Faithful Democrats - Sherrod Brown for Senate (OH)

Sherrod Brown for Senate (OH)

By Faithful Democrats

Oct. 08, 06 20:27

brown1

We need leaders with a bold vision for how to move our country forward-- leaders who are willing to stand for what they believe and know to be right.

I have always tried to stand by my convictions to do what is best for Ohio and for our nation. I voted against the war in Iraq, even when it was unpopular. And that was the right thing to do. I stood up to the president of my own party and fought bad trade deals that hurt the people of Ohio. And that was the right thing to do. I will never back down in my fight for good-paying jobs, to make health care affordable to all, to stop the scandal of corruption in government, and to restore the greatness of our nation on the global stage- not through military might alone, but also through the strength of our moral authority.

My faith and upbringing in the Lutheran church serves as the foundation for my political beliefs. As a Lutheran, I understand that I am far from perfect. I do not claim to know God’s perfect will. But as a public servant, I have tried to do what is right and to do my best to follow his example. As I read the Bible, I have come to understand that Jesus was a man who had a deep and personal compassion and love for all of those around him. He saw the value in each individual, no matter how young or old, rich or poor, sick or struggling. And it was that compassion, coupled with his understanding of God’s will for the world that led him to make his radical claim on our lives and on our society.

That understanding of Jesus was made especially clear to me several years ago during a trip to Israel. Soon after I arrived, some my friends took me to a hill with a breathtaking view of the Sea of Galilee – the historical location where Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount.

Knowing that I was a Christian, our guide turned to me and handed me a Bible opened to Matthew 5. He asked me to read the Beatitudes to my friends. I have long considered the Sermon on the Mount to be the core of Christ’s teachings, and perhaps also the best political speech ever delivered. Standing in the place where Jesus stood, it was as if he was saying the words to me. As I stood on that hill and read those words, it was more clear to me than ever that the Sermon on the Mount is not just a nice collection of ideas for preachers to expound upon on Sunday mornings. It is a radical and immediate call to action that has resonated for 2,000 years. It is a challenge to each of us to live and to work to bring about a just and righteous society.

Sadly, we have not answered that challenge. We have a moral obligation not to ignore their suffering and say simply “go, be warm and be well fed” while focusing our attentions on other matters. The stark reality of poverty and hunger in our state should stir the conscience and trouble of the soul of every political leader and every candidate for office in our state. I know it does mine.

The richest country in the world should be ashamed to see the number of our poor increasing year after year, especially when we know the destructive effect poverty has on families who are caught in its web.

That is why we must strive for an economy that serves people, not the other way around. Work should be more than just a way to make a living— it should be a source of dignity and pride. If the dignity of work is to be honored, then we must raise the minimum wage, create well-paying jobs, respect the basic rights of workers, and support trade policies that value Americans’ hard work.

We must do all we can to promote human dignity for every single American, no matter how young or old they may be. The greatness of our nation will be measured by whether we protect and respect the well-being and dignity of all of our citizens and seek to promote the common good.

LIST OF COMMENTS

1/4. Many good points - But (Monkey)

The Gospel must be involved in how we live our lives. As Christians, seeking the Lord diligently and studying His Word and letting the Holy Spirit lead us is paramount. Loving God and then our neighbor as ourselves is a true and clear simplifying of what we must do as His children and servants. I appreciate your heart in all you said. I pray God's best in all you do.

I'm torn because I hate corruption, and both parties seem to be rife with it. Let's also face it, when we have a side we pick (a political team), we are most likely to say let's wait and see all the facts first, during scandal, while on the other side, we are ready to judge based on news of impropriety because we all believe the "Other" side is corrupt. Democrats are equally guilty.

If it is proven that the things I hear about the Whitehouse are true, what is being said second and third-hand on your site about being fake about faith, then I will abandon them in my heart (though on abortion and gay marriage and conservative Supreme Court Judges, I will vote for whoever will fight for those issues, regardless of party, and right now, Democrats are not that party -- I would vote for a Conservative Democrat who loves Jesus, anyday over a Republican who feign's faith (I voted for Carter when I turned 18 because I heard he was born again, even though I was backslidden at the time). As I grow older I can see the traps set for Christians who go to Washington with good intentions, but then fall into them "to accomplish a higher good". I think it's horrible that Democrats support abortion, progressive judges that circumvent the Constitution by looking for supportive phrasing to justify desired rulings, and thus legislate newly found rights in the Constitution derived from "Natural Law", instead of looking for the intent, original intent, in the Constitution. The Constitution is not a living document as one that is changing to fit situations. It is more to be living, like the Word of God (in principle, not in equality of value) immovable like the laws of genetics, faithfully reproducing the same results for same input, being reliable and not maleable, living in its power, not changeableness (I'm not referring to Amendability as to changeableness, but in interpretation). (That's my problem with "Red Letter" Christians, too. The Whole Bible is God's Word, it is not a living document to be transformed to fit today, but rather it is timeless and can be applied today in every area of life, though not as legalism). I also hate Phariseeism and I know we all need God's grace, are sinners, and "There but for the grace of God go I". Knowing the Father and Jesus is Eternal LIfe, and that "Knowing" should be lived toward others. But, there's the crux. How fully and contextually do we read and apply the Bible? Do we use the Bible to justify our idealism, or try to find it there? Do we use the Bible to run over people with self-righteousness? Do we use the Bible to justify our "Guy" and condemn the other "Guy"? Do we use the Bible to ignore sin, or to justify it? Do we use the Bible to substantiate our fear of confrontation? Is God Safe? Did He create a padded world? As C.S. Lewis wrote in the Chronicles of Narnia, "Of course not! But He's Good!"

Ok, that's where I'm coming from. Now something you said piques my thoughts and point of view. Jesus said, "the poor you will always have with you". He didn't say that to keep us from helping the poor, but rather not to get so pious as to think that everything in the world must be done to eradicate poverty, and that we will be able to (Something more important than helping the poor was present with the Disciples, Jesus! and that not as an excuse to avoid charity, but rather as a reason to exhibit extravagant devotion to Him). Well, we must have charity, but we also must lift up what's right. If people need a hand out AND up (meaning we are willing to help them so that with accountability they may be able to get back on their feet) then we must help them, but how? Should it be local or federal? Let us not forget, "if anyone will not work, neither let him eat?" We all know human nature, we often are prone to take the easy way if it's handed to us (or if it is available). The danger with Federal Governmental answers to social injustice is people can become dependent victims, drugged by the inhuman hand of government and the dehumanizing handout. If people are incapable and need permanent help, then we should start with the community, then move higher up for help as needed, but to ignore sin's part in societal inequities, then we are missing alot. Sin is not only in the "Rich" oppressing the poor and taking advantage of them. It's also in our judgmentalism of the rich as doing it by default (and that's not a Biblical point of view, either, but rather the ACT of Oppression is evil, not the position of having money. That, Biblically, is rather a "Low" position where being poor is a high position -- in other words, we are equal in the Church.) In Society, equality is a true and high ideal, but can be missed in application. The "Rich" are not evil by default, and the poor are not "Innocent" by default, though the rich have an advantage, the poor often are not pursuing advantage, or they might move themselves out of poverty, in our society, with diligence, endurance, fortitude and smarts. Those who are motivated will find a way, but not everyone is motivated, and also the poor need to hear the hope that they can do it, and we will create an environment (and I argue we have more of one then is allowed for in argument) where there is Equal Opportunity. There is also Sin in the poor that is described in the Bible as to the sluggard, but not by default, but rather in specific instances.

Idealism is a good goal, but when legislated, tears everybody down. A good example of destructive social idealism has been in every corner where you can see communism, it tore down society and removed initiative (other than political), and so initiative and reward were left to the elites, and the evil of elitism is as great, and its oppression equally sadistic as that of the "rich" oppressing the poor. Just because you can see idealism in your mind, it doesn't mean it will work because the problem is SIN. Sin is in the problem and the answer, it's not in poverty or riches, or some corporate expression of society, but rather in We Humans. Capitalism is not evil (see the experiment done in the 1600's where communism was first tried, it failed among good Christians and a strongly Christian society in New England), but Capitalists who do not walk in honesty and humility, but rather express sin in selfishness, greed and oppression are evil. Communism's ideals are not evil, but rather those who try to implement them through force and oppression are evil (the lesson of communism/socialism in one colony for a short time shows how it de-motivates productivity, and , and is not in accord of the design of us and this universe where we were made to be motivated and to desire reward.

We can not fix Sin or its effects, only Jesus can do that. We just work for justice, but that to Democrats seems to me as "You who have the ability must carry all the rest who don't" or as Marx put it, "from each according to his ability to each according to his need". That is not justice. It is stealing. "You can't legislate morality", it is said, except the morality of elitism? We by law agree to pay taxes to support the Government to promote the common good, not provide for the common good. It's a matter of Governmental facilitation of a good society, and not the creation of a good society (Government can't do that, only the Gospel can, as our forefathers said that this form of government can't work unless the society is good (and thus the need for religion). Once the People discovered that they could vote themselves money, it would fall). That's Jesus and the Churches job to proclaim the gospel and live it and win the lost and change society from the heart out. We are to cry out about injustice and ill-treatment, too.

Democrats who support "Separation of Church and State" as it is interpted today, seem all too ready to impose their religiously-based idealism when it comes to "Social Justice", but not personal responsibility (and morality as it effects society), i.e. we shouldn't be teaching abstenance in public schools as the best method of sexual safety and health because it also relates to Biblical teachings. But the "Idea" of helping the poor is also equally "Religious" in origin.

Finally as to defense. I hate War. It is devastating. But not anti-Biblical. The peace and passiveness in the face of ill-treatment in the beatitudes is a personal thing, not a governmental thing. I am to love others in the face of their ill-treatment of me, allow them even to kill my body if they want me to deny my faith and have me in a vulnerable situation. (If they call from half-way around the world for me to deny my faith, or die, I will not go over to them and say, "No, go ahead and kill me.") But if they say, "I've come to harm you and your family, and it is not a time for testimony, but rather a CORPORATE DANGER to my family/community/country, then it's time for War! If they are pointing a weapon at us with their finger on the trigger (i.e. Ahmadinejad's ranting to annihilate Israel and us), then I might have to shoot it out of their hand (I understand that there is a matter of perceived danger and true imminence of danger, and we must determine that -- for instance, though the soviets had their weapons pointed at us and we at them, they didn't threaten us with "Submit or die", nor did our intelligence pick up any troop/artillery movements or plans).

In the wake of 911, the intelligence truly was that Saddam was trying to get the yellow cake uranium in Africa, that was not disproven, only down-played as unreliable, though the ones in England who discovered that he was attempting as such refused to deny it.. I supported going into Iraq. Bush said after 911, that anyone who supported terrorists was not safe against our advance for justice. Saddam was looking for a way to get us back, proven by the attempt on Bush Senior's life and his support for terrorists. Yes, he was an easier target, and "everyone" in congress and the Senate (Ms. Clinton, Kerry, etc.) clamored for "Regime" change being necessary and Saddam also stuck his nose up at all the many U.N. resolutions, prior to the war. It was not entirely unjustified.

Islamic Extremism must be shown our strength, not weakness. Pulling out of Mogadishu and BlackHawk down was to them, our weakness, so they saw an opportunity to attack, and so they attacked. That's why they attacked!

They attacked because of our support for Israel. They will always attack us for our support for Israel. That threat must be dealt with over there on their turf, not here. Otherwise, there will not be any death of innocents, because to them, we are all guilty and deserve to die! Even Muslims in America must die for living here and thus being complicit in our treatment of Israel.

God Bless,

2/4. long rant wfry

HI wfry. Can I ask where you get many of your economic ideas? So let me get this straight, you are making an argument for not helping the needy?
Sin is the problem, but in the form of lack of love and compassion.
Do you think we live in a world of infinite resources? Do we have an infinite amount of anything- including something as ubiquitous as clean water? If no, is it right to say there is something wrong with letting people hoard more than they could ever need? We have an economic floor with bankruptcy, but no ceiling. Someone who routinely spends money on luxuries while men, women, and children starve is worse than a murderer. That is why Christ never said it is impossible for a murderer to get to heaven, but he did say that about a rich man- see Mark 10:17-25. See anyone can get really angry one day and lose it and kill someone. It takes a special kind of evil to spend needlessly on empty status symbols while your fellow man suffers all kinds of indignities.

3/4. Give one scripture, I return four

Read around the following passages: All of Luke 16 - with the focal at 16:14. 1Sa 8:3. 1Ti 6:10. Heb 13:5

What Jesus was talking about in Mark 10:17 - 31 is the love of money, not about being wealthy or poor. It is ok to be rich and strive to be rich, as long as it doesn't control you or become your master, "You cannot serve two masters." It is what one chooses to do with that wealth that shows God their true heart.

Would Jesus really want a government to give everyone everything they can want or need. If that is the case, isn't that government trying to supplant God? "Don't look to God for a handout, because the government has it right here on Earth! Don't cry, because the government will give you all you can want or need. The government will take care of you, so you don't need God anymore. Rest your weary head on the government's shoulder and partake of the greatness that is the government."

I would think people would feel very spiritually empty to partake of such sustenance. Where is the motivation to improve themselves? Their community?

What I believe what was written in Mark 10:17 - 31, and where modern Christians are failing, is that Jesus wants of us is to go out amongst the poor and teach them how to (figuratively) fish, not just give them (literal) fish. Though at times they will need some sustenance in order to open their hearts to learn. That is why Jesus asked the wealthy man to come follow him, to become a teacher/mentor to people. And the man decided that his wealth was more important than to go out and teach others. His heart was too attached to things of this world, and that blinded him to what is available in the next.

I believe that there is no need to raise the minimum wage because anyone that is motivated to move to a better job, should do so. No one is stuck at a job. The only thing that keeps them there is fear. Of not being taught that they can do better. I was scared for quite some time before I took the plunge into a new job, and ended up not only more happy with my new job, but doubled my pay in the process. I'm now in the process of doing this again. Scared again, but I trust God will watch over me and guide me.

4/4. MR.

Freezing Pensions is Cold

In recent years, many financially troubled U.S. Corporations have successfully transitioned defined pension obligations to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PGBC). Of late, many financially sound companies are also seeking to exit their defined pension obligations by freezing defined pension plans. Research on the topic clearly shows that mid-career employees face a disproportional loss resulting from pension freeze decisions.

All would agree that U.S. companies must take steps to be competitive. We should also agree that the sacrifice necessary to achieve a competitive business model is best shared evenly by all company employees, executives and shareholders.

What is Senator DeWine’s stand on fighting for U.S workers and their families? Financially sound NCR Corporation just announced a freeze on defined pension plan benefits that will leave thousands of mid-career employees facing severely reduced retirement income.

Can legislation be structured to protect mid-career employees as healthy U.S Corporations position themselves competitively? Companies could be legally required to make special annual pension contributions to mid-career employees impacted by a pension freeze decision.

Action needs to be taken to protect American workers who have dedicated 25, 30 and 35 year careers building U.S. Corporations. The move to freeze pension plans is beginning to accelerate, now is the time to give this unethical practice proper oversight.

Noah W Poor

Dayton, OH

Last Updated ( Oct. 23, 06 12:56 )

< Prev		Next >