Arroyo: This really pisses me off! Arroyo signs a massive hometown discount so that he can stay in Boston. The two headed GM (Theo had not yet returned when Bronson was signed) had a gentleman's agreement that they wouldn't trade him "in the near future." Two months later, Bronson's "hometown" discount appears to be from a different "hometown:" Cincinnati! Talk about dirty (not to mention stupid) ball! This screwing of Arroyo rivals the screwing of Wakefield, who also signed a hometown discount only to see his personal catcher traded within the week!
Hey Red Sox: A hometown discount is given by a player to a team because he wants to stay in the town he's in! Guess what you can kiss goodbye. Any hint of a discount from any other player, ever! Two players have signed the team friendly contract this year and you screwed both of them. No player will ever be foolish, stupid, or gullible enough to do it again! Ortiz? He will demand top dollar. Paplebon? Probably will sign with another team at some point. I don't ever want to hear the words "Hometown discount" in regards to the Red Sox unless it is a "Hometown Discount" for a Boston native who is buying the team from the current ignoramuses who call themselves owners.
I'm kinda glad that they did this now. The Coco signing and Spring training was starting to woo me back. Then I remembered the type of people I'd be supporting if I patronized the team this year. Yeah, I'm out.
"And the bullpens empty:" Well, it's been three spring training games and three altercations that have occurred with the Sox. They played bean ball with the Yankees, Out Shoutin' with the Phillies, and they Boxed against the Devil Rays. Hello! It's spring training! It doesn't matter! Oh, and two of the three instigators were not Red Sox last year. Hmm, they sure have done a great job this year, huh? Speaking of off season acquisitions:
Who's on my team? Hey Boston, who is on your teams? I'm just wondering if you can name them. (There was a recent poll that showed that Boston was losing the most population in the nation. I think it's all of the athletes being shipped out!) Look at the Red Sox. Here's some trivia: There are five players that the Red Sox did not try to trade this past off season, can you name them? How about your entirely new infield can you name them? Let's look at who's gone from Boston:
Red Sox
Kevin Millar
Johnny Damon
John Olerud
Doug Mirabelli
Bill Mueller
Edgar Rentaria
Allen Embry
Bronson Arroyo
Hanley Ramirez (the rookie phenom)
Mike Myers
Andy Martes (the replacement rookie phenom)
Tony Graffinino (he gave up a TON to sign and they are going to ship him out!)
Plus $4 million per year to players playing for other teams!
This was all this year. That isn't to mention that the Bruins traded Thornton and Samsonov and the high profile players the Celtics have traded.
Immigration: As this is a sports post, I don't expect anyone to read this. And I'm not trying to open any more cans of worms but I've got one short thing to mention:
One of the protesters in Boston said, "We agree with making the immigration laws tougher, we just think there should be a way for illegal immigrants to become US citizens." So, what did I hear when I heard that quote? "Go ahead, make the laws tougher. What difference does it make when there isn't any punishment for breaking them? I mean, we disregard them completely anyway and we are pushing for a law that makes it ok to disregard those laws. When we break them to enter, we can still become citizens! So go ahead, we dare you!" Not only that, but it's just sticking their noses up at people who actually lawfully enter the country. Let's make it harder for them!
(Anyone notice that the protest was on a Monday? I thought these people were "active" members of society...)
Anyway. These are some examples of things that are just my opinion.
39 comments:
marc,marc, marc
It not much of a protest if it doesn't incovience anyone is it. If you do something that doesn't impact anything or anyone who will notice. Well maybe that is the point isn't it.
I heard this near quote (sorry don't have it word for word but the jist is accurate)from one of the congressmen, who is a proponent of the House bill that would now make it a criminal offense to be in the country illegally if it passes the senate and is signed by the president, in response to the senate version, which passed the Senate judiciary committee,that dramatically changed the law. They (the senate) kept "the catch and release" provision of the current laws. Catch and release is term for sport fishing not for talking about people.
For those of you who don't know what this term is, under current law if you are an immigrant other than Mexican (otm) you are not deported if picked up by INS but given a ticket to report at a later date for a hearing. I mention this, it is this type of terminology which is part of the immoral dehumanizing of immigrants that characterizes our immigration policies.
What a stupid law! Who is actually going to appear at the "later hearing?"!
So all protests have to inconvenience someone? Peaceful, non-intrusive protests don't work anymore? That's too bad.
"Three strikes and you're out" is about a game, not felonies. Guess we need to change that law too.
Anyone else bothered by the fact that there are an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the US?
I am bothered by that figure. Probably not for the same reason.
"Catch and release" and "Three strikes" not the same thing and you know it.
I agree the law is flawed. We probably disagree what would be a better alternative.
Didn't say they couldn't be peaceful. What would be an example of a non-intrusive protest?
Why does 11 million bother you?
I disagree, both are in regard to illegal actions and are simply catch phrases used to make the concept understandable.
You are absolutley right about this one.
Peaceful, non-intrusive? Well, they started out that way. They were protesting on the commons. Didn't bother anyone except those 6 guys who wanted to play frisbee in the open area they were standing in. Then they decided to march up Tremont. That's when it became intrusive. Cindy Sheehan is a masterful non-intrusive protester.
Hi Marc,
I will start with sports. For the most part, you are right on. However, I would have omitted Adam's name from that list altogether. You see, Arroyo was willing to make a sacrifice to stay with his team. That is honorable. Adam screwed his loyal fans and CHOSE to play with our arch rivals. That's worse that Damon! We loved Adam!
Now on to the can of worms. I want you to know that I did read the entire last posting and all of the comments. Frankly, I didn't know where to start. For one thing, I can't even count how many examples I came across that included the "twisting of the words" that we discussed last week. On the news last night, one of the protestors, claiming to be an illegal immigrant, said (in very, very, very broken English) said that she should be made a citizen on the grounds that she pays taxes to. On what??? Cigarettes?? If she is an illegal immigrant, and has no work visa, social security card, etc., how did she get a job where she pays taxes?
I could go on and on with this. I have a very good friend (that you know) that was born in Argentina. When I tell you who it is you will be shocked. You would never know that she is from another country because she speaks ENGLISH....and, get this, she LOVES HER COUNTRY, and even better.....she came here legally! I will really go to the extreme with this and say that I would love for the military to hand me a gun and say "go hunting, get 'em, out!"
If you come here legally, great, good for you, and welcome! Otherwise, get out, stop complaining, and yes, our money does say "Under God"!!
Hi Marc-
I took the bait and am trying to come up with the five players that the sox didn't try to trade. I've got four: Big Papi, Wake, Varitek, Schilling...maybe the other will come to me. It is really too bad about Arroyo. Since he wanted to stay so bad and Wells want(ed/s) to go so bad. But surely they know what they're doing. It will be interesting to see (er..read about) the game tonight to see how Arroyo did against the Sox, and what the fan reaction was to him.
It will also be interesting to see how Johnny (I need 12 MILLION more a year to be really settled in life) Damon does this year. Already his shoulder is acting up and slowing him down. If he falls apart people are going to kiss the feet of all the GMS who were involved in the trade. (the two-headed GM, is that what you called it?)
So, why aren't you interested in sox this year? I don't think i understand. They're still the Sawx! C'mon!!!
And, I agree with Jason-hard to have an effective protest if it is not inconvient to people. If they protested on Saturday when everyone was off work what would that do? Not to much (of course, you could argue that protests in general don't do much).
So, let's say your friend from argentina was not legal. what would you do?
:)
Jenna,
That's too broad of a question to answer. At what point in our relationship did I find out she wasn't legal? Does she speak English? Of course, you really can't say for sure what you would do in any given situation unless it happens. Most likely, I would encourage her to take the steps to become a legal citizen. If she was adamant about not doing so, I would probably turn her in. It isn't fair to those who do it the right way to have people slipping in under the radar. It also isn't fair to those of us who pay taxes.
absoluletly right! it isn't fair and everyone knows it! where is the thanks to the millions of LEGAL immigrants that came here generations ago to build the beauty we now take advantage of?
(see my new post at marc's previous blog)
Right on, Corey!
Corey and anyone else,
I am not saying that illegal immigration is a good thing. It is not a good thing. It isn't about saying I give up they are going to come anyhow so don't make them follow the rules. I am not saying too bad if your stupid enough to follow the rules you lose.
My issue is that the current immigration laws are not fair, and are actually unjust. Please read my posts carefully. Please show me why the laws that are currently are in place capture the heart of a just and gracious God who cares for strangers and offers mercy to those who do not deserve it and have called on his people to reflect his nature.
I am in favor of making legal immigration available to all who want to come into this country. I have no issue with enforcing laws that would bring consequences (deportation or some potential other alternative)to people who then choose to not follow the rules. One major reason that the current laws are unjust is because it turns a blind eye to inforcement of corporations, businesses, and individuals that exploit these workers to make more money for themselves.
Regarding economics, which is not the heart of my posts, those people who would then enter legally and are working jobs they would be required, like all other people to pay taxes and we would each share the burden. Companies should also be required to pay them a minimum wage like everyone else who works in this country who has visas or is citizen.
What is wrong with allowing people to come into this country and creating a system that gives everyone a fair and equal opportunity to enter into this country.
I actually think the roots of colonization of the new world is based on imperialism not legal immigration.
What is the hang up about enlish Ali? If an illegal immigrant comes from Canada and speaks English are they better than one that speaks, Spanish, or french or Russian, or german or
Jason, Your comment said, "Please read my posts carefully. Please show me why the laws that are currently are in place capture the heart of a just and gracious God who cares for strangers and offers mercy to those who do not deserve it and have called on his people to reflect his nature."
I ask you to show me why I should force my government to show the heart of my gracious God. Is it not my personal responsibility to display his graciousness? If I force my government to do this, doesn't it (yet again) give to the government the responsibility to care and love that should be coming from the church and it's members? Doesn't it (yet again) give the comfortably idle members of the church another reason not to reach out? "Oh, the government is taking care of that as well. Cool. I don't have to."
sorry, it was hard to weed through 40+ posts of banter!
i agree! there should be consequences to those who don't follow the rules. we need to change the law to make it a felony to be here illegally. we also need to equally enforce the part of the proposal (i think it might be a current law in the books) that imposes a $10,000 fine per employee to the employer hiring illegal immigrants. this is probably the bigger issue that Jason is pointing out. My question is who will actually enforce these rules on big corporations when they are the ones controlling big gov't? Marc, hats off to your view of a cyclical governmental system. This issue alone proves that it is mainly concerned with self preservation! if the government was actually doing it's job then this would have never happened. perhaps we just need more resources to enforce the immigration laws we already have.
Jason, i don't follow how our current laws or any proposed changes are anti justice or grace?
Here is an article New Testament and the State
Corey -
Ah, yours is a brilliant question: "My question is who will actually enforce these rules on big corporations when they are the ones controlling big gov't?" It all comes down to the dollar signs and whoever has them has the power in this so-called democracy.
BTW, my husband just got his Permanent Resident card (good until 2016!) a few days ago-- how timely considering all this immigration talk. We are beyond excited, because we heard horror stories from friends of ours who had to be subjected to grueling interviews, hire immigration lawyers, and be intimidated by the system. Don't even get me started on how they treat immigrants like garbage (whether legal or illegal) both here in the US and in US embassies abroad, and charge outrageous fees that many people can't afford for every form you file to the BCIS. Luckily, we only had to go through one of those videotaped interrogations--as if we were criminals--2 years ago. Not only did he feel like he was treated like a criminal, but I as a US citizen did as well. Yeah, I'd say there's a LOT wrong with the system beyond all the arguments I have read from everyone thus far. BTW, he has absolutely NO intentions of becoming a US citizen! HA!
Anyone else find it funny that 2:10's husband's permanent residence card has an experation date?
Because the morons who run the BCIS (or maybe they are geniuses) will NEVER EVER allow a "Permanent Resident" to live here permanently (i.e. with no end date in sight), in the sense that you will always have an expiration date at which time you must file again for an extension. This system goes on and on and on, unless you decide to take the path to citizenship. I believe it is very intentional this way. Plus, they make big bucks every time someone has to refile for extension or adjustment of status. We had to file when we got married, then in 2004, we had to file all over again so he could become a "conditional" Permanent Resident. Then in 2006, we had to file all over again. You can only be a conditional Permanent Resident for 2 years, at which point you get a lovely threatening letter saying you must file a bunch of documents, pay hundreds and hundreds of dollars (again), and submit basically every personal, legal, and financial document in existence in order to become a Permanent Resident or else "you will be deported." And of course their correspondence balances out this threat with the happy words "Welcome to America!" Unbelievable. How happy they are to keep people in that endless cycle...more money for them, and it slows down the process of citizenship because if I remember correctly, you can only begin the citizenship process 5 years after you have been *granted* Permanent Resident status from the Department of Homeland Security...er, I mean the BCIS...oh wait, the BCIS is under the Department of Homeland Security. How silly of me to forget...
Oh yeah, and who cares about the Red Sox...
Go WHITE Sox! :-P
Jason,
Why do I have an English hang-up? If I went to Germany, would they cater to my inability to speak German? I think not. Of course there are no laws in place capture the heart of a just and gracious God. This is American, freedom of religion and separation of church and state.
2-10,
Perhaps the grueling interview process has something to do with the fact that temporary citizens obtained pilot's licenses and crashed planes into the twin towers and the Pentagon. I am comforted to know that such procedures are in place. I am also comforted to know that it costs money to file the paperwork. This goes a long way toward proving that your intention is to becoming a productive member of society.
What we need to remember is that it is impossible to have a perfect government. It is impossible to please everybody. The government's job is to make decisions balancing out the greater good. It is unrealistic to expect perfect leadership from a government. The only perfect leadership you will find is that of God. Since we are not yet in His kingdom, we must have realistic expections of our political leaders.
Marc,
Ali said, "The government's job is to make decisions balancing out the greater good."
What do you think about that statement?
The USCIS charges range between $50-$1,000. Most of these filing fees are in the $250-$500 range PER form. And you are often required to file several forms at once, repeatedly, over several years, like we always have been required to do. Moreover, there are strict deadlines to file for certain things, or else "you will be deported" so how is it fair to charge such steep filing fees that many cannot afford, especially because several fees have to be paid at once? Plus, you often have to wait a year or more just to get any response as to your status. My husband and I filed when we got married in 2002 and didn't get an interview until February 2004, when we had to refile again anyway.
I'm not against charging a reasonable fee to file and process paperwork and forms. Fine. But what does that have to do with ensuring that such people are going to be productive members of society? MANY immigrants are simply not in the position to pay hundreds to over a thousand dollars over and over again. By the time they arrive in America, many quite literally have no money to their name because all of their money has likely been spent at the US embassy overseas on VISA fees and a plane ticket to get here. Most immigrants also have to send money back home to support their families once they arrive. It is a cultural expectation and obligation that cannot be ignored. There are many outstanding people who arrive here and work ten times harder than the average American just to survive and provide for family both here in the US and in their home country. Isn't this being a productive member of society? Ask my husband who arrived here with no money, singlehandly paid the tuition to put himself through school, and often worked four or more jobs at one time while in school full time--and still sent money home to his single mom, 3 younger siblings, and grandmother. The obligation does not end when one gets married and has their own family, for we have been supporting his family this way since we got married.
How does charging such ridiculous fees go "a long way toward proving that your intention is to becoming a productive member of society"? Surely it sounds like being "productive" has purely economic ramifications.
Surely those "temporary citizens" who "obtained pilot's licenses and crashed planes into the twin towers and the Pentagon" were more than willing and able to shell out the big bucks necessary to ensure that they would be viewed as serious about becoming productive members of society by the U.S. government. So much for protecting our country. Too bad most immigrants who aren't well off financially are viewed through the same lenses as those with which we see the "terrorists" solely because of their economic status or, might I add, their ability or inability to speak English!! God help us.
In the spirit of my last comment, here is an email I received just yesterday (3/29/06) from a friend of ours who works with resettling refugees and immigrants in DC. She previously worked in Kenya in a program to help immigrants who were preparing to come to the U.S. for the first time, and she even accompanied some of them on the plane to the U.S. and was there when they first stepped foot on American soil. She has amazing stories. Here's one that strikes at the heart of this whole immigration debate:
"A very tall, dark, Sudanese man came into my office today; his brother accompanied him. He arrived at BWI on Monday night. I sat at the desk across from our case advocate as he gave him a brief cultural orientation to our program and to America. How strange it must be for young man from southern Sudan to come to America and be given orientation by an elder Vietnamese man. I wondered how much he could understand. Glancing over, his head was bowed and he looked fearful; maybe not so much fearful of the case worker, but of everything surrounding him. Two days ago he was on his first airplane; a very long trip across the Atlantic to fly to New York and then on to Baltimore. He spoke a little English; his brother was fluent. They were both dressed very nicely in suits and a tie.
When dreams happen and we find ourselves in a world that we couldn’t even imagine and what we had imagined we discover is nothing close to reality…how do we respond? Often when we come from a home or country of stability and travel to other parts of the world, we are excited. All that we anticipated is coming to play and what we see is more than we can imagine…all in a very positive light and often through rosy colored glasses. But what happens if we come from a home and world that is unstable and full of hardships that threaten our very existence. If we come from the desert where food and water are a precious find and the millions of stars blanket us at night…to a strange city full of people and strange noises and cars everywhere…what would we think? You would hope a refugee coming to America to start a new life would be full of excitement and energy to start a job and become a US citizen. In reality, they are excited, just as we are when traveling to another country; but the fear may often paralyze them. The shock of the many differences with absolutely everything is often too much.
One thing that always amazes me, every time, is the resilience refugees have. It’s not something we can prepare ourselves for. We don’t choose the life we are born into; but if we are lucky, we all may have a chance to live the life we want if we accept an opportunity. The refugees here in America have taken this opportunity, against all odds and all knowledge of what is known to them. Their simple life in a refugee camp out in the middle of the hot desert in Africa is completely foreign to us. They live by survival. One day at a time. Many of us live one day at a time trying to survive. The difference is we often are surviving a world we created by the choices we made, rather than the life we were given.
There has been much controversy over the immigration reform that is taking place in the Senate. It’s provoked one of the greatest protests in our nations history to keep illegal immigrants here and able to work and support their families and become US citizens. If that is taken away; if those who often come to the US by chance and are fleeing a life of persecution, if we detain them in prisons or deport them back to their war torn homes…what kind of a people have we become? We’re not talking about terrorists or people who will take our employment from us; these are individuals who have been given a second chance at life. By some random chance they were able to make it to American soil; don’t we all deserve a life of choices? A life where we can work and contribute to our communities and live with our families in safety? A life where fear does not overcome our every essence and paralyze us of life itself?
This Sudanese man will be ok. He’ll make it through the first few months of our program and we’ll help him to find employment and start to become self-sufficient. He’ll write home to his family still in the refugee camp and tell them all the glorious things about America; never the hardships and loneliness and prejudices he’ll face each day. He’ll send his hard earned American dollars home so that his family may buy needed resources to sustain them. And he’ll pray each night to make it through yet another hard day and for his family to get that lucky ticket that will bring them here to live in America.
As Americans, we’re often quick to judge those coming to immigrate into our country. We don’t want foreigners taking our jobs or clogging our welfare systems. We don’t want our tax dollars going towards people who didn’t work as hard as we did to get where we are in life. It is controversial and it is challenging. But when you sit face to face with a refugee or an immigrant who is asking for a second chance, asking for a little assistance to explain the way things work so that he too can work hard and support his family, it’s really hard to turn them away. And why should we? We all dream big."
Sorry, 2:10. I don't think our Sudanese friend aplies. There is a huge difference between immigration and refugee status.
It seems that you are not listening. As previously mentioned, I am all for those who do it right. This was not an attack on your husband. It also seems that many of the comments in this post are quite idealist. Perhaps all of you were given these chances that you speak of. Perhaps you were raised by people that provided you with those opportunities. Being a native born American does not guarantee those things. There are many Americans that face struggles equal to those of people from another country. I, for one, certainly relate more to your refugee friend than the one who wrote the email. However, if you are going to survive in any country, it is necessary to experience trials in life. You must be a survivor.
As for the money, if you take the time to work hard and save money, it proves that your intention is to continue working hard. All immigrants should be productive members of society, and yes, that means economic ramifications. If they want to live in this country and reap the benefits, they must be willing to work and pay taxes. We have too many native born Americans taking advantage of our welfare system to also invite foreigners to take advantage of it, too.
I cannot believe no one has taken issue with Ali's comment: "I would love for the military to hand me a gun and say "go hunting, get 'em, out!" Is everyone just scared of responding or did your glazed over eyes totally miss it because of the sheer volume of posts on the immigration issue?
Marc, what are your thoughts, since this is after all YOUR blog? What about Jason's question to YOU that you still have not answered:
"Marc,
Ali said, "The government's job is to make decisions balancing out the greater good."
What do you think about that statement?"
Or are you deliberately avoiding to respond to such blatant questions or such inappropriate comments for a reason?
Wow. Is someone upset much?
Well, my response to her comment is that she does not advocate killing them. Just removing them. (I tend to view hyperbole for what it is: simple exageration to prove a viewpoint)
I'm working on Jason's question. It is such a broad statement that it is hard to disagree, but because it's so broad there must be something wrong with it.
I suppose, in the end, I disagree with that statement.
I don't think that the government is equiped to make decisions that balance out the "greater good." With all of the lobbiests and "special interest groups" that they have to cater to in order to get the money they need to be reelected, it seems to me they are too wound up in other things to possibly consider what the "greater good" even is.
I suppose the ideal would be some kind of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." But the way our government is organized, it can never happen.
Can you make the question/statement less overarching and broad?
First before you move to it doesn't work in real life I am thinking about purpose of the government. My question is Ali says this is what government is to do. Do you agree with this? Is to balance the greater good the purpose of government?
I totally missed Ali's comment but sometimes it is good to let a comment stand. It says a lot.
Sorry Ali that you have such animosity towards another who has been created in God's image. I pray that you see them through God's eyes.
Alright, I'll bite :)
Yes, in a utopia, or a theocracy, I would say that the purpose of a government is to weigh and make decisions based on the greater good.
And while Ali is busy not seeing people in God's image, it's too bad those very people don't have faith that God will take care of them where He has put them.
That is too bad they don't trust in the God that promises to provide for them but the essence of Christianity is to love God and to love your neighbor. When you are hostile and harbor animosity towards others you fail to reflect Jesus. If those people aren't Christians they of course wouldn't trust God our job is to reflect Christ to them and point to who he is and to care for them the way that he would.
Slippery response to my question. Foundationally is the role of government to balance the greater good.
So what are your opinions of "special interest" groups? Minorities are not the "greater" anything. Wouldn't balancing the "greater good" dictate a new type of Jim Crow laws?
Again, I state that it is my personal responsibility to show Christ's love. It is not my duty to force my nation to do the same.
I'm not yet to the point of determining what the great good is. If the role of the government is to balance the greater good then you need to revise dramatically your understanding of what the government's role is.
Do you think goverments are created by God in the sense that he had a a good and glorifying purpose in creating them to make his glory known? Or do you see they are more of a consequence of the fall?
I see most governments as God "giving us over to our sin." If we want a King, He'll give us a king.
As mentioned in a comment before, I only see the government being able to balance the greater good in a Utopia. As I don't trust them to do it, I want them doing as little as possible!
did you read that article I linked? I know it is long but you can skip to the last several sections if you don't want to get the background.
"Sorry Ali that you have such animosity towards another who has been created in God's image. I pray that you see them through God's eyes." - Yeah, you people really make me want to be Christian. Yet more to add to the list of reasons that I'm going to hell......
Ok, so eventhough illegal aliens are braking the law, we should embrace them as Christians and welcome them to our community. If their breaking the law is a sin, and all sins are created equal, then should we not embrace rapists and child molesters as well?
Ali,
Sorry if my comment offended you. It is interesting that most of the time Christians get accused of being judgmental, hateful and unfair. I am not sure what in my comment bothered you so much. Please let me know where I can clarify myself or if needed apologize. I wasn't judging you if that is what you thought.
Can't believe I'm jumping in with the water this deep already, but here goes... this is in response to Marc's thought that most government is God "giving us over to our sin" as in the case of "If we want a king, He'll give us a king." ...
First thought... that concept was for Israel. It was Israel that was demanding a king, when, in reality they already had one -- GOD! and, yes, he "gave them what they wanted" by allowing them to have an earthly king and then experience how ill-equipped an earthly king really is. Meanwhile, he blessed righteousness and repentence and thus we have good kings and bad kings and the line of David, a man rich in his sin to get to build the temple. God definitely demonstrated that an earthly king is far from perfect and, therefore, we see even clearer the perfect king that Jesus is. OK, so, this was for and about Israel. Yet, the concept of government, kings and kingdoms long preceeded us (Israel)..... so, unless we are talking about an earthly seat of government for our Christianity --- (ie what the Vatican is to Roman Catholics...) we are living in the governments of the land. Now, we 're in a whole different discussion. The question isn't about goverment for God's people -- remember some of us (God's people) are trapped in Communist China and the like ... it is back to the question of what does government do and what is government for.
Have you read/studying anything about the debate between Locke and Hobbes? I learned about this first in a comparative government class in high school. Here's a link for details on each man's positions: http://jim.com/hobbes.htm
The part I find most interesting is the question of the formation of government. It was described to me as what happens when a group of people form a culture... does government for/by the people evolve or does some form of totalitarianism.
It is described on that in the following way:
On the Role of the State: Locke says: The only important role of the state is to ensure that justice is seen to be done. Hobbes states: Whatever the state does is just by definition. All of society is a direct creation of the state, and a reflection of the will of the ruler.
I think with those terms, we would have to recognize that America was definitely influenced more by the idea of Locke than Hobbes.
So the answer then to the "greater good" question is justice.
Biblical justice or justice based on some other standard becomes the problem.
OK, so if that's "the governments" job... and the government is for all the people ... that's where lobbyist and the like come in... they believe they are lobbying for justice for some piece of the society or culture.
As Christians, you are right Marc, we are called to God's standard and should not be relying on the government to be the only or first response to people in need. They might be looking out for those people because they are a part of society and they want to see justice be done on their behalf, but we should not relax and sit by and expect "the government" to take care of the people as if God says nothing to His people about our responsibilities to the poor, etc.
Ok, those are my thoughts... so, which is scarier... calling the local authorities and finding out how I could help with the clean up from the tornados in nearby counties last night ( a responsible thing to do as a Christian! ) or posting something here.... posting here!
From Yahoo news:
"Nineth Castillo, a 26-year-old waitress from Guatemala who joined
the Atlanta march, said she has lived in the United States for 11 years "without a scrap of paper."
Asked whether she was afraid to parade her undocumented status in front of a massive police presence, she laughed and said: "Why? They kick us out, we're coming back tomorrow.""
This is what I want to foster! This is called blatant lawlessness. "but welcome to our country anyway."
Post a Comment