Brokaw On Evangelical Movement

[peter_mary]

Anything in here make YOU squirm?

Brokaw to Focus on Evangelical Movement

Sep 4, 12:30 PM (ET)

By FRAZIER MOORE

"While attendance at traditional churches has been declining for decades," Tom Brokaw says, "the evangelical movement is growing, and it is changing the way America worships."

Consider New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colo., which marks the Easter holiday with a full-scale staging of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ - with a cast and crew of 750 mostly coming from the church's membership of 11,000.

The phenomenon of such an evangelical "mega-church" is part of Brokaw's focus on "In God They Trust," a one-hour NBC News special airing 8 p.m. EDT Friday.

Brokaw notes that evangelical Christians have become a powerful force in American culture, politics and the economy, and that, propelled by their faith, they're determined to spread the word. [Note: Can you say, "Crusade?" I knew you could...]

But he also explores why so many Americans are turning to this expression of faith, and whether some evangelicals are going too far: imposing on others their spiritual beliefs not only for personal reasons but also for political reasons.

Brokaw talks with families at New Life as well as cadets at the nearby U.S. Air Force Academy. And he interviews Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals (which represents 45,000 churches) and New Life's pastor.

Haggard "believes that America is entering a new period of religious intensity that will alter both souls and society," reports Brokaw.

Attempting to explain the growth of the evangelical moment, Haggard says, "It's not political - it's authentically spiritual renewal."

But Haggard, who speaks regularly with the White House, also declares that, although Americans live in a pluralistic society, "all of us have a responsibility to advance God's will through government."

Let me share with you a quote (if I haven't already...I may have...sorry in advance if that's the case).

Last month, George "Dubya" Bush was in Idaho, and the local paper ran a series of quotes that they considered to be "inspirational" snippets from his speech in Donnelly. Among them was this gem:

"Democracy is not America's gift to the world; it is God's gift to all men."

Sounds to me like Ted Haggard is writing speeches for the White House, and worse, suggesting policy.

I don't like this development, not one tiny bit...

Peter_Mary

[meinmachine]

If there is a god he is going to be right ripped that these wacko's are using his name to make a point. :duh

[Fredl]

I think you guys are being oversensitive to President Bush's manner of speech. All he's really saying is that he believes that the idea of Democracy is of Divine and not human origin. The idea that this concept is a human discovery rather than a human invention simply means to me that all humans ultimately have equal value and the political working of our various societies should reflect that understanding. I don't find a whole lot to quarrel with in this.

If my neighbor has a bunch of really silly ideas about Evolution, the Truth of the Bible, the existence of Angels and who knows what else, but is a really great neighbor, should I seek a quarrel with him because he couches much of his conversation in the form of biblical references and justifies his good works in terms of Christian (or Buddhist or Jewish) references? I think not. In fact, maybe if I listen to him instead of react, I might even learn something from him.

Fred

[peter_mary]

I think you guys are being oversensitive to President Bush's manner of speech. All he's really saying is that he believes that the idea of Democracy is of Divine and not human origin. The idea that this concept is a human discovery rather than a human invention simply means to me that all humans ultimately have equal value and the political working of our various societies should reflect that understanding. I don't find a whole lot to quarrel with in this.

If my neighbor has a bunch of really silly ideas about Evolution, the Truth of the Bible, the existence of Angels and who knows what else, but is a really great neighbor, should I seek a quarrel with him because he couches much of his conversation in the form of biblical references and justifies his good works in terms of Christian (or Buddhist or Jewish) references? I think not. In fact, maybe if I listen to him instead of react, I might even learn something from him.

Fred

Try this one on...

"Islam is not Al Qaida's gift to the world; it is Allah's gift to all men."

See, my concern is that this kind of rhetoric is critical to the polarizing process. Osama bin Laden and George Bush are saying the same thing, justifying it in the name of their PERSONAL set of beliefs. What I'm saying is that national policy ought not to be crafted by people who go seeking "the will of God," because when that happens, people get burned at the stake, airplanes fly into buildings, and we drop bombs on desert nations.

Democracy is a model, nothing more. We happen to like it. Many of us happen to believe it's the best one out there.

In much of the Islamic world, the Caliphate functioning under Sharia law is the best system out there. They like it. They believe it is supperior to democracy, and they would love to see it restored.

That's probably fine, so long as everyone agrees that these are "the philosophies of men" that are implemented by people who share the same cultural values. The problem is that these values are more and more being supported by God's decree, and our leaders are merely carrying out God's will. That gives them, in essence, a blank check to spread as much destruction as their personal revelation suggests they ought to.

I have heard Osama bin Laden state he is pursuing the will of God. I have heard George Bush say the same thing. If it's wrong and dangerous in Arab hands, it seems equally wrong and dangerous, to me, in American hands.

See, these aren't just "silly ideas." These are national policies being supported with serious fire power. We can't ignore it. The Christians aren't...and neither are the Muslims.

Peter_Mary

[helemon]

Consider New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colo., which marks the Easter holiday with a full-scale staging of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ - with a cast and crew of 750 mostly coming from the church's membership of 11,000.

he also explores why so many Americans are turning to this expression of faith
In the words of Kurt Cobain:

With the lights out it’s less dangerous
Here we are now
Entertain us
I feel stupid and contagious
Here we are now
Entertain us

I’m worse at what I do best
And for this gift I feel blessed
Our little group has always been
And always will until the end

And I forget
Just what it takes
And yet I guess it makes me smile
I found it hard
Its hard to find
Oh well, whatever, nevermind

And the words of Dennis deYoung
Welcome to the grand illusion
Come on in and see what’s happening
Pay the price, get your tickets for the show
The stage is set, the band starts playing
Suddenly your heart is pounding
Wishing secretly you were a star.

But don’t be fooled by the radio
The tv or the magazines
They show you photographs of how your life should be
But they’re just someone else’s fantasy
So if you think your life is complete confusion
Because you never win the game
Just remember that it’s a grand illusion
And deep inside we’re all the same.
We’re all the same...

[helemon]

All he's really saying is that he believes that the idea of Democracy is of Divine and not human origin.

Please provide me with one scripture that indicates God believes in the idea of Democracy? The Bible I read preaches strict addherence to Jewish law and advocates that those who do not share these beliefs to be stoned to death.

God didn't give us democracy and freedom. God's book promotes being subjet to religous priests and kings, and allows for the practice of slavery. Nowhere in the Bible are the people of Israel asked to vote on who their king would be. A prophet was given the duty of determining who should rule over Israel. Is that the model we should emulate? Should GBH or the Pope be given all rights to picking the supreme leader of the free world?

That is what is so dangerous about all this. The religious right love democracy so long as they are in control of it and can use it to enforce their beliefs on their neighbors. When people try to complain that they are interjecting too much religion into government such as with the 10 commandments issue and school prayer in public schools they claim that people are trying to rob them of THEIR freedoms! They cannot see how these actions are inappropriately promoting one particular brand of religious belief on others who may not share those beliefs.

I attribute the growing attraction to these mega churches to millenialism as these preachers continue to preach the impending return of Christ.

[peter_mary]

In the words of Kurt Cobain:

Who was also the man with a song entitled: "Jesus Don't Want Me for a Sunbeam"

Peter_Mary

[Fredl]

Any set of ideas can be argued. At some point, we have to decide whether we believe in ours sufficiently to fight and, if necessary, die for them. If not, let's just tell Osama and his friends we're ready to embrace his concept of Islam.

I don't think that Democracy and Osama's vision are morally equivalent. I'm willing to kill or be killed over the issue, just as Osama is. One way of expressing this is to say I believe Democracy is a divinely inspired concept. I think this is all President Bush is saying.

Fred

[peter_mary]

Any set of ideas can be argued. At some point, we have to decide whether we believe in ours sufficiently to fight and, if necessary, die for them. If not, let's just tell Osama and his friends we're ready to embrace his concept of Islam.

I don't think that Democracy and Osama's vision are morally equivalent. I'm willing to kill or be killed over the issue, just as Osama is. One way of expressing this is to say I believe Democracy is a divinely inspired concept. I think this is all President Bush is saying.

Fred

Fred,

I absolutely agree that we are entitled to fight for what we believe. I would defend the democracy of America against the theocracy of Islam every day of the week.

What makes sense to me, though, is for rational people to put their heads together and say, "This system works for us, we like it best of all, and we are prepared to defend our way of living from those who would take it away," rather than say, "God wants it this way."

See, I think it's actually cowardly to call upon God to justify our actions. To a degree, Bush and bin Laden are hiding their actions behind the face of their tyrant Gods. To me, it becomes indefensible to justify our military action on the basis of divine preference, because why should I trust the God of Bush any more than the God of bin Laden?

But I DO understand and trust the thinking, rational decision-making process of real leaders in a moment of crisis. I may not always agree with it, but I can debate those decisions with other rational people, and in the end, allow the majority to make that decision. I just think that as a people, a nation and a culture we ought not to be afraid to say, "This is what I/we want," instead of, "This is what my/our God wants." The former is honest. The latter is chicken-sh*t, in my arrogant opinion... :cool:

Peter_Mary

[helemon]

I just think that as a people, a nation and a culture we ought not to be afraid to say, "This is what I/we want," instead of, "This is what my/our God wants." The former is honest. The latter is chicken-sh*t, in my arrogant opinion... :cool:

Peter_Mary

But to many ears it sounds more authoritative and powerful to say this is what GOD wants vs. this is what a bunch of us fallible humans think is likely to be the best decision, even though that is the more accurate statement. Also by moving the impetus and desire to God then any sh*t that happens is his fault not the leaders.

[peter_mary]

But to many ears it sounds more authoritative and powerful to say this is what GOD wants vs. this is what a bunch of us fallible humans think is likely to be the best decision, even though that is the more accurate statement. Also by moving the impetus and desire to God then any sh*t that happens is his fault not the leaders.

Thank you, helemon, that is exactly my point! We try to borrow power to an otherwise week position by attributing it to God.

If I say, "I want to kill people by blowing myself up in airplane," or "I want to kill 1,900 of my countrymen and women, and untold Iraqis," then everyone says, "You're stupid. Go away." But if I say, "God wants me to blow up the building or drop the bombs," then everyone says (at best), "it's what his faith dictates, we must allow him that religious privlege," or (at worst), "God said it? Okay then! Sign me up!"

And then it all goes to hell and we say, "Huh...the revelation line must have been getting bad reception. I could have SWORN God said, "Bomb Baghdad," when in fact, it was "Cobb Salad". What I thought was a military edict was just a lunch order! Silly me...."

Oh well...

Peter_Mary

[Fredl]

Look, fellas, I simply believe that certain notions, such as freedom is worth fighting for, are not subject to negotiation or compromise. From what I read, President Bush shares that view with me.

I am completely unreasonable on that issue. I believe in it to the point that I am even willing to fight for your freedom. And, yes, I may express that conviction in terms of a belief that I think my God intends for me to be free and will be by my side if I must fight for my freedom. Or yours.

In general, I am all for reasonability. However, if I must go to war, I'd prefer someone who shares my unreasonability in the foxhole on my flank.

Fred

[peter_mary]

Look, fellas, I simply believe that certain notions, such as freedom is worth fighting for, are not subject to negotiation or compromise. From what I read, President Bush shares that view with me.

I am completely unreasonable on that issue. I believe in it to the point that I am even willing to fight for your freedom. And, yes, I may express that conviction in terms of a belief that I think my God intends for me to be free and will be by my side if I must fight for my freedom. Or yours.

In general, I am all for reasonability. However, if I must go to war, I'd prefer someone who shares my unreasonability in the foxhole on my flank.

Fred

Fred,

It wasn't my intention to get your khakis knotted there, friend. In fact, what you've said above is slightly different than what's been talked about...and it's a nuance that I can support.

What you said that is DIFFERENT is that "I believe my God wants ME to live/think/believe/govern this way." That's a WORLD away from, "I believe my God wants YOU to live/think/believe/govern this way."

I'm SO cool with fighting for what you believe in. I'd fight for what I believed in, too, and I've never been in the Marine Corps! ;) But only if I'm fighting to PROTECT what I believe in, not to IMPOSE what I believe in. And therein lies the difference.

What I think I hear the Bushites saying is, "It is our manifest destiny to IMPOSE our way of thinking/believing/governing on the rest of the world." And I can't support that. But protecting it? You bet.

That help work the kinks out a bit, mi amigo? Or am I pouring lemon juice in a wound and need to stop?

Oh, and by the way, you really don't want me in your foxhole, reasonable or unreasonable as I may be. I know my way around firearms like I know my way around the surface of the moon... I'd be useless, other than a slightly paunchy shield!

Peter_Mary

[dogzilla]

Cobb Salad...


:: snerk ::

:: wipes coffee off laptop ::

:D

[Fredl]

Peter, you are a very interesting writer and I'm sure we'd be friends if we had the chance to get together. And so, I'm very interested in exploring this topic with you.

Here's the thing: In the world today, it seems to me that freedom is increasing in many places and that economic prosperity is accompanying it. India and China leap to mind in this regard, as well as Eastern Europe and Brazil. Other places in the world suffer under terribly abusive conditions and these situations result in large part from abusive governments or virtually no effective government.

Now, the US is the dominant military power in the world today, in fact, virtually the only military power in the world capable of projecting military power beyond it's own borders. There is no modern effectively functioning nation in the world that is remotely likely to threaten us militarily. Not Russia, not China, not India....nobody. These countries, and the rest of the world has embraced modernity (also known as "Globalization") to the degree that it would be catastrophic for everybody to destroy the linkage of their economies with ours.

The danger in the world to us and the rest of the "globalized" economies of the world is from those nations and, more to the point, international terror networks that reject all modern principles of Democracy, decent treatment of women and children, modern secular education,freedom of speech and, yes, religion as well as everything else about the modern world. Most of the people in these parts of the world live under the tyranny of poverty, which is inevitable in these circumstances and unelected "strong men" who set up systems in these countries that sufficiently terrorize children, women and men of decency to maintain their control.

Now, I, personally, believe that the modern nation-state is waning in importance and giving way to a world in which a global economic system will gradually reduce nationality and national governments in significance. I think that is the direction of civilization and I am tremendously optimistic about its promise for all of mankind. I also believe that their will be great resistance to it over time from individuals like Osama Bin Ladin and the folks running such governments as North Korea and Iran. Which means there must be an international force ready to enforce compliance with the rules that bind the civilized part of the world. Now, with the world in the early part of transition to an international economic system, there are many tragic situations in today's world that nothing can be done about. I'd have no objection at all, however to forcible regime change where ever obviously abusive regimes stood in the way of a population joining the modern world. Unhappily, it's just not feasible in many places today.

If you think this implies that I support what we did in Iraq, you're absolutely correct. My opinion on this matter has absolutely nothing to do with oil. Just as the US and Europe could not tolerate what was happening in Kosovo, so we could no longer tolerate what was going on in Iraq.

I do not see us imposing our system on others in all of this. The way I see it, Democracy is what happens when tyranny is ended and I salute our president and armed forces for ending tyranny in Iraq and standing up to those who would reimpose it.

Your friend, Fred

[papa]

Keep at it Fred, don't give up. Some day you will work thru this, and be healed... :cool:

[Born Free]

<snip>

I do not see us imposing our system on others in all of this. The way I see it, Democracy is what happens when tyranny is ended and I salute our president and armed forces for ending tyranny in Iraq and standing up to those who would reimpose it.

Your friend, Fred

Fred,

I see that differently, and find Bush's notion of exporting 'democracy' to the unenlightened masses, naive and arrogant in the extreme.

Your country has voluntary voting. As I recall last election, over 50% of potential voters felt 'democracy' so irrelevent to their lives, that their didn't turn out to vote.

Australia has mandatory voting. Supposedly, if people are forced to 'participate' in the democracy game (whatever that means) then we get a better outcome. Yeah! Lots of informals and 'donkey votes'.

I believe in the ideal of limited democracy passionately. By 'limited' I believe as limited by a meaningful 'Bill of Rights'. 51% has no right to stuff their beliefs down the throat of 49%. But the older I get the more I am convinced that we have a thin veneer (sp?) of democracy, and a lot of working of the system by self-interested parties. Further I am deeply anxious about the form of democracy we will devolve to when more and more people rely upon Murdoch's news outlets and otehrs of their ilk. More and more people form their opinions upon profound and critical issues on the strength of 3 second grabs on TV.

But, and it is a HUGE but, democracy requires people to be vigilent, engaged, informed, and tolerant of diversity.

People who are starving, could not give a rat's for freedom. Maslow's heirarchy of needs shows that there are a whole range of basic needs that need be met before being an active member of democracy is a priority.

Saying we have a right to force democracy on people is farcical. Europe stumbled its way towards democracy over the last 500 years. How arrogant and ignorant of our own history to believe that we can fast-track others through that process. Tribal mindsets, so evident in the middle-east, were prevelent in Europe less than 200 years ago. Go to many football matches and see that they are alive and well today.

I have seen persuasive arguments that countries that achieved democracy 'easily' such as the Phillipines, still struggle to make it work, because in large part the population has not matured to the point where it can work with such a belief system without abusing it.

So I see a direct parallel between Bush's ignorance on the issue of religous diversity and tolerance, and his take on democracy. The glaring superiority of those systems that Bush sees, says more about his ignorance than much else, IMHO!

Daryl

PS: I am an ex National-Service Commissioned Officer in the Australian Army, and a libertarian by political bent.

[wescape]

If there is a god he is going to be right ripped that these wacko's are using his name to make a point.

I'm sure he's about as happy with this as he was with JS and Mormonism (and every other "Christian" cult).

Wes

[peter_mary]

Peter, you are a very interesting writer and I'm sure we'd be friends if we had the chance to get together. And so, I'm very interested in exploring this topic with you.

Your friend, Fred

Fred,

We are friends, and the very fact that we can have a respectful exchange on this issue helps to demonstrate that quite nicely. I appreciate enormously the tone and tenor and passion of your responses.

Really, I'm guessing we're not TOO far apart on this issue. And I am keenly aware of your training and service in the armed forces, something which I have not had (though I am a proud Civil Servant for the US Government).

I DO believe that democracy is superior in every way to tyranny. I DO believe that when people choose for themselves to be free, that we are on safe ground helping them to achieve that objective.

What is frightening to me is the awareness of the limits of understanding and perspective. What SEEMS right to me may NOT seem so right to someone else, and I am no longer willing to say, "Tough beans--you do it my way." See, as badly as I dislike Sadaam Hussein, for example, (and I DO dislike him), I get uncomfortable when WE make a decision that he has to go. What we're saying is, he doesn't really work for us, so we dispose of him. He is a threat to our security, so get rid of him.

But if we turn the tables and view the United States from Iraq's perspective, or Iran, or North Korea, isn't it also likely that they view George Bush as the villian, and their own leaders as "right?" If we limit ourselves to our OWN perspective, and our OWN security, then clearly we are just doing what we have to do. But if try to see how we are perceived by others, we might find that we are the enemy, and all the "good" we think we're doing for the world is really just perceived as "good" for us at their expense. So how do we KNOW we are seeing it correctly? I submit that we don't...we only know that we are seeing it ADVANTAGEOUSLY.

Now, clearly from a national security standpoint, that's part of what Governments do. We don't pay taxes to ensure that Iran has the freedom to build whatever nuclear thing-a-majiggy they claim to be building. We pay taxes, in part, to provide for our security. But a question that is worth asking is, do you secure yourself better by valuing the diversity of the world and working with it, or by imposing your own set of values upon it?

I believe that it is working for the United States--for now. I also believe that it will be our undoing. Because we are such a dominant force to be contended with in the world, the real fact of the matter is, we throw the world out of balance. What do we know about systems that get too far out of balance? Right...they correct themselves. But it won't be us that corrects it...it will come from somewhere else. Our dominance on the world stage will be what brings us down. It's not what I want, mind you, it's what I believe is on the horizon. And it won't come from where we think it will come from...we can plan for that. It will come from something unexpected, much like Hurricane Katrina.

We live in a cultural eco-system, and like natural eco-systems, you either learn to live in harmony with it, or you fail. It's as simple as that. Systems that get too far out of balance ALWAYS come crashing down, and the systemic corrections are often painful. It happened to the great Roman empire. It happened to the great Ottoman empire. It happened to Germany in WWII, and to the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. And it will happen right here in River City. I don't know how, and I don't know when, but systems theory would tell you that it is virtually inevitable, and the longer we allow it to swing out of balance, the more painful will be the correction.

We earnestly believe that our way is the superior way. What we are wishing to bring to the world is what we honestly, sincerely believe the world needs. But we can only see it's impacts through the lenses of our American glasses.

So please don't misunderstand me. I really do love the freedoms I enjoy as an American. I really do appreciate the benefits I perceive regarding democracy. I really do believe that rational people can resolve massive difficulties. But I struggle with the idea that by virtue of our fire-power that we get to decide who lives and who dies based on whether or not they line up with our sense of right and wrong.

But bringing it back to what began this thread, I become MOST disturbed when what underlies that belief in the superiority of "our way" is "our God." Now we are saying that our way is the ONLY way, and it is divinely mandated. And I'm saying, "how do we know?" Didn't we fall into that trap when we claimed to "know the Church was true?" Doesn't the Jihadist in Iraq fall into the same trap when he "knows Islam is true?" How can we be confident that OUR leaders know God's will? Simply because it happens to agree with us? I submit that's a poor indicator...we've all been wrong before.

Plus, look at the likes of Pat Robertson, who claim that our policy is right and aligned with God...is he a good indicator of right? Man, not to me!

Finally, I admit that above all, I really don't know what I'm talking about. I frame my thoughts based on an extremely limited personal experience, hanging out in the backwaters of Idaho, with complete awareness of the limits of my understanding.

Thanks for staying engaged on this, and for continuing to share your perspective. As you do so, I have the opportunity to learn, and I value that above all else!

Peter_Mary

[Fredl]

Peter, let me say first of all that I wouldn't bother with all this if I didn't believe that you are a very smart guy and someone worth discussing this with. I apologize for my OWN failure to read what you've written carefully and making sure that I've really responded to what you've said and not to my own projections and stereotypes.

A little history: When I was a lot younger, I lived through the Viet Nam War. I was in the Marine Corps at the very beginning; fortunately my unit was not deployed there. Doubly fortunate because I was adamantly opposed to that war. I had definitely decided that I would not fight in that War and would accept imprisonment rather than accept orders to fight in it.

I still feel the same way today. I believe that there was little difference between what the US did in Viet Nam and what Germany did in Poland in 1939. I felt and feel that it was the S. Vietnamese government who had murdered Democracy in Viet Nam and that Ho Chi Minh would clearly have won elections there if they had been allowed. Now, I'm certainly not a Communist but, to this day, I feel that Communism is a stage in a country's development that can be beneficial if the people in that country want it.

So I don't think it's fair to think of me simply as being a "My country, right or wrong" warhawk, militarist sort of guy.

One of my heroes was and is a guy named Smedly Butler. Marine Corps General, only Marine to ever win two Congressional Medals of Honor. And, unbelieveably, raised a Quacker. Smedly, at the height of his MC career, resigned his comission and travelled about the country denouncing the military actions on the part of the US in Central America during the 1920s and 30s. Felt they were wrong and immoral and used his prestige to try to move the country away from them.

Although I am an American and certainly a loyal citizen, I find my mind moves strongly in the direction of what's best for the world. Perhaps it is my Native American heritage that limits my loyalty to "America first", perthaps some people just naturally gravitate to this position, but what I think is really what I think is best for the World and I am confident that the US will do just fine in a world that is optimized for the total system. For the World, I strongly believe in political democracy, free markets, the rule of law and personal liberty. These concepts may have originated in the US, at least in their current incarnation, but I think of that as interesting to Historians but not relevant to their application. I also believe that the people who oppose them, for the most part, are tyrants and their henchmen who do so for intensely personal and selfish reasons. Folks of religious persuassion call them evil. In my mind, the jury is still out on that charactarization but it's how these folks express themselves and I do not quarrel with it. I don't think the tyrants they refer to speak for their people however prominent the mass media make them or intimidated and unwilling to place themselves in danger the people they pretend to speak for are.

I also don't think tribalism is the wave of the future. I think I already talked in this forum about the impact the movie "The Last Samurai" had on me and my coming to terms with my Mom's past. Those folks leading a tribal existance I hope can be treated gently, more like the Japanese model than the American, but they can not be allowed to conduct guerilla operations against the modern world.

So, there you are. I suppose my view will be subjected to a certain amount of ridicule on this forum, but I am untroubled by it. I do enjoy your comments and hope to hear more from you.

Fred

[peter_mary]

So, there you are. I suppose my view will be subjected to a certain amount of ridicule on this forum, but I am untroubled by it. I do enjoy your comments and hope to hear more from you.

Fred

Nah, your views are safe on this forum, precisely because you own them personally, and because you discuss them rationally!

Thanks for talking about this. It's actually a very difficult issue for me to wrap my brain around, because I recognize first and foremost that my understanding is EXTREMELY limited. I just don't have access to the same information and intelligence that the decision makers get to review.

I'm also probably a bit of an idealist, and I really want people to have maximum "benefit of the doubt." Sometimes they probably don't deserve that benefit, but I don't trust myself to "know" anything any more, so I certainly don't "know" what is best for the world. I suppose in some regards, that can be perceived as a weakness of the Taoist in me. It's a lot easier to act if you believe you know, which is probably the difference between an assertive leader and a passive leader. We are not a nation inclined to "action through non-action", and I am in the distinct minority in that regard.

That's okay.

Thanks again for talking about this. It's been very rewarding!

Peter_Mary

[why me]

Peter, let me say first of all that I wouldn't bother with all this if I didn't believe that you are a very smart guy and someone worth discussing this with. I apologize for my OWN failure to read what you've written carefully and making sure that I've really responded to what you've said and not to my own projections and stereotypes.

A little history: When I was a lot younger, I lived through the Viet Nam War. I was in the Marine Corps at the very beginning; fortunately my unit was not deployed there. Doubly fortunate because I was adamantly opposed to that war. I had definitely decided that I would not fight in that War and would accept imprisonment rather than accept orders to fight in it.

I still feel the same way today. I believe that there was little difference between what the US did in Viet Nam and what Germany did in Poland in 1939. I felt and feel that it was the S. Vietnamese government who had murdered Democracy in Viet Nam and that Ho Chi Minh would clearly have won elections there if they had been allowed. Now, I'm certainly not a Communist but, to this day, I feel that Communism is a stage in a country's development that can be beneficial if the people in that country want it.

So I don't think it's fair to think of me simply as being a "My country, right or wrong" warhawk, militarist sort of guy.

One of my heroes was and is a guy named Smedly Butler. Marine Corps General, only Marine to ever win two Congressional Medals of Honor. And, unbelieveably, raised a Quacker. Smedly, at the height of his MC career, resigned his comission and travelled about the country denouncing the military actions on the part of the US in Central America during the 1920s and 30s. Felt they were wrong and immoral and used his prestige to try to move the country away from them.

Although I am an American and certainly a loyal citizen, I find my mind moves strongly in the direction of what's best for the world. Perhaps it is my Native American heritage that limits my loyalty to "America first", perthaps some people just naturally gravitate to this position, but what I think is really what I think is best for the World and I am confident that the US will do just fine in a world that is optimized for the total system. For the World, I strongly believe in political democracy, free markets, the rule of law and personal liberty. These concepts may have originated in the US, at least in their current incarnation, but I think of that as interesting to Historians but not relevant to their application. I also believe that the people who oppose them, for the most part, are tyrants and their henchmen who do so for intensely personal and selfish reasons. Folks of religious persuassion call them evil. In my mind, the jury is still out on that charactarization but it's how these folks express themselves and I do not quarrel with it. I don't think the tyrants they refer to speak for their people however prominent the mass media make them or intimidated and unwilling to place themselves in danger the people they pretend to speak for are.

I also don't think tribalism is the wave of the future. I think I already talked in this forum about the impact the movie "The Last Samurai" had on me and my coming to terms with my Mom's past. Those folks leading a tribal existance I hope can be treated gently, more like the Japanese model than the American, but they can not be allowed to conduct guerilla operations against the modern world.

So, there you are. I suppose my view will be subjected to a certain amount of ridicule on this forum, but I am untroubled by it. I do enjoy your comments and hope to hear more from you.

Fred
It is unfortunate if tribalism would not be the wave of the future. I believe that we humans are basically tribal people. We can form tribes based on religion, class, race, intellect etc. We seem to need a sense of tribalism in order for us to keep sane and feel connected to the outer world. We would we be without our sense of tribalism? Now tribalism can be harmful if we hook up with the wrong tribe but in general tribalism is good for native americans and for mormons. Likewise, the amish are very tribal with a strong support network. Through belonging to a healthy tribe our sense of purpose is cemented to our sense of being. But yes we do seem to be encourgaed to 'bowl alone' these days. Time has become a precious commodity and when we find time there isn't much of it to give to the tribe. Rather, we tend to support ourselves, alone. With the break down of the tribe I can sense the breakdown of the community---a genuine untogetherness of intent. And so, we need tribes to keep us healthy and secure in the knowledge that there is a group of people out there who care about us and who cherish our sense of life understanding...thanks fred for the post... :)

[meinmachine]

It is unfortunate if tribalism would not be the wave of the future. I believe that we humans are basically tribal people. We can form tribes based on religion, class, race, intellect etc. We seem to need a sense of tribalism in order for us to keep sane and feel connected to the outer world. We would we be without our sense of tribalism? Now tribalism can be harmful if we hook up with the wrong tribe but in general tribalism is good for native americans and for mormons. Likewise, the amish are very tribal with a strong support network. Through belonging to a healthy tribe our sense of purpose is cemented to our sense of being. But yes we do seem to be encourgaed to 'bowl alone' these days. Time has become a precious commodity and when we find time there isn't much of it to give to the tribe. Rather, we tend to support ourselves, alone. With the break down of the tribe I can sense the breakdown of the community---a genuine untogetherness of intent. And so, we need tribes to keep us healthy and secure in the knowledge that there is a group of people out there who care about us and who cherish our sense of life understanding...thanks fred for the post... :)

In the Communist Manifesto, Marx describes a world where once the means of production are owned by the workers all social ills will disappear. We now know that idea is naïve and lacks the sophistication to account for the world as it actually exists. However, it does reveal the importance of economics in the structures of human society.

Fast forward to the 1920’s and a book was written called Mein Kampf, this book describes humans as Tribal animals, all together in packs. It claims that the superiority of certain human tribes fighting for limited resources created history as we know it. The author, Adolf Hitler then applied social Darwinism to justify the pre-eminence of his tribe (Germanic peoples) over all others. This model also has some accuracy as a description of how human societies interact with each other. There is little doubt that this model, like communism is also lacking in sophistication, but it does show how tribalism has something to be said for it as a historical model.

Tribalism is not only a historic model but it is also a dangerous idea. Objects or ideas that are created tend to want to stay created. They do not go away gently and in fact tend to want to grow. So the idea of tribalism, with all its merits can evolve into something very dangerous. As Hitler’s tribe so recently demonstrated.

Islamic, Christian and ethnic tribes, try to explain the human experience in their limited unsophisticated way. I think that in time we will come to view these models in the same light as we view Communism and Fascism.

[why me]

In the Communist Manifesto, Marx describes a world where once the means of production are owned by the workers all social ills will disappear. We now know that idea is naïve and lacks the sophistication to account for the world as it actually exists. However, it does reveal the importance of economics in the structures of human society.

Fast forward to the 1920’s and a book was written called Mein Kampf, this book describes humans as Tribal animals, all together in packs. It claims that the superiority of certain human tribes fighting for limited resources created history as we know it. The author, Adolf Hitler then applied social Darwinism to justify the pre-eminence of his tribe (Germanic peoples) over all others. This model also has some accuracy as a description of how human societies interact with each other. There is little doubt that this model, like communism is also lacking in sophistication, but it does show how tribalism has something to be said for it as a historical model.

Tribalism is not only a historic model but it is also a dangerous idea. Objects or ideas that are created tend to want to stay created. They do not go away gently and in fact tend to want to grow. So the idea of tribalism, with all its merits can evolve into something very dangerous. As Hitler’s tribe so recently demonstrated.

Islamic, Christian and ethnic tribes, try to explain the human experience in their limited unsophisticated way. I think that in time we will come to view these models in the same light as we view Communism and Fascism.
That is why I made it clear about hooking up with the wrong tribe. However, socialist theory with a revolutionary intent does create a tribe out of the working class---hence the slogan 'workers of the world unite!' But tribalism is basic to human design. Most of us need people who fit into our mold and who identify with the beliefs, values and understandings of our own person. Where would the native american be today without the concept of tribe? When we join an organization we are basically joining a tribe. We join in order to be identified as one with the group. In hitler's germany there were basically two tribes that had difficulties in co-existing: National socialist tribe and the jewish tribe. Both did, in my opinion, exercise a tribal consciousness of indentification. But the national socialist tribe could not stand the jewish tribe and sought to destroy them. Likewise, the mormon tribe was highly disliked by other christian tribes. Confrontations developed and we all know the outcome. I think that most of us needs tribe indentification...it is all a matter of picking out a tribe to join...

[free thinker]

I think that most of us needs tribe indentification...it is all a matter of picking out a tribe to join...

Is it possible to belong to the tribe of people who have no tribe? :cool:


free thinker

[papa]

Fred, Smed Butler is a great American, who had the guts to admit he was wrong and try to make things right. One of my heroes too. His great essay, "War is a Racket", should be required reading in every high school.

I am glad you are a native American, and I would hope you can sympathize with the desire of the native Kanaka Maoli to regain our stolen monarchy and lands. The US Marines helped overthrow our legal monarch, Queen Liliuokalani. Hawaii had a monarch, and a constitution, and a parliament, but these trappings of "democracy" were not sufficient to prevent the greedy Americans from stealing our land. America is not about democracy. That is just today's "cant du jour" to justify more theft. Not unlike "manifest destiny" or "white man's burden" of past days. All these are just excuses to steal from the less powerful.

[why me]

I think that most of us needs tribe indentification...it is all a matter of picking out a tribe to join...

Is it possible to belong to the tribe of people who have no tribe? :cool:


free thinker
Any group of people who join together to support a no trible concept automatically becomes a tribe. Why? Because they share a common bond in believing in no tribe. :cool:

[Fredl]

Papa, you make my heart ache, just as did "The Last Samurai. However, when I think "we" in today's world. I think of the American people, all of us.

I have wondered frequently if my character represents the conflicts between the peoples that make up my own ancestry. I clearly favor my Mom's side of the family, but more than half of my ancestors were White. Maybe it's got something to do with what a confused guy I've been all my life!

One thing I have to say is that I do not and have never idealized my Am Indian ancestors or what they went through. I don't think of world or American history in terms of oppressors and victims so much as in terms of Winners and Losers. To me, there are very good reasons why the losers lost and the winners won: the winners were able to create much more effective military sustems which were a reflection of their much more effective societies. I would MUCH rather live in our Modern, predominantly Western European originated society than in whatever society would have evolved by now from the Northh American Indian tribes. It's fine to have a degree of sympathy with the losers but, imho, for the most part, history's losers consisted of social systems that were ineffective in developing technology, were tyanical with their weaker members and, for good reason, commanded their subjects loyalty to a much weaker degree than their more advaced opponents. In other words, I feel that throughout history, for the most part, the folks who were winners won for good reason and we can be happy they did.

With that said, I am not very familiar with Hawaii's history. Perhaps it is an exception.

And, it's pretty amazing to find somebody else who knows who Smedly Butler was. I even wanted to name my son Smedly, but my wife quashed the idea!

Fred

[papa]

Fred said:

"I don't think of world or American history in terms of oppressors and victims so much as in terms of Winners and Losers. To me, there are very good reasons why the losers lost and the winners won: the winners were able to create much more effective military sustems which were a reflection of their much more effective societies. I would MUCH rather live in our Modern, predominantly Western European originated society than in whatever society would have evolved by now from the Northh American Indian tribes. It's fine to have a degree of sympathy with the losers but, imho, for the most part, history's losers consisted of social systems that were ineffective in developing technology, were tyanical with their weaker members and, for good reason, commanded their subjects loyalty to a much weaker degree than their more advaced opponents. In other words, I feel that throughout history, for the most part, the folks who were winners won for good reason and we can be happy they did."

Sounds like you have read Machiavelli well, Fred.

[helemon]

I don't think of world or American history in terms of oppressors and victims so much as in terms of Winners and Losers. To me, there are very good reasons why the losers lost and the winners won: the winners were able to create much more effective military sustems which were a reflection of their much more effective societies. I would MUCH rather live in our Modern, predominantly Western European originated society than in whatever society would have evolved by now from the Northh American Indian tribes. It's fine to have a degree of sympathy with the losers but, imho, for the most part, history's losers consisted of social systems that were ineffective in developing technology, were tyanical with their weaker members and, for good reason, commanded their subjects loyalty to a much weaker degree than their more advaced opponents. In other words, I feel that throughout history, for the most part, the folks who were winners won for good reason and we can be happy they did.



Fred, check out Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel. I think you would find it very interesting. One part in particular would be where the Europeans who had successfully conquered South Africa try to move into the tropical jungle of Africa and end up suffering all sorts of illnesses and have trouble growing their crops. It seems that South Africa is similar in climate to Europe, in which the Europeans and their crops had evolved to thrive. However, neither the Europeans or their crops were well suited for the diseases and seasons of the jungle. So it is not always about one culture having the superior society.

[Fredl]

Helemon, I've heard a lot of good things about this book and intend to read it.

Papa, when I reread my response to your comment, I wondered if my comment that my heart ached came across as sarcastic or insincere. It was not. I've spent a good part of my life in turmoil over these issues but, as, hopefully, I've matured, these are the conclusions I've reached. I read something I liked recently: Morals is the study of how things "should " be; Economics is the study of how things are. I prefer Economics.

Many years ago during my days of being very active in Alanon, I had a conceptual breakthrouh. At least, it seemed so at the time. It has been a guiding light for me ever since. It was, in brief, everything is the way it is for very good reason. A corollary is that everything is exactly the way it should be.

Better to spend my time understanding why things are the way they are than protesting their wrongness.

Fred

[papa]

Fred said:

"I wondered if my comment that my heart ached came across as sarcastic or insincere. It was not."

I agree, I detect no sarcasm.

"Morals is the study of how things "should " be; Economics is the study of how things are. I prefer Economics."

Yes, I think your preference is evident.