God and men

In spite of believing in God, I still have a problem with folks who pick specific words out of their translation of the Bible and try to impose modern meanings for those words onto others in spite of the fact that those words have been translated, taken out of context, aged for over 2000 years, and sometimes, believe it or not, even twisted by the translator to fit a given agenda that probably has nothing to do with God. (I sincerely believe God is with me on this... or I’m with Him) anyway...

Shakespeare is a great example of why this “strict adherence” is illogical. His stuff was written in ENGLISH and it was only written about 400 years ago. We still use today many of the same words he used back then. But even those words, which began in the same language, have totally different meanings today. In addition, Shakespeare was a master at creating contexts in which his carefully chosen words had at least two meanings... one decidedly naughty, and one that would keep him from being tossed out on his ears by henchmen claiming to represent Queen Elizabeth. (she was actually a Shakespeare fan) Anyway, that’s what made him funny. It’s what made him famous. How many people today try to read him and quit because he’s not funny anymore? That’s precisely because we don’t understand his words today as they were used when he wrote them. Nor do many of us even try to appreciate his genius. His words require some study today, some dedication, because they don’t mean the same things. Now, add another 1500 years worth of language changes, cultural changes, and translation from three different languages to that and you have only begun to scratch the surface of why it’s pointless to argue specific words out of the Bible, especially when those arguing them often haven’t done the required study, haven’t been as dedicated, and probably don’t even really have any personal understanding of what the words they’re arguing even mean. Unless of course you’re saying God’s context isn’t important... that He didn’t put as much care into His work as Shakespeare did. You’re not suggesting that are you?

That brings me to an important discovery in both my spiritual journey and in my understanding of American Politics. I’ve discovered that God is vastly different from man, in spite of having created man in His image. Here’s how it applies to politics: When it comes to God’s rules, we have the Bible. When it comes to man’s rules, we have only ourselves. I won’t get into how men have corrupted the Bible cuz that’s not my point right now. Nor will I further explain how this applies to my spiritual journey because who gives a shit? My point is man’s rules are, by their origins, as flawed as man. It doesn’t matter if Republicans or Democrats drafted them. It doesn’t matter who tries to change or duck them. They’re flawed, just like humans are, and they always will be.

God doesn’t have to deal with His rules being flawed. His rules are perfect. The problem comes when men assume we are capable of creating rules like God. See, God’s perfect rules require no explanation, no debate, no deliberation. They are a matter of personal understanding and acceptance... faith. They only require adherence... and that only from those who believe in them. Men’s rules, on the other hand, need to be explained, justified, proved beneficial to the masses in order for the masses to accept them. Only when men assume they can create perfect rules... that require no discussion or agreement, do we run into the kind of trouble plaguing the democratic process in America today.

By democratic process, I refer to the idea that rules that allow people to live together are developed by and for those people. The rules don’t always please everyone, but, if properly discussed, everyone can agree that the rules are the best for all concerned. It’s not a new idea... it was created before Jesus even walked the earth. I have to believe that He would have come up with something better if He didn’t think it would work.

Yet today, that’s exactly the problem we seem to have. Rather than discussing the rules, we choose sides, condemn each other without listening to what each other has to say, and then spend more time trying to defend our own positions, prove ourselves right, prove the other side wrong, than we do developing, discussing, revising, or even getting rid of men’s rules. At least one aspect of that problem is when men who create rules believe they have a clearer line on God’s intentions than anyone else could. The rule then becomes a matter of faith rather than a matter of discussion. Democracy requires discussion. You have discussion of the rules and faith in the method of creating them, not faith in the rules themselves. The rules are only arrived at as the result of logical discussion. Logical arguments, respect for, and understanding of the other side’s position creates the most solid rules - rules that we can all accept. We should choose the people who make those rules for us with the same idea in mind.

Our interpretation of democracy has long abandoned that kind of exchange. Instead, we figure anyone who questions our ideas, as the democratic process requires, must be a member of the other side... or they must hate America... or they must be a communist or a witch... yeah, it’s become that ridiculous. Today’s version of the democratic process looks more like “how can I make my side win.” That doesn’t leave much room for listening to the other side. Hence, it’s not the democratic process. Our chosen leaders haven’t given us much of an example to follow either if you count Howard Dean or Bill Frist... or most of the others... but every now and then, there’s a glimmer of hope.

Harry Reid and John McCain (and a handful of their colleagues) chose to remember the real democratic process. They talked to each other about solutions to the filibuster “crisis.”* They agreed that while the President didn’t seem to be terribly interested in compromise, having resubmitted seven previously rejected candidates, there were a few of those candidates everyone could agree on. From there, they hammered out a way of dealing with the rest of the candidates. The way they agreed upon allowed the long standing filibuster to remain an integral part of a proven system and the crisis looks to be averted. It wasn’t averted by some easy answer or miracle solution or by Republican or Democrat triumph. It was averted by two guys who did what we pay them to do... talk, listen, debate and achieve consensus. These two guys used the democratic process.

McCain and Reid are a glimmer of hope in an otherwise disappointing and ineffective crowd. Howard Dean uses the “new democracy” just as poorly as Bill Frist has in demanding ultimatums rather than hosting discussions. The “culprits” if you want to call them that, creep around on both sides of the aisle and always have. Unless we tell them otherwise, they always will. And that’s an even more important point - we can’t wait for them to change things. They’ll vote themselves raises after we’ve gone to bed, they’ll keep nicer apartments in Washington D.C. than we have at home and they’ll take all the money and all the benefits we provide them to do whatever they please rather than what we elected them to do. But it’s not US and THEM... it’s only US. WE elected THEM to represent US. Face it, only a third of us even care enough to vote in the first place. Of that third, how many just voted for the guy whose name they heard the most? How many of us knew what a candidate had actually done before we voted for them? How many of us just believed what a TV ad said?

Only Nevadans would have voted for Harry Reid - who has even heard of him before now? But John McCain’s another story. This guy’s the real stuff...even made an attempt at the presidency... and we (the ignorant, collective WE) shot him down in favor of a philandering Arkansas governor and a Viagra spokesman. That ignorant, collective WE needs to stop throwing insults across the aisle and pushing the blame off on the other side. WE shot down good guys like John McCain, Jack Kemp, and a giant list of others. WE did it, not the other guys. Until we starting acting more like a WE and less like an Us and a Them, we’re speeding along down a scary stretch of road. How much farther are we going to go before we turn around? We’ll probably be out of oil by then.

*Further proof that the media bends over backward for Republicans in an attempt to shrug the misnomer: liberal. Why would a “liberal” press call a successful invocation of the filibuster, by Democrats, a “crisis?” It was only a crisis for the Republicans who were pissed that the Democrats used it! Filibustering worked for Republicans when they were in the minority - it’s a pretty neat part of our checks and balances system. Now it’s worked for the Democrats and our “liberal” media calls this a “crisis.” puuuhhhhhh-leeeeaaaazzzzze! How can so many people fall for the same line over and over and over again in spite of the unlimited supply of evidence to the contrary?