I'm not even certain I'm going to post this—it has more the character of a mental exercise than anything particularly useful to share. And I realize that by posting it I'm inviting the whirlwind onto my blog space.
But perhaps others can weigh in and sway me. Honestly, I'm in complete confusion when it comes to my vote for the presidency these days. I've been reading articles on the "undecided voter" which suggest that such folks are either (A) uneducated and therefore simply unable to process which way they ought to vote, or (B) secretly do know which way they will vote and just don't want to say. I don't think I'm uneducated, and I'm certainly not coy enough to play dumb. I just cannot make a decision that satisfies me.
For some folks, I know this choice is easy. The moral stance of McCain is, in many ways, a better fit for my own. But I do not know if I can, in good conscience, vote for a candidate whose morals match mine but whose leadership I doubt gravely, and whose choice of a running mate has continued to depress me more with each passing day. If Sarah Palin's style of "golly gee," simplistic, vitriolic, petty, and unprepared "from the cuff" leadership style is the future of the Republican party, I'm glad I abandoned ship for the independent label a long time ago. I am honestly scared about where our nation will head if the McCain/Palin ticket is sworn into office. I liked John McCain eight years ago—now he seems only a hollow simulacrum of that man, whose simplistic talking points, seeming inability to speak substantively, ineloquence, stubbornness, and short-sightedness frankly give me serious pause. I do not like the look of the world promised by McCain, and I have been sorely disappointed by the ugly tone of his campaign.
I do have concerns about Obama's inexperience, but after reading his book and listening to him, I think he is the far more reassuring leader. His stances on many social issues̶healthcare, taxation, the environment—match mine far better than McCain's. (And yes, I know that will come as a shock to many—or maybe not—but there it is.) And I admit that a spirit of optimism and bipartisanship appeals to me far more than McCain's brand of hard-edged fear. Obama's inspirational abilities, as well as his intelligent and thoughtful handling of issues, gives me far more confidence in his leadership abilities.
So why not just swing with Obama if he's so much more appealing? A couple of issues still nag. One is abortion. I am not a single-issue voter (obviously), but it is one of the more serious issues facing us, and McCain's stance is the right one. But, if Obama is to be believed, I am very impressed with his stance that, though abortion may be a woman's right in his opinion, he wants to work to reduce the number of abortions as far as possible. That stance seems more useful than absolute refusal to engage in the debate, leaving things just as they are now. (And I admit to being disappointed that social conservatives can tow the [again, correct] hard line against abortion, but do so little by way of assisting young mothers and children in difficulty.) Given that we are looking at an even more vast Democratic majority in the House and Senate, the president seems unlikely to have much chance to change abortion policy in any case.
The only other issue of note at the moment is the appointment of Supreme Court judges; I suspect I would approve more of McCain's appointments (assuming they made it to the bench through the tedious and partisan confirmation process) than Obama's. That is another serious consideration, but again, I am trying to balance that out against what I suspect would be a painful four years in which the discourse of the nation would become uglier and our nation's greatness lessened.
There's also this lingering suspicion that Obama might be the herald of the Antichrist, being so charismatic and all, but I don't know if that's a voting issue (and if it is, might as well usher in the End Times now, eh?).
I really ought to be writing for NaNoWriMo at the moment, but this has been bouncing about in my brain for too long, and I wanted to free it. I don't but doubt that my friends could have much to say on this subject, and there are far more detailed analyses to be made of the issues, but I solicit any (well reasoned and even-tempered) advice that anyone can offer before Tuesday. (Of course, given the poll numbers, it may not make much difference. But it just might...)
14 comments:
Hi. Boiled down, it seems you have more concerns about McCain than Obama. On the Supreme Court issue, consider it this way: Obama will likely be replacing other 'liberal' justices, essentially leaving the balance of the court unchanged. McCain could swing us to a generation-long conservative court, which means, whichever way you lean it potentially means years (decades) of strife.
Are you are serious in your concern that Obama is the "herald of the antichrist"? If that was a joke, it was too subtle for me to catch, if not, read on:
That statement seems, to my non-religious perspective, shocking. You hold a literal interpretation of the 'end of days' scenario in the modern Bible? Really? The whole Left Behind series thing?
I am honestly shocked that a member of my generation who has walked the halls of higher-education would hold such a belief. I am interested and willing to hear about that belief, but wow, I am kinda rocked back on my heels...
Michael is of course joking about the apocalypse and the antichrist. As we all know, the Mayan calendar tells us that the cosmic sixth age will come to an end in December 2012, 12/21/12, to be precise. That's 122,112, which, if you divide by 320, the number of pages in William Ayers' memoir Fugitive Days, gives 381.6, which digits, if added, make 18. The exact number of letters in the name "Barack Hussein Obama".
Wheels within wheels, my friends. Wheels within wheels.
But seriously, I'm grateful for Michael's post -- it's an honest attempt to deal with some difficult issues. As a card carrying member of the Liberal Elite (TM),however, I felt obliged to put in my two (or more) cents for why Obama needs to be elected.
First, as Michael pointed out, John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin was utterly unserious and should be a deal breaker in terms of his judgment as a national leader. He may be a man of tremendous personal courage, but this race has shown him to be completely divorced from reality when it comes to executive-level leadership or preparedness to deal with 21st century issues. He doesn't understand the Middle East, Russia or just about any other region where critical national interests are at stake; his economic policy consists of running around like a chicken with its head cut off calling alternately for either massive tax cuts or massive tax increases (such as taxing businesses for providing employee health benefits); for massive spending programs (buying up all the bad mortgages in America) or complete budget freezes; his foreign policy instincts are Manichean and there's no problem that's so intractable that it can's be solved with a judicious application of J-DAMs. His whole approach to problem solving is the "Max Power Way." Wrong, only faster. Lastly, again, he thought Sarah Palin -- a woman who this weekend took a seven minute call from two Canadian DJ's with Pepe Le Pew accents pretending to be French president Nicolas Sarkozy seeking tips on helicopter hunting -- would make a good vice president.
He's also right that promoting a culture of life consists of more than rhetoric about abortion. How about providing decent, affordable health care for every mother and child in America? How about unequivocally committing to never using torture on another human being? How about building an economy based on good, middle class jobs so that mothers can afford to stay home with their kids if they want to? There's a reason the "socialist" countries of Western Europe have half the abortion rate (22 vs. 11%) of the US despite a far more liberal attitude towards sex and marriage: the social safety net there provides 1. comprehensive birth control options available largely free of charge, or very cheaply, through national health plans and 2. the social safety net makes it possible to deal with an unplanned pregnancy (housing, prenatal care, paid maternity leave, daycare, etc.). Even if Roe v. Wade is overturned by a McCain-stacked court, a lot of states (like California) will still allow abortion and nothing will change unless our society embraces real pro-life policies that make carrying an unplanned pregnancy to term a viable option for women. Even under a more liberal Obama administration, we're never going to enact all those policies, but putting our economy on a sounder footing and providing decent healthcare, especially for mothers and children, will go a long way towards continuing to drive down the abortion rate, not merely drive it underground by outlawing it.
Lastly, I have lived abroad and traveled widely in the last eight years and it's taught me a lot not only about the world, but why America and her founding ideals are important. Most Americans watching our ad-dollar and power-seeking corporate media are only dimly aware of the damage this administration has done to this country's image in the world and how a McCain administration would bury it for good. And if we don't care about that, if we don't care about our nation's honor and reputation, then it's hard to see how we can care for our own democracy at home where it matters most.
Barack Obama is not the antichrist. And he's no messiah. Or a socialist (please). He doesn't have all the executive, legislative, or business experience that we supposedly want a president to have. He is an imperfect politician hoping to run a horribly dysfunctional government at one of the most difficult moments in its history. He has proven, however, that he has a formidable intellect, a keen sense of policy judgment, and, well, competence. In those three things alone, he represents a 180-degree change from the current administration and stands head and shoulders above the McCain-Palin ticket, whose main achievement has been to stoke old culture war resentments and provide unending fodder for comedians at home and abroad.
I think we've had enough of that. It's time for some grownups to be in charge.
Well, Mr. Antos, not to totally blow your mind, but I take Biblical prophecy seriously, too. But then, you already knew that. Given how much Biblical prophecy has come true, quite literally, despite the incredible odds against it, why wouldn't I take it seriously? Jesus hasn't given me any cause to doubt him yet.
(Mind you, I'm not saying I think Obama's the antichrist - I don't. But the whole messianic vibe about him that I get from many Democrats is disturbing to me, nonetheless.)
Additionally, I'm not certain why it should shock you that someone who has attended university should have a belief in Christ and prophecy. I personally may be a bit of a dim bulb, but it's not as though the Church has been bereft of scholars throughout the ages.
Mr. Slusser, my impression of Obama is that of a very charismatic man who says a lot of things to appeal to his audience and promote his career, but doesn't really follow through. Granted, that could describe a great many politicians, but Obama's record doesn't impress me much, and his personal and professional associations indicate a shocking lack of character assessment at best. Under an Obama presidency, I think we're going to be looking at higher taxes and bigger government without anything to show for it. While it's possible that we'll face the same thing under McCain, I'm also largely without faith in Obama's abilities to handle foreign policy and the war, an area in which I think McCain has a much better grasp.
But that's me. And like I said, I'm not too crazy about McCain, either.
In a broader party context, I've noticed that "bipartisanship" seems not to mean "diplomacy and reaching workable compromises", but "Everything will go smoothly as soon as Republicans give in to Democrats' demands." Witness Nancy Pelosi's typical behavior, for example: blame Bush, blame Republicans, no matter the circumstances or the facts involved. When Republicans joined Dems on the bailout package (despite the complaints of many fiscal conservatives in the party), Pelosi came out of it condemning Republicans for causing the problem in the first place (which doesn't appear to be the case, anyway). McCain's proven a little too eager to hold hands with Democrats while they consistently refuse to back down from their positions. I don't predict much bipartisanship in an Obama presidency, just complaints that Republicans are dragging their feet and being stubborn - in other words, being the same old scapegoat that we always are for them.
And having said that, I'm not too pleased with the Republican party, either. I'm registered as one, but there are principles I really want to see them getting back to.
Anyway, that's my two cents, for what it's worth.
Mike,
To answer your question I paraphrase the esteemed Reverend Lovejoy: "Long answer: yes, with a but. Short answer: No, with an if."
Essentially, yes—I do believe that the scenario described in Revelation will come to pass, in one form or another. No, I don't honestly believe that Obama is the Antichrist described therein. (Note that I only called him the possible herald of the Antichrist, anyway...) I have no confidence in any particular End-Time scenario put forward currently. Eschatology is a very tricky subject and not one I think will be answered definitively until the very day comes to pass. In prophetic and apocalyptic literature, it's hard to know what elements are metaphorical and which are literal. Even if they are literal, as we have seen repeated many times, those watching for the signs miss them or misinterpret them anyway.
And I really hope it doesn't look anything like the Left Behind books—the only thing worse than the apocalypse would be to have to endure it listening to interminable wooden dialogue over super-powerful satellite phones.
To echo Devin's point, though, it seems you might be shocked at how many of us university-educated folks hew to the a literalist interpretation of the bible. There are whole college faculties made up of us, and you're likely to find a few in any place of higher learning—not to mention the even higher ratio in business, public service, and so on. Not every believer is an uneducated yokel who has been force-fed some pabulum spooned out by manipulative preachers; some large chunk of us study historical records and theological philosophy with some seriousness (with or without a college degree) and are convinced of the veracity of the biblical account, and the God whom it describes.
Watch out: we're lurking all around you...
A quick follow-up as I run off to class.
My higher-education reference was the assumption (right, in trouble already) that someone with more education is more likely to lean to a more metaphorical / allegorical reading of the biblical stories...a person with training in theory and critical thinking (and all those other basic skills from post-secondary ed) training would find that the bible could be more powerful used this way, rather than as a play-by-play. The garden, for instance, can become much more relevant to many more people if it is treated as metaphor. Trying to read it as a true scene that if a time traveler you could go visit makes it that much more incredible (and unlikely).
Huh.
I'd suggest that the bible is both historically accurate and serves as a metaphor. There's no reason those two approaches are incompatible. But I do believe those who read it only as metaphor are missing some of the key theological points.
The garden as metaphor is powerful and moving; the Garden as place is direct, literal example of God's providence, holiness, and power, and I would suggest it is a serious mistake to read it exclusively as a symbol.
The bible does not purport to be only a guide to living or a collection of parables. (It has those in it, which helps delineate which is which.) It is a history of God and man, and it written as such.
Mike,
Highly enjoyable lunchtime read here.
I'll avoid the politics, since it's a done deal now, except to say that, though a liberal, in 2000 I was also intrigued by McCain because he was a fresh break from politics as usual. Don't know what happened, but that guy is gone.
As for the argument of a literal or metaphorical interpretation of the Bible--the earth is OLD, very old. Much older than the bible claims, unless you consider the words metaphorically. Otherwise, you have to throw away a heap of science, and we may as well go back to figuring the earth is the center of the universe and the sun revolves around it.
The garden as metaphor is powerful and moving; the Garden as place is direct, literal example of God's providence, holiness, and power, and I would suggest it is a serious mistake to read it exclusively as a symbol.
For this question, let's grant that the story of the garden is an actual historical depiction of events that happened. When you consider the author(s), in their tongue in their time, writing the story their way...can we suggest that any particular version of the modern English bible is a similarly accurate historical account? I have heard of the many debates about the translations from Greek, Latin and Aramaic that rearrange the meanings of biblical passages. How can anything be judged as "historically accurate" when its really a big (church-mandated) telephone game that gives is the stories in the modern book?
And, another question, how do you make the scientific discoveries surrounding evolution and early planetesimal theory sync up with the idea that somewhere back then only two people (envisioned as modern humans) and a talking snake were together somewhere in a lush garden (a British garden, an American garden)?
I have never doubted the value of the bible (and its contemporary writings about Jesus and his peeps that were not included in the modern bible) alongside the other philosophical writings and legal documents of human history, but am still boggled that people imagine that given Verne's Time Machine one could attend the flood, or the garden.
Gents,
These are both larger issues than I think we're going to be able to wrestle through in the comment space on my wee blog. These issues have been debated and discussed in libraries worth of books, many of which are available for your perusal, many of which make their cases with far more eloquence and (of much more import to the issues at hand) with much more academic and expert rigor in their particular fields than I can muster in the time and space available.
My very brief response to the variety of points raised:
"I have heard of the many debates about the translations from Greek, Latin and Aramaic that rearrange the meanings of biblical passages. How can anything be judged as "historically accurate" when its really a big (church-mandated) telephone game that gives is the stories in the modern book?"
Actually, it's only translations of Hebrew and Greek that are of real consequence: Latin was a later translation of its own, and though those quoted in the New Testament would have commonly spoken Aramaic, their words are only recorded in Greek.
This is one of those larger issues, but you seem to want to throw up your hands and simply say, "We can't ever really know exactly what people were saying; therefore, it's impossible to suss out what was meant." I don't hold with that. I think rigorous, careful study of source texts and thoughtful translation are needed, but that attitude suggests that we can't ever read anything not of our own time and in our own language and hope to understand it.
I don't know of any one translation that effectively encapsulates every available nuance—which is why it is a blessing in our modern age to have a variety of translations and a mountain of scholarly discussion, so that we can examine them; if we do so without a demand for wooden, simplistic readings of the text, the nuance, possibilities, and beauty of the text are illuminated. And in the end, it's not as though some key doctrinal issue is being obscured because one word or phrase is translated too liberally or conservatively.
"How can anything be judged as 'historically accurate' when its really a big (church-mandated) telephone game that gives is the stories in the modern book?"
That the "game" is church-mandated has nothing to do with whether the history contained therein is true. And we certainly judge as "historically accurate" many works with far less attestation and proven validity than the bible. Again, libraries of scholarly discussion on the historicity and means of compilation of the bible are available, if you're truly interested in the subject. Not that you are doing so, but I find that a huge number of objectors to the bible are willing to simply wave their hand and say, "Oh, it's too [old/unreliable/coincidental/biased/difficult/culturally anchored/obscure/varied/etc.] to be true," and are happy to leave it at that without actually spending the time to research and find out if those claims are accurate.
And on the scientific issues (Kham's mention of the age of the earth, and Mike's mention of evolution), my answers are essentially the same: I don't have a nice sound-bite level answer that is going to satisfy you. I can say that (unlike some among my readers) there are some aspects of the early stories that may be metaphorical. (For instance, I'd be quite willing to believe that the "days" of Genesis are longer than 24-hour periods.) Overall, however, they are written as history, not as metaphor. I think we have to be careful about bringing our own cultural demands for information processing to an ancient text, and the same goes for our cultural understandings (i.e.: the "garden" is probably not at all what we think of when we consider the word in our Western, modernist mindset). That does not mean we can't understand what was meant, but that it may take more than a cursory reading of your handy English translation to grasp the complexity of what is being conveyed.
Meanwhile, it has not been proven to my satisfaction that modern evolutionary theory and schemes for dating the age of the earth are not without at least as many issues, if not more, than the biblical account, nor has science proven a very good guide for deciding a "final" answer to the issues of existence.
And, in the end, even if somehow a particular scientific theory were shown to be the ultimate and unchallengeable answer—one which meant that a perfectly literal translation of the biblical account of the world's creation were not possible (which, I reiterate, I am fairly confident is not possible)—it would only answer those questions science is built to address: how things happen. The reason why they happen is not within its bailiwick.
(This is long, rambling, and almost certainly overly complex, as most of my answers are. My apologies for that.)
I guess we are going to toss a heap of science out the window.
As an archaeologist, and one who has studied dating techniques in depth, I can say that most of the "issues" you speak of largely involve limitations to what degree one can narrow down dates. This may mean a range such as "3.5-3.8 million years ago" is the best estimate available.
But it's a stretch to claim that this inaccuracy means that any date found to be older than the Biblical origin (currently 6500 years?) must be flawed. I've seen carbon dating used in Christian literature to prove the historical accuracy of Biblical text. I guess it comes down to picking and choosing whatever does not conflict with belief.
I guess it comes down to picking and choosing whatever does not conflict with belief.
A problem not found amongst scientists, of course.
Sarcasm is great, but there is a pile of tangible evidence to suggest a multi-millenia planet. Did God plant dinosaur bones all over the planet just for fun? Or were early people running around with Apatasaurs, like the movie 1 million B.C.? A general statement like "science has issues" does not even approach an answer to prehistoric animal bones, it simply ignores a reality.
I LOVE where this seemingly innocent political post has gone. This is awesome.
I'm simply amazed at the level of arrogance displayed by some of those who have "walked the halls of higher education." Give me a break! I'll get my knee pads ready so I'm not uncomfortable bowing in your presence. Ha-ha! Throw on some Metallica and drink a beer, guy, before your ego explodes.
I would like to comment on this bit in particular:
"He has proven, however, that he has a formidable intellect, a keen sense of policy judgment, and, well, competence."
Obama has proven nothing of the sort. I have traveled abroad and I agree that it is important, but it's also important to travel these United States. One thing I can tell you for sure is that Chicago, Illinois is hardly a Utopia. As a matter of fact, I found it to be rather dirty and blighted. There's plenty of poor folk in Chicago, that's for sure.
As far as Obama's intellect, the only insight any "regular joe" can get on the matter is in one of two ways; Either you listen to him regurgitate the talking points from his web site (until his teleprompter shuts off and he turns into walking speech impediment) or you might take the time to read his books. Both are very shallow and lacking in originality in my opinion.
As far as his "policy judgment" goes, how can you know what that judgment is? His record of voting "present" shows only that he knows which issues are (or are not) going to benefit him politically. Rhetoric and action are very different matters. Many politicians talk a good game, but it's their records that show which politically dangerous limbs their willing to go out on.
Anyway, that's just my humble opinion.
Post a Comment