Saturday, November 18, 2006

'free trade' ?

So, we have a few new powers brokers in Washington D.C. ; I can only hope that our govt. will begin to better speak for its people and represent its people in more honest ways... I see that the President is in Asia speaking for 'free' trade. Is it not interesting that he goes to Asia to speak about his 'free' trade policies? In other words, if I can't sell these ideas to the people I represent (aka Americans), perhaps I can get some support in Asia. And then I want to stop our President, and say, "Hey, since when is 'free' trade fair trade? Since when should we take advantage of people who have less than we do? Since when did we allow a portion of the gospel in America to become 'free' trade? After stinking all, the Sermon on the Mount talked about how we are to treat people. 'Free' trade flies straight into the face of the words of Jesus. Do we not care? Wait. Yes. Free trade would make the world a better place. After all, money is the thing that makes our lives better. That's exactly what Jesus was after when he said things like blessed are the peacemakers. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness... people who hunger and thirst after what is right! I just can't believe that we've been sold a bill of 'free' trade being good for the world when it does very little other than make multi-national companies very wealthy while holding nobody responsible for pollution, enslavement of employees, child labor, and a handful of other things. Perhaps I am ranting, but I increasingly believe that the powers of the world want people to think less and react more. We get fed terms such as 'free' trade, war on terrorism, threats to the free world... all in an attempt to simply agree with the machine controlled by a few... I hope, perhaps to optimistically, for a more gentle and kinder America for the future. While we have a long ways to go, perhaps we have a small start. Perhaps...


Anonymous said...

It is interesting that you continue to want to hold secular governments to some Christian standards as if you expect that world powers in a fallen would would meet you understanding of Christian standards.
You almost seem surprised.

Randy said...

Honestly, I think your are disingenuous with that last comment... read my last post again please.

I don't expect that world powers will understand nor embrace a different sort of kingdom.

I DO expect that some people have hopes for my country (America) that are different than world domination. Here's a thought... I saw a bumber sticker the other day that read, "Protect freedom." Our current administration believes we are not only supposed to protect freedom, but we are to promote freedom even at the expense of Americans.

George W. may have created a bigger mess for the world than any president in nation's short history. So, yes. I have hope for the future.

And if you want to talk about holding our nation to some higher moral standards, as Americans we can ask our government to hold itself to some sort of standards. It's our right to write, speak, vote, and run for office. Perhpas we won't get the standards we hope for, but we can put our opinions into the public square for either rebuke or embrace.

A few weeks back we voted, and we said we are against... most things the current administration supports. So let's still hope... what are we for? Maybe something better.

Anonymous said...

The problem I think is that given the nature of politics there's really nothing 'better' in store from a different political party.
As horrible as it is to see people die in war, isn't it true that we should be willing to have American's die to promote freedom? Whether it should be happening in Iraq or not, I don't know. I think anyone who sits over here and pretends to know what is really going on is fooling themselves. But I do think that implying on principle that we should not promote freedom at the expense of Americans is wrong. What would the outcome of WWII have been for imprisoned Jews had the US not gone all the way to victory and not simply avenged Pearl Harbor?
With how politicized Christianity is (on both the left and the right) I worry we are placing our hope for the world in people who are generally self-centered and worrying about getting re-elected, and not in the gospel.

Randy said...

In regard to promoting freedom through the war machine... WW2 saw Germany as the agressor. We were fighting for allies who were being invaded. NEVER has America been the instigator of war for the sake of 'freedom' previous to our two fronts in the middle east. Bush has adopted a very different foreign policy than any president in our history. (We car argue this point, but historians all agree.)

So, I do have hope. Without hope for the future, even if it is less than a hope for full restoration with God, it's still something alive in my life. I believe it is also a healthy part of the human condition. And I do believe there are people who care less about power and leaving footprints on history than Bush.

For example, some people believe in universal health care because its good for people to be healthy. It's good for a govt. to care about the lives of its people. But this isn't the point of our comments here...