On This July 4th, Will America Be The ...

Will America still be 'the land of the free and the home of the brave'? Please note that that quote came in the form of a question in its original source: the National Anthem. And it would be a good question to ask ourselves if we were so disposed to be honest with ourselves. But are we honest enough with ourselves to ask that question or are our corporate and individual egos so fragile that attempts to answer that question produces a conflict of interests?

My guess is that conservatives are less prone to honestly ask whether  America is the 'land of the free and the home of the brave.' After all, thinking that America the greatest nation in the history of the world is one of their basic tenets. In fact, affirming that to be the case about America is one of the litmus tests many of them use for determining who is a real American and a true patriot. They tell those of us who don't believe that about America to leave. Ironically, staying in America because one believes that it is the greatest nation in the history of the world is being nothing more than a fair weather patriot.

But there is another indicator that reveals why conservatives are less prone to honestly ask whether America is the 'land of the free and the home of the brave.' That is because of their extremely sensitive allergy to change--and being able to change is mark of both being free and being brave. In fact, calling their reaction to change an extreme allergy is an understatement. Rather, change is to most conservatives what Kryptonite was to Superman. But let's be fair, once we are established in a favorable situation or way of thinking, we all resist change. However, not all of us react to change like many conservatives do.

What changes do conservative resist? They resist changes necessitated by the reality of climate change, the pandemic, systemic racism, and the fairness of the 2020 Presidential election. Their resistance to changing in the face of theses situations went so far as to cause them to embrace conspiracy theories and pseudo science to deny those realities. 

Their avoidance of changing in order to reduce systemic racism has caused them to take the approach to racism taken by the Reagan Administration. His Administration took the position that, after the Civil Rights Movement, the only racism that still exists is that of personal prejudice. And so they believed that the continual harping on the presence of systemic racism causes some to feel and express racism in response. Meanwhile, some conservative are parading individual blacks on social media who say that they do not see systemic racism. But these same conservatives ignore the statistics and reports of the racism practiced by institutions like law enforcement, the justice departments, in our economic system evidenced by the ever growing wealth and income disparities between the races, in our election system as there seems to be an erosion of voting rights as seen in the elimination of parts of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, in the reports of environmental racism, or in the testimonies of blacks who have been questioned or arrested by law enforcement because they were walking or driving while black. The recent SCOTUS decision to undo Affirmative Action policies by the conservative Court also bears testimony to the  denial of systemic racism.

Another rejection of change by many conservatives is their refusal  recognize equal status and rights for those in the LGBT Community. Religious conservatives reject analogies being made between the struggle for equal rights for the LGBT community and the struggle for civil rights for blacks during the Civil Rights Movement because they say that there is no sin in belong to a minority race. What that view implies about those in the LBGT Community is more obvious than an appearance of a drag queen show. And while conservatives proudly brag about how they adhere to science on LGBT issues, what the scientific community is reporting is the need to change some of our views about why some have same-sex attraction or why some have gender dysphoria.

We might want to consider another marker of freedom and bravery: tolerance. Here I am thinking of how disingenuous the title of Ron DeSantis's book called, The Courage To Be Free. Are we talking about the diminishing freedom of teachers to teach racism from a non white, religiously conservative American perspective. We are also talking about the right of school libraries to carry books that  mention same-sex attraction (SSA) or other LGBT issues. Doesn't DeSantis know that Freedom - Equality = Privilege. And thus, the title of his book should be 'The Audacity To Seek Privilege.'

But bravery isn't seen when we try to repress those groups of people who are significantly different from our own. It isn't bravery to try to marginalize a group of people, who are not denying the equality or rights of others, because you don't like that group. Trying to silence, control, and marginalize them is a sign of fear, not courage.

However, it seems that some groups of conservatives are not the only ones who lack the courage to tolerate those who are different. The Politically Correct crowds, there is more than one, also try to silence and marginalize those whose language or ideas they do not like. And some in the LGBT Community, while striving for equality, use labels and other tactics to silence those who do not believe that one cannot change one's own biological sex because of how one feels or transitions. 

As much as we should be working for the full equality of all in the LGBT Community in society, that doesn't mean that we have to change the biological facts of life. The problem here stems from the fact that we categorize people by one of 2 biological sexes even though there are more than two genders. Therefore, we need a more complex way of categorizing people that recognizes their gender identity and biological sex independently from each other while promoting full equality for those from each gender identity.

Part of our intolerance of others is that we either refuse or have become unable to make some necessary distinctions. And thus we unnecessarily engage in too much black-white thinking and  cannot see the 50+ shades of gray that lies between the polar opposites. The refusal or inability to make distinctions lies at the heart of many of our intolerances, attempts to silence others, and prejudices. 

An example of a distinction that some either refuse or are unable to make practiced by some of my fellow religiously conservative Christians is to differentiate between people disagreeing with one's religious beliefs and being persecuted. Much of the disfavor that religiously conservative Christianity has found itself with many people is that such Christianity has, during the time of Christendom, oppressed certain groups of people by denying them their equal status and rights in society. And when people voice this disfavor, many of us religiously conservative American Christians interpret it as persecution of the faith rather than a protest against our attempted control of them.

Though I have picked on conservatives quite heavily here, there are a significant number of liberals and leftists who lack courage as evidenced by how they treat conservatives or others who disagree with them. This lacking of courage and the desire to replace freedom with the ability to control others is prominent throughout the whole nation and it knows no ideological boundaries. And so when we celebrate July 4th today, we need to honestly ask ourselves whether our nation is as good as we say we are, or are we floundering because we have too easily believed the headlines that we have written about ourselves.

The short of it is this, America is not the 'land of the free and the home of the brave.' It isn't that not because there is a giant meteor is heading for our heartland or a mighty nation is poised to attack or invade us. Rather, we are not the 'land of the free and the home of the brave' because of how we feel about our fellow Americans whom we deem to be too different from ourselves.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For November 2, 2021

 Oct 13

To R. Scott Clark and David Vandrunen for Clark's blogpost citation of a Vandrunen article on racism from a Christian perspective. This appeared in the Heidelblog

Vandrunen's full article can be found at

https://www.opc.org/os.html?article_id=874

Most of the points made by Vandrunen in his article, and not just the part that was quoted above,  need some degree of correction and/or modification.

Take his first point, 'Race does not exist, although racism does.' The premise is not true when one considers the dictionary definition of race: 'any one of the groups that humans are often divided into based on physical traits regarded as common among people of shared ancestry' (see  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/race   ). 

I was recently reminded of race during lunch with friends. One was African American and the other was literally from Africa. My friends had obvious differences between each and with me and those physical differences go back to ancestry. Now does that existence of race imply that we have no common ancestor? No. But a lot of "funny" things happened to different races on the way here from the Garden of Eden. 

The recognition of race has often been accompanied by assumptions of superiority and inferiority, and thus entitlement, which accompany the recognition of racial differences.

Thus the call for deracialization must be modified. It must be modified for two reasons: First, there are physical differences that exist between people due to common ancestries; and Second, we can't assume that racism will no longer exists if we were fully implement deracialization.

One of the excellent points made by CRT is what it calls racism, which is the oppression of people based on race, is experienced by many Blacks in more ways than just personal racial prejudice. Racism is experienced by many Blacks by institutional and social powers. Racism is still experienced in encounters with law enforcement and the criminal justice system, in terms of voting and voting rights, and in several ways in the economy. In addition, many Blacks still experience the after effects of past racism. 

We might also want to consider that deracialization forgets the different ways people are perceived because of their race. Because Blacks have been viewed not just as inferior, but they were treated as property for much of US history. Thus, we need to pay special attention to the accomplishments of people of color. These accomplishments help point out our equality and debunk assumptions of inferiority.

What we must be careful of  in critically thinking about racism is to use our theology and our subcultural biases to limit our understanding of how racism could be experienced by Blacks and other minorities. Because the charge of  racism is itself stigmatizing  and indicting, we need to admit that we have an inherent conflict of interest when it comes to acknowledging the full impact of both yesteryear's and today's racism as well as whether we are racist. It's easy for us to see the systemic racism that existed during slavery and Jim Crow. But when many Blacks talk about experiencing systemic racism today, we tend to balk. Such  balking is not a biblical reaction but a subcultural one. 

We cannot afford to use our theology, our ideology, or the image we prefer to have of our nation today or ourselves  to deduce that systemic racism no longer pervasively exists today. In fact, many of criteria that today's CRT proponents use to detect racism were used by Martin Luther King Jr. In particular, we are talking about the equality of results criteria (see  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xsbt3a7K-8https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xsbt3a7K-8   ). If we are going adequately understand what CRT is saying, then we must actively study it to see the continuities it has with the Civil Rights Movement as well as how it distinguishes itself from Critical Legal Studies and its criticisms of the politically conservative color-blind movement promoted by the Reagan Administration and scholars such as Thomas Sowell. For here we need to remember that many Blacks who agree with CRT are speaking from their experiences. And if we attempt to deduce that what they say they are experiencing is not true, we then show ourselves to be deliberately deaf to their complaints. And such deafness stands as a tremendous stumbling block for many might otherwise listen to the Gospel.

Finally, the Church has no choice but to be political in today's world. But that option for the Church is not to be political as the world is where one chooses to advance one own side's agenda at the expense of honesty and the truth. Rather, the Church must speak prophetically to the individual and corporate sins that each person and political and ideological side promotes and/or commits without commenting on any proposed ideological solution. 

Why is that our only option? It is because politics contain both ambiguous and non ambiguous moral choices. When a particular party advocates actions that suppress freedoms for a given group, the Church needs to speak prophetically to that suppression and the partisanship in which that is taking place. And while the religiously conservative American Christians have no problems with pointing out where they believe that their own rights are being infringed on, they have great difficulty in perceiving and acknowledging when they themselves are infringing on the rights of others. But why do we need to do that? It is for the reputation of the Gospel. That is that once a person or group identifies itself with Christ, everything it does and doesn't do, says and doesn't say is associated with the Gospel and acts to either hurt or enhance the reputation of the Gospel. That truth should give us all, as individuals, reason for pause because of our own sinfulness. But it should also give the Church abundant reasons for speaking prophetically against injustices in the world. That is because most, if not all injustices, violate either literally or in principle the commandments that prohibit murder and/or stealing. And for the past few centuries, through both advocacy and silence, the predominant branches of the Church in many areas in the world has aligned itself with wealth and power. In other words, we have a a lot of damage control and damage repentance to make up for.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oct 15

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that calls the pandemic a 'religious event' and a lot of trust in the science of the vaccines a religion. This appeared in Heidelblog.

According to the logic used in the above article, the following statements must be true:

So the existence of polio and smallpox were religious events and those who flocked to the vaccines were making science their new religion.

We should not trust that the sun is the center of our universe and that gravity exists because Science does not trust, it doubts and tests. Of course, if science is always doubting and testing, then it never arrives at any firm answers.

Do we see the problem with the above logic yet? When religious leaders call solutions to crises a religion, what they are really doing is announcing the existence of a competitor in explaining the world. Calling science a religion because people are using what was learned from science as a help shows more than just a stretching of the word 'religion,' it's a defensive reaction to seeing another source of influence as a competitor to explaining the world around us. 

Who has a better position to to explain the different realities that we see around us? For example, who is in the best position to tell us whether climate change is at least partially but significantly caused by human activity? Are theologians in the best position or are climate scientists in the best position? Who is in the best position to tell us how effective vaccines and mandates are in curbing the current pandemic? Is it theologians or scientists who specialize in the areas of study that are concerned with viruses and how the body reacts to viruses?

Back when Heliocentrism was being floated as an explanation for a part of reality, both Calvin and Luther firmly rejected what Copernicus proposed. They too saw Copernicus's theory as a stepping on their turf. Because the Bible had already told them, however indirectly, the relationship between the sun and the earth, they felt comfortable in not just rejecting heliocentrism, they went on to ridicule anyone who proposed such a theory. Protestants followed Calvin and Luther's lead and the Roman Church then followed their lead. How dare a person use mathematics to contradict what was understood back then what God had to say.

Protestants and those from the Roman Church eventually got it right and the consequences were minimal. Today, not doing something about climate change because there are 'reasonable grounds' to question whether human activity is significantly contributing to it or to resist vaccine mandates because of one doubts the science behind it can have, and in some cases are having, disastrous, harmful effects on people. Never mind the percentage of  climate change scientists who are convinced by the evidence. And, btw, no one is telling dissenters that they cannot question what is being claimed, if all crises become religious events and the proposed solutions become religions themselves, then who can present themselves as being in the best position to people through those events but theologians. And that is what happens when we allow some to so easily expand the definition of religion.

The above article seems to be in denial of what logically follows calling the current pandemic a 'religious event' and the trusting of medical science's response as a religion even though no one is saying that what the medical scientists claim should not be questioned. But the vaccines those scientists have provided have proven to be helpful and even lifesaving. And if more people had followed their lead, we possibly could have avoided the overwhelming of our healthcare resources and prevented many deaths.

The above article seems to be nothing more than an attempt to defend one's turf not realizing that just as we should let vaccines be vaccines and science be science, we should let theologians be theologians and nothing more.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oct 17

To Bradley Birzer and his blog article on how great the American Republic was and how we can make it great again. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog. 

All too often, probably most of the time, our study of history and our learning religion share a common trait. That trait is that what should be a quest for truth has morphed into a search for personal significance. And that significance isn't found in realistic portrayals of our faults and sins, our significance is found in delusions of goodness and honor that we are fond to have dancing in our heads.

In particular, in terms of history we find those delusions when we magnify how we treated those who were like us while we minimize how we treated those who were different. In religion, we focus on how we think that we have been loving of God and people while we overlook our worship of idols and our coldness toward those who are different or toward those whose need would cost us more than we want to part with.

Such is my summary of the above article. The above article follows the road most often traveled.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oct 20

To R. Scott Clark and Carl Trueman for Clark's blogpost article that consists of quoting the part of Carl Trueman's article that tells us Christians not to imitate the world in how we react to the changing of the moral guard of society where Christianity has been replaced by movements like Post Modernism even though such a change threatens to marginalize us Christians in society. This appears in Heidelblog.

Trueman's article can be found at

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2021/11/the-failure-of-evangelical-elites

A few comments are in order regarding the cited part of Trueman's article. 

First, when Trueman talks about Christianity's place in society coming under threat, what was that place? Was it not one of supremacy over other beliefs, views, and practices so that it exercised various levels of supremacy over society? Should we lament over that lost privileged status?

Second,  when Trueman talks about Christianity being pushed to the margins, we might ask who was pushed to the margins when Christianity had its its day in the sun here? We do know that throughout US history, when Christianity had its privileged place, people of color, women, and the LGBT community were all marginalized to varying degrees. 

Trueman is complaining about how, with Post Modernism, unbelievers are turning the tables by imposing their moral values and thus marginalizing us Christians. At the same time, Trueman rightfully warns us not to conform to the 'spirit of the age.' And yet, with unbelievers turning the tables by imposing their moral standards on us, aren't they the ones who should be warned not to conform to the spirit that Christianity, as represented by many Christians, has been displaying rather than warning us believers not to conform to the spirit of this age?

We need to escape this black-white worldview where we Christians believe that either we must rule over others to some degree or be ruled over by them. We should seek to coexist with other views rather than trying to gain a privileged place over them in society so as to push our moral agenda, in particular our sexual moral agenda, on them. It is this belief that either we rule over them or they will rule over us that creating stumbling blocks to people who would otherwise listen to the Gospel.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oct 29

Tor R. Scott Clark and his blog article that says that if we only sung what was in God's Word, we could avoid singing songs about the climate change like the one he showed in his article. This appeared in Heidelblog.

The question we have to ask is whether the above hymn is better than the sound of climate change silence from the pulpit.

BTW, I am not a fan singing the above hymn in Church and its words are more focused on God than some worship songs I heard. 

Also, if we only sung from God's Word, then we would miss out on some wonderful hymns. The changing world demands that we stewardship of the world needs to change. So are we afraid to admit that the world is changing because then we must change with it to be good stewards of the world?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sometime in late October

To Bradley Birzer and his blog article on what is the essence of Freedom. This appears in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.

The essence of Freedom in society is not necessarily, it is equality. For equality is the first limit on our freedoms and distinguishes what we call freedom from what would rightfully be called privilege. Here we should note that  Freedom - equality = privilege. And privilege is all too often the result of refusing to share power and/or wealth.

When we insist on our freedom at the expense of another person's freedom, we are insisting on being privileged over that other person. Yes, we have duties that puts limits on our freedoms. But the first consideration  of what determines what our duties are in society is equality It is equality. So equality is the essence of Freedom in society.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oct 30

 To W. Robert Godfrey and his audio presentation about why America is changing in terms of race, sex, and so forth. This appeared on the Abounding Grace Radio website (click here for Abounding Grace Radio's website).

One key question is what constitutes a rejection of the Gospel? Is it a rejection of Jesus as God and how through faith God saves us from God's deserved wrath for our sins or is it a rejection of a Christianity's past privileged place in society expressed in law and culture? 

Another important question is how should we try to change things in our nation in the light of the 1st Amendment? Does seeking a privileged place for Christianity in the state and society lead to violating that Amendment?

Another important question is whether those in privileged groups can recognize problems and hardships that other experience. After all, being privileged can blinds one from seeing the sufferings of those who are not privileged especially those whose suffering is caused by the privileged place one's own group has in society. This is most evident in the wholesale rejection of BLM and CRT. It is most evident in the reaction against the Obergefell decision as well as the recent court decision that applies Civil Rights laws to discrimination against the LGBT community. It is most evident in our ignorance of the plight of Native-Americans. It is most evident in any opposition to increasing the minimum wage or to giving more workplace power to workers.

So it will be interesting to see if Godfrey addresses the above issues in answering the questions he posed in his presentation

Comments Which Conservatives Block from Their Blogs For May 8, 2019

May 4

To Joe Carter and his blogpost criticizing Millennials for preferring to live in a Socialist or Communist nation despite the history of certain nations. This appeared in the Acton blog.

2 points should be made here. Just as Millennials might prefer to live in a Socialist or even Communist nation because they don't know what one is from experience, neither do conservative critics of Marxism, Socialism, and Communism. That fact that the majority of Millennials prefer a kind a nation in which they have never lived to a Capitalist nation in which they live is very telling. That preference is, in and of itself, a huge indictment on Capitalism and a significant indicator that Capitalism has failed them. And the details of their disillusionment with Capitalism should be looked into.

But Conservative apologists would rather divert everyone's attention to their view of Marxism, Socialism, and Communism--which many, not all, Conservatives tend to blend together in the forms of the Soviet Union, Red China, Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela. They opportunistically scapegoat Marx for the totalitarianism of those states. But what they don't mention are the conditions and type of leaders who were replaced by the "Communists." And they neglect the backgrounds and contexts of those Marxist states with good reason. In the cases of the Soviet Union and Cuba, the "Communist" overthrew the totalitarian and corrupt governments. The Batista government in Cuba was supported by the US. In the case of China and North Korea, both were emerging from Japanese totalitarian rule. China broke away from Japan both in the 1920s and the end of WW II while North Korea broke away at the end of WW II.
The history of Venezuela was different in that the Socialist leader was elected to power. However, 2 factors should be considered here. First, Chavez never followed Marx in terms of redistributing power to the proletariat. Instead, like Lenin did when he hijacked the Russian Revolution, Chavez consolidated power. Here Rosa Luxemburg's criticism of Lenin's Bourgeoisie dictatorship is more condemnatory of Chavez because Chavez didn't have a subsequent Civil War to fight. Though Chavez called himself a 'socialist,' by not empowering the proletariat, he broke away from the fundamental tenet of Marxism. In addition, though some of Venezuela's economic problems could possibly be due to US intervention, much of its economic problems stem from following the failed history of the past: basing the economy on oil. While prices rise, that seems like a good idea, but when prices drop, the economy collapses. That occurred during the late 1980s and into the 1990s before socialism, and that also occurred under Chavez.

What conservatives conveniently forget are those nations that through democracy started to lean left only to end up in dictatorships. Examples of those nations include Iran ('53), Guatemala ('54), Greece ('67), and Chilé ('73). Why these examples are conveniently forgotten is because in each of those cases, the US had a significant hand in overthrowing the governments of those nations and replacing them with dictatorships. Other examples could have also been mentioned.

We should note that history shows that no one political-economic system guarantees eternal success and prosperity. But what we can look at is the location of power in a given political system. And one criteria by which we should fairly apply to all governments and political systems is to measure the degree to which a government is under elite-centered control or democratic control. Here, we cannot judge any nation simply by the label given to its political system. For elite-centered control governments can exist in nations that actually have "fair" elections in that people are freely voting for the candidates of their choice. Why? Because even here in the US, our system has now been fairly recategorized by some as an oligarchy (see https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 and https://theintercept.com/2015/07/30/jimmy-carter-u-s-oligarchy-unlimited-political-bribery/ ). And the reason why its status has changed is because power is not defined by the political office one holds, but by the degree of influence one has. And it has become measurably clear that those with the most wealth have the greatest political power in our nation. And that is despite, or perhaps because of, our Capitalist economic system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 5

To Bradley Birzer and his blogpost on democracy. In that article he talked about the need to reduce, but not eliminate democracy in a given nation. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

Why is it that the negative comments about democracy were not vetted here. Certainly the founding fathers opposed democracy. But why? Was it not because many of them replaced British leaders as the new elites of America? Was it not because the people were protesting and even tried a rebellion that threatened the place of these new elites and thus prompted the writing of The Constitution? And did not the founding fathers associate those populist ideas that challenged their position in society with democracy but did so in a derogatory fashion. And don't we see a significant arrogance by those who claimed that the general population did not want virtue and thus implying that the new elites had a monopoly on virtue?

Those above spoke against democracy not necessarily because they knew what it would become. They spoke against democracy our of self-interest and in opposition to popular ideas that could have alleviated some of the suffering of the people, ideas that would have cost the new elites some wealth and position.

Authoritarians don't like democracy. Neither do tribalists. Why? Perhaps it is because democracy is the rule of the people, it is the rule of all the people, not just the majority. Democracy, when looked at as being more than just the sum of certain political processes, can actually be a state of being. It is a state of being, as Jefferson envisioned it, where the nation belongs equally to all its citizens. Democracy is a state of being where society is shared equally by all. When, if ever, we reach democracy as a state of being, we will have greatly reduced, if not eliminated rule by either a few elites or by an ethnic group that assumes its own superiority.

We should note that like any other form of government, democracy does not produce some form of utopia. No political or economic system can do that. But what democracy as a state of being does do is that it prevents the centralization of power whether the centralization of that power be located either in the public or private sectors. And those who are concerned about the rise of tyranny should favor democracy over any other form of government.

Are Today's Leaders The Solution Or The Problem

Our country has a new enemy now: ISIS. Certainly this group is on friendly terms with evil as it passionately embraces brutality. And we are being told that this group poses an immediate threat to our country and thus what is required from our elected officials is leadership.

But the dangers posed by ISIS is not the only situation that has us looking for leadership from our elected officials. We have internal problems that cause us to to do the same. And we have called our own nation the leader of the free world. And such a leader needs its own leader. So when we go to elect a new President in 2016, we will be seeking a new leader, a leader's leader.

Now the opposite of the above leadership mentality was the working ethic of Occupy Wall Street (OWS). That ethic was a paradox resulting from putting in conjunction the statement, 'we are all leaders,' with statement, 'we have no leaders.' And though OWS was not as pure in working this paradox as it claimed, it provided significant steps in a different direction. The opposite of relying on leaders is leading oneself or being self-governed. And this self-leadership isn't a call to a radical libertarianism; rather, it is a call to group self-governance.

So the greatest question each nation in the world faces today is: Will we continue with the status quo of relying on leaders who are chosen based on the solutions they propose and the promises they pledge to keep, or will we discontinue our laissez-faire relationship with government--a relationship exhibited in the voting ethic of trying to elect a government we can ignore until the next election-- by looking to lead ourselves.

Of course the next question becomes, how can we lead ourselves while voting for elected officials? To become self-governed, wouldn't we have to completely eliminate our representative form of government? This blog will answer the latter question later. First we need to take a look at the relationship between being free and having leaders.

It's odd that not many Americans have questioned America's claim to be the leader of the Free World. Not many of us have asked the two important questions that would cause us to examine this rather self-flattering claim we make. The two question not being asked are:

1. How can those who are under the leadership of someone else be free?
2. Why do those who are free need to be led?

See, we Americans don't feel infringed on by America's "leadership" in the world. That is because we are the ones in charge--or to be more precise, the government we elect is the group giving the orders. But the question here becomes: How do the people from the different countries in the "Free World" perceive our leadership. For if they feel infringed on or if they have become passive and wait for orders to follow, they are no longer free. And if America attempts to use coercion to get other countries to fall in line, then those other countries that submit are not free

The second question basically infers the same concept but from a different perspective. If I, or whatever group I am in, am free, then why do I need a leader telling me what to do? We are told that if we follow orders, we have a better chance at becoming prosperous and being secure. So we should note here that prosperity and security are the carrots being dangled for why I or my group should follow the dictates of a leader. But still how can I be free if I need to be led?

By now, we should see that there is a certain inconsistency with being led and being free. Being led means I follow someone else's dictates. But if I am following someone else's dictates, how can I be free? Perhaps we should admit to ourselves here that, all too often, we give up self-governance for the promise of acquiring and keeping a greater prosperity. To put all of this in Biblical terms, we are choosing the love of money as our first love and will be willing to ride in on the coattails of our leaders regardless of the methods they use to provide prosperity.

But what about our representative form of government? Might we ask whether we can be free and self-governing while electing representatives who will make decisions in our place? We could ask that but we are not allowed to. But those who wish to be self-governed  should take a different approach to voting than what is traditionally taken by those loyal to the Two-Party system. 

How should our approach to voting be different? Instead of voting for those who believe that part of being a leader is pretending to know how to solve our problems and thus make promises, we should vote for those candidates whose highest priority and greatest attribute is to listen to us. And by listening to us, I don't mean that they will merely spend time listening to our problems. Rather, we should vote for the candidates who take our suggestions for solving problems and work to implement them. That is we should vote for those candidates who desire to find out what we think should be done. So instead of voting for the best or strongest authoritarian commander, we should be voting for the best listener who is skilled at implementing what we tell him/her to do. As a result, our political campaigns should run all year round and consist of our elected officials seeking our views rather than trying to impress us with the "strength" of their convictions and "wisdom" of their proposals. For should we note that the "strength" and "wisdom"  associated with any candidate is partly due to marketing and is often a manufactured mirage to win elections.

And outside the border of our country, those countries that follow the leadership of a single country are subject to the same fate as the people who allow a national leader to emerge and tell them what to do. Instead, decisions as to how to respond to an international crisis should be made jointly and by consensus rather than by the dictates of a single person or even nation.

Thus, we return to the need for leadership in our new crisis. We are being threatened by ISIS. So how should our elected officials respond? The immediate call is for our officials, our President in particular, to reassure us by offering "strong" leadership. The stronger the leadership, the more secure we can feel in the face of danger. But what is strong leadership other than mastery of the imperative? And if our President is master of the imperative, how can any person or country supporting him be considered free? 

And so now we return to the original comparison made in this blogpost. We can choose to continue with the status quo and look to vote for the next leader who pretends to have a handle on all domestic and foreign problems but who is destined to disappoint us, or we can adopt the philosophy of, though not the implementation adopted by, Occupy Wall Street. Remember that the status quo is leader oriented where we are told to hitch our wagon to the star who will promises to lead the way. The Occupy Wall Street approach, on the other hand, calls on us to participate more and more so that eventually we are leading ourselves, we are exercising self-governance. The former requires little attention and participation on our part while the latter demands great attention but gives us control.

The current disapproval rates of government tell us that neither major political party can deliver the leaders who can actually get the job done though they always seem to be able to rob us of the ability to govern ourselves. The result is that we either give up on voting or be continually fooled into voting for the next set of inept leaders. So isn't it time that we change how we select our elected officials? Isn't it time that we demand that our political candidates spend more time listening to us than we spend listening to them?