The Core of Oppression in America

When people hear the word "oppression," they generally think of traditional examples such as slavery or heavy handed taskmasters to define it. The connotation here, however, is much more to the core of the word as it exists in our country today. Oppression has been used most recently to describe acts associated with the financial leaders in our country and the recent Bailout Bill that passed both houses of Congress. It seems that the "Greed is Good" mantra of Gordon Gecko in the 1980's has come home to roost, while greed may be good as it represents the core of capitalism the results can certainly be less than desirable when taken to extremes.

Oppression has also been used by some on the liberal left to describe the lack of compassion shown by conservatives on issues of equality that include social, financial and racial issues. This view represents a philosophical difference between the two schools of thought, and while neither side is always right or always wrong about any individual point of contention, the trend is toward equality in all areas of society. That phrase in itself sounds proper, after all, the rights of life, liberty and happiness for all men who are created equally by our Creator (words of the Declaration of Independence, not mine) are the bedrock of our nation and the foundation of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. While it all "sounds" appropriate, the issue of equality in the sense that it is being represented by the liberal left today is far from foundational thought. The Founders considered self-determinism to be the strength of an emerging America, where each would prosper through their efforts and be picked up again by their neighbors when things didn't go quite right.

Recent comments by Barack Obama concerning the Constitution bring us to the core of the issue at hand, which conservatives including John McCain are totally missing as the focal point of the upcoming election. The issue is not whether Obama is a closet Muslim, or a Socialist, or associated with the wrong people, I believe that Obama is as committed as McCain when it comes to the direction of the country and the common good of its citizens. They both believe their direction is the right one, I can see the passion of both points of view, so this type of attack will only enflame the passions of each side and turn off those in the middle. The current attacks on Obama's character are ineffective because they do not get to the core issue. 

The real issue is much closer to the foundational tenets of our country, and miles away from the peripheral attacks on Obama's character. His questionable associations are a result of his beliefs, not the cause that should actually offend Americans. The more immediate cause of my concern rests in the core issue that Obama and liberals in America believe that the Constitution is a "flawed document" that reflects the "blind spot of our founders that continues in our nation to this day." That is a quote from a 2001 radio interview with Obama when he was commenting that the liberal court under Chief Justice Warren did not go far enough to establish equality outside of social issues evident during the Civil Rights movement. The Warren court was too conservative for Obama, and the apparent intention of the comments was to say that the Constitution had its day but is outdated and in need of reform. I can only assume that his true intent is to "correct" the document to include the basic rights we all are due, including access to health care, retirement and jobs that cannot be taken away. The courts would become a mechanism to accomplish this reform, instead of focusing on the law of the land and ruling on points of law, the court would extend the definition of equality to correct the blind spot of our Founders in all areas of our society.

I have the feeling of a Star Wars movie character, when the Senate voted all powers to the Chancellor the comment was made, "So this is how liberty dies, to thunderous applause." To continue the movie motif, the true heroes of our society (Jedi Knights) are made into villains by the oppressive Emperor who is squashing the rights of all in the name of equality while our individual rights vanish. We will see this evident in the future as we are made to report our personal habits to the Health Care police, any smoking, drinking or obesity will be against the rights of others covered by Universal Health Care and therefore you are not doing your fair share. Expect to have the plug pulled as the government makes decisions on your life based on your importance to them, not your family and friends. That is one example, consider the current financial mess as a result of political manipulation of market forces, and then consider what the effects have been. What will happen when we attempt to manipulate health care markets, and take over 401-K programs and replace them with "safe" government programs that pay 3%? The results will be disastrous.

The real oppressors in our society today are the liberal left, who would rather place government in the rightful position of the community and the church, manipulating people's care for their neighbors into government run programs. We will give people a fish instead of teaching them to fish, squash individual determinism and personal rights in favor of societal equality, giving no encouragement to job creation through business growth and innovation as we take money from those who pay taxes and give it to those who don't through financial equality, all ultimately to move us toward a society that is as far from our Founder's vision as we could possibly be. Even the media will be a part of this oppression, and those who do not participate will simply not be allowed access to the throne room. 

In the most simple illustration, the tax returns of our candidates reflect this difference, McCain and Obama both made a few million dollars last year (subject for another time), McCain and his wife gave over a million to charity and Obama and his wife gave $3000 or so. Obama believes that his taxes should be used for charity since government should take care of those issues, McCain believes it is the responsibility of other people to intervene in situations that need our attention and get personally involved in the solution. The wealthy in America have a different agenda in this election. While the wealthy will support McCain, the super-wealthy will support Obama. I often wondered why this was the case, but now I understand, the super wealthy liberal elite are interested in maintaining a class structure where they have control, by keeping the majority in a situation where they rely on government that is under the control of those super-wealthy. The mere wealthy are interested in getting ahead through ideas and innovation, creating jobs for people and opportunities for the next go-getter to become wealthy. I hope there are a few more Jedi Knights left that can recognize this, before the Emperor begins to consolidate his authority behind the oppressive ideas of his supporters and allow the Harvard Law Review to re-write the Constitution of the United States.  

"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting a class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves"-Abraham Lincoln

Can't Separate Church from State...

Why all the fuss about separation of church and state these days? Does the "state" feel threatened by some uprising of faith that will topple our government? Are we in danger of declaring a national religion? Should we not allow people of faith to participate in matters of government? 32 Pastors from across the nation this past week have deliberately attempted to create an issue jeopardizing their 5013C status as tax-exempt institutions by using the pulpit to endorse a particular candidate for office. Immediately following that, a large number of pastors joined a statement to declare this should not be done, and they would not do it in their churches, mostly using the doctrine of separation of church and state in their argument. I can't help but think this last group are the pastors that would rather keep their job than their principles, and are relying on the state to supply them with the very essence of their defense while claiming the 2 entities to be separate. If they really believe in this doctrine, they need to be looking for a faith argument with biblical basis to support their view, not one from the side of the "state." This paradox alone should tell us that as citizens of the United States of America, we can not and should not separate our private (faith) and public (government) lives. 

I am not suggesting that every pastor in America needs to stand up and start using the bully pulpit to endorse a candidate, I think the issue goes much further than that, pastors must first be attentive to the needs of their congregation and their community which more often than not in my experience involves finding areas of agreement and not division to endorse. Christians are biblically mandated in Matthew to "give to Caesar that which is Caesar's" and pray for those in leadership. As the politics of today become more and more divisive, we run the risk of alienating some that could be reached with the most powerful and life saving message in existence, one that supersedes any matter of government including the very rights of religious freedom itself. The message of Christ does not need government to exist and supply freedom, it just makes it easier to enjoy those freedoms, but government does in fact need religion (or some substitute) to create a moral people who are easier to govern. In fact, I could make the case that by securing religious freedoms as central we undermine the power of the Christian message by widening and straightening the path of faith. We are called by Paul to "work out our own salvation with fear and trembling," the connotation here is that the path is by nature rather narrow and winding, or it will be of little value.

In my reading of the Constitution and the Bill or Rights, I don't find any mention of faith other than in the first amendment. This rather brief statement that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is the starting point for our new nation to remove the unnatural, powerfully emotional and coercive tie for Christian citizens emigrating from Europe. The state church in Europe provided the governing bodies with  a means to force obedience to the law of the land, tying it to a citizen's personal salvation and providing a powerful yet imprisoning method of allegiance to the law. In other words, you could only have rights as a citizen if you belonged to the State Church. Shame on the church for ever allowing that to happen, and forcing those seeking religious freedom to the US in the first place. The US model caught on even in Europe, which has now replaced the church with modern social programs of aid and entitlement in order to maintain federal power over the populace. I am afraid we are walking down the same path in America. 

The doctrine of separation of church and state is not part of our Constitution, but rather began as a line in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists over 200 years ago. This letter basically assured the congregants that America would not declare any denomination as the national denomination, but it has been used in an attempt to remove matters of faith from public life. From the point of view of government, the church has little power to help maintain order as we have allowed our core values to become eroded and lifeless, participation in social programs has replaced that institution to satisfy those needs, so better that faith matters have no place in public life to further confuse the issue. Even worse, some church leaders stand up to air their viewpoints on the stage of faith and then further undermine the church by endorsing policies that move our nation even further toward centralizing power in the hands of the federal government and removing our biblical burden to care for others. Our founding fathers knew that centralized government power would only lead to an eventual loss of our personal freedoms, we would forego our personal integrity, accountability and ultimately our freedoms for promises of state run institutions as seen in Europe. Our churches should be standing up in resistance to "social" programs that are replacing our local involvement from faith communities, people are receiving the resources they need but no spiritual support, a double shot at replacing their true spiritual needs with basic human needs and removing the "hunger" that leads people to their only real salvation. We as Christians are enabling people to live feeble, shallow lives while providing their basic needs but not their most innermost ones, and even worse are allowing and even encouraging the "state" to supply those needs in lieu of faith communities. We should be providing those needs, not the government.

Virginia was the last state to ratify the Bill of Rights in 1791, showing little regard for the Constitution as written because of the fear that centralized power would one day overcome the rights of the States and individuals. The argument was that the original Constitution was a step back for the Republican form of government, and we were no better off than in 1776 without an appropriate Bill of Rights. Phrases cementing the idea include "the power of the government rests in the hands of the people," and "any powers not specifically given to the federal government should be returned to the States and the people" were added due to this concern. Over time, we have allowed that very concern to permeate our society as we transform ourselves from self-determinists into socialists, allowing freedom and care for our fellow man to be removed from the individual, church and community and placing it in the hands of our government. This is the very thing that our Founding Fathers feared, and it starts with removing faith and family from our society.

George Washington provides some of the best background on this subject, he, along with other Founding Fathers, knew that for citizens to live in a free society with limited government they would have to be able to control themselves or we would need a police state to maintain order. The "moral conditions of freedom" available to the fledgling nation were provided by individual, Christian faith. George Washington notes in his First Inaugural address that "there is no truth more thoroughly established that there exists in the economy and course of nature an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness." He continues with "the foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality." The thought that our Founding Fathers wanted religion to have no place in our society is absurd, rather they included faith matters as so central to our formation that they need not be explicitly mentioned. The Northwest Ordinance, passed by the same Congress that passed the First Amendment, states "Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." Do you see a trend here? In short, one of the purposes of the first school system was to promote morality, and one of the most important ways to achieve that was to promote religious activity. The two cannot be separated in a properly functioning republican government.

I will leave you with one other quote from Washington, to establish that religion assumes a vital role in public life, and that these 32 pastors are exercising their rights, whether to the benefit of their congregations or not, by declaring for a particular candidate. I certainly would urge caution on their part in order to delicately attempt to move our faith community back into a place of prominence in our social order, lest some would be confused and miss out on the most important message of our time (and any time) in favor of a political statement. Their freedom is sure, the place of faith in matters of government firmly established, yet care still required to present the more important message as paramount.

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man ought to respect and cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity." George Washington's farewell address to the nation.

Sources: George Washington and Religious Liberty, PBS.org..The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United Staes, Maier..Holy Bible, NRSV.

2 Rights Makes a Wrong.

I was recently "offended" (I don't really get offended that often...) when a member of my church denomination wrote a letter to the editor lambasting President Bush and his policies in favor of a vote for Obama. I am not sure if it was the open support for Obama on the basis of the state taking care of people instead of themselves, the vitriol on Bush's leadership or just the fact that a person of faith was involved at all in matters of politics (to be explored in another blog). I actually enjoy a reasonable discussion on matters of politics and how they relate to a choice for the 2 candidates, I find that to be a better position that widening the rift that seems to exist relative to this election. I have gotten to the point that I can't stand to watch CNN where you will find all reasons relative to Bush as the economic antichrist and why Sarah Palin should have never been chosen by McCain, as well as having Sean Hannity yell at me and look smugly at a Fox News camera when he digs up another obscure connection to Obama and some crook. We have generally reduced a philosophical disagreement over Government's involvement in the life of its citizens to a chasm that is rapidly growing due to the sensational nature of media broadcasting and our attempt to validate those points of view by being intolerant, rude and generally smug at our "rightness." 

I want to make sure everyone knows where I stand on this, there are things that I disagree with re: both candidates, but I find myself falling on the side of less government intervention in the lives if its citizens which leads me to a vote for McCain in November. I feel the same level of commitment from those that support Obama, and personally I think the excitement on the part of his supporters has engaged us in a new era of political interest and activity not seen since the days of Kennedy. The hope and change platform has energized a lot of people that would normally sit on the sidelines, which is always a good thing in a republican form of government, but I do believe that our general direction toward government as the salvation of our society is a wrong direction. Socializing medicine, the economy and our infrastructure is contrary to free market policies and compromises the rights of the individual to make moral, individual choices on key issues of our day such as abortion and homosexual marriage. McCain for me poses less of a wrong turn, but I still am not 100% satisfied with that direction either, differing on key points such as the appropriate use of our military, Patriot Act provisions including the ability of the government to spy on its citizens, using our tax dollars to invest in socialized solutions (instead of reducing our tax obligations and stimulating our economy from the other side that is based on the hard work and determination of the American workers and small business owners).

I am taking my new acquaintance to lunch, so I can better understand his position and explain my own, for the arrogance of our positions is what is leading us to become offended, not the positions themselves. This idea of "I'm right" and by virtue of that statement then "You must be wrong" is affecting us from Congress all the way down to picnic after church. Maybe we could all learn something from a careful, rational discussion of the issues at hand, and how our personal mandate calls us to action as a community and a nation.