Seven Ways to Change the World (by Jim Wallis)
I’m in the U.K. this week on a speaking and book tour. It’s always good to be here. My wife, Joy Carroll, is a Brit, and we frequently get across the pond. Both of my children are “bilingual,” speaking both the English of the English and the English of the Americans, and we love both countries.
The U.K. edition of The Great Awakening is titled Seven Ways to Change the World, and these commitments are already well under way in the U.K. The British people are generally much more globally aware and concerned than many Americans, and they have a strong sense of “the common good” in their social life together, which is a central theme of this book. The “Jubilee 2000” movement at the turn of the century around global debt relief and the recent “Make Poverty History” campaign in 2005 are discussed in the book as models for how people of faith can help catalyze social movements in society.
After being here again, I am still convinced that Britain’s leadership on issues of global poverty, climate change, human rights, and a better path to security could significantly influence U.S. policies and offer a better kind of leadership “by example,” rather than “by empire.” This morning’s news of more 100 countries reaching an agreement to ban cluster bombs reinforced that belief, as the news stories reported:
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, whose personal intervention Wednesday led to final agreement among representatives of 111 countries gathered in Dublin, called the ban a "big step forward to make the world a safer place."
I’ve spoken to a variety of audiences this week in London, Manchester, and Edinburgh, Scotland. There have been book launch events at several churches, World Vision leadership breakfasts, and media appearances. Here are reports on the book launch in London and the World Vision breakfast. I was on one of BBC Radio Five’s most popular broadcasts, the Simon Mayo Show – here’s an audio link where you can listen to the show.
It’s been a good tour so far, with more to come next week, including Liverpool and a Parliament event.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
The comment about British people being more globally aware than "many" Americans and having a strong sense of the common good is absurd. What constitutes many Americans? 100 - 1000 -100000000?The same comment could be reversed and be equally valid. If the message is actually that a much greater percentage of British are so, on what authority does the author base those conclusions? These comments, to me, are typical of the bias of many articles I have browsed through when I read Sojourners. What is the purpose of such a comment? Does it lift up the British spirit, or does it denigrate the American? I would suggest that people are, in general, pretty similar throughout the western world and no more caring in Europe than in America, and historically America has shown itself to care much more for the common good than Europe.
Posted by: john | May 29, 2008 4:27 PM
I think it's the example we've given the rest of the world since the Republican't party was overtaken on the sly and running ramshod over the playground like bullyboys rather than enlightened gentlefolk. -Just my suspision
But John, I'm with you; in truth they don't represent We, The People.
Posted by: Barbara | May 29, 2008 4:50 PM
John -
Jim notes two global campaigns that began in Britain and which Americans only slowly caught on to. I could mention a few others. He notes that Gordon Brown has had the guts to break ranks with his US masters and vote for an end to fragmentation weapons. (What he doesn't note is that Brown is currently very unpopular, and that this putting of humanity before imperial interests is most likely a way of getting back some support at home. Would that work for a US president?) I could go on, talking about levels of overseas aid, the terms imposed, responses to global warming and other environmental threats, attitudes towards the healthcare of ones fellow citizens, and so on.
Your claim that "historically America has shown itself to care much more for the common good than Europe" may well be true of a time before about 1955 or so, but I think you are probably nurturing false images of modern Europe.
But the key difference that I see between Britain and the US is that British people, on the whole, know that there is a world out there. US people are, I am sure, just as caring if not more so, but most of them appear to live in an American bubble where it is only what happens in the USA that really matters, and anything that happens anywhere in the world is analysed not in terms of human interests but in terms of American interests.
I grew up in a Britain that was still a bit like that, too. It has changed during my lifetime (though it still has a very long way to go), and the USA can change too.
It's not as if Britain is a particularly wonderful role model, though. Several other European countries do a lot better - on aid and trade policy, on environmental policy, on avoiding pointless wars, on eliminating poverty in their own jurisdiction, on understanding what it is to be a global citizen.
So in response to your main question, John, I think Jim is probably saying, "Look, Americans, here is a country that does a lot of things we can learn from. Let's learn from them". He points to Britain. I would be more likely to point to Sweden.
meurig
Posted by: meurig | May 29, 2008 5:18 PM
Dear John, you fret too much about the imagined insult to American education. Listen for even an hour to the breadth of BBC Foreign Service broadcasts. Talk to a couple of Irish rockers such as Geldoff or Bono. listen to the accents of the famine relief workers around the world.
You are indeed correct that there have been eras when America has been generous abroad and at home. In neither place has it been principled or great since it defined us as consumers and itself in business terms.
For an honest contrast between the global view of the leader of Parliamentary Conservatism and the most generous American politician you care to imagine go to http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2006/01/what_is_cameron.html
Posted by: ohenryo | May 29, 2008 5:20 PM
"The same comment could be reversed and be equally valid."
It's a way of casting an opinion as fact.
That said, I would find it difficult to believe that the British are not more globally aware than Americans, not least of which because they subjogate power to a continental conglomerate. If America shared an international currency with Mexico, I would certainly be more aware of what Mexico is doing.
Further, Britain is in the unique position of being an ally of the United States AND being among the select few nations called to intervene militarily. As such, any Brit who reads the papers is going to have a working knowledge of American politics, as well as a compendium of international affairs knowledge.
Of course, that isn't what Wallis is trying to convey. His politics are European in general, so he is going to reflexively favor British policy to Americans. Most of his readers share the idea that large swaths of the American populace are unenlightened troglodytes.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 29, 2008 5:40 PM
"That said, I would find it difficult to believe that the British are not more globally aware than Americans, not least of which because they subjogate power to a continental conglomerate"
Your statement brilliant proves Jim Wallis's point.
"If America shared an international currency with Mexico, I would certainly be more aware of what Mexico is doing."
Um...the British are not on the Euro system. They still use the British pound. Thanks, once again, for proving Jim's point.
Posted by: JamesMartin | May 29, 2008 6:14 PM
Point of correction- substitute "brilliant" with "brilliantly" in my prior post.
Posted by: JamesMartin | May 29, 2008 6:16 PM
Britain, the same country where recently a couple
was questioned by the police for hours because
they object to homosexuality? Britain, which is
rapidly being taken over by Muslim immigrants?
Britain, which long ago abandoned whatever
Christian heritage it once had? The heritage
which produced (among others) John Milton, John
Bunyan, John and Charles Wesley, George Fox, William Wilberforce, G. K. Chesterton,
J. R. R. Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, and N. T. Wright.
(Okay, so that last one kind of undercuts my
point, because he is contemporary.) Britain,
mired in socialism? Britain, the seat of the
Anglican Church? Which, incidentally, might be
utterly bankrupt were it not for its Third World
constituents who keep reminding Canterbury of
what the Bible has to say. That Britain?
Posted by: John G. | May 29, 2008 8:49 PM
"More than 1,000 new Christian churches have been created over the last seven years, double the number of Starbucks coffee shops, new research has found.
All the major denominations opened new churches but the biggest growth was among the black Pentecostal churches.
About half of the new congregations were created by the Pentecostal churches, with help from other ethnic minorities such as the Chinese and the Croatians.
New initiatives such as "Fresh Expressions", alternative worship services aimed at young people, accounted for a fifth of new congregations."- source: simplechurch.co.uk
Yes, that Britain.
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | May 29, 2008 11:32 PM
I wonder if John G has any direct experience of the real Britain, as opposed to the one he presumably reads about in corporate-owned scaremongering media outlets.
(Btw, one of the things that makes me most ashamed to be British is the country's tabloid press. But at least there are non-corporate-controlled voices in the British media as well.)
meurig
Posted by: meurig | May 30, 2008 12:16 AM
Having travelled extensively, let me simply say that the only people who will challenge the assertion that Europeans in general are more knowledgeable about the broader world than the average American are intelligent Americans like Kevin just demonstrated.
Posted by: canucklehead | May 30, 2008 1:06 AM
"I wonder if John G has any direct experience of the real Britain, as opposed to the one he presumably reads about in corporate-owned scaremongering media outlets."
The BBC itself is a corporation, but I digress. Can you point me in the direction of a "corporate-owned" media outlet that is consistently critical of Britain?
"Um...the British are not on the Euro system. They still use the British pound. Thanks, once again, for proving Jim's point."
As I understand, they use both, and are moving in the direction of adopting the Euro. I could be wrong. I know that Tony Blair made overtures in this direction, and that many Brits strongly favor the move.
Now that I think about it, didn't the movie "Millions" portray (albeit fictionally) a complete transition? We Americans get all of our information from movies. Shame on the British for lying to us via cinema. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, I'm sticking to Kate Hudson vehicles.
Either way, I agree with Jim to some degree, and stated as much. When I was in Australia, I was often asked why Australians knew more about America than Americans knew about Australia. My reply was that a better comparison would be to ask what Australians knew about Turkey (which isn't much).
America, for better or worse, plays a larger role in the international landscape than other nations. As such, we can expect European citizens (yes, I know Australia is not in Europe) to possess a certain battery of knowledge related to America.
The British people are also better educated, though I'm guessing British style education reforms are verboten on this site.
"Having travelled extensively, let me simply say that the only people who will challenge the assertion that Europeans in general are more knowledgeable about the broader world than the average American are intelligent Americans like Kevin just demonstrated."
I'm tempted to ask for a side of vinaigrette with this word salad. It seems your myriad travels have introduced you to new dialects. That said, perhaps you should reread by post. I did not challenge Wallis' assertion.
"another example of casting opinion as fact. "
Well, Barbara (above) reinforced my conclusion. That aside, if Wallis had simply said "the British have a more enlightened view of world affairs than do Americans", there would be no problem. It would be understood to be an opinion.
The use of words like "many" or "some" is an attempt to add credibility to mere opinion. As written, his argument is indisputable, but is also meaningless. However, he is clearly trying to make a broader point about American culture. That was John's point.
Try submitting a paper to a college professor with the phrase "many believe x to be true" or "some consider y to be superior to x". I can't think of a surer way to get red ink.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 30, 2008 3:07 AM
Pastor Jeff said
"More than 1,000 new Christian churches have been created over the last seven years...
...but the biggest growth was among the black Pentecostal churches."
----------------
My experience here in East London (a place where the middle-class - Christian and otherwise - aspire to move from) is that many of these black Pentecostal churches are fly-by-night with little solidity. The building where my church meets has been used by many such cogregations over the years.
Of course, there are exceptions - the huge (by UK standards) Kingsway International Christian Centre (www.kicc.org.uk - KICC).
Alos, many of these churches seem to be founded by first-generation African immigrants and attract f-g African immigrants. KICC, as above, is pretty mono-cultural.
I'm not saying that this makes Black African Christians bad people - rather pointing out that much church growth in the UK is superficial and driven by transfers from Africa.
Posted by: Alan Bright | May 30, 2008 3:58 AM
I was at Jim's presentation last night at the London Institue for Contemporary Christianity (www.licc.org.uk). I read his book 'The New Radical' in the early 80s and noticed that the beard had gone.
Anyway...
Just a little concerned about Jim's use of the phrase "God's children". He refered to the two billion (or whatever) of God's children who were malnourished (or similar).
Just as Jim wants to make sure that we don't ignore the word 'poor' whenever it appears in the Bible (although who it refers to from the context each time is an interesting study) I am not sure 'God's children' is a Bible concept that generally applies to all humanity.
The overall thrust of the idea of God's children, in the Bible, seems to refer only to those who are born again (John 1:12) and are part of His family.
This is not to say that we shouldn't do good to all people we come across (Good Samaritan, Gal 6:10a); rather it's that we shouldn't do it because "They are all God's children". That seems to be misuing a Biblical concept.
Or perhaps I've missed something.
Posted by: Alan Bright | May 30, 2008 4:11 AM
Hello, Kevin S
Your post
"Um...the British are not on the Euro system. They still use the British pound. Thanks, once again, for proving Jim's point."
As I understand, they use both, and are moving in the direction of adopting the Euro. I could be wrong. I know that Tony Blair made overtures in this direction, and that many Brits strongly favor the move.
We do not use both. Only pound sterling is legal tender here - although I did recently see a 'phone booth that accepted Euros (v v uncommon).
Probably about 50:50 wanting to adopt the Euro - but I have no solid research to hand to back that up (and a quick Google wasn't that much help)
Posted by: Alan in London | May 30, 2008 4:33 AM
"As I understand, they use both, and are moving in the direction of adopting the Euro. I could be wrong."
You are wrong and again you have proven Jim's point.
"America, for better or worse, plays a larger role in the international landscape than other nations."
And they are trying to run it with probably the same depth of knowledge that you demonstrated about British currency and the same glib manner of dismissing their obvious errors.
"That aside, if Wallis had simply said "the British have a more enlightened view of world affairs than do Americans", there would be no problem. It would be understood to be an opinion."
Given your own gap in knowledge proving Jim's point, you are scarcely in a position to parse his words.
Posted by: JamesMartin | May 30, 2008 6:08 AM
"Britain, the same country where recently a couple
was questioned by the police for hours because
they object to homosexuality?"
One always has to tell the full story: they were not questioned because they "object to homosexuality" but because they actively wanted to prevent the council to assert equal rights legislation. The problem with anti-homosexual Christians is always that they are not satisfied in having a certain opinion, but that they want their opinion to be the dominant one, suppressing other ones. They are not even satisfied with their opinion being the dominant one in their church or family - no, it has to be the dominant one in the council, in the state, in the whole world. And it should not become the dominant one by arguments, open debate, and convincing others - no, it has to happen by coercion, by suppression. And it even goes so far that people who think and act differently are not supposed to have equal rights to everybody else. How sad.
If you have something against gay people, go and engage with them - much more difficult than bashing them in your inner Christian circles where everybody has the same opinion anyway. Or what did Jesus do again...?
I am SO glad to live in a country (Britain) where people are at least supposed to have equal rights and where homophobia (which is, by the way, not just "objecting to homosexuality", but discriminating against people based on their sexuality) is object to police interrogation. Thank God!
Posted by: Doerthe | May 30, 2008 7:06 AM
make heir = air.
Posted by: mingus | May 30, 2008 8:46 AM
Canucklehead:
Having travelled a bit myself, let me just pass along my observation that the average American doesn't know as much about the world as the average European, but this is compensated for somewhat by the fact that what the average American does know is more likely to be true.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | May 30, 2008 8:48 AM
Jim,
This is off subject but I don't know your personal email so gere goes.
I am a enthuastic Barack Obama supporter in North Carolina as well as a big Sojourners fan and subscriber. I am also active in Tim Patterson's Servant Leadership School here in Greensboro.
Barack needs some pastoral guidence and I figure you're just the man to get it done. Why don't you give him a call and tell him he needs to switch his membership to Gordon Cosby's Church of the Savior.
It would be good for both of them.
Love and Blessings,
David Southworth
Posted by: David Southworth | May 30, 2008 8:51 AM
aving travelled a bit myself, let me just pass along my observation that the average American doesn't know as much about the world as the average European, but this is compensated for somewhat by the fact that what the average American does know is more likely to be true.
You got evidence to support this audacious claim?
Posted by: Don | May 30, 2008 9:03 AM
"You got evidence to support this audacious claim?"
He certainly cannot use our foreign policy over the past eight years as a gauge.
Posted by: JamesMartin | May 30, 2008 9:50 AM
Don asked if I have any proof for my contention that the sophistication of Europe is overrated. I note that he does not ask the same of Canucklehead. But that is no matter, the fact is this is an argument that will take too long to settle, since our evidence from our travels will consist of anecdotes. His description of the nuanced talk he had over Africa with a taxi driver in Paris versus my encounter with a thoroughly misguided clerk at a chocolate shop in Brussels, and back and forth it will go...
For an example of the sort of thing I'm talking about though, (and one that you don't just have to take my word for) you might consider the example of French TV channel France 2 falling hook, line, and sinker for video footage of the death of a 12 year old Palestinian boy named Muhammed al-Dura, supposedly at the hand of Israeli forces. In actuality, there is solid evidence that the tape was a fraud perpetrated by a Palestinian cameraman. There are a lot of folks in France who "know" that the IDF killed al-Dura, when in fact it is much more likely that he was shot by Palestinian gunmen.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | May 30, 2008 10:24 AM
My anecdote: each semester in my intro to U.S. history course, I ask students in an extra credit pop quiz to name the capital of Canada. I tease them by saying, "you know, Canada, the country directly north that our nation shares a 3000 mile border with."
Less than 5% have answered correctly over the past half-dozen years. A significant minority, 20% or so, reply Juneau or Fairbanks or Anchorage. About 20% answer with the name of a Canadian province; Ontario and Saskatchewan are the usual suspects. Out of desperation or attempting to be funny, a few answer with the name of a Canadian beer--Molson's usually. And of course, Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver are common responses.
Posted by: carl copas | May 30, 2008 10:50 AM
Doerthe -- The Old and New Testaments condemn
homosexual conduct is the strongest terms. It is
the homosexual activists who are trying to impose
their agenda on the rest of us, and so far are
succeeding. Do homosexuals have a right to live
the way they choose? Probably so. Do they have
a right to force the rest of us to accept what
God has declared to be sin, and to change the
definition of marriage? No. Homosexuals want
to be a protected class -- not equal rights, but
greater rights. They want to be totally free from
criticism. That is not democracy, that is
totalitarianism. Homosexuality is a chosen
behavior, not something inborn. But I digress.
We were talking about Britain, a once-great country
which has fallen into a moral abyss.
Posted by: John G. | May 30, 2008 10:57 AM
And, Wolverine, there are lots of folks right here in the USA who believe:
1. Gasoline prices have risen because of an oil company plot;
2. Global warming is a socialist plot;
3. Evolution is a fraud;
4. A cure for cancer has been kept from clinical practice because of pressure from pharmaceutical companies who want to keep selling highly profitable chemotherapy drugs;
5. George W. Bush stole the 2004 election;
6. John Kerry cheated to win his medals in Vietnam; and
7. There's a Bigfoot buried in Elvis Presley's grave.
Well, maybe not the latter one, but i'm sure you get the idea by now.
Do Americans really have a better handle on the truth than Europeans?
Peace,
Posted by: Don | May 30, 2008 11:01 AM
Don and others -
Susan Jacoby has an interesting column in today's NYT about the way the word "elite," once a term of praise, has been turned into one of opprobrium by both left and right. The most disturbing claim is the following:
"The newest and most ominous wrinkle in the denigration of all things elite is that the slur is being applied to knowledge itself. Senator Hillary Clinton’s use of the phrase “elite opinion” to dismiss the near unanimous opposition of economists to her proposal for a gas tax holiday was a landmark in the use of elite to attack expertise supposedly beyond the comprehension of average Americans. One might as well say that there is no point in consulting musicians about music or ichthyologists about fish."
Posted by: Another nonymous | May 30, 2008 11:47 AM
Don wrote:
And, Wolverine, there are lots of folks right here in the USA who believe:
1. Gasoline prices have risen because of an oil company plot;
Yes, and most of those are on the political left
2. Global warming is a socialist plot;
Well, the science is far from settled, and it is interesting to see how global warming has been used to advocate tighter government restrictions on the economy.
3. Evolution is a fraud;
I note that you don't provide any numbers on how prevalent this belief actually is, but I'll admit you sort of got me on this one; creationism is something of a Christian Right fetish.
4. A cure for cancer has been kept from clinical practice because of pressure from pharmaceutical companies who want to keep selling highly profitable chemotherapy drugs;
Where did you hear that one? More important, with their constant demonization of pharmaceutical companies, isn't it possible that the left has contributed to this belief?
5. George W. Bush stole the 2004 election;
No, no, no. Diebold (the voting machine manufacturer) did, then they sold it to Bush later. (Amazing the things you can pick up on E-bay...)
6. John Kerry cheated to win his medals in Vietnam; and
7. There's a Bigfoot buried in Elvis Presley's grave.
Actually, I thought John Kerry was buried in Elvis Presley's grave after having been mauled by Bigfoot during a ski vacation in Vail. Elvis Presley faked his death, was surgically modified to look just like John Kerry, and has been pretending to be Kerry ever since. For his service to the country Bigfoot was given John Kerry's medals.
Well, maybe not the latter one, but i'm sure you get the idea by now.
By the way, I got that story from Fox News.
Do Americans really have a better handle on the truth than Europeans?
Beats me, but after the election of Angela Merkel in Germany, Nicholas Sarkozy in France, and now Silvio Berlusconi in Italy, all (relative) conservatives, at a time when uber-liberal Barack Obama is favored in the US, do you really want to take the line that Europeans are smarter than Americans? Wouldn't it be safer for both of us to agree that Americans and Europeans are both dumb, just in different ways?
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | May 30, 2008 11:51 AM
Dear John G.,
You have made a lot of assertions of what "the" homosexuals want and stand for. With how many homosexuals exactly have you already engaged personally and discussed these issues? How much do you know about where "their" homosexuality comes from and how they want to live it?
You don't even make the effort to distinguish between homosexuals, they seem to be all the same for you. Maybe I'm too fast in my judgment myself, but I guess that you do not know many personally - apart from the ones you might see in the media. A very close friend of mine is gay, and he is very, very different from the ones you see on telly. Just very normal, actually, living in a committed relationship. Homosexuality is just one facet of his identity and personality, as heterosexuality is just one facet of my identity. He does not want to be reduced to his sexuality - just like me. He does not make a big thing out of it at all. He just wants to live as everybody else. But, obviously, he also wants to meet people who share this one aspect of his personality - so he wants to know where he can meet them. As I want to know where I can meet Christians or politically like-minded people, etc.
That's exactly what the couple opposed - they did not want "leaflets" that inform about events of gay people etc. distributed in their council. Although of course they want to distribute their Christian leaflets - they were pretty clear on that.
What about "aggressive" Christian mission? I'm sure you want to make Christian events that aim to convert people to Christianity as public as these gay guys want to make public their events - that do not aim to convert anybody.
Posted by: Doerthe Rosenow | May 30, 2008 12:42 PM
"Beats me, but after the election of Angela Merkel in Germany, Nicholas Sarkozy in France, and now Silvio Berlusconi in Italy, all (relative) conservatives, at a time when uber-liberal Barack Obama is favored in the US"
The politicians whom you mention would be much closer to Obama on the issues than they would be to neo-conservative Republicans. Take national healthcare, for example, they are not moving to dismantle it. Oh would it be that our right wing politicians were so benign. But they are not.
Posted by: JamesMartin | May 30, 2008 1:04 PM
Where did you hear that one [about the pharmaceutical companies blocking a cancer cure]? More important, with their constant demonization of pharmaceutical companies, isn't it possible that the left has contributed to this belief?
Well, my mother-in-law believes that and she got it from somewhere. I didn't bother to ask where. She also buys into a lot of what I would consider quack medicine, like the flaxseed oil concoction she's using to "cure" a basal cell skin cancer on her chin. And she's not lacking in intelligence, either.
She watches Fox News, BTW, so if it's a left-wing notion, I'm sure she's quite unaware of that fact.
But you can probably find Web sites that advocate positions like that, or other far-out ideas that I didn't mention but that you've probably heard before: the Holocaust didn't really happen; FDR knew in advance about plans to attack Pearl Harbor but did nothing; 9-11 was perpetrated by the US government; the AIr Force is holding remains of space aliens and spacecraft parts in a secret lab in New Mexico, etc. My point is that the Europeans aren't the only people who "know" stuff that, if not blatantly false is at least unverifiable.
JamesMartin is right--on the world's political stage, Obama is hardly an "uber liberal." Even here in the US, he's not really that far to the left. The only real liberal in the 2008 presidential primary race was Dennis Kucinich. According to politicalcompass.org, Sarkozy's government is about where McCain would be on the scale, Merkel's is close to Obama and Hillary, and Berlesconi is about in between the other two. So Obama would fit in quite well with these European so-called conservatives.
D
Posted by: Don | May 30, 2008 1:41 PM
"So Obama would fit in quite well with these European so-called conservatives."
Indeed. I remember a visiting student from England telling me that, after spending several months in the US, she had yet to see any form of media - print, TV, whatever - that would even qualify as left-wing. That's how our famous "liberal media" looks to Europeans.
BTW, Wolverine's statement that the science on global warming is far from settled is an example of the disdain for elite opinion that I cited above. The science is settled. Any impression to the contrary has been fostered by the inability to distinguish between expert opinion and what the "liberal media" feel compelled to present in the interest of being "fair and balanced."
Posted by: Another nonymous | May 30, 2008 1:50 PM
Wolverine, I just read the bottom half of your last paragraph. I never said Europeans were smarter than Americans; I was only trying to counter your assertion that what Americans "know" is more likely to be true than what Europeans "know." I think we can both agree that both groups are equally capable of being misled. That says nothing about either group's innate intelligence, which I would presume, is about the same on both sides.
As I said, my mother-in-law is intelligent, yet that doesn't prevent her from believing some pretty wacky stuff regarding cancer treatment.
We could debate which group is better informed about world affairs. But I don't want to make any assertions without some evidence behind them. But regarding the incident you reported about the Palestinian child Muhamamad al-Dura, my guess is that most Americans have probably never heard about that alleged incident, let alone know any of the facts--real or bogus.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | May 30, 2008 1:50 PM
The science is settled. Any impression to the contrary has been fostered by the inability to distinguish between expert opinion and what the "liberal media" feel compelled to present in the interest of being "fair and balanced."
Another:
You are right that the real issue regarding what to believe about global warming is who truly are the experts.
And the same thing goes with the notion that the 2004 presidential election was stolen. The so-called 'experts' that you can find online who extoll the conspiracy theory--and whom Robert Kennedy Jr. cited in his Rolling Stone article--are not experts in elections, the polling process, or American political science. Their expertise lies outside the field of elections and the election process. The true election experts who looked into the voting here in Ohio, which is where the conspiracy allegedly took place, found a lot of problems with the voting process (not least of which was the lack of adequate numbers of voting machines assigned to heavily African-American precincts here in the Columbus area). But none found any evidence of a conspiracy to throw the election, and none believe that eliminating all the irregularities they uncovered in the voting process here would have been enough to give Ohio to Kerry.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | May 30, 2008 2:02 PM
Don -
If you're making the case that left-wing Americans are no less gullible than right-wing Americans, you're absolutely correct. Disdain for expert opinion cuts across the political spectrum. I'd be curious to hear from our European readers, though, about whether the same is true where they live.
Posted by: Another nonymous | May 30, 2008 2:25 PM
Yikes! No one is ever going to be able to prove with statistics that one society is more aware of the truth about the world than the other. What's the point in arguing this?
Yes, there are millions of Americans who don't know everything all us smart people would like them to know about world geography, other cultures, history, basic economics, bigfoot, where babies comes from, etc. Some of them even write comments on this blog. And yes, there are millions of Europeans who don't know these things either. As someone said, anecdotes aren't going to prove anything.
And simply saying that because " a lot of people in another country" believe the same thing that I do, therefore that means they're smarter, doesn't prove anything either. A majority opinion can still be wrong.
We can quote news stories about how some illogically high percentage of French people think 9/11 was an inside job or how an equally high percentage of Americans think Afghans speak the same language as Iraqis (oh, wait, that's Obama), but again, what's the point?
The fact remains that there is a lot we can all learn from other cultures and peoples. There's a lot the British can learn from Americans and visa versa. In addition, no one ever talks about the relative knowledge base of, say, the average Liberian and the average American. Yet when it comes to world affairs we're told we should listen to what Africans have to say. We should, but it's not premised on their knowledge of any subject.
Jesus Christ never warned us about the quiz on national capitols we're going to have to pass before entering the Kingdom.
Posted by: Eric | May 30, 2008 2:39 PM
Yikes! No one is ever going to be able to prove with statistics that one society is more aware of the truth about the world than the other. What's the point in arguing this?
Yes, there are millions of Americans who don't know everything all us smart people would like them to know about world geography, other cultures, history, basic economics, bigfoot, where babies comes from, etc. Some of them even write comments on this blog. And yes, there are millions of Europeans who don't know these things either. As someone said, anecdotes aren't going to prove anything.
And simply saying that because " a lot of people in another country" believe the same thing that I do, therefore that means they're smarter, doesn't prove anything either. A majority opinion can still be wrong.
We can quote news stories about how some illogically high percentage of French people think 9/11 was an inside job or how an equally high percentage of Americans assume Afghans speak the same language as Iraqis (oh, wait, that's just Obama), but again, what's the point?
The fact remains that there is a lot we can all learn from other cultures and peoples. There's a lot the British can learn from Americans and visa versa. In addition, no one ever talks about the relative knowledge base of, say, the average Liberian and the average American. Yet when it comes to world affairs we're told we should listen to what Africans have to say. We should, but it's not premised on their knowledge of any particular subject.
Jesus Christ never warned us about the geography quiz we're going to have to pass before entering the Kingdom.
Posted by: Eric | May 30, 2008 2:44 PM
"We do not use both. Only pound sterling is legal tender here - although I did recently see a 'phone booth that accepted Euros (v v uncommon)."
I stand corrected.
"i didn't realize that blogs were governed by the same standards as college term papers."
Which rather clearly wasn't my point. Wikipedia holds the same standard.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 30, 2008 2:47 PM
"And simply saying that because " a lot of people in another country" believe the same thing that I do, therefore that means they're smarter, doesn't prove anything either."
It proves that he correlates assent with intelligence. What Wallis is revealing here is that he believes everyone would think like him, if only they were a little bit more knowledgable.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 30, 2008 4:11 PM
kevin s: "It proves that he correlates assent with intelligence."
This is an egregious distortion. I know you don't like Wallis, kevin, but there's no need to misrepresent what he writes.
Posted by: carl copas | May 30, 2008 5:35 PM
"This is an egregious distortion. I know you don't like Wallis, kevin, but there's no need to misrepresent what he writes."
But that's an inescapable conclusion from what he has written. He finds the Brits care more about the stuff he cares about and attributes this commonality to their heightened sense of concern for "the common good".
Posted by: kevin s. | May 30, 2008 5:44 PM
kevin s: "But that's an inescapable conclusion from what he has written. He finds the Brits care more about the stuff he cares about and attributes this commonality to their heightened sense of concern for 'the common good'."
Which scarcely "proves that he correlates assent with intelligence." Unless "concern" = "intelligence." Maybe in Minnesota the two terms are interchangeable.
Posted by: carl copas | May 30, 2008 5:59 PM
"Maybe in Minnesota the two terms are nterchangeable."
Don't they use the Euro out there or the Mexican peso or something like that?
Posted by: JamesMartin | May 30, 2008 6:24 PM
LOL
Posted by: carl copas | May 30, 2008 6:37 PM
I should NOT have insinuated in my last post here that Kevin S is not intelligent. I was wrong and apologize unconditionally to Kevin.
Posted by: canucklehead | May 30, 2008 7:29 PM
Carl, you mean Molson's ISN'T our capital?
just to clarify, the capital of Canada is Piapot, Saskatchewan; I'll leave it up to your good judgement how Piapot is pronounced
Posted by: canucklehead | May 30, 2008 7:33 PM
Canucklehead -
Shucks! You mean it's not Saint-Louis-du-Ha! Ha!, Quebec?
Posted by: Another nonymous | May 30, 2008 7:47 PM
By my own observations, I think Americans are more caught up in wedge issues that further their own agendas or keep them in a state of comfort, rather than have their beliefs questioned.
I bought a condo 3 years ago in a Seattle neighborhood that many might call 'marginilized'. There's a mixture of homeless people, immigrants, slumlords, and a influx of new condos & townhomes going up, since real estate is cheaper than say, downtown. There is a Mennonite church that has a ministry to the homeless, and several of them have taken up camp on the streets, sleeping in doorways, etc. We have several small, Dollar stores that seem to pop up on every block and every one of them sells beer/wine among other things. Neighbors have rallied to oppose liquor licenses for these shops since they are everywhere and only seem to advance some of the homeless' addictions.
What I've observed through this as many people line up to help oppose these licenses, but not to tackle the bigger problem: Homelessness in Seattle. Should we not be trying to assist the homeless and their plight, rather than focus on restricing the devices that disrupt the neighborhood? But in America, it seems we are more interested in advancing our own comfort or 'status quo' rather than get up and help society as a whole...the stores selling the liquor are not the problem-but a symptom. If the community that complains about the homeless decided to make them their priority, via volunteering 1 on 1, or going to the local serivice agencies, churches, etc and see what they could do to help, this might have more effective results. We don't 'get it' here in America, and that is what I 'take away' from Jim's article.
Posted by: Jackvf | May 30, 2008 8:23 PM
"By my own observations, I think Americans are more caught up in wedge issues that further their own agendas or keep them in a state of comfort, rather than have their beliefs questioned."
Jackuf: Outstanding
Wolvie: Thanks for showing some humor. It is a welcome respite from the "chicken little", apocolyptic energy that characterizes some posts here.
Doerthe -- The Old and New Testaments condemn
homosexual conduct is the strongest terms. It is
the homosexual activists who are trying to impose
their agenda on the rest of us, and so far are
succeeding. Do homosexuals have a right to live
the way they choose? Probably so. Do they have
a right to force the rest of us to accept what
God has declared to be sin, and to change the
definition of marriage? No. Homosexuals want
to be a protected class -- not equal rights, but
greater rights. They want to be totally free from
criticism. That is not democracy, that is
totalitarianism. Homosexuality is a chosen
behavior, not something inborn. But I digress.
We were talking about Britain, a once-great country
which has fallen into a moral abyss.
John G.: What "homosexual conduct" is condemned? What exactly is this "agenda" and could you name one of these activists? It's been a long time since I personally have had an agenda imposed on me or been forced to accept anything. Who has the right to define marriage? Does being protected mean having greater rights? Is sin a chosen or inborn behavior? Does it matter to God whether it is chosen or "original"?
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | May 30, 2008 11:43 PM
Canucklehead, I'll guess "Piapot" is pronounced pee-AH-po.
Later today I will raise a glass of Molson's in belated honor of Victoria Day.
*exit humming "Oh Canada"*
Posted by: carl copas | May 31, 2008 10:27 AM
"Canucklehead, I'll guess "Piapot" is pronounced pee-AH-po."
I ought to have figured that out. (Say it several times, kind of fast.)
Posted by: Another nonymous | May 31, 2008 11:43 AM
Hey, what about Labatt's? Molson isn't the only decent beer from Canada! My wife brought some home from the grocery a few weeks ago and it was pretty decent.
And her I thought the capital was Medicine Hat, Alberta. Or maybe Flin Flon, Manitoba. I had to look up Saint-Louis-du-Ha! Ha! and was surprised to find that it was a real place. Couldn't be the capital, though--too close to the U.S. border.
And for the apocalyptic minded, I noticed Magog, Quebec, on the map, too.
Another nonymous wrote:
f you're making the case that left-wing Americans are no less gullible than right-wing Americans, you're absolutely correct.
Yes, that was my point.
Wolverine wrote:
Actually, I thought John Kerry was buried in Elvis Presley's grave after having been mauled by Bigfoot during a ski vacation in Vail. Elvis Presley faked his death, was surgically modified to look just like John Kerry, and has been pretending to be Kerry ever since. For his service to the country Bigfoot was given John Kerry's medals.
This is hilarious! I'll tell you what. Rent out some domain space, PhotoShop-manipulate some digital pictures, and then upload this stuff onto a slick-looking Web site, and we could probably have people actually believing it. We could even set up a blog so people could comment.
We might even get some Europeans to believe it.
:-)
D
Posted by: Don | May 31, 2008 1:40 PM
Magog recently changed its name to HalLindseyville.
Posted by: canucklehead | May 31, 2008 10:20 PM
"Which scarcely "proves that he correlates assent with intelligence." Unless "concern" = "intelligence." Maybe in Minnesota the two terms are interchangeable."
Okay, then he correlates assent with enlightenment. Still not seeing the egregious distortion.
"Should we not be trying to assist the homeless and their plight, rather than focus on restricing the devices that disrupt the neighborhood? "
While part of me would love to engage in a little Seattle-bashing... Opposing liquor licenses is popular from a "killing two birds with one stone" perspective. You can remove a neighborhood blight while (at least ostensibly) helping the homeless make better decisions.
It's also an opportunity for neighborhood groups to influence policy. I would argue against fighting liquor licenses for a host of reasons, but I'm not sure this is an example of Americans not wanting their beliefs questioned.
And everyone knows the capital of Canada is Canada City.
Posted by: kevin s. | June 1, 2008 1:16 AM
Don wrote: "there are lots of folks right here in the USA who believe [...] George W. Bush stole the 2004 election"
The theft of the presidential election in Ohio in 2004 by the Republicans through voter disenfranchisement and fraud -- organized, led and (almost) covered up by then Republican secretary of state (and head of Bush's Ohio campaign organization) Ken Blackwell -- has been thoroughly documented.
Bush supporters who deny this -- and who deny that the Florida 2000 election was stolen by Bush's brother, Florida governor Jeb Bush, and his secretary of state Katherine Harris (like Blackwell, the head of Bush's state presidential campaign organization) who conspired to disenfranchise tens of thousands of mostly African-American Democratic voters by falsely identifying them as "felons" and purging them from the voter rolls before the election -- are either deliberate liars, or are simply unable to face the fact that George W. Bush is not, and has never been, the legitimately elected president of the United States.
Posted by: SecularAnimist | June 1, 2008 11:25 AM
Secular:
I am not a Bush supporter. I didn't vote for him in 2004. But those who are convinced that Kerry really won Ohio are relying on questionable expertise. That "thorough documentation" you refer to was done by non-experts.
You need to look at some real experts. For starters, try Walter Mebane. He researched the Ohio 2004 voting situation more thoroughly than anyone else.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~wmebane/
D
Posted by: Don | June 1, 2008 12:56 PM
" has been thoroughly documented. "
The accusation that the Bush administration was behind the 9/11 attacks has been thoroughly documented. That China has a stellar human rights record has been thoroughly documented. That the holocaust never happened has been thoroughly documented.
It all depends on who is doing the documenting.
The stolen election fluff is another byproduct of the attitude that honest disagreement about who should be president is inconceivable. As thought the campaigns of Al Gore and John Kerry were so luminous that only shenanigans could remove their luster. Americans were presented with mediocre options in 2000 and 2004, and responded accordingly.
Posted by: kevin s. | June 1, 2008 6:40 PM
And everyone knows the capital of Canada is Canada City.
Posted by: kevin s. | June 1, 2008 1:16 AM
or Canadahar City as our efforts in Afghanistan have been called
Posted by: canucklehead | June 2, 2008 12:50 AM
Americans were presented with mediocre options in 2000 and 2004, and responded accordingly.
Yeah, they were mediocre on both sides.
It all depends on who is doing the documenting.
Kevin, can you and other conservatives acknowledge that the same thing that is true of the issues you mentioned, including the so-called stolen 2004 election, is also true for global warming?
In other words, the problem regarding what's true about earth's climate is the same as the problem regarding what's true about the 2004 election--we have a difficult time recognizing who the real experts are, and we tend to want to accord "expert" status to those who are telling us what we want to hear.
The real elections experts--those who have dedicated their professional lives to studying the elections process, like Dr. Mebane--agree that there is no solid evidence of a conspiracy to hand Ohio to Bush. Likewise, the real climate experts are all in agreement that the earth is warming and that human activity is at least partly responsible.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | June 2, 2008 6:39 AM
"It's also an opportunity for neighborhood groups to influence policy. I would argue against fighting liquor licenses for a host of reasons, but I'm not sure this is an example of Americans not wanting their beliefs questioned."
That said, zip up your knickers, and run along and finish your afternoon milk.
Posted by: bud duncan | June 2, 2008 1:37 PM
"Kevin, can you and other conservatives acknowledge that the same thing that is true of the issues you mentioned, including the so-called stolen 2004 election, is also true for global warming?"
In some cases. I have said here that I think global warming is happening.
Posted by: kevin s. | June 2, 2008 4:45 PM
Canucklehead:
Is Canada City where you have your National Igloo?
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | June 2, 2008 5:53 PM
USED TO HAVE our National Igloo! It melted along with the rest of the Arctic.
Posted by: canucklehead | June 2, 2008 8:08 PM
"USED TO HAVE our National Igloo! It melted along with the rest of the Arctic."
Well yeah, how do you think we got Lake Ontario?
Posted by: kevin s. | June 2, 2008 10:09 PM
Kevin: Well yeah, how do you think we got Lake Ontario?
You only got half of it, Kevin. The Canadian people - First Nations, English and French, and augmented by escaped black slaves from south of the border - united to repel your attempted invasion in 1812...
meurig
Posted by: meurig | June 2, 2008 11:42 PM
On a more serious note, I'm hoping that Jim has some influence with his mate Gordon, who is backtracking pretty comprehensively on his promise to put "the environment at the core of the Government's objectives for the tax system". There's a pretty good summary in yesterday's Independent on Sunday at http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/greener-power-to-the-people-the-real-energy-alternative-837821.html
Please, Jim, try and persuade him to treat God's creation with some respect, and follow the positive policies which several European neighbours have successfully adopted, which are substantially more cost-effective than the nuclear route that Brown want to go, and which are set out in the report which the article cites. (See also the Guardian's coverage at http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/03/renewableenergy.alternativeenergy1 - I haven't yet been able to find the report itself)
meurig
Posted by: meurig | June 3, 2008 12:09 AM
"You only got half of it, Kevin."
That's why we're melting your igloos.
Posted by: kevin s. | June 3, 2008 1:16 AM
We'll get them back one way or another, Kevin. Why do you think we've sent all those Canadians south to play for US ice hockey teams?
Anyway, when the advert says to "Drink Canada Dry" you don't have to take it literally. It might not be good for you either...
Btw, did I read correctly that Don actually likes Molson and Labatts? You're missing the point, Don... (But the Great Western Brewery in Saskatoon does some pretty decent stuff.)
meurig
Posted by: meurig | June 3, 2008 2:40 AM
" what the average American does know is more likely to be true."
If you really do know something, it's true, not just likely to be. If it's not true, you don't know anything about it.
Posted by: Logical Conumdrum | June 3, 2008 2:51 AM
meurig,
Gordon Brown, being a politician, is likely to be looking for opportunities to ditch extreme environmentalist promises. The notion that the environment would be at the center of his tax policy is probably dead.
(If you want to appreciate how radical that is consider the opposite approach: "I will make fiscal discipline the centerpiece of my environmental policy!" I can just imagine the greenies going gaga over that.)
Gordon Brown's party, you see, just got thumped in municipal elections throughout Britain. It got so bad that a Conservative just took over as Mayor of London. Brown will be scrambling to move his party to the center, which means that tax policy will be about taxes for the foreseeable future.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | June 3, 2008 9:48 AM
Global awareness - interesting topic if attempting comparisons between various groups.
However the most dangerous and difficult attitude to deal with is the combination of ignorance and arrogance. I have encountered this in parts of Australia as well as in Middle US. It is very much less well developed near major centres of international travel ie airports /ports, or in active new frontier areas such as the NW mining region of WA.
Kevin S seems to be unaware that Australians know a bit about Turkey.
ANZAC Day is our major national day of remembrance for all those who fought and fell in all our wars, and the sacrifice of those who returned damaged in body and mind, as well as those who supported them at home. It is not a jingoistic time, but more of reflection of the sacrifices incurred in war and recognition of service.
ANZAC day remembers the heroic ultimately futile campaign at Gallipoli in Turkey in 1914, which crystallized the development of our national ethos.
The diggers returning from Iraq this week will in due time be celebrated and thanked in the ANZAC day marches.
Bit more awareness makes it more difficult for politicians to push con jobs on us using faulty intelligence. This works both ways as Australia intervened in East Timor because the Australian people had had a gut full of what was happening there, and felt that we had to repay a debt from WW2.
Time to do something about Burma?
Posted by: JohnH | June 3, 2008 10:22 AM
Wolvie: Gordon Brown, being a politician, is likely to be looking for opportunities to ditch extreme environmentalist promises.
Sadly true, it seems, though I don't like the implication of the word "extreme". But Gordie has missed a trick - pursuing the nuclear option is only going to push the country deeper into debt, both short-term and long-term (because no serious private investor will take it on without a promise of a bail-out by the government). Conservation, energy efficiency and German-style mechanisms to encourage near-market-ready renewables have all been repeatedly shown to be more cost-effective than nukes.
And now British politics is in the position where even the Tories, with their new commitment to distributed generation, have a greener energy policy than New Labour. In a country where environmental awareness has begun to take off, that isn't the sort of development that will help Gordon Brown's electoral position.
Gordon has lost his way on this one. He is like a sheep without a shepherd. Jim, he needs help....
meurig
Posted by: meurig | June 3, 2008 11:38 AM
Wolvie: what the average American does know is more likely to be true.>/i>
Logical Conhumdrum: If you really do know something, it's true, not just likely to be. If it's not true, you don't know anything about it.
I had sort of assumed that - despite a capacity for irony and self-deprecation not being wellknown as typical US characteristics - Wolvie was not serious when he said that. Please tell me I was right, Wolvie...
meurig
Posted by: meurig | June 3, 2008 1:10 PM
Mr. Wallis should be commended for commenting on the areas where Britain challenges the US on issues relating to Social Justice, but it is curious to note that he fails to mention that Britain is also a country that recently legislated the father out of family planning and it is also a country where Christians were threatened with arrest for "hate crime" if they continued to hand out Christian leaflets in Muslim areas of Birmingham. Here's a link to the article. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2058935/Police-advise-Christian-preachers-to-leave-Muslin-area-of-Birmingham.html
Posted by: David Crumplar | June 3, 2008 1:18 PM
David - I hope you noted the last line of the article you cite: "...the officer would be given training in understanding hate crime and communication." Clearly he behaved in a way which is not the policy of his constabulary.
Yes, it is worrying that individual police officers can now discriminate against Christian evangelists in this way (though the article only gives one side of the story), and I question whether West Midlands police have done enough to resolve this incident, but please also don't blow this serious indiscretion by one officer out of proportion. Any charge of "hate crime" (whatever the actual charge for that would be) would most likely be laughed out of court.
meurig
Posted by: meurig | June 3, 2008 1:58 PM
Meurig, thank you for clarifying (though David deserves credit for at least supplying a link). I am tired of these "Christian persecution" stories being blown out of proportion. It reminds me of all the whining about clerks wishing their customers "happy holidays."
African Americans could also say "the US is a country where a black man named Rodney King was beaten by six officers for a petty offense, presumably because of his color." Or "where voters are more concerned about a Presidential candidate's flag pin than the candidate's proposals for fixing our bridges, dams and sewer systems."
Posted by: I and I | June 3, 2008 3:08 PM
John G, you still haven't answered Pastor Jeff's questions.
"What "homosexual conduct" is condemned? What exactly is this "agenda" and could you name one of these activists? It's been a long time since I personally have had an agenda imposed on me or been forced to accept anything. Who has the right to define marriage? Does being protected mean having greater rights? Is sin a chosen or inborn behavior? Does it matter to God whether it is chosen or "original"?"
Posted by: carl copas | June 3, 2008 6:07 PM
John G: But I digress. We were talking about Britain, a once-great country which has fallen into a moral abyss.
I'll ask you more directly this time, John. What direct knowledge do you have of Britain and British affairs? How often have you visited? How wide a range of British publications do you read? In other words, what specifically gives you the authority to make those sorts of claims about a country which is (I assume) not your own?
As a British citizen myself, I happen to think that there is much wrong with British culture, society and politics. Like every other society, it sins and falls short of the glory of God. I think that in my lifetime it's been getting worse in some ways and better in others.
But it is also a society which has been moving into a post-Constantinian phase in the last decade or two. In the longer run, I think this will result in a stronger, more dynamic church, better able to follow Jesus rather than using the props of establishment and respectability to keep itself going. In the short term, much of the church is confused and ill-equipped to cope with the new situation, and the more it tries to live in the past the more ill-equipped it will be.
It is my belief that once Britain has a truly post-Constantinian church that values Jesus over institutions, there is real hope for renewal of wider society. Renewal that will affect every issue that God is concerned with - which means every issue (one of which, yes, is homosexuality, though I can't see it as by any means the most important concern facing Britain). That renewal is not going to come through church leaders presuming to have a right to their former authority to dump a load of mustage and oughtage on the nonChristian majority: it's going to come not by might nor by power but by the Spirit of the Lord working among his humble, loving and obedient people.
And when it happens, I hope that churches elsewhere in the world which are still stuck in quasi-Constantinian arrangements will be taking note and learning. It will make it so much easier for them to face their own inevitable transition.
meurig
Posted by: meurig | June 3, 2008 6:56 PM
John G, you still haven't answered Pastor Jeff's questions.
Posted by: carl copas | June 3, 2008 6:07 PM
Carl, I think it was a hit 'n run...
Posted by: canucklehead | June 4, 2008 10:55 PM
No, I've never been to Britain. (Would love to go, though. Its history and culture are fascinating. Not the food, however.) But I have the sense that Britain had a better past than a present. So, for that matter, did my own land, the USA. But everything is leading up to the time when the world will fall under the rule of the Antichrist, anyway. I see all nations (except for Israel) as being under condemnation. (See Psalm 2, for one.) Some nations degenerate quicker than others. Believe me, I'd love to see Britons turn en masse to Jesus, but it seems that, having dispensed with their Christian heritage, they are more likely to embrace Islam, instead. * As for
homosexuality, both the Mosaic Law and the Book of
Romans clearly condemn any form of it. I don't
necessarily think that all homosexuals are radical
activists, but all homosexuality is wrong, totally
contrary to the way God designed humans to operate. Male and female bodies were designed
to fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. Since God
designed sex and marriage, it is not humankind's
prerogative to redesign or redefine either. As for seeing activists, go to almost any large
city (Columbus, OH on June 28th would do) to
the so-called "Pride Parades," and you'll see
plenty of them. Being proud of homosexual conduct is the same as being proud of committing murder, or adultery, or lying. It is all sin, and all condemned. For that matter, so is pride itself! Homosexual conduct is a choice, not anything inborn. It amazes me how the liberal churches (and fellow travelers such as Sojo) can read the plain words of Scripture, or disregard the explicit witness of nature, and reach different conclusions. "For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another, men with men committing what is shameful , and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." (Romans 1:26-29, NKJV) Plain as day!
Posted by: John G. | June 8, 2008 4:11 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?