Tuesday, May 8, 2007

No tractors left in Kansas...

When the words left Governor Kathleen Sebelius' mouth, I was stunned. As residents were pulling dead and injured neighbors out of the rubble from an F5 tornado, she was suggesting that the response would be slowed by National Guard deployments to Iraq that included men and tractors. Was the Kansas governor suggesting that instead of focusing on what we could do to help and assist in the almost total devastation in Greensburg, Kansas, this was an opportunity to take a shot at the was on national leadership? Seems out of place for a Democrat devoted to caring for the people, or is it? The fact that over 80% of the local guard unit was intact and functioning did not seem to enter into her mind, and it appeared from news accounts that the response was going as well as could be expected given the situation. I fear that the governor really believes that government exists to solve her problems instantly, and this is yet another example of how incorrect that assumption is. Neighbors, law enforcement and fire fighters in the community are the ones that risked their lives, they were the only ones in a position to accomplish anything in the important hours following the tornado. Did she really expect the guard to handle it?

Regardless of her intention, whether it was true frustration at a lack of immediate suport, a shot at fellow Kansas presidential aspirant and rival Sam Brownback, or a statement against Republican leadership at the federal level, I think her comments were rather misplaced the day after 9 people died. Someone should remind Ms. Sebelius that this is not the aftermath of Katrina, where widespread damage made the FEMA response agonizingly slow and worthy of criticism and eventual reform, this is an event that while terrible in terms of loss of life and property cannot be compared to failures such as the Katrina aftermath. It seems that any problem or catastrophe these days triggers a response from some people that brings to light a much larger issue, an issue of what our government is here to do in the first place. Each side shows up to prove they were doing their job, but the real issue is what job needs to be done?

I am really trying to understand what would make someone in a position of leadership and power say such words after a catastrophe like the Greensburg tornado. With an open mind, I am trying to understand how we have managed to have such conflicting points of view, and what we can do to help each other understand the other side. I want to understand Ms. Sebelius and her point of view, even though I believe she had a lapse of judgement in the timing of her comments. I think what we have as an underlying issue is a basic conflict, a conflicting opinion of what our government is supposed to do vs. what we as citizens are supposed to do. I am assuming that she believes that government exists to solve the problems of society, and lawmakers and leaders should plan for all contingencies in order to take the responsibility away from the citizen and place it in the hands of the federal government. I think she believes government exists to serve the needs (all of them) of the people, partially as a mandate to secure her position as a leader and member of the "elite" and partly out of humanitarian desires that may be well founded. I am making these assumptions because I hold different views and am trying to understand hers, but the basic assumptions are so conflicting that middle ground seems difficult.

The governor's comments do little for my impression that Democrats consider society their playground, where manipulation of social programs and entitlements serve to protect the elite's position in society as priority, but the real issues confronting people's lives are not dealt with. There are people out there that really think we can solve our problems with more government intervention, and there is no middle ground in that argument. I believe there is a place for government intervention, especially in natural disasters like this where the local and regional response would be overwhelmed by the magnitude of the disaster, where we can do more together instead of as individuals in areas like national defense and economic policies, but I do not think that government intervention belongs in our neighborhoods and local communities. Over our nation's history we have steadily moved away from our personal freedoms and placed them in the hands of our national government, sometimes willingly out of great need during the Great Depression and at other times unwillingly out of great passion during the Civil war. There is no doubt that the programs designed in the 1940's were necessary to help recover from the Great Depression, but instead of returning to normal after that crisis subsided we allowed that to be the starting point of an even greater "trade" of our personal freedom for federal subsidy.

I will give you a current example. We spend a gross amount of money on entitlement and welfare programs in the US today, that much we can agree on. These programs are administered on a federal level and budgets created that consume a great deal of our national resources. I think most Democrats think people like myself intend to get rid of those programs altogether to affect some sort of bottom line or enforce some "self-determination" ideal where everyone needs to work in order to eat. That is not the case. I recognize that some people are in situations where they need help, but I am very concerned when that help comes from Washington DC lawmakers who do not know the individual circumstances and whose intention appears to be an attempt to trade votes for cash.

I would propose welfare reform in the following way, give the people their money back through tax credits equal to the amount spent at the federal level and let the local communities and churches handle it. They know the situation and the people involved, and can best prepare assistance that provides what is needed and a means to return to productive society as soon as possible, without reams of paperwork and useless waste getting in the way. Americans are very giving people, and if even a percentage of Americans turned over those tax savings to local community boards and churches, I believe that vastly more work could be done and more importantly the right work would be done. We could use a rifle instead of a shotgun to solve people's real issues. This is a very simplified view of the concept of course, but I used this illustration to show what is different about the basic concept, and how that difference is used to paint each "side" into a corner with no middle ground. We must find that middle ground, and we will disagree, but the current situation of spending and expecting all our cares to be removed by the government must be met somewhere closer to reality and less along "party" lines. If it continues, we will walk down the path of fiscal ruin and personal loss of freedom to a point where there is no turning back until disaster comes, then the whole debate won't matter much.

Friday, May 4, 2007

Room for World Religions in the US?

I often wonder what the members of the first Constitutional Conress would have thought of including faith traditions (other than Christianity) into their fledgling nation? We could learn a lot about what their intentions were for this young nation in terms of religion if there was a Muslim in the membership of that body. We forget pretty quickly that the signers of the Declaration of Independence were pretty much cut from the same cloth when it came to religion and matters of faith. Sure, there were some from either side of that debate, but the debate generally centered on what it was like to be a Christian, not that we should conform to, condone or accept another religion altogether like Islam or Hinduism. That was completely out of their minds at the time and left for us to face, we were a Christian nation from the beginning whether you subscribe to the idea the Founding Fathers were Deists (a Creator made the Universe and then set it aside to run itself by natural laws) or Evangelicals (God is actively involved in the workings of the Universe with a desire for a personal realtionship with each of us). Do you think our nation was founded on Christian principles, and do these principles still have value for us today?

I have heard a lot of people today comment that they are spiritual but don't want to be involved in religion, I suppose the church in general has given no real reason to dispute that. Constant strife, bickering and a general desire to change the way people live without giving them any relevant need to do so is a difficult way to increase membership. The part I can't seem to get over is why I can't get normal people to come to Sunday School with me, but other people will join a cult with crazy practices that end up fodder for low budget movies. People are looking for relevance, but the church is becoming less and less of the answer for many. It seems the first issue is whether or not religion is relevant to people's lives today, whether the issue is important to their general well being and purpose for life. I have been doing some research for a paper that involves how people lived years ago and why there has been a steady decline in church membership over the last few generations. Seems to me if you could answer that question then that would lead you to the real answer about relevance in people's lives.

I am not talking about government and legal trends that started in the late 1940's and continue to today, about rulings that removed the Bible and prayer from schools and the 10 Commandments from the court houses. That is a topic for another day and worthy of discussion, since those factors do influence the relevance of faith. I believe that something more basic is at work, a combination of advances in technology and ease of life combined with poor overall leadership in the church. A few generations ago, surveys noted that people were less interested in financial goals and getting rich as much as they were in finding fulfillment in their lives. Data also suggests that we were more comfortable with less, not needing houses larger than 1500 square feet or so, only one car in general, one phone line, no need for microwaves, air conditioning, stereos and I-pods that we consider "must-haves" today. What has triggered this new trend? Advances in technology have provided many of these things that make life easier, and each advance in technology that makes life easier has the ability to divert our attention away from matters of faith.

We can occupy ourselves with any means of entertainment and live cushy lives for the most part, in stark contrast with life as a search for fulfillment and general survival not many generations ago. When you are in survival mode, then matters of faith are most important, when we are "comfortable" then it is less so. When you combine this with organized religion asking us to conform our lifestyles to join their clubs, it becomes pretty evident why church membership is declining. I am not for giving up my hot shower or microwave or suggesting that from anyone else, but I will ask that you truthfully consider how your life and matters of faith would be different if your focus was elsewhere.

So back to our original question, was our nation founded on Christian principles, and do those principles still have value today? I can only imagine the scene if it could happen today. Thomas Jefferson sitting in one corner, telling whomever would listen to beware of the clergy because they were only interested in taking away people's personal rights in order to conform them to their version of Christianity, any number of the 55 licensed clergymen that participated in the signing roaming the room to offer up their testimony of how belief in Christ had changed their lives, to the point of being willing to die for the right to tell others, and George Washington in the middle talking about how life is made better by following the practices of the Bible and how can we try and work together to make America stronger. About that time a Muslim walks in the room and everyone stops talking, like an EF Hutton commercial. This adds a new twist to the conversation altogether.

I would be willing to bet that if that Muslim asked for the same rights and priviledges to practice his religion as had been afforded the early Americans, his request would have been brushed aside with no second thoughts and great indignation. The rights and priviledges of free practice of religion were intended solely for those practicing the Christian religion, not for other faith choices. Now I am sure the debate would center on letting people have the freedom to make their own choices vs. not allowing false religions to sway the hearts and minds of simple people, but would have returned to the general premise that only Christianity was intended as the faith choice for America. The same men that penned "all men are created equal" and then allowed the slave trade to continue would have come to this conclusion quickly, there was no room in their world for weak acceptance of religious diversity. They would have accepted a person's right to choose their own path and rejected the incorrect choice as one not to be made or suggested to others.

Freedom of religion through the Bill of rights in 1789 was intended for Christian denominations, and resulted from the desire of the leaders of the day to avoid having a State mandated denomination as existed in European nations. We have taken that a step further and perverted it years later by trying to remove Christianity from the mainstream altogether by building a "wall of separation" between church and state (Did you know that was not in the Constitution, but in a letter sent by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Church ansering a query about which denomination was most important? This letter was used later by the Supreme Court to create a law that changed the original intent of the Constitution and Bill of Rights). We are a nation of personal freedoms, but have continued to water down the original intent to the point that the church has to make much better decisions or our nation's heritage and history is lost. Other religious choices have to be tolorated as a personal right, but acceptance of other faiths on the same level of Christianity in our government, schools, courtrooms, etc. is unacceptable and should not be allowed any more that having a State Denomination shoudl be allowed.

What can the church do to make a comeback? Is is even possible? Absolutely. The church has to return to the basics, every denomination must focus on the core belief that Jesus Christ is the only way to a personal realtionship with God the Father and Creator. Christianity is the only world religion that can make that claim. If we can agree on that then the rest is semantics. People need to be introduced to this man as the Savior of mankind, the conduit to eternal life. People have to be told the message that belief in Him will lead to a changed life, you don't have to change first to be "accepted." If the church can get that message righted again, then the pews will be filled with people who discover the relevance in their lives and want to learn more about His love. As they accept that love, they will be changed forever, and the old things will not hold sway.

We must introduce them to Christ first, and let them make the choice whether he is the greatest fraud in all of history or who He says He is, but that is their choice. This is the most important choice anyone can ever make if He is who He says He is, and irrelevant if not. We must start there, the life change will come after the decision is made, but it cannot come beforehand. Let's get the order corrected, stand fast against other religions that do not put Christ at the center of the salvation plan, and have the fortitude to stand up when others dispute or confuse the message that our forefathers clearly understood. We have already made the mistake of allowing a fringe element attempt to remove the vestiges of Christianity from our daily lives, but now to have that replaced with acceptance of other religions seems doubly incorrect. There are places where other faiths are allowed to operate and Christian churches barred due to separation of church and state issues. There is more diversity allowance for other faiths than the faith that our nation was founded with, and we go on with no concern because Christianity has been placed in a benign holding pattern for many. You can make whatever choice you want regarding faith, but don't try to transform America from a Christian nation. I wonder what that meeting room would have looked like?

"Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would now have been Christian." Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse in 1822.