The source topic came up in the news/blogs a while back and it was just brought to light again due to a recent NYT article.

Shameful. Absolutely horrendously shameful. The original topic and now this fallout.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/13/crowley

Still a hell of a lot better than Bush.
But that's not saying much.

My stance on U.S. politics has become that it really doesn't matter that much who sits in office- mostly they are going to do the same stuff. Bush may have actually veered us off course more than the usual commander in chief, but it seems like most are just taking us down the drain, either because they are misguided or because they are powerless. I don't really understand politics enough or have enough information to judge which.

I fear I may have become a little jaded in the past few years . . .

Sadly I'm becoming very much the same way. Both Bush and Obama were vastly different people prior to taking the presidential office. I really have no clue how to judge a person and decide if they are going to be a president I agree with when I head to vote.

What really frustrates me is how polarized politics seem to be these past few years. I really don't see a way out of the current situation either, beyond hoping for a change to where there isn't a majority party anymore. This would require a 3rd viable party to appear and succeed in winning several congressional seats.

The key to understanding is the realization that a politician's mission has nothing to do with what is right, wrong, or best for his constituents or for the country. He does only those things that will help him get re-elected.

tanstaafl.

The "do what it takes to get elected" theme, taken to its logical conclusion in a two party system, would yield two indistinguishable candidates from the "left" and "right", competing over a tenuous grasp of the center. Or, so goes the usual logic from American third party wannabes.

What's actually going on, starting with Karl Rove's work for George W. Bush, is a realization that election turnouts are so amazingly low that "energizing the base" with a more extreme candidate can actually work. We see that, in spades, with the various local victories of "Tea Party" Republican candidates in the 2010 election, who are very much farther to the right than traditional Republicans. (Notable case in point: even Utah Republican Orin Hatch is taking fire from his right flank.)

Obama's recent policies and speeches, viewed through a purely political lens, seems engineered to grab onto something resembling the political center, around the assumption that the Republicans are certainly not going to try to attack him from the left, nor will other American left-leaning organizations (Green Party, etc.) mount a credible opposition from the left.

Of course, the net effect is that the U.S. now has two center-right parties with no meaningful representation from what might traditionally be considered the political left.

If you believe Larry Lessig, all of these imbalances boil down to dysfunctions in how political campaigns are financed and I'm tempted to agree with him. I'd also point the finger at the broad dysfunction of our news organizations to report, well, actual news. Of course, who can resist the latest Charlie Sheen antics.

The "winner takes all" mechanics of our voting systems are also a reasonable suspect. There's no lack of alternative voting systems used elsewhere in the world, but not in the U.S. If there were some credible way to vote for a third party candidate without "spoiling" the "real" election between the "big" candidates (yeah, lots of quotation marks), then third parties could play a legitimate role in our elections that's denied to them today.

I think Obama has done more than he's getting credit for, but I agree that I wish so much more had been done. That's basically the takeaway I had after the interview with Jon Stewart before the rally, which was great.

I'm pretty disillusioned these days. I don't have faith in the Democrats to stick to their guns, and I have fear of the Republicans (which is what they want, so it's working). And unfortunately, it's looking like if there's a third party, it's going to be the tea party, and that terrifies me.

Anyway, I'm going to stick my head back in this sand over here. I'll vote for who I want, it won't make much of a difference, and my rights will get trampled or they won't. In the meantime I hope I make enough money to live comfortably, don't get sicker than I can afford, and hope that the internet stays free and open.

I know this sounds horrible, and maybe it is, but I didn't vote last election. And it isn't because I'm lazy or because I don't care about who runs this country. I really do. I just don't believe I have the ability to actually understand what my vote means. With all of the media and grand speeches, who knows what actions are really going to be taken (or not taken) based on my vote? I feel a huge responsibility and I don't believe I have access to the information to vote for the better candidate (or lesser of two evils). I know there's a ton of information out there, but it's really hard to know who you can trust and just what all of it means- I guess I really don't think I'm smart enough to parse it all correctly.

At the end of the day, my beliefs tend to line up with Republicans a lot more than Democrats, but then that just gives them the ability to abuse my beliefs in the name of things that I really don't want, and that offends me. Much of what the Democrats stand for I disagree with, so it's really hard for me to vote for them, but I would if I thought it would ultimately lead to better decisions when it comes to the leadership of our country. But I don't see anything that leads me to believe they'd do any better.

The silly thing is how I came to realize all of this- I'll admit it's pretty self serving compared to the bigger picture issues that our country deals with. What can I say, I'm as self involved as the next guy? It had to due with online gambling back when I was playing a lot of online poker. The Republicans managed to push through anti-online gambling legislation on an unrelated bill. Politics as usual, but very frustrating. The really offensive part to me, though, was that the justification used was my faith. The Republican who pushed the legislation appealed to conservative Christians to show what a great thing he'd done by saving us from the perils of online gambling. Now, this is offensive to me because my faith isn't about gambling or not gambling, it's about Jesus Christ and his saving grace in my life- seeing that reduced to a political statement so that some guy can further his agenda (who actually showed no real interest in Christianity apart from getting support from Christians) offends me.

Beyond that, though, if he was going to appeal to Christian anti-gambling sensibilities (which many Christians do have), then the bill sucked. It carved out wagering over horse racing online and online lotteries. If he REALLY wanted to support the supposed Christian goal of preventing online gambling, then he'd not have settled for these carve outs, or at the least he'd have admitted that he wasn't able to totally solve the problem- but that was never even addressed. It was all a political statement to him- using my faith to garner votes on an issue that affected what I was able to do with my time and money.

But the worst part is, you could step back and blame the Republicans for this, but it was a Democrat who pushed making online gambling a felony offense in Washington state. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what a party believes, it's all about what a politician thinks will further his or her career and that's the only agenda that really matters.

I HATE seeing my beliefs being touted in order to support something I don't believe in, and I hate not knowing who I can really trust because at the end of the day, it isn't about what a party stands for, it's about what makes the best political sense for the politician at the time. And if this stuff is true about something as trivial as online gambling, it's true about stuff that really matters (like making war, torturing people, laws that protect the innocent or punish the guilty, etc.)

I read Grisham's "The Appeal" a couple of years back and while it's fiction, my guess is it isn't too far off the mark. The problem is that while he took shots at the Republicans in a pretty big way, there's no reason to think the Democrats behave any differently.

Finally, I remember standing at Second Baptist in Houston (where I was attending church at the time) before Bush's first election. He was invited to "share his testimony" one Sunday morning, and I went eagerly expecting to hear about his faith journey. Instead, what I got was a political speech about why I should vote for him. I was offended, and I was offended when our pastor got up and applauded him after his speech. I went to church to worship my Lord Jesus Christ, not hear about faith based initiatives (I'm certain that everything was worded carefully enough not to run afoul of laws that could lose the church it's non-profit status- but it wasn't hard to read between the lines of what was really going on). The thing is, I'm ashamed to say I rationalized that event for a long time after that and overlooked how much it bothered me. I'm sure if I look back at my political posts on this board at the time I'd be a little frustrated at what I couldn't (but should have) see- Bush was using my faith as a political stepping stone to get what he wanted, and I let him.

So yeah, I'm bitter and jaded. I don't know how to fix where we're at. I don't know that things would be all that different if McCain had gotten elected. Maybe they would be, but I don't know if it would have been better or worse. I do know that I do not talk politics at church gatherings.

Don't get me wrong, I am VERY thankful of the freedom that I have and the country that I live in. I just don't know how much longer it will last- in a lot of ways it feels to me like we are nearing the end. The politicians have gotten too savvy at working the system and now it doesn't seem like the system even serves the people any more. The best it does is keep any one captain from steering us too far off course, but at some point we are going to need a major course correction and not be able to make it. I hope that days comes after I am long gone.

Thanks, Jeff. I couldn't agree more.

I'm desperately disappointed with the Obama administration, for reasons like the one Bruno pointed out. That said, I'm also delighted at some of the things that it has accomplished, like the health care bill. While I wish it were more comprehensive, there's no way that it would have happened under a McCain administration.

So, in many ways, I get frustrated with the system for bearing no differences between the parties, but then there are some big and really important things that show that there are significant differences.

I've long thought that the Republican party during the Bush administration used religion as a tool. Since he's been out of office, I've seen less of that, but it certainly still exists. I can only remind you that actions speak louder than words.

It's a good thing for America that the GOP field is so comically weak, because Obama's not going to get nearly the level of support from his progressive base in 2012 that he did in 2008.

This all started with the refusal to investigate wrongdoing by the previous administration. At that time, Glenn Greenwald (the author of the piece Bruno linked to) and many others made the case that, by refusing to distance himself from these abuses, and allowing those who committed them to escape prosecution, Obama was taking ownership of them. An action like this proves that theory.

People with security clearances are legally bound to protect classified materials at all times. Bradley Manning knew this, and he had to know he would face prosecution for leaking them as he is alleged to have done. But he had no way of knowing he would be treated like an enemy combatant and stripped of basic human rights. This is beyond shameful, and Obama deserves all of the blame he gets for allowing these policies to continue on his watch, under the banner of "keeping America safe."

I think Obama's domestic policies have been better than I expected. The stimulus was too small, but we did save the auto industry, and we've gotten most of our money back from the bailouts, with more to come. The healthcare bill is basically the Republican plan from the 1990s, but at least we'll cover more people and start to put some downward pressure on costs. I don't think he's done all he could do to advance the policies he said he favored during his campaign, but you also can't discount the impact of how strongly the system favors the status quo with the filibuster and disproportional representation in the Senate.

I can't really say anything good about his performance on matters of terrorism and national security, however. He has completely reneged on his promise to close Guantanamo and he has continued Bush era abuses of detainees. A total failure of leadership for which he deserves every bit of criticism he gets.

I'm glad PJ Crowley came out and said what he said. He had to know he would get into trouble for it, since spokespeople don't get paid to speak their mind, but hopefully he's forced members of the administration to re-evaluate their stance on this issue and perhaps think about not treating an accused leaker like a deadly terrorist. As for Obama, I hope he gets religion on this topic soon, because it's becoming a lot harder for me to tolerate his failing grades on foreign policy, especially when his grades on domestic policy are merely in the C+ range.

In many ways, that's the safe road, but I think it's important that you tell people this story. Tell them about your disillusionment, and why. That you feel like politicians are using your faith as a tool to manipulate you. Give examples. Wake up your fellow Christians to your realization. Not in an effort to persuade them to vote non-Republican, but in an effort to get them to actually think about their voting choice, instead of voting purely out of religious ideals.

And don't forget, instead of not voting, try voting for a third party. It isn't (currently) going to change the outcome of D vs. R, but increased third-party votes leads to increased third-party funding, which will hopefully at some point lead to third-party relevancy and a break from D vs. R.


Some of us see that day as long past.

If it weren't for the general apathy of the average US citizen holding it back, I'd say the country will be embroiled in a second civil war within my lifetime.

And, for better or worse, Obama doesn't need to cater to your vote, particularly if/when the Republicans nominate somebody who heads off far into the right wing. You may not particularly love Obama, but you'll (perhaps) show up to vote against the Republican contender. Instead, Obama is triangulating nicely on where he sees the middle to be.

What I find interesting, if you stand back and look at it, is that the arguments coming from the American left during the Bush years often boiled down to "why vote for Democrats who are indistinguishable from Republicans? Go ahead and vote {Green,etc.}." Well, the American left never quite did that in meaningful numbers, but the American right took it completely to heart with the Tea Party business.

I wonder if the left will rediscover its own ideas and, umm, copy the Tea Party.

That's funny, because I don't remember a "Tea Party" line on the ballots in 2010.

I do get what you're saying, but the genius of the Tea Party is that they *didn't* waste time with a third party, they simply applied pressure to Republican primary races and got (for the most part) garden variety Republicans elected by repackaging them as anti-establishment insurgents.

Given the homogeneity of the Republican party, that was pretty easy to do. Suddenly, not only were candidates talking about lowering taxes and complaining about spending, they were threatening to tear the whole place down once they got elected unless spending was cut and taxes were lowered. It was just a populist reframing of Republican dogma, with slightly less Jesus and a lot more Reagan (recast as Jesus.) Absolutely brilliant to win elections, but now they're running into problems with some of the young Turks who want to show their constituents they didn't buy a bill of goods. We'll see how that pans out long-term.

The problems with doing that from the left against Democrats are numerous. The Democratic party is a much larger tent, with many more divergent and often conflicting priorities. Furthermore, starting with Clinton, the Democratic party has had its liberal populist leanings beaten out of it in an attempt to appeal to mainstream voters. Almost every primary challenge from the left in the last few elections has come from the online "netroots", and there have been very few successes because the Democratic establishment just wants to play nice and compromise, and doesn't want those noisy hippies coming in and trashing the place.

The Republicans, on the other hand, saw the rise of the Tea Party as something they could co-opt and use to their advantage. So, it was bankrolled by the usual power centers of the GOP funding hierarchy. I just don't see that happening on the left, or I should say, I didn't see it happening before the Wisconsin situation. Now that a dozen Scott Walkers are blooming in Michigan, Ohio, Florida, etc. there's a slim chance that Democrats might try to prop up the suddenly fired-up base with some establishment coin. But I wouldn't bet on it.

I DO have these conversations when the conversation leads to it naturally, but that's generally in smaller situations than I was referring to above. People who get to know me well get the full on spiel of everything that I think is wrong in the world, whether with politics, the church, the American mentality, or whatever I like to talk- as I'm sure you are all aware!



I guess my problem is I think the system itself is broken- we reward people for being good politicians, not good leaders, and I don't think another party will fix that. Actually, I have no idea how to fix that.

Besides that, you don't really want to see what my ideal candidate would look like (and probably few would). I'm certain he or she would be ultra right wing in some respects and very moderate or even liberal in others. Definitely unelectable.

No doubt. The big problem is assessing whether a person will take the right actions, though, and determining what the right actions are.

What I was really getting at is that you have no way of knowing that people (candidates for public office) who aren't constantly talking about religion aren't religious, and their views on religion might actually line up more closely with your own that you think. They might not. But I think that the assumption that people who talk more about Christianity must be more Christian is faulty, yet very easy to fall into. In addition, you might find that even those people who are not Christian might better share your codes of ethics and morals, even if they derive from a different source.

That may, of course, also not be the case, but I think putting that thumb of Christian talking points on the scale is unsound.

To be more succinct:

• Just because a person does not talk about Christianity does not make him un-Christian.
  • In fact, it's easily possible for that person to be more Christian.
• If actions speak louder than words, what real, corporeal difference does the source of inspiration for those actions make?

I agree 100%, and this is something I'm VERY sensitized to. I am not looking for political candidates to talk about faith. In fact, if someone spends a lot of time talking about faith, it makes me think they are trying to get away with something.

When people start talking about faith in a weird context, I start hearing alarm bells. For instance, I went on a job interview where the first thing out of the guys mouth was "This is a Christian based company" when nothing before that in my understanding of the company had anything to do with Christianity. It put me on guard, and rightfully so- the company turned out to be very sleazy.

I am perfectly happy to vote for a non-Christian over a Christian if I think the non-Christian will do a better job. In the case of Obama vs. McCain, my understanding that both were stated Christians anyway, so it wasn't really an issue (I didn't delve into that subject much, as I'd gotten so jaded by that point I wasn't really going to trust anything I found anyway).

Another short anecdote, I remember my wife and I, for some dumb reason, went to a time-share presentation. When we declined, they brought on the high pressure guy. He saw a cross around my wife's neck and immediately started using that as a bridge building point. He told us about the well known church he went to (whose doctrine and beliefs are very close to what my wife and I believe) and asked about our faith. It grated me because I knew he was only trying to gain our trust to push the hard sell. When he got to that point, I told him that I did not appreciate him trying to push us so hard to make a large financial obligation we couldn't afford, especially without giving us time to to pray about it. A Christian brother would certainly hold the well-fare of a fellow believer (and truly, a non-believer as well) above his desire to push a sale. He quickly sent us on our way after that.

I don't like it when people expect me to chose them over someone more qualified simply because we share a faith. When they do that, it makes me think perhaps we do not share a faith after all. It offends my sense of rightness.

Except for the fact that we're commanded in the Bible to talk about our faith. It's kind of a basic tenet of Biblical Christianity. So it does make them at least disobedient.

That said, I think you and I would both agree that there are appropriate times, places, forums and situations to share your faith, and perhaps mixing it up with stumping for votes isn't one of them.

This is further complicated by those who claim Christ with their words and deny him with their actions. The goats mixed in with the sheep as it were. Personally, I would place most of the politicians who use religion simply as a way to gain votes (from all parties) firmly in this category.

Maybe "commanded" isn't the right word...

Matthew 28:19-20
Mark 16:15
Acts 1:8
Matthew 10:32
John 20:21
Romans 10:11-15
1 Peter 2.9

Christians are called ambassadors, witnesses, priests.

We are commanded in many instances to follow after Christ, who himself came "to bear witness to the truth" (John 18:37)

Just trust me on this. I know about this stuff. It's commanded. In fact, it's our basic job description of what we're supposed to be doing while we remain in this life.

Or start with Matthew 28:18 so you get:

"Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Jesus us commands this with all authority in heaven and earth- that's quite a bit of authority to defy if as a Christian you decide not to "make disciples of all nations"


There's no doubt evangelism and talking about one's faith is a critical part of the Christian life. However, context matters. Just because someone at my work does not bring up Christianity when we are talking about our project plan does not make them a non-Christian. If we are hanging out at lunch and the conversation somehow makes its way to a discussion about faith and belief and the person remains silent, then there's an issue there. The line is somewhere in the middle.

Really, Christians should always be sharing their faith, but if I were to march into a project meaning and start using it is a platform for sharing my faith, people would come to believe (rightly so) that I was not someone they could rely on to stay on task and get my job done. I would also likely turn a lot of people away from the very goal by offending their sensibilities. Honestly, sharing faith can be offensive, but if it is I want the message itself to be offending, and not the way or time that I choose to share it.

And sharing faith should always be the end goal, not the means of achieving other things. This is where I think politicians get into trouble. If that morning where I went to hear Bush's testimony at Second Baptist he'd spent the time talking about his personal faith experience and how he'd come to a saving relationship with Christ I think that would have been very edifying and uplifting. I would have viewed him as a politician second and a Christian first. If I disagreed with his policies then I would simply not vote for him- but that would be decided away from the church. The important matter was that he was a Christian brother and we were in agreement on the most important thing in life.

But that's NOT what his speech was about. He didn't talk about personal impact, but rather how his plan for administration would include things of my faith (he didn't even really own the faith himself at any point I remember). He never let us forget he was running for office, and he was giving us reasons to vote for him. He was asking for our votes because of our faith. That's NOT what Christian testimony is supposed to be about.


On a side note, it's a bit strange how this thread turned to be a little more religious focused when it didn't start out that way at all. It certainly wasn't my goal, even when in my first wall of text post. I was simply viewing abuse of religion as a political platform as a symptom of a horribly broken system- albeit one that hits me very personally and to which I am very sensitive.

Err.. that's a very many-handed account of Jesus telling Matthew what to do, over 2000 years ago.

I went to a Catholic high school, so I suppose that's not as Christian as most of the US, but I was taught there are exactly and precisely 10 commandments. While the Bible in its entirety is subject to interpretation, nothing else of what's written in it, regardless of the language used, should be interpreted as commandments.

That's really the only point I was trying to make.

Authenticity of scripture is a whole different question, and you can use that response of any point someone might make when they appeal to scripture (I think there is plenty of evidence that what we have today is an accurate text, but that's for another thread someday). Suffice to say, both John and I place a high value in the words of scripture. Whatever others might believe, we will both come away with the understanding that our primary job in this life is to spread the good news of Jesus Christ.

Sure, so let's assume the words and translation are accurate. In which case, that's a "command" that Jesus gave to Matthew 2000+ years ago. Not to anyone else.

Ah, but the command is recursive:

"teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you"

Matthew was commanded. The rest of the population is "taught." There's a difference. We need to look at this the only right way, purely grammatical. Where's Bitt?

We'd better hope that Bitt's ancient Greek is up to scratch then

Other than the other ten guys that were there:



Do you really want to argue this? It's a pretty untenable position. Do you think that theologians and the church as a whole have gotten it wrong for 1000's of years?

If you place any stock at all in the authenticity and authority of the Bible, you have to acknowledge the teaching that runs throughout to tell others about God. If you wish to disregard scripture, that's a whole other issue.

I could do an entire exposition on the biblical teaching of evangelism, but I'm not sure it's wanted or needed. I think that we agree that using religion as a platform for political gain is wrong (if you believe in right and wrong and that sort of thing.)

Yeah, what I meant was something more like "just because a person doesn't constantly talk about Christianity…".

At the uppermost layers, where "blindly believe this" proclamations generally originate, the "Church" for much of the past 1000 years has been little more than a massive Mafioso style of organisation. Much much more concerned with profit and politics than with understanding what God wants.

So "church as a whole" has zero weight for me, despite the years I wasted trying to figure them out.

The translation you're quoting is probably not true to the original speech, so I wouldn't place absolute trust into specific words translated 3rd hand from somebody's memoirs that were likely written far after the original conversations.

The general gist of it, sure, but specific wordings? Forget it.

Cheers

The best I can do is link to something that is an authority on Koine Greek.

Strong's Concordance shows that the word translated here as "commanded" is used only four times before that in Matthew, and it seems remarkably unlikely that Jesus was intending for them to only follow those four specific things.

To be fair, I posted the NIV for whatever reason, which is far from a "literal" word for word type translation of the sources we have anyway.

I think the notion being conveyed is pretty clear, though, whether the word commandment was used or not.

When someone says something like "all authority on heaven and earth" and then follows it up with an idea of something you are supposed to do, I don't generally take that as a suggestion.

And this is an excellent clarification, because this is how I originally took what you said. The person who turns every conversation into a discourse on faith no matter what the situation tends to come across (to me at least) as trying to push a personal agenda. This is doubly so if the person doesn't really act on the things he or she is stating. On the other hand, the person who acts in a way consistent with his/her beliefs is much more credible, even if they aren't constantly beating you over the head with said beliefs. And I think that is closer to the point you were trying to make.

Mark: There's no point in trying to argue on what the "true" meaning of the text is. Christians feel that they are commanded to do something, and so they do.

One of my former grad students was Mormon, and they have what I understand to be a similarly strong requirement to "spread the word." He never, ever brought up his faith unless you asked him about it.

I find all of this fascinating in contrast with the Jewish notions of conversion, which vary by denomination, but generally work to discourage conversion. If anything, there's notably more internal evangelism toward "secular" Jews than external evangelism to the rest of the world.

(Snide thought: if you think of religions as "memes", then memes that require their followers to spread them are going to be that much more successful.)

Me, either. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, so I evaluate the "something you are supposed to do" on its own merits.

I don't really get along well with commandments. I'm much more responsive to polite requests. Must be the Canadian in me.

For me, it depends on the authority. I have no problem submitting to authority if I trust in that authority.

ROFL ... best argument ever.