“America is the greatest force for good in the world” (McCain)?

This statement haunted me last night when I heard him say it during the debate and afterwards when I was going to bed. This is not an easy statement to throw around and yet when he said (and then Obama agreed with it) it I thought that actually might be a common thought among many of Americans. Let’s step back and reevaluate that statement for a minute. What does that statement say about America and better yet the world? Is it saying that America is a virtuous country and one that is good in its nature? And if so what does it mean to be a good nation or better yet one that is the greatest force of good? Dictionary.com explains great as: wonderful, first-rate, and very good and it explains force as: strength, energy, power, intensity or the power to influence, affect, or control. When taking those definitions in mind this statement is starting to make you wonder if his words really can be stated as true.

Yet, beyond those words the statement is also saying that the world needs America so that good things can happen. It sets up America as this great light that shines on the all the darkness in the world so that the world may become a better place. What does that say about the belief of Americans toward the world? Is it saying that the world needs America, but America does not need the world? Or is it saying that because so much good is in America and our ideals that we as Americans need to start spreading them to the world so that it can become good? In essence this statement is creating an us and them with the world. It props up our ideals as righteous (if I may be bold enough to say) and gives the thought that if we do our jobs as Americans than the world will become a better place.

If all of what I am suggesting resonates with some or even most Americans than maybe we need to evaluate our own responsibility towards our ideals. We need to acknowledge our shortcomings and push our society to fulfill this belief. Is this just good political rhetoric or should we hold the people of America to a higher standard? This is a thought process that David Dark address in the first part of his book The Gospel According to America and he presents some dilemmas to accepting the quote by McCain. The first dilemma he brings up is the fact that political discussions in America usually create heated debates, thoughts of we are right and you are wrong, and anger in general. This was also seen last night as both candidates bickered back and forth in a “he said she said” format of debate. They spent more time saying what the other one was not doing and not enough time on what needs to be done. If we are going to be that great force for good than this back and forth needs to stop. We need to see that both parties help the other see their own shortcomings so that America can become a better place and not a division of blue and red states. Another dilemma that is brought up is if we are going to stake great belief in our ideals as a nation than there is a responsibility to that nature. Just as the American church takes a stand against abortion; there also needs to be a sense of responsibility taken by the American church towards that child and making sure that it has all the chances possible to prosper in life. If we as Americans belief “that all people are created equal” than this ideal has to influence all of our foreign and domestic policies. There is a responsibility that needs to be address when we accept American ideals as true and right and if we do not abide them here or abroad than how can McCain’s statement be true?

I hope that after reading this you will start to really listen to the rhetoric around us that we here in debates, speeches, and even daily conversations. Statements like “Americans are the best innovators and producers in the world,” “America is the greatest nation in the world,” “Americans are the best workers in the world,” and “America is the greatest force for good in the world” need to be critically examined and not just taken as common knowledge or truth but instead thoughts and possible myths that need to be reexamined.

A Candidate’s Church Activity: Enough to Earn an Evangelical’s Vote?

With Sarah Palin on John McCain’s ticket, evangelical leader James Dobson is ready to say he’ll support McCain (he won’t endorse McCain, but he’ll vote for McCain). Dobson is not endorsing McCain/Palin, but he is “supportive” of them (this after Dobson denounced McCain in 2000 by pointing out McCain’s adultery and ethical issues).

Palin’s calls herself a “Bible-believing Christian”, and I’m not offering a critique of Palin’s potential as vice-president as based on her beliefs. She could turn out to be a fine vice-president if elected, and her performance, good or bad, may be influenced much or little by her church involvement.

A candidate’s involvement in a church at any level is not an accurate indicator of how that candidate might perform in office, and therefore one should not base their voting decisions on that factor. Church involvement is no indicator of integrity and character, nor does it predict all the external factors and players that are present in a president’s administration.

Leading up the 2000 election, evangelicals were electric with the prospect of a George W. Bush presidency. W was a professed born-again. Living in Texas at the time, I was pretty pumped about the idea. He did a fine job as governor (a position with little actual power in Texas), and he was a member of a church I worked in. I, like many other evangelicals, thought we would bring our values into the White House, replacing the moral car wreck of Bill Clinton.

While I still feel W is sincere in his faith, I have disagreements (theologically and ethically (if those two can be divided from each other)) with his decisions and those of his cabinet. My point here is not to argue against the war in Iraq and other bad decisions (that’s another entry), but I want to reiterate that participating in Christian activities should not automatically warrant a vote. W’s administration is a prime example.

Church involvement does not equate to being a disciple of Jesus. Disciples are those who follow Jesus—his example, his teachings, his direction. Being active in church does not prove someone is a disciple, as church involvement is open to anyone. In the church in which I grew up, a wealthy strip club owner and convicted tax evader (with fishy ties to drug trafficking) was in regular attendance. He wouldn’t get my vote.

Vote for McCain/Palin if you want, but not because Palin is seemingly a committed Christian, and certainly not because James Dobson is voting for them.