Tea Party vs. Nazi Party

In my frequent Facebook travels, and in the unrestrained and uninformed rhetoric, I've seen the modern "Tea Party" movement compared to the Nazi Party - as if they were two peas in a pod.  Nothing could be further than the truth.  To all those who would attempt to make a sameness out of the two, I recommend that an analysis beyond the facile and skin-deep needs to be made.  With a few minutes of reflection, here are some alleged similarities which I now show in most cases to be dissimilarities:

• Nationalism: Well, this is a slippery one. Every nation must have some kind of pride - or else why live there or fight for that nation? However, there is a point where it becomes too much. Is the Tea Party at that point? I don't think so. Are certain elements which have joined to/with the Tea Party guilty of this? Perhaps. Was the Nazi party at that point? YES. It (as a party) was at that point - not just certain elements which had joined to it.

• Social Darwinism: What is meant by that? The term certainly carries some baggage and has some emotional weight   to it. If the Tea Party's opposition to government-directed income redistribution and also opposition to various government programs to ostensibly aid the poor is meant here, it is a cheap and easy shot. The Tea Party is convinced that income redistribution and welfare programs of various types are not properly the role of the civil government - especially that of the federal government. This is the principle-based reason. It has nothing to do with social Darwinism, but everything to do with limited government powers (as defined by the constitution) and maintaining individual liberty. The Tea Party would say that private charity, family, and church more properly fit the role of welfare and aid-givers. This way, help is personal and close-to-home; personal liberty is also maintained. That is, a person can use their own money how they like, and they have the freedom to rise as high as they'd like. Another reason (the pragmatic reason) for the Tea Party's aversion to income redistribution and welfare-type programs is that they demonstrably don't work. The statistics have shown that the very problems the programs are supposed to alleviate actually become worse.

• Indoctrination: Another emotion-laden term. If we simply mean teaching, then yes, guilty. However, we'd all be guilty. If we mean the systematic teaching of a certain set of values, then certainly most of us would be "guilty" at a personal and family level, but at a national level the Nazi Party would FAR surpass the Tea Party. The Nazi Party pushed for National Socialism to be taught as CORRECT in the state-funded schools. The teachers could not waver - or else. This was a state (i.e. government) endeavor. The Nazi Party frowned on private schooling and especially home-schooling. (See ya later, educational freedom!) - but the Tea Party is different. The Tea Party advocates less government control of schools and education and it militates for more personal liberty regarding educational choices. The Tea Party tends to be the homeschooler's friend. This is definitely NOT the Nazi way.

• Propaganda: Perhaps. But wouldn't our two main political parties be guilty of the same thing? This one requires more explanation. Surely the Nazi Party and the Tea Party can't be singled out with this charge...

• Anti-Intellectualism: Explain. Does this mean that if I don't agree with you or the people you agree with I'm guilty of anti-intellectualism? Or maybe this charge has to do with the fact that those in the upper echelons of academia tend to be Leftist and tend NOT to be supporters of the Tea Party. Still, this would not provide enough evidence for the charge. There is a certain distaste voiced sometimes for those in the upper echelons of the academic world and institutions. There is a good reason for this distaste. In the early and mid parts of the 20th century , and especially in the 1960's, the communists, socialists, and those of a generally Leftist ideology were very wise and forward thinking: They knew that if they could get into the educational establishment and eventually control it, they could steer the next generation(s) and thus steer the culture - and the nation to embracing the goals they wanted realized. They understood this would be a multi-generational endeavor, and were patient. Well, we (and they) are there. The universities (in general) and even schools at the lower level (in general) are controlled by those embracing a Leftist, or socialist, or communist ideology. Teachers/professors with a differing view have a rough time, and they have to be careful of what they say. Naturally, because of the turn of events, Tea Party people might have a suspicion of "intellectuals" and/or the universities. Some might even be guilty of real, actual, anti-intellectualism and learning. However, that charge could not rightfully be made of the Tea Party itself.

• Militarism: This doesn't carry much weight because every nation should want a strong national defense. This is not the same as "militarism." If this charge can be made of the Tea Party and Nazi Party together, then it can also be made of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. As a whole though, the Nazi Party had institutionalized militarism to an extent that the other parties I mentioned have not. The Tea Party ESPECIALLY should not be charged with this - seen as there is so much of a Libertarian element to the Tea Party.

•  Anti-Communism: Both the Tea Party and the Nazi Party are guilty as charged. Does this make them two peas in a pod though? Communism is a sub-type of Socialism. The Nazis were against Communism but FOR Socialism (i.e. National Socialism.) The Tea Party is against both. And I might add that if the Tea Party is to be totally consistent it must be openly against Social Security, state-run Education, and Medicare as well - though some don't want to make the connection...

There are more alleged similarities which between the two movements which I have left out of this brief analysis.  I will only add this: If you want to show respect to the opposition - and to those who are trying to determine which side to embrace - go beyond the skin-deep.

Being a Follower

We often hear about leading and following.  "Be a leader and not a follower" we are told.  However, especially via the strong coercive arm of political correctness, "diversity", and so-called "tolerance", we are de facto encouraged to be followers.  Yes, a church or religion can do this as well.  The point that is often missed though is that by logical necessity there needs to be an Ultimate Authority.  We are all not leaders to the same degree, but some of us are better leaders than others.  Furthermore, it can only benefit a person to learn how to be a better leader.  Learn to be a better leader.  At the same time though, each of us must necessarily be a follower.  It is inevitable.  It is necessary.

 We we must admit we all follow someone or something.  Even leaders themselves follow.  The important thing is that each of us must be free-thinking enough to be able to properly recognize who our leaders are, what they're telling us to do or follow, and whether continuing to follow them or to carry out their orders is a good or a bad idea.  We always must be ready to make an informed assessment and act on it.  Because I am convinced a leader-follower relationship should not be taken lightly, the substance of the leader, his goals, as well as the content of his directives, must be carefully assessed at the beginning of the relationship.  Remember, the "leader" can be a person or an idea.  After this initial step is taken,  keep your eyes and ears open.  Do a continuing assessment - while nonetheless following.  If the time comes where the leader-follower relationship must be severed, let it be on your good judgment based on bedrock principles and not light and transient causes.

 In a world of depraved humanity, where power corrupts, we must follow in a very qualified and frequently-checking way. The only unquestionable Leader who can possess ultimate power and still not be corrupted, and whose substance and every idea is Good, is the Good Shepherd and Judge of all the earth, the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Holiday Greeting Wars

The Thanksgiving holiday is over, and it's time for the Holiday Greeting Wars.  All kidding aside, this is a petty war.  Christians sometimes get upset over the small things when we should care more about bigger issues.

There are are some issues that others would view as gnats, but I (and I believe all Christians should) correctly recognize as camels, but I truly am convinced that the battle of "Merry Christmas" vs. "Happy Holidays" IS a gnat.  He who enlists in this battle is perhaps fighting the wrong battle.  I'm fine with saying "Happy Holidays" to avoid unnecessary consternation.  Christmas is fine, but it is nevertheless  a made-made, non-Biblically-directed holiday.  In our country, the most Christian of the Christian, the Puritan New England pilgrims who so strongly shaped the beginning and direction of this country, did not celebrate Christmas.  They did not even adorn their places of worship with crosses - yet you can be sure that even their children knew how to define the holy Trinity, the dual natures of Christ, the three offices (Prophet, Priest, and King) He executed, and explain the significance of His birth, life, death, and resurrection.  

What is a better use of our time and energy?  The bold proclamation of the gospel is one.  Observing the sabbath (i.e. putting aside one day in seven) is another.  Upholding and promoting God's Law as the only legitimate ultimate standard for individuals as well as communities and nations is another much more worthy fight.   I wonder how many Christians bristle at "Happy Holidays" yet have no problem with denigrating God's Law and its application in the personal, family, church, community, and state (civil government) spheres.

The Decline and Fall of Empires

I am a Latin lover.  No, not THAT kind!  Rather, I am a lover of the Latin language.  Not only that, but I thoroughly enjoy reading about the history of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire.  It's even interesting and enjoyable to read about its decline.  However, its only "enjoyable" because I'm not living in it.  It's another matter altogether to be part of a country, nation, or empire during dark or ominous times.  As I've often said before though, I'm a long-term optimist - so I don't get discouraged.

Have you ever thought of some parallels between the current United States Empire and the declining ancient Roman Empire?  Here are some:

• Widespread immorality
• Destruction of the family
• Huge numbers of arbitrary man’s laws
• Centralization of all power in a central government in the hand of a few
• Creation of a welfare state
• Excessive taxation 
• Loss of control of their borders; most work done by foreigner
• Overstretched military that could not maintain worldwide order

I know I could have come up with two more to make an even ten instead of an awkward eight, but I trust you'll forgive me.  Still, consider these parallels.  Also consider how we can change course.  I am convinced it starts at the bottom (individual) rather than the top (government leader/"savior") who can fix us.  

A Modern Problem

Compared to past centuries, at least in the Western world, we have many more options. The world is at our fingertips - sometimes almost literally via google, internet, online-shopping, smartphones, etc...but we are lacking in depth. We are lacking in depth of thinking as well as depth of experience. I appreciate (and I desire) modern plumbing, dentistry, medicine, and other things - but I equally desire the depth of thought and experience which I see abundant evidence of from those in past centuries. Going shallow and wide is not nearly as satisfying as going narrow (comparatively) and deep. Shallowness and hurried impatience makes me tired and sad. The opposite makes me warm, happy, full, and alive.  Thoughts?