Hosanna

The following is an excerpt from a sermon by Russ Ramsey. To hear the context, you can download the free podcast called "The Rabbit Room Podcast." I transcribed this from Episode 12, so any typos or grammatical mistakes are mine. I pick up around the 24:08 mark, where Mr. Ramsey is discussing Luke 19:28-44, particularly verse 38.

--begin transcription
"Blessed is the King!" - those are strong words in the ears of Caesar. And everyone knows they mean Jesus. Some of the Pharisees who are present, they go up to Jesus, and they say, "Hey! Stop this! Make them shhhh! Because You know what could happen if this gets back to somebody in the higher ups."

...

See, Israel had struck a compromise with Rome and it is insidious when you look at it. The compromise was this: they (Israel) could continue their worship practices so long as they obeyed Roman rule, paid their taxes and kept the peace. But any hint of insurgency was going to be dealt with, make no mistake, swiftly and without mercy. And this, for Rome, was just brilliant. Because, think of it, Rome had persuaded Israel that their right to worship the God that their national identity was built upon was a privilege that was granted to them by Caesar. That is just politically brilliant. If you want to be an oppressor, and you don't want to constantly have to be bullying people to keep them in line, and their national identity is built upon their worship of one God in stead of many, let them. But make sure that they understand that you can take that privilege away in a heartbeat. And then they will worship with the knowledge that their privilege of worship is granted to them by Caesar. What this does, is it takes the religious leaders and it divides their loyalty between the God of their Bible and the ruler of their occupying force.
--end transcription

There is much more that Mr. Ramsey has to say, but this knocked me down with its available application to today's American Christians.
It is a brilliant political plot, indeed, to make sure that all religious Americans are constantly reminded that their religious freedom hinges on America's existence and domination. With an unspoken hint of "the ends justify the means," it's a quick jump to a holy war.
I do believe that God has blessed America. I balk at attempting to assign a reason for that blessing (or a reason for that blessing's apparent waning).
If America ends (and I have NO idea what that means), I will still be able to praise my Lord and Savior: Jesus, the Christ. Nor will I be beyond the reach of His Love.

Come, Lord Jesus.

The difference between Bush and Obama

Experience and education breed cynicism. In Bush, we perceived a man who displayed few mannerisms which are associated with the elite and educated. For this he was chided. In Obama, we perceive a man who displays many mannerisms which are associated withe the elite and educated. For this he is chided. At similar points in their respective presidential campaigns, they both have made calls for Americans and particularly politicians to embrace virtue and throw off partisan politics. Certainly both men are very politically aware, but I don't believe that sermon was insincere by either. I believe both truly want(ed) to embrace a unified, single-minded, virtuous goal for the country. The difference comes from the context in which that impetus is found. One expects naiveté from the grammatically incorrect and the simple-minded, so when you hear them speak of virtue, it is easily dismissed. One expects cynicism from the educated and the elite, so when you hear them speak of virtue, it garners more attention. The fact that we are being called to virtue by one who is, assumedly, well-versed and wise gives his words a different hue (no pun intended).
Perhaps with experience, he will shrink from his assertion: "...we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals... Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake." So far, it seems he has not. We'll see how long that lasts.

Church and Politics

It's an interesting relationship. Personally, I'd prefer not to have unsolicited advice on my political choices from my church. That said, it's difficult to avoid.

I received an email from a fellow member of my church that was attempting to recruit volunteers for a McCain event in conjunction with the debate that will be here in Nashville next month. It was sent to a large mailing list whose purpose is to easily reach all the members of the "Singles Group" of my church. This bothered me and I attempted to passive-aggressively let her know that. My response to her (not to the list): "I would be interested in volunteering for a Barack Obama event. Could you send out information for that?"
Either she didn't receive the message I intended or simply chose to keep everything on the high road: "unfortunately I don't have that info - but I do encourage you to get involved!!"
Now, I can become what made me angry in the first place and send out a message to elicit Obama supporters. Or I just let her use the church's email list to garner political support for a presidential candidate. I will most likely choose the latter, but it still bugs me.
I know that Tennessee is pretty much in the bag for McCain - but that's not really the point. Am I getting hot-headed over nothing? Probably. Please tell me I'm not, though.

Bail Out

So.
It appears that the American Experiment isn't working. At least not the economic side of things. I am by no means an economist, but I can see the merit of trying out this experiment of free-market capitalism. The problem is that we aren't really trying that. Politics and mafia-movie-style pressure from corporations make us just as susceptible to the downfalls of any other economic system. When we venture from pure capitalism, we ruin the experiment. Oh well, I think Stephen Colbert put it very aptly...



"Screw or be screwed" - it's the Darwinism of economics. If I screw up, I'll just put the screws to the screwballs in charge, so I can screw more people later.

SCREW IT!

Hope

I'm copying this post from my facebook Notes. It originally appeared on Jan 4, 2008...

I've had politics placed on my mind by those crazy Iowans. Huckabee and Obama. I guess those are the two that were expected to win, but I'm actually kind of hopeful about those two guys. I like McCain too, but let's stick to the early winners, for now. I went and bought books today by both of these guys ("The Audacity of Hope" by Obama and "From Hope to Higher Ground" by Huckabee). It doesn't take a scholar to notice a common thread, at least in the titles. As I said, they both inspire hopefulness. I've gone back and watched both of these guys' interviews on the Daily Show (please end the strike soon!!!). Huckabee from nearly a year ago and Obama from August of '07. I also listened to an archived episode of my favorite radio show Wait Wait Don't Tell Me (the npr news quiz). They both seem like what I would hope to be were I to be elected to a similar political position. That is, they're seemingly unassuming, sincere, quick on their feet, witty, humble and just seem to "get it." They have a hope for the institution of politics that, in his prolog (that's all I've read so far), Obama says can be seen as naïvity. Maybe they've just hit on what resonates with me, but I would MUCH prefer a naïve candidate to a seasoned (read, "calloused") political veteran.

As in 2000, I believe the country is fractured and needs to be united. The Gore/Bush election was horrible for this country and only fractured us further. I remember when Jeb was counting and re-counting, both candidates admitted that the first issue they'd need to address in their presidency would be a unification effort. I voted for W, but I have been sorely disappointed in any efforts he has made to unify this country. His stubbornness and hubris have done what I thought impossible: driven the right and left even further apart. I think Huckabee and Edwards have both seen this as a major issue that people care about. The former caring more about the "vertical" divide rather than the "horizontal." Edwards's "Two Americas" is a similar concept, I believe. Obama has also addressed this issue, talking about how the VAST majority of Americans are NOT extremely left-winged or right-winged. Most people fall in the middle - so, that viewpoint should be represented. It's encouraging that at least this issue is being discussed by those who want to be the future leaders because I hope for a more United America.

It's exciting right now because I'm entering a politican's target demographic. I have to think they don't aim for the 18-year-olds because statistically, an 18-year-old doesn't vote. But perhaps a 28-year-old is more likely. A major theme of my generation so far is skepticism. Perhaps that's a theme to any youthful generation - I don't know - but it's certainly prevalent in mine. Really the only way to get a skeptic's vote is to acknowlegde, affirm and join in on the skepticism. Once you've done that, you've put yourself on their side, so you're good to go.

Anyways, I guess I just wanted to say that I am hopeful for the immediate future of American political discourse.

One other note: when Jon Stewart asked Obama to comment on the Republican candidates (in August - before Huckabee was a viable, or very well-known, candidate), Obama mentioned ONLY Huckabee by name, calling him "sincere and decent."

A good sign-off:
"Here's to staying above the fray and not having the red/blue divide anymore." - Jon Stewart to Obama


...okay that was the post. Here's the game for today: name the actor (or voice) for the following characters:

Steven Urkel
Hallie Parker
Phoebe Buffay
Austin Powers
George Darling


Once you've done that, tell me what these five have in common (besides having 6 letters in the character's first name).