No Chains on Me…

So what do you do when a sovereign nation goes against what an international community forbids it to do?

Lets take North Korea for example. An independent nation that has, in some senses, been very hostile internationally and domestically. First lets address the question, are we allowed to tell North Korea it cannot develop nuclear weapons? Not just us as the United States, but the world at large? I see a few problems with this. First, we do. Most of the major nations in the world who get to make the major calls on international weapons policy are also stockpiling nuclear weapons. Anyone say hypocrisy? Arguments can and have been made that its necessary to maintain global stability, “you nuke us, we nuke you” response, but by that argument, North Korea, Iran, anyone has every right to develop nuclear weapons. You can argue that they are more likely to do something rash with said weapons. It might be argued that the North Korean government will act more irresponsibly and could fire off nukes haphazardly, retreat into their bunkers and only its citizens receive the retribution. Our own possession of nuclear weapons and the retaliatory use of force therefore should become irrelevant to how we would respond to an attack from North Korea. Nuclear weapons would then fail to punish those responsible. It would only serve to harm innocence. Why then do we possess these weapons? To make a point? Would we nuke another nation who did that to us? Should we? This leads into how I feel how the last two wars the US has conducted have turned out: In the destruction of innocence rather than actually providing justice for the people. This happens easily when those responsible are such a small fraction of the whole. Iraqi government, arguably just the men in absolute power of the nation (i.e. Saddam) were the only ones necessary to remove to remove a threat.

So back to North Korea, were they to use nuclear weapons, or even in the presupposition that they will (another “preemptive war”), what would that accomplish?

Now international community is an interesting dynamic. I think that the international community, at least as a whole, is calling for Korea to cease its testing/development of nuclear weapons is a good thing. I don’t think it will influence them, but I think the agreement found there is what is needed. But, in order for their call to lay down arms, I still believe there must be reciprocity practiced by all the nations involved.

Thoughts?  

Lets try a series on for size. This one promises to be scattered due to the fact that it is 2:30 in the morning and I have a lot that I want to lay as base-work for this series.  

I like the idea of communism at the basic level. This is not to say that I have a good grasp of the ideology of it as a whole, I’m going to be researching some of that for this series. However, the idea that all work together for the common good, which then in turn will benefit you, is a very, oddly enough, Christian idea. All should pitch in to make a better living for all. Community.

Capitalism, on the other hand and again oddly enough, is built upon a very non-Christian idea: Work for the good of yourself, which in turn should benefit society. Self-centered vs. others-centered. Here in America, it is well known that we hail capitalism and the free-market system as the solution to the worlds problems. But is it a system worthy of the followers of Christ?

Capitalism works, or has worked very well in the past for one reason in my opinion: It is a system designed to work on the principal that man is selfish. Its the perfect system for a world of sinful, selfish people.

After an entire night of talking over a wide variety of very interesting subjects with my new housemate, James, I have thought through something else as well. Only one thing was necessary for a Biblically historical account of a “Fall” to make sense: the entrance of selfishness into Man’s desires. A change from desiring the good for either someone else or for all others before one’s self, to a desiring of the betterment of one’s self above all others. This single change in perspective, in my opinion, can account for all sin or evil in the world, aside from things like natural disaster and the like, which, even so, may be attributable to man’s poor management and use of the earth. Another topic for another time.

Back to the topic at hand, communism has failed historically because ultimately, someone, somewhere gets the idea that this system is exploitable for his/her own good. Because of this, the people who are then taken advantage of, suffer miserably under the hand of tyranny. Then dissent leads to revolution and the downfall of a system. All stemming, again only in my opinion, from selfishness.

So what is the solution? Not so fast, we’ve barely begun! And its getting near 3. But the answer is anarchy…. Not yet More to follow.

Meanwhile, you can all read Animal Farm, a decent, semi-humorous novel/commentary on communism in what most resembles the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Its a shorter read, although it is a book. See you all soon.

I found this kinda unbelievable myself. Anyone else?

Wall Street and the business community gave a lukewarm response Wednesday to the US administration’s plan to cap executive pay, fearing it may lead to a talent exodus and delay recovery in the finance sector.

The reaction came after President Barack Obama announced that executives of finance firms taking government bailouts would have their annual salaries limited to 500,000 dollars, a move aimed at protecting taxpayer interests.

The salary limit is “still a hefty sum to be sure, and the spirit of the order certainly has popular appeal, but it’s a slippery slope when the government puts restrictions on how much an individual can earn in the private sector,” said Patrick O’Hare of the independent research firm Briefing.com.

[From The Raw Story | Dismay on Wall Street over Obama pay cap]

I think its absolutely ridiculous that Wall Street is complaining over the salary cap Obama is enacting. I think its one of the best moves he could have made in deciding who gets gov’t money. And to say “it’s a slippery slope when the government puts restrictions on how much an individual can earn in the private sector” is outrageous. The government should have every right to say what happens with it’s money and who it goes to. Are big CEOs seriously going to be picky about getting bailout money? I think the bailouts and stimulus plan situations continue to show just how far corporate America has dove off the edge of greed with no limits. Not that I’m a fan of bailing anyone out or allowing the gov’t to be involved in this at all. If anything good comes out of this though, it’s that it is showing us some of the true colors of the people behind the economic system of this great nation of red, white and green….

Don’t want to let the historic event pass without a little commentary. I am excited to live in a day and age when the inauguration of a black man to the presidency of the United States has been realized. I am a huge fan of Martin Luther King Jr. and the vision that he projected on our nation and the non-violent way in which he worked to progress that dream towards reality. To be alive during a time when such a dream has been partially fulfilled is something else. I do not think, unlike many of the news commentators, that this signals the end of racism or prejudice in this nation. I believe if anything, it showed how far we may have yet to go to be reconciled to one another and to judge a person “[not] by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” I think what this event shows is that we are taking the battle of public racism off the table in a sense and it now becomes much more of a personal battle, to break individuals of their prejudices and hatred of others, which is not something we can do by legislation. However, The inauguration of President Barack Obama shows that we are moving forward to where, at least corporately, we are willing to say as a nation that racism is not acceptable. This is a historic time to be sure and I am glad to have witnessed it.

I was asked at one point, “how does a Christian anarchist view this day.” It was asked in jest, but I think it is a serious question to evaluate, seeing as how I still think a somewhat unconventional form of anarchy is what I lean towards.

I think that I view a day like February 20th, 2009 with an appreciation of the historicity of such an event and with hope for the future as far as racial reconciliation. It still does not, however, give me hope for a better government. I do like much of what Obama has declared as his platform for his presidency, and I wish him the best in the sincerest way, in hopes that I am wrong about government and its seeming ability to corrupt and its many shortcomings to provide for what its citizens need. I am excited to see where the Obama administration takes the nation and how things change, for better or worse. However, I do not believe that Obama or anyone else, regardless of their skin color, will be able to change the course of the world for the better or provide our nation what we really need over the course of a presidency.

And what do we really need? The same things I don’t think that “simply” putting a black man in office will accomplish: A genuine love for our neighbor, a caring spirit to those in need, and MOST importantly, the name of Jesus to be proclaimed. These are things that need to be changed on an individual level, with the Church of God leading the way in showing love, in caring for the hurting, and in spreading news that Jesus, not Obama, saves.

So pray for our nation, our new President, our Church, and ourselves, that we would turn from our wicked ways, seek the Lord’s face and that he would turn and heal our land.

Was a big fan of this article from one of my frequent sites of insight (no pun) Mars Hill Grad School’s: The Other Journal

A very insightful look at the Christian ideals at stake in the political process, specifically voting, a process/privilege/right/duty I think we take way too seriously. Favorite quote to point this out is out of the opening of the article:

In the 2004 senatorial race for Illinois, Republican candidate Allen Keyes claimed, “Christ would not vote for Barack Obama, because Barack has voted to behave in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved.”¹ Keyes specifically had in mind Obama’s refusal to support a bill that would protect infants who are born alive after botched abortions. While I am confident that Jesus would not support abortion-on-demand, I am less confident that his followers should make pronouncements about how Jesus would vote. In fact, it is quite possible that Jesus would not vote at all. Not every situation lends an answer to the evangelical question “What would Jesus do?”

I am increasingly convinced that to live as Jesus did in regards to the government is an attitude of disregard wherever it is possible. Not in the sense that we don’t pay taxes or don’t obey its laws, as long as it does not defy the law of holiness, but rather that we avoid entanglement with the power that so easily corrupts and and to do so:

in order to listen again to the voice of the One in whose name we speak. By extending our roots more deeply into our theological soil, we can prepare ourselves to present in truth and in unity the hope that the gospel brings to existing social structures.

Call that what you will.

This is one of the best articles on religion and politics I’ve heard:

http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/2008/11/20/pontifex-maximus-obamas-religion-pt-1/

From a photography blog I keep up with:

Live from campaigning in Wisconsin:

I’ve broken out the Canon 20d, imperfect as it is. There is plenty of solid Obama hope around here, but also some serious vitriol. Here’s the latest propaganda that’s being stuck to mailboxes in Wausau, under the guise of the Obama campaign’s seal.

It gives me the shivers.

The man who brought this flyer in was an older Democrat. He thought it was absolutely real.

Who knew Obama was a II?

[From Wisconsin Day Two: Barack Hussein Obama II]

With a little bit of time in the bank after a crazy three days of trying to get everything done before fall break, I find myself with an early morning and nothing to do with no one around. So, as I tend to do I let my mind wander… My mind takes me, as it has often of late, to the political, the many things I hear and read about what is happening to our world, and a shift that may be occurring in a few weeks on November 4th. Some of this is a response to an article by my friend and fellow blogger, the oft-quoted Kevin Cole.

I have been studying through a mix of the Gospels, focusing on the way that Jesus chose to disciple his… well disciples, namely focusing on Peter, and then also in the book of 1 Peter. In the mix between these books, there is a story of radical transformation that occurs. One would never guess that the Peter who wrote the letter named after him to have been the one whom Jesus had to tell: “Get behind me, Satan” because of his politically subversive vision and his ideas of what “the Christ” meant.

In Mark 8:27-38, we find Jesus having just brought his disciples through an incredibly intense training session. Back in chapter 4, the question was asked, “Who is the Jesus fellow?” Jesus proceeds to answer that question, testing his disciples along the way, until finally, the disciples having had to take the class twice, and failing both times, we come to Peter’s confession: “You are the Christ.” Immediately afterwards, we find that what Peter meant by that, was that he was the one who was going to be bringing a kingdom in opposition to the Roman government, because as Jesus begins to talk of his death under that government, Peter rebukes him. Jesus quickly proceeds to flip everything that any of his followers were expecting on its head to say: If you want to be a part of the kingdom I am bringing, you must submit, even to this government, even to the point of death! What a crushing blow for all of them! In the heart of every Jewish man and boy was probably an intense hatred for the occupying nation, and Jesus tells them, using the ultimate symbol of Roman authority and means of submission no less — the cross — you must be willing to submit. However, Jesus does not seem to be talking submission to the Roman government, though that is perhaps part of it. Rather he speaks of submission to the will of God, for the sake of himself and the Gospel, whatever that might mean.

This comes at an interesting point in my life… I have begun to realize that I really dislike politics and government. That I feel we are living under an incredibly ineffectual and corrupt society, that the government is either powerless to stop, or completely in bed with. I deeply despise the people who hold our government up, especially within Christianity itself, as something we can have hope in to change the world for good. Those that place hope in one candidate or another, saying that this one or that one will turn our nation around and bring us back to God. I find myself on the side of Peter, perhaps, in a day when I long for governments to be overthrown, and for the kingdom of God to return to restore peace, true justice, unquestionable authority, and morality to society. I want to be one of the agents of overthrow. If there’s a revolution, sign me up!

But I find in 1 Peter, the effect that Jesus’ words and example had upon this young hothead of the Gospels. There is an overwhelming tone of patience and peace from Peter. He tells us that we are looking forward to our salvation, that it is yet to come, that we are now called to be prepared, full of hope, separated from a world gone horribly awry, knowing that a judge is coming, one who has already redeemed us from this world, although not removed us from it. Again and again he speaks of the coming salvation and our hope in it. I see in Peter, one who has not removed himself from the longing for the overthrow of the government, but rather knows that the True King has promised to return, “in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. (Mark 8:38)” and that in the mean time, he is making us into the people who will be a part of that new and perfect empire. He tells us we are to live in submission, but yet as those who have no ties to earthly governments. We are free! Free to live as though we are already part of that new kingdom.

Peter is an anarchist of the truest kind. Not one who is simply seeking to overthrow government for the sake of putting down authority, but rather one who is seeking to undermine the holds of these earthly empires for the sake of living for the coming Kingdom. He calls us to live under the system around us, even to submit to it. At the same time, he calls us to put aside ties to it, to live in freedom, freedom to live as God has called us to, especially when that runs counter to what our government calls morality. We are not to hold to the freedom we as a nation claim to export all over the world with war and a brand of terrorism that is carried out in the name of democracy, the freedom we believe “everyone has a right to”. Rather to live as though we had been bought out of slavery to be the slaves of God, the servants of a new and better way, to call for others to do the same, to yell at the top of our lungs that the world around us is imploding… to make way for the coming King.

So if you have made it this far, this is why I am not voting in this coming election. I am simply refusing to support, symbolically, effectually or otherwise (sorry Kevin , something I know that gains me nothing, something I know that either way, I would rather not have, regardless of which side I may agree with on more policies than not. Ultimately I know I will be disappointed by either candidate and the way they conduct government.

In the mean time, I want to be a part of quietly undermining the government by spreading the rumors of a new and better one that is to come at the return of Jesus Christ, who died and rose again so that I could be an unworthy citizen of it. I am an anarchist for the coming kingdom. Hows that for paradox?

Come soon, Lord Jesus.

… AND THEN SHE FREAKING DEFENDS THE “RUSSIA’S PROXIMITY GIVES ME FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE” COMMENTS!!! For realz?

If the video doesn’t show up below, check out here.

Watch CBS Videos Online

The debate tonight was not overwhelmingly successful for either candidate. I did feel that Obama made a much better showing than McCain did though. To those who say Obama only works through a teleprompter, I think he was excellent this evening running free-style Regardless of my stand on politics, Obama holds almost every position that I would align with on the topics that were spoken on tonight, so well done to him on his responses and defense.

More about Palin, more serious this time, is the recent interviews with CBS’s Katie Couric and ABC’s Charles Gibson are pretty frightening when thinking about how close this woman will be to running this country if McCain, in all likelihood, does not complete his full term. I agree, some of these interviews are very direct, but I feel as though the woman running as the country’s number two should be able to handle it or at least come up with competent, even coherent answers. Jack Cafferty voices the concerns well on CNN. All I can say, if she doesn’t completely tank McCain’s campaign run, it’ll be a miracle. So much for the wonder-woman, “national love affair.”