Saturday, October 13, 2012
Little Billy wanted $100 badly and prayed for two weeks but nothing happened.
Then he decided to write God a letter requesting the $100. When the postal authorities received the letter addressed to God, USA, they decided to send it to President Bush.
The President was so impressed, touched, and amused that he instructed his secretary to send Billy a $5.00 bill.
President Bush thought this would appear to be a lot of money to a little boy.
Billy was delighted with the $5.00 and sat down to write a thank you note to God, which read:
Thank you very much for sending the money, however, I noticed that for some reason you had to send it through Washington D.C. and, as usual, those crooks deducted $95.00.
Friday, October 12, 2012
I want to share an interesting comparison of the Presidential Campaign and the Book of Judges by a retired Bishop of the Episcopal Church...
A major debate in this year’s presidential election eliciting great emotion and spirited rhetoric relates to “the size and role of the federal government.” A study of American history reveals that this theme has been part of every campaign since our nation’s founding in 1776. It has become a once every four-year ritual, complete with pious clichés that are constantly repeated. It appears, interestingly, to matter very little which party gets elected, since the size of government seems not to change from election to election. Indeed, studies indicate that the size of the federal government and the amount of the federal debt tend to grow more rapidly under the Republicans, the presumed “anti-big government” party, than they do under the Democrats, the presumed “pro-big government” party. For example, the size of the federal government and the federal debt expanded under Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush and contracted under Democratic President Bill Clinton. It expanded again under Republican President George W. Bush until it ended in economic collapse. It has been the role of Democratic President Barack Obama to begin the slow walk back to fiscal balance. A major issue in this campaign is whether or not he has done that task adequately.
The facts of history simply do not uphold the political mantras that the Republicans are for small government and the Democrats are for big government. If this nation was really offered “a stark choice” in every election, as both parties always claim, then why does nothing happen to the size of government no matter who wins? Something is clearly going on in our electoral process that is apparently not rational, something we do not see or do not want to see. From where then does this false debate arise? The answer to this question became clear to me recently and it occurred in an unexpected place.
During the year, I teach an adult class at my wonderful church, St. Peter’s, in Morristown, New Jersey, a congregation served by two incredibly gifted clergy. My subject matter for this year’s class is “The Rise of the Prophetic Movement in Israel,” covering 16 books in the Bible, from Isaiah to Malachi. To place the prophets into the story of the Hebrew people I introduced the class briefly to the history of Israel after the Exodus from Egypt, but before the Hebrew people moved to establish the monarchy of King David. That was a time of local government, tribal chieftains and a deep suspicion of all non-local forms of political power. All of this is reflected in the book of Judges, filled as it is with stories of tribal heroes like Deborah, Jael, Jepthah, Ehud, Gideon and Samson. As I read Judges in preparation for this class, I began to understand the nostalgic roots of my own country and indeed the way all nations have come into being. Nation states with clearly defined federal governments are a relatively recent human phenomenon. Italy and Germany did not become unified until the 19th century. In the Middle Ages, Europe was a continent of local tribes like the Goths, the Franks, the Huns, the Saxons and the Visigoths, who roamed the land with shifting boundaries, cut off from other tribes only by rivers or mountains. I look at Afghanistan today and I see a picture of pre-modern Europe. President Karzai is said to be the elected head of that nation, but the effective power outside the city of Kabul is held by local chieftains. I look at our closest ally, now called the “United Kingdom,” but it still reflects the ancient dividing lines that separated the English, the Welsh, the Scots, the Cornish and the Northumbrians just to name a few of that nation’s tribal parts.
I look at my own nation, born in a revolutionary war in 1776, but unwilling to adopt a federal Constitution until 1789. No central government in history appears to have been born out of choice, but rather out of some survival necessity. There is in the hearts of human beings an almost universal fear of any external power that cannot be controlled or tempered by local desires. During the period of the Judges the Hebrew people were forced to choose a king only because the alternative was for the individual tribes to be picked off and conquered by the Moabites, the Edomites or the Philistines. Samuel, the last of the judges, warned the people about the abuses of federal power. He actually sounds like a contemporary politician. The central government (the king), he said, will draft your sons into its armies to fight its wars; it will tell you what you can plant on your farms, and it will tax you for the support of the government. When Samuel, bowing to pressure, finally named a king, he chose Saul, a member of the small and non-threatening tribe of Benjamin, who suffered from melancholia and was ultimately too weak to solidify his throne. I suspect that was a deliberate choice by Samuel. When Saul was killed in battle, his military captain, David, a powerful personality from the dominant tribe of Judah, moved immediately into the leadership vacuum and created a unified nation. King David did not end the yearning for local rule, but he and his son, Solomon, did suppress it for 80 years, after which a successful civil war localized the Hebrew people once again until their yearning for survival reestablished itself in 1948 in the modern-day state of Israel.
In America, something quite similar occurred. This nation went from a successful revolutionary war against being ruled from London into a confederacy of thirteen independent colonies each with a ruling governor and a local legislature. Only through a long and difficult political debate that was focused in a series of publications known as the “Federalist Papers,” was the compelling case made for the creation of a federal union. These “Papers” were produced anonymously, but we now know they were written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay. They made the familiar case that creating a united country was the only alternative to having the colonies picked off one at a time by the European powers, England, France and Spain. A Federal Union was a necessity for survival, but it was not something the people welcomed. Still fearful of federal power, the framers of our national constitution wrote protections into that document for the rights of the states. That is why we have today a balance of power between the House of Representatives and the Senate and why we elect a president through the votes of the states in an electoral college and not by the direct votes of the people. Deep in the human psyche, there is still the memory and the fear of having our freedom oppressed by some power. It was Egypt for the Hebrews, King George III for the Americans and “federal power” for many today.
The negativity expressed in every national election against the federal government is rooted in this nostalgia, but the reason curbs on federal power will never be successfully implemented is that the America of today could not be governed by the local world view of our romantic past. So we will talk about it in every election, but we will never really do anything about it. Look at the contrasts between the America of 1776 and the America of today. In 1776, this country had less than 3,000,000 people. today we have 350,000,000. In 1776 people grew most of the food they ate on their own land or they killed it in the hunt with their own guns. Today, most of our citizens are separated from the farm by incredible distances, both physically and emotionally. A massive and non-personal food industry, made up of giant corporate farms, meat packing companies, automated chicken farms, canneries, fisheries and national grocery store chains are required to feed this population. None of these institutions today can be managed or have their quality and safety guaranteed locally. In 1776, people traveled by horse and buggy and seldom ventured more than 25 miles from their homes. Today, we are a nation of highways, gas stations, repair shops, auto dealers, rail lines and bus stations, and airports and air travel, none of which can be organized or governed locally. In 1776, communications were quite primitive. All newspapers were local, there were no telephones, radio stations, television channels or Internet providers. None of those modern means of communication can be organized or controlled locally. In 1776 in most homes and public buildings there was no running water, no electricity, no central heating and no garbage collection. Community needs were served rather with individual wells, outhouses, wood burning fireplaces and local garbage dumps. None of the things that we depend on so totally today like water departments, gas and oil companies, electricity providers and waste managements companies could now be organized or controlled locally. In 1776, churches, private charities and people who personally knew the poor took care of those who were in need. The care for the elderly was by and large a family responsibility. There were no hospitals or drug companies. There was no Social Security, Medicare or standardized medical procedures. All of those had to be created, maintained and governed for our well-being outside the local community.
Nostalgia for local rule remains, stories of the good old days abound, but no one will finally return to that era or to those practices because none of them would work in our complex interdependent world. So in our political campaigning, we will continue to run against “big government,” but no matter who gets elected, no clock can ever turn back to the days of local rule and states rights so only the talk will go on.
The reason one knows that this political debate is not real, is regularly demonstrated in that the political party most dedicated to small government is also the same party that wants the government to control the most intimate human decisions in regard to reproduction and family planning. They want no federal control in their lives except for the federal imposition of their own moral code. It does not compute. I did not understand why, however, until I began to read the book of Judges. It is amazing how powerful biblical insights can emerge once one stops pretending that the books of the Bible are the literal words of God and read them for the wisdom they impart.
~John Shelby Spong
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
This joke came across my email:
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.
She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.
One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.
Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"
She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."
Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."
The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the Republican party."
My response: And that's the fallacy of the Republican Party! It assumes that those who have wealth are working harder than the single mother who juggles an 8 to 5 job and kids in school, the dishwasher at the restaurant where you dine, and the construction worker who works in the hot sun for 8 hours to build the roads your goods travel on or the building your factory is in. You did not earn your wealth all by yourself! The community helped you.. To assume that you did it all yourself is consummate arrogance ..... and that is what bugs me about the Republican party! They are so narcissistic and selfish and convinced that any means is justified by the end no matter who is hurt! The wealthy should give MORE back to the community that fostered their wealth. Anything less is morally corrupt!
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Your choice now is pretty clear. You can either vote for the guy who got rid of bin Laden or vote for the guy who wants to get rid of Big Bird.
Get An Email Alert Each Time SUNSHINE65 Posts