Recently, a common conversation came up yet again. Someone was explaining their pacifist beliefs on their blog and someone challenged them with: "You might wish to note that Christ did recommend selling your clothing to buy a sword if you did not already have one. Why buy a sword if it is always wrong to use?"
My Reponse:
To take this story to justify violence or the building of armies confuses the lesson of a story with some of the facts that happen to be in the story. He commanded a group of specific disciples to buy 2 small swords. This is very far from an individual commandment to each of us to arm ourselves, and is also very far from a commandment to build armies. Two short swords would get them nowhere, and actually they were short daggers, not even military weapons. The purchasing of the swords was part of fulfilling an OT prophecy about the chopping off of an ear/the Messiah being counted among the lawless (Isaiah 53:12), and also the disciples were being tested.
Do not forget the end of the story and its lesson. Jesus commands his disciples “No more of this!” when they become violent.Another lesson of the story is the inefficiency of violence. His followers get caught up in this grand hero narrative of saving their leader and the world (much like your roommate B tries to construct these grand, unrealistic scenarios), only to end up hurting a defenseless slave. Jesus then heals this wrongfully injured man. The lesson is that getting caught up in these grand narratives of just violence or redemptive violence just leads to recklessness and sorrow.
It all comes back to Jesus proclamation that not only killing is wrong, “But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.” Those who harbour anger and violent thoughts against others have already sinned, because buying into these hypotheticals about buying swords (or guns, or tanks, or bombs) to protect inevitably lead to more senseless violence than protection of innocent life. This is especially true today when we can be so easily manipulated into believing we are acting to defend innocent people, when in reality we are the aggressors. In fact, throughout history, every military aggressor believed that they were fighting defensively.
For more, there is a useful four part series on such passages at http://www.ecapc.org/articles/RensbeD_HS1_Centurion.asp. I remember being too scared to ask about such passages at my home church when I was a teenager. I feared the answers might challenge the church or my own faith too much. My pastor sensed I had such questions, and was very open to me bringing them up, but I decided not to at the time.
September 25, 2009
June 27, 2008
Hillary Clinton = Right Pick?
This is a response to Bob Beckel's analysis over at RealClearPolitics. Beckel argued Hillary was the best pick for VP and that it's "not even close." I disagree www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/its_not_even_close_obama_shoul.html
Analysis is way off. I'll address it point-by-point
1. Bring Repubs to the Polls: Of course the right-winger radio nuts are going after Obama, but he still has high numbers and those attacks turn off a lot of moderates and Republicans, especialyl because so many have been simply untrue. Hillary galvanizes Republicans, who are not very fired up about this election at all. All my Republican friends say they are not going to volunteer or give money this year and basically sit this one out after McCain got the nomination.
2. Edwards gives bigger boosts in those same areas. Just because Hillary became strong by targetting certain groups (women, hispanics), never meant that Obama was inherently weak in those areas (as seen by his recent boosts). AS far as expanding the map, Obama is doing great at that on his own. A wealthy Northeasterner is actually the last thing Obama needs to win rural Virginia and North Carolina.
3. Hillary = distraction. Unity in message is key. That is what people have learned since 1984. Hillary is actually one of the Democrats with the least personal incentive for Obama to win, so by simply saying her success is dependent on his success is flawed.
4. Bill Clinton disclosures- point well taken. I agree.
5. I disagree, Bill and Hillary are still both very divisive. I think Edwards has the campaign skills in the Appalachians to match either of them.
6. It is not "absurd" to believe that having a scandal-ridden right-wing targetted former President around would be a distraction. It is certainly true.
7. I would rather have her in the Senate. That is where she has proven herself the most. Obama wants to move away from Baby Boomer debates about Vietnam and the excesses of the 1960s. Key to his message (and increasingly so in the general election) is going to be rejecting the Bush/Rove 51% = mandate way of running things. A person like Hillary is best in the Senate and not best in an administration that must immediately restore decency and bipartisanship. Also, Bickel always seems to think that saying the right thing is enough, but voters (especially in the Midwest) want someone who actually believes it too, and we can spot a fraud any day. If Hillary would work her own agenda in the Senate, then Bickel's argument on her being able to be on message on the campaign fails, unless your only standard is for a politician to say the right thing and not actually have a consistent record and conviction on the issue.
8. I agree with this one. Her organization and money raising are incomparable. This is the best argument for her. Her Senate campaign raised so much money, and she has access to so many lists and donor rolls.
9. Bickel reasons that because Republicans are against Hillary on the ticket, that makes it a stronger ticket. This reasoning is why Obama beat Hillary, Obama constantly takes into consideration what Republicans and Independents think. His ability to listen and truly understand what others are saying is his gift. He used it very well as Harvard Law Review Editor and is famous for it. Obama will need the support of lots of Republicans to not only win, but win with a big enough mandate to fix healthcare, restore America's integrity and place in the world, and solve the energy crisis. The days of 51% is good enough are over.
10. "Your vice presidential choice must reek of experience... Can another VP candidate provide that level of comfort." Yes. Wesley Clark. Duh. No question a better record of experience and past success. Take Harvard Law Review Editor (Obama) and top of class at West Point (Clark) and that is a nice ticket. Clark would be far more prepared to take over than Hillary.
-Finally, I would like to say that Obama is someone who genuinely listened to advice from his team. Obama would be wiser to pick Edwards or Clark as far as someone to give great advice. Clinton not only failed to adjust to the new DNC rules which gave more weight to rural areas and decreased winner-take-all primaries, but also failed to adjust to the demand for a change candidate fast enough (as seen after Iowa when Edwards jumped on the change bandwagon and labeled Clinton the status quo candidate). I would much rather get advice from a more experienced leader, or a more perceptive decision-maker.
Just today while I was canvassing-- out talking to real voters-- I talked with a moderate Republican woman who wasn't impressed at all with McCain and her big reservation about Obama is that she was worried he would pick Hillary, in which case she wouldn't vote for Obama. Outside of the polite little political analyst circles, real voters simply are turned off by Hillary, who has very high negative ratings right now.
Analysis is way off. I'll address it point-by-point
1. Bring Repubs to the Polls: Of course the right-winger radio nuts are going after Obama, but he still has high numbers and those attacks turn off a lot of moderates and Republicans, especialyl because so many have been simply untrue. Hillary galvanizes Republicans, who are not very fired up about this election at all. All my Republican friends say they are not going to volunteer or give money this year and basically sit this one out after McCain got the nomination.
2. Edwards gives bigger boosts in those same areas. Just because Hillary became strong by targetting certain groups (women, hispanics), never meant that Obama was inherently weak in those areas (as seen by his recent boosts). AS far as expanding the map, Obama is doing great at that on his own. A wealthy Northeasterner is actually the last thing Obama needs to win rural Virginia and North Carolina.
3. Hillary = distraction. Unity in message is key. That is what people have learned since 1984. Hillary is actually one of the Democrats with the least personal incentive for Obama to win, so by simply saying her success is dependent on his success is flawed.
4. Bill Clinton disclosures- point well taken. I agree.
5. I disagree, Bill and Hillary are still both very divisive. I think Edwards has the campaign skills in the Appalachians to match either of them.
6. It is not "absurd" to believe that having a scandal-ridden right-wing targetted former President around would be a distraction. It is certainly true.
7. I would rather have her in the Senate. That is where she has proven herself the most. Obama wants to move away from Baby Boomer debates about Vietnam and the excesses of the 1960s. Key to his message (and increasingly so in the general election) is going to be rejecting the Bush/Rove 51% = mandate way of running things. A person like Hillary is best in the Senate and not best in an administration that must immediately restore decency and bipartisanship. Also, Bickel always seems to think that saying the right thing is enough, but voters (especially in the Midwest) want someone who actually believes it too, and we can spot a fraud any day. If Hillary would work her own agenda in the Senate, then Bickel's argument on her being able to be on message on the campaign fails, unless your only standard is for a politician to say the right thing and not actually have a consistent record and conviction on the issue.
8. I agree with this one. Her organization and money raising are incomparable. This is the best argument for her. Her Senate campaign raised so much money, and she has access to so many lists and donor rolls.
9. Bickel reasons that because Republicans are against Hillary on the ticket, that makes it a stronger ticket. This reasoning is why Obama beat Hillary, Obama constantly takes into consideration what Republicans and Independents think. His ability to listen and truly understand what others are saying is his gift. He used it very well as Harvard Law Review Editor and is famous for it. Obama will need the support of lots of Republicans to not only win, but win with a big enough mandate to fix healthcare, restore America's integrity and place in the world, and solve the energy crisis. The days of 51% is good enough are over.
10. "Your vice presidential choice must reek of experience... Can another VP candidate provide that level of comfort." Yes. Wesley Clark. Duh. No question a better record of experience and past success. Take Harvard Law Review Editor (Obama) and top of class at West Point (Clark) and that is a nice ticket. Clark would be far more prepared to take over than Hillary.
-Finally, I would like to say that Obama is someone who genuinely listened to advice from his team. Obama would be wiser to pick Edwards or Clark as far as someone to give great advice. Clinton not only failed to adjust to the new DNC rules which gave more weight to rural areas and decreased winner-take-all primaries, but also failed to adjust to the demand for a change candidate fast enough (as seen after Iowa when Edwards jumped on the change bandwagon and labeled Clinton the status quo candidate). I would much rather get advice from a more experienced leader, or a more perceptive decision-maker.
Just today while I was canvassing-- out talking to real voters-- I talked with a moderate Republican woman who wasn't impressed at all with McCain and her big reservation about Obama is that she was worried he would pick Hillary, in which case she wouldn't vote for Obama. Outside of the polite little political analyst circles, real voters simply are turned off by Hillary, who has very high negative ratings right now.
June 17, 2008
उर्बन कंसास मेंनोंइतेस एंड होमोसेक्सुँलिटी
http://rainbowpeacejustice.blogspot.com/2007/03/urban-kansas-mennonites-and.html
mennonites, christianity, homosexuality, gay, gay agenda, church, accepting, homophobia, inclusive, anabaptists, Bethel College, dialogue, mennonite position on homosexuality, rainbow mennonite church, lawrence mennonite church, peace mennonite fellowship, lorraine avenue mennonite church,
http://rainbowpeacejustice.blogspot.com/2007/03/urban-kansas-mennonites-and.html
Is this a successful way to increase google ranking for another site?
mennonites, christianity, homosexuality, gay, gay agenda, church, accepting, homophobia, inclusive, anabaptists, Bethel College, dialogue, mennonite position on homosexuality, rainbow mennonite church, lawrence mennonite church, peace mennonite fellowship, lorraine avenue mennonite church,
http://rainbowpeacejustice.blogspot.com/2007/03/urban-kansas-mennonites-and.html
Is this a successful way to increase google ranking for another site?
February 23, 2008
Brandon Mayfield Speaking in Kansas
Brandon Mayfield will be speaking in Kansas:
-Wednesday February 27th noon in room 102 at bottom level of Washburn Law, Topeka, KS.
-Thursday, February 28th noon at Washburn International House, Topeka, KS.
-Friday, February 29th at Bethel College Krehbiel Auditorium in North Newton, KS 11AM.
Our speaker, Brandon Mayfield, was investigated by the FBI after his
fingerprint
was falsely matched to plastic bag with detonators from the Madrid
bombing. Despite the fact he had not left the U.S. since 1994, the FBI
was "100% certain" (as one investigator told a judge) they were on the
trail of a terrorist based largely on the fact that Mayfield is Muslim.
His home was burglarized and wiretapped under a FISA warrant. Later, his
office, home and family farm in Kansas were raided for evidence of his
alleged terrorist connections. He was arrested, detained, abused and
interrogated. In 2004, his name was illegally leaked to the press as a
terrorist suspect.
It seems that the FBI messed with the wrong man. Mayfield is a
lawyer, and a Washburn Law graduate. Mayfield won a $2M settlement with
the FBI and an initial victory challenging the constitutionality of the
PATRIOT ACT.
www.nytimes.com/2006/11/30/us/30settle.html
www.washburn.edu/news/newswire.php?id=view_only&release_id=2460
-Wednesday February 27th noon in room 102 at bottom level of Washburn Law, Topeka, KS.
-Thursday, February 28th noon at Washburn International House, Topeka, KS.
-Friday, February 29th at Bethel College Krehbiel Auditorium in North Newton, KS 11AM.
Our speaker, Brandon Mayfield, was investigated by the FBI after his
fingerprint
was falsely matched to plastic bag with detonators from the Madrid
bombing. Despite the fact he had not left the U.S. since 1994, the FBI
was "100% certain" (as one investigator told a judge) they were on the
trail of a terrorist based largely on the fact that Mayfield is Muslim.
His home was burglarized and wiretapped under a FISA warrant. Later, his
office, home and family farm in Kansas were raided for evidence of his
alleged terrorist connections. He was arrested, detained, abused and
interrogated. In 2004, his name was illegally leaked to the press as a
terrorist suspect.
It seems that the FBI messed with the wrong man. Mayfield is a
lawyer, and a Washburn Law graduate. Mayfield won a $2M settlement with
the FBI and an initial victory challenging the constitutionality of the
PATRIOT ACT.
www.nytimes.com/2006/11/30/us/30settle.html
www.washburn.edu/news/newswire.php?id=view_only&release_id=2460
January 19, 2008
Republican Caucus in Florida
It seems like Florida voters will be given another chance to really mess with a Presidential race. Polls reveal a four way tie there. Remember that Florida Republicans have decided the state with be a WINNER TAKE ALL CAUCUS! 57 delegates at stake.
McCain 22%
Giuliani 20%
Huckabee 19%
Romney 19%
Thompson 7%
No answer 7%
Paul 5%
Hunter 1%
McCain 22%
Giuliani 20%
Huckabee 19%
Romney 19%
Thompson 7%
No answer 7%
Paul 5%
Hunter 1%
July 12, 2007
Wondering about the United States Healthcare system?
I saw Sicko this week... twice. Moore's best movie. He really focuses in and doesn't stray from his point or show repetitive material.
Our healthcare system in the U.S. is just awful. There have been so many trips to specialists or MRI's or all sorts of preventative medicine that people I know and I have not gotten because these things costs hundreds and even thousands of dollars.
When I was younger I was able to get government health insurance for a short time because our family income was small enough (my mom has her master's and my dad his doctorate, but that doesn't meant shit in George Bush's economy). I was actually turned away from the doctor I had been going to my whole life at a nice clinic. They didn't accept the government insurance. Once they found out I had insurance I could not pay with cash. So here is a patient that is sick with an appointment to see a doctor and the doctor can not treat me. This story is just the simplest and most frustrating example of how our healthcare system is so controlled as to eliminate choice and freedom and make it so money is not even useful in the labyrinth.
These free-market ideologues talk about the market giving choices. It is such a cruel joke. Nobody here thinks that we should have to pay to call 911 or check with an insurance company before talking to the police, it is amazing that so many Americans view healthcare differently than other basic public services.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpKoN40K7mA&mode=user&search=
Our healthcare system in the U.S. is just awful. There have been so many trips to specialists or MRI's or all sorts of preventative medicine that people I know and I have not gotten because these things costs hundreds and even thousands of dollars.
When I was younger I was able to get government health insurance for a short time because our family income was small enough (my mom has her master's and my dad his doctorate, but that doesn't meant shit in George Bush's economy). I was actually turned away from the doctor I had been going to my whole life at a nice clinic. They didn't accept the government insurance. Once they found out I had insurance I could not pay with cash. So here is a patient that is sick with an appointment to see a doctor and the doctor can not treat me. This story is just the simplest and most frustrating example of how our healthcare system is so controlled as to eliminate choice and freedom and make it so money is not even useful in the labyrinth.
These free-market ideologues talk about the market giving choices. It is such a cruel joke. Nobody here thinks that we should have to pay to call 911 or check with an insurance company before talking to the police, it is amazing that so many Americans view healthcare differently than other basic public services.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpKoN40K7mA&mode=user&search=
June 30, 2007
Diction Killers, Bad Sayings, and Commonly Mispronounced Words
1. "For Granted." Many people do not use this phrase correctly. This is a problem that can be corrected by simply thinking about what the words mean before we use it. 'For'... 'granted.' To take something for granted means you assume it is granted to you and always will be there. So to take your girlfriend for granted means you think she will be there no matter what.
2. "I could care less." Many people use this phrase which is meaningless. If you 'could care less' that means that you are not at the absolute bottom level of caring. People use this phrase when they mean to say "I couldN'T care less," indicating that their current level of caring about the subject is as low as possible.
3. "Often." This one just really irks me. Many of the commonly mispronounced words are often commonly misspelled as well. However, often is one of the few words in the English language in which knowing how to spell it correctly does not help us pronounce it. DO NOT pronounce the t! It is pronounced "ofen." The worst part about this is that inexperienced public speakers who are trying to be (over) articulate pronounce the t even harder and it is just painful for me to hear.
4. "You guys." The Wichita Eagle did a survey a number of years back and the #1 complaint at restaurants was not bad service or cold food, it was when servers use to the "you guys" to refer to a group of ladies or a mixed-sex party. Unless they are all guys, kapeesh?
--RW
2. "I could care less." Many people use this phrase which is meaningless. If you 'could care less' that means that you are not at the absolute bottom level of caring. People use this phrase when they mean to say "I couldN'T care less," indicating that their current level of caring about the subject is as low as possible.
3. "Often." This one just really irks me. Many of the commonly mispronounced words are often commonly misspelled as well. However, often is one of the few words in the English language in which knowing how to spell it correctly does not help us pronounce it. DO NOT pronounce the t! It is pronounced "ofen." The worst part about this is that inexperienced public speakers who are trying to be (over) articulate pronounce the t even harder and it is just painful for me to hear.
4. "You guys." The Wichita Eagle did a survey a number of years back and the #1 complaint at restaurants was not bad service or cold food, it was when servers use to the "you guys" to refer to a group of ladies or a mixed-sex party. Unless they are all guys, kapeesh?
--RW
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
