Thoughts, poems, and ponderings.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary gives this definition for "colloquy":
1 : conversation, dialogue
2 : a high-level serious discussion : conference
First I would have to say that it is interesting that this comes from an openly liberal or "leftist" site. I would not expect it to be a perfectly unbiased video. As for the people on the video, there are always going to be people on each side of the of the political spectrum that not only are not well informed but are neither educated nor eloquent. It is not too surprising that people tend to lump socialism, communism, & fascism together. In truth socialism & communism have common roots and communists often see socialism as a "stepping stone" to communism. Communism & fascism are both forms of authoritative rule. There are certainly similarities that shouldn't be dismissed. Not to mention that these systems have been tried in the past and failed miserably. None of these should begin to be looked upon as acceptable in a democracy - not even the seemingly benign socialism. While socialism is actually an economic system and not a political system per se, of necessity, it must be implemented politically to have much of an impact. This is why biblically based Christian charity is preferable. It is an exercise of free will based on obedience to Christ in caring for the sick, the poor & the orphans rather than being collectively forced by government. In truth, this forced taking of money to care for others seems to be what is going on with the current healthcare issue and I believe what has encouraged the march on Washington D.C. We have several instances of government run healthcare presently - medicare, medicaid, the VA. None of them are ran in an economically sound manner. Do we really want more of that? Do I need to remind anyone of the pitfalls of social security and welfare?I feel certain that there were probably many people at this event who could have stated the conservative ideals in a much more favorable manner and I would not expect a "leftist" group to hunt them out. Does all of this mean that these more "every day" folks are wrong? No, I could easily see some of my own family & friends speaking in a likewise confused & bumbling manner. Not everyone lives a life where they are easily able to "cross swords" with the educational elite, yet that does not keep them from having a deep God-given sense of right & wrong. It is perhaps a form of elite snobbery to suggest otherwise. While I personally like to keep up as much as possible on the political realm, I come from a small town background where this is typically not true. BUT the people there are good hearted with an amazing, inate sense of morality, goodness, & justice. If I had to choose who was more likely to be on the "right" side of things, I would bet my money on these "common folk" any day. Angie Carter
Angie, if I may, I would like to respond as both a liberal and a conservative Christian. First, regardless of the source, the media site did not place those words in the mouths of the protesters. While regard FoxNews as little more than the Enquirer on TV, when they speak the truth, it is still truth. Yes, there will be people on both sides who are misinformed, yet we seemingly find a lot of violent rhetoric from the Right - more so than we ever did from the Left during Bush's years - some even, who wear the name of Christ, calling for the death of the President. Where are the outcries from the Right on this? You are wrong on Socialism, Communism, and Fascism. While Socialism and Communism are both economic systems, Fascism is not. You must separate Leninism from what Karl Marx actually wrote and urged as a practice. Socialism and Communism is not about government control, unlike Fascism. Governmental Communism is generally the result of liberal policies while Fascism is the result of conservative policies, teaching us that the extremes on both sides are dangerous. Plain and simple. I would find it difficult to imagine that any notion of a drop off in monetary donations to Christian charities caused the 70,000 people to march on Washington. I have watched various films of the protests and have yet to see a sign reading Give to the Salvation Army/Local Church/Charity, not the government. I think you and I would agree that the signs carried were of a much more controversial nature. Further, we live in a society/world which is first, predominantly not Christian and second, what Christian services remain could not afford to take care of the poor, sick, and dying. No church could keep the doors open if it depended upon congregational support and then used that support to replace the government run welfare/healthcare. Simply because they have not been run economically - and I would agree - does not mean they are an inherently bad thing. I note the USPS and the Military, both run contrary to the economy. Further, simply because a group is on the Left, or is liberal, does not mean that it is a 'Leftist' group in the vein of Communism. And while I do not want to step on anyone's toes, I feel that since I am here, I might as well as say it. What Kathy posts was not political commentary on the 'right or wrongness' of either government run health care or protesting the President. Instead, it was a social commentary on the nature of some of the protesters. Even FoxNews has a difficult time in coming up with peaceful protestors. Further, if there are indeed good people who are protesting - and yes, I believe that there are some who may not understand the issues correctly, driven by fear, or just do not believe in the issues - then where are their voices in shouting down these protesters with signs of 'Unarmed This Time'? Or the 'Bury Obamacare...' signs?And, where then were those protesters under the previous administration when spending was going like crazy? Finally, let me say that the grossest injustice we can do is to assume completely one side is evil because they do not agree with us, and unequivocally defend your side making excuses. And beyond that, it worries me a great deal to see the hate and rancor coming from so many of these protestors - using fear, hatred, and religious rhetoric to influence the debate. This has nothing to do with 'liberal educational elite' but the (in)ability to educate yourself on the issues. I will put my trust in people who know what is going on, Angie, as the Founding Fathers expected. They expected an educated government (hence the Senate, elected by the State Legislators or Governors) and balanced by the small town people (hence the House, elected from the people, by people).
Mr. Watts,You remind me so much of a very dear old friend who has "gone home", as my pastor would say. I miss my discussions with him. We rarely agreed on anything except our love of Christ and each other. One of the things I do agree with you about is that Kathy's post was not a political commentary but more of a social commentary of the nature of some of the protestors. I, perhaps wrongly, was afraid that some might take it the other way and so posted my comments. However, since you chose to "correct" some of my statements perhaps I should point out where you were remiss in some of those corrections. First, I never intended to go into a lengthy discussion of socialism, communism, & fascism. We could discuss the minutia forever! I wouldn't go so far as to say what I wrote was "wrong" since I did indicate that socialism is an economic system. I do realize that communism is also an economic system but YOU failed to mention that it IS also a political system. It is one that seeks to manage both the economy & society. Yes Leninism & what Karl Marx wrote should be separated, however communism in the Marxist sense has never been (and will probably never be)implemented. Even if it were there must needs be an organization (dare I call it a GOVERNMENT) that must see that the decisions are enforced. While we (or Marx, to be more precise) is speaking about collective rule of the proletariat, ANY one party rule where there is no outlet for differences is by default authoritarian. Certainly Leninism resulted in authoritarian rule and government control, just like fascism. While they stem from polar idealogies the result is still the same. Again, I agree with you, "extremes on both sides are dangerous", and I NEVER implied otherwise. I also NEVER indicated that I thought the "notion of the drop off in monetary donations to Christian charities caused the 70,000 people to march on Washington". You certainly pulled that one out of thin air. What I was saying without trying to be too wordy was that INDIVIDUALS should take care of INDIVIDUALS. Yet, again, I do have to admit that you are right. We are no longer a predominantly Christian society. However, since I am a Christian I tend to think and speak in that light. So if I can try to distance myself from that standpoint, I would still say that it is preferable to have less government intervention & more individual acts of charity. I am certain that we differ on that preference.Finally, I would also suggest that you are amazingly naive to think that there is more "violent rhetoric from the Right - more so than we ever did from the Left during the Bush years". Just because it was not as widely reported in the media, does not mean the "violent rhetoric" was not there. If you care to look, below is only one place that you can check on this for yourself. http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621I am absolutely NOT saying that either side is right when they are disrespectful or use inappropriate speech, I AM saying that the "hate and rancor" is on both sides and you are somewhat oblivious in indicating that it primarily comes from one side rather than the other.With all that said, I will say I have enjoyed this debate and while I mostly disagree with your conclusions, I appreciate the discourse and will agree to disagree with you.BTW, Kathy, I know this is not exactly your kind of conversation. Sorry about that! I do miss Andrew!Angie
Angie, there is no need to be so formal. If we are to be brothers and sisters, I would encourage then a less formal approach. While, this may not be the purpose of this blog, I feel that for posterity sake, I must attempt to offer a correction of your errors. First, about the hate and rancorcoming from the right, I submit as evidence that yes, while the Left is not guiltless, we have seen a major uptick in the actions, or threat of actions, against President Obama - 400% more so than that of the previous administration. I believe that we must put things in perspective. Further, how many times were protesters at President Bush's speech removed from the premises, or arrested, and yet, we have people showing up with assault weapons, and they are heralded as heroes - and they show up the day after their pastor called for the death of the President. As a student of political science, I would love to discuss the details of the social, communism, and the perversion of Lenin and Mao. Communism was not designed for a political system, and could work very well in a democracy - not the Republic which we have, but an absolute democracy. Communism, capitalism, and Socialism, all defined after the Industrial Revolution, and after the Constitution of these united States, are economic systems. The Constitution of the United States is an economic document, as any government generally is. To saw that Communism is a political system is rather false, and misunderstanding of the system itself - yet, it, like capitalism, socialism, feudalism, etc... does required a government in place. If you read the constitution of the the U.S.S.R., you will note, that along with Marx, it was not mean as a one part rule - but more like what the Founding Fathers here wanted - a system of coalitions representing the various issues of the people. In practice, as with the system of the United States, is hardly ever as intended. I would owe this to the depravity of the human heart and mind more than anything else. Communism, like capitalism, is a perfect system, but we are indeed but mere mortals, prone to corrupt what we can. When you said In truth, this forced taking of money to care for others seems to be what is going on with the current healthcare issue and I believe what has encouraged the march on Washington D.C., I could only assume that you meant that because of the lack of ability to donate to Christian charities, this drove people to march. I would hardly call this thin air; yet, if I have misunderstood your position here, then I regret it. Further, what bothers me in the above video is the idolizing of Glenn Beck, who recently confused slavery and immigration, praising the founding fathers on the section in the Constitution which required 10$ for 'immigrants.' The 'liberal educational elite' easily remember that the this was not about immigration, but about slavery. Is this the quality exegesis of the Constitution which the Tea Party protesters follower? Yes, as a matter of fact it is, and this is why we are worried.
Post a Comment