Apparently, Arnold is on a fund-raising tour for a possible "special election" (everyone gets a medal, just for participating!). Not surprising, politics take money.
What is surprising is where he's fundraising: Florida. There's something wrong about that... it would be like Bush going to Mexico City to try and raise money to defeat the filibuster. Isn't Arnold the governor of California? If he can't get money from Californians to support his pet initiatives, shouldn't that be a pretty big red flag? Is there something about the issues that will come up in this "very-special" election (Is Blossom pregnant? Is Alex on Speed? Is Ross finally going to kiss Rachel?) that makes Floridians want to shell out the cash to see them passed more than Californians? Should we be concerned that our governor seems to be backing issues that Floridians are more interested in supporting than Californians?
It would be different if Arnold was a Senator. Senators are elected to a national office and are responsible for legislation that applies equally to every citizen in every state of the union. Governors, however, are the chief executives of their states, and don't have any sort of authority anywhere else. Arnold is not beholden to the Floridians for anything, he was elected by Californians to serve Californians. If some Floridians who contributed a lot to these special campaigns think it might be a good idea for Utah to get more oranges from them than from us, however... what's a governor to do?
Do your job, Arnold. If California doesn't want something, let it drop. Remember, we're your employers now, and if you're not working in our best interest, you won't be back.
-"It's not a tumor!"
Friday, May 20, 2005
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
It's my ball!
So, the Republicans won the White House and control of both houses of Congress... and still can't get their way? What does a political party have to do to make everything always go the way they want it to?
The Republican majority in the Senate is contemplating making an historic change in the way that the Senate does business. As it is right now, a vote on giving consent on a federal judicial nomination from the President can be held up by the time-honored tradition of the filibuster. In order to stop a filibuster, a "super-majority" of 60 (out of 100) Senators must vote to stop it and force the vote. The proposal (called the "nuclear option") is to change the rules so that a simple majority (51 out of 100, or 50 plus the tie-breaking vote of the Vice President) can stop a filibuster. This would be very convenient, since the Republicans currently hold 55 seats in the Senate, which is more than 50, but less than 60.
The argument against the Democrats use of the filibuster is that using it to prevent an "up-or-down" vote on a judicial nominee is unprecedented and is not in accordance with the customs and traditions of the US Senate.
While this is not strictly true(CNN.com says "Democrats point to Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas, who was blocked from becoming chief justice in what the Senate historian's Web site calls 'the first filibuster in Senate history on a Supreme Court nomination.' The attempt to force a vote on his nomination drew fewer than 50 votes. They also say at least two of Clinton's lower court judicial nominees were filibustered for years by Republicans, although they were ultimately confirmed."), there is some truth behind it. In the past, nominees have been stopped using other "customs and traditions" of the Senate. The vacant seats that Bush has named nominees for are only vacant now because Clinton nominees couldn't get confirmed for them when he was President. These nominations were not stopped by filibusters. Rather, they were killed in the Senate judiciary committee and never even came up for votes on the Senate floor. That's right, the Senate Judiciary committee has the power to prevent an "up-or-down" vote on a judicial nominee. There are eighteen Senators on the Judiciary committee. Eighteen. A majority of this group would be ten. Ten is less than forty-one. A lot less. Thirty-one less. Why is that important?
The main argument put forth by the Republican majority is that an "up-or-down" vote on a judicial nominee should not be able to be blocked by a minority (forty-one) of Senators. Yet Clinton's nominations for these posts were blocked by the Judiciary committee, themselves a minority of eighteen, with a majority vote in that body consisting of ten votes. Where was the outrage when "up-or-down" votes were blocked on Clinton's nominees by this much smaller number of Senators?
It should be obvious that the real source of outrage on the part of the Republican majority is not a zealous desire to protect the customs and traditions of the venerable and august body that is the US Senate. Nor is it even for the preservation of "majority rule", since they were perfectly content to allow the fate of Clinton's nominees rest in the hands of a much smaller minority than the minority of forty-one that can maintain a filibuster.
Here's the real issue: The Republicans finally have control of the white house and both houses of congress. It stands to reason that they can do anything they want... but they can't. And it's driving them crazy! Sorry, guys, but that's the way it works, and there's good reason for it.
The US government is composed of three branches that constitute a system of "checks and balances." The whole reason that the Constitution gives the Senate the role of advising and consenting to the President's nominations is the prevent any one person (or small group of persons) from taking over the whole course of the government against the will and wishes of the mainstream of American citizens. Likewise, the Presidential veto is a check against the Senate, requiring that if the President isn't in agreement with a piece of legislation, a "super-majority" (2/3 in this case) of Senators need to agree to overrule him.
Why these "super-majorities?" Well, in a two-party system like ours, at any given time, it is almost certain that one party or other will hold a simple majority (except in those rare cases where it is exactly split 50/50). This would give whichever party happened to have a slim majority authority to implement the most radical programs and agendas, and in the cases where the President is of the same party as the majority, to appoint the most radical and "activist" judges to the federal bench. The requirement of a super-majority is a safeguard against this, since it almost always requires that programs, agendas and judges have a broad enough appeal for at least some members of both parties need to approve of them for them to be implemented, passed or confirmed.
But the gambit the Republicans are pursuing is very dangerous. They're proposing changing the rules so that a simple majority can push almost any judicial nomination through, and it sets a compelling precedent for not eliminating the requirement for super-majorities on other nominations. Bush won the White House with less than a "super-majority" of votes in 2000 (He didn't even have a simple majority of popular votes, but that doesn't mean that more than half of Americans voted against him. Less than half of Americans voted at all!). The 2004 vote was not a landslide by any means, either. The last 5 years have been filled with some of the most bitter partisan political fighting we've seen in a long time, with both sides taking stands that seem to have less to do with the merits of the issues and more on being against what "they" are supporting. A future where a simple-majority has carte-blanche to push through whatever they want to will continue to cater to the extremes at both ends of the political spectrum over and against the wishes and best interest of the vast majority of centrist America.
I can think of two compelling arguments against changing the rules of the Senate. The first is the specter of a Republican President and a Republican controlled congress pushing through the most radical right-wing agenda without any means to "check" or "balance" them. The second argument is the specter of a Democratic President and a Democratic controlled congress pushing through the most radical left-wing agenda without any means to "check" or "balance" them. Getting rid of "super-majority" clauses makes both of these scary options likely future realities. We're better off with government being limited to what action can get at least some bi-partisan support. It's possible that we'll end up with a few very good programs and ideas being stopped. It's highly probably that we'll avoid a whole lot of bad programs and ideas being pushed through, also. My fear of the damage our government (controlled by either party) could inflict if given almost unlimited power far outweighs any regrets over the loss of some small handful of good that could have been affected which failed to gain bi-partisan support.
The Republican leadership is not just setting themselves up to be able to push through their agenda. They're setting our country up to be a violent see-saw of extremism, going left to right so haphazardly as to tear our nation apart.
If it's all the same to you, I'd prefer to keep the filibuster.
- "Dad used to say the only causes worth fighting for were the lost causes."
The Republican majority in the Senate is contemplating making an historic change in the way that the Senate does business. As it is right now, a vote on giving consent on a federal judicial nomination from the President can be held up by the time-honored tradition of the filibuster. In order to stop a filibuster, a "super-majority" of 60 (out of 100) Senators must vote to stop it and force the vote. The proposal (called the "nuclear option") is to change the rules so that a simple majority (51 out of 100, or 50 plus the tie-breaking vote of the Vice President) can stop a filibuster. This would be very convenient, since the Republicans currently hold 55 seats in the Senate, which is more than 50, but less than 60.
The argument against the Democrats use of the filibuster is that using it to prevent an "up-or-down" vote on a judicial nominee is unprecedented and is not in accordance with the customs and traditions of the US Senate.
While this is not strictly true(CNN.com says "Democrats point to Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas, who was blocked from becoming chief justice in what the Senate historian's Web site calls 'the first filibuster in Senate history on a Supreme Court nomination.' The attempt to force a vote on his nomination drew fewer than 50 votes. They also say at least two of Clinton's lower court judicial nominees were filibustered for years by Republicans, although they were ultimately confirmed."), there is some truth behind it. In the past, nominees have been stopped using other "customs and traditions" of the Senate. The vacant seats that Bush has named nominees for are only vacant now because Clinton nominees couldn't get confirmed for them when he was President. These nominations were not stopped by filibusters. Rather, they were killed in the Senate judiciary committee and never even came up for votes on the Senate floor. That's right, the Senate Judiciary committee has the power to prevent an "up-or-down" vote on a judicial nominee. There are eighteen Senators on the Judiciary committee. Eighteen. A majority of this group would be ten. Ten is less than forty-one. A lot less. Thirty-one less. Why is that important?
The main argument put forth by the Republican majority is that an "up-or-down" vote on a judicial nominee should not be able to be blocked by a minority (forty-one) of Senators. Yet Clinton's nominations for these posts were blocked by the Judiciary committee, themselves a minority of eighteen, with a majority vote in that body consisting of ten votes. Where was the outrage when "up-or-down" votes were blocked on Clinton's nominees by this much smaller number of Senators?
It should be obvious that the real source of outrage on the part of the Republican majority is not a zealous desire to protect the customs and traditions of the venerable and august body that is the US Senate. Nor is it even for the preservation of "majority rule", since they were perfectly content to allow the fate of Clinton's nominees rest in the hands of a much smaller minority than the minority of forty-one that can maintain a filibuster.
Here's the real issue: The Republicans finally have control of the white house and both houses of congress. It stands to reason that they can do anything they want... but they can't. And it's driving them crazy! Sorry, guys, but that's the way it works, and there's good reason for it.
The US government is composed of three branches that constitute a system of "checks and balances." The whole reason that the Constitution gives the Senate the role of advising and consenting to the President's nominations is the prevent any one person (or small group of persons) from taking over the whole course of the government against the will and wishes of the mainstream of American citizens. Likewise, the Presidential veto is a check against the Senate, requiring that if the President isn't in agreement with a piece of legislation, a "super-majority" (2/3 in this case) of Senators need to agree to overrule him.
Why these "super-majorities?" Well, in a two-party system like ours, at any given time, it is almost certain that one party or other will hold a simple majority (except in those rare cases where it is exactly split 50/50). This would give whichever party happened to have a slim majority authority to implement the most radical programs and agendas, and in the cases where the President is of the same party as the majority, to appoint the most radical and "activist" judges to the federal bench. The requirement of a super-majority is a safeguard against this, since it almost always requires that programs, agendas and judges have a broad enough appeal for at least some members of both parties need to approve of them for them to be implemented, passed or confirmed.
But the gambit the Republicans are pursuing is very dangerous. They're proposing changing the rules so that a simple majority can push almost any judicial nomination through, and it sets a compelling precedent for not eliminating the requirement for super-majorities on other nominations. Bush won the White House with less than a "super-majority" of votes in 2000 (He didn't even have a simple majority of popular votes, but that doesn't mean that more than half of Americans voted against him. Less than half of Americans voted at all!). The 2004 vote was not a landslide by any means, either. The last 5 years have been filled with some of the most bitter partisan political fighting we've seen in a long time, with both sides taking stands that seem to have less to do with the merits of the issues and more on being against what "they" are supporting. A future where a simple-majority has carte-blanche to push through whatever they want to will continue to cater to the extremes at both ends of the political spectrum over and against the wishes and best interest of the vast majority of centrist America.
I can think of two compelling arguments against changing the rules of the Senate. The first is the specter of a Republican President and a Republican controlled congress pushing through the most radical right-wing agenda without any means to "check" or "balance" them. The second argument is the specter of a Democratic President and a Democratic controlled congress pushing through the most radical left-wing agenda without any means to "check" or "balance" them. Getting rid of "super-majority" clauses makes both of these scary options likely future realities. We're better off with government being limited to what action can get at least some bi-partisan support. It's possible that we'll end up with a few very good programs and ideas being stopped. It's highly probably that we'll avoid a whole lot of bad programs and ideas being pushed through, also. My fear of the damage our government (controlled by either party) could inflict if given almost unlimited power far outweighs any regrets over the loss of some small handful of good that could have been affected which failed to gain bi-partisan support.
The Republican leadership is not just setting themselves up to be able to push through their agenda. They're setting our country up to be a violent see-saw of extremism, going left to right so haphazardly as to tear our nation apart.
If it's all the same to you, I'd prefer to keep the filibuster.
- "Dad used to say the only causes worth fighting for were the lost causes."
Those racist Mexicans!
In the above linked CNN.com article, Mexican President Vicente Fox refuses to apologize for his comment that Mexicans take jobs in the US that "even blacks" won't do.
He maintains that his comments were taken out of context and misinterpreted and he won't apologize. He did express his regret at any hurt feelings caused by his remarks to Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.
So, in what different ways could his comments have been interpreted?
- He could have meant that blacks are actually lazier than Mexicans, so stop perpetuating those stereotypes of lazy Mexicans and replace them with stereotypes of lazy blacks!
- He could have meant that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson were personally unwilling to do those jobs, and that is why he chose to express his regrets to those two individuals.
- He could have made his remarks thinking that not many blacks vote in Mexico, so they were okay to slam.
- He could have been addressing the concerns that illegal immigrants take jobs away from "real Americans" by assuring us that they were really only taking jobs away from blacks, who everybody knows don't count as "real Americans," so don't be so uptight.
- He could have been saying that as natural-born citizens (for the most part), Blacks have access to social services that illegal immigrants don't, so they don't have to take jobs paying far less than minimum wage and live in abject poverty like some Mexicans do.
- He could have meant that the restaurant and hotel industries (along with American produce, although those Chilean grapes are very tasty!) would collapse without the backbreaking labor below minimum wage performed primarily by Mexicans and other Latinos to support these industries, and that illegals and semi-legals are desperate enough to actually do this work, while US citizens (of whom some are black) have not gotten desperate enough to do them... yet.
- He could have meant that he was just trying to emulate American-style politics after all the rhetoric he'd heard from politicians like our governor who praise citizens who take it upon themselves to use dogs and guns to keep our nation free of cheap labor from south of the border. Being Mexican himself, he couldn't really make the Mexicans the scapegoats for all of our woes, so he thought he'd try the second most popular gambit of American politicians and blame it on black criminals and welfare queens.
So many possible interpretations, which is the one he meant? I like what Cardinal Norberto Rivera Carrera, the archbishop of Mexico City, said about the controversy: "The declaration had nothing to do with racism. It is a reality in the United States that anyone can prove."
Is it true? If it is, should someone be persecuted for saying something that's true but an "uncomfortable" truth? Politicians are able to get away with a lot of rhetoric, but they know that if something was actually done to crack down on illegal immigration, our economy would take a huge hit and we'd soon be falling over ourselves to come up with some sort of "guest worker" program that would let us continue to use these people for cheap labor without having to provide the whole range of social services to them that legal residents are entitled to. No matter what they say, most politicians don't want to close the borders. They're smart enough to know that our ability to enjoy the standard of living that we do is contingent upon a cheap labor pool to keep the system going.
Next time, Vicente, try blaming the El Salvadoreans. I doubt you'd make too many enemies in Washington that way.
- "Do you have anything besides Mexican food?"
He maintains that his comments were taken out of context and misinterpreted and he won't apologize. He did express his regret at any hurt feelings caused by his remarks to Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.
So, in what different ways could his comments have been interpreted?
- He could have meant that blacks are actually lazier than Mexicans, so stop perpetuating those stereotypes of lazy Mexicans and replace them with stereotypes of lazy blacks!
- He could have meant that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson were personally unwilling to do those jobs, and that is why he chose to express his regrets to those two individuals.
- He could have made his remarks thinking that not many blacks vote in Mexico, so they were okay to slam.
- He could have been addressing the concerns that illegal immigrants take jobs away from "real Americans" by assuring us that they were really only taking jobs away from blacks, who everybody knows don't count as "real Americans," so don't be so uptight.
- He could have been saying that as natural-born citizens (for the most part), Blacks have access to social services that illegal immigrants don't, so they don't have to take jobs paying far less than minimum wage and live in abject poverty like some Mexicans do.
- He could have meant that the restaurant and hotel industries (along with American produce, although those Chilean grapes are very tasty!) would collapse without the backbreaking labor below minimum wage performed primarily by Mexicans and other Latinos to support these industries, and that illegals and semi-legals are desperate enough to actually do this work, while US citizens (of whom some are black) have not gotten desperate enough to do them... yet.
- He could have meant that he was just trying to emulate American-style politics after all the rhetoric he'd heard from politicians like our governor who praise citizens who take it upon themselves to use dogs and guns to keep our nation free of cheap labor from south of the border. Being Mexican himself, he couldn't really make the Mexicans the scapegoats for all of our woes, so he thought he'd try the second most popular gambit of American politicians and blame it on black criminals and welfare queens.
So many possible interpretations, which is the one he meant? I like what Cardinal Norberto Rivera Carrera, the archbishop of Mexico City, said about the controversy: "The declaration had nothing to do with racism. It is a reality in the United States that anyone can prove."
Is it true? If it is, should someone be persecuted for saying something that's true but an "uncomfortable" truth? Politicians are able to get away with a lot of rhetoric, but they know that if something was actually done to crack down on illegal immigration, our economy would take a huge hit and we'd soon be falling over ourselves to come up with some sort of "guest worker" program that would let us continue to use these people for cheap labor without having to provide the whole range of social services to them that legal residents are entitled to. No matter what they say, most politicians don't want to close the borders. They're smart enough to know that our ability to enjoy the standard of living that we do is contingent upon a cheap labor pool to keep the system going.
Next time, Vicente, try blaming the El Salvadoreans. I doubt you'd make too many enemies in Washington that way.
- "Do you have anything besides Mexican food?"
Friday, May 13, 2005
Harry Potter works for Satan
I was browsing about the Internet the other day, and I came a across a site (I will not link to it, since I fear it will only do damage to the Kingdom of God for others to read it) that purported to be about the business of God by exposing all of the ways that Satan was trying to claim the souls of America's youth. The top contenders were Dungeons and Dragons ("Was this posted in the 80's?" I thought to myself), Pokemon, Teletubbies and Harry Potter. Especially Harry Potter.
First off, I don't want to imply that the authors of this site are not really Christians. I have no problem believing that they are. I do want to imply, however, that they are very misguided in interpreting the risks to our youth that this culture holds.
I remember when The Empire Strikes Back came out in 1980. Many Christians (my parents among them) debated whether or not their children should be allowed to see it. They had heard of this "Yoda" figure who brought in a lot of "New Age" philosophy that could entice their children to the occult. "Ghostbusters" was an easier call, it was clearly making light of supernatural forces and playing with fire: my brother and I did not see it. And did you know that Papa Smurf was a sorcerer?
More recently, I've heard the same issues raised about Harry Potter. Christians that I know and respect have raised the question of whether or not it is unwise to allow our children (or ourselves, for that matter) to be entertained by a tale that features heroes that use supernatural powers as they fight against their enemies. Is it a doorway to the Occult for our youth?
Well, let me first say that I have since seen The Empire Strikes Back (I actually did get to see it in 1980... thanks, Mom and Dad!), Ghostbusters (and Ghostbusters II, which I wish I hadn't for reasons having nothing to do with the Occult), and have read and enjoyed all five Harry Potter books (and seen the movies) and am eagerly awaiting the next one. This post is not, however, primarily about why I think that's okay. It's about whether or not this supposed threat is actually the biggest danger posed by our culture against the minds and souls of our children, and whether or not our efforts might not be better directed elsewhere.
The American church has of late (like, the last 25 years or so) been intent on labeling "evil" and fighting to keep it out of our lives, an endeavor that I think is worthwhile in principle, but too often handled poorly when it comes to execution. A lot of that has been in the political arena, with our nation's enemies being labeled "evil empires" or part of an "axis of evil," but that's not what this post is about. Another source of evil has been in the realm of personal morality, which has been highlighted in a few hot-button issues like abortion, euthenasia and homosexuality. I'm not writing about that either. I'm writing about the evil that we perceive to be the direct work of Satan and his demons. These rather overt manifestations of evil include Satanists, witchcraft, "New Age" style spiritualism, and good old fashioned demon possession.
I think that these concerns are actually valid, because I believe that the devil and demons are real, and that they actually want to separate us from God and his people (if you don't believe in them, then the rest of this post will sound like lunatic fringe raving. Feel free to continue reading, however, as most lunatics tend to be more entertaining than threatening!). I don't agree, however, that the overt manifestations of witchcraft and the occult are the primary dangers our kids face. If you've read The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis, you might anticipate where I'm going with this. If not, keep reading.
We have to remember that the main objective of these fallen beings is to separate us from God, not to garner our direct worship and service as witches or Satanists. In The Screwtape Letters, Lewis invents an older demon mentoring his younger subordinate on the most effective ways to accomplish this goal. Not surprisingly, it is a lot easier to distract someone from God with something seemingly innocuous and even "good" than it is to convert them to cat-sacrificing, robe-wearing Druids.
As I read Harry Potter, I'm less concerned that kids will take away from it a desire to master the art of magic and wield power over their enemies with a wand and a pseudo-latin phrase. I think that most kids recognize this as fantasy, and are probably less convinced of the reality of the supernatural than many Christians are. The things that do concern me are far more subtle. Harry and his friends operate under the classic American (ironic, since the author is British) cultural mantra: "believe in yourself and you can do anything." When things get tough for Potter and his gang, they find that the adults and authority around them are unable to help them, and they have to rely on themselves to save the day. And, guess what, they do! They're always able to muster up whatever strength of will is necessary to strike down evil, and the message we receive is that you already have everything you need inside you, you just have to believe. This is the same message our kids hear from Disney (and Dreamworks, even in Biblical-themed films!), from Saturday morning cartoons, from after-school specials, and even in parent-teacher conferences at school (not to mention some preachers on TV). It is a sin against our national faith-in-self to acknowledge ourselves as needy in any way, and a far greater sin to teach our children that they are in fact limited and unable to even understand what they ought to want for their future, let alone achieve it by mere human effort.
The forces of American culture that are the biggest danger for our children are not those that would turn them away from God and toward Satan. Rather, they are the forces that would turn them away from God and in on themselves (Of course, this is what Satan does, too; look at how he tempted Eve). Satan doesn't need to make people witches, he just has to let them become "good Americans" and he doesn't have to work all that hard to make it happen, since it's what we start doing to our kids even before they're born.
The Gospel of Jesus Christ is good news because we are desperately needy. It's not for nothing that Jesus said the rich would have an easier time getting a camel through a needle's eye than getting into heaven. It's not that they're evil, they're just insulated by their wealth from seeing themselves as needy in any way. Our children are being raised to surround themselves with resources to prevent them ever having to trust anyone but themselves for their well-being. Unfortunately, that includes God.
How are we doing this? Well, how do we make decisions about our children's education? Do they need to get into a good pre-school so they'll do well in kindergarten and (at least in San Francisco) get into the right middle schools and high schools to get into the right college to get the right job to never have to worry about anything? Have we taught them not to worry about tomorrow because God will care for them, or have we taught them to worry about the big test tomorrow because your future depends on it? What would it be like if we went into parent teacher conferences and were less concerned about their slipping grades in math than in how well they treated their peers during recess? What if we didn't ask about GATE placement or honors classes as much as about their generosity and kindness? What message are we sending our kids when we talk about their education? I have the feeling that most of them get the idea that the most important thing they can do before going to bed is to finish a report for school on the Middle East, not pray for the people living there.
How about subtler messages? Every commercial we see on TV tells us that we deserve ________. Our children get the message every day that simply wanting something equals being entitled to it. If things don't go the way we want them to, we feel like something is wrong and somebody needs to fix it (or get sued). This attitude is a luxury of the rich, and is not shared by the vast majority of the world's population. A culture that feels it's entitled to have everything go it's way is incapable of gratitude. But without gratitude, how can we embrace the gospel? Entitlement denies grace, and grace is the heart of the gospel.
Perhaps the subtlest message comes from the psychoanalyzing of our culture. We've discovered that just about everything we do wrong is the result of some wrong committed against us in the past, and we're hard pressed to accept responsibility for any of our actions. We're tremendously fragile beings, and we can't help but act out what with the ways we were scarred and manipulated all of our lives. We are the victims of our childhoods, and our life is not about the consequences of our choices being played out, it is about being swept away by the choices made by others which for which we bear no responsibility. How can we embrace the Gospel as good news if the sin that needs to be forgiven is wholly the sin of other people? God's love is meaningless if we are not needy and desperate sinners, and that's exactly what our culture is telling us we are not.
We don't need to be afraid of Harry Potter and the Smurfs turning our kids into witches and warlocks nearly as much as we need to be afraid of our culture turning them into good Americans. The gospel knows nothing of independence, only utter dependence on God and interdependence among his church, and freedom in the Gospel is found in becoming slaves to Christ and one another. The self-reliant individual that is the archetypal American is found nowhere in the Bible; there is only a new people given a new identity and called to live life together. The greatest danger to our children is to grow up learning from everyone around them that the culture of America and the counter-culture of the church are compatible, because they're not. America will not make our kids Satan-worshippers, but it will make them self-worshippers, and both roads lead to the same end.
-"Oh, ho ho! You sly dog! You caught me monologuing!"
First off, I don't want to imply that the authors of this site are not really Christians. I have no problem believing that they are. I do want to imply, however, that they are very misguided in interpreting the risks to our youth that this culture holds.
I remember when The Empire Strikes Back came out in 1980. Many Christians (my parents among them) debated whether or not their children should be allowed to see it. They had heard of this "Yoda" figure who brought in a lot of "New Age" philosophy that could entice their children to the occult. "Ghostbusters" was an easier call, it was clearly making light of supernatural forces and playing with fire: my brother and I did not see it. And did you know that Papa Smurf was a sorcerer?
More recently, I've heard the same issues raised about Harry Potter. Christians that I know and respect have raised the question of whether or not it is unwise to allow our children (or ourselves, for that matter) to be entertained by a tale that features heroes that use supernatural powers as they fight against their enemies. Is it a doorway to the Occult for our youth?
Well, let me first say that I have since seen The Empire Strikes Back (I actually did get to see it in 1980... thanks, Mom and Dad!), Ghostbusters (and Ghostbusters II, which I wish I hadn't for reasons having nothing to do with the Occult), and have read and enjoyed all five Harry Potter books (and seen the movies) and am eagerly awaiting the next one. This post is not, however, primarily about why I think that's okay. It's about whether or not this supposed threat is actually the biggest danger posed by our culture against the minds and souls of our children, and whether or not our efforts might not be better directed elsewhere.
The American church has of late (like, the last 25 years or so) been intent on labeling "evil" and fighting to keep it out of our lives, an endeavor that I think is worthwhile in principle, but too often handled poorly when it comes to execution. A lot of that has been in the political arena, with our nation's enemies being labeled "evil empires" or part of an "axis of evil," but that's not what this post is about. Another source of evil has been in the realm of personal morality, which has been highlighted in a few hot-button issues like abortion, euthenasia and homosexuality. I'm not writing about that either. I'm writing about the evil that we perceive to be the direct work of Satan and his demons. These rather overt manifestations of evil include Satanists, witchcraft, "New Age" style spiritualism, and good old fashioned demon possession.
I think that these concerns are actually valid, because I believe that the devil and demons are real, and that they actually want to separate us from God and his people (if you don't believe in them, then the rest of this post will sound like lunatic fringe raving. Feel free to continue reading, however, as most lunatics tend to be more entertaining than threatening!). I don't agree, however, that the overt manifestations of witchcraft and the occult are the primary dangers our kids face. If you've read The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis, you might anticipate where I'm going with this. If not, keep reading.
We have to remember that the main objective of these fallen beings is to separate us from God, not to garner our direct worship and service as witches or Satanists. In The Screwtape Letters, Lewis invents an older demon mentoring his younger subordinate on the most effective ways to accomplish this goal. Not surprisingly, it is a lot easier to distract someone from God with something seemingly innocuous and even "good" than it is to convert them to cat-sacrificing, robe-wearing Druids.
As I read Harry Potter, I'm less concerned that kids will take away from it a desire to master the art of magic and wield power over their enemies with a wand and a pseudo-latin phrase. I think that most kids recognize this as fantasy, and are probably less convinced of the reality of the supernatural than many Christians are. The things that do concern me are far more subtle. Harry and his friends operate under the classic American (ironic, since the author is British) cultural mantra: "believe in yourself and you can do anything." When things get tough for Potter and his gang, they find that the adults and authority around them are unable to help them, and they have to rely on themselves to save the day. And, guess what, they do! They're always able to muster up whatever strength of will is necessary to strike down evil, and the message we receive is that you already have everything you need inside you, you just have to believe. This is the same message our kids hear from Disney (and Dreamworks, even in Biblical-themed films!), from Saturday morning cartoons, from after-school specials, and even in parent-teacher conferences at school (not to mention some preachers on TV). It is a sin against our national faith-in-self to acknowledge ourselves as needy in any way, and a far greater sin to teach our children that they are in fact limited and unable to even understand what they ought to want for their future, let alone achieve it by mere human effort.
The forces of American culture that are the biggest danger for our children are not those that would turn them away from God and toward Satan. Rather, they are the forces that would turn them away from God and in on themselves (Of course, this is what Satan does, too; look at how he tempted Eve). Satan doesn't need to make people witches, he just has to let them become "good Americans" and he doesn't have to work all that hard to make it happen, since it's what we start doing to our kids even before they're born.
The Gospel of Jesus Christ is good news because we are desperately needy. It's not for nothing that Jesus said the rich would have an easier time getting a camel through a needle's eye than getting into heaven. It's not that they're evil, they're just insulated by their wealth from seeing themselves as needy in any way. Our children are being raised to surround themselves with resources to prevent them ever having to trust anyone but themselves for their well-being. Unfortunately, that includes God.
How are we doing this? Well, how do we make decisions about our children's education? Do they need to get into a good pre-school so they'll do well in kindergarten and (at least in San Francisco) get into the right middle schools and high schools to get into the right college to get the right job to never have to worry about anything? Have we taught them not to worry about tomorrow because God will care for them, or have we taught them to worry about the big test tomorrow because your future depends on it? What would it be like if we went into parent teacher conferences and were less concerned about their slipping grades in math than in how well they treated their peers during recess? What if we didn't ask about GATE placement or honors classes as much as about their generosity and kindness? What message are we sending our kids when we talk about their education? I have the feeling that most of them get the idea that the most important thing they can do before going to bed is to finish a report for school on the Middle East, not pray for the people living there.
How about subtler messages? Every commercial we see on TV tells us that we deserve ________. Our children get the message every day that simply wanting something equals being entitled to it. If things don't go the way we want them to, we feel like something is wrong and somebody needs to fix it (or get sued). This attitude is a luxury of the rich, and is not shared by the vast majority of the world's population. A culture that feels it's entitled to have everything go it's way is incapable of gratitude. But without gratitude, how can we embrace the gospel? Entitlement denies grace, and grace is the heart of the gospel.
Perhaps the subtlest message comes from the psychoanalyzing of our culture. We've discovered that just about everything we do wrong is the result of some wrong committed against us in the past, and we're hard pressed to accept responsibility for any of our actions. We're tremendously fragile beings, and we can't help but act out what with the ways we were scarred and manipulated all of our lives. We are the victims of our childhoods, and our life is not about the consequences of our choices being played out, it is about being swept away by the choices made by others which for which we bear no responsibility. How can we embrace the Gospel as good news if the sin that needs to be forgiven is wholly the sin of other people? God's love is meaningless if we are not needy and desperate sinners, and that's exactly what our culture is telling us we are not.
We don't need to be afraid of Harry Potter and the Smurfs turning our kids into witches and warlocks nearly as much as we need to be afraid of our culture turning them into good Americans. The gospel knows nothing of independence, only utter dependence on God and interdependence among his church, and freedom in the Gospel is found in becoming slaves to Christ and one another. The self-reliant individual that is the archetypal American is found nowhere in the Bible; there is only a new people given a new identity and called to live life together. The greatest danger to our children is to grow up learning from everyone around them that the culture of America and the counter-culture of the church are compatible, because they're not. America will not make our kids Satan-worshippers, but it will make them self-worshippers, and both roads lead to the same end.
-"Oh, ho ho! You sly dog! You caught me monologuing!"
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
You know what this country needs?
(This blog has been retroactively posted from the future: October 17, 2008 to be precise.)
We need some way to pool our resources to pay for the things that just about everyone needs to use or have handy, but nobody (well, practically nobody, Mr. Gates) can afford to build on their own. You know, like roads, fire stations, traffic lights, schools, etc. And what about things that are in the public interest, but no individual person is powerful enough to fight for alone, like truth in advertising, and predatory business practices, and affordable health care? Wouldn't it be great if instead of each person having to build their own personal roads from home to work and to any restaurant they happen to like, we could all chip-in and do it together?
Of course, it would take a lot of time to get this stuff done, and most of us don't have that much vacation time from work. I guess that some of us could just quit our jobs and focus on doing this stuff, and the rest of us could chip-in a little more money so those guys can buy food, clothing and shelter for their familes. I mean, they're doing this for us, after all. It only seems right that they shouldn't have to starve or live in abject poverty because they're building roads that everyone gets to use, and ready to fight fires at anyone's homes, not just their own, or teaching all of our kids so that we can go to work during the day instead of staying at home to teach them ourselves.
And then I guess we'll have to chip-in a little bit more to create the infrastructure to organize all of these projects, and some people will have to spend all of their time just working on logistics and paperwork. I guess it's worth it and we can chip-in a little bit more to cover their living expenses, too.
Wouldn't it be easier if there was already a big infrastructure in place that we could use, instead of having to invent a new one? Wait a minute...
Don't we already chip-in a bunch of our money every paycheck to pay for bombs and missiles and soldiers to kill people in other parts of the world? What if some of that money got used to pay for stuff we need over here? I mean, they're talking about cutting taxes, (even though we keep spending more and more money on destructo-products), what if we all just kept paying in the same amount we are now (or even the same amount we did 10 years ago... Oh, wait, I still do. So who's getting all these tax cuts I keep hearing about?), and we could pay for all of that other stuff?
Just an idea.
- "Have you met them? The poor? Oh, they're marvelous people... of course they don't have two pennies to rub together, but that's because they're poor!"
We need some way to pool our resources to pay for the things that just about everyone needs to use or have handy, but nobody (well, practically nobody, Mr. Gates) can afford to build on their own. You know, like roads, fire stations, traffic lights, schools, etc. And what about things that are in the public interest, but no individual person is powerful enough to fight for alone, like truth in advertising, and predatory business practices, and affordable health care? Wouldn't it be great if instead of each person having to build their own personal roads from home to work and to any restaurant they happen to like, we could all chip-in and do it together?
Of course, it would take a lot of time to get this stuff done, and most of us don't have that much vacation time from work. I guess that some of us could just quit our jobs and focus on doing this stuff, and the rest of us could chip-in a little more money so those guys can buy food, clothing and shelter for their familes. I mean, they're doing this for us, after all. It only seems right that they shouldn't have to starve or live in abject poverty because they're building roads that everyone gets to use, and ready to fight fires at anyone's homes, not just their own, or teaching all of our kids so that we can go to work during the day instead of staying at home to teach them ourselves.
And then I guess we'll have to chip-in a little bit more to create the infrastructure to organize all of these projects, and some people will have to spend all of their time just working on logistics and paperwork. I guess it's worth it and we can chip-in a little bit more to cover their living expenses, too.
Wouldn't it be easier if there was already a big infrastructure in place that we could use, instead of having to invent a new one? Wait a minute...
Don't we already chip-in a bunch of our money every paycheck to pay for bombs and missiles and soldiers to kill people in other parts of the world? What if some of that money got used to pay for stuff we need over here? I mean, they're talking about cutting taxes, (even though we keep spending more and more money on destructo-products), what if we all just kept paying in the same amount we are now (or even the same amount we did 10 years ago... Oh, wait, I still do. So who's getting all these tax cuts I keep hearing about?), and we could pay for all of that other stuff?
Just an idea.
- "Have you met them? The poor? Oh, they're marvelous people... of course they don't have two pennies to rub together, but that's because they're poor!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)