The Christian Right today (though I think he oversimplifies a bit):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_kaszMME3o&feature=related
In watching both parts of this video I am taken-back by what Frankie has to say. It's very interesting how his perspective has changed. I would really love to personally sit down with him and pick his brain about why he changed so drastically. I
I have a number of thoughts: at first, I'm not sure that I buy it. He sounds reactionary by oversimplifing, particularly at the part where he states that "they" as in all the evangelicals needed something to fight against, something to convert as this world was getting more evil. I grew up in a vast variety of Evangelical churches and none of them were ever like that. Second, he is his father's son. One would expect him to react and that family connection alone discredits almost half of what he says in my view. Why should I believe that Frankie isn't simply reacting against his father (as all sons almost inevitably do) and not the evangelical worldview as a whole? The third thing that I see as a discredit toward him is how he sounds like a stock liberal. Why, if you are going to abondon one view, much you join the view that is superficially seen as the opposite view? If you were really thinking for yourself you would realize that there are in fact many different view outside the two dominant ones that are credible and ready to be explored. One would think that a person who is truly objective would realize that; that perhaps there are elements of both dominant views that are both right and wrong and/or neither. (I will give him credit, however for his unwavering stance on abortion).
BTW - That last point I made, I feel is something that people do all the time, in a lot of different things. People who only watch the History channel, for example, to get thier outside sources of information rather than going straight to the journals often seem to blindly (ironically) agree with what is being said. (I think it mostly has to do with the cenematics and communication devices that these programs tend to imploy).
Now, here is what I like about what he said. It is true, his change in stance is significant because it represents a whole movement of a younger generation in the Christian world that is reacting to the worldview of thier evangelial parents. It is manifesting itself in a variety of ways: Emergent churches, heighborhood churches, conversion to more high church traditions etc. I like how he has held firm on the issue of abortion. This I give as a huge credit to him that he is not simply being reactionary because it seems (one would hope) that he does not waver from the positions that simply matter most... In other words, he is not throwing out the baby with the bath water. It would be interesting to see how his view of religion has changed.
I have noticed that people recently have been referring to the Evangelical church as some kind of fluke that should have never occured on its own. This perlexes me because growin up an Evangelical, I was almost taught the opposite and I found through my own emperical evidence of sociointeractive study (i.e. my interactions with my grade school teachers and friends throughout high school), that this was true.
It seems arbitrary. Francis Schaeffer, whom I have read seems to point out that our society used to be built on more identifiably Christian principles... it is only the in the past 50 years (since WWII) or so that one can observe a loosening of the grip of these Christian principles. For example, in 1997, I noticed a milestone. I can also compare and contrast what society was like 15 years ago as I (like to think vividly) remember it to what it is now. The biggest different seems to be a society that is increasingly becoming more hostle to not just Evangelical Christians, but Christians and religious people in general. "They" are becoming more verbal about, whereas before it was simply implied.
I mean, if you don't believe me, then take homosexulaity as an example. If we truely did not live in a more "Christian" society 80 years ago then why didn't the events that are taking place now with this movement take place then? If homosexuality has always been around, why is it just now that it has emerged on the forefront of societal issues?
So, in short, I think it's both. I think it's true that we used to be a more "Christian" soceity, (though, I also think that the way we think of the word "Christian" has also changed), and I think it's true that society has always been "this secular". It must be our idea of both of these views that has changed, not the degree to which we have become what.
He calls his father "Evangelical royalty". I had never heard of him until about five years ago, and when I read his book last summer he was saying things that seemed reveolutionary. Things that I had never heard during my Evangelical upbringing; things that I have been trying to say my whole life that look forward, not backward. When I read him, I did not know he was the guy who significantly influenced Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson and James Dobson. When I learned that, I immediatley thought, "what happened?" This guy doesn't sound like stock evangelical preacher we're all used to. He was saying things like how he was against the Vietnam war because a democracy there would never flourish, due to the fact its culture has never inherited the Christian ideals that ours and Europe's had. He gave examples of how it did not work in places like Russia for the same reasons. It eerily seemed that he would not have supported the war in Iraq. His stance on abortion sounded logical and sane, not hyped up with FOX news conservative jargon and most of all, he pinned down the most progressive thinkers of his day (1976) and offerd an alternative perspective on philosophy that made since with the train of theology since Paul!
Surely, he did not know what would happen.
But what did happen? I wish I could answer this question better. As if this point, I see no reason to abandon my beliefs on the majority of these issues, (save, the environment, equal pay for woman, border control, gun control and arts education in the schools). All I see is the obvious move to dissociate myself from not only George W. Bush but the Republication party becauase neither of them reflect the beliefs I have always been taught in my evangelical upbringing.
It is like David Lane Craig said, "Christains are not better people for believeing what they do by any means, they are just better off". I feel this ways about my political beliefs.
Francis Schaeffer must have been misunderstood and then misrepresented by his followers. Obviously conservatives took hold of this stuff because they saw they held the evangelical vote! But what the Evangelicals didn't realize is that the Conservativists were not Evangelicals! Thanks Regan, thanks...
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Some of My Ideas for Writing New Music
Drawing the lines. Post-modern ideas originally involving the breakdown of definitions has morphed into the blurring the lines of definition, to put it in overly simplistic terms. There are a number of questions to consider at this level which are important and valid, but what I am most interested in is what does this mean for music?
Depending on how you look at it, music over the twentieth century has been through numerous rennovations. If musical heritage from the late nineteenth century on back to about 1600 could be described as a towering skyscraper of establishment, composers in the twentieth century stood up next to it, took it apart and rebuilt it into something else like it was legos. This redifining of the inherited definitions at first presented itself in a way that described reality as fragmented, but still idealist. Then, in the 50s and 60s the fragmentation was developed into entirely new languages that either sought to fufill or escpae idealism, (Boulez vs. Cage for example).
It was during that time that just about every musical idea that we knew of was dismantled either altered or redefined and put back together to make something else.
Today, it seems we have inherited many new traditions rich with ideas, but we have also inherited the wind to some degree. What left is there to do that's new and exciting? Where is human thought going that music might be able to follow? There are so many options now, it is incredible, but paradoxically, composers are struggling with originality on a revolutionary perspective because it seems like all has been done, I mean, what do you do after music lends itself to pure chance? Where do you go from there? (thanks a lot Cage...)
But something must happen. Something always happens. I think that the future of music will not parallel the same idea of having a cannon of composers that represent the best of thier day. I think that in many ways the furutre historical perspective of our day will be largely pluralistic, which matches the philisophical thought of the time period we live in. This might mean that many individual composers will be seen as "the best" or "representative" of this era... though, this is hardly an era that has a unified and identifiable genre that predomiates entertainment on all levels.
Many composers have tried to solve this by using a compositional method called "eclecticism". It is an inruiging idea, but it works best it seems as a technique or compositional method rather than a "style". I mean seriously, the very nature of the word goes against the idea of a unified style.
So this leaves it open to persepctive... Which I find very exciting. At no other time in history I don't think can we say that we have such musical freedom as we do today. So, that means the goods are up for the taking, and the bar is down for raising.
Thus, I have come up with many of my own ideas. Some of the predominating styles in classical music today are, post-romanticism, post-minimalism, post-serilaism, multiculturalism in music and various types eclecticism that range from the combining of jazz with Bach and folk rock with Boulez.
Here are a few "styles" I have come up with myself and I can't wait to start composing.
1). "Naturalism" - I got the idea for this from the works of a woman who had a disply of her art when I was at MOMA a few summers ago. She would do things like draw pictures of a spider's web that was so natural and intricate it looked as if all she drew was the beautifully realistic graphite spider had spun it's own graphite web. Another disply was a bunch of rocks on a flat surface. At first I thought this was the dumbest, laziest thing I had ever seen an artist do... find a bunch of pretty rocks and put them on a white platform. Then I took a closer look and realized that each rock had a duplicate rock that looked almost exactly like the other. Then I figured out that I was right--she had searched for rocks in the desert and put them on a white platform, but only after creating a duplicate rock out of her own material to compliment the first rock as if the rock had been out there in nature with it's mate rock the whole time! It was as if nature made all ten of these intricate rocks. I don't even know what materials she used to make the rocks. The caption on the piece said that she was discovering a little universe in each rock and indeed when you looked at them, you thought of stars and galaxies, arranged in their seemingly random, (I would argue complexly ordered) place in the universe, creating simple beauty with the most intrucate of designs. The ultimate balance, nature itself... or should I say, the work of God himself. This woman--though far from being God--was able to draw galaxies with a pen. Wow.
Even before I saw this display I had the idea of look at a tree and seeing how it is impossible to describe the geometrical shape of the tree in mathematical terms. It was just simply a tree, and yet so beautifully complex. Many people look at trees and stars and clumps of clovers and then say, "this is all so random... how can there be a God?" I say that you think this because your not looking for one. Look at these things with the inclination that there is a God in mind, and it is that much harder to deny it.... That's what I think.
So I want to write music that represents this type of naturalism... flying in the face of human systems of order in order to exist on it's own, and be it's own beautiful thing. Cage's music really ingruigues me in this way, except that he uses nature itself... sort of... The difference between what I am thinking about and him is that in my idea, I am still the composer. Much in the same light as to how Messiaen notated bird calls and wrote them into this music. (Another artist I've recently been inspried by is Andy Goldsworthy - who uses untouched nature as his material for creating his art).
2). Math-ism - My idea here doesn't need so much explaining. I want to write a piece that is 100% driven by symbolic assciations to mathematical equations. Neo-classicism, essentially, on steriods.
3). Microtonal pieces - I want to experiment with microtones in a way that does make my music sound like ethnic music from the Midde East.
Depending on how you look at it, music over the twentieth century has been through numerous rennovations. If musical heritage from the late nineteenth century on back to about 1600 could be described as a towering skyscraper of establishment, composers in the twentieth century stood up next to it, took it apart and rebuilt it into something else like it was legos. This redifining of the inherited definitions at first presented itself in a way that described reality as fragmented, but still idealist. Then, in the 50s and 60s the fragmentation was developed into entirely new languages that either sought to fufill or escpae idealism, (Boulez vs. Cage for example).
It was during that time that just about every musical idea that we knew of was dismantled either altered or redefined and put back together to make something else.
Today, it seems we have inherited many new traditions rich with ideas, but we have also inherited the wind to some degree. What left is there to do that's new and exciting? Where is human thought going that music might be able to follow? There are so many options now, it is incredible, but paradoxically, composers are struggling with originality on a revolutionary perspective because it seems like all has been done, I mean, what do you do after music lends itself to pure chance? Where do you go from there? (thanks a lot Cage...)
But something must happen. Something always happens. I think that the future of music will not parallel the same idea of having a cannon of composers that represent the best of thier day. I think that in many ways the furutre historical perspective of our day will be largely pluralistic, which matches the philisophical thought of the time period we live in. This might mean that many individual composers will be seen as "the best" or "representative" of this era... though, this is hardly an era that has a unified and identifiable genre that predomiates entertainment on all levels.
Many composers have tried to solve this by using a compositional method called "eclecticism". It is an inruiging idea, but it works best it seems as a technique or compositional method rather than a "style". I mean seriously, the very nature of the word goes against the idea of a unified style.
So this leaves it open to persepctive... Which I find very exciting. At no other time in history I don't think can we say that we have such musical freedom as we do today. So, that means the goods are up for the taking, and the bar is down for raising.
Thus, I have come up with many of my own ideas. Some of the predominating styles in classical music today are, post-romanticism, post-minimalism, post-serilaism, multiculturalism in music and various types eclecticism that range from the combining of jazz with Bach and folk rock with Boulez.
Here are a few "styles" I have come up with myself and I can't wait to start composing.
1). "Naturalism" - I got the idea for this from the works of a woman who had a disply of her art when I was at MOMA a few summers ago. She would do things like draw pictures of a spider's web that was so natural and intricate it looked as if all she drew was the beautifully realistic graphite spider had spun it's own graphite web. Another disply was a bunch of rocks on a flat surface. At first I thought this was the dumbest, laziest thing I had ever seen an artist do... find a bunch of pretty rocks and put them on a white platform. Then I took a closer look and realized that each rock had a duplicate rock that looked almost exactly like the other. Then I figured out that I was right--she had searched for rocks in the desert and put them on a white platform, but only after creating a duplicate rock out of her own material to compliment the first rock as if the rock had been out there in nature with it's mate rock the whole time! It was as if nature made all ten of these intricate rocks. I don't even know what materials she used to make the rocks. The caption on the piece said that she was discovering a little universe in each rock and indeed when you looked at them, you thought of stars and galaxies, arranged in their seemingly random, (I would argue complexly ordered) place in the universe, creating simple beauty with the most intrucate of designs. The ultimate balance, nature itself... or should I say, the work of God himself. This woman--though far from being God--was able to draw galaxies with a pen. Wow.
Even before I saw this display I had the idea of look at a tree and seeing how it is impossible to describe the geometrical shape of the tree in mathematical terms. It was just simply a tree, and yet so beautifully complex. Many people look at trees and stars and clumps of clovers and then say, "this is all so random... how can there be a God?" I say that you think this because your not looking for one. Look at these things with the inclination that there is a God in mind, and it is that much harder to deny it.... That's what I think.
So I want to write music that represents this type of naturalism... flying in the face of human systems of order in order to exist on it's own, and be it's own beautiful thing. Cage's music really ingruigues me in this way, except that he uses nature itself... sort of... The difference between what I am thinking about and him is that in my idea, I am still the composer. Much in the same light as to how Messiaen notated bird calls and wrote them into this music. (Another artist I've recently been inspried by is Andy Goldsworthy - who uses untouched nature as his material for creating his art).
2). Math-ism - My idea here doesn't need so much explaining. I want to write a piece that is 100% driven by symbolic assciations to mathematical equations. Neo-classicism, essentially, on steriods.
3). Microtonal pieces - I want to experiment with microtones in a way that does make my music sound like ethnic music from the Midde East.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
My friend Mariza said tonight that humans are just animals, as her reason for why she has fun with her life... i.e. drinking or other "bad stuff".
I wonder about that comment. My mom told me when I was very young that humans are mammals, not animals. She meant that we are only mammals by classification--but we are different from animals. She said that throughout my life people will tell me that we in fact are animals and are no different from other living critters that walk the face of this earth. She told me not to believe them, to be strong and to hold my opinion because they will try to indoctrinate me. "Probably in junior or high school" she said a few years later, after I asked her when exactly would I encounter this. She was right... I encountered it for the first time in middle school. But--I had a really good teacher. I really appreciated what he said when he introduced the topic of evolution because he made sure to point out that it was still a theory, and has not been proven and that we don't have to believe it if we don't want to. It probably was not that he didn't hold to the theory of evolution himself, but that he said this as a way of explaining the scientific method. That a theory needs to be tested because it is accepted as fact.
In high school, it got a bit more sticky... it was just a course subject--not something that was taught as either true or untrue. I didn't like this because as a "seven-dayer" at the time I felt my peers were not getting the full story, and thus they would never even consider what the Bible had to say...
In college my professor taught it as fact. She did it in such a way that infuriated me. She could have just said... "this theory is generally accepted as fact among most scientists"... but what she actually did was launch into a "discussion" (which was not actually a discussion--it was a professor preaching social issues to the class, because she did all the talking, expressed her own opinion that she believed was right and did not open it up for comments/questions) about how to view creationsists vs. evolutionists.
She put a little chart in her power point that contained a diagonal line with bullet point containing each of the following, implying it was a continuum. The varying opinions that people had one the subject. I think she thought she was approaching the issues from a non-bias, scientific perspective. It was in fact anything but that:
Flat-earthists
Earth-centrists
Literal Six-dayers
Metaphoric/Symbolic six dayers
Gay metaphoric/symbolic six-dayers
Intelligent Deseigners
Creation-Evolutionists
Evolutionists
That was her way of explaining the differing idea on the issue! In this order. She thought she was attacking it from an un-bias perspective and allowing us to make out own choice. But look at the "continuum"!! She puts literal six-dayers right next to earth-centrists!!! Something that is seen as absurd and obviously false. She implies by the order of the ideas that evolution is truth to which we have arrived after a "process" has eliminated everything that is false. She went on to say that evolution is true and that if anyone does not believe it isn't is simply misunderstanding that evolution is simply "change over time". She said if Literal six-dayers or even Creation-Evolutionists really knew what evolution is they would understand that it doesn't need to be the big social issue it is.
Okay, I'm sorry but this really pissed me off! First she implies hat anything above evolution on the graph is wrong. Second, she contradicts herself because she says Christians don't know what evolution really is... but it is obvious from her graph she has only read books that paint creationism as absurd and has not looked into herself! Third, she says Creationists turn it into a social issue--but it's always been my experience that evolutionists complain about/criticize creationists waaaaay more than the other side does of evolutionists (most Christians I know could care less about the argument and don't think about it much anyway... mostly because they have alreay found an answer that satisfies them). Fourth, she demonstrates that very attitude herself because she bring homosexuality into the picture---which was off topic and doesn't do anything but add to false view that there is a war between Christians and homosexuals. (This absolutely infuriates me!). And fifth--THE ENTIRE PRESENTATION WAS OFF TOPIC!! She obviously went out of her way to make sure that the class would think they were getting an unbias opinion, but were in fact swayed in the end to the correct truth--evolution is true exactly the way scientists believe it is.
There are so many problems with evolution it is embarrassing: please hear me out. This never gets talked about, but should be. A). Evolutionists fundamentally don't follow the scientific method. They find evidence to fit their hypothesis rather than find/modify a hypothesis to fit the evidence. B). They say they are unbias... but no one is ever unbias, only bias toward their own idea--what ever it may be. C). Carbon dating method is based on a series of assumptions--there is nothing scientific about that. i.e. that the distribution of carbon has been constant throughout all of history and is therefore reliable. (Venus and Saturn's moon Titan are good example of how this may not in fact be correct if the earth's atmosphere ever looked like theirs). D).
I wonder about that comment. My mom told me when I was very young that humans are mammals, not animals. She meant that we are only mammals by classification--but we are different from animals. She said that throughout my life people will tell me that we in fact are animals and are no different from other living critters that walk the face of this earth. She told me not to believe them, to be strong and to hold my opinion because they will try to indoctrinate me. "Probably in junior or high school" she said a few years later, after I asked her when exactly would I encounter this. She was right... I encountered it for the first time in middle school. But--I had a really good teacher. I really appreciated what he said when he introduced the topic of evolution because he made sure to point out that it was still a theory, and has not been proven and that we don't have to believe it if we don't want to. It probably was not that he didn't hold to the theory of evolution himself, but that he said this as a way of explaining the scientific method. That a theory needs to be tested because it is accepted as fact.
In high school, it got a bit more sticky... it was just a course subject--not something that was taught as either true or untrue. I didn't like this because as a "seven-dayer" at the time I felt my peers were not getting the full story, and thus they would never even consider what the Bible had to say...
In college my professor taught it as fact. She did it in such a way that infuriated me. She could have just said... "this theory is generally accepted as fact among most scientists"... but what she actually did was launch into a "discussion" (which was not actually a discussion--it was a professor preaching social issues to the class, because she did all the talking, expressed her own opinion that she believed was right and did not open it up for comments/questions) about how to view creationsists vs. evolutionists.
She put a little chart in her power point that contained a diagonal line with bullet point containing each of the following, implying it was a continuum. The varying opinions that people had one the subject. I think she thought she was approaching the issues from a non-bias, scientific perspective. It was in fact anything but that:
Flat-earthists
Earth-centrists
Literal Six-dayers
Metaphoric/Symbolic six dayers
Gay metaphoric/symbolic six-dayers
Intelligent Deseigners
Creation-Evolutionists
Evolutionists
That was her way of explaining the differing idea on the issue! In this order. She thought she was attacking it from an un-bias perspective and allowing us to make out own choice. But look at the "continuum"!! She puts literal six-dayers right next to earth-centrists!!! Something that is seen as absurd and obviously false. She implies by the order of the ideas that evolution is truth to which we have arrived after a "process" has eliminated everything that is false. She went on to say that evolution is true and that if anyone does not believe it isn't is simply misunderstanding that evolution is simply "change over time". She said if Literal six-dayers or even Creation-Evolutionists really knew what evolution is they would understand that it doesn't need to be the big social issue it is.
Okay, I'm sorry but this really pissed me off! First she implies hat anything above evolution on the graph is wrong. Second, she contradicts herself because she says Christians don't know what evolution really is... but it is obvious from her graph she has only read books that paint creationism as absurd and has not looked into herself! Third, she says Creationists turn it into a social issue--but it's always been my experience that evolutionists complain about/criticize creationists waaaaay more than the other side does of evolutionists (most Christians I know could care less about the argument and don't think about it much anyway... mostly because they have alreay found an answer that satisfies them). Fourth, she demonstrates that very attitude herself because she bring homosexuality into the picture---which was off topic and doesn't do anything but add to false view that there is a war between Christians and homosexuals. (This absolutely infuriates me!). And fifth--THE ENTIRE PRESENTATION WAS OFF TOPIC!! She obviously went out of her way to make sure that the class would think they were getting an unbias opinion, but were in fact swayed in the end to the correct truth--evolution is true exactly the way scientists believe it is.
There are so many problems with evolution it is embarrassing: please hear me out. This never gets talked about, but should be. A). Evolutionists fundamentally don't follow the scientific method. They find evidence to fit their hypothesis rather than find/modify a hypothesis to fit the evidence. B). They say they are unbias... but no one is ever unbias, only bias toward their own idea--what ever it may be. C). Carbon dating method is based on a series of assumptions--there is nothing scientific about that. i.e. that the distribution of carbon has been constant throughout all of history and is therefore reliable. (Venus and Saturn's moon Titan are good example of how this may not in fact be correct if the earth's atmosphere ever looked like theirs). D).
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
It's 9:47, November 4th, 2008
...and indeed change is coming. For some, (perhaps too many) Barack Obama is an American savior. In many ways his job will probably prove to be more difficult than any president's since the cold war. Okay Mr. Obama, now what are you going to do?
I am glad that now I, a conservative Christian, am finally going to be the one who is marginalized. I am also glad that Obama (though not the outcome I was hoping for) is president because now conservative Christians must put their "faith-based" words to the test--they are forced to trust in God. This fact makes me very, very pleased. I hope that in the next four years we will turn from our legalistic talk and become the living, breathing, reality embracing, Jesus fanatics we were meant to be...
I am glad that now I, a conservative Christian, am finally going to be the one who is marginalized. I am also glad that Obama (though not the outcome I was hoping for) is president because now conservative Christians must put their "faith-based" words to the test--they are forced to trust in God. This fact makes me very, very pleased. I hope that in the next four years we will turn from our legalistic talk and become the living, breathing, reality embracing, Jesus fanatics we were meant to be...
Monday, November 3, 2008
So, who did I vote for?
It was not easy--but I voted for McCain, but with some extreme reservations. Why? Lot's of reasons.
Having followed the election race closely for the past two years I have changed my support for people sixteen-fold:
When they first began, Rudy Giuliani had my support--after all, he was a 9/11 hero. But then when I started to hear dirt about him, and when I listed to him speak, I could not help but feel very suspicious about him... If he's a Republican but he doesn't share the same values that I do in my type of Republicanism, what is he up to?
So I became a Fred Thompson supporter even before he announced his campaign. Around this time I watched Celsius 41.11 and not only did my whole view on the war and its beginnings change, but Fred Thompson came across as being very smart and competent, something that the other candidates did not have. But then, when I saw Thompson speak and watched him for a while, and saw his positions on many social issues I started to feel the same way about him that I did about Mr. Rudolph.
So, I was left wondering. Then all of a sudden McCain stood out. Not because he was among the top candidates, but because he wasn't. I was surprised to see his campaign fall because of "bad spending". Wow. I didn't know that could happen with all that money they have.
I saw him do a press conference and despite his low position in the poles, he still seemed very encouraging and legitimate with a lot of common sense. But he was loosing...
Then came Mike Huckabee. I don't know why I didn't see him before! We was conservative on issues were I am conservative (abortion, family values), and more liberal on
issues where I lean liberal (environment, education). He really amazed me, especially since he rose to the top so quickly.
So he got my vote in the primary. Unfortunately, he didn't win. I felt at the time that Hillary Clinton was for sure going to win and I was adamantly against her. I felt the only Republican candidate who had the capacity to beat Hillary was Huckabee (aside from his last name), because he is the only candidate who, if endorsed by the right people would be supported by conservative voters. Every president since Jimmy Carter (incuding Jimmy Carter, and the exception of Bill Clinton) won because of the support from the conservative Christian voters.
All this time, Obama never really scared me too much--but I had not really watched him much until he won the nomination.
So anyway, when McCain came out of the heat, needless to say, we were bit surprised. I didn't think he was a very strong candidate, so I felt Republicans would for sure loose, and Democrats would certainly hone-in with the "more of the same" argument that they could not make with Huckabee.
I like to think that Huckabee came in second because he won the second most amount of states next to McCain... which tells you that many of the most socially conservative people in America not only did not want John McCain, but also may feel that issues such as funding for arts education, cleaning up and maintaining the environment and revolutionizing taxes are become important to them.
The first time I saw Sarah Palin I was extremely impressed. Here was a conservative woman with a god head on her shoulders, a great speaker, (a change I think we need), strong, independent and willing to fight for what she believes in. I was excited because I felt that liberals would not know what to do with her. So I was not surprised to see only a few days after her announcement that her daughter was pregnant. I thought this was incredibly irresponsible of the media and I was impressed that Obama thought so as well. This, in fact largely changed my view of him.
But the more I saw of Mrs. Palin the more formulized her campaign image became and I began to wonder the same things about McCain and Palin that I did about Rudy and Tom.
My stance on the war also changed at this time. I went from condoning our presence there to believing that we should not be there based on the stance that our objectives are unclear and thus the war is largely irresponsible. I finally, also, lost with the Bush administration when I finally opened my eyes to the fact that Bush was never going to do the things he promised he would when he was campaigning in 2000 and 2004.
On top of this I red an interesting book entitled "How Should We Then Live" by Fancis Schaeffer. If any of you know who Schaeffer is, you probably either love him, or hate him. I disagreed with him on some points but I felt that he had extremely wise things to say about today, when he wrote them in 1976.
Esentially he went through the history Western thought, culture, art and politics from the lens of a non-bias Biblical thinker, (this was before the conservative right became the modern movement it is today) and had very insightful things to say about the politics and society we may have for us in the future. Basically he said that if we continue to live in a society that believes truth is defined by the masses, (i.e. majority rules), then we can expect the inevitable emergence of a strict elite after we find that the idea of "majority rules" leads to chaos. Someone will have to bear the reigns, or will cease control... it happened to Rome--it will probably happen to us I found this eerie because we are already seeing this happen with things like the internet. He advocated that if we try to influence society in such a way that we become a nation that follows the morals explicitly laid out in and implied by the Bible we would could fight the emergence of this elite.
Schaeffer was the very many who spurred on Jerry Falwell to create a movement such as the moral majority, (that's why many of you may not like him). As I said before, it was Falwell's movement that was partly responsible for the influence he had on Regan, Bush I and Bush II's elections, (as well as my childhood political upbringing). Now here's the ironic part: it there's been any administration of those three that have displayed signs of "strict elitism", it's the Bush II administration. Wow.
It gets better--Schaeffer brilliantly makes the argument that the creations of democracy are fundamentally weaved into the same Christianity that many people hold to today, (or at least in 1976) and therefore any nation that does not have the same background cannot be expected to adopt any system similar to democracy of any sort. And he lived in Switzerland of all places...
He argued that this is why China went communist rather than democratic, why the soviet regime took over Russia (their heritage is based on the Orthodox church--not the same as the Roman/Protestant tradition). And why organization such as the United Nations will ultimately not work--because they are comprised of different countries of different traditions.
He did not mention Iraq, but I would assume that if he was still alive he would not have supported spreading democracy into Iraq for the same reasons... and look--it's not working. It was the Bush administration that took us into Iraq. Look what else--Power in Russia is becoming more centralized again.
So that's why I do not support the war. It won't work. Have we gotten ourselves in too deep I wonder?
Because of Schaeffer I thought about voting for Obama. As McCain became more and more like a great white shark, and Palin looked more and more like the homegrown hockey mom she described herself as, Obama stood out more and more as the right choice. So why did I still support McCain?
I was forgetting about all of the reasons why I didn't support him in the first place aside from Iraq. Namely, abortion, his inexperience and my Rudy Giuliani-inspired suspicion of were did he come from? and what is he up to?
I hate to saw that I voted because of abortion. In fact, I felt I had to "weigh morality" in making my decision. If I vote for Obama, our troops might come home and we would no longer be sending people to Iraq to die or come back with post-war syndromes. We would perhaps refrain from being the "big brother" we are becoming and we might avoid war with Iran and Russia. Great reasons to vote for Obama--and if he wins, I will be glad because of these things.
But if I vote for McCain. There's the chance that socially conservative issues might finally become reformed (as they were promised by Bush, but it did not happen--he hardly did anything in regards to these but give lip service).
Since I hold strong belief to the fact that if we cannot take care of those who cannot take care of themselves (i.e. the "unborn", our near-death citizens in a vegetable state, and people with special needs) then how are we supposed to take care of ourselves. I don't believe McCain is as corrupt as Mr. Bush or even his father. If we want to put him on the "Regan-meter" he comes closer to Regan than the last two did.... but his intentions, the fact he seems underfunded and his VP pick all point to the fact that he is legitimately not interested in special interest groups just salivating for his election to the office.
I also could not vote for a guy that says he's more centrist, but is one of the senates most dependent liberal voters, how can I expect him to remain that way when there are such loud-mouth, highly influential sharks such as Harry Reid and Nancy Palosi controlling the house and senate. When I heard that Obama voted against a law against flag burning, I did not care, because I felt his position was valid. But when he voted against legislation that would prevent infanticide committed by mothers who could not have the abortion they wanted, I thought--how can I support that and feel that I made the right decision?
I also looked at the third party candidates Ralph Nader and Chuck Baldwin. I almost, almost voted for Baldwin. He actually believes in the moral principles McCain does not, and believes we should not be in Iraq. But I just don't know enough about him, and a vote for a third party is just a vote for the other party. And I have heard rumors that the Constitution Party's website VDare is banned from access on public school computers because it contains things that are almost racist. I also don't agree with their ideas of a "traditional white America" that is not the diverse place it has become. That, to me, also goes against the Bible. (Jesus says, "go and tell all the nations"--but America is great because all the nations come to us! How can we ask for a better set-up??).
But really, I didn't know who to vote far as of yesterday.
Then, on Sunday (yesterday) came the punch-line. My pastor preached a message entitled "Perfect Politics" and preceded to say: "If we elect person that is exactly what we want, will families no longer have to worry about problems such as domestic abuse, or divorce? Will our insurance companies suddenly give us everything we ask for? Or will doctors cure everyone's deseases? Will TV shows finally clean up their act and be sex, drug and violence free? Will every checkout counter at Fred Meyer be "family friendly". Will all our children get the ideal education? Will every married couple be a good example to every other married couple they know? Will you become a person who strives for holiness in your life, will you even more long to worship your creator? My friends, no matter who you vote for, saturate your decision in prayer, commune with God and give it over to him".
That really struck a chord with me. I had done those things... so how did I make up my mind? I went with my inclination. (Though I wish I would have tossed a coin... but I only just now thought of that!)
Having followed the election race closely for the past two years I have changed my support for people sixteen-fold:
When they first began, Rudy Giuliani had my support--after all, he was a 9/11 hero. But then when I started to hear dirt about him, and when I listed to him speak, I could not help but feel very suspicious about him... If he's a Republican but he doesn't share the same values that I do in my type of Republicanism, what is he up to?
So I became a Fred Thompson supporter even before he announced his campaign. Around this time I watched Celsius 41.11 and not only did my whole view on the war and its beginnings change, but Fred Thompson came across as being very smart and competent, something that the other candidates did not have. But then, when I saw Thompson speak and watched him for a while, and saw his positions on many social issues I started to feel the same way about him that I did about Mr. Rudolph.
So, I was left wondering. Then all of a sudden McCain stood out. Not because he was among the top candidates, but because he wasn't. I was surprised to see his campaign fall because of "bad spending". Wow. I didn't know that could happen with all that money they have.
I saw him do a press conference and despite his low position in the poles, he still seemed very encouraging and legitimate with a lot of common sense. But he was loosing...
Then came Mike Huckabee. I don't know why I didn't see him before! We was conservative on issues were I am conservative (abortion, family values), and more liberal on
issues where I lean liberal (environment, education). He really amazed me, especially since he rose to the top so quickly.
So he got my vote in the primary. Unfortunately, he didn't win. I felt at the time that Hillary Clinton was for sure going to win and I was adamantly against her. I felt the only Republican candidate who had the capacity to beat Hillary was Huckabee (aside from his last name), because he is the only candidate who, if endorsed by the right people would be supported by conservative voters. Every president since Jimmy Carter (incuding Jimmy Carter, and the exception of Bill Clinton) won because of the support from the conservative Christian voters.
All this time, Obama never really scared me too much--but I had not really watched him much until he won the nomination.
So anyway, when McCain came out of the heat, needless to say, we were bit surprised. I didn't think he was a very strong candidate, so I felt Republicans would for sure loose, and Democrats would certainly hone-in with the "more of the same" argument that they could not make with Huckabee.
I like to think that Huckabee came in second because he won the second most amount of states next to McCain... which tells you that many of the most socially conservative people in America not only did not want John McCain, but also may feel that issues such as funding for arts education, cleaning up and maintaining the environment and revolutionizing taxes are become important to them.
The first time I saw Sarah Palin I was extremely impressed. Here was a conservative woman with a god head on her shoulders, a great speaker, (a change I think we need), strong, independent and willing to fight for what she believes in. I was excited because I felt that liberals would not know what to do with her. So I was not surprised to see only a few days after her announcement that her daughter was pregnant. I thought this was incredibly irresponsible of the media and I was impressed that Obama thought so as well. This, in fact largely changed my view of him.
But the more I saw of Mrs. Palin the more formulized her campaign image became and I began to wonder the same things about McCain and Palin that I did about Rudy and Tom.
My stance on the war also changed at this time. I went from condoning our presence there to believing that we should not be there based on the stance that our objectives are unclear and thus the war is largely irresponsible. I finally, also, lost with the Bush administration when I finally opened my eyes to the fact that Bush was never going to do the things he promised he would when he was campaigning in 2000 and 2004.
On top of this I red an interesting book entitled "How Should We Then Live" by Fancis Schaeffer. If any of you know who Schaeffer is, you probably either love him, or hate him. I disagreed with him on some points but I felt that he had extremely wise things to say about today, when he wrote them in 1976.
Esentially he went through the history Western thought, culture, art and politics from the lens of a non-bias Biblical thinker, (this was before the conservative right became the modern movement it is today) and had very insightful things to say about the politics and society we may have for us in the future. Basically he said that if we continue to live in a society that believes truth is defined by the masses, (i.e. majority rules), then we can expect the inevitable emergence of a strict elite after we find that the idea of "majority rules" leads to chaos. Someone will have to bear the reigns, or will cease control... it happened to Rome--it will probably happen to us I found this eerie because we are already seeing this happen with things like the internet. He advocated that if we try to influence society in such a way that we become a nation that follows the morals explicitly laid out in and implied by the Bible we would could fight the emergence of this elite.
Schaeffer was the very many who spurred on Jerry Falwell to create a movement such as the moral majority, (that's why many of you may not like him). As I said before, it was Falwell's movement that was partly responsible for the influence he had on Regan, Bush I and Bush II's elections, (as well as my childhood political upbringing). Now here's the ironic part: it there's been any administration of those three that have displayed signs of "strict elitism", it's the Bush II administration. Wow.
It gets better--Schaeffer brilliantly makes the argument that the creations of democracy are fundamentally weaved into the same Christianity that many people hold to today, (or at least in 1976) and therefore any nation that does not have the same background cannot be expected to adopt any system similar to democracy of any sort. And he lived in Switzerland of all places...
He argued that this is why China went communist rather than democratic, why the soviet regime took over Russia (their heritage is based on the Orthodox church--not the same as the Roman/Protestant tradition). And why organization such as the United Nations will ultimately not work--because they are comprised of different countries of different traditions.
He did not mention Iraq, but I would assume that if he was still alive he would not have supported spreading democracy into Iraq for the same reasons... and look--it's not working. It was the Bush administration that took us into Iraq. Look what else--Power in Russia is becoming more centralized again.
So that's why I do not support the war. It won't work. Have we gotten ourselves in too deep I wonder?
Because of Schaeffer I thought about voting for Obama. As McCain became more and more like a great white shark, and Palin looked more and more like the homegrown hockey mom she described herself as, Obama stood out more and more as the right choice. So why did I still support McCain?
I was forgetting about all of the reasons why I didn't support him in the first place aside from Iraq. Namely, abortion, his inexperience and my Rudy Giuliani-inspired suspicion of were did he come from? and what is he up to?
I hate to saw that I voted because of abortion. In fact, I felt I had to "weigh morality" in making my decision. If I vote for Obama, our troops might come home and we would no longer be sending people to Iraq to die or come back with post-war syndromes. We would perhaps refrain from being the "big brother" we are becoming and we might avoid war with Iran and Russia. Great reasons to vote for Obama--and if he wins, I will be glad because of these things.
But if I vote for McCain. There's the chance that socially conservative issues might finally become reformed (as they were promised by Bush, but it did not happen--he hardly did anything in regards to these but give lip service).
Since I hold strong belief to the fact that if we cannot take care of those who cannot take care of themselves (i.e. the "unborn", our near-death citizens in a vegetable state, and people with special needs) then how are we supposed to take care of ourselves. I don't believe McCain is as corrupt as Mr. Bush or even his father. If we want to put him on the "Regan-meter" he comes closer to Regan than the last two did.... but his intentions, the fact he seems underfunded and his VP pick all point to the fact that he is legitimately not interested in special interest groups just salivating for his election to the office.
I also could not vote for a guy that says he's more centrist, but is one of the senates most dependent liberal voters, how can I expect him to remain that way when there are such loud-mouth, highly influential sharks such as Harry Reid and Nancy Palosi controlling the house and senate. When I heard that Obama voted against a law against flag burning, I did not care, because I felt his position was valid. But when he voted against legislation that would prevent infanticide committed by mothers who could not have the abortion they wanted, I thought--how can I support that and feel that I made the right decision?
I also looked at the third party candidates Ralph Nader and Chuck Baldwin. I almost, almost voted for Baldwin. He actually believes in the moral principles McCain does not, and believes we should not be in Iraq. But I just don't know enough about him, and a vote for a third party is just a vote for the other party. And I have heard rumors that the Constitution Party's website VDare is banned from access on public school computers because it contains things that are almost racist. I also don't agree with their ideas of a "traditional white America" that is not the diverse place it has become. That, to me, also goes against the Bible. (Jesus says, "go and tell all the nations"--but America is great because all the nations come to us! How can we ask for a better set-up??).
But really, I didn't know who to vote far as of yesterday.
Then, on Sunday (yesterday) came the punch-line. My pastor preached a message entitled "Perfect Politics" and preceded to say: "If we elect person that is exactly what we want, will families no longer have to worry about problems such as domestic abuse, or divorce? Will our insurance companies suddenly give us everything we ask for? Or will doctors cure everyone's deseases? Will TV shows finally clean up their act and be sex, drug and violence free? Will every checkout counter at Fred Meyer be "family friendly". Will all our children get the ideal education? Will every married couple be a good example to every other married couple they know? Will you become a person who strives for holiness in your life, will you even more long to worship your creator? My friends, no matter who you vote for, saturate your decision in prayer, commune with God and give it over to him".
That really struck a chord with me. I had done those things... so how did I make up my mind? I went with my inclination. (Though I wish I would have tossed a coin... but I only just now thought of that!)
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Do you see why I don't know who to vote for?
Iraq--let them fight their own war; democracy cannot be imposed upon another culture that does not share the same Christian-based background that led to the creation of democracy in the West.
United Nations--America needs to either lead the group in active and political and world change or get out entirely, nothing in between; we should not let others make calls for us and conform to European ideals.
Trade--free trade.
Africa--if we're going to take out dictators in Iraq, we need to send troops into places like Uganda and take out authoritarian and cult-leading dictatorships there as well. I would support government lead initiatives to helping humanitarian issues in other countries.
Social aid--create a government funded, Department of Foreign Aid that uses U.S. tax dollars to fund programs dedicated to world problems.
Blank Checks--no blank checks! It only stalls the problem, not stops it.
Environment--we need long term solutions, not short term ones. We need to recognize that global warming is a problem. EVERYBODY needs to sacrifice in order to contribute. And we need more federally protected national parks.
Abortion--STRONGLY, STRONGLY, STRONGLY against abortion!! How can you say that you value humanitarianism, but devalue those who do not have to capacity to take care of themselves... this includes our seniors as well as our unborn! Oh yeah, life begins at conception and adoption is always the best option.
Crime and punishment--punish the guilty. end of story.
Education--more funding for the arts!! State standards, not national standards. No standardized testing as a requirement of graduation. Rewrite the SAT to pertain to more than just one, (of seven) "types of intelligence".
Taxes--tax cuts for the middle class. Especially in the time of war and when our national debt is over $9 trillion! The "trickle-down" affects does not work in a time of war.
Economy--Abolish the credit based system. If it weren't for credit, we would not be in our current situation.
Welfare--There should be very tight qualifications, based on individual situations and the system should not be abused.
Immigration--Secure our boarders, moderate immigration, create programs for illegal immigrants to eventually become citizens.
North American Union--against, against, against.
Selling of public contstruction jobs to other countires, (such as Spain)--strongly against.
Feminism-- In the workplace--equal pay if equal ability and protection against sexual harassment. The flip side--I like the example that Sarah Plain is to feminism (if she would just learn her stuff) and if she is elected I hope that she would change the face of feminism being a support to women and their place in society, without compromising family values.
Gun control--Teach your kids how to be responsible.
Drinking age--same thing.
The ACLU--Taking "Christmas" out of "Christmas" is a violation against freedom of speech. By the way "Holiday" means "Holy day".
The moral majority--I don't know if Jerry Falwell would have voted for a third party or McCain, but I would bet that Francis Schaeffer would not have supported George Bush or John McCain, (See my stance on Iraq).
English as the official language--semantics.
Free coffee for all college students, all the time, anyplace--support, support, support!! :)
United Nations--America needs to either lead the group in active and political and world change or get out entirely, nothing in between; we should not let others make calls for us and conform to European ideals.
Trade--free trade.
Africa--if we're going to take out dictators in Iraq, we need to send troops into places like Uganda and take out authoritarian and cult-leading dictatorships there as well. I would support government lead initiatives to helping humanitarian issues in other countries.
Social aid--create a government funded, Department of Foreign Aid that uses U.S. tax dollars to fund programs dedicated to world problems.
Blank Checks--no blank checks! It only stalls the problem, not stops it.
Environment--we need long term solutions, not short term ones. We need to recognize that global warming is a problem. EVERYBODY needs to sacrifice in order to contribute. And we need more federally protected national parks.
Abortion--STRONGLY, STRONGLY, STRONGLY against abortion!! How can you say that you value humanitarianism, but devalue those who do not have to capacity to take care of themselves... this includes our seniors as well as our unborn! Oh yeah, life begins at conception and adoption is always the best option.
Crime and punishment--punish the guilty. end of story.
Education--more funding for the arts!! State standards, not national standards. No standardized testing as a requirement of graduation. Rewrite the SAT to pertain to more than just one, (of seven) "types of intelligence".
Taxes--tax cuts for the middle class. Especially in the time of war and when our national debt is over $9 trillion! The "trickle-down" affects does not work in a time of war.
Economy--Abolish the credit based system. If it weren't for credit, we would not be in our current situation.
Welfare--There should be very tight qualifications, based on individual situations and the system should not be abused.
Immigration--Secure our boarders, moderate immigration, create programs for illegal immigrants to eventually become citizens.
North American Union--against, against, against.
Selling of public contstruction jobs to other countires, (such as Spain)--strongly against.
Feminism-- In the workplace--equal pay if equal ability and protection against sexual harassment. The flip side--I like the example that Sarah Plain is to feminism (if she would just learn her stuff) and if she is elected I hope that she would change the face of feminism being a support to women and their place in society, without compromising family values.
Gun control--Teach your kids how to be responsible.
Drinking age--same thing.
The ACLU--Taking "Christmas" out of "Christmas" is a violation against freedom of speech. By the way "Holiday" means "Holy day".
The moral majority--I don't know if Jerry Falwell would have voted for a third party or McCain, but I would bet that Francis Schaeffer would not have supported George Bush or John McCain, (See my stance on Iraq).
English as the official language--semantics.
Free coffee for all college students, all the time, anyplace--support, support, support!! :)
Preconceptions
I can't stand the word "fundamentalism". I, by the standards of many people in the world, am a "fundamentalist Christian". If I told someone that I am a "fundamentalist Christian", they immediately think that my political ideology is conservative and therefore their reaction to me is an extremely negative one, not having given me a chance to "explain myself". They take on at once a preconception and do not let go.
Why?
Because I think people love to be "religious". Even if they don't claim to believe in a religion. I mean "religious" as in the verb form, the act of. For example, an unwavering devotion to "being liberal" or "being a democrat", they are in fact following a set of idealisized rules that allow for a general agreement among a group of people. The funny thing is that many people who are going to vote democrat in this next election are doing it because it's what they think is the right stance to have on the issues. Indeed many friends of mine have said about issues such as Iraq or abortion, "isn't it obvious?" I rest my case.
Yes indeed, this is the screen that keeps people of both parties from listening--and more than listening--but valuing the opinion of other person who shares this country with you.
"Oh, you're an evangelical Christian... that means you're a fundamentalist... and you must be voting for McCain..." Really, really... you don't know me.
Why?
Because I think people love to be "religious". Even if they don't claim to believe in a religion. I mean "religious" as in the verb form, the act of. For example, an unwavering devotion to "being liberal" or "being a democrat", they are in fact following a set of idealisized rules that allow for a general agreement among a group of people. The funny thing is that many people who are going to vote democrat in this next election are doing it because it's what they think is the right stance to have on the issues. Indeed many friends of mine have said about issues such as Iraq or abortion, "isn't it obvious?" I rest my case.
Yes indeed, this is the screen that keeps people of both parties from listening--and more than listening--but valuing the opinion of other person who shares this country with you.
"Oh, you're an evangelical Christian... that means you're a fundamentalist... and you must be voting for McCain..." Really, really... you don't know me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
