For those of you who didn't know, I am an Obama Supporter. I am frequently asked why? I try to explain my opinions the best I can, but my brother Josh is a lot better with words than I am and he explained beautifully exactly how I feel...so here it is:
To all those who have rhetorically asked supporters of Barak Obama to name his accomplishments, I can name one. Fortunately, it is the only one that matters. He has inspired the American People. Some may not consider this an accomplishment. They want to see accomplishments in economics, foreign policy, education, immigration reform, or national security. Those are all important; however, they are not job responsibilities of the president. The president has an entire cabinet of secretaries and directors to create policies, implement strategies, and manage every other facet of the executive branch, but he himself is not a manager. He is a leader.
Managers work with projects. Leaders work with people. Managers worry about the mission of an organization. Leaders provide the vision. Managers must plan, organize, and control. Leaders must communicate the vision clearly, inspire others to embrace it, and motivate them to work together to make it real.
The Civilization Cycle teaches us that a nation develops when people find common goals and collapses when apathy abounds. We are on the bad end of that cycle, and we must find a shared vision to survive. Only one candidate has shattered apathy and imbued citizens with a new sense of national identity, an identity that reaches across international borders and party lines and grants respect to all people.
Barack Obama has inspired vastly diverse people to put aside their differences and share a common goal. That goal is to end our Civil Cold War and open a dialogue of cooperation and mutual respect in an effort to find ways that we the people, with our own competencies and resources, can help ourselves. We don’t need some accomplished manager to micromanage our lives. We are the change we have been waiting for. That is his message. Millions have been inspired by Obama to ask again not what their country can do for them, but what they can do for their country.
We needn’t look at his accomplishments, but at our own because we will be doing the work; we will be working together; we are one nation; we are one people; we are millions of voices calling for change. He alone has inspired us when all others have failed. He alone has shared with us the vision of our future that gives us real hope. That is his accomplishment. In Washington, it isn’t much; but in America, it’s everything!
10 months ago
Posts
14 comments:
Hitler was inspirational and a man with a vision but how did that work out for Germany (or the Jews)? I am not saying that Obama is Hitler but I also don't believe that his vision is to "find ways that we the people, with our own competencies and resources, can help ourselves". Socialized health care and redistribution of wealth is the exact opposite of "we the people helping ourselves". It is the government deciding who should be the helper and who should be the helpee. Obama is certainly inspirational to some (not me) and he is a leader, I just don't agree with the direction that he would lead us if elected.
However, that is not the primary reason that I could never vote for Obama. The primary reason is his stance on abortion, which is in direct contradiction to my beliefs. Unfortunately, McCain is hardly a good choice either so I'm not sure what I am going to do this election.
That is a great point about Hitler. People who think rhetoric and words don't mean anything only need to look to people like Hitler or Ghandi. Both men inspired and led people to act. One obviously led people to do extreme evil, while the other changed a nation without violence. Words are indeed powerful. You just have to decide if you agree with the intentions of the person speaking.
If your main concern is abortion, and you don't like either candidate, my suggestion would be to vote based on the supreme court. McCain would most likely replace justices with pro-life judges. And on another note, Obama doesn't agree w/ abortion either and believes in limiting unplanned pregnancies instead. Still, he wouldn't change any laws. And Bush who is anti abortion and has been in power for 8 years hasn't eliminated abortion either. The president can't do it. But the supreme court can.
You give two good examples of Americans helping other Americans; however, for accuracy, Obama is not proposing socialized medicine.
What about redistribution? Obama is proposing social programs that are funded by taxpayer dollars. He does indeed want these programs to be available to all Americans who need them, regardless of the amount of taxes paid by those citizens. If this is your definition of redistribution of wealth, then I concede that Obama is indeed proposing redistribution of wealth. So is John McCain, and so has every presidential candidate who has ever proposed helping Americans who are not wealthy. That type of redistribution is in effect already. If your definition is socialized, communistic redistribution, then Obama is not proposing redistribution of wealth.
Now, let's examine this test: One group in society does something that aids another group. If the benefactor does not directly contribute to, or earn that aid, then this is not an example of "we the people helping ourselves."
Can we find parallels?
The DOT engineers building our freeways... also the opposite of "we the people helping ourselves."
The military fighting to defend us abroad… also the opposite of "we the people helping ourselves."
The police who protect us from criminals... also the opposite of "we the people helping ourselves."
The firemen who put out our house fires and rescue our family members... also the opposite of "we the people helping ourselves."
The paramedics who rush to our aid and save our lives... also the opposite of "we the people helping ourselves."
hmmmm....?
Those who don't make enough money to pay taxes still receive these benefits from Americans working in government. Is that wrong? Should we exclude them? Are we the people not helping ourselves?
We might note that the wording is not "Find ways that I the individual, with my own competencies and resources, can help myself."
By nature, the synergy of force multiplication would be meaningless if each American helped only him or herself. By standing united and working together to help each other, we help ourselves.
In any case, Obama is actually asking individuals to help themselves.
Bush has asked that we keep shopping. McCain has asked us to do nothing, but has offered to pay overstretched homeowners face value for their overpriced homes with taxpayer dollars collected from the rich. Obama has asked Americans directly to take responsibility for personal greed and excess and to make sacrifices to control spending, eliminate personal debt, and begin saving for the future.
The funny thing is, he says it in a way that makes me want to do just that, and many others feel the need to do their part as well.
To provide leadership in the Financial Crisis, Obama has asked Americans to have responsible personal finance practices.
To provide leadership in the Poverty Crisis, Obama has come out and directly asked fathers to be responsible providers, and to be present for their children to stabilize families for the sake of society.
To provide leadership in the Education Crisis, Obama has asked parents to turn off the TV and video games, and to take the time to help children with homework.
To provide leadership in the Energy Crisis, Obama has asked Americans to do their part and make sacrifices to lower energy consumption. This was mocked by McCain, who asked nothing of individual Americans.
How can we follow a leader who wants to do it all himself? How can we follow a leader who doesn’t ask us to make individual contributions and work together for our nation?
Obama is asking that we do it together. He will do everything he can on his end, and he is asking that we do our part as American citizens. I can agree with and support Obama’s vision. I think other Americans could as well if they would sincerely study his proposals in depth and not just take 20 second blurbs from network news.
As far as abortion goes, Obama said it best when he stated, “No one is for abortion.”
Killing unborn babies is not the stasis point.
I don’t know what your faith is, but I am LDS. My LDS church leaders have explained that abortion is acceptable in a few circumstances: health of the mother, rape, incest, terminal birth defects, etc…
If abortion is ever acceptable, than who should make the decision when it is?
Obama abhors abortion, but believes that the decision should be made by the mother in consultation with her doctor and her God. He believes the government has no business making that painful and personal decision for her. The stasis point is the right to privacy. Ultimately, Roe v. Wade was a ruling on privacy not infanticide. Obama supports privacy, but he has stated that he also supports restrictions on abortion, such as late-term abortion. He has a record of voting against limitations on abortion that do not provide provisions for the health of the mother. Is that wrong? Just a thought…
Thank you for yours. :)
So everyone has some very interesting opinions. I liked Obama at first, and I still like some of his ideas, but I"m not sure I want him as president. Do I want McCain, I'm not sure either. There are many things about Obama that put up red flags in my eyes and many things we don't know about him. I have enjoyed reading everyone's thoughts.
I have a couple of misc. ones to add. Josh, you talk about redistribution of wealth and use the examples of DOT, Firemen, paramedics etc. Here is a flaw in that thinking: These people choose their occupation, same as teachers they want to do good for the community. They want to serve. There are very few people, in any tax bracket, but we are talking about those that make over $250,000 (and businesses too) that want to pay more. That are ASKING to pay more. What is missing is the choice, people choose an occupation that allows them to help others improve their life or being forced to pay more (because of their occupation) to "help others".
Also, my husband found this website that has some interesting thoughts about Obama. http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/10/20/obama-chicago-election-oped-cx_re_1021epstein.html?feed=rss_popstories
I hope this makes sense, I didn't read it over to check for mistakes...kids are needing me.
Dear Carrie,
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Yes, people should not be forced to help others. I agree. Unfortunately, you have set up a Straw Man argument. Respectfully, you missed the stasis point. In other words, we do not disagree about whether or not people should be forced to help others. We disagree about whether it is harmful or helpful to the Nation as a whole to provide aid to those who cannot pay for it.
But let’s assume you had understood and properly framed my original argument before attacking it (attacking in the Straw Man sense, not the argumentative sense). Assuming the actual stasis point was forcing people to help others, your rebuttal still misses a connection in the parallels.
You said, “These people choose their occupation, same as teachers they want to do good for the community. They want to serve.”
Actually, the people choosing of their own free will to help the poor and provide health care are not the wealthy taxpayers. You see, there is a group of public servants, government employees, like firemen, like paramedics, like teacher, who have chosen to serve because they want to do good for the community. Do you know who they are?
You should… We all should… because we are about to hire a bunch of them. They are the politicians. The word Politics has come to have a negative connotation, but Aristotle linked it with metaphysics and ethics and defined it as the science of finding and ensuring social good. These public servants chose to serve because they want to find and ensure social good. We have given them the power and authority to do what is best for the nation, just as we give power and authority to other public servants to do good works in their area of responsibility. True, the public works done by these politicians are funded by taxpayer dollars, but so are all of the works mentioned in my other examples. In other words, taxpayers are not directly doing anything for anyone. There is always someone in between who chooses to serve others as a public servant.
With this in mind, do you still feel that “what is missing is choice?” If choice is missing in the case of politicians providing health care and welfare, then choice is also missing in the case of teachers, firemen, paramedics, and soldiers – even more so in these cases because we do not vote for these other public servants. At least we vote for our politicians.
No… choice is not missing; that is why we are voting in November – to choose. The problem for the wealthy taxpayer is that we have a democracy, and the poor outnumber the rich, so the rich feel like they have no choice. For all of their wealth, they lack power. They try to gain power by lobbying and manipulating the markets; but in the end, the people choose, and the majority rules. That is the beauty of America. We do what is best for the nation as a whole, not just what is best for the rich and powerful.
Unfortunately, wealthy taxpayers often fail to understand that what is good for the nation is good for them as well. Sometimes we are too far removed from history to remember the Civilization Cycle and to appreciate the dangers that lurk beyond our borders and even within the foundation of our own society. What have the poor and disadvantaged historically done when they outnumber the rich and affluent? If you do not know, just go to the encyclopedia or a world history text and lookup “Revolution.”
When people are impoverished, they become hopeless and desperate, and then crime increases. Just visit any ghetto in America if you don’t believe me. Crime ultimately harms all of us, especially the rich. From another angle, when people don’t have health insurance, the cost of health care can force them into bankruptcy and poverty. Again, we begin to see the consequences of poverty and desperation.
Also, when people cannot get health care, productivity decreases, which hurts businesses and subsequently, the rich. Insuring health care for everyone is in the best interest of all Americans. Relieving the devastating effects of poverty is also in the best interest of all Americans.
Taxpayers do not pay to help others. Taxpayers pay to help themselves. They do, in fact, get what they pay for. They are protected from the armies of foreign nations that would seize their land and property. They are protected from terrorists who would take their lives and freedom. They are protected from the mobs of anarchy that would rise up and take whatever they could by force. They are protected from criminals, thieves, fraudsters, and others who would deprive them of possessions. They are protected… and so are all other Americans. Should other Americans not be protected because they do not pay?
Who needs the protection most? Who has the most to lose? Who is the biggest target of these lawless and hostile elements? The rich, the rich, the rich… The cost of their security is infinitely greater than the man who begs on the corner of the Wal-Mart parking lot. So, he pays nothing, they pay a lot. Is that unfair?
People are created equal; they come to this world naked. Nothing here belongs to them. No one becomes a multibillionaire on their own steam. Thousands of laborers work long and hard to produce the goods and services that create wealth for the super rich. Still, we let the super rich take as much profit as they want because the ideas and inventions that build companies come from them. Corporations could not come into existence without them, but corporations could not continue to exist without the workers. So, who deserves the greater share of the profit produced by that group of people, the one who came up with the idea and led the effort, or those who actually produced the goods and services?
In America, we believe the idea and leadership are worth more, so we allow those that lead the labor of others to take, on average, 500 times more than the laborers. These people are allowed to claim ownership of more wealth than they could spend in a lifetime. That is the American way; that is the American dream, and all America asks in return is that they pay for the cost of securing that wealth from foreign armies, from criminal elements, and from the mobs of anarchy. Is that unfair?
Perhaps not, but isn’t it unfair that the poor who pay no taxes are also protected? Isn’t it unfair that they receive aid they did not pay for? Maybe it is fair only in the case of middle and lower class working families who take a meager 1/500 share of the profit they produce. But what about the person who does not work at all, who contributes nothing? Should they receive any aid? Should they benefit from society? Maybe not… maybe we should exile them. Maybe we should put them in labor and rehabilitation camps. If charity is not our motive in helping them, then we are helping them just to keep them from becoming a threat to our security. Why not just get rid of them? That was the vision proposed by Hitler, not Obama.
Perhaps that would be the wisest course of action. Regardless of any possible wisdom in eliminating these burdensome elements; the American people have chosen instead to help them. Is that wrong? I don’t think so. That is why I will vote for Obama. If it is wrong, then vote for the candidate who would abandon these people to fate, or eliminate them entirely. If there is no such candidate, then run for office. That is the right of every American. If the people you choose to serve are not doing what you want, do it yourself. As long as enough people support you, you can do it. If people don’t support you, then you are outnumbered; majority rules; that is democracy. That is choice, maybe not for you, but for America, it is choice.
Now, Carrie, I am sure that you do not want to eliminate or abandon the poor. Perhaps some wealthy taxpayers do, but I think most people who get upset about aiding those who can’t pay for it, simply haven’t had the time and opportunity to really research the principles and issues involved. We need to ask questions about our positions before we assert them. That is why I ask if it is wrong to help those people, and if we should exclude them?
If we keep poor people off the freeways, what would be the effect on the economy and subsequently, on the rich? If we let the army defend only rich neighborhoods, what would be the effect on our borders, on the nation, and subsequently, on the rich? You can continue to process this logic with all of my examples including the issues of health care and unemployment.
The issue in question is not freedom to withhold aid; it is the wisdom of withholding aid. This is a principle called externalities. In economics, the principle of externalities is a key factor in understanding the true cost of supply. Economics introduces the idea of “free-riders.” Economic experts have come to agree that we cannot afford to withhold some services simply because we are unable to extract payment from all who benefit from them. We, as a nation, cannot afford to deny aid to the poor.
In the end, however, no one gets more aid and handouts from the government than the super rich, the wealthy taxpayers. That was true even before the government gave them 700 billion to waste on luxury retreats and golden parachutes. Those wealthy people benefit just as much and more from taxpayer dollars than anyone. They lobby and clamor for earmarks, and nearly every law passed has some goodie, some hidden prize packed inside just for them. We choose not to withhold the benefits from them because their welfare affects ours. Likewise, the welfare of the disadvantaged affects the wealthy and the rest of us. We are all in this boat together.
We must not forget that the Civilization Cycle begins to move toward social collapse when society fragments into disparate groups. Are we doomed to follow the cycle? No… If we can stop dividing up our nation into parties and classes and begin to see ourselves as one people and one nation, then we will be able to accomplish the greatness that our liberty affords us. That is Obama’s vision. Many have embraced it; many are cynical, but America has the proud heritage of confronting the impossible and proclaiming boldly, “Yes We Can!”
I am not a Democrat, but I am an American. Obama has not come from my camp, but he has come from my Nation, and that is good enough for me. I have joined with millions of Democrats, Independents and Republicans who believe first and foremost that we are Americans, and that united we stand. We have cast off the politics of fear and embraced the politics of hope. I hope you will join us because together, Carrie, we can. We can heal this nation. We can change the world. Yes we can.
Joshua,
You know one of the things I love about America is that everyone can have an opinion, and that is okay. I have to say you lost me on some of your thoughts but I think I understand what you were trying to say. You have such a way of writing what you want to say and I know what I believe but can't get it out in words.
I have lived in both worlds. I now live with a teacher, on a small third year teaching salary (since they get paid for how many years teaching that three is important)with four kids and a new mortgage. We qualify for some of the government programs,and use a couple of them, but not all that we qualify for. Money is very tight and my husband works very hard and more than he is paid (as can be said for many people). Would I like more tax cuts, of course, but not at the costs that Obama is asking of the other group.
Before I was married, I lived in the other world. My father worked in the navy for 27 years and then in corporate life for I don't remember another 10 or 15 years. He was at the "top of the Ladder" and money was never an issue for us. But he worked HARD for his money, much harder than my dear husband. While my husband has days that he will be at work until they kick him out (10 pm) and show up as soon as they unlock the doors (6 am), that is usually only when grades are due. My dad did that almost every day. A normal work day for him was at work by 6 am and home at 10pm (this was in corporate world in the navy was different as in after working hours like that or just sleeping on the ship he would also be at sea for days or months at a time. My mother was a SAINT!)
I remember there was a time when there was a pay freze, or something to that effect, at the company my dad was working for. Nobody was happy about that, including my dad. But he still worked the same number of hours and worked just as hard. During this time, he won an prestegious award, if I remember correctly it was not given out by his company. It recognized all the hard work he had done and what he was doing with his work. Along with this award came a cash "prize". (I realize that timing of that award wasn't the best, but not our fault.) WOW, you would not believe what our family had to deal with. We recieve hate mail and phone calls almost everyday for a couple of months. I remember how I felt when I recieved my first hate call against my dad for accepting this award and taking the money. Did we need the money, no. Did he deserve the prize, most definitly. There were also times when there were problems, big problems (he worked with nuclear stuff, not problems as in meltdown but serious issues). Did my dad have a golden parachute, nope. Had he not worked through the problems and solved them, I don't know what would have happened.
(um, there was a point in me saying all this....)
Do I agree with what some people are doing with the bailout money? HECK NO!!!! It makes me mad. (But, if I'm not mistaken there is voting done there too, at least in some companies as I have recieved ballots, not for those specific companies but you get the idea). Do I agree that those who make more should be taxed more, to some extent yes (the widow's mite comes to mind, 10% to us is a lot more than 10% to the wealthy). But I don't think they should taxed so much that they become penalized for the work they do. If I remember correctly, Obama's tax increase on the wealthy would average $50,000. My husband is the math man so I don't pretend to have my percentages perfect but that is like 20% of what they make, on top of the
?20%? they already pay. That means that they will be taxed at such a rate that they're take home would be the same as someone who makes 75,000 less than them (again, I know my numbers don't match but I'm trying to remember a conversation my husband and I were having and I think these are the numbers he used, so cut me some slack when you write your rebuttle *grin*) yet they originally earned quite abit more than them. Why would some one want to make (again making up numbers cause I can't remember the real ones my hubby came up with) 300,000 yet only takes home 200,000 when they can make 250,000 and still take home 200,000. Unfortunitly, most people are motivated by money, not the wonderful feel good feelings that you get from helping people or putting in a good day at work. Why take a job that will pay so much and require so much work when you can get a "lesser" job and get the same net income. If this happens we will start to see a shift in everyone's wealth. To my husband and myself, that is redistribution of wealth and maybe the beginning of socialism. Will this happen over night, no, but it will slowly happen. Will everyone not take those jobs, no, we will still have movie and music stars who make more than I can even conceive. But guess what, we will pay more for the movies so that they make more so they will still have the same take home. (okay so that last part is just a guess, but look at OPEC they are having meetings to see how to stop the drop in Oil prices when they still aren't as low as they were two years ago. They want that money/profit.)
Okay, I know this jumped around alot, I hope you were able to follow what I was trying to say. I am no where near as gifted with words as your family seems to be. I have loved reading everyone's thoughts and loved what you wrote about prop 8. I do not expect to change your vote, just add some things that maybe you haven't looked at or thought about in that way. Like I said, I'm still not sure who I'm going to vote for. I like some of Obama's idea, but I don't like some of his others, and same with McCain. I need to decide....which is the lesser evil maybe?? *grin*
Many things to comment on but in the interest of time I'll just have to pick a few...
1. Since I mentioned this was the primary reason I could not vote for Obama, let me address your comments on abortion. I am also LDS and I was very impressed by the article in this months Ensign by Elder Nelson on Abortion. I assume you have read it but I will post a few direct quotes from there for those who may not have. I believe this paragraph best describes the church's position on abortion:
"Early in his presidency President Spencer W. Kimball (1895–1985) said: “We have repeatedly affirmed the position of the Church in unalterably opposing all abortions, except in two rare instances: When conception is the result of forcible rape and when competent medical counsel indicates that a mother’s health would otherwise be seriously jeopardized.” Current policy now includes two other exceptions—incest and if the baby cannot survive beyond birth, as determined by competent medical counsel. Even these exceptions do not justify abortion automatically."
While these "exceptions" do exist, Elder Nelson is also quick to point out that these circumstances are "very rare". So, that brings us to the question of choice.
The "freedom to choose" is a powerful freedom and it was one upon which our existence here on earth is predicated. However, we can, if we are not careful, put ourselves in situations where our actions limit our future freedoms of choice. In regards to this aspect, Elder Nelson states the following:
"When the controversies about abortion are debated, “individual right of choice” is invoked as though it were the one supreme virtue. That could only be true if but one person were involved. The rights of any one individual do not allow the rights of another individual to be abused. In or out of marriage, abortion is not solely an individual matter. Terminating the life of a developing baby involves two individuals with separate bodies, brains, and hearts. A woman’s choice for her own body does not include the right to deprive her baby of life—and a lifetime of choices that her child would make."
Obama's position on abortion (as taken directly from his website) is as follows:
"Barack Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in that case."
Whether Obama abhors abortion or not, he makes it very clear that his priority is to protect the "rights" of mothers. This is in contradiction to my beliefs (as outlined in Elder Nelson's article) and as stated previously is the primary reason I will not be voting for him.
2. You stated: "The problem for the wealthy taxpayer is that we have a democracy, and the poor outnumber the rich, so the rich feel like they have no choice."
That's not true. We do not live in a democracy, we live in a (democratic) republic. Without going into the differences here (a Google search turns up several sites with great explanations) let me just state that there is a definite difference between the two and the founding fathers purposely chose one over the other.
3. You stated: "Insuring health care for everyone is in the best interest of all Americans."
No it isn't, just ask anyone from England or Canada.
4. To your many statements about the rich and the poor: Our country was founded on the premise that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" and that it is the role of government to protect these rights by "the consent of the governed". Of these unalienable rights, which one grants the government permission to take money from one person and give it to another? None of them do. Our constitution is based on the protection of equal rights, not equal things.
The thing that makes the least amount of sense in this whole argument is Obama's own story. He has been portrayed as a great example of someone who has risen from poverty to greatness. Yet I have never once heard him say that he never would have made it if it hadn't been for the help of the government. If he didn't need a government program in order to become successful, why should anyone else? Was he just lucky? Is he better than everyone else in that situation?
We have a moral obligation to God to feed the hungery, clothe the naked, comfort the sick, etc... If we fail to do these things, we will be as the goats spoken of in Matthew 25. But it is our choice whether we will be sheep or goats, not the governments.
Thanks for the comments. While I disagree with most of what you have posted, it has been an interesting conversation nonetheless.
Jason,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. The good news is that we do not disagree about any of the things you wrote. Unfortunately, that means you have missed the stasis point. That might not be a familiar term to many, but it is essential for discussions that lead to mutual understanding rather than unproductive contention. I give a brief description of it in an article at this URL: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=29403328779&id=1471600348&index=1
1. On the issue of abortion, your passionate argument in support of true principles couldn’t be more correct. Indeed, both sides have missed the stasis point in this debate. Pro-choice advocates fail to understand that no one wants to take away their freedom to choose. They are allowed all of the civil freedoms that every American enjoys.
While murder is a natural right, it is not a civil right. Society suspends many natural rights according to the terms of the social contract. Within the boundaries of the social contract, no one can use natural rights to infringe upon civil rights, especially the right to life.
No one in society has the civil right to choose to murder someone else. If they want a choice in the matter of child-rearing, it comes in the form of feed-forward control. They choose whether or not to have sex. That is their choice. If they don’t want children, they can choose to abstain from intercourse, not to murder an unborn child.
I don’t believe that there is a sin that approaches the atrocity of killing an unborn child, especially when the only motive is an unwillingness to accept the responsibility to love and care for a life that was so irresponsibly created.
I do not believe that any mother should abort her child for such a reason; I do not believe that any Doctor should perform such a heinous act. So, I preach against this evil with a passion not unlike yours, and I do all I can to invite others to come to the Lord Jesus Christ so they can learn directly from our Heavenly Father, through prayer and personal revelation, that this is a grave sin. Then, after teaching them correct principles, through gentleness and meekness and love unfeigned, I pray that they will use their free agency to choose what is right.
Would I ever ask Government to force others by threat of imprisonment or capital punishment to comply with the commandments of God? No. That would be Satan’s plan. That would be no different than the Taliban. But the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” is not just a commandment of God; it is a central tenet of the social contract.
I personally believe that abortion on demand should be illegal. I believe that abortion should only be allowed in cases where the health of the mother is at risk. In fact, I can barely support the idea of abortion in the case of rape or incest. After all, it is not the unborn child’s fault that it was conceived in such a violent and sinful manner. Yet, I can empathize with the pain, and the emotional as well as psychological trauma that a mother would suffer if she were expected to carry that life within her.
Many victims graciously and courageously choose to have mercy on those unborn children, and they simply give them up for adoption. In some cases they even keep the child and do their best to love and care for it. While I am amazed by such acts of charity, I do not think that type of strength should ever be expected from any victim of sexual assault.
Regardless of my views on abortion, I acknowledge that the Lord has outlined through his servants that abortion, while always regrettable, is sometimes acceptable to him. I also recognize that abortion is legal in my country, and I recognize that those who support the freedom to choose abortion and those who have abortions are not filled with a desire to kill unborn babies.
I understand, after reading the opinion of the court in Roe v. Wade, that the issue in question was not infanticide, but governmental power to participate in private medical decisions. I am not telling you that abortion is all about privacy; I am telling you that Obama supports Roe v Wade because he believes that when the choice to abort is justified, it is not necessarily mandatory… and because it is not mandatory, a decision must be made… and he believes that Government should not intrude on that decision-making process.
I agree with Obama that when the choice is justified, it should be private and between the mother, the family, the doctor, and God. I do NOT agree that the choice should be private when it is not justified. But… who gets to review the case to decide if it is justified? How do you decide if it is justified? How will that public-review process affect the mother who was raped, or who was dying? Isn’t it painful enough for those mothers to make that decision without being put on trial?
Can you imagine what it would be like to have strangers sit in a jury and pass judgment on you as to whether or not you are a murderer for seeking to save your life or for not being able to bear the torment of carrying a part of the man who raped you? Even though those mothers will likely be given “permission” to abort that unborn baby, what would that trial process do to them? How would it torment their mind? How would it compound their grief? Can you see the complexity here, Jason? Can you see the difficulty?
Allowing abortion is a type II error. Our nation has always chosen the type II error over the type I. The values of our society hold that we would rather come up with a false negative than false positive… innocent until proven guilty… guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We would rather err in letting some criminals walk free, than execute an innocent person. Yes we have more crime in our country than in some others, but at least we have less innocent people sitting in jail.
When the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v Wade, they decided that it was better to let mothers choose for themselves, even though this would allow many mothers to abuse that freedom. They ruled to accept that probability, as long as in so doing, they protected the innocent mother from having to undergo the torment of public trial or the travesty of false conviction. They chose to risk abuse of the freedom as long as they could protect the privacy of an innocent and justified mother to make such a painful choice in her own way without the scrutiny of strangers, without the specter of guilt, and without the threat of conviction.
I’m not telling you that I agree with that position. I am telling you that I understand it. I understand why a good person might support it. This is why, for me, abortion is not a wedge issue. I know that, where necessary, God will exact justice in the end. I know that a just restoration will bring about a full recompense to all aborted children.
Overturning Roe v Wade will not end abortion. That is a fact. People will find a way. Spreading the gospel is a better means to the desired end, so I choose to exercise my right to religious freedom and seek to end abortion by changing hearts, not laws. What I will NOT do, is unconditionally reject an excellent candidate for President simply because he or she believes in the right to privacy in such a personal and difficult decision. Does that make sense?
2. On a lighter note, Jason, you said, “We do not live in a democracy, we live in a (democratic) republic.”
Excellent! I am impressed that you know that. Most people do not. In fact, even fewer know that when Aristotle spoke of democracy, he was describing it as a bad thing, a severe degradation of society that regresses to anarchy. Of course, democracy has a general social definition now, far removed from its classification with oligarchy and tyranny. That is why I use it as a general term, for the sake of understanding; however, since you and I can converse on a more complex level of political science, let’s address the idea of a democratic republic.
Essentially, as you know, the democratic republic allows those whose time and resources have allowed them to gain a greater understanding and competency with political issues to give representative votes on behalf of constituents. During the founding of our nation, this was much preferred to the concept of having each member of society vote on an issue, given that many in society were poorly educated and could scarcely grasp the complexity of many political questions. Thus, everyone does not have a say in political issues. Instead, everyone has a say in who gets to have a say for them.
Now, does the fact that we have a democratic republic and not an “American Idol” voting system change my original argument. I think not, Jason, but I could be wrong. You see, the poor do outnumber the rich; and even though the poor and the rich are not directly voting on issues, they are directly voting for the representatives who will vote on the issues. So, we are one step removed from the end result; still, the cause and effect relationship remains intact. The poor can vote into office those who offer to do their will.
Yes, I stated, "The problem for the wealthy taxpayer is that we have a democracy, and the poor outnumber the rich, so the rich feel like they have no choice."
And you stated, “That's not true. We do not live in a democracy, we live in a (democratic) republic.”
Though I’m sure unintentional, this is clearly a misleading diversion from the antecedent on your part. When you say that’s not true, the word that refers to “we have a democracy.” I concede that point. In the political science context and not the social schemata context, you are correct; however, the word that does NOT refer to “the poor outnumber the rich, so the rich feel like they have no choice.”
In other words, you have set up a Straw Man fallacy. You see, you did in fact attack a point, but not my point… not the main point I was making. Thus, it has yet to be refuted. The poor do outnumber the rich. Those who are unified and greater in number can elect representatives who offer to execute their will, and those who are outnumbered and in disagreement with the majority will fail to elect representatives who offer to execute their will.
Now, perhaps I am wrong and the rich minority does feel empowered. Maybe those wealthy taxpayers do feel like they have a choice. If they do, then what is really at issue here? If they pay more in taxes, they are getting what they want because they are empowered and they feel like they have a choice. I don’t know how I would argue that, but I am open to suggestions.
Ultimately, even though you took issue with my use of the word “democracy,” I think we might still agree on this statement unless you would like to refute it directly.
3. In response to my statement that ensuring health care for everyone is in the best interest of all Americans, you stated, “No it isn't, just ask anyone from England or Canada.”
Ensuring health care for all Americans means that we do not let anyone suffer in illness or die simply because they cannot afford to pay for care. I honestly do not think that you and I disagree about whether or not we should allow people to suffer or die because they cannot afford to pay for care. I think we actually agree that ensuring care for all Americans is in the best interest of all Americans. McCain thinks so, and he has a great proposal to accomplish that. Obama thinks so as well, and he too has a great proposal to accomplish it.
The stasis point is not who should and should not get care. What people disagree about is the method of ensuring that all receive needed care. Conservatives prefer a privatized method; liberals prefer government intervention. I think great plans have emerged from both schools of thought. Methods to ensure health care for all citizens vary significantly. The two examples you gave are examples of government-run health care. Certainly those systems have been ineffective. Fortunately, we do not disagree about that either.
In fact, I recently presented an emerging business issues case against government-run healthcare at the State competition for PBL. My partner and I used the British NHS as an example of government inability to run such a system. We studied proposals from all primary candidates in great depth. Let me assure you that Obama is not proposing a government-run system. Accordingly, we would be comparing apples and oranges if we said that what is true of England’s system or Canada’s system is also true of Obama’s proposal. This, of course, is the logical fallacy of false analogy. While NHS and Obama’s system aim to provide health care for all, the methods vary significantly.
Now, you may still be correct about healthcare for all NOT being a good thing, but I suspect that’s not what you meant. I could be wrong. If it is what you meant, your supporting analogy of government-run systems is probably insufficient to assert that point since health care for all can be achieved without a government-run system.
I would certainly be interested in hearing a sound argument against the wisdom of ensuring that all Americans can receive healthcare when they need it. I am honestly open to the idea that perhaps such an assertion is true; however, from my own studies, ensuring social health has always been presented as a critical interest of civilization.
In any case, your mention of this line from my comments would likely be considered a “red hearing fallacy” by most scholars. In other words, your assertion here does not address the original argument. The original argument was that many groups in society have a vested interest in social health. Poor social health affects productivity; productivity affects the economy, and the economy affects national security. Likewise, rising health costs affect many stakeholders, including businesses, government, healthcare providers, families, and individuals. When people lack health care, the effects are widespread and impact the nation as a whole. That was my original argument. Do you disagree?
4. On this next question of yours, I would suggest you read The American Founding by Frank W. Fox. This is a required text at BYU. It gives great insight into the Social Compact. Let’s take a brief look at your statement, however, for the sake of respect for your inquiry.
You said, “Our country was founded on the premise that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" and that it is the role of government to protect these rights by "the consent of the governed". Of these unalienable rights, which one grants the government permission to take money from one person and give it to another? None of them do. Our constitution is based on the protection of equal rights, not equal things.”
In this statement, you asked, “Of these unalienable rights, which one grants the government permission to take money from one person and give it to another?”
First of all, the unalienable rights you mention are part of the Declaration of Independence, not the US Constitution. For an actual understanding of your rights as a citizen, you should turn to The Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights, including subsequent amendments. In any case, the short answer to your question is that the right of Government to take money is outlined in Article I Section 2 of the Constitution.
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union.”
The right of government to take money from one person and give it to another is outlined in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.”
If congress decides that providing health care for the poor or giving tax credits to low-income families will provide for the general welfare of the United States, then they have the right to do so… according to our founding fathers anyway. This idea was quite obviously part of the premise upon which our country was founded because our country was founded on the premise of the social compact. In other words, the premise of our founding was the idea that a citizen’s relationship to the rest of society, including government, is voluntary and contractual in nature.
A contract by nature provides for mutual agreement with consideration. The social contract does not just give to citizens; it also makes requirements of citizens. Citizens sacrifice natural rights in exchange for protection of civil rights. Logistically, protection of rights requires enforcement; enforcement requires enforcers, and enforcers require compensation. Citizens sacrifice property or money in order to contribute to that compensation. This is very rudimentary, but understandably difficult for some to grasp since we are so far removed from the founding process of our nation.
Likewise, administrators of government are tasked with ensuring through legislation, execution, and jurisdiction, the protection, preservation, and prosperity of society. Such work requires resources, including monetary resources. Again, citizens sacrifice property or money in order to provide those resources.
In situations where the citizens will not sacrifice to facilitate the administration of government, the government will not fulfill its part in the social contract, which is to ensure the protection, preservation, and prosperity of society. Some governments find alternative means to gather resources. Socialist governments run their own businesses to produce goods and services and essentially earn money from society. Ancient civilizations simply initiated war to plunder resources. In America, however, the government mandates social contribution as a condition of citizenship. America is also one of few countries that allow individuals to reject those contractual terms and renounce citizenship.
Giving money to others is, of course, not arbitrary as your tone suggests. Giving is determined by elected representatives who seek to promote the defense and the general welfare of the United States. You may not believe that those representatives are actually promoting the general welfare by helping the poor, but they do, and they have the mandate to promote that general welfare by spending tax funds according to their best judgment. Some of their programs may seem fruitless to you. I suppose that is why you made the statement:
“The thing that makes the least amount of sense in this whole argument is Obama's own story. He has been portrayed as a great example of someone who has risen from poverty to greatness. Yet I have never once heard him say that he never would have made it if it hadn't been for the help of the government. If he didn't need a government program in order to become successful, why should anyone else? Was he just lucky? Is he better than everyone else in that situation?”
Perhaps you, as a working American, have been too busy to watch the full speeches or debates. Maybe you have only caught a few excerpts in the nightly news, but Obama has frequently made mention of how his mother went on food stamps to support him as a child. He has frequently talked about the government aid that paid for his education. A government program did help him become successful. He was not just lucky. He is not better than everyone else in that situation, and others do need that help too.
This, at least, is the judgment of our congress. If you don’t like their judgment, don’t vote for them, but as I said. The majority rules, even in a democratic republic. That is why you and I are discussing this, to try to garner a majority greater than our lone voice… you for your best judgment, I for mine. Perhaps we will come to an understanding… perhaps not, but we present our best case and put our trust in the wisdom of the American people as a whole.
Again, in answer to your question, government does have the constitutional right to take money from one person and give it to another. That cannot be refuted on legal grounds, or by an appeal to the authority and intent of the founding fathers. Can it be refuted by an appeal to the authority of our Heavenly Father?
You said, “We have a moral obligation to God to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, comfort the sick, etc... If we fail to do these things, we will be as the goats spoken of in Matthew 25. But it is our choice whether we will be sheep or goats, not the governments.”
Remember, the members of congress are children of God as well. Are you or I qualified to decide if they will be judged according to their stewardship for what they did in their own spheres of influence to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, and to care for the sick? I don’t think either of us is that presumptuous. We don’t know if they will be judged by God for failing to use their authority to do good works, but we do know that they are still mandated by the constitution to provide for the general welfare.
Does that offend God? By executing their constitutional mandate, are they taking away the agency of others to choose evil? No… they are not forcing you to be a sheep by helping others with taxpayer money.
“For behold, if a man being evil giveth a gift, he doeth it grudgingly; wherefore it is counted unto him the same as if he had retained the gift; wherefore he is counted evil before God.”
You see… those who want to be goats can still be goats even if congress uses tax funds for good.
Regardless of whether or not government has the legal or spiritual right to help others, it is still doing it, and will likely continue to do it under any administration. This right could legally be repealed by voting for representatives who will subsequently vote to abolish taxes, but the American people have not done so. They have tolerated the government’s right to tax citizens and its judgment in providing for the general welfare. We may never be able to stop them by voting. Still, we could always renounce our citizenship, but I think you and I both feel a greater patriotism than that. So here we are, participating in the political process with our best intentions and hopes for our nation.
I’m honored to join you, my friend and fellow American. Whatever level of wisdom or folly may be found in our respective judgment, I pray that our shared desire for the preservation and prosperity of our nation may be realized, for our faith, for our families, and for our future.
You know, Carrie. I sense that you are really a great person, the kind of person whose friendship and honest and sincere opinions I would value very much. I don’t know how you know Rachel, but I am sure she is better off for knowing you.
I am happy to say that I think this election is actually a better of two goods choice. This is the first time in my lifetime I have felt that way, and it gives me a lot of hope for our Nation. My vote for Obama is not a vote against McCain. It is simply an expression of my hopes for our country and my faith in what I perceive to be greatness in a talented and intelligent leader. If McCain is elected, I will not be concerned or worried in the least. I think Americans mostly share the same goals, and there are many ways to accomplish those goals. What matters most is not how perfect the plan is, but how united the team is in executing that plan. It is better to have an imperfect plan that everyone will try to support than a perfect plan that divides those who must contribute for it to succeed.
Regardless of my political views on any other issue, I believe the single most important issue we face as a nation is ending the war... not the war in Iraq or the war against terrorism, but the devastating Civil Cold War that is destroying our nation from within. This is a war of mudslinging and name-calling, filibusters and vetoes, a war fought with shouting matches and attack ads, led by armies of special interest groups and political pundits, a war that has turned this nation against itself, halted all progress, and left the hopes and dreams of the American people dying on the battle field.
We cannot afford to continue the partisan power struggle that has crippled our ability to lead the United States of America to the greatness that our liberty affords us. We must stand against those who tell us that we cannot find common ground, that there can be no understanding, that we cannot respect and appreciate those who have differences of opinion. We can be one people, we can work together, we can heal this nation, and we can end this war.
I have found my captain in this struggle to save our great nation, a man who has more than hope, more than vision, more than the ability to inspire; I have found a leader who has the one thing we need most to end this national crisis... respect… respect for himself, respect for his opponents, respect for the American people, respect for decency and honesty, and respect for the billions who share this planet with us.
He does not lace his speeches with demeaning insults to those on the other side of the aisle, but with respectful petitions for unity and for healing. He has not come from my camp, but he has come from my nation, and that is enough for me. We can resolve our differences on other issues later, but not until we end the Civil Cold War. I have the audacity of hope. I believe things can change. We can do it together. No one can unite us; only we can unite ourselves, but this man can lead the way. We can do it together… Yes we can!
If you haven't seen it yet, I invite you to find Yes We Can on YouTube. Ask yourself if the words you hear do not speak to a dormant hope in your heart. Ask yourself if the vision presented by this man is one we can share together. If it is, I hope you will join us, so we can end this war, heal this nation, and change our world together.
Whatever you choose and however you vote, God bless you for your sincerity, and for your willingness to seek what is best for our great nation.
Wow! All of you guys are a lot smarter than I am. And Josh, I don't know where you find the time to write these essay responses. Anyway, thanks for the great and respectful debate.
Could someone please tell me what the heck a stasis point is!?
Post a Comment