What Would Jesus Do?

Religion is rarely far from the surface when GOP presidential hopefuls convene these days. Values and faith have become staples in conservative politics. This is not at all surprising when one considers the weight protestant evangelicals carry when it comes to the Republican party. Neither is religion a stranger to liberal politics. Liberals have frequently appealed to religion to buttress their arguments for social justice and tolerance. Whether it is to condemn moral turpitude or to advance the tenets of tolerance, religion and scripture provide a useful prop to political arguments. The fact that religious groups citing scripture can be found on every side of virtually every social controversy is no small delight to those inclined to ridicule religion in America.

When it comes to social controversy,  scripture can be thick as the Bible is quoted from Leviticus and Micah through Matthew and Luke. Contradictions, or seeming contradictions, abound. We are reminded that we are obliged to care for the least among us. We are also reminded that we are obliged to obey the law. Atheists no doubt smile as the Bible is often portrayed as a seeming jumble of contradictory injunctions. It is not difficult to find scripture to support virtually any position one might take: especially for amateur scholars and theologians. But there is a thread throughout the New Testament that is all too frequently ignored by those who invoke scripture. That thread is that Christ's commandments and injunctions were addressed to people, not societies or governments.  

There is an ethical imperative to help those in need as religiously inclined progressives like to point out. There is also condemnation of sin and wickedness and a call to righteousness as religiously inclined conservatives like to point out. But Biblical imperatives, at least in the New Testament, do not fall on governments or societies. They fall on each and everyone of us. The Bible does not instruct us to support candidates and policies to further our ethical and moral sensibilities, no matter how praiseworthy they may be. We are to take care of those in need, not the government. We are to love our neighbors as our self, not the government. We are to shun sin and seek righteousness, not society. Jesus was careful to avoid enjoining the state to do any of the tasks or follow any of the commandments He placed before mankind. He consistently refused to be drawn into taking a position on policy. Perhaps the ultimate example of Jesus' refusal to involve himself in the political affairs of men is when He refused Satan's offer of the world. Certainly it was within Jesus' power to effect any political change He thought was merited. But He refused to do so. That is because Jesus did not come to right wrongs, punish sinners, or remedy injustice. He did not come to establish a just state. He came to save mankind, one soul at a time. 

The answer to the question of what Jesus would do regarding immigration policy, abortion, gay marriage, or any other controversial issue confronting the nation is absolutely nothing. He did nothing two thousand years ago and most likely He would do nothing today other than what He did then. He would tell us to love our neighbors as ourselves, tend to the least among us, and give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's. If we did as Jesus asked, everything else would take care of itself and that is precisely the point. Nations and politics come and go. Issues come and go. But people remain and people are what it is all about. 

Jesus did not come to fix the world, create a righteous society, or establish social justice. He came to fix our souls. Good laws and good societies come from good souls. There is no other place for them to come from. It is our job to love our neighbor and take care of those in need, not the government's. It falls on each and every one of us to struggle against sin and strive for righteousness, not the government. Voting democrat or republican and paying your taxes doesn't count. 

Jesus didn't go to Rome and lobby the Senate. He did not propose policy or advocate for laws. He did not demand that prayer be taught in schools or that everyone should have equal rights. He stayed in an obscure part of the empire and spoke with prostitutes and tax collectors. It is not a question of what Jesus would do. It is a matter of what Jesus did. We can learn a lot from Jesus. 

Neither the Ten Commandments nor the Beatitudes were intended to be a political platforms. To treat them as such misses the whole point of Scripture. Indeed, it taints the whole spirit of the New Testament and undermines the Gospels by dragging them into the political arena to be bent and twisted for worldly gain.

Wearing Out Our Welcome?

The window of opportunity for the U.S. to remake the Middle East is closing steadily. We have invaded and overthrown the governments of two nations in the region and bombed a third one out of its palaces. We are working diligently to undermine the governments of Syria and Iran. We have expressed our ideas of what the new regime in Egypt should look like only to find that vision is not shared by as many Egyptians as we had hoped. Iraqis and Afghans have already wearied of our presence. Elections in Gaza have proved absolutely no help at all. After the initial promise events offered, the dust is settling and the region is starting to become opaque to our ambitions. Where popular governments have been established, groups not enamored with U.S. values or overly sympathetic to our goals for the region are asserting themselves. We might have governments we can work for the moment but one election or uprising can change that.

At some point Arabs and Muslims might tire or even come to resent our military actions, our meddling, and our attempts to transform the region. Should that day comes we will once again find ourselves with few friends in the Middle East. Worse, we will find a Muslim world in search of new allies and supporters likely to be unsympathetic to U.S. ambitions. Whether it be India, China or worst of all Iran, many, not just in the Middle East but elsewhere too, would likely welcome the opportunity to do business free from sanctimonious posturing and the incessant prodding and poking that attends dealing with the U.S.

The U.S. is working hard to preserve the fig leaf of international support, but the efforts being made to constrain Iran and shape events in the Middle East are clearly of U.S. origin and in our interests. While the U.S. has decried Iranian actions, and asserts it is acting in the interests of the international community, Ukraine and India have signed lucrative deals with Iran to develop new oil fields and China is becoming increasingly reliant on Iranian oil. As it stands, Iran is China's second largest supplier of oil and China needs more oil everyday. Clearly there are many in the international community who do not share the U.S.'s alarm in regard to Iran.

The rise of China is increasingly giving the world an option of where to do business. Its military prowess is increasing and its global reach is expanding in conjunction with its interests, to say nothing of its wealth. Should the day come when the Chinese yuan replaces the U.S. dollar as a global currency the U.S. will be that much closer to being in second place as a world power.

China will never replace the U.S. as Israel's benefactor but it can replace the U.S. as a broker for peace in the region. As China's energy demand grows its interests in the Middle East will grow along with it. There it will find a host of increasingly disgruntled nations happy to do business with it. That will be a considerable advantage to China as it seeks new sources of energy and markets to feed its growing economy. China's idea of what a stable Middle East would look like might be different from ours. If India's economy continues to expand that will up the stakes even more. At least we will always have Israel, even if our markets shrivel and the world turns against us. For many in the U.S., that is enough.

People with causes such as those looking to assert their rights, advance their interests, or overthrow their governments, as well as sympathetic regimes attempting to cling to power might continue to turn to the U.S. for support, but everyone else will soon have a choice, not just in which direction to align themselves, but worse for the U.S., where to do business. I am sure at some point in the foreseeable future, a Chinese contract or naval base will be every bit the political and economic boon that a U.S. base is. Maybe more since it would come without the political baggage of a U.S. base. And when that day comes there will be at least one region in the world likely to welcome that choice.

China has every bit as much interest in a stable Middle East as the U.S. does. Should it develop a different idea of how to go about ensuring a stable Middle East than the U.S., things in the region could become even more complicated than they are now. It has already expressed its unease at the growing Western pressure on Iran and understandably so. General Zhang Zhoazhing, a professor at China's National Defense University, has stated that China "will not hesitate to protect Iran." Whether or not General Zhoazhing's statement reflects the policy of China's government it does reflect growing concern in China over U.S. policy in the Middle East. In addition to its large and growing economic stake in the region, China has ample experience of what it is like to be an object of U.S. containment strategies and economic pressure.

The last time any nation in the Middle East had a choice of where to cast its lot was when the USSR existed. Most of them chose the USSR. The next time Arab nations have a choice we cannot expect them to choose us. That might help explain the urgency with which we working to overthrow governments in the region that have been historically inimical to U.S. interests and replace them with regimes more sympathetic to our goals. Sixty four years ago the U.S. lost the Middle East by throwing its support behind the new nation of Israel. Through its inability to view the Middle East other than through the prism of Israeli interests the U.S. risks losing it again.

Endless Turmoil

Like many in the nation I have taken a keen interest in the administration's decision to require religious schools and hospitals to provide contraceptives, even if it violates their most fundamental tenets. Rather than attempt a recount of the controversy I will simply come to my point. Whatever the arguments made on behalf of national health care, it was never a simple matter of access and cost. It was above all a matter of politics. You cannot have the government involved in an issue and not have politics involved. Government is politics. The politicization of health care is inevitable.

What we are witnessing are the first battles in what will be an endless war over cost, coverage and inclusion. Contraception is just one of those battles. There are countless more to be fought. As long as the government is involved in health care that war will never end. It will be fought from election to election, issue to issue, and court to court.

Many seem to believe that once a law is passed, sooner or later the nation will come around and controversy will end. That might be the case with many issues, but certainly not all. That is not the case with contraceptives and abortion. It never will be. Those issues will never go away. Worse, there are many issues that are just coming into sight. Coverage for sex change surgery has already surfaced, as has the matter of coverage for same sex partners. More are not yet on the horizon but soon will be. Each new extension of coverage, each new procedure and treatment developed, each new medication discovered, will occasion political brawls as to whether and to what extent it will be covered. Each new administration will revisit the battles fought by earlier administrations. New battles will yield new results. New results will occasion new battles.

Leaving the issues of abortion and birth control aside, health care is a dynamic field. It is constantly in motion. Government will never be able to keep up. When that is coupled with the intimate and deeply personal nature of health care what we have here is a recipe for endless conflict and turmoil. As for changing birth control policy through the stroke of a pen, those cheering the administration should keep in mind that what one president can compel, another can forbid.

30 years after the Court overturned laws against segregation, people were not in the street arguing that the ruling be overturned. 30 years after women were given the right to vote, no one was in the street arguing that decision be overturned. Yet over 30 years after Roe v. Wade, society is still embroiled in the issue. That should tell us a lot about the matter. Clearly there is something about abortion that touches people at their very core.

Even if the rule is rescinded precedents are being set. The battle might be lost for abortion advocates but a new battle ground has been established.

Raising the Nation's Children

On a recent visit to an elementary school in New York, First Lady Michelle Obama continued her efforts on behalf of the health and weight of the nation's children. She spoke of how "as parents we try to prepare decent meals, limit how much junk food our kids eat, and ensure that they have a reasonable balanced diet. And when we are putting all that into effect the last thing we want is for our hard work to be undone each day in the school cafeteria." Fine sentiments indeed.  But she wasn't really speaking for parents. She was speaking for the administration. Her comments came in regard to the recently changed federal rules regarding what food can be served in school cafeterias and in what amounts.

For progressives there is no distinction between society and government and very little between people and society. The effort made over the years to tease out the public consequences of personal behavior has finally reached school cafeterias. With the ebbing of the crusade against tobacco a new cause has been found in obesity. Efforts once devoted to extrapolating the social and economic costs of using tobacco are now being directed towards obesity. Studies and statistics have been piling up demonstrating how much extra poundage costs society. It was inevitable that fat kids would would wind up in the cross hairs.

There was a time when the government was only concerned with what our children knew. Things have changed greatly since then. The government has since asserted a right to have a say in what our children think, feel, and believe. It should surprise no one that the government is now making a claim on what our children eat. The government is taking its place in our school cafeterias, in our kitchens, our living rooms, and at our dining room tables. It seems that the only room in the house that progressives want the government to stay out of is the bedroom. Every place else is fair game.

Talk of the "nation's" children is a sleight of hand. Children do not belong to the nation. They belong to parents. Society is not responsible for how children are raised. Parents are. Even if society has a stake in rearing children, that does not mean the government should have one. The government cannot yet come into your house and tell you what you can and can't feed your children, what books they should read, what TV shows they can watch, and what they should think, but they are working on it. They have your house surrounded.

When it is perceived that society is in need, the nation is called to step in. When the nation is called, the government responds. When the government responds, liberty recedes. Liberals might want to keep government out of the bedroom, but everyplace else is fair game. You can speak of liberty all you like but liberty does not have a chance against progressives armed with statistics. Children in the U.S. are fat for reasons the government cannot yet control and that drives progressives nuts. That is what they are out to change.

As parents we should be concerned with the health and appearance of our children. As a nation we have other things to tend to.

Minding Other People's Business

Washington might be busy with Iran, the economy, and the upcoming elections, but they are not too busy to take time to tend to the nation's children. In these tough economic times school districts across the nation have been tightening their belts. This is a problem for those who make it their business to keep an eye on America's school children because one of the programs frequently targeted by school districts for cutting is physical education.

There is growing concern that the nation's children are increasingly sedentary and over weight. According to the Centers for Disease Control, approximately 17% of children between the ages of 2 to 19 years in the U.S. are obese. Representative Franklin Pierce of Washington state, along with 84 other members of Congress, wants to increase pressure on the nation's schools to do something about it. They are proposing that when Congress takes up the issue of education reform later this year that pressure be placed on school districts to increase their efforts in curbing obesity among students. This would be accomplished through compelling schools to compile yearly reports documenting time devoted to student physical activity. The reports could then be collected and provide a basis for comparing schools across the nation in regard to how fit their students are. The theory is that schools could use the information to create plans to assist the larger and more idle of their students become less so. Naturally, school districts will be evaluated based on the numbers they provide.

While almost every school in the nation provides opportunity for physical activity, (think of recess), only five states require physical education in their schools. 48 states have standards for physical education yet only 32 require their schools to comply with those standards. With 17% of the nation's children considered obese, Washington, or more precisely those who make it their business to mind the nation's business, has taken notice. Using economic casuistry those disturbed by the growing number of lethargic and flabby children have sought to put a price on obesity. A leading advocate of national physical education reform, Representative Joe Baca, D-California, has calculated that obesity will have cost the nation $1 trillion by 2030 if nothing is done. A price according to Baca that would bankrupt the nation. He and like minded advocates see the problem as stemming from the absence of any federal law requiring schools to offer physical education. That is what they are seeking to remedy.

We live in a time when economics has become a national obsession. Many have devoted their careers to teasing out the economic costs and benefits of human activity. Once those costs and benefits are identified they become the grist for policy. Morals, ethics, customs, traditions, virtually every aspect of human behavior has developed  an economic facet. Smoking is not bad because it will kill you. It is bad because it costs the nation money. Ignorance is not bad because it crimps human potential, but because it hobbles economic potential. Now obesity has been made an economic issue. It is not bad because it is unhealthy and unsightly. It is bad because it costs the nation money. 

If little Billy is fat, doesn't do his homework and plays video games all day what business is that of mine? What business is that of Washington's? In a free country a person ought to be able to sit on their couch and eat ice cream and candy all day if they want to, even if it drives some people nuts. Only casuistry of the highest order can make a person's weight a matter of national concern.

Don't Blame Politics

With the GOP nomination process in full swing, politics in the U.S. are in high gear. Candidates are trying to stake out positions and lock up key constituencies. This frequently entails bold promises and solemn oaths as to what they will achieve once they are elected (no one runs for the nomination anticipating defeat). Essential to winning any political contest is distinguishing yourself from your opponents. Distinguishing yourself from you opponents these days means convincing the electorate that you are bolder of vision, stronger of will, and more capable in action than the other candidates. This results in a more partisan and aggressive politics. It is this more partisan and aggressive political process that many are increasingly finding distasteful. They pine for more amicable and less ideological days, when  politicians would have gentlemen disagreements that would be addressed through polite discussion. There is much to this position. The political process has indeed become more acrimonious and partisan over the years but this is not due to politicians or parties. Indeed it has little, if anything, to do with our political system at all. It due to division among the electorate. It is the electorate that has become more partisan, not the parties. Politics have become more and more acrimonious because the line between private and public business is growing  finer all the time.

Emotion and sentiment have become integral parts of our political process.  We want passion on the part of politicians. We want leaders who feel strongly about issues. We want our government to share our sentiments. The problem here is that emotions and feelings do not lend themselves to calm, rational discussion. They touch on the most personal and intimate parts of the human psyche. It is possible to have a calm and detached discussion over fiscal policy. It is not possible to have such a discussion over an issue like abortion. The public may be willing to sit patiently through a political discussion over interest rates but if the topic turns to a more personal subject such as what their children should learn in school their emotions will stir.

This would not be so much of a problem if personal and more intimate matters were treated locally or in isolation, at least they would not be grist for presidential campaigns. But the power of the federal government and the near unlimited reach of the courts have made even the most personal aspects of our lives matters of national concern. You may still be able to think, say, and believe what you like in the privacy of your home but once you step out the door your actions and words are circumscribed by law. In public you are obliged to conform your speech and actions to the prevailing public sentiments.You may teach your child what you like at home but once that child is in school she will learn how to think along socially and culturally acceptable lines. The contentiousness that attends national politics is over which sentiments will prevail where the lines will be drawn.

When political discussion veers from legitimately governmental issues such as finance or foreign policy into social issues such as "diversity" and "values" the water quickly becomes roiled. "Diversity" and "traditional values" are not policy positions. They are open brackets free to be filled by the hopes and fears of people, just like "growing the economy" or "getting spending under control" are not economic policies. They are little more than slogans crafted to calm the fears and soothe the concerns of the electorate. As such they too are simply blank space to be filled by the public.

There always has been profound disagreement over the proper limits and scope of government. The further the government reaches into the personal beliefs and private lives of individuals the more contentious the disagreement. The more power government has over our lives the higher the stakes in any election. The higher the stakes the more bitter the contest becomes. Political parties do not cause conflict. They reflect it. Political partisanship is not the problem with American politics. Disagreement over policy is healthy. Parties should not be condemned for it. Parties are institutions created to organize the political process and make it coherent. They are an attempt to bring order out of chaos.

What is the problem is that the stakes in any national election are enormous. The federal government affects trade and commerce. It sets the direction of the courts.  It allocates resources and sets social policy. It influences education. Indeed it touches every aspect of our lives.  If the blame over increasing partisanship is to placed anywhere, it is squarely on the shoulders of those who put government at the very center of American society. We are no longer content with a chief executive whose job is to administer the government. We want a leader with a vision. We want a champion to fight for our cause. National elections have ceased to be about politicians and parties. They are about visions.

It is an admirable evasion to lay our selfish and shortsighted political system to the charge of parties and politics. The truth is parties and politics do not create division, they reflect it.

My Business is Not Their Business

As the Christmas dust settles, the process of sorting out gifts begins. Those like me who received computer software and hardware now begin trying to figure out how to install and use those gifts. As I began the process I repeatedly ran into the same obstacle. I had hoped to simply follow the instructions and install the new software: a difficult enough task for one born before the age of computers. My dismay quickly turned to anger as I repeatedly ran into the same roadblock. That roadblock was the demand, not request, for personal information. I say demand because they did not ask for it. They required it in order for the software to be installed.

I have two computers, a lap top and an old desk top that can no longer get online. In addition to this blog I have two photo blogs.  I like to edit my photos on the desk top. Because of that, I tried to load my new photo software onto that computer. I was unable to because the software required me to go online to register it. They wanted me to go online to register it because they wanted to know who I was, where I lived. what kind of computer I have, where I got the software, and what I would be using it for.

There was a time when if you bought an item of substance a card was included that asked for information such as where you lived, where you bought it, your age, and so on. You could fill out the card and return it or you could throw it away. Either way your purchase was unaffected. That is still the case with many items. The blender you bought will work whether you return the information card or not. That is not the case when it comes to computer software. Software companies have consumers by the short hairs, as we used to say in the Army. Software companies are able to coerce their consumers by demanding information from them before the product can be used. If you do not want to provide that information you might as well throw your software into the trash.

It is not unreasonable for a company to want to know who buys their product, where they bought it, and how they intend to use it. It is unreasonable to demand that information. It should be enough for Broderbund to know that they sold a piece of software and where they sold it. Selling software, or any other product is a company's business. Knowing where and when it was sold is good business. Knowing who bought the product along with their age, race, and gender is pushing the envelope. Knowing information regarding who I am and how, where, and for what purpose I intend to use to use that product, might be good business as well. But it is first and foremost my business. If they want that information they are free to ask for it. To demand that information in order to install and use their product it is little short of extortion. They have their money. That should be enough.

I suppose when we lay the last shreds of our privacy on the alter of profit we can take comfort in knowing the economy is better off for it.  After all, the economy is the only thing that really matters any more. It is the stick with which we measure the world.