Category: stuff I think about

Read this viewpoint this morning and wanted to share it. I’ve not heard it described this way before and find that it really brings some clarity to how Id been trying to wrestle with my thoughts on this.
“Using People

One of the prominent justifications for allowing illegal immigrants to stay in the U.S. really troubles me for human rights and justice reasons.

That argument is that Americans don’t want to do the jobs illegal immigrants fill, and they fill these jobs at below-market wages precisely because of their illegal status in the U.S., usually working outside of the labor laws. Like it or not, illegal immigrants fill an economic need to keep our overall costs to consumers down because higher costs could hurt our economy.

So essentially the justification is that we will import a permanent underclass to fill an economic us, coexisting in our society without ever fully assimilating with little or no hope of upward mobility because they are not legal. This justification seems less about immigration that means participation in the U.S. and more about a bottom-level working-poor class to serve an economic utility.

This justification is very different from the history of immigrants in our country who filled low-skill labor jobs, but who participated fully in the U.S., assimilated, and improved their socio-economic position. They not only filled an economic utility, but were primarily participants in the country because they were legal.

This sounds like it boils down to using a group of people for economic gain. I think it’s a despicable justification. In addition to the legal and security problems of illegal immigration, there is a serious moral problem of allowing a permanent underclass of human being for their economic utility. American immigration should not be about using people; it should be about welcoming them to fully participate legally in our country.
”
http://www.str.org/site/PageServer?pagename=blog_iframe

I was in a discussion group at my church the other week. The topic was “Christianity in the American Political Culture”. I made the following statements, which I thought might be controversial, but which seemed to me to be obvious.

The first statement was that God isn’t particularly interested in democracy as a form of government. The manner in which we govern ourselves isn’t as relevant to God as the character of the nation which is being governed. That is, God is concerned about the righteousness of a nation, not how its leaders are elected.

The second statement was that although we hear a great deal about America’s Christian Heritage^TM, we are in the end a people who rebelled against our rulers (Britain) and threatened to kill them if they wanted their land back.

Now, I thought the second statement would be somewhat controversial, given the embrace we Conservative Evangelical Christians (whatever that means) have given to this idea that we live in a Christian nation. However, isn’t the former statement completely obvious and an absolute given? Or have we brainwashed ourselves into thinking that democracy is one of the Ten Commandments?

What really disappointed me, though, is that some of the others in the meeting started immediately trying to pinpoint my political stance. And apparently, by the things I said, I was identified as a Democrat. One guy said to me, “I can see we see things differently. I’m a Republican.” Now, of course it’s not evil to be considered a Democrat (or a Republican), but what could I possibly have said that would lead anyone to make this conclusion?

Since when are the concepts I mentioned above party platform issues? This is absolutely ridiculous, but it seems we have been brainwashed into thinking …. what? If you believe God signed the Declaration of Independence, then you’re a Republican? If you think God doesn’t care about democracy, you’re a Democrat?

God save us from those who believe God has chosen sides in our political debate.

I recently read a quote from a Prominent Christian Author^TM, and I couldn’t help but disagree. I seem to be doing more and more of that nowadays. Continue reading “God’s ultimate goal”

Let’s say we all agree that there is a battle for souls going on, there is a struggle against principalities, there is a real Devil and we are engaged in a struggle- given.

But having said as much, do we fight with logic, reason, debate skill, erudition, point/counterpoint jousting, or is there another way? If we identify as “the people who are always at odds with the people who are not them” how are we differnent than the Amish?

And is that so bad? Amish folk are what they are, they don’t try to live in 2 worlds. But are they salt and light?

Let’s consider the current “Big Three”- Abortion, Evolution, Homosexuality (going alphabetically, so as to show no preference). Will anyone be debated from one camp into another? And if that is not the only way to go, what are some other ways?