i must decrease,so that we all can increase

Politics are so overwhelming. i know i could make a difference, i wouldnt sell myself short. the problem is that they are so dividing, those i truly care about are more important to me. i am not willing to draw battle lines because of a political stance. i found myself getting very irritated at simple things in life, just because of the message behind what i saw. i cant do it any longer. i will still be involved in the political process but i am not willing to hurt people over decisions in washington. then i began to think even further, why do i choose one political party. i really must choose individual cases for myself and not make one broad stroke of my political decisions.
i must reivaluate my decision on the ethics of war. Ghandi, Martin Luther King jr. and Jesus Christ would have asked us not to go into Iraq. but i wanted us to. their system worked, why do i insist on defending decisions based on washingtons decision and not on what i know the philosophers i try to immulate would have done.
Welfare, what an aggrivating issue. if the Church would do their job we wouldnt have to rely on the government to help the widows and orphans.
i must step back and see what is for the greater good of mankind and not the greater good of a political party. i am done with politics and have only begun with mankind.

Comments

Sasha said…
I wish everyone could agree with that. I think this is the most intellegent position you can have on politics.
MH said…
"Jesus would have opposed our going into Iraq."

Why? Because of the ulterior motives? If so, that's a lost cause--none of us could ever do something for the greater good without other motiveds.

Perhaps this doesn't make sense...but from my standpoint...is it really a bad thing to remove a man who would kill people by dropping acid on their skulls until they died slowly and painfully--or perhaps you prefer the paper-shredder method? That is what is being found in the mass graves, mass graves that would continue to exist had we not intervened.

And...
hindsight is 20/20. We do not know if it was necessarily a better idea to do so or not. But America chose to intervene, and that is what has happened. We're not going to wake up one day with nothing having ever happened.

Learn from mistakes and move on.
Anonymous said…
A man's country is not a certain area of land, of mountains, rivers, and woods, but it is a principle; and patriotism is loyalty to that principle. -- George William Curtis
Kevin Maistros said…
Yes. Despite certain details of any situation, you must look objectively at the collective human being, and act only for it's well being.

I've always answered, "I have no political stance." when asked what mine is. Comically enough, I first would attribute the answer to not following enough of the political happenings to make any single choice as to who or what I agree with. Now, as I have come to be more conscious of these things, I realized that it simply never made sense to me, morally or practically, to settle on any single side. Every situation is different.

It's refreshing to see someone else with the same views. I enjoyed reading this. I'll see you on the road, Stephen.

-Kevin
Kevin Maistros said…
Also, for the commenter "MH" to read - I think Stephen meant that Gandhi, MLK, and Jesus would have been opposed to it simply for the fact that war is not an action derived from love and kindness. The point is not a question of why or why not we went to war, but why we haven't refused any other actions but that of peace.

The actions of innocent children, only naturally follow loving kindness. People, in general, know right from wrong in regards to love or hate and should always follow this despite the age. It's an attribute that stems from our souls, but most lose sight of it by the details of life that cloud us.

"A brilliant man will find a way not to fight a war."
--Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, Japanese Navy, (1884-1943) quoted just prior to the attack at Pearl Harbor in 1941 after being congratulated on a "brilliant effort".

At least, that was how I interpreted what he wrote.
Anonymous said…
I find it upsetting that you almost blame the church for not taking care of the poor. From reading some of your previous posts, you are not even a member of a church. You are adament about not having one "broad stroke" on a political stance. Then in the very next paragraph, you stereotype the entire church body. Maybe you should deal with your fellow Christians on an individual basis as well. You may find they do more than you think.
Andrew Crabtree said…
You express the belief that it is the Churchs job to feed the widows and the orphans. I can not agree with you more. There are so many different government programs devoted to providing for the less fortunate, yet is it the governments job? No. It was intended for the Church to care for these people. My heart is that of a servant and am optimistic, even to a fault, that I can help these people in some way. They need the Church, not a welfare check.
Story of a Girl said…
"if the Church would do their job we wouldnt have to rely on the government to help the widows and orphans". wow, that blew my away...

i agree with your current relation with politics. Besides, why should our stance on political decisions fit in one little box. ..

Popular posts from this blog

New, easy, quick! Extend your life by 7 years!

'cellf' absorbed

james chavez must die.