HOW THE NATIONS RAGE, By Jonathan Leeman

HOW THE NATIONS RAGE is a how-to and why-to work of nonfiction. It is a book Christian book addressing politica and the Christian. At the start of his book, Jonathan Leeman gets right into his material. He spreads it across 8 chapters. Leeman ends his book with Final Thoughts, summing up what was just read. He follows this with Notes which cite the sources consulted for each chapter. Leeman includes Acknowledgements of those who made this book possible. Leeman wraps it all up with an Author Bio. Jonathan Leeman is the Editorial Director at 9Marks, a ministry that helps church leads build healthy churches. He teaches theology at several seminaries and has written books for the Christian Church. He is a church planter.

I found this book a fascinating read. That was pretty much what I expected it to be. When the subject, politics, is written from a Christian perspective, it can't help but be. I expected the book to keep Jesus as supreme as transcending politics. This book does that. That is, God is not Republican or Democrat. There are strengths in both these parties that the Bible addresses. As we all are human and have biases, this author cannot help but let his particular bias come through in parts of the book. But he gives each party its due. He addresses the parties' strengths and weaknesses. Predictably, this author states that we should speak only to "core" issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, and racism in the context of our local congregations. All other issues, including health care, are negotiable and local congregations have no obligation to speak to them. I have issues with health care being negotiable, as it also affects people's lives and is potentially a matter of life and death in how health care funding is applied. This is a "keep" book and one to read more than once.

This book is so well-reasoned and Christian that I recommend it for all pastors and all believers. This is all I can say about that. Recommended for all.

I received a complimentary copy of this book in exchange for an honest review of the book. I was not required to give a positive review of this book.

Life, Choice, or Both?

          There is an issue that was not any major source of political debate in campaigns or elections in the recent past, certainly not in Presidential campaigns. Not to the degree that we are seeing now! I'm talking about the issue of reproductive rights in relation to religious liberty and what role contraception should have in health care. This holds true especially for women's access to oral contraceptives which many on the "far religious right" strongly oppose.
          Contraception as an issue is not the same as abortion, as abortion is the choice to end a life that has already been conceived (or, as many would call it, a potential human life). Contraception is a choice to prevent conception from happening in the first place. My observations of the current political debate, especially carried out by the candidates campaigning for a the spot as the Republican challenger against President Obama, is that time around, reproduction vs. religious liberty, seems to be the central issue to be reckoned with. We therefore needed to deal with it if we are to make an informed choice about the then-Candidate of our choice. Even if you are outside the US and in an area where this isn't being politicized, you will need to deal with the question of contraception, especially if you are married and in your childbearing years or if you are raising teens who are or want to be sexually active. And there are some health care settings where you must deal with it. We still need to deal with this even though the debate is not raging at this time, as these things do not go away even when Elections are won or lost.
         I have great admiration for those families who, because of their beliefs and their life circumstances, like the well-known Duggars, refuse to use any kind of contraception and keep adding one child after another to their family. The Duggars take the Biblical instruction to "Be fruitful and multiply" seriously; they are devout people of faith who believe that every child is a gift from God and should be welcomed as such. Yes, the Duggars have the resources, including the proceeds from a TV show and apparently good physical health, to be able to bear and raise a huge family. They have been in the position to have an unrestricted number of children, which we are told is around 20 children. In most cases, money will be an issue because most of us do not have unrestricted wealth and many of us may have health issues or relationship issues that make bearing and raising many children unwise, irresponsible or even risky. These factors, especially if you have more than one of these factors in operation, will limit how many children you can bear and raise or should bear and raise responsibly or safely. So, for most of us, even if we would want to have huge families, contraception is an issue. Unless you are unfortunate enough to be infertile and CANNOT bear children, there is no other way to limit family size other than sexual abstinence. And in marriage, that is NOT a good idea!
          In my own case, after I married, contraception was an issue because, from the beginning, I was discouraged from conceiving. This was not only because of our financial situation but because of my epilepsy and my Marfan's Syndrome making pregnancy risky for both a baby and me. So my spouse and I used contraception faithfully. Then I became unexpectedly pregnant and after the shock wore off, I was happy and excited. I did have to take an anti-convulsant during my pregnancy. Thank God, our beautiful, precious daughter was born healthy even though she was diagnosed with "Pervasive Development Disorder" which is a subtype of high-functioning autism. I have been unable to conceive again and have been strongly discouraged from bearing any more children. Today, for her sake, I'm much disappointed that we are being forced to raise our daughter as an only child though we are very pleased with her.
          The former political Candidate who started this debate during last year's Presidential Primaries,  Sen. Rick Santorum, is a devout person of faith who strongly opposes not only abortion but also birth control, especially oral contraceptives. I respect his personal choice to bear and raise a large family and to continue to add to his family. But finances and apparently health and relationships, are not issues for him or his wife. These things are issues for so many of us who have financial, health, or family problems. So, I don't think Sen, Santorum (or anyone) should put a guilt trip on anyone who feels the need to limit family size. Family size, whether it is large or small, is not right or wrong. What is a moral issue is respecting other people's choices and not judging them. Big families are fine as long as a couple have the resources, energy, health are support system to bear and raise lots of children responsibly, effectively and safely. Since most of us  have one or more reasons why we can't or don't feel comfortable bearing or raising lots of children, we will need to use contraception during some or much of our childbearing years. The debate is: Should it be the government's role to make it available? For contaceptives can be costly if one must pay for them out-of-pocket.
          What about contraceptives for unmarried people, including teens? The Bible is clear about that: It should not even be an issue, as contraceptives  are only needed if one is sexually active. And the Scriptures forbid sexual activity outside of marriage; it holds that sexual intercourse and bearing children are best reserved for the permanence, commitment and legal protections that marriage offers. As a child who was born to a teen mom and outside of marriage, I can testify from experience that teen parenthood means much hardship for a young mom and a life of permanent disadvantage for the child. And I have seen and read about many others who have had the awful experience of teen pregnancy. Many will say, "Use protection." I'm here to tell you that contraceptives do not always protect one from pregnancy and they often don't protect one from sexually transmitted diseases. I do not recommend contraceptives for young people; the ideal is to strongly encourage teens to save sex for marriage, for their own emotional, physical and spiritual well-being and that of their future spouse. It sounds old-fashioned but it is true; the best wedding gift one can give a spouse is one's virginity. Whatever your views on sexual intercourse and contraceptives for unmarried people, including youth, I encourage you to check out a website which discusses these matters in a sensitive, informative and truthful matter and is directed to young people. Please visit: Love Matters. If you are married and want to check out a website about contraception for married people and the ethics of using them as well as find other information that is truthfully and sensitively given, the following website: Christian Family Planning
          The reason that oral contraceptives like the birth control pill and emergency contraception, "the morning after pill," can be controversial is that they are considered by many to be abortifacients, that is, they don't always prevent conception; when they don't, they work by ending a life already conceived, mainly by preventing the conceived embryo from implanting in the pregnant woman's uterus. Therefore, many people of faith strongly shun them. What these opponents don't seem to realize is that so many women use birth control pills to treat female gynecological issues like various menstrual irregularities. It angered me as a woman, as is has so many other, that the recent high-profile panel discussing contraception did not have even ONE woman on the panel. I also hate it that this issue tends to come off as one where men are telling women what to do with our bodies. It should not be this way! Birth control, bearing children and raising them, are as much a man's responsibility as a woman's. Can this be one big reason there are so many abortions of the unborn as well as abuse of so many born children, because women are doing the "heavy moral lifting" of these matters without male support? I think so!
          Whatever your view on abortion or contraception, because so many health care providers see abortion and even certain forms of contraception as very wrong and against their consciences, any political debate on reproductive rights and legislation on the availability of government funds for them, should always include a religious liberty or conscience clause. This is so that health care providers of faith or who simply believe that life begins at conception will not be forced to go against their principles and have to pay for or provide pills or procedures for their patients that they oppose. As long as we are talking tolerance, shouldn't we have tolerance for those of faith?
          There is the raging debate about whether many people, because of criminal or child abuse tendencies, should even be permitted to bear ANY children. Especially if you are unable to bear children or have seen or experienced child abuse, seeing or even hearing about people so easily bearing children and then hellishly abusing and even killing them, is infuriorating. Should contraception be made available? I say it should, but if they are unmarried, abstinence is by far the best choice. Many people declare that contraception reduces both abortions and child abuse, but I don't see that this is happening. There is no easy answer.
          What about the availability, even the mandate, of ultrasounds for women about to have abortions? What about vaginal ultrasounds? This raging debate, started by Sen, Rick Santorum, shows no signs of letting up. The argument for vaginal ultrasounds over abdominal ultrasounds is that the vaginal form is more accurate. But vaginal probing is invasive and makes the woman feel very vulnerable, as she must wear skimpy clothes with her legs falling apart in cold metal stirrups. When this is forced on her as a government mandate, this seems like a rape. No wonder there is such bitter opposition to vaginal ultrasounds! I agree that women who are about to have a serious, permanent procedure like abortion ought to be warned about the risks of this procedure and about what they are about to abort. They should be able to make an informed choice. Many post-abortive women have experienced tremendous grief and guilt and bear lifelong emotional scars from their abortions. If ultrasounds, even less invasive, abdominal ones, would save more of them from that and save their babies' lives, isn't this worth it? And they should be able to consent to this ultrasound, like any procedure. Still, I cannot see why every other medical procedure requires parental consent if done on minors. Abortion is a major procedure and its effects can never be reversed. They will last forever. So ought not parents know when their minor children are getting this procedure?
          Even though Sen. Santorum did not win his party's nomination as the contender for the White House against President Obama, and this has been taken off center stage in the current political debates, contraception vs. religious liberty remains a force many of us must reckon with. I disagree with Santorum and other strong pro-life, "anti-abortion" advocates on many other issues that it seems so many of them are inconsistent on, and that need addressing which may reduce abortions through making it less tempting or attractive to seek them.
          Abortion and contraception are like other "hot-button" issues; they are surrounded with strong codes of silence and those who are affected by them personally often wrestle with shame, stigma, prejudice, fear and even hopelessness. These kind of issues make most of us uncomfortable and are usually not easy to talk about. It's easy to live our lives so as not to offend people who vehemently disagree with us on issues deemed to be controversial, including abortion. But lives may depend on it.
As far as religious liberty goes, I read a most alarming statistic, just today, that over 70 percent of those females of those girls and women who seek abortions come from churches, where their pastors or priests are largely silent. Folks, wherever we stand on a "hot button" issue that affects the lives of people, nothing is worse than silence. Not even the position we may hold on the issue.

        Photo Courtesy of MorgueFile.com Photo by RoganJosh This photo can be found here.

Getting Ready For November 6

     It is not possible to tune into the news, whether on TV , newspaper, magazines or through social networks, without hearing about the 2012 US Presidential campaigns and constant anaysis of the candidates and sound bites from both of them. As a regular Facebook user, I find myself getting tired of hearing about it and I get very tired of all the sponsored ads that keep flooding my homepage, and more seem to be coming from the Romney campaign than from the Obama campaign. But I know that there are currently only 28 days, at least, before it will be all officially over and we will stop seeing all those campaign ads. I know that these events are located in my country, the US, but as any President and his administration make many decisions involving foreign policies affecting the entire world, that who will spend the next four years in the White House, as any four-year period, will profoundly affect the rest of the world.
     A week ago, the political debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney was held, and I know that it was widely watched and everyone has different views about the performances of both men. Should we base our votes on what we see of Candidates' performances in a debate? I do not think so. Are such performances an accurate reflection of the job candidates would do as President? In part, yes, especially as candidates respond under pressure and how they would conduct themselves. But to accurately "size up" a Candidate and his or her fitness for office, we should take MANY things into consideration: their past records of performance in other offices in politics (Mitt Romney as Governor of his state and President Obama as President), their entire conduct on the campaign trail, what they say about themselves, what they say about their opponents and their lifestyles and how they relate to the public. Which Candidate do you feel best represents you, your family and the values that you hold dear?
     I'm not writing this to tell anyone how to vote and no one has any right to tell anyone how to vote or which candidate to support. All anyone can ethically do is suggest that you check the facts about the candidates, do your "due diligence" on them  and do your research so you can make an informed decision when you cast your vote and that your vote is not based on a personal like/dislike for a candidate, loyalty to those who tell you how you "should vote," or opinions formed on your listening to campaign ads or partisan radio or talk show hosts. We all have different value systems and different visions of what we think of the direction that the country should "go in." There is nothing wrong with having strong opinions and talking about them. What is wrong is when talking about these opinions morphs into personal attacks, whether on the candidates or on those who support them. And it is very easy to do and tempting for most of us.
It seems that it is very hard to disagree about political issues graciously and respectfully. It is not for nothing that we are warned, "Do not talk about politics or religion."
     There is the Project Vote Smart website which is a nonpartisan website that gives the facts about politicians all over the country, from states to state as well as the two Presidential Candiadates. On the page for each Candidate there are a variety of top tabs for pages. One is for their past voting record. Another is for their stand on the issues. On the page we are told if a politician has taken the Project Vote Smart "Political Courage Test" which is a form that details a politician's stance on a variety of issues. I visited the pages for both Presidential Candiages and, according to Project Vote Smart, neither has filled out that form though asked over and over again. In my opinion, though I prefer that a politician has filled out the form, I don't think it should, in and of itself, count against any politician's fitness for office if they have not filled it out. We need to look at their willingness to take unpopular or controversial stands in everyday life.
     Two separate times, including earlier this year on President's Day, I had sent causes invitations to almost everyone in my social networks who uses Causes, to a Facebook causes called, "Join the Fight to Stop Dishonoring the President." The mission of this cause has been to restore honor and dignity to the office of the Presidency. This honor and respect have been lost and that seems to have sharply declined when President Obama was elected in 2008. I offended a few people simply by sending them invitations to support this cause and they removed me from their friends lists. Many who normally support me, did not support this cause. And I fear that many, many people will cast their votes not because of enthusiasm for their preferred candidate but because they are so against the candidate that they do not like.
     In my Facebook newsfeed, I have seen posts by people who have gone on record as saying that they had their minds made up, well in advance, on how they will vote on November 6. More than a few times, I have seen people "like" pages or post photos indicating "I will NOT vote for Obama" or "I will vote Obama out" "I will vote this person out of a job," and show a photo of President Obama. The supporters of Mitt Romney and the supporters of President Obama have gotten relentless in attacking the other's candidate. I know I will sound biased but I see much more hate, vitiol and trashing from the opponents of President Obama; I cannot log into Facebook without seeing posts trashing the President or at least making slurs that make no secret of the Facebook user's contempt of the President. Some of my most loyal supporters are people who differ with me sharply on political matters, though I don't know if they are aware of this. I would hope that even political differences would not ruin my rapport with them but I'm too aware that political differences are often seen as personal attacks and offenses that cannot be tolerated. One Facebook page is called something like, "1,000,000 Strong Against Mitt Romney." Just today, I saw a Facebook page called, "I Will Not Vote For President Obama" and there a photo with the caption "Nobama." Why is is easier or more fun, to scream about what we are against than to shout out about what we are for?
     During the time when Mitt Romney chose his running mate, Paul Ryan, the author of the very controversial "Ryan Plan," the Presidential campaign has really picked up steam. This choice of "running mate" will keep this controversial proposed piece of legislation in sharp focus for awhile. As this plan is an very important part of the Romney campaign, when considering whether to vote for Mitt Romney, any voter should know what the "Ryan Plan" is and what it would mean for self and family. I will provide links at the end of this post where you can find out more about the Ryan Plan and educate yourself about what it is. According to one online "Fact Sheet" that I pulled up today, both Candidates are doing much to misrepresent the other's position. If they are correct in their evaluation of both the Presidential Candidates, who are we to trust? Sometimes I'm unsure of whether to trust the very "Fact Checker" sites that have been set up and if they themselves may be done by people with unconscious biases. In the end, I believe that each one of us needs to make up our own mind about who is the most qualified person to fill any office, all things considered.
     I bring up the Ryan Plan because it is a central part in the platform for the Romney campaign and because his running mate is the creator of this proposed legislation. We cannot afford to be ignorant of it and what it would mean for us and our families. We are living in a time which is the very first time when it has proposals to cut many government programs or services has ever been put before the public but that time is here. Republicans are the party which focuses on minimizing government spending but not until the Tea Party politicians have occupied seats in Congress, have I ever heard talk of federal cuts to Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid. And these cuts are part of the Ryan Plan. I know that there are many people who may never have had to use government programs and may think they may never need them. And I hope they never will be in the position to need them! But we never know what life may hold for us, and we may find ourselves in situations where we may need to use a government program (s) and, if we are fortunate to live long enough, we will need to use Medicare. The only people who need not concern themselves with what the Ryan Plan will mean to their families and themselves are those who are wealthy and whose money will cover them even in times of illness or emergencies. Since that is not most of us, we owe it to our families and ourselves to educate ourselves about the Ryan Plan.
     Another issue that is HUGE in this debate is that of abortion and Mitt Romney and the Republican Party LOVE to portray President Obama as the "most pro-abortion President in US history." Granted, I do NOT agree with President Obama on this particular issue, but with so many things at stake in this election, I wonder at the wisdom of basing one's vote on a single issue. I know that many people are "one-issue" voters and I respect that, though I do not agree with it anymore. I see little wisdom in voting for a Candidate just because I agree with him or her one one issue, while I do not like their stance on any other issue I care about. Yes, the "pro-life" movement leaders do have a STRONG point when they say that if we condone abortion, all other forms of life will cheapen and this is happening. They also have a point when they declare that life is the issue on which all other issues are based. What they fail to see, I believe, is that the many other issues also are based on life issues. What we need, and what neither Candidate OR their parties can or will work toward, is a consistent life ethic which affirms ALL of human life, from conception to death, and not only represented in a certain set of issues while ignoring the others. I was going to provide you with a link to an article that gives an interesting perspective about both political Candidates and abortion, but it seems that the site on which the article appeared has been moved or is deleted. The thrust of the article was that while Romney declares that he will "end abortion," that in his past, much of his private money has indicated that he may not be as "pro-life" as he presents himself. The same article stated that none of President Obama's past private money has funded the abortion industry. There may be more gray area, concerning where they really stand, than we think.
     Quite a few weeks ago, in response to another Facebook user's slur against President Obama, and being fed up with seeing anti-Obama posts and comments, I posted a status update that was not directed at anyone in particular. I lamented all the hateful posts and comments that I was seeing more and more of; I said that while I did not want to sound biased, that I saw more hate being directed toward Obama and his supporters than toward Romney and his supporters. I got few "likes" or comments. One Facebook user said to me, "I'm a Republican and I am a proud one; okay, come out and say that you are a Democrat." Actually, I grew up in a family of Democrats and I support many Democrat policies, but I also support some policies that are considered Republican. I an Independent, I told the Facebook user in my comment.  Politically, I have always felt alienated and caught-in-the-middle because I sympathize with many of my family's views, which are strongly Democratic. But I also sympathize with some of views that are considered more "religious right" in nature, though I do not consider myself a "conservative Christian." As I read my Bible, God is neither Republican or Democrat. I do not think that even the Church, pastors or Christian leaders should tell people what candidate to support or how to vote. Both major parties have strengths and both parties have weakness.
     Like everyone else, I am excited about the outcome of this Presidential campaign but I will be relieved when it will end. I know that as my active petition calls for funds for a cause, that it will take resolution of the budget crisis in Washington before any action can be taken on what I am calling for. In many ways, it does not even matter who occupies the White House as the President can do nothing without the support and co-operation of Congress. This is why my petition is addressed to both Houses of the US Congress as well as to the US President, along with both Houses of my state Congress and to my state Governor.
     As these final weeks continue, we can expect to see the Presidential campaign and other political campaigns, get nastier and nastier. We should base our votes not on attack ads or the opinions of talk show hosts but the facts and I will provide links to a few resources.

http://votesmart.org/
This is the website for Project Vote Smart, which provides a wealth of facts about politicians and this website is easy to navigate with its search bar.

http://politifact.com/
This is the website where the words and actions of politicians are evaluated and examined and where the record is said to be able to be set straight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_Prosperity_The_Ryan_Plan
This is the website that provides comprehensive information about the Ryan Plan but it is a lot of reading and may be tedious to wade through.

http://americanthinker.com/2011/06/ok_just_what_is_the_ryan_medicare_plan.html


    

My Enemies Must Be Your Enemies

     Almost since I have begun using social networks, I have noticed a trend that seems, at least in my experienced, to be more pronounced online than in real life. I guess that this is because of the capacity to encounter so many people online than in "real life" and because it is much easier to get rid of unwanted people in our social networks than it is in person. That is what social networks provide the "Remove as Friend" and "Block" options. This trend I'm talking about is the disconcerting practice that many people have of making their online friendships conditional upon not being online friends with anyone whom a Facebook user does not like or considers suspicious.
     I remember some warring factions that were raging in the world of the missing, between a certain missing persons nonprofit and another, newer missing persons nonprofit. It was ugly and abusive, petty exchanges were frequently exchanged. The more established nonprofit has always enjoyed a sterling reputation in the world of the missing and are much loved and appreciated by grateful families who are served, or have been served, by this nonprofit. But there was abn ugly faction between this nonprofit and a newer one and I would see a number of posts about how those affiliated with the newer nonprofit were phonies, bullies, and scammers. The CEO of this organization once posted about this nonprofit, naming the names of these individuals and then said, "If anyone has any of thse jokers in your networks, please remove me from your networks." Now, I do not know the facts about any of thse factions so I will not take any sides. I do know that this person was not the only one who was part of this tend of practically telling people who to hang out with in their social networks and who to not hang out with.
     That was minor compared to the factions that broke out when this controversial group, Action for Justice (AXJ), sprung on the scene when I was new to social networks. People affiliated with this nonprofit added me as friends and then kept telling me to make their "AXJ" logo my profile photo. At the time, I did not know how to upload photos nor did I have any idea of what AXJ stood for or what they were all about. All I knew was that soon, people in my network were coming out and telling others to remove these AXJ people, all of them, out of their networks, to remain Facebook friends. I frankly did not know what all the fuss was all about. It came out that the CEO of the nonprofit, John Aster, was convicted of child pornography and that he was very controlling of his supporters, who had to do his bidding to stay "with him." I was seeing people on my page come out with posts like, "Do you have anyone with the AXJ logo in your network? Delete them. If you keep any of them, I will remove you from my friends list." Since some of the people who were threatening other users with such deletion seemed like good people and I did not want to lose them, I did my utmost to remove all those who were affiliated with AXJ, from my friends list. They were not showing any support for the causes I was promoting then, anyway. The threats to delete anyone who had AXJ profiles in their networks, contined for awhile before subsiding. Apparently, they were being held accountable for the crimes that they were charged with.
     There has been a certain Facebook user who has made it a practice to police this person's friends lists and to "purge" from it anyone that this user counted as hindering this person's passion and cause. I remember that one of the first times that this user issued an ultimatum to delete people was when the AXJ controversy was raging, but this person also undertook another "Facebook friends purge" when this user read an article about the criminal activity about the ex-spouse of a person in this user's friends list. The Facebook user threatened to remove from this person's friends list anyone who kept in their social networks the woman whose ex-spouse was convicted of criminal activity. I thought this Facebook user was being capricious and unfair to that woman and to all other Facebook users who wanted to keep her in their networks. More than once, this person has removed me from this person's friends list because I kept in my networks this user's "enemies." And most recently, this same person has issued an ultimatum, telling everyone who affiliated with a certain nonprofit, to leave her page.
     On the very flip side of all this, I have had a terrible experience with a certain nonprofit and I have already written about this experience at length in my blog called, "Scams." To summarize my experience, two years ago, I signed up to volunteer with a nonprofit which enjoys respect and the trust of many in the world of the missing and crime victims. A few people who were then volunteers with this nonprofit, took a special interest in me and I was taken in by their show of interest and I began to share wth them. One of them even named me as her "Sister" on her profile. Since I lacked a sense of belonging and I yearned to belong to something, I willingly applied to volunteer. I should have seen it as a "red flag" when they requested my Social Security Number but they said that they only did criminal background checks when their Google searches on applicants turned up suspicious information. That evening that I learned that I was accepted, I went to work on a second profile (on my husband's computer) for the nonprofit and soon, it got hacked, probably because a certain familly member was over that evening and had been using my computer and had downloaded an unsafe website. The nonprofit was not happy that I could not get to work right away and were pressuring our family to let an out-of-town computer repair person (whom we could not afford) work on the computer from his. I will not go into the ugly conflict that resulted between my husband and this nonprofit, but it resulted in their dismissing me as a volunteer. That was bad enough, but what was worse was when everyone affiliated with this nonprofit was asked to remove me from their official pages. Some went beyond that and also blocked me completely. The point here? There are many in my social networks who remain loyal supporters of this nonprofit and would never have ANY idea that they could or would, engage in what to me is cyberbullying or at least is very close to it! For, to have everyone sever ties with me, bad-mouthing had to have gone on. I will never know what was said about me, or about my spouse, but it was apparently bad enough for their volunteers and staff members to end their communication with me. But have I ever publicly named this nonprofit or threatened to unfriend anyone who supported them? Never. I have often been tempted to "name them and shame them," but I know that this would open me wide to a libel suit from them and anger their many loyal supporters, including many who are family members with missing loved ones.
     I know that thse people who issue such ultimatums do have a point, that it does matter who we "keep company with," up to a point. Those of us who are parents discourage our children from associating with peers who would be bad influences on them or undermine the values that we, their parents, are trying to instill in them. And, in a world like this, whether on social networks or in "the real world," we have to work much harder than ever, to keep ourselves and others safe and that often means avoiding suspicious or harmful people and keeping them out of our lives. And whether online or in real life, we have the moral obligation to warn people to keep themselves safe from those whom we know to be harmful or who are suspicious. There are times when names need to be named, people need to be called out and we need to play the role of whistleblower.
     But should those whom we don't agree with be treated as enemies, even in the arena of politics or religion? Especially in politics, people's feelings have a way of getting all tied up in it and even the nicest of people can grow nasty and hateful as they espouse their political views. I have seen that over and over. People who are nice, good, decent and moral, leave their civility at the door or even abandon it altogether when they debate politics. Just today, I posted a request to visit, "like" and share one of my Facebook pages. A Facebook user posted something this as a comment: "I do not join or share your material because of what you say about Obama." But that was mild compared to when I posted, earlier this year, the Facebook page called, "Pray for the President." A person posted, "Yes, pray that he will be put out of office." Another time when I shared this page, a Facebook user posted something like, "You don't know who you're supporting, stupid." And, as I have already said in another blog, when I was sending out invites to a Facebook cause called "Join the Fight to Stop Dishonoring the President," a person or two told me, "You are being deleted from my friends list!"
And, on the other side, a Facebook user recently said, "I will be removing from my friends list anyone who supports the Republicans." Months ago, I was sharing a petition with a person who lived outside the US, but I was unaware of this and the "Outside the US?" option was not on the petition, as it is now. That is beside the point of my ugly encounter with this person on Chat. I was having a hard time understanding the content of much of this person's conversation, but I could NOT mistake it when the person grew hostile about both President Obama and me and delared: "I am not about to sign this petition when you refuse to help me with MY project. This man is an evil sociopath who hates (the subjects of the petition) and he wants to see them fail! I hate him and you really think I am going to sign a petition to him! Get out of here!" (Paraphrased) In my household, there have been, and continue to be, often heated, intense debates on politics. I have and continue to hear, the opposition and supporters of the oppostion to our party of affiliation, be referred to by often vile names which are not fit to be repeated here. The point is, we are free to disagree with, and even strongly so, with anyone over politics or anyone else. But we are not free to treat them as enemies and, even worse, insist that others also treat them the same way.
     Factions will always be with us, not only in the world of politics or the missing but in every other area of life. But we do need to draw the line between looking out for each other and warning each other from harmful people, and telling people who they can be friends with and support. THe one form of behavior is for adults, the other belongs to middle-school age children.
    

Getting Ready for November 6

     It is not possible to tune into the news, whether on TV , newspaper, magazines or through social networks, without hearing about the 2012 US Presidential campaigns and constant anaysis of the candidates and sound bites from both of them. As a regular Facebook user, I find myself getting tired of hearing about it and I get very tired of all the sponsored ads that keep flooding my homepage, and more seem to be coming from the Romney campaign than from the Obama campaign. But I know that there are two full months, at least, before it will be all oficially over and we will stop seeing all those campaign ads. I know that these events are located in my country, the US, but as any President and his administration make many decisions involving foreign policies affecting the entire world, that who will spend the next four years in the White House, as any four-year period, will profoundly affect the rest of the world.
     I'm not writing this to tell anyone how to vote and no one has any right to tell anyone how to vote or which candidate to support. All anyone can ethically do is suggest that you check the facts about the candidates, do your "due diligence" on them  and do your research so you can make an informed decision when you cast your vote and that your vote is not based on a personal like/dislike for a candidate, loyalty to those who tell you how you "should vote," or opinions formed on your listening to campaign ads or partisan radio or talk show hosts. We all have different value systems and different visions of what we think of the direction that the country should "go in." There is nothing wrong with having strong opinions and talking about them. What is wrong is when talking about these opinions morphs into personal attacks, whether on the candidates or on those who support them.
It seems that it is very hard to disagree about political issues graciously and respectfully. It is not for nothing that we are warned, "Do not talk about politics or religion."
     Two separate times, including earlier this year on President's Day, I had sent causes invitations to almost everyone in my social networks who uses Causes, to a Facebook causes called, "Join the Fight to Stop Dishonoring the President." The mission of this cause has been to restore honor and dignity to the office of the Presidency. This honor and respect have been lost and that seems to have sharply declined when President Obama was elected in 2008. I offended a few people simply by sending them invitations to support this cause and they removed me from their friends lists. Many who normally support me, did not support this cause. And I fear that many, many people will cast their votes not because of enthusiasm for their preferred candidate but because they are so against the candidate that they do not like.
     In my Facebook newsfeed, I have seen posts by people who have gone on record as saying that they had their minds made up, well in advance, on how they will vote on November 2. More than a few times, I have seen people "like" pages or post photos indicating "I will NOT vote for Obama" or "I will vote Obama out" "I will vote this person out of a job," and show a photo of President Obama. The supporters of Mitt Romney and the supporters of President Obama have gotten relentless in attacking the other's candidate. I know I will sound biased but I see much more hate, vitiol and trashing from the opponents of President Obama; I cannot log into Facebook without seeing posts trashing the President or at least making slurs that make no secret of the Facebook user's contempt of the President. Some of my most loyal supporters are people who differ with me sharply on political matters, though I don't know if they are aware of this. I would hope that even political differences would not ruin my rapport with them but I'm too aware that political differences are often seen as personal attacks and offenses that cannot be tolerated. One Facebook page is called something like, "1,000,000 Strong Against Mitt Romney." Why is is easier or more fun, to scream about what we are against than to shout out about what we are for?
     This weekend, when Mitt Romney chose his running mate, Paul Ryan, the author of the very controversial "Ryan Plan," the Presidential campaign has really picked up steam. This choice of "running mate" will keep this controversial proposed piece of legislation in sharp focus for awhile. As this plan is an very important part of the Romney campaign, when considering whether to vote for Mitt Romney, any voter should know what the "Ryan Plan" is and what it would mean for self and family. I will provide links at the end of this post where you can find out more about the Ryan Plan and educate yourself about what it is.
     I bring up the Ryan Plan because it is a central part in the platform for the Romney campaign and because his running mate is the creator of this proposed legislation. We cannot afford to be ignorant of it and what it would mean for us and our families. We are living in a time which is the very first time when it has proposals to cut many government programs or services has ever been put before the public but that time is here. Republicans are the party which focuses on minimizing government spending but not until the Tea Party politicians have occupied seats in Congress, have I ever heard talk of federal cuts to Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid. And these cuts are part of the Ryan Plan. I know that there are many people who may never have had to use government programs and may think they may never need them. And I hope they never will be in the position to need them! But we never know what life may hold for us, and we may find ourselves in situations where we may need to use a government program (s) and, if we are fortunate to live long enough, we will need to use Medicare. The only people who need not concern themselves with what the Ryan Plan will mean to their families and themselves are those who are wealthy and whose money will cover them even in times of illness or emergencies. Since that is not most of us, we owe it to our families and ourselves to educate ourselves about the Ryan Plan.
     Recently, in response to another Facebook user's slur against President Obama, and being fed up with seeing anti-Obama posts and comments, I posted a status update that was not directed at anyone in particular. I lamented all the hateful posts and comments that I was seeing more and more of; I said that while I did not want to sound biased, that I saw more hate being directed toward Obama and his supporters than toward Romney and his supporters. I got few "likes" or comments. One Facebook user said to me, "I'm a Republican and I am a proud one; okay, come out and say that you are a Democrat." Actually, I grew up in a family of Democrats and I support many Democrat policies, but I also support some policies that are considered Republican. I an Independent, I told the Facebook user in my comment.  Politically, I have always felt alienated and caught-in-the-middle because I sympathize with many of my family's views, which are strongly Democratic. But I also sympathize with some of views that are considered more "religious right" in nature, though I do not consider myself a "conservative Christian." As I read my Bible, God is neither Republican or Democrat. I do not think that even the Church, pastors or Christian leaders should tell people what candidate to support or how to vote. Both major parties have strengths and both parties have weakness.
     Like everyone else, I am excited about the outcome of this Presidential campaign but I will be relieved when it will end. I know that as my active petition calls for funds for a cause, that it will take resolution of the budget crisis in Washington before any action can be taken on what I am calling for. In many ways, it does not even matter who occupies the White House as the President can do nothing without the support and co-operation of Congress. This is why my petition is addressed to both Houses of the US Congress as well as to the US President, along with both Houses of my state Congress and to my state Governor.
     As the weeks continue, we can expect to see the Presidential campaign and other political campaigns, get nastier and nastier. We should base our votes not on attack ads or the opinions of talk show hosts but the facts and I will provide links to a few resources.

http://votesmart.org/
This is the website for Project Vote Smart, which provides a wealth of facts about politicians and this website is easy to navigate with its search bar.

http://politifact.com/
This is the website where the words and actions of politicians are evaluated and examined and where the record is said to be able to be set straight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_Prosperity_The_Ryan_Plan
This is the website that provides comprehensive information about the Ryan Plan but it is a lot of reading and may be tedious to wade through.

http://americanthinker.com/2011/06/ok_just_what_is_the_ryan_medicare_plan.html



    

The Most Dishonored Man in the US

     Someone does a drawing of President Obama, inscribing this drawing with "He has come from monkeys." (I understand the the maker of this photo has apologized).
     A "friend" on Facebook appears on Chat with me; when I request that this user sign and share a petition, the response I get is an angry: "He hates (the beneficiaries of said petition)! He is our enemy! He is a sociopath!"
     Recently, I scrolled through my homepage and saw another post about the US President. In the comments section, a user posted "It is time to hand him his pink slip and say it's time to retire."
     As I was scrolling though my Facebook homepage one day, I saw a photo collage of many politicians with the inscription like "Terrorists," among the many photos is one of President Obama, at the far right.
     A "pastor," preaching his "pro-life" sermon one day, denounces President Obama and leads his congregation in a "prayer" for the President to die.
     It is not uncommon for us to see "funnies" in various media outlets, where President Obama is depicted with Devil's horns or pictured in strange poses or with "evil" expressions.
     In one user's Facebook profile pic, President Obama appears standing and over his head is the inscription "I lie."
     Republicans and politics shows supporting Republicans, compare President Obama to Hitler or even call him by that name.
     One prominent, popular politician declares that President Obama "consorts with terrorists and wants to usher in a socialist government."
     A high-profile politician calls President Obama "the biggest Food Stamp President in history."
     Regularly, when I log into Facebook and check my homepage for updates, I come upon posts with the transparent aim: to trash the current US President.
     "Impeach Obama" and "Defeat Obama" causes, petitions and pages continually spring up throughout the social networks.
     "Liar," "Imposter," "Unpatriotic," "Traitor," "Socialist," and other derogatory nouns are constantly tossed around, on all media outlets, and are meant to trash the President.
     One national cable TV network, over these past several years, has functioned with one purpose, as judging by their actions: to destroy the President and those who agree with him.
     On and around patriotic holidays, like Memorial day and Veteran's Day especially, on my Facebook homepage, I see posts with photos of veterans with the inscrpition "Some Gave All," and photos of President Obama with the inscription, "Some Gave Nothing."
     One prominent Republican likens President Obama to a criminal convicted of manslaughter who "has abandoned the ship."
     When President Obama sings a portion of a popular song on TV, another politician calls him the "Entertainer-In-Chief" and states that he is "bad for singing."
     A certain Governor, right on TV, angrily shakes her fist in the face of the US President.
     A certain Congressman orders President Obama: "Get the ---- out of the US!"
     On Facebook, there is an application called "Nobama."
     A certain State Senator "prays" for the death of the US President.
     These numerous, disturbing examples point to a now ingrained habit in our culture that has taken on a life of its own. This trend is dishonoring the President.
     I don't know if this is because of who the current President happens to be but I have a suspicion that this has something to do with all the hate leveled at him. I don't know if this because of unconscious racism toward the first Black President in US history and jealousy of his success. I don't recall that former Presidents, including former President George W. Bush, have been the butt of such hate, contempt and crass disrespect. Yes, many of us have referred to former President Jimmy Carter as "the peanut man," and to former President Bill Clinton as "slick Willie." However, even during the months of the exposure of former President Bill Clinton's scandalous relationship with then White House intern Monica Lewinski and his actions following, and throughout his impeachment trial, I don't recall that he was ever subjected to the level of smearing that President Obama has been.
     Why is this dishonoring of the President so widespread and so socially accepted, even among people of faith? I think that it is because many people have grown up not knowing any better, having had it ingrained in them that dishonoring the Government and trashing those in power is "cool." And then there is the influence of the "Tea Party" movement and a prominent cable news network plus Republican enemies of the President who use all kinds of media outlets and spending $$$ to trash him. I think much of it is because ours has become a culture of general disrespect and younger people are not likely to remember a time when manners and respect were the norm. For it is true: Manners, politeness and respect in general, have been declining for many years. When I was growing up, it was drilled into the younger generation, "Respect your elders" and when we did or said anything to challenge authority, it was not accepted. "Talking back" was a grave offense (granted there are major drawbacks to this which I point out in my blogs about autism and social stigma about "taboo" issues).
We would never have gotten by with telling an authority figure, "Wait," when told to do something. Delayed obedience equalled disobedience. But today is very different and disprespect has become so ingrained that diishonoring the person who holds the highest office in the free world, is socially acceptable and even commended! We have lost the ability to separate a person from his or her office and to honor the holder of such offices despite dislike of them or disagreement with them and their policies.
     It is safe to say that President Obama will go down as the most dishonored and vilified President in US history. Currently, we have entered into the campaign season where he is seeking a second term and as we all know, this campaign will only get nastier until it is all over. Public sentiment against him continues. There are numerous individuals, groups, causes and petitions that are committed to President Obama's defeat. On Facebook, I continue to see posts that are hostile to President Obama and propaganda photos and articles and supposed quotes where the President's words are taken out of context or incorrectly quoted. Yesterday, scrolling through my Facebook homepage, I saw one such post that showed a photo of former President George Washington and underneath his photo was the inscription was "I cannot tell a lie." Next to his photo was a photo of President Obama; under his photo was the inscription, "I cannot tell the truth." More and more users are posting material declaring, "I will vote President Obama out of a job in November 2012!" Even after the President had produced his birth certificate and explained the circumstances surrounding his birth, many still doubt the validity of his US citizenship and declare his "ineligibilty" to even run for the office of the US President.
     I am aware that, among many "real life" people of my aquaintance and among many in my own social networks, many oppose the President. In my social networks and among those who have expressed their political vies, few have shown support for President Obama. And by support I don't mean liking him or agreeing with his political views or his policy decisions. By support, I mean honoring him because he holds the highest (and arguably most difficult) office in the free world, expressing this honor and giving him the benefit of the doubt even when we may not like what he does. I have wanted to post, "What would YOU do if you were in his place?" Myself, I don't agree with all of President Obama's decisions or views, just as I did not agree with all of former President Bush's decisions or his views.
     As a person of faith, I'm fully aware that many question the genuineness of President Obama's Christian faith, though he has stated that he has a relationship with God through Jesus His Son and that his faith guides what he does in his personal and professional life. I will not discuss the reasons people give for why they doubt his faith; these would fill whole books. But I believe that judging the quality of his faith (or anyone's) is nor right and is just as wrong as the reasons their profession of faith is being questioned. This lapse is worst among those who call themselves "conservative Christiona" or "the religious right." Whatever we think of President Obama's views on the "hot-button" issues of gay/lesbian marriage equality or abortion, only God knows the President's heart, just as He knows the hearts of each of us. Each of us arrives at our own views of these two core issues (in the minds of so many) based on deeply held beliefs and often, life experiences. Yes, Scriptural principles come down on the side of life beginning at conception and on the side of marriage being God's design to be between a husnband and his wife (who would illustrate the relationship between God and His people). But we live in a very broken world where so many feel driven to choose abortion or where life circumstances make the sexual orientations of many do awry. The fact that we are so angrily debating these issues shows that we have serious issues that the President, if anything, realizes needs to be addressed. We may not like or agree with how he is addressing gay/lesbiam marriage equality or abortion but the Scripture tells us to honor and pray for those in power.
    As we get closer and closer to the Presidential debates and the election, whoever those of us in the US vote for, let us remember that votes that are cast based on hate for a Candidate and the desire to defeat him at any cost, are poorly cast.
    And if we can disrespect the person who hold the highest office in the free world, we will find it easy to disrespect anyone.
    
      

How Should We Approach Politics and Can it Solve Our Problems?

          We can't help but see what happens when many tragedies and crimes dominate the news. The public follow the story, get deeply involved and outraged and become stirred to action on an issue that was, before that time, overdue to be addressed. But usually these high-profile stories are symptoms of problems that are deeper, more basic and older and so can't be fixed directly. Because we can't change hearts or human nature, we focus on proposing legislation that we hope will minimize the effects of the epidemic we want to alleviate. We circulate petitions. We write, call or send email messages to our legislators. We base our votes on how our politicians respond to our concerns. If we are able, we may engage in civil disobedience, protests or marches or lobby our legislators. Whether our political leanings fall closer to the left of people's views or to the right of people's views, many of us either don't pay attention to politics and see its relevance in our lives or we see it as able to save us in some way. And whatever the level of our involvement in the democratic process, we so often get mad at, even hate those in power when they fail to live up to our expectations.
          It's forever true that politics has power to affect every area of our lives, up to a point. So much voter apathy exists because many people don't see that. Politicans make many promises and trash their opponents, scaring us about the dire consequences of supporting the opposition. That happens every campaign season and it is happening in the US political scene. But is seems that when tragedy strikes, we recognize, almost to excess, what politics can do for us. For example, one girl, with the full support of her parents, went public with the account that one night some boys forced her to drink herself unconscious and then raped her. As a result "Breanna's Law" was proposed and passed. This law was meant to broaden the definition of rage and empower kids to report sex crimes by peers. Most of us know about the lifesaving "Amber Alert" program. It was created because of the brutal rape-murder of 9 year old Amber Hagerman, whose murder remains unsolved. Thanks to this legislation many kids, fortunate enough to meet the program's strict criteria, have been rescued alive and reunited with their families. A college girl, Kristin Smart, vanished about 12 years ago but law enforcement officials (LEO's) didn't start investigating her case until she was missing for three weeks. Because of her presumed murder, the "Kristin Smart Campus Safety Act" was created. After 17 year old Chelsea King's brutal rape-murder over 2 years ago, "Chelsea's Law" was created to make it easier to track registered sex offenders and hold them accountable for their crimes in California where Chelsea was killed; it has yet to become law in all 50 US states. Recall the massacre at Columbine High School at Littleton, Colorado 12 years ago where 12 students and one teacher were murdered before the two gunmen killed themselves. After this massacre, families of some victims lobbied for tougher gun laws while other families of victims appealed to Congress to bring back prayer to public schools. We can be thankful for vastly increased bullying awareness and often, when news of a bullycide victim dominates headlines, anti-bullying legislation is proposed and sometimes passed into law. Some families with missing loved ones and a number of advocates are lobbying Congress for "Billy's Law," named after Billy Smolinski (who is still missing) which is supposed to make solving cases through the NamUs missing/unidentified database much easier through linking both of them. I can go on and on.
          With all the strong emotions that so many of us bring to our political debates that tend to deteriorate into shouting matches, outright fights or even worse, it's like many of us think politics can solve whatever issue we care passionately for as based on our view, whether left-leaning or right-leaning. Laws keep getting passed that are supposed to make and keep us, our families and our children safer and grant us more rights. And now, with our worries about the the economy and the federal deficit and its effect on us, many politicians want to undo some of these laws and make cuts to many programs set up to make us, our familes and our children safer. So today, we are facing this problem in reverse. It's called "spending cuts" in the name of balancing the budget which I already blogged about recently so I won't elaborate here. Whatever politicians do to our existing laws or to proposed legislation, do our lives actually get much better or worse or do they stay pretty much the same? We keep passing laws designed to keep kids safer but are they actually safer now? Maybe. Maybe not. All we can see is that, every day, kids continue to be reported as missing and too many continue to be found dead or not found at all; for the same reason, in the US alone there remain over 40,000-60,000 unidentified people, most dead, some living. Students keep getting bullied and just today, I heard about one more boy's life lost to bullycide. Child abuse stories regularly make the news with depressing frequency. Abortions continue at the same rate (an estimated 4000 per day) despite numerous all the efforts and proposed legislation on the part of so many "anti-abortion, pro-life" lobbyists. Right-leaning people bank on Republicans being in power to end abortion and win the "culture wars." Pastors and prominent religious leaders often admonish people of faith to protect the unborn with our votes, which usually means to vote for Republicans. However, after many years of Republicans being in power until these past four years, the abortion epidemic remains.
          I well remember the time up to and after President-Elect Obama was just elected, including when his victory was announced. "Change" was the buzzword then and many voters at the place our family voted at, wore pins saying, "I voted for change today." On the night of newly-elected Obama's victory, the TV showed the site of his victory celebration. So many people were gathered to celebrate their candidate's victory that this sea of humanity looked like ants! So many voters looked to him to bring about the "Change" that he had run on in his campaign. They were disgusted at the mess that this President-Elect had inherited: a recession, rising unemployment, rising foreclosures of homes, failing banks, and two wars. Candidate Obama had made many promises during his campaign and the hopes of his supporters were running high that he could save us and do it soon. However, the recession didn't turn around fast enough, people still kept losing their jobs and losing their homes. The banks kept failing and we still had two wars to fight. Obama supporters, in large numbers, became disappointed in the person they looked to as their savior. Why wasn't this President keeping his campaign promises? Why was he letting us down? Why wasn't he fighting hard enough for us? Where is his leadership? Where is the change he promised? President Obama would trying to calm people, saying, "Folks, Rome was not built in a day. Change takes time. We are dealing with long-term problems and things may get worse before they ultimately get better. I call on you to have patience." His opponents, especially T.E.A. Party politicians and supporters, sought to ruin the President at every turn. Whether by his disappointed supporters or fierce opponents, far too many people have been vilifying, trashing and persecuting the President and making no secret of their hate, jealousy and spite. This bitterness  is so toxic that there is a popular Facebook cause which I support, "Join the Fight to Stop Dishonoring the President."
          The hypocrisy of politicians and their hard-core supporters amazes me. Right-leaning leaders, in and out of politics, continue to grumble and agitate about a "government take-over" and call the current President a "socialist." Yet these same right-leaning leaders seem to want to turn the US into what amounts to a theocracy where they want to limit women's access to birth control pills and mandate abortion-minded women to view ultrasounds before getting abortions. Now I'm against abortion and support woman being truthfully told the risks of this procedure which has lasting consequences, but should they be coerced into this? When a religious leader asked Jesus a related question about mixing politics and religion, Jesus' reply to him was this: "Render to Ceasar what is Ceasar's and to God what is God's." Trying to make a nation a theocracy doesn't work. God ordained theocracies in the OLd Testament days for Israel alone, under His Old Covenant with them. When Jesus, who was apolitical, came to Earth as a man and was dragged before politicans before His death, He said to one of them: "I'm not an earthy king. My Kingdom is not of this world." He came to set up a New Covenant between God and us where the Kingdom of God would exist in people's hearts and lives. Besides, we see theocracies in the form of many Muslim countries. Do we want systems that even remotely resemble theirs even with Christianity or another religion being the state religion?
          Many have expressed concern over and opposition to the "Individual Mandate" in the "Obamacare" Affordable Health Care Act, calling it unConstitutional and coercive and invasive of people's "right to choose." This mandate would require everyone to purchase some form of healthcare insurance for themselves and their families. From what I can gather, people would be asked to pay only what they can afford. It's clear that something must be done to adress soaring health care costs, combined with the rising number of 50 million uninsured people in the US. Yet do we want to see health care costs continue to soar because uninsured people, because of no other options, use hospital emergency rooms as their primary health care providers?
          And so on and on. But whatever political party is in power at any given time, things may improve or get worse up to a point, yet our underlying problems continue. And when individual politicians are able to force their agendas on their citizens, we have seen what has often happened. Wasn't a certain politician's effort to force his "utopia" on his citizens the reason for something we know as the Holocaust? Isn't this and widespread human rights abuses brought about by totalitarian societies the biggest argument for democacy with its flaws brought about by flawed politicians?
       
        

Let's Strive to Unite Politics

          Fewer and fewer of us approve of the performance of our politicians. According to polls, in the US, the approval ratings for Congress is not much more than 30 percent. I know of so many people who question the very motives and integrity of all polticians. "They're all crooks," one person has commented. Isn't there a saying, "Politicians are crooks"?
          Is corruption unavoidable when one fills a position of power? Yes, there is a saying that "power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely." Our God and Creator fills the position of absolute power and authority but He is not only infinitely holy and sovereign but He is also forever loving and merciful. Many of His people who fill positions of power and authority have modeled His image to humanity, like Mother Teresa, the Rev. Billy Graham, the lesser-known, local Rev. Larry Rice, among many otherswho have led by example and have identified with those whom they serve. Yet it seems that far more often, positions of any kind of power and authority have become closely tied to corruption, greed and even criminal behavior. But this is especially true of politics. It seems that, on a regular basis, the greed, questionable ethics, corruption or crimes of the powerful continue to surface through all media outlets. We observe how they change their positions on issues and fear taking unpopular stands. It can be easy to conclude, "They are all paid off by Big Business."
We may even hear sound bytes of certain politicians getting testy with constituents or with each other; far more frequently, we feel that they simply don't listen to us.
          It doesn't help when they debate on high-stakes issues like a national budget and engage in partisan bickering about how to cut the budget; we see how they consider making cuts to services and programs vital to out well-being, like education, law enforcement and funding for hospitals, among others. It does nothing for our confidence in them when they consider making cuts to programs that the most vulnerable use to survive, as is happening in the US and, I understand, in the UK. Seniors, those with disabilities and the poor are petrified about losing their benefits. Unemployment in the US remains high and people continue to lose their homes; if we have escaped unemployment and foreclosure, then many of us are concerned about being next. In the face of all this, it should not be any problem for our politicians to insist that millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share in the form of higher taxes (I have nothing against great weath but only against the wealthy being exempt from paying their fair share in an ailing economy). But many of them rail against the very idea!
          So much of the behavior of those in power stems from the fact that they are, in essence, bought and sold. Their poltical campaigns are largely funded by special interest groups and super-rich individuals who are able to fund their campaigns. These wealthy are able to "wine and dine" our politicians for lobbying purposes. So many of us get disgusted with it all and just stay home on election day; in thee US, we are even less motivated to vote in mid-term elections, the primaries, and local elections. I plead guilty to this.
          But we must not let our discouragement with the political process and our frustration and even disgust with those in power, cause us to give up! Too much is at stake. Whether we are aware of it or not, politicians wield power over our lives, all the way from conception (abortion vs. right-to-life) all the way to death (death taxes, wills and estates). Their decisions and their policies impact all of our lives, in our schools, our workplaces, our neighborhoods and even our homes. Deep down, we all know this and this is why we so often blame them when things go wrong in our societies and in our lives. Yet, realistically, since our politicians, like us, are human beings with differing worldviews and philosophies which guide their politics, do we tend to expect too much from them? What should we expect when our votes are based on candidates' looks, their charisma (or lack of it), and on often misleading, defamatory political ads and the rants of those who specialize in ramming their own political views down our throats?
          Yes, I know that it's easier and takes much less effort to go by appearances and by ads rather than to take the time and effort to do the needed checks on candidates and to research politicians voting records and evidence for their character and integrity. Therefore, our votes should be based on candidates' positions on issues we value, their character and integrity and above all, their willingness to stand for what they believe in and to advocate for us. And I'm the first to admit that it takes hard woork and is time-consuming to research our politicians and who they really are. For years, it took me the longest time to work out my own views on issues and to not blindly follow the views of others, or let my family, my church or others dictate what I should believe and how I should vote. For the longest time, I felt alienated from many in my life because my views tended to clash with theirs. Even today, when I share nonpartisan posts about causes or pages online for the purposes of finding common ground in politics, I tend to receive nasty or hateful comments vilifying my perceived partisanship. It's unfortunate how, so often, we can't discuss politics without losing perspective or letting our emotions get tied up in it all. When we clash on political isues and on the politicians we support, we behave as though the other person is our enemy. I have heard things like: "Democrats have no morals," "Republicans don't care about the poor," "Democrats are weak on defense," "Republicans oppose anything that helps people," "Democrats aren't religious," "Republicans are the party of big business and the wealthy." And I can go on and on. I know I have echoed some of these feelings about the major US political parties; I know I often think these things. But these stereotypes won't help us make informed decisions about electing good candidates; only unbiased research and prayer about our voting will.
          Yes, I know that in the US, we are a system of two major political parties, with a number of  "minor" parties. At their root, Republicans and Democrats hold opposing philosophies about what the role of government should be in our daily lives. As a Christian, I'm offended at how those of my faith are stereotyped as "the religious right" and are expected to vote Republican; I have even heard Christans say, "God is a Republican"! I'm saddened at how Democrats are seen as less moral, less patriotic, less religious, and less family-centered, than Republicans. And I'm most frustrated when we pit "conservative" moral issues like abortion, euthanasia, and religious freedom abuses, with "liberal" issues like poverty, all forms of injustice, and human rights abuses. As I read my Bible, both the Old and New Testaments, I can see that all these issues are important to our God and He cares about all of them. Republicans, Jesus spent much of His earthy, public ministry reaching out to the poor, the sick, the dying and the down-and-out; His words about Judgement Day make it chear that we will be judged according to how we have treated the vulnerable and the needy. Democrats, God has clear standards for our behavior, which is why He sent His perfect Son to live, die and rise again to atone for the wrongs of imperfect, sinful humanity.
          Remember, the powerful are us; we vote for them and they come from among us. With some soul-searching and effort, we need to work toward finding common ground and finding unity in diversity.
         
         
Common Cause--Holding Power Accountable; this is a nonpartisan organization that advocates for citizens in many different ways.
http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQ

The Center for Public Integrity--This is a nonpartisan association of investigative journalists who hold those in power accountable.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/20 years/

Project Vote Smart--This is a nonpartisan, unbiased, informative resource website, which empowers citizens in making informed choices about political candidates.
http://www.projectvotesmart.org/




          .