Selective Outrage & Inconsistent Indignation
Posted: Friday, September 18, 2009
by Edward Rhymes
I must admit I am somewhat confused about the rhetoric that I'm hearing by many who oppose well, just about anything President Obama does. I find that some of the outrage and indignation is rooted in some sort of collective amnesia and cognitive dissonance. I want to point to several areas that I believe are important for us to view.
There are legitimate points that can be argued when it comes to many of our current president's policies --- and those points should be debated. There is also, nevertheless, an element here that defies reasoning. There are many of those that are vehemently protesting, who say they oppose the President's policies as a matter of principle (i.e. opposition to socialism; opposition to growing deficits etc.) and that's fine. However, when the previous administration was guilty of similar "transgressions" (and sometimes even greater ones) there was a deafening silence. Let's take a look at those areas:
There have been many charges of socialism aimed at President Obama. However, when President Bush actually began his experiment into socialism, there was not this personal demonization of him that we see now with our current President. Bush's $700 billion bailout plan, the partial nationalization of the nation's biggest banks, the federal takeover of insurance giant AIG and mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, did not illicit this present level of outrage and disdain. Even U.S. Congress members, who voted for the Bush bailout plan, are now accusing President Obama of socialism. I am aware that there were those in opposition to President Obama's plan, who were also in opposition to President Bush's plan, but where were the crowds of angry citizens wanting their America back? There are some who say that this belief in Obama's bent towards socialism is also rooted in his healthcare reform agenda (with its public option component). What these illogical arguments have exposed, however, is that we American's are all quasi-socialists --- some reluctantly; some hypocritically and some proudly, but nevertheless, quasi-socialists. Who has seriously called for the dismantling of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the VA? On the contrary, "hands off" is the cry in regard to these government-run and controlled programs.
BDD: Budget Deficit Disorder
On the day President Bush took office, the national debt stood at $5.727 trillion; a few months before he left it was more than $10.549 trillion --- that's a 71.9 percent increase on Mr. Bush's watch. Without any fanfare, protest and little notice, the national debt grew by close to $5 trillion during George W. Bush's presidency. Now, buried deep in the hundred pages of bailout legislation was a provision that would raise the statutory ceiling on the national debt to $11.315 trillion. It was the 7th time the debt limit had been raised during his administration. In fact it was just on July 30, 2008 that President Bush signed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act, which contained a provision raising the debt ceiling to $10.615 trillion.
Additionally, President Bush's last budget, that covers the fiscal year of 2009, was criticized by Democrats and Republicans alike because they believed he achieved his goals through fiscal trickery, by not fully accounting for war spending and by assuming, for example, that domestic spending would hold steady from 2009 to 2013. Further, it has to be realized that most of the Bush administration's budget deficit was accomplished with the help of a Republican-led congress. Yet, no significant howls about bankrupting our children and grandchildren; no serious drive to look behind the numbers of the "fuzzy math" contained in those budgets. Fast-forward to 2009 and great deal of those who were silent are now up in arms. Granted, I could accept as an argument: "I wasn't paying attention then like I should, but I am now." But that's not what I'm hearing. I'm hearing the vilification of someone who is nine months into an inherited mess. So if the federal deficit was a major concern to those who protest now... where were they then?
Reaching For The Czars
The newest line of duplicitous attack is concerning the "czars" in President Obama's administration --- the count is at about 34. The word czar, nowadays, is usually short-hand for a Presidential adviser whose title is too long to pronounce. This assault also shows the double-standard being applied to this current President. We are being told by certain pundits that there is a shadow-government being formed through the appointment of these czars. It has also been further asserted that these czar appointments are circumventing some sort of confirmation process by Congress. Although I am a strong proponent in checking governmental and Executive power, I am an even stronger advocate for honesty in our political and social discourse.
Truth is, just about every president since Franklin Roosevelt had "Czar" appointees in their administration. Bush had a total of 36 positions filled by a total of 46 different individuals over the years. Some had the blessing of Congress, but most of them didn't --- over half (24) of Bush's czars were by executive order or special appointment.
Some of the czar positions created by the Bush administration are worthy of note:
- Cyber Security Czar
- Regulatory Czar
- AIDS Czar
- Bird Flu Czar
- Health IT Czar
- Katrina Czar
- Manufacturing Czar
- Domestic Policy Czar
- War Czar
- Copyright Czar
- Abstinence Czar
- Mine Safety Czar
- Latin American Czar
- WTO Health Czar
- Corruption Czar
- Privacy Czar
- Health Czar
Constitutional Conundrum
There is a fear and assertion that the election of President Obama presented a threat to our civil liberties and an attack on the Constitution. It has also been further asserted that there is a drive by the current administration to set-up some sort of totalitarian government, where the rights of individuals are trampled on. Once again, I support a healthy skepticism of government, but I believe that these allegations are rooted in fear and ignorance. Much of this newfound vigilance (I concede that there are some who were always vigilant) in regard to government intrusion and disregard for civil liberties smacks of hypocrisy and selective amnesia.
President Bush quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted while he was in office, asserting that he had the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress which conflicted with his interpretation of the Constitution.
Among the laws Bush said he could ignore were military rules and regulations, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research. This same President, once, during a meeting with Republican Congressional leaders, in which they expressed concerns about renewing the Patriot Act, reportedly showed contempt for the Constitution, calling it "just a goddamned piece of paper."
Moreover, the Bush administration presided over the beginning of the warrantless wiretapping of American citizens --- in other words domestic spying. Now, the argument has been made that it was for our protection and to thwart any future attacks. However, it could be argued that it also laid the groundwork for the "Big Brother" styled government that President Obama is being accused of trying to implement. What I find most troubling is that those who display a strong distrust of government seem to have been more than happy to sign certain civil liberties away. But once again, when real violations of the Constitution were committed in the previous administration there was an absence of significant dissent.
Conclusion
This piece was not written to castigate those who have real concerns about the direction of our government and our country; it was not even written to persuade readers who have a decided point of view or ideology in opposition to our current President's. It was written, however, to point out, what I believe, are clear double-standards and hypocritical standards of judgment when it comes to this present administration. Those who oppose (on principle) what they perceive to be runaway deficits, decreased civil liberties and expansion of governmental and Executive power under President Obama, should have shown the same level of protest with President Bush's very similar actions and policies.
I want us to sincerely ask ourselves: upon what do my arguments and protestations rest? Have I been consistent, in tone and reason, (across the political board) in my criticisms of policies and actions?
I do not discourage honest disagreement, dissent or debate. I am not writing this to advocate for a particular policy or position. I believe an honest discussion takes place when you remove the dishonest and the duplicitous barriers to that discussion. It is for those who have engaged (knowingly or unknowingly) in this injustice that this was written. As for me: "He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice , and to love kindness , and to walk humbly with your God? "(Micah 6:8 ESV).
Sources
- Bush Administration Adds $4 Trillion To National Debt
- Did George Bush have Czars?
- Bush challenges hundreds of laws
This Article has been viewed 1,554 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
More commentsWell documented, ecxellent article. It says what many are thinking and that makes it very relative. I'm afraid that white America hates diversity and that won't change soon. But voices must be heard that this is wrong, not only wrong but dangerous. When the middle class voice is not heard, (and the middle class is becoming more "colorful" as we speak), then the middle class acts socially and liberally, which can be quite revolutionary and dangerous to conservatives trying to maintain the status quo (which comes from fear, which means that conservatives are deathly afraid!) Republicanism is becoming hatism, and that is a fact that's becoming more obvious every day.
Best.............e
Thanks e. It is not protest that I am opposed to; it is not legitimate debate and disagreement that I have a problem with. It is the selective incrimination; it is the collective amnesia that many seem to be suffering from. If the problems are the ones stated in the piece then we should have seen this some time ago. If not then, why now? Thanks for reading and commenting e.
"upon what do my arguments and protestations rest? Have I been consistent, in tone and reason, (across the political board) in my criticisms of policies and actions? "Wonderful article, Edward. Once again you have called upon myself and the rest of America to be honest in our judgement of others- not just the president. Your message is a welcomed challenge to grow.Thanks Ken. I appreciate your words of encouragement (and humbled by them as well) --- they have been a blessing to me. I am extremely happy that you could take something from this writing. Blessings to you brother.
Very well-balanced and informative yet again. Many forget the shenannigans of previous administrations, and the old adage of 'throwing stones when in glass houses' still rings true today. It's almost as if there is no difference between the parties as they both have the same stones to throw. Thanks for keeping everyone honest.
Amen and Amen. I am neither all for or all against our current president, nor do I deny the shortcomings of our past president. But you are right, it is easy to get clouded vision when the masses speak up on either extreme. We need to weigh each situation/policy - whatever on its own and based on our own convictions. Thanks for making me and all us think. I have my reasons for not caring for many of the policies our president stands for, but I still think he's got some great ideas and would like to see our entire government come to agreement. Lord help us all! Blessings to you! TeresaThanks for commenting Teresa. Scriptures says: A false balance is an abomination to the LORD, but a just weight is his delight (Proverbs 11:1). In our critique of anyone or anything, it MUST be just. As I said this wasn’t about me advocating one position or another, it was about us thinking --- especially, we as Christians. If our first allegiance is to Christ, we won’t be easily steered to extremes or to committing injustices. Thanks for reading and commenting my dear Sister.
Thanks Edward, your information is well known. However, when it comes to President Obama, their is the 'White Hate' segment that find this as an opportune moment. Observe from ": “I hope Obama wins because in four years, white people just might be @#$@#&*ed off enough to actually do something. … White people aren’t going to do a thing until their toys are taken away from them. So things have to be worse for things to be better.”It seems the media do not present the news as once did, now they "Speculate." Remember, they all have experts...smile... This article should be forefront in AP circles. (The hate groups {That is all being reported} do not like the giving away of information by Carter. As quiet as it is, I know Carter is telling the truth.)Hatewatch is written by the staff of the Intelligence Report, an investigative magazine published by the Alabama-based civil rights group Southern Poverty Law Center.Thanks for commenting Dr. Rucker. Sadly, in the history of our country, there have always been those who have attempted (and succeeded) in manipulating the fears, ignorance and prejudices of people. Our ultimate antidote is love. And in that love we will find: hope for our fears; understanding for our ignorance; and humility for our prejudices. We, especially those of the household of faith, must be resolute in our love. Thanks again Dr. Rucker for commenting --- you bless me with your honesty.
I believe President Obama is doing an outstanding job. Bush got us into this mess, Obama is trying to get us out. good articleThanks David. Yes, he inherited a mess and has his work cut out for him. And although I believe he has gotten a raw deal when it comes to these criticisms, he must be clear about his goals and objectives; he must provide leadership in a more engaged fashion; and he must have the courage of his convictions. If he fails, we all suffer defeat as a nation. That is not an uplifting prospect. I appreciate your remarks David.
Excellent points - just for the record, some of us were quite "ticked off" with Bush also... It gets discouraging when you get to the point where both "teams" begin to look alike. BUT I still keep voting and suspect you might be a voter too. Thanks for writing this one, Edward! MarijoThanks for writing Marijo. Yeah, I understand that there was plenty of anger towards Bush to go around. My critique was based on the arguments that are being made by some: were they this vehement with the other administration? Seeing that their disagreement is said to be based on a principle. This isn't the two-wrongs make a right argument; far from it. What it is, is the argument that Jesus used with the religious leaders of His day. He called out hypocrisy; he called-out double-standards in judgment. This He did constantly; this He did consistently. He was not a member of any team; He simply lived to please the Father and to do His will --- I know that's where your heart is as well. Yes, I do vote and I am registered Independent --- can't dance with any party :) I appreciate your insights Marijo. Blessings to you sister.
I feel that this article stretches to use the "Bush did it too" argument to justify Obama's desires. For the record there WAS a large outcry against what Bush did on most everything.Conservatives have had to hold their nose too many times to elect the "least Socialist" candidate. Bush proved to be "Liberal Light" and he had to work with a Democrat Congress . . . which started most of the mess we are in now.The mortgage problems (not a "crisis" but a "scandal") was started by Democrats forcing banks to loan money to people who could not qualify for loans - recipe for disaster.Using Bush as an example to question the attitudes towards Oabama is lame. In my opinion ALL liberals (i.e., socialists, marxists, etc.) have no place in American government. The USA is the greatest, strongest, most productive country to ever grace the face of the planet. The "poor" here live better than people in many other nations.The problem with all Liberal/Socialist policies is that you eventually run out of other peoples money. Rather than use Bush to justify Obama's follies I think people should look at the Bush Administration & Democrat Congress and say "no more" . . . including Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Franks, etc.How about an article that speaks to the failure of Socialism/Marxism and Communism everywhere? Even the communist Chinese are starting to figure it out . .Thanks Jim for stopping by. Ok, where do I start? You bring many allegations to this discussion without citing information to support it; and have committed the fallacy of ad hominem attacks (attack on the persons) and not the issues.Let’s deconstruct the mortgage crisis we have found ourselves in. According to studies by the Treasury, Federal Reserve, Joint Center for Housing Studies and others, the CRA has led to increasing homeownership in precisely those markets where the law was intended to do so and CRA-related lending has been found to be profitable.Coincidentally, the law was strongest in the 1990s, before the statute was watered down and before the surge in subprime lending. Not coincidentally, the CRA was weakened by the Phil Gramm-led Financial Modernization Act of 1999 and subsequent regulatory “reforms.”More important, it is essential to understand that CRA-covered lenders did not make the loans that went bad. When the law was passed in 1977 approximately three-quarters of all mortgage loans were made by depository institutions covered by the CRA. Today approximately three-quarters of all loans are made by independent mortgage brokers and bankers who have never been covered by the law.And as the National Community Reinvestment Coalition reported, CRA lenders originated only one-quarter of subprime loans, with the overwhelming number of those loans—the loans that have led to the mortgage meltdown—being made by institutions that had no CRA responsibilities. In 2005 the Federal Reserve reported that just 5 percent of loans made by CRA institutions were high-cost loans, compared to 34 percent for non-CRA lenders. Admittedly, I am a sociologist and not an economist, but I am familiar enough with simple math to know that 34% is significantly larger than 5%.The attack of socialism and Communism, to me, in of itself, is a knee-jerk reaction and part political theater, because there are many examples of socialist programs that are a staple in American life: i.e. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, VA etc. Additionally, we seem to have always had a corporate socialism (subsidies, rampant deregulation, tax loopholes etc.) so to speak and have gotten less for the government-funded corporate socialist agenda: jobs shipped overseas, lay-offs, shuttered factories and the like.Dear Jim, would you trade your home, if you have one, for the tent some of the poor in America will be sleeping in tonight? Would you trade your car, if you have one, for the shopping cart that many of the homeless in America will be pushing all their earthly possessions around in?I believe it is a destructive politics that seeks to demonize the “other” (whether the “other” is Democrat or Republican; liberal and conservative) and usually flies in the face of critical facts.I will grab a portion from my article: “Those who oppose (on principle) what they perceive to be runaway deficits, decreased civil liberties and expansion of governmental and Executive power under President Obama, should have shown the same level of protest with President Bush's very similar actions and policies.” It is my Christian belief that, a false balance is an abomination to the LORD, but a just weight is his delight (Proverbs 11:1). In our critique of anyone or anything, it MUST be just. As I said this wasn’t about me advocating one position or another.Thanks again for reading and commenting Jim.Edward,I wouldn't have said that there are many with communist philosophies in this current administration in the beginning of it, but as I have been researching what is going on and what the philosophies of those working in this administration are to understand their positions better, I can't help but come to the conclusion that they share the philosophies of a socialist and even communist ideals. It is no "knee jerk" reaction. I believe there is validity to your argument that Republicans in congress generally are hypocritical in that they have a platform of smaller government, but their policy positions don't reflect that. However, I think this argument that anyone who criticizes the current administration is hypocritcal is unfounded and falls into the trap of polarizing those who disagree with you. This is a political tactic, especially when you paint yourself under the halo of Christian values. I believe it looks judgmental to call people hypocrites because they disagree with you. We need to learn from history. People who are complacent and ignore the signs that their government is taking away their freedoms eventually end up under an oppressive government.Obama and this current congress have taken large steps to fulfill the progressive agenda started by Woodrow Wilson, and the majority of the American people aren't looking for that kind of a change. We should have never started social security or medicaid or any of those programs. They have been a drain on our economy and have resulted in more government debt as these programs never meet their projected costs. The government isn't the solution to our problems. Every president since Reagan have had progressive agendas, Obama's administration has just taken it to the extreme. Many presidents before Reagan contributed to the progressive agenda.It is time to stop pointing back a Bush. Obama's decisions have doubled out national debt, when he could have taken corrective action without that if he didn't subscribe to Keynsian economic theory. Wealth is not created by spending, it is created by production and exports. Bush made the wrong decisions too, but Obama put it into overdrive. He needs to take responsibility for that. Instead he has been saying "Bush made me do it." I think the outrage is coming from the fact people are starting to wake up. This is going too far. Both our government and we as people have become too reliant on debt. We have started driving our economy through consumption. This is the root of this financial crisis. There is a lot of blame to go around. The only solution is to live within our means at all levels, and pay off our debts. This has nothing to do with "demonizing" Obama. It is pointing at the anti-freedom policies being championed.If we really feel strongly about social justice, then we need to take action as people. Turning to the government is not the solution. We need to live by Biblical principles and be more generous with what we have, and give people a hand up, not a hand out. Government programs create dependency and put people in the position of becoming a slave to the government. In Proverbs 22:7 it says that the borrower is a slave to the lender and the rich rule over the poor. When our country prints money out of nothing to fund a budget it can't meet, we slowly violate our freedom until the lender will become the master of our government and thus of the people. It is simply a principle that the rich rule over the poor, and we need to keep our values as a country and encourage more generosity and financial responsibility. The poor in this country are not poor from oppression, this is a free country. They are poor because of the choices they and their families make. I don't doubt that there are obstacles, some have more than others, but the opportunity is still there - for now. In a free country you must take responsibility for your own situation and stop playing vicitm.If you stop looking at the situation with colored glasses and try to be more objective you will open yourself up to the possibility that our government may be trying to move toward greater socialism and eventually communism. It sounds too appalling to believe, that is the same thing many others have said in countries that have gone through this before. They didn't see it until it was too late. I agree with you. Let's stop the personal attacks and talk about the policies. We have a civic responsibilities as Christians to participate in the process and defend the biblical values in our constitution, that includes looking to God for our rights, preserving personal freedom and minimizing government. Look to God for our solutions instead of the government.Thanks for commenting Jim.You stated that I was making the argument that: “anyone who criticizes the current administration is hypocritical.” Not once did I say anyone and even acknowledged that there were some who disagreed with certain policies no matter who forwarded them. I did say that many who were protesting are guilty of certain level of hypocrisy and still believe that based on what I’ve seen. To further suggest that I have somehow painted this with a halo of Christian values certainly smacks of judging my walk with Christ and I wish you would not have gone there. I did not attack anyone’s faith, but I did quote scripture without wresting it (as 2 Peter 3:16 warns) from its proper place.I support Medicare, Medicaid Social Security --- and have not violated one precept of Christ in order to do so. You happen to believe that it was wrong to start those programs and I respect that, I happen to disagree, but be assured; I won’t be attacking your relationship with God because of your position.Reagan is not my God, my Savior or my example on how to govern a nation or to live a life. Jim, it appears throughout that YOU have decided to forward certain political positions, not me. In this writing I have neither supported nor decried Obama’s policies; I just pointed out some of the inconsistencies in the protest that I was hearing.Yes Proverbs 22:7 does say that: The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender (Amplified), yet it does not give the reason why. It may be a number of reasons as to why that is the case. It could because, as Isaiah 10:1-2 suggests: WOE TO those [judges] who issue unrighteous decrees, and to the magistrates who keep causing unjust and oppressive decisions to be recorded, To turn aside the needy from justice and to make plunder of the rightful claims of the poor of My people, that widows may be their spoil, and that they may make the fatherless their prey! This passage would appear to be pointing to a societal or governmental oppression of the poor and needy which is indicative of sin --- sin is present whether a country is free or not; capitalist or socialist. There are many other scriptures that I could point to that would bear this perspective out (i.e. Proverbs 22:16; Jeremiah 5:28-29; Ezekiel16:49 to name a few)Proverbs 22:7 could also be indicative of another scripture in Proverbs: A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest — and poverty will come on you like a bandit and scarcity like an armed man (Proverbs 6:10-11 & Proverbs 24:33 NIV). This passage appears to point to the personal choices that the individual makes that leads to poverty --- their lack of initiative (laziness), diligence and wisdom. Nevertheless, to suggest that Proverbs 22:7 absolutely MUST mean one or the other is plain wrong.
Some scriptures are so clear that it defies reason to misinterpret it; while others are not as plain, so it would be presumptuous and dangerous to make one's interpretation the standard for its understanding. I believe Proverbs 22:7 fits that latter.Let’s say, for example, that I believed in the basic principles of socialism... please name for me one scripture I violated in order to do so. I don’t think of myself as a socialist nor do I view myself as a capitalist. I am neither Republican nor Democrat.It appears to me that you want us to learn from history, but not look at the previous administration and how it contributed more directly to where we find ourselves today; you want to be able to point to Woodrow Wilson and FDR, but we can’t point to Bush who just left office in 2009. I must admit, I can’t follow your reasoning.You also suggested that I said that the Republicans in congress were being hypocritical. I never pointed to Republicans or Democrats as being hypocritical, just certain people. I think that’s an example of reading into what I said and not reading what I said.The scripture I used at the end was used, not as you suggested, to give a Christian values flair to my argument, but as a declaration of how I strive to live my life. It seems Jim that you are suggesting that your decided conservative point of view is more Christian than my point of view and that to me is truly sad. There are scriptural points that you make that have merit and should be heeded, but yours are not the only ones that have merit or should be heeded.I honestly thank you for stopping by and sharing. God bless you.Thanks for your thoughtful reply.I don’t think it profits anyone to parse words or conclude what is on the heart of another person. You put a lot of ideas into what I said that isn’t true about me. Taking what you wrote as a whole, yes, I filled in gaps of what you appeared to be saying without spelling it out. I find it hard not to believe that you intend to be neutral and non partisan. This is based on some of the statements you make in your article come almost directly from the Democratic talking points. So it isn’t difficult to draw conclusions about your position, and it is difficult to avoid drawing those conclusions. Maybe you don't realize your alignment with the Democratic party's positions.
I didn’t say Reagan was anyone’s god. I merely pointed out that most Presidents from both parties have been progressives. Bush is not the only one who has been advancing bigger government, and the idea that government has the solutions to our societal problems. The point is what Bush did wrong doesn’t justify the continuation of what he did wrong. It is a weak argument to say that it is okay to double our national debt since Bush grew the debt while he was in office, when no one wants more debt. That is like a kid saying “but he did it too, why am I in trouble?”. It isn’t about the president; it is about the progressive policies. It seems progressives believe that government has the solutions to our problems. That position isn’t biblical. (I’m not commenting on what your position might or might not be, I’m simply making a statement.) God is the only one with the true solutions and has ultimate authority. Progressives want to move toward a government that maintains tighter control over how people live – in the name of the “greater good”. This puts Christians in conflict with the government when a law comes into conflict with Scripture. This is highly likely in a socialist or communist state. The progressive movement is moving toward this, and if you read H.R.3200 you can see how this would begin to happen.
This is about whether it is tolerable for Christians to allow the government to begin to operate in the domain of societal values which conflict with biblical values. The government could begin to put Christians in the position of asserting ultimate submission to God’s authority over the government’s authority, which will likely result in the persecution of Christians by the government when they are cornered into breaking the state’s laws. By reinterpreting our constitution to mean something different than the intent of those who wrote it, such as the government granting healthcare as a right (when the constitution says our rights have been endowed by our Creator), we are treading in dangerous waters. If the government can grant rights to citizens, it can also take them away. These constitutional are values instituted by the founders of our country and changing them is to re-invent America with a different set of values that may conflict with biblical values. This means Christians need to start being more involved in the process and start speaking up more.
Obama has said in interviews that the constitution is “seriously flawed” and suggests that it needs to be re-written to define what the government can do to implement “social justice”. (BTW – this is a term used by those in governments that turned fascist when they became arbiters of social justice.) If you dig deeper into what that really means in context of Obama’s political agenda, it suggests that he would prefer our government be the arbiter of wealth and freedom (aka – social justice). This is what our founders were trying to avoid.
On Proverbs 22:7, you are right, we must be careful how we interpret Scripture. The correct interpretation is always in harmony with other Scripture passages. I am confident that this passage is about the consequences of debt and the power of wealth. A lender becomes the borrower’s master, and all people should be very careful about taking out loans. This is a principle that is found throughout the Bible. This principle applies to all including government. Our government has borrowed way too much money. Lately it has done so to become a lender, providing bailouts. Have you noticed how the power in the relationship with banks shifted when they were indebted to the government? What about the lenders to our government? What if they started to assert themselves? This debt compromises the security of our national sovereignty and by extension our personal freedoms, including our freedom of religion.
Historically, we can see how other countries have tried solving their problems with progressive policies have suffered the consequences. The concentration of power led to fascist systems such as Hitler and Stalin’s eugenics approach. Our founders knew this principle and put protections in place to balance power in the government and make it ultimately accountable to the people. Unfortunately, the people have become complacent and taken their freedom for granted. If that doesn’t change, we will have to learn that lesson again.Again, thanks for your thoughtful reply and your civility.Thanks, again, for commenting Jim.
I wasn't aware that I was parsing your words, I was just trying answer some of your assertions regarding what I said as clearly as I could. I would also like to add that attempting to fill in gaps regarding what you think someone might mean is never really a good idea, in my opinion. Not once did I advocate for the running up of the deficit nor the accumulation of debt --- then again, I believe that there are all sorts of debt: financial, political, moral and spiritual.
I do not disagree with your assessment in regard to the inherent dangers and folly of overspending and debt. I also agree that scripture has said a great deal concerning those things, but I would also argue that scripture also talks about the attitudes of government (i.e. those in power) in regard to the poor and needy.We are told not to oppress the poor or needy (and this holds true for governments and individuals) over and over again in scripture. The scriptures that you point to are valid and should be obeyed and followed, but once again, they ALL should be obeyed an followed, not just the ones that hold particular significance to our particular preferences. In Matthew 25, Christ (the one whom Christians should be following) outlined the criteria by which our lives will be judged (how we addressed the least of these or the most vulnerable in our society).I further believe there are governmental policies that have contributed to poverty just as much as personal decisions. I believe that the answer for many of the ills that plague our society can be addressed, from a public policy standpoint, by ideas that span the political spectrum --- it appears that you believe that the solutions have to be strictly conservative and that’s fine, I just don’t happen to see it that way. I do not have the same devotion to the founders or to the constitution that you have (slavery, segregation and inequality has had it place in our laws, history and society), although I respect the Constitution as the foundation upon which the laws of this country rests and I respect the law.You mentioned the Stalin eugenics agenda, but it has to be realized, however, that the rest of the world followed our lead in regard to eugenics. America was the first country with a forced sterilization law-Indiana, 1907 (I talk about this in my piece, America’s Unknown and Forgotten Eugenic Program).Yes, I do advocate some positions that come from the Democratic Party and I advocate positions that come from the Republican Party, the Green Party etc. I suppose they seem like Democratic talking points if you think that addressing an inconsistency in an argument or calling out certain hypocrisies a Democratic talking point. I attacked no political party; I advocated for no political party or ideology. Once again Jim, you appear to be the one doing that.I strive to be live my life according to God’s will and to follow in the steps of Christ and I believe that will make anyone an acceptable citizen of any nation or society.I appreciate your candor and your thoughtful reply as well.Our key difference, I believe, is that the bible teaches that the government is responsible for taking care of the poor and needy. All those passages in scripture you refer to I cannot see as being interpreted to apply to government, only to the Church. Show me a scripture that teaches that government needs to take care of the poor and needy. It is a principle that everyone would be wise to follow, but the teaching in Scripture is directed toward the Church. However, the problem with government doing it, is that it comes with strings attached, and robs individuals the reward of being generous themselves. It creates a dependency on impersonal government welfare instead of giving the poor a way to become self supporting. Individuals are abdicating this responsibility to the government and that causes a greater tax burden. The more this grows, the more we are oppressed by taxes and government control.If we are talking about New Testament scripture, yes, the Church is being spoken of here, but does not the Church provide the best blueprint that can be followed by a nation or society? In other words, would a nation be better or worse off following the example of the Church as it is laid out in scripture? Further, does God use a different standard of judgment for nations than individuals? And if not, how should nations conduct themselves in light of Matthew 25?What I am confused by, is that statements are continually made about biblical principles in the constitution and America being a Christian nation, yet when it comes to this particular aspect of scripture or the Bible (care of the poor and needy) government shouldn't follow the lead of the Bible.Nevertheless, to answer your question, the Old Testament law made special provisions to provide for the poor (Exodus 23:11; Leviticus 23:11 & 25:35-39 are a few examples); the Old Testament law was written for the nation of Israel; therefore by decree of the government the poor were provided for --- for example this is how Boaz met and married Ruth (King David's paternal grandparents) in the book of Ruth.Additionally, societies and nations (not just individuals) were judged because of what they didn't do in regard to the poor (as I mentioned in a previous comment the scriptures, and they are far from the only ones, in Jeremiah 5:28-29; Ezekiel16:49-50 bear this out as well).
I agree that too much government is not good, but neither is too little government. I do not believe that government is the answer to all of our societal ills; I further believe that government cannot answer the human sin problem (that lies with God), but I do believe that government has a creative role to play.
This may be hard for you to believe Jim, but I do appreciate this exchange.I appreciate this exchange as well. It is good to explore this. As it says in Scripture, “Iron sharpens iron.”
Okay, in the spirit of looking to Scripture for the role of government, I can see where you get your idea that the government is expected to care for the poor. I think you may have missed a couple important details. First, the nation of Israel was governed by the Spiritual leaders - the Sanhedrin. Sanhedrin literally means “council”. They were the chief priests and elders. They served as the high court for the Jews. That doesn't translate to modern day government legislature. Our modern U.S. government officials don't submit to God and they aren’t spiritual leaders. If our government is to follow God's Law, there are a few other parts of the Law that they are ignoring like the Sabbath, the feasts, not worshiping other gods, not accepting bribes, etc. Also, they wouldn’t make law, they would follow God's Law exclusively. So it would be inconsistent to say that they are commanded to take care of the poor, but they don't have to do the other things. When making application of Old Testament principles that relate to the Law, you have to recognize that the Law has been fulfilled by Christ in His final sacrifice to atone for all our sins. You have to take this event into consideration.
Specifically here, the provision set aside for the poor by the Temple was a distribution of the tithes and offerings that were collected; much like the Church does today, except they were commanded by Law. They were commanded not for the purpose of caring for the poor, but to symbolize submission to God and His commands. The main function of these officials was spiritual leadership, and the provisions for the poor were not government welfare with strings attached as they are today. The gifts to the poor were truly charity.
When God refers to judging nations, He is primarily referring to the people of that nation, not the government. In Jeremiah 5, the people of the nation were judged because of their wickedness and willfully ignoring God in their behavior. The government not helping the poor was not the reason for the judgment. The government is mentioned as being guilty of self dealing. The government was not expected to be caring for the poor here, it was the people. If there is any responsibility with the government here, it is for their lack of submission to God and their dealings that were to gain influence over the people. If they cared for the poor, it would have made no difference here, and they probably would have used it to gain influence over the people; much as our government welfare does to the poor today. Your Ezekiel reference makes no mention of a government either; it refers to the people of Sodom. A government itself does not engage in sexual sin, the people do.
As far as how governments of today should conduct themselves in light of Matthew 25, it is first important to recognize that governments do not have a soul and so the spiritual principles don’t make sense to apply to a government. It does make sense to apply them to the people. Governments would fail the parable of the talents test hands down every time because they waste so much money and have proven incapable of creating wealth. If you are talking about the first part of the chapter, then we are talking about when the Lord returns. The government is irrelevant. Anytime there is a reference to the Nation of Israel (in this case symbolically as the 10 Virgins) the judgment is primarily on the spiritual leaders as well as the people who followed them. If other governments were to face judgment, they would fail miserably because they don’t even consider submitting to God. Those leaders will be held personally accountable in their relationship with Christ, not their nation.
SANHEDRIM— more correctly Sanhedrin (Gr. synedrion), meaning "a sitting together," or a "council." This word (rendered "council," A.V.) is frequently used in the New Testament (Matt 5:22; 26:59; Mark 15:1, etc.) to denote the supreme judicial and administrative council of the Jews, which, it is said, was first instituted by Moses, and was composed of seventy men (Num 11:16,17). But that seems to have been only a temporary arrangement which Moses made. Try to call it council or legislature if you will, they were still humans put in a decision-making positions in the nation of Israel --- that still points to government no matter how you slice it.Further, it appears that a great many in the modern religious conservative movement, has made the supposed turning back of America to God as part of their political platform. You have stated defending biblical principles (and things to that effect) several times throughout your comments and yet THESE particular biblical principles escape your attention. It also appears that you are intent on devolving my points into illogical dichotomies (i.e. “So it would be inconsistent to say that they are commanded to take care of the poor, but they don't have to do the other things”) --- I never said that. The principle that was contained in the law certainly has a much more profound meaning now.Christ in His Sermon on the Mount laid out what I call: the “but I say unto yous” of conduct in living. He not only speaks the law, but calls us to a higher standard. If the act of adultery or fornication was condemned under law, Christ now calls us to a higher standard where even desiring in our hearts a sexual connection with a woman who is not your wife, is declared adultery or fornication (Matt. 5:27-28). Christ does this with many other sins as well. So if the mandate to help the poor and needy was powerful under the Old Testament Law, I suspect a higher standard is to be held under the gospel of Christ.As far as Ezek 16:48-50, I know homosexuality or sexual sin is the main thing that we have been trained to focus on, yet the Prophet Ezekiel appears to detail a number of other things: As I live, says the Lord God, Sodom your sister has not done, she nor her daughters, as you have done, you and your daughters. 49 Behold, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: pride, overabundance of food, prosperous ease, and idleness were hers and her daughters'; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. 50 And they were haughty and committed abominable offenses before Me; therefore I removed them when I saw it and I saw fit (Amplified). It appears to me to be too clear that the transgressions outlined were societal in nature (yes, a society is only group of individuals and so is a nation). Ezekiel as was the tradition of the Hebrew prophets spoke of the nation as one person (Sodom/she; Israel/sister). God consistently personalized national and corporate sins.What you are consistently omitting, is that the society’s behavior and the individual’s behavior in sin-gripped nations (as outlined in scripture) is continually the same. Are you under the impression that the people of the nations were totally wicked, but the governments were innocent? I can’t find that paradigm in scripture except with Moses --- a government or nation can become complicit in any sin by way of allowing any group the access, atmosphere and freedom, through their laws, policies and indifference, to act or promote sinful behaviors, no matter what the sin is.God, through the prophets, RARELY spoke to individuals. Their message for repentance was by-and-large national; their call for reformation was for a country. And many times, the call was in regard to how that nation country responded to those most in need in their society and nation.You speak of the 10 virgins, a curious correlation for government in any form; however since you mentioned them symbolizing spiritual leaders (I won’t get into, on this page, who I believe they really symbolize), I will attempt to answer. How is it that the leaders of a nation, organization or party are not the ones leading the people? In other words, if these leaders are leading falsely then the ones following are false as well --- Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit” (NIV).
Yet, in Matthew 25 there are more clear and practical applications. It can be said that a government can play a role (according to Christian principles) in clothing naked & feeding the hungry; it can also be said that a government can play a role (according to biblical principles) to help relieve the suffering of the sick. I fear we have moved from being selective in outrage or indignation, to being inconsistent in our consideration of which biblical principles a government should avail themselves of.Israel was a government and a nation and they had a national law, that reality cannot be escaped from or honestly refuted; the prophets of old did not just pronounce the doom and sins of individuals, but they spoke concerning sins committed by nations; by governments. And the righteous treatment of the poor and needy; the fatherless and the widows appears to be a charge that God takes seriously.It appears to me that you are extremely selective in how a nation is to be Christian. I have not denied the place that some of the biblical principles you have espoused and forwarded should have in our country’s governance, yet it seems you have a great deal of difficulty in acknowledging the validity of some clear, in my opinion, other scriptural examples that are valid as wellNevertheless, I thank you for stopping by.
Edward, this time I had to come back and rate. The way I feel about it is that the rating system does not do it justice. The White House Blue Bloods needs it. You know the ones, "The Great Americans" ...smile...Thanks for reading again Dr. Rucker, I'm blessed that you like it. Blessings brother!
More comments
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.