, on both sides of the argument. I quickly concluded that the discussions was far too intellectual for me, and did not address the issues of everyday, ordinary people, as well reasoned as they may have been.
I had the same feeling watching the Discovery Institute discussion. Virtually everyone in the room was an intellectual heavyweight, even the young college students. I was absolutely fascinated by the discussion, but finished watching the show feeling convinced that such an analysis does not take place in the hearts and minds of ordinary citizens. I doubt that such a discussion even takes place amongst the talking heads and consultants on the news shows. I am reasonably sure that the vast majority of people make their decisions about religion in a different fashion – namely whatever works for them and provides them spiritual comfort.
At some early point in my life, I read something to the effect that religion serves the purposes of those who subscribe to it. It provides meaning, purpose, direction, hope, and structure to the lives of humans, and the events that surround them. While I recognize its function from a spiritual, operational, and anthropological perspective, there are many things that I do not understand. You see, I can’t really say that I am a believer. I would have to say that I am a “middle of the roader,” which is a very dangerous status. As another author once said, I thought that being a centrist would mean that folks on both sides of the aisle would find something with which they could agree in my writings. I now understand that it also provides both sides with something which they can both attack.
I recognize the possibility of a deity. I do not denigrate, criticize, or despise those who firmly believe, nor do I feel ill will to those who firmly do not believe. But I’ll tell you, I just wish that God did not work in such mysterious ways, not that I have any control over the subject.
I would like for God to talk to me, touch me, speak to me, or otherwise engage me. I’d just like a clear sign. Additionally, I should note that it does not help to have others tell me that if I simply gave my heart and mind to God, and let him in, he would come in. I just need something more, and I suspect that there are others who feel similarly. I am continually amazed at how confident and self-assured others are about their connection to God. My Father swears that he talks to God. Why has God not chosen to have that same level of connection and conversation with me? Was I left out, or is it about something that I failed to do? I’ve been trying valiantly for 56 years to figure this religion thing out.
I’m not going to get into all of the debates and discussions that have been held repeatedly for thousands of years. Far brighter people have addressed virtually every aspect of religion. I am also fully cognizant that when one raises questions about something, people naturally assume that you have a particular agenda. However, in this instance, and for purposes of this article, I am simply trying to understand the manner in which adherents of different religions treat others and the views of others. This took on a complexion of its own during the recent political campaigns. Interestingly, to my surprise, Balmer indicated that there are currently 4,500 different religions in the world. That being said, I would like to pose some questions to all of you who are more sophisticated and learned than I, to assist me in further developing my thoughts.
How are people chosen to be adherents to a particular religion? Are people born in a certain geographical area based on their acceptability to God? Should we blindly follow the religious views of our parents or should they be questioned and challenged? Is it acceptable for one to modify or adapt the basic tenets of their religion to fit their particular societal, operational, spiritual, and political needs, or should one strictly adhere to the religious tenets and practices that existed at the time that the religion was founded? Is it appropriate for one to be born in one religion, and to then switch to another? Is it necessary for members of one religion to demonize and attack adherents of other religions? Is there one “right” religion which would suggest that the others are “wrong?” Is there one religion that is “better” than the next? Is the basic underlying purpose of religion to ultimately guide people toward doing “good,” however that may be defined? Is physical violence, imposed on adherents to a particular religion who have strayed, or against those of a different religion, ever justified and acceptable in the eyes of God?
For those of you interested in such questions, I strongly suggest that you avoid watching the History Channel, because you will only become more confused. A recent show discussed the books of the Old Testament which could have been included in the Bible, but were left out for various reasons. The program discussed the individuals and groups who made those decisions, and why. I was stunned to find out that there was an earlier version of the legend of Adam and Eve in the Jewish tradition, where Eve’s predecessor was a woman named Lilith, who was Adam’s equal. According to the academic theologians (who interestingly appear to be less dogmatic than practicing religious leaders), the whole course of human history and the relationship of man to woman, including the concept of sex, were dramatically influenced by this “substitution” of Eve.
Additionally, in the same program, the theologians mentioned that the “devil” is never mentioned by name in the Book of Genesis. There is a reference to a serpent. They further noted that it was the practice at the time, when a new religion was being introduced and adopted, to “demonize” the former religion, and one way of depicting the other religion as less desirable was to depict it as a serpent.
Back to the political arena, are we so concerned about the stability of our constitutional form of government that we should be legitimately concerned about one single person’s religious beliefs? Should political candidates question the religious devotion and practices of other candidates during campaigns? Are we to assume that the conduct of the United States is backed by, and has the blessing of, God, and that the conduct of other countries, where other religions are dominant, is not? If God is such an important force in the lives of Americans, despite that piece of paper that suggests that there is a separation of church and state, why doesn’t our society function more like a theocracy? Why do we not have in excess of 600 religious rules and laws like some other major religions? Did we check with God, or the Bible, to determine the manner in which we should handle and treat the enemy combatants captured during our war on terror?
My concern is, and always will be, the provision by our leaders of a structure and a construct thus enabling others to follow and understand their conduct. I would suspect that it is also an issue for our children watching the religious exchange between our candidates. I don’t know, perhaps the lesson to be learned is that you can do whatever you want to do if you believe and feel that God will support it, and thus you do not have to explain your actions to others. As I am in connection with virtually all of my articles, I do not feel any more comfortable now than I felt at the beginning of the generation of this piece.
I will conclude by mentioning yet another book discussion involving Michael Meyerson, author of Liberty’s Blueprint. (Http://www.amazon.com/Libertys-Blueprint-Federalist-Constitution-Democracy/dp/0465002641/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-6367001-4872918?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211136469&sr=1-1) In his work, Meyerson tells the story of how James Madison and Alexander Hamilton mounted a campaign to convince the citizenry of the need for a federal constitution and its parameters. Meyerson notes that they did not rely on sound bites and bombastic claims. They wrote 85 separate essays on the subject matter, and then physically traveled around the country making their case for federalism. Meyerson argues that the two patriots emphasized that the resultant product would not be a political compromise, but rather a system that would work. They wanted to convince their audience of the soundness of their concept by reason. Some of our political leaders, on both sides of their aisle, might benefit from employing a similar approach to the religious discussion and the role of religion in our government and politics. Virtually anything would be better than what exists today.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
It has been said that if one wants to maintain good relations with others in social conversation, one should avoid a discussion of religion or politics. That is unless, of course, everyone in the room feels somewhat similarly about the subject matter. I’m a guy who never saw any reason for anger or tension in interpersonal relationships, and consequently I avoided discussing religion in the past. Why get into an argument unnecessarily that will not advance anyone’s interests? That being said, four recent events prompted me to share my thoughts, or perhaps I should say, my observations.
The first was obviously the frequent reference to religious issues in the current campaign for the presidency, above and beyond Mormonism, Jeremiah Wright, and John Hagee. The second was a surprisingly large number of regular readers of my blog who were interested in whether I thought God existed. Interestingly, all of the readers were women in their late forties or early fifties, who I had known for over twenty-five years. I was immediately intrigued by the fact that they would even ask the question. I gained the impression that they were not inquiring as to whether I believed, but rather whether there is a God. The mere asking of that question poses significant risks. I imagine that only friends over such a lengthy period can ask another friend a question so fraught with potential complications.
The third event was a simple, innocuous, two minute conversation in a gas station earlier this week. I asked a driver at an adjacent pump for change for a bill. He responded that, at that particular moment, he was doing the Lord’s work, and with his blessing, by providing it to me. I vaguely recall responding by saying, “Well good,” or something along that line. However, he surprised me by stating that my response and the tone of my voice suggested to him that I was a non-believer. He further indicated that it was my choice of words that led him to that conclusion. There was an accusatory tone in his voice, and a sense of disappointment that I had not yet chosen to believe, even though I said absolutely nothing to lead him to that conclusion.
Moving on to the fourth and most recent event or series of events, I watched two programs on C-Span2 Book TV, where the authors discussed religion. The first featured Randall Balmer, the author of God in the White House (http://books.google.com/books?id=MjvJGwAACAAJ&dq=%22God+in+the+White+House%22&lr=&ei=8GswSLW0K5CkzgTm3NC1Cg). During his discussion, Balmer suggested that politicians use and manipulate religion, in any manner that they see fit, to advance their political interests and goals. He also told the story of how evangelicals became a force in American politics. Apparently in the early 1960s, they were unsuccessful in having any influence on the abortion debate. However, according to Balmer, during the Johnson administration, the Voting Rights Act was passed. Shortly thereafter, the Internal Revenue Service issued a ruling to the effect that any organization that practiced racial discrimination did not qualify as a charitable organization. Balmer further indicated that he had it on good authority, from the individual that sought the involvement of evangelicals in politics, that the IRS ruling was the precipitating event.
The second book discussion took place at the Discovery Institute. David Berlinski discussed his new book, The Devil's Delusion, wherein he argues that science does not disprove the existence of God or refute the Intelligent Design concept. (http://www.amazon.com/Devils-Delusion-Atheism-Scientific-Pretensions/dp/0307396266). Roughly two years ago, I pulled out my sister’s old college philosophy textbook, and I started reading the section on the existence of God. There were many discussions of the issue by the great philosophers, on both sides of the argument. I quickly concluded that the discussions was far too intellectual for me, and did not address the issues of everyday, ordinary people, as well reasoned as they may have been.
I had the same feeling watching the Discovery Institute discussion. Virtually everyone in the room was an intellectual heavyweight, even the young college students. I was absolutely fascinated by the discussion, but finished watching the show feeling convinced that such an analysis does not take place in the hearts and minds of ordinary citizens. I doubt that such a discussion even takes place amongst the talking heads and consultants on the news shows. I am reasonably sure that the vast majority of people make their decisions about religion in a different fashion – namely whatever works for them and provides them spiritual comfort.
At some early point in my life, I read something to the effect that religion serves the purposes of those who subscribe to it. It provides meaning, purpose, direction, hope, and structure to the lives of humans, and the events that surround them. While I recognize its function from a spiritual, operational, and anthropological perspective, there are many things that I do not understand. You see, I can’t really say that I am a believer. I would have to say that I am a “middle of the roader,” which is a very dangerous status. As another author once said, I thought that being a centrist would mean that folks on both sides of the aisle would find something with which they could agree in my writings. I now understand that it also provides both sides with something which they can both attack.
I recognize the possibility of a deity. I do not denigrate, criticize, or despise those who firmly believe, nor do I feel ill will to those who firmly do not believe. But I’ll tell you, I just wish that God did not work in such mysterious ways, not that I have any control over the subject.
I would like for God to talk to me, touch me, speak to me, or otherwise engage me. I’d just like a clear sign. Additionally, I should note that it does not help to have others tell me that if I simply gave my heart and mind to God, and let him in, he would come in. I just need something more, and I suspect that there are others who feel similarly. I am continually amazed at how confident and self-assured others are about their connection to God. My Father swears that he talks to God. Why has God not chosen to have that same level of connection and conversation with me? Was I left out, or is it about something that I failed to do? I’ve been trying valiantly for 56 years to figure this religion thing out.
I’m not going to get into all of the debates and discussions that have been held repeatedly for thousands of years. Far brighter people have addressed virtually every aspect of religion. I am also fully cognizant that when one raises questions about something, people naturally assume that you have a particular agenda. However, in this instance, and for purposes of this article, I am simply trying to understand the manner in which adherents of different religions treat others and the views of others. This took on a complexion of its own during the recent political campaigns. Interestingly, to my surprise, Balmer indicated that there are currently 4,500 different religions in the world. That being said, I would like to pose some questions to all of you who are more sophisticated and learned than I, to assist me in further developing my thoughts.
How are people chosen to be adherents to a particular religion? Are people born in a certain geographical area based on their acceptability to God? Should we blindly follow the religious views of our parents or should they be questioned and challenged? Is it acceptable for one to modify or adapt the basic tenets of their religion to fit their particular societal, operational, spiritual, and political needs, or should one strictly adhere to the religious tenets and practices that existed at the time that the religion was founded? Is it appropriate for one to be born in one religion, and to then switch to another? Is it necessary for members of one religion to demonize and attack adherents of other religions? Is there one “right” religion which would suggest that the others are “wrong?” Is there one religion that is “better” than the next? Is the basic underlying purpose of religion to ultimately guide people toward doing “good,” however that may be defined? Is physical violence, imposed on adherents to a particular religion who have strayed, or against those of a different religion, ever justified and acceptable in the eyes of God?
For those of you interested in such questions, I strongly suggest that you avoid watching the History Channel, because you will only become more confused. A recent show discussed the books of the Old Testament which could have been included in the Bible, but were left out for various reasons. The program discussed the individuals and groups who made those decisions, and why. I was stunned to find out that there was an earlier version of the legend of Adam and Eve in the Jewish tradition, where Eve’s predecessor was a woman named Lilith, who was Adam’s equal. According to the academic theologians (who interestingly appear to be less dogmatic than practicing religious leaders), the whole course of human history and the relationship of man to woman, including the concept of sex, were dramatically influenced by this “substitution” of Eve.
Additionally, in the same program, the theologians mentioned that the “devil” is never mentioned by name in the Book of Genesis. There is a reference to a serpent. They further noted that it was the practice at the time, when a new religion was being introduced and adopted, to “demonize” the former religion, and one way of depicting the other religion as less desirable was to depict it as a serpent.
Back to the political arena, are we so concerned about the stability of our constitutional form of government that we should be legitimately concerned about one single person’s religious beliefs? Should political candidates question the religious devotion and practices of other candidates during campaigns? Are we to assume that the conduct of the United States is backed by, and has the blessing of, God, and that the conduct of other countries, where other religions are dominant, is not? If God is such an important force in the lives of Americans, despite that piece of paper that suggests that there is a separation of church and state, why doesn’t our society function more like a theocracy? Why do we not have in excess of 600 religious rules and laws like some other major religions? Did we check with God, or the Bible, to determine the manner in which we should handle and treat the enemy combatants captured during our war on terror?
My concern is, and always will be, the provision by our leaders of a structure and a construct thus enabling others to follow and understand their conduct. I would suspect that it is also an issue for our children watching the religious exchange between our candidates. I don’t know, perhaps the lesson to be learned is that you can do whatever you want to do if you believe and feel that God will support it, and thus you do not have to explain your actions to others. As I am in connection with virtually all of my articles, I do not feel any more comfortable now than I felt at the beginning of the generation of this piece.
I will conclude by mentioning yet another book discussion involving Michael Meyerson, author of Liberty’s Blueprint. (Http://www.amazon.com/Libertys-Blueprint-Federalist-Constitution-Democracy/dp/0465002641/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-6367001-4872918?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211136469&sr=1-1) In his work, Meyerson tells the story of how James Madison and Alexander Hamilton mounted a campaign to convince the citizenry of the need for a federal constitution and its parameters. Meyerson notes that they did not rely on sound bites and bombastic claims. They wrote 85 separate essays on the subject matter, and then physically traveled around the country making their case for federalism. Meyerson argues that the two patriots emphasized that the resultant product would not be a political compromise, but rather a system that would work. They wanted to convince their audience of the soundness of their concept by reason. Some of our political leaders, on both sides of their aisle, might benefit from employing a similar approach to the religious discussion and the role of religion in our government and politics. Virtually anything would be better than what exists today.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Post No. 5: The Triangular Box in Which America Finds Itself Circumscribed (Why We Really Don’t Like Any of the Political Candidates)
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
If we were honest with ourselves, we’d admit that there is something about political candidates which we dislike long before they are ever elected. I first developed a sense of this during the late 1970s, when I became excited about a particular candidate running for the U.S. Senate. I was a fresh, idealistic youth, excited about what this candidate could do for America.
I attended a reception in the lobby of a beautiful, historic office building downtown with high ceilings, filled with campaign supporters and the press. When I finally managed to get a close up view of the candidate who I planned to support, I noted a certain detachment in his eyes, taking on an almost Zombie- type quality. I watched him as he navigated the room, smiling, shaking hands.
I still did not connect with him on a personal level, because he just didn’t seem real. I also noticed the entourage, consisting of enthusiastic “grinners.”
I chalked up that initial experience to a lack of charisma on the part of that particular candidate. A couple of years later, I got excited about a gubernatorial candidate. This time around, the candidate was even more Zombie-like than the first. Of course, once again, there was an adequate supply of grinners. Although still idealistic, I decided that participation in political campaigns was not for me.
Some years later, the husband of one of my best friends in school decided to run for state office. Since I really admired this guy, and knew his views prior to his decision to run for office, I enthusiastically supported his candidacy. He was successful, and fortunately, he never changed. I always felt that he looked at me, and others, straight in the eye, and not past us looking for the next hand to shake. I viewed him as a real person. It probably helped that I knew him before, during, and after his political life.
Interestingly, after a subsequent unsuccessful bid for higher office, I asked him how he liked being out of politics. After letting out a big sigh, he said that he loved it. My sense was that there was nothing he hated more than being a politician. He obviously had a passion about serving his constituency, but the politician hat never quite fit him. I got the impression that it was a contorted existence, full of twisting and turning – almost unnatural in a sense. I then realized - that we have created an unattainable standard, with unreasonable expectations, or perhaps inappropriate expectations.
I have always felt, from a theoretical perspective, that serving one’s country, or serving the needs of others, was the highest form of societal contribution that one could make. Consequently, when I began to get this sense that being a politician was not a particularly good thing, it began to bother me.
I doubt that I ever actually looked up the word “political,” until roughly ten minutes ago. However, it always seemed to me that “being political” meant saying whatever one needed to say, that would offend the fewest people, and result in the least amount of noticeable criticism. (That’s coming from someone who does not consider himself cynical.) That’s not only bad from a public relations perspective, but it also creates a mood of alienation amongst our voters. Cynicism about politics is not a good thing. It makes one not care.
I have often joked with my friends that the primary reason that I have never been married is because I have no political skills. Knowing that, I made a decision never to get married. I’ve concluded that I’m not qualified for marriage.
In a similar vein, maybe we should come to the realization that the standard that we have artificially created for our candidates does not really make them qualified as functional leaders, although they might be, at least superficially, good moral leaders. (I’d be just fine with delegating all of the morality talk to the religious professionals - our ministers, priests, and rabbis.)
Maybe candidates can not really connect with us since they fear that we might see them for who they really are – less than perfect people. (They may know it, but their handlers may not want us to see it.) Perhaps they’ve got to hit you with something superficially positive, and move on before you figure out the real deal. Additionally, we all recognize that it is a numbers game.
For many years, we have spoken about election decisions involving choosing the lesser of evils. We often assume that they are all egomaniacs. We also frequently assume that they are all on the take. We even suggest that the system is at fault, and that lobbyists and big corporations ultimately corrupt even the most capable of politicians.
I would suggest something different. They’re not like us; but we, as a country, have put ourselves in a box. (Maybe they really are like us, but we do not allow them to express that quality, since we would immediately attack them as having character flaws.) Let’s take our recent primary experience.
Admittedly, the leader of the free world, or any country for that matter, should be held to a higher standard of conduct and prior achievement. However, this notion of a saint with a perfect success rating, who has never made a mistake, who has never associated with someone who made a mistake, and who has never misspoke about a sensitive subject, and who has never had a business failure, has effectively eliminated all of the people who could really do an effective job.
Every individual citizen’s concept of morality and success becomes a nebulous and amorphous standard, and when compounded, becomes a virtually unattainable one.
Quite frankly, I have often joked that I would like to see a straight-talking candidate, who admitted that he was a philander, a former drug-addict, a former homeless person, a former bankrupt who failed at business, and who had many prior indiscretions, take a stab at the presidency.
That candidate would probably have better skills, and have a better appreciation of the issues affecting the majority of the citizens in our society. (All the perfect, successful people out there, with ideal families really don’t need a leader. Their lives are ideal. They are just afraid of those with non-ideal lives creeping over into their neighborhoods.)
We need a leader to address problems and improve conditions. To address problems, one needs to understand the underlying causes of problems. To address problems, a nation (meaning its citizenry) also needs to accept responsibility for its structural and systemic contribution to the problem.
On the contrary, what we have today is the constant blame game, “The other guy or other party did it. They’re the reason that we are in this condition today.” I don’t know about you; however, I’ve never found that criticizing the conduct of others solved crap. Come up with a suggestion of something different that might work.
There’s another problem with our candidates unrelated to the moral box. Most folks running for our highest office do not have a clue as to who you are. They may have at one point at time, prior to embarking on their road to success. However, you don’t enter the arena of presidential pretenders being an ordinary Joe, nor do you enter that arena with many setbacks under your belt. They’ve fought long and hard. They are generally successful financially and professionally, and they are focused.
They are not your average American with average issues, hopes, and desires. There’s a disconnect. There is thus, also, a class box. (Tangentially, I should note that the political commentators and consultants, on all of the shows dealing with politics, aren’t ordinary Janes or Joes either. Talk about a disconnect from the American public. I just love it when they say, “What the American people want….”
I hope that you do not view me as an apologist for some notion of immoral behavior, or prior personal setbacks. That’s not the argument that I am making. I’m just saying that we have created an unachievable standard. I doubt that anyone is truly “qualified” to be president.
I’m no academic historian; however, my sense is that some of the greatest leaders of this country were not saints, and they were not always successful in every aspect of life. They were not professional speakers and hand shakers. They didn’t always speak in politically correct terms. My suspicion is that all things considered, they had more positive about them than negative.
In a nation where we judge our potential leaders by a superficial, illusive, personal standard which most of us can not attain ourselves, how do we expect to find someone to address the real issues affecting our society, and on which probably most of us can agree. As Wag the Dog showed us, it is too much about “the show.”
Personally, I like doers, not avoiders. I like risk takers, not risk avoiders. I like straight talkers, not talkers about high moral values, when in fact they are just like the rest of us, human, and subject to mistakes and foibles.
Hypocrites, please move aside. And for God’s sake, find me a candidate who will occasionally say, “My fellow Americans, I apologize, but I made a mistake.” Aren’t we capable of accepting apologies in this society, or have we made it too difficult to apologize, resulting in a bunch of deniers? Folks generally know when they messed up.
The continual condemnation, requiring the hypocritical, self-serving painting or characterization of political candidates, does not really advance any societal interests, just short-term, personal ones. It also contributes to the perpetuation of false images on the part of our candidates. (I still have not decided whether it is a good quality in a candidate to be able to ignore or deflect public criticism, and persevere when they believe that they are doing the “right thing.” I used to think that was a good quality, and that thinking in terms of the long term was generally the way to go. Our current president has made me re-evaluate that factor.)
Let’s see if we get beyond this beauty and morality contest. How about a switch to someone who can simply get things done, even if he or she does not fit within the politically correct box in which we currently find ourselves confined? How about a switch to someone whose primary goal is not to get elected? Our denial, or failure to admit that we are not a perfect, successful, moral society, might be our downfall.
By fighting our way out of this restrictive, but amorphous box in which we find ourselves, we might actually get more accomplished as a nation. We can not continue to allow outside forces, and the current world environment, dictate the fate of America, while we sweat the “small stuff.”
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
If we were honest with ourselves, we’d admit that there is something about political candidates which we dislike long before they are ever elected. I first developed a sense of this during the late 1970s, when I became excited about a particular candidate running for the U.S. Senate. I was a fresh, idealistic youth, excited about what this candidate could do for America.
I attended a reception in the lobby of a beautiful, historic office building downtown with high ceilings, filled with campaign supporters and the press. When I finally managed to get a close up view of the candidate who I planned to support, I noted a certain detachment in his eyes, taking on an almost Zombie- type quality. I watched him as he navigated the room, smiling, shaking hands.
I still did not connect with him on a personal level, because he just didn’t seem real. I also noticed the entourage, consisting of enthusiastic “grinners.”
I chalked up that initial experience to a lack of charisma on the part of that particular candidate. A couple of years later, I got excited about a gubernatorial candidate. This time around, the candidate was even more Zombie-like than the first. Of course, once again, there was an adequate supply of grinners. Although still idealistic, I decided that participation in political campaigns was not for me.
Some years later, the husband of one of my best friends in school decided to run for state office. Since I really admired this guy, and knew his views prior to his decision to run for office, I enthusiastically supported his candidacy. He was successful, and fortunately, he never changed. I always felt that he looked at me, and others, straight in the eye, and not past us looking for the next hand to shake. I viewed him as a real person. It probably helped that I knew him before, during, and after his political life.
Interestingly, after a subsequent unsuccessful bid for higher office, I asked him how he liked being out of politics. After letting out a big sigh, he said that he loved it. My sense was that there was nothing he hated more than being a politician. He obviously had a passion about serving his constituency, but the politician hat never quite fit him. I got the impression that it was a contorted existence, full of twisting and turning – almost unnatural in a sense. I then realized - that we have created an unattainable standard, with unreasonable expectations, or perhaps inappropriate expectations.
I have always felt, from a theoretical perspective, that serving one’s country, or serving the needs of others, was the highest form of societal contribution that one could make. Consequently, when I began to get this sense that being a politician was not a particularly good thing, it began to bother me.
I doubt that I ever actually looked up the word “political,” until roughly ten minutes ago. However, it always seemed to me that “being political” meant saying whatever one needed to say, that would offend the fewest people, and result in the least amount of noticeable criticism. (That’s coming from someone who does not consider himself cynical.) That’s not only bad from a public relations perspective, but it also creates a mood of alienation amongst our voters. Cynicism about politics is not a good thing. It makes one not care.
I have often joked with my friends that the primary reason that I have never been married is because I have no political skills. Knowing that, I made a decision never to get married. I’ve concluded that I’m not qualified for marriage.
In a similar vein, maybe we should come to the realization that the standard that we have artificially created for our candidates does not really make them qualified as functional leaders, although they might be, at least superficially, good moral leaders. (I’d be just fine with delegating all of the morality talk to the religious professionals - our ministers, priests, and rabbis.)
Maybe candidates can not really connect with us since they fear that we might see them for who they really are – less than perfect people. (They may know it, but their handlers may not want us to see it.) Perhaps they’ve got to hit you with something superficially positive, and move on before you figure out the real deal. Additionally, we all recognize that it is a numbers game.
For many years, we have spoken about election decisions involving choosing the lesser of evils. We often assume that they are all egomaniacs. We also frequently assume that they are all on the take. We even suggest that the system is at fault, and that lobbyists and big corporations ultimately corrupt even the most capable of politicians.
I would suggest something different. They’re not like us; but we, as a country, have put ourselves in a box. (Maybe they really are like us, but we do not allow them to express that quality, since we would immediately attack them as having character flaws.) Let’s take our recent primary experience.
Admittedly, the leader of the free world, or any country for that matter, should be held to a higher standard of conduct and prior achievement. However, this notion of a saint with a perfect success rating, who has never made a mistake, who has never associated with someone who made a mistake, and who has never misspoke about a sensitive subject, and who has never had a business failure, has effectively eliminated all of the people who could really do an effective job.
Every individual citizen’s concept of morality and success becomes a nebulous and amorphous standard, and when compounded, becomes a virtually unattainable one.
Quite frankly, I have often joked that I would like to see a straight-talking candidate, who admitted that he was a philander, a former drug-addict, a former homeless person, a former bankrupt who failed at business, and who had many prior indiscretions, take a stab at the presidency.
That candidate would probably have better skills, and have a better appreciation of the issues affecting the majority of the citizens in our society. (All the perfect, successful people out there, with ideal families really don’t need a leader. Their lives are ideal. They are just afraid of those with non-ideal lives creeping over into their neighborhoods.)
We need a leader to address problems and improve conditions. To address problems, one needs to understand the underlying causes of problems. To address problems, a nation (meaning its citizenry) also needs to accept responsibility for its structural and systemic contribution to the problem.
On the contrary, what we have today is the constant blame game, “The other guy or other party did it. They’re the reason that we are in this condition today.” I don’t know about you; however, I’ve never found that criticizing the conduct of others solved crap. Come up with a suggestion of something different that might work.
There’s another problem with our candidates unrelated to the moral box. Most folks running for our highest office do not have a clue as to who you are. They may have at one point at time, prior to embarking on their road to success. However, you don’t enter the arena of presidential pretenders being an ordinary Joe, nor do you enter that arena with many setbacks under your belt. They’ve fought long and hard. They are generally successful financially and professionally, and they are focused.
They are not your average American with average issues, hopes, and desires. There’s a disconnect. There is thus, also, a class box. (Tangentially, I should note that the political commentators and consultants, on all of the shows dealing with politics, aren’t ordinary Janes or Joes either. Talk about a disconnect from the American public. I just love it when they say, “What the American people want….”
I hope that you do not view me as an apologist for some notion of immoral behavior, or prior personal setbacks. That’s not the argument that I am making. I’m just saying that we have created an unachievable standard. I doubt that anyone is truly “qualified” to be president.
I’m no academic historian; however, my sense is that some of the greatest leaders of this country were not saints, and they were not always successful in every aspect of life. They were not professional speakers and hand shakers. They didn’t always speak in politically correct terms. My suspicion is that all things considered, they had more positive about them than negative.
In a nation where we judge our potential leaders by a superficial, illusive, personal standard which most of us can not attain ourselves, how do we expect to find someone to address the real issues affecting our society, and on which probably most of us can agree. As Wag the Dog showed us, it is too much about “the show.”
Personally, I like doers, not avoiders. I like risk takers, not risk avoiders. I like straight talkers, not talkers about high moral values, when in fact they are just like the rest of us, human, and subject to mistakes and foibles.
Hypocrites, please move aside. And for God’s sake, find me a candidate who will occasionally say, “My fellow Americans, I apologize, but I made a mistake.” Aren’t we capable of accepting apologies in this society, or have we made it too difficult to apologize, resulting in a bunch of deniers? Folks generally know when they messed up.
The continual condemnation, requiring the hypocritical, self-serving painting or characterization of political candidates, does not really advance any societal interests, just short-term, personal ones. It also contributes to the perpetuation of false images on the part of our candidates. (I still have not decided whether it is a good quality in a candidate to be able to ignore or deflect public criticism, and persevere when they believe that they are doing the “right thing.” I used to think that was a good quality, and that thinking in terms of the long term was generally the way to go. Our current president has made me re-evaluate that factor.)
Let’s see if we get beyond this beauty and morality contest. How about a switch to someone who can simply get things done, even if he or she does not fit within the politically correct box in which we currently find ourselves confined? How about a switch to someone whose primary goal is not to get elected? Our denial, or failure to admit that we are not a perfect, successful, moral society, might be our downfall.
By fighting our way out of this restrictive, but amorphous box in which we find ourselves, we might actually get more accomplished as a nation. We can not continue to allow outside forces, and the current world environment, dictate the fate of America, while we sweat the “small stuff.”
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)