What makes me think I'm a conservative? Or a liberal?

How would I know?

My thoughtful friends provide an energetic discourse, and the surprise that frequently emerges -- they agree. Not on the candidates, perhaps, but on the issues. The common ground for both:

• Concern about incautious change  
• Concern about injustice (discrimination, abuse, oppression) 
• Support for national values -- life, liberty, equality, ... 
• Sanctity of life and the defense of the weak, or so we all say 
• Concern for children, their safety and health, and their future 
• Responsible and accountable government and politicians 

Right and left even agree on money. I've heard it expressed dozens of ways by both sides, and it's usually as a fear of losing something I don't yet have. On the right, "my increasing possessions might not continue increasing so quickly if we make things more equal." On the left, "you can help those poor people if you take from those rich people."  The perhaps common ground, don't take from me ....

The Great Divide emerges when we get to the details.

• Both right and left understand that poverty is not a choice. 
• While the left supports assisting those in need, they're unwilling to wait for them to catch up. 
• The right are content to leave them behind with nothing, expecting things to sort themselves out. 
• On both sides, many are left behind more or less permanently.
• Both right and left know that terminating a pregnancy ends the life of a child. 
• While the right opposes termination, they decline to assist the survivors. 
• The left supports the termination as a choice mommies should get to make for any reason. 
• On both sides, the baby suffers for the rest of its life.
• Both sides share a worldview that's only true for perhaps the wealthiest of the world's people, and neither understands who is responsible or why it works that way.   The great divide is perhaps in front of us with the rest of the world on the other side.

Liberal, conservative, both, neither, ...?

What are the troubling issues humanity faces today?

• Government, purchased regulation, and rule by an elite?
• Marketplace abuse and extractive economics?
• Corporations, especially banks, now larger than countries? 
• Rule by economic success rather than ethical success or human benefit ...
• Us vs. them? 

Although it is somewhat natural to do, separating ourselves from others, cutting them off, angrily polarized ... that's below the bottom rung of morality, wishing another ill, ethically equal to bullying, abuse, and killing.

“You have heard that our ancestors were told, ‘You must not murder. If you commit murder, you are subject to judgment. But I say, if you are even angry with someone, you are subject to judgment! If you call someone an idiot, you are in danger of being brought before the court. And if you curse someone, you are in danger of the fires of hell.  ... Go and be reconciled .... Then come and offer your gift to God."

So why?  Is there something like that going on in our culture?

Note:  Foundational issues of conservatism and liberalism vary among us without precise definition.  Politicians and the media are having a ball with the emotionally charged but ill-defined verbiage.  This is perhaps the most confused run-up to a presidential election I've seen in my lifetime.

The left and right are more extreme than ever, moderates are missing from the political venue, and progress is extraordinarily difficult.  We're a polarized nation, and the price is high.

Did we each choose to become so polarized, so divided?  Or is it being done to us, and we've fallen for it.


And, there's little left of the original meaning of the words conservative and liberal.
😏

The refugee crisis is worldwide.  A UN report concludes that countries 
hosting refugees received “almost no meaningful international support.” 

The UN’s humanitarian appeal to cover the costs of caring for refugees

received less than a quarter of the necessary funds.

A Syrian child is lifted over border fences near the Turkish border crossing
at Akcakale in Sanliurfa province. Photograph: Bulent Kilic/AFP/Getty Images

Update: 06/2018 -- The nation is further divided.  Truth has become ideological, and citizens are inured to lies and false accusations.  We've been given a fabricated threat of an outgroup described as murderers, terrorists, and rapists. They used to be just refugees.  We've become accustomed to ethnic defamation, and now cruel abuse of children.  ... not what I would consider progress.

Facts about opinions

"The public is often inadequately represented  

 or wholly unrepresented. That presents a  

condition of great unfairness to the  

public. As a result, many bills pass  

 in our legislatures which would  

not have become law if the  

public interest had been  

fairly represented. . . ."  

1911.  Still relevant,  

 still true.  

Louis Brandeis was nominated to the Supreme Court. The nomination was bitterly contested, partly because, as Justice William O. Douglas wrote ...

"Brandeis was a militant crusader for social justice whoever his opponent might be. He was dangerous not only because of his brilliance, his arithmetic, his courage. He was dangerous because he was incorruptible. . . ."

On June 1, 1916 he was confirmed and became one of the most influential figures ever to serve on the high court. His opinions were, according to legal scholars, some of the "greatest defenses" of freedom of speech and the right to privacy ever written by a member of the Supreme Court.

Opinions are not facts.

Opinions are judgements and evaluations, often with broad implications. Their best use is in discussion where we process information and make decisions. Opinions are useful when they are carefully formed from verified facts and according to principles. Today's public discourse includes little such thoughtful discussion.

If we're going to learn and improve ourselves and our world, we'll want to listen to opinions, consider facts, and understand.

We learn little from folks who agree with us.  We learn most from those resources who have information we haven't heard or considered. Shutting the door on such opportunity looks counterproductive, if you ask me.  

• What are the chances you and your teenager are going to come to the same conclusions?
• What are the chances your Senator is going to agree with you on major issues?
• What's the likelihood your congregation will know how to deal with the real world?
• What might a sixty-year-old and a twenty-year-old have in common?

How might we maneuver our way through such difficulties?  Name-calling and personal attacks won't help much, will they.  Nor will yelling, accusation, and angry confrontation.

Such questions remind us that interpersonal and social issues require more than one-sentence answers, more than simplistic declarations from quickly formed opinions. We'll want to know more, and we'll perhaps want to be a little less rigid in our own thinking.  Maybe a lot.  :)

What might a sixty-year-old Christian and a twenty-year-old Muslim have in common?  You'd be surprised.  A little humorous journey.

Apples and Oranges

In 1970, a kid could go to college and pay for it with a part-time job.  Averaging perhaps 15 hours a week at minimum wage would pay the costs.  They'd have to work maybe 800 hours over the year to cover average tuition and fees. They could do that in a summer. 

Today, a kid graduates from high school and faces a price tag of $13,200 per year for college.  That's the average for state run institutions.  At minimum wage, that's 35+ hours per week for the year, and it doesn't include food and lodging.  They've got a choice at that point.  They can join the workforce and plan on low wages for a lifetime, or they can get the money from somewhere else.  Families are less able to fund advanced education than they were in the 70's.  Wages haven't increased at all for the middle class, but college costs are up 600%+.  And, student loans are great business for the lenders.

In 2010, student loan debt surpassed all credit card debt, and by 2011 student debt exceeded auto loans. 

By 2014, U.S. student loan debt had risen above $1.2 trillion, with over 7 million debtors in default.

Anthropologist David Graeber, "If there’s a way of a society committing mass suicide, what better way than to take all the youngest, most energetic, creative, joyous people in your society and saddle them with, like $50,000 of debt so they have to be slaves?"  Beyond that burden on recent graduates, the impact is worse on those who don't complete their degree.  With similar indebtedness and less earning potential, they'll spend years in bondage, perhaps decades.

It's apples and oranges, and it's not the kids' fault.  There is no similarity between 1970 and today.  You've got to have advanced education if you want to make a reasonable income. We're crippling our young people by the choices they have to make.  Economic inequality and stifling debt, it's what we've done to them.  

Parents, plan accordingly.  And aggressively.

And yes, it is time for change.

For lower income households, the increase is higher.

This is one of several key elements of modern economic inequality, persistent poverty, and the widening GAP between the elite and everyone else.  So did college costs go up because loans became available?  States reduced their funding for education as the students picked up the cost  So why would we reduce the funding for advanced education?  Are there conflicting priorities?

Honor, Courage

It is an honor to respect the flag of the country I've served and which has been a blessing to me since birth.

... the republic, for which it stands, ... 

The country today is far from perfect, however, and there are troubling issues of inequality and discrimination that provoke a response in a citizen of conscience.  I can understand an individual taking the opportunity to express their pointed concern and disapproval.

I remember the '68 Olympics when gold medalist Tommie Smith raised a black-gloved fist. He was widely criticised as a Black Power advocate, but he explained afterwards that it was a 'human rights salute'. He was accompanied on the podium by bronze medalist John Carlos who also raised a black-gloved fist, and by Australian silver medalist Peter Norman. Smith and Carlos were shoeless and in black socks representing black poverty.  All three wore Olympic Project for Human Rights badges on their jackets. All were ostracized; Smith and Carlos were expelled from the games.  They and their families received death threats. Norman was similarly treated in Australia. All were later honored multiple times for their courage. There are statues, movies, and music in their honor.

Rather than presuming a lack of patriotism or commission of some sacrilege, I'm inclined to see such behavior in light of its provocation. We are currently a polarized and in many ways a divided nation. Perhaps we'd be better served if we embraced the protesters and listened to their heart concerns rather than vilifying them (or pepper spraying them like we did the 'occupy' participants or shooting them like we did to the Vietnam war objectors at Kent State; four killed, nine wounded).  

Kaepernick: "The message is that we have a lot of issues in this country that we need to deal with," he said. "We have a lot of people that are oppressed, we have a lot of people that aren't treated equally ... there are a lot of issues that need to be talked about, need to be brought to life, and we need to fix those things."

Little of the emotional vitriol flung back in response seems to contain any understanding of Kaepernick's concerns.  Much of it reveals in the critics the very problem which he was doing his best to address.

Profoundly Christian

The greatest power on earth, a parent's love for their child, a warrior's love
 for his brother, or the love of one for another in time of need ...
 'Love' has perhaps been devalued over the years by

those who claim that heart but live without a

 changed life.  It should make a difference,

should it not?  To love as it was first

intended is a life changer

and costly.

... so loved the world ...  not the denomination,

not the race, not the country or culture,
 but all of humanity, apparently.
Should we also?

The name 'Christian' has perhaps been devalued over the years by those who claim the credential but continue living unchanged.  It should make a difference, should it not?

The one who is profoundly Christian will be unlike others. The one who is profoundly Christian will be ... the message, the light that shines. And changed.

The one who is profoundly Christian will love extravagantly, even at great personal cost.

The one who is profoundly Christian will live for a purpose, and a great one at that.  To serve as the turning point for another's life, to be help in a time of need, could there be a greater goal?  That which is right and just and good, the power of mercy and grace, that's what flows in their veins.

Wealth and privilege don't matter; class and position are valueless.  Religiosity is perhaps unhelpful; as are legalism, superstition, and wishful thinking.  At the other extreme, faith and hope, justice and mercy, these are life changers, even world changers, and are the very stones upon which eternity is built.

Knowing the Author of it all, to perhaps catch a glimpse of His greater reality is worth all our labor and every step in our journey. Knowing Him is our strength.  Of such is the substance of profound Christianity.  That is the goal and worth the fight.


Create in me a clean heart, oh God, and renew a right spirit within me.

Do we choose by truth or preference?

It hadn't occurred to me that you could come to a wrong conclusion from right information. It was a surprise.

Thomas Nagel, professor of philosophy at New York University, "I want atheism to be true. And I’m made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t that I don’t believe in God and naturally hope that I’m right in my beliefs, it’s that I hope there is no God. I don’t want there to be a God. I don’t want the universe to be like that."1    
He is among the few who speak objectively about the force of preference against truth.

What we want will affect what we believe, what we admit is truth, and the impact of our lives.  

(NC-17) What if an unborn child is in fact a child?  Do we believe what we prefer, or do we acknowledge truth?  Is our position based on science or politics, truth or preference?

Pascal warned us, "Truth is so obscured nowadays, and lies so well established that unless we love the truth, we shall never recognize it."  Is he right?  When is the last time truth forced us to change our personal behavior?  

What about that unborn child?  Is there a difference in the child between the day after being born and the day before?  A week before?   Care to look at a court review or perhaps a larger context.  What are the preference issues and what are the truth components?  (ref)(ref)(ref)(ref)  Do we prefer the unborn child be disposable?  Can we see the difference between right and rights?  And responsibilities?

There are medical issues we can now see before birth.  The discussion is difficult and emotionally charged, and no one trusts regulation to provide the right answer.  It's all hard to face, perhaps in part because the outcome may impose an inconvenient burden on us individually and collectively.  

Can we choose truth even when there's a price tag?  And what about our government's role?

 ¹ Thomas Nagel, The Last Word (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 130, emphasis added. Interestingly, Nagel has recently released a book in which he concedes to some degree the credibility of the evidence for a non-material cause of the universe. See Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012). Neither the first nor the last to separate preference from truth, he offers a look at the dilemma of conscience, morality, honesty, and self-choices. Aldous Huxley once explained, "I wanted to believe the Darwinian idea. I chose to believe it not because I think there was enormous evidence for it, nor because I believed it had the full authority to give interpretation to my origins, but I chose to believe it because it delivered me from trying to find meaning...."