It's official. Graham Cooke is going to be in the Twin Cities for the Lutheran Renewal from February 9-10! AND he is going to be in Chicago through HUB Ministries June 22-23!
It is amazing to me how, even in the types of circles that you would expect Graham to be popular, he is almost unheard of. Yet, I believe, he is being used by God to revolutionize the American Church from the inside out.
Be changed.
Monday, November 20, 2006
Finally
Finally someone is doing something to improve US relations with Mexico and improve living conditions instead of putting up a wall to block our view of the struggles across the River.
http://www.tapestriesoflife.com/english/breakingnews/updatAnapra.htm
http://www.tapestriesoflife.com/english/breakingnews/updatAnapra.htm
Friday, November 10, 2006
Initial Thoughts On History
I forgot to include my original thought on history that led to all of this:
If we had people in an area controlled by the US that were fighting against the United States, what would we consider those people to be? (Think about areas like Puerto Rico - no representation that I can think of, but I'm pretty sure we don't tax them. That is our agreement, I think. We don't give them the authority we give states, we don't give them representation or allow them to vote, but at least we don't tax them. At least if my facts are straight.) Would we consider them an army, or does an "army" need to be the fighting force of a recognized nation other than the nation it is fighting? Would we consider them a militia, or does a "militia" require some specific organization or some specific recognition? At our specific point in history, I think we would consider them terrorists.
If I am true in my assumption, then how are we to view the origin of the United States? I was always taught that the "Colonists" (meaning the non-Loyalists) won because they weren't confined to fighting like an army. And, except for some specific battles, they weren't organized enough to call them a militia, if that requires organzization. The tactics that the Colonists used (take for instance the Boston Tea Party) would be considered acts of terrorism nowadays.
So, I must have something wrong. Maybe my facts are wrong. Maybe I'm missing some key piece of evidence. Maybe I have to admit some form of cultural relativism over time within the same culture. I hope these are the case. Otherwise we need to redefine "terrorism" or rewrite our history books so that George Washington is called a "terrorist" instead of a "hero." Maybe England has already changed its history books to say as much.
If we had people in an area controlled by the US that were fighting against the United States, what would we consider those people to be? (Think about areas like Puerto Rico - no representation that I can think of, but I'm pretty sure we don't tax them. That is our agreement, I think. We don't give them the authority we give states, we don't give them representation or allow them to vote, but at least we don't tax them. At least if my facts are straight.) Would we consider them an army, or does an "army" need to be the fighting force of a recognized nation other than the nation it is fighting? Would we consider them a militia, or does a "militia" require some specific organization or some specific recognition? At our specific point in history, I think we would consider them terrorists.
If I am true in my assumption, then how are we to view the origin of the United States? I was always taught that the "Colonists" (meaning the non-Loyalists) won because they weren't confined to fighting like an army. And, except for some specific battles, they weren't organized enough to call them a militia, if that requires organzization. The tactics that the Colonists used (take for instance the Boston Tea Party) would be considered acts of terrorism nowadays.
So, I must have something wrong. Maybe my facts are wrong. Maybe I'm missing some key piece of evidence. Maybe I have to admit some form of cultural relativism over time within the same culture. I hope these are the case. Otherwise we need to redefine "terrorism" or rewrite our history books so that George Washington is called a "terrorist" instead of a "hero." Maybe England has already changed its history books to say as much.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Thoughts on History
Something that my mind has toiled over for a couple of days is this:
1. How is it that we say that "we" won the Revolutionary War? It seems that if Great Britain had won the war, we would possibly still say that "we" won the war because "we" would be a part of Great Britain. If we say "we" won based upon simple location, then we would be negating the fact that there were Loyalists that stayed true to the homeland. If we base "we" on an ideology of liberation, or something like that, then it is just as likely that "we" would be on the other side of the argument if the war had gone the other way.
Likewise, do we say "we" won the Civil War. That doesn't seem to make sense. Especially considering there are people all over the nation, not just the deep south, that think that the Civil War went the wrong way. It seems weird that we take for granted the Revolutionary War in the same way. I wonder if there are any Americans who believe that the Revolutionary War should have gone the other way.
2. Why do we call ourselves "Americans" or that we live in "America?" So do Mexicans, and Canadians, and Peruvians, and Puerto Ricans, etc. Or even the "United States?" Other countries in the Americas have a unity between their geographical divisions.
3. Here's an analogy worth considering. In South Africa, what should be the national language? Should it be the Zulu or other neighboring tribes, or other Bantu people who migrated into the southern half of Africa over 2 millenia ago? Should it be Africaans, the language of the Belgian-British culture that has been in the land for less than 3 centuries, who oppressed the "native" cultures?
I think our answer to this question would give us some insight into our own nations question. Whatever happened to the "Melting Pot" of our country? What about our pioneers who came from Scandinavia, Spain, Russia, as well as other non-English European countries? Or the "Native" Americans who were the first people on the land?
Just some thoughts.
1. How is it that we say that "we" won the Revolutionary War? It seems that if Great Britain had won the war, we would possibly still say that "we" won the war because "we" would be a part of Great Britain. If we say "we" won based upon simple location, then we would be negating the fact that there were Loyalists that stayed true to the homeland. If we base "we" on an ideology of liberation, or something like that, then it is just as likely that "we" would be on the other side of the argument if the war had gone the other way.
Likewise, do we say "we" won the Civil War. That doesn't seem to make sense. Especially considering there are people all over the nation, not just the deep south, that think that the Civil War went the wrong way. It seems weird that we take for granted the Revolutionary War in the same way. I wonder if there are any Americans who believe that the Revolutionary War should have gone the other way.
2. Why do we call ourselves "Americans" or that we live in "America?" So do Mexicans, and Canadians, and Peruvians, and Puerto Ricans, etc. Or even the "United States?" Other countries in the Americas have a unity between their geographical divisions.
3. Here's an analogy worth considering. In South Africa, what should be the national language? Should it be the Zulu or other neighboring tribes, or other Bantu people who migrated into the southern half of Africa over 2 millenia ago? Should it be Africaans, the language of the Belgian-British culture that has been in the land for less than 3 centuries, who oppressed the "native" cultures?
I think our answer to this question would give us some insight into our own nations question. Whatever happened to the "Melting Pot" of our country? What about our pioneers who came from Scandinavia, Spain, Russia, as well as other non-English European countries? Or the "Native" Americans who were the first people on the land?
Just some thoughts.
A Place To Call Home
There is one thing that I have realized over the last year - nomadic people and, for that matter, homeless people in general, have no standing as a real person to the government. There are so many things that we take for granted about having an address. For instance, Katy and I tried to get a PO Box for the month that we stayed with our pastors. We were told that we could only get a PO Box if we had a form of identification that had a valid address on it. The whole reason we needed a PO Box was that we had no valid address. Do you know how difficult it was to apply for jobs in MN but have a temporary mailing address in WI? In general, major institutions don't understand the man-in-transition. Of course, the man will really stick it to us when we have to file taxes having lived in different states.
It's amazing that no matter how much philosophizing you can do about self-identity, society is able to give or take away your public identity based upon something as simple as having or not having a "permanent address." Not to downplay their plight, but homeless people have a lot more going against them than not having a house. How can a homeless person get a job to be able to provide a house for themselves when having an address seems to be a prerequisite to getting a job?
It's amazing that no matter how much philosophizing you can do about self-identity, society is able to give or take away your public identity based upon something as simple as having or not having a "permanent address." Not to downplay their plight, but homeless people have a lot more going against them than not having a house. How can a homeless person get a job to be able to provide a house for themselves when having an address seems to be a prerequisite to getting a job?
It's On Now
Today I officially started my job at Caribou Coffee. So now Katy and I are officially enemies, or at least competitors, or at least working for competing companies. At least she works for a Dunn Bros. in Maple Grove and I work for Caribou in Brooklyn Park. It is still somewhat amazing that Caribou would hire me knowing full well that Katy works at Dunn Bros.
Tomorrow is my first day of working. I have to be there to help open at, get this, 4:45AM! I didn't even know that there was a 4:45am, and, if there really was a 4:45am, it only existed when you stayed up that late and not when you got up that early.
Tomorrow is my first day of working. I have to be there to help open at, get this, 4:45AM! I didn't even know that there was a 4:45am, and, if there really was a 4:45am, it only existed when you stayed up that late and not when you got up that early.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)