Monday, October 13, 2008

Fire the Campaign

Really excellent Op-Ed on the McCain campaign from Bill Kristol in the New York Times.

Fire the Campaign

Here's my thing. I wish to high heaven that the McCain from 2000 were running. That was a true centrist maverick who didn't "sell his soul" to the right wing side of the party. That's a McCain I would vote for.

But that McCain isn't running.

Right now, primarily because of the negative campaigning as well as choosing someone I think is underqualified for VP in order to placate the right side of the party. Admittedly a side that delivered the presidency to Bush in 2004. And so, my leaning right now is to Obama.


But here's the thing. If McCain comes out at the next debate, looks Obama in the eye and says, "I'm sorry. I'm sorry for allowing my campaign to get out of control in its attacks on you. I apologize and hope that for the next three weeks we can conduct the civil campaign that so many voters hoped from the two of us," that would begin to sway me. I lean moderate to conservative in my political feelings anyway and so I tend to be more sympathetic to McCain anyway.

No, I don't believe McCain is Satan and Obama is the Messiah, and maybe, just maybe the rest of this campaign can be on real issues and not on fear, from either side.

61 comments:

Brian said...

"Admittedly a side that delivered the presidency to Bush in 2004"

Hmmm, seems to me that this side of the party should be dismissed, not placated, since they got it so wrong last time. The fact that they are supporting good looks instead of good management, would indicate that not much has changed.

Chris said...

Doesn't it bother you that Obama lies about his relationships, refuses to release important records, promises to tax everything that moves and is a socialist?

Phil said...

sources, please, Chris?

Chris said...

Everyone knows about his close association with terrorist Bill Ayers, which he lied about.

As to Socialism, just google "Obama and Socialism."

He believes in redistribution of wealth which is what Socialism is. For example:

Universal healthcare
"free" college tuition
Universal National Service (Cuba anyone)
"Free" job training
Wage insurance
"Free" child care
More subsidized public housing
tax credit for "working poor"
Global Poverty Act under the UN

Obama campaigned for admitted Socialist Bernie Sanders of Vermont who in turn called Obama "One of the great leaders of the Senate" (Actually, all he has done in the Senate is run for President.)

Phil said...

Regarding Ayers:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/he_lied_about_bill_ayers.html

Regarding Socialism, Socialists don't call him one:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28645

What about releasing the important documents and taxing everything that moves?

Look, like I said in my post, I'm not as enamored with him as some other people, but I don't think he's the Great Satan that some other Christians do.

Brandon Scott said...

Leave it to "Chris" to offer a balanced point of view. This is the person who has stalked my mom's blog and who I have invited to email me but won't. But I digress.

And everyone knows...all you have to do is Google something and all you get is facts. Come on! ugh.

Thanks for providing sources, Phil.

I think the repubs would have more credibility if they could point toward facts...but when it becomes slanderous accusations and polarizing insults suggesting that Obama is the anti-Christ...that only leads me to believe they have no basis for their accusations. Instead they seem to be relying on the hope that men and women will believe whatever they tell them about Obama instead of researching it for themselves.

I also am not "enamored" with Obama. But I am tired of all the rhetoric from both sides. Having said that and after doing some research of my own, I am supporting Obama.

Justin said...

Chris stalks all sorts of blogs. Besides that, she often times responds to things that aren't even mentioned in her posts. And she's trolling Judy now? Good grief.

Chris, as someone who is not a fan of Obama (but less of a fan of McCain) I will say you are not helping your cause. And speaking as a person who is generally disliked in the internet world, I think you may be the one person out there with worse commenting etiquette than me.

Please, for the love of all things holy, stop commenting. Stop getting on the internet. Stop listening to Rush. Read a book. Please. I think you'll be a much happier person.

What's helped me is this thought: Obama or McCain may be the worst thing in the world, but I have a different ruler. My ruler is God, and I follow his law first and foremost. If we go into economic ruin, if we are attacked again by terrorists, if if if does not matter. God is working through the world to make all things right. And I must trust in Him to do so. Stop worrying about socialism, and muslimness, and jeremiah wright, and william ayers. Trust that God is working all this out in His own way.

Brandon Scott said...

Just to be clear...it's a free country and Chris is welcome to visit any blog she/he wishes. My only beef with you, Chris, is that you offered derrogatory remarks about me on my mom's blog comments and then wouldn't follow up with me personally.

But...speaking of talking about things on blogs that aren't about the actl blog posts...that's what I'm doing. :) Sorry, Phil.

chris...that email again is brandon@garymusick.com

Chris said...

Funny thing is, I'm generally more polite than the replies I get from my comments. It's kind of like the pot calling the kettle black.

Brandon, I did not check back on your Mom's blog so I didn't see your comment.

In 1996 Obama was a member of the "New Party", established by the Democratic Socialists of America.

Nuff said.

Phil said...

I guess if you think so, your mind is made up. Peace.

Brandon Scott said...

Hey Chris...I didn't mean to be rude, just extending another invitation for us to have a proper conversation outside of comments on blogs and such...if true conversation is what you're after.
I know you've been back here and have seen my email address. The ball is in your court. I'd love to hear from you.

Jeff said...

Phil, I tend to agree with you on most things, and I think we're on the same page here as well. I don't like negative campaigns. I actually am tired of campaigns in general. I am not a fan of Obama, but living in TN I just now saw his first TV ad, and McCain hasn't bothered since we are not a "battleground" state. I try to leave it to the facts, and my read of their economic and tax policies (I actually had to research and do a paper on it in my graduate class) lead me to believe that Obama will promote the government as the answer to any problem. Now, there can be debate as to whether campaign promises really mean anything ("read my lips" anyone?). But to point out something in the op-ed piece you reference, having an Obama plan with a democratic Congress behind him gives it a higher probability of it occuring. The article also mentions that having someone like McCain that will give a good sense of checks and balances between Congress, but will work in bi-partisan fashion when necessary, makes for a better solution. Again, I'm not totally sold on McCain, so 20+ days before the election I would say I'm more not voting for Obama. I do plan on researching some other candidates to see if I need to put my vote elsewhere (anyone feel free to provide a link to info if you've got it).

Phil, I hope your decision won't be made on whose campaign is more negative, because let's be honest, whichever party is behind would pull the same tactics of spin and loosely-based information, and McCain is probably a victim of bad campaign advisors. I think we've come to expect too much out of politicians to think they pull out their WWJD bracelets in their campaign planning sessions or debate stumps. I also agree with you on his VP pick being underqualified and a token for part of the party, but I don't throw much weight on that since, absent health issues, the VP doesn't wield too much influence (present administration excluded) and is not as visible.

I agree with Justin pretty often, and I've come to a similar conclusion as his. I want to put my trust in God and His kingdom more than any power of this world.

Sorry for the length. It's late, so I'm probably the last one on anyway.

Phil said...

Jeff, I will concur that my final decision on who to vote for won't be solely because of the kind of campaign they run. However, I have to admit that that will play into my decision. If you run a slimy campaign, with an "ends justifies the means" mindset about the campaign, doesn't that say something about the type of president you'll be?

And I will say that there's a part of me that wants to ignore everything they say at this point, because I know they might not/probably won't feel obligated to follow what they say. Not through malice necessarily, but a change in circumstances.

And here's the other reason I lean towards Obama. The Republicans have had 8 years and screwed things badly, in my opinion. Why not let the other side have a chance? I think Obama has some good ideas and a sense of hopeful change that McCain's campaign hasn't been able to capture yet, if ever. Do I agree with everything Obama stands for? No. Did I agree with everything about Bush? No, but I voted for him twice as well.

And as to your final point: I do recognize God's sovereignty over the situation and that no matter who gets elected or if martial law is declared, the Kingdom of God will be advanced no matter what. And so I don't believe Armageddon will come because either of the men up for office get elected. And my happiness doesn't depend on Obama or McCain winning.

As to the VP, I think Palin has a great start on being a Cheney-like VP. Initially ignoring inquiries into her behavior, being found guilty of unethical behavior, not answering questions directly... ;-)

Suzie said...

Whenever I hear talk about Obama, it's about his positive tone or the change he will bring, but what exactly will be the change and what will you like about it? This is important to talk about because with both a Democratic Congress and Presidency, there is a good chance some of his initiatives will pass in the first two years of his presidency.

Another question I have is what about his experience do you think prepares him for the presidency?


I am especially curious as to how people who used to vote Republican are now considering voting for someone who is probably closer to Far Left than Center. I'm assuming if you've voted Republican, there is a belief in the principles the party expounds about size and scope of government. So do you vote Democrat because your views concerning government have changed or are their other reasons?

Jim Voorhies said...

There's just too much hate in this election and I tend to believe much of it is based on latent racism. I don't think either candidate is the Antichrist and I believe the world will survive either one. But I am significantly disturbed that people continue too send out emails and discuss things that are shown to be false on Snopes and by hordes of fact checkers. There's just too much bearing false witness that's going on. Too many people are breaking commandments as if there was no tomorrow and they respond bitterly when you point out the truth.

Suzie said...

OK...This is really lame...but I have to correct my grammar error...

My last sentence should read "are THERE other reasons"...not their.

Brandon Scott said...

Amen, Jim. That is something that has REALLY bothered Sheryl and me. I pray that God can use it in spite of us. It's shameful though.

Tony Arnold said...

After more than 2 long years of campaigning, it is just time for everyone in the US, candidates, pundits, voters, everyone to--

Shut up and vote!

I dred the next Presidential election. We won't have a President in practice, he will be campaigning for 4 freaking years.

Tony Arnold said...

P.S.

One could make the case that politics is the anti-Christ.

Brandon Scott said...

Shaun Casey, an ACU grad and the man in charge of Obama's outreach to the evangelical community said this in an email to me.

"Brandon,
The good far aways the bad in terms of how I have been treated by Christians in this election season. Young voters are attracted to Obama. I typically tell people two things when they have questions or they repeat right wing lies. First, read his own words about his faith and upbringing in his book The Audacity of Hope. Second, read his Philadelphia speech from back in the spring in which he outlined his disagreements with Rev. Wright. It can be found on his web site barackobama.com. If people refuse to do this then I let them simmer in their own intolerance. But as Christians they should be willing to go to the source rather than rely on scurilous information from biased sources.

Shaun"

Shaun is a strong disciple of Jesus and has seen lots of behind-the-scenes types of things. He has an extremely positive view of Obama and the people surrounding him. I just thought I would share that for what it's worth.

Chris said...

Yesterday a plumber asked Obama why he was raising his taxes. He replied that he wanted to spread the wealth around.

"From each according to his means, to each according to his needs."

jonmower said...

Chris,

I can't find that quote in my Bible, but it strikes me as an excellent summary of a Biblical perspective regarding earthly possessions/resources and how a Christian community might strive to meet the basic needs of all its members. ;-)

Suzie,

I can't speak from experience since I've never voted Republican (I left those leanings behind when I left home after high school), but I suspect that the source of your confusion is the assumption that most Christians who vote Republican do so because they want minimal government (in the vein of Norquist's "...get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub"). I'm sure plenty fit that category, but I think many have usually voted Republican because Republican policies seemed to better match their notion of Christian morals. That conventional wisdom is increasingly in question due to shortcomings of the Republicans (e.g. warmongering, having their share of ethics and moral scandals, engaging in torture, generally being seen as the party of big business and not of the relatively weak common man, inability to make significant progress in their agenda re: abortion) and the Democrats reaching out to Christians and emphasizing the aspects of their agenda that might seem to be consistent with a Christian's care for "the least of these." With the agenda of issues of interest to Christians expanding beyond gay marriage and abortion, it's not surprising to me that a trend might develop among Christians who don't see the "culture war" as the most effective mode of engagement between Christians and the rest of society and who conclude that a Democratic candidate is as worthy of consideration as a Republican one (which is where I am, though I should probably be disqualified completely since I voted for Nader twice). I too would find the McCain of 2000 particularly intriguing, but not the 2008 model.

jonmower said...

By the way, a while back I posted some links in the comments of another blog that might help provide some understanding of the perspective of Christians who support Obama:

link

sayeretmatkal said...

Tell me how the government taking control of the banks is not socialism. People tend to think of that differently. I can't see the difference. It's called "bailout" for the rich and "socialism" or "welfare" for the poor.

I am one that has primarily voted republican except for 1976 (my 1st time to vote) or 2004. I think I got caught up in the "religious" aspect of voting. It appeared that the republican side was more godly. Looking back, I don't know why I felt that way. At present, the main things I hear republicans saying are anti abortion and same-sex marriages. I think Jesus Christ would be appalled at the things we turn our backs on, i.e., the poor, the environment, war. For the life of me, I cannot see how it's so wrong to abort a baby but okay to kill innocent people in a country we invade (without any provation).

Chris said...

Jonmower:

I guess you are thinking of Acts:2:45. That was voluntary and very commendable. When it is mandated by the government it's called communism.

jonmower said...

Chris,

Yep, I was just poking fun at the fact that communistic/socialistic principles seem to be tantamount to the 8th deadly sin to many (most?) American Christians.

Anonymous said...

Lookie there. It's Belinda again with a new name! "sayeretmatkal"
She's trying to avoid her troll from over at Larry James blog.

Suzie said...

jonmower,
Thanks for answering my questions, and I'll check out your blog, too.

I do think that there are some definite racial undercurrents in this election. I just hope that we don't assume that all people who vote against Obama or even vote for Obama are doing so because of race. For me,my vote against Obama/ Biden is just a basic fundamental disagreement with his policies.

Belinda's New Troll said...

I'm here, but my Belinda radar is not going off. Think that's probably the wrong person.

Chris, I'd be on the lookout. I may have to become both yours and belinda's new troll. Unwillingness to dialogue, and statements of ignorance are bad regardless of one's political preference.

Love,

B and C's new troll

Justin said...

Suzie,

I, being about as small a government type person as one can be (and many here can verify) would question how McCain's policies are any better than Obama's? Obama is a libertarian paternalist, and McCain is, well, a big government statist as well. Both believe in a strong federal government, both believe that bailing out the wealthy at the expense of the regular people is the right thing to do. Both believe that the government can solve whatever problem we face. The only differences I see between the two is the war in iraq, and honestly, I believe that true, old school, limited government conservatives should never have supported that war. For the last couple years, its struck me as interesting that the party that gives lip service to distrusting the federal government, is so willing to trust them when they say we need a war... and that we need wire tapping, that we need a patriot act, etc.

In my view, neither candidate represents Christian values, its a lesser of two evils situation, and I refuse to vote for evil. I'm choosing to trust that God will work things out if I step up to the task of being Jesus every day. And by not getting caught up in the "which candidate more aligns with my values" arguments, I feel its easier to criticize either, since I have no horse in the race.

jonmower said...

The other thing I was thinking about Chris' comment regarding Acts is this:

yes, voluntary...but, at a minimum, are the underlying principles really any more voluntary than, say, love your neighbor as yourself, turn the other cheek, bear one another's burdens, live in harmony with one another, make it your ambition to lead a quiet life and attend to your own business and work with your hands, etc.?

and isn't it curious that those who are keen on having our laws explicitly based on Christian principles (as opposed to a more common/universal standard) are so selective about which of those Christian principles to mandate and which to keep voluntary? Some of the one's I mentioned above are apparently best kept voluntary but others...not so much.

Suzie, I recognize your picture. We must have been at Lipscomb together.

Suzie said...

Justin,
I can't tell you how many people I have heard express that same opinion. I wouldn't be surprised if voter turn out is lower this year because of the failures of the political system in general.

And I agree with you that McCain is not as limiting on government powers as I would prefer, but I also don't believe his proposals enlarge the scope of government as much as Obama's do. I guess I'm down to choosing the least extreme candidate from my point of view.

Suzie said...

Jon,
I was at Lipscomb the same time as Phil.

Justin said...

Jon,

What principles do you think that the government should use force in order to enforce? Just curious.

Phil, if that's too off topic, feel free to delete.

Anonymous said...

Nope. Pretty sure that's her. Why? Because it's the same thing she says everywhere.

Brandon Scott said...

I really like Jon's point...

"and isn't it curious that those who are keen on having our laws explicitly based on Christian principles (as opposed to a more common/universal standard) are so selective about which of those Christian principles to mandate and which to keep voluntary? Some of the one's I mentioned above are apparently best kept voluntary but others...not so much."

I have been feeling the exact same way.

Jeff said...

Phil, is this comment log getting as long as the ones on instrumental music? You'd know you've hit a hot topic if it has.

I'm curious about the answer to Justin's question as well. I think many, not all, Republicans are misled to think that their party will lead our government/nation to follow Christian principles. As Jon correctly points out, there are many key principles from the Way of Jesus that are overlooked. However, I also think those that vote Democrat that think that party will do a better job of instilling Christian principles into our nation/government because it is more in line with the plight of the poor, social justice, racial reconciliation, etc. are deceiving themselves - the bottom line is we are trusting the government to do kingdom business. If I want to be the hands and feet of Jesus, I want to do it in the community of believers, and not let the government inefficiently and wastefully do it while I let my tax dollars walk away.

I equate it to my recent experience at work...it's United Way time, and I think United Way is a good organization that helps many people. However, to a person, everyone I talked to actually resented giving because they were required to it (it was the "give what you can but we must get 100% participation" speech from our CEO). Better for me to be actively involved than to think I can just make my donation/pay my taxes and let someone else take care of it.

Chris said...

Dr. Burton Coffman had this to say in his Commentary of Acts, page 62.

"There were certain unique conditions in the NT situation that are not matched in modern times, anywhere at anytime. Furthermore, it must be remembered that the NT experiment lasted but a short while, was not undertaken upon the basis of any command of Christ or the apostles, and that there was never any teaching whatever set up with a view for perpetuating what is in view here. Most importantly of all, the experiment failed, human nature proving then, as it ever has, an insurmountable obstacle forbidding the success of any such society."

Dr. Kenneth Hunter, an outstanding economist of Washington D.C. and former professor of economics in American University, said:

"The so-called communism in Acts, to the extent it might be called that, was a communism of distribution, not of production. The means of production were still owned and retained by the individual. In my opinion, there is no fallacy of modern collectivism that has deceived more people than this glib catch-phrase, "from each according to his ability; to each according to his need." The fallacy is that in the collectivist society, the individual has absolutely nothing whatever to say either about his ability or his need. All vital decisions are made for him by the Party through the endless inefficiency and red tape of its infinite bureaucracy."

Phil said...

Stupid Bible and setting a high standard for human behavior...

Chris said...

If you think it's such a high standard, feel free to go live in a communist country. The truth is, it has failed every time it has been tried. The early colonies in America tried it and they didn't prosper until they ditched the concept. Then there was the Soviet Union...

Brandon Scott said...

Chris...I don't think anyone here is wanting a communist nation. It appears that because you can't have discussion over the issues in a rational manner you resort to extremes. And...that email address is STILL brandon@garymusick.com

Jim Voorhies said...

We are never called to meet the high standards of the Bible, we are just asked to try. Thou shalt love thy neighbor seems pretty straight-forward, but how each of us interprets love varies.

Nice thread, Phil. Now let's move on to instrumental music.

Jonathan said...

Justin,

About principles (presumably Biblical?) for the government to enforce order...I'm one who wants my government's actions/laws to be based on something more universal than the teachings/holy texts of any one religion, so personally I wouldn't look for Biblical justification for a government taking reasonable measures to foster order...but if I did, I guess it would be Romans 13.

Chris,

Like Brandon Scott said, I'm not hankering to live in a communist country...capitalism seems like the more successful system to me too...but I'm saying that doesn't mean there aren't good reasons to also have some policies that may go against capitalistic principles

Suzie,

That's when I was there too. Think long haired hippy:
http://jonmower.com/blast-past-summer-1994

Justin said...

Jonathan,

That is pretty much in line with my thinking, if we're going to have a government, it should be there to keep order. We just differ on what is needed for that. I think protecting the environment for free exchange of goods, free speech, free people, should be the goals.

Only problem with that is a philosophical one, even if we are "free" are we really?

belinda said...

Nope, sorry "Belinda's new troll" - it's not me. Could it be someone else thinks similarly? You must be afraid to call me out using your real name so you think you're really cute doing it this way? Grow up.

Brandon Scott said...

Honestly, if Christians treat each otherlike this and can't have respectable discussions about politics without getting ugly, why are we surprised that the "world" gets violent over these issues. I know we all feel convicted about these issues but these dumb posts with name calling and what i call anonymous hit and run bloggers just wears me out. And some of you go around posting comments like that on lots of other blogs?? Where do you find the emotional energy to continue to be so negative?

belinda said...

Brandon Scott: Thank YOU!

Suzie said...

I really don't have much more to add to the discussion, but I want to see you hit the 50 mark for comments, so I'm leaving this one :)

By the way, I read that article, "If you love Jesus, vote for Obama" in the posts I like section. Would you post about what you like about it? I was just curious.

jonmower said...

Personally, I like it because it expresses in a clever way something that I believe to be true: the association of the religious right with the political far right is a liability in accomplishing the mission of the church among about half of the population.

I think there is a real danger for the stink of politics to mask the beautiful aroma of the gospel. The way people like Dobson wield political power is so distasteful. And the culture war? That's the way to engage outsiders? There's a reason why they like Jesus but not the church.

I don't think the answer is for the religious left to become the new religious right in the political realm, but I think it would be very healthy for it to be more obvious that Christianity and Republicanism are not synonymous.

Phil said...

Suzie, as you might imagine, I don't agree completely with the article. I don't think there's something un-Christian about people who vote for McCain. I do think the writer of the article makes a good point about showing people that not every Christian votes blindly for the Republicans.

However, the most striking paragraph to me was this one: "Because if McCain wins this election, the Religious Right's hold on the Republican Party is going to be even stronger. In forcing McCain to choose Sarah Palin as his nominee, evangelical power brokers were able to do what all the torturers in Vietnam couldn't. They were able to convince McCain to put his own self interest above the best interests of his country. If McCain wins, the Religious Right and Sarah Palin will take the credit."

That's what I was talking about before with McCain 2000 vs. McCain 2008. McCain 2000 called people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson "agents of intolerance;" in 2006 he gave the commencement address at Falwell's Liberty University. To me, that's pandering to the Religious Right, that he'd never done before.

Suzie said...

Phil,
Thanks for responding. I had a different reaction which I wrote about on my blog, but wanted to understand other viewpoints.

jonmower said...

Phil,

It says "...there's something un-Christian about people who vote for McCain"? I missed that part.

Suzie,

I think you missed Christine's point. I think if you can get past the provocative nature of the "If you love Jesus, vote for..." language and look closely at what she is saying, you'll see that Christine's message is something very similar to what you wrote on your blog...that the message of the gospels is NOT about politics...and not about Christians wielding political power in a cultural war...but that is what Christianity has come to mean to many due to the melding of the religious/political right...and Christine's plea seems to me to be for that to change.

Phil said...

Jon, I took the "if you love Jesus, you'll vote for Obama," as 1) ironically overstating it, but 2) taking that to the logical extreme, of if you vote for McCain you don't love Jesus. It seemed a natural conclusion.

Justin said...

Jonathan,

You said
"that the message of the gospels is NOT about politics"

I would respectfully, yet forcefully disagree with that statement.

Now, the message of the gospel may not be about western politics, or modern politics, or better yet, violent politics. But it is politics. It is about a different way of living, organizing, and being, which is politics.

Its just that our political ethic is one that doesn't make sense to a world that doesn't know Christ. "For the Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to those who are being saved (btw, i love the verb tense there) it is the power of God" makes so much more sense in this light. Our rejection of the methods of the world to create justice, enforce peace, to provide for ourselves and families, make 0 sense to those who haven't believed the message of Jesus. It doesn't make sense to respond non violently to violence and oppression. It doesn't make sense to give to those in need, and trust that God will provide. It doesn't make sense to seek justice through being a servant, rather than obtaining power (or making sure the "right" person is in power). But that is the way to which we've been called...

It may just be semantics that I'm having issue with here, but this is what came to mind when I read that.

jonmower said...

Phil,

I don't think that is the logical conclusion...I think she is saying, "If you love Jesus, here is a reason to vote for Obama" which is different from saying "If you love Jesus, you must vote for Obama" (the equivalent of your extrapolation to "if you vote for McCain, you don't love Jesus"). And, by the way, "if you vote for Obama, you don't love Jesus" is what a lot people pretty much say explicitly without any irony, overstatement, exaggeration, or extrapolation.

Justin,

As you suspected, I think we're talking about different things. I'm referring to "politics" in the sense of definition 1 from Merriam-Webster, particularly 1c. You seem to be talking about definition 5:

1 a: the art or science of government b: the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy c: the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government

2: political actions, practices, or policies

3 a: political affairs or business ; especially : competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership (as in a government) b: political life especially as a principal activity or profession c: political activities characterized by artful and often dishonest practices

4: the political opinions or sympathies of a person

5 a: the total complex of relations between people living in society b: relations or conduct in a particular area of experience especially as seen or dealt with from a political point of view "office politics" "ethnic politics"

Justin said...

Gotcha. I thought it might just be semantics. I think though that we need to be clear when we discuss these things though. One reason being that when we say "jesus message wasn't political" or things of that nature, even with the definition that you meant, I think it encourages people to think about their faith as a private matter, that it just matters how I believe, not how I live and relate with people. And maybe make clearer that Jesus didn't support either party, and didn't support government, but supported us living as part of a Kingdom that exists in the here and now (in this world) but doesn't hold to the same premises of the kingdoms who claim that they rule us (of this world).

jonmower said...

Justin,

I agree with what you're saying about faith not being a private matter and also that I should probably have been more explicit in what I meant by politics...the struggle to control the government and impose your will through the power of the government.

judy thomas said...

Oh, my goodness--enough already. Just go vote--the polls are open here in Nashville--go and get it over with. God is in control.

judy thomas said...

Oh, my goodness--enough already. Just go vote--the polls are open here in Nashville--go and get it over with. God is in control.

judy thomas said...

Oh, my goodness--enough already. Just go vote--the polls are open here in Nashville--go and get it over with. God is in control.

judy thomas said...

Oh, my goodness--enough already. Just go vote--the polls are open here in Nashville--go and get it over with. God is in control.

Template Designed by Douglas Bowman - Updated to Beta by: Blogger Team
Modified for 3-Column Layout by Hoctro