"For God and Country"

History is filled with wars and battles which were fought "for God and Country".  One political party in the United States not only makes "for God and Country" a political slogan but makes Christianity part of their platform and how they define themselves and want to define the United States.  "For God and Country" is more than just a rallying cry to fire up the party's base, it is also a weapon to use against the opposition.  For if one party is for something and/or someone, the opposing party must be against that something and/or someone.  So one party declares itself God-fearing, flag waving Patriots and paints the other party as, well, not because they do not embrace the exact same values.

Abraham Lincoln understood that creating those types of labels does not work and is misleading.  In his Second Inaugural Address given on March 4, 1865 just forty days before he died, President Lincoln said that the Union and the Confederacy "read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. " Both sides believed that they were correct in their interpretation of what is right and just in God's eyes.  Both sides held opposing views.  Who was right?  If the outcome of the war was meant to be the indication of which side God had chosen, then the Union had it right and the Confederacy had it wrong.  Unless, of course, the God who can never make a mistake, did make a mistake.  Or the Southerners were being punished somehow and would eventually and ultimately be rescued from their defeat.

History records the outcomes of the wars and battles, but people often decide their own reality based not on facts, but on what they want to believe.  So members of one one party want to believe they are always good Christians and ever "for God and Country" and want to believe the opposing party is filled with people who are both godless and unpatriotic.  True or not true?  How does one decide?  Perhaps by looking at the actions rather than the words of the political parties?  That's a thought worth pursuing.

In Matthew's Gospel, Jesus talks about giving food to the hungry, giving something to drink to the thirsty, giving clothes to the naked, giving shelter to the stranger, and giving comfort to the sick.  Which political party has done this most often?  The Christian "for God and Country" party that does not support Social Programs which provide assistance to the those most in need of help?  Or the other party that not only supports those programs but was responsible for creating them?  Perhaps more important than wearing "for God and Country" like a badge of honor is acting like all lives and all people matter.

Why do people vote against their own best interests?

Along with wondering why do people fight against what will help them, why so many people choose to vote against what is in their own bests interests?  Everyone knows, or should know, that clean air and clean water are life-sustaining necessities.  Yet when a political party denies that there are serious problems with the climate and want to eliminate or at least render totally ineffective the Environmental Protection Agency, the question which begs to be asked is why do people support that?  Why would people think that eliminating the agency which serves as a means to protect the planet, including the air we breathe and the water we drink is the best way or even a good way to respond to scientists who have been sounding the alarm for years that we are on a path which will not only destroy the planet but humanity as well?  Everyone needs to breathe and everyone needs water in order to live.  Yet some are willing to risk the present and the future to allow corporations to make more money.  Money which will never, despite all the promises, make its way down the corporate ladder to the workers.  So why do people do that?

Why do senior citizens consistently support a political party which promises to privatize Social Security and Medicare?  Taking those programs out of the control of the Federal Government perhaps sounds like a good idea.  After all, as one political party explains in great detail the Federal Government is far too involved in the every day lives of the citizens of the United States.  But what happens when private interests take control of a social program?  That of course depends entirely on who has control.  The question is who would be in control and how would privatizing Social Security and Medicare work?  How would payments be made into the system?  How does the system protect the money?  Why are those changes necessary?  How would that benefit anyone now or in the future?  Have those questions been answered adequately by anyone supporting the issues?  Or is it enough that the political party supports it so that is all some people need to know?

One political party talks about the need for widespread deregulation.  Their message is simple: government regulations hurt businesses and cause problems which lead to loss of jobs.  If the government stayed out of the way, then businesses would thrive and people would be employed.   Sound like a good idea, actually sounds like an excellent idea, but what are some of the areas government regulates in business?  How about safety?  Perhaps people have long since forgotten the twenty-five workers who died in a fire in a North Carolina chicken factory as a result of blocked exits. But their families surely have not forgotten those deaths which could have been prevented.  Oh, but that is the exception, not the rule.  Yes, it is because of government regulations!  Without regulations or with a loosening of  regulations, job safety becomes an issue.  Regulations are not a punishment, but rather a reminder that there are certain standards and codes of conduct which businesses must abide by in order to provide safe conditions for workers and customers.  So why would anyone other than a business owner really think that voting for deregulation is good?

There are so many more examples, but the question remains, why are people so willing to vote against their own best interests?  Or for that matter, the best interests of future generations?  What would they tell those future generations?  That their political party said it was good and helpful so they believed them?  That they did not really understand what was happening because they only listened to certain news programs which reinforced their political party's platform?  Or that they just did not care about the future?  Those are tough questions to have to answer.

Why do people fight what will help them?

On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act which made having healthcare mandatory.  The ACA, more commonly, and at times derisively called ObamaCare, also made health insurance affordable for the first time for many people.  Before the ACA had been passed and signed into law, there was opposition to it for numerous reasons.  One reason was that people did not want the President or Federal government of the United States telling them what they had to do.  On the surface that might sound like a reasonable argument.  After all, few of us really want to be forced to do things.

But it is important to pause and really think about what is being opposed and whether that opposition is really in the best interests of those fighting against it.  In fighting against the Affordable Care Act, people are fighting to stop being told they must have health insurance.  They oppose being told they can now afford to go to a doctor on a regular basis.  They oppose being told they can now afford prescription drugs that can cure, prevent and/or treat medical issues which could increase their life span.  They oppose being told they can now afford to have blood work, diagnostic imaging and other tests which can detect health issues sooner rather than later.  They oppose being told they now no longer have to rely on the Emergency Room for their only and primary care.  All of which are good and beneficial to them, all of which they implicitly oppose when they vehemently oppose ObamaCare because they are denied the freedom to die due to lack of medical care.

Health care is not the only life-saving issue people have opposed because Federal and/or State governments imposed something on its citizens.  Wearing seat belts was another instance where people rose up to stop what they believed was the overreach of government.  People opposed being told they had to wear a seat belt.  They opposed being told that they no longer had the freedom to impale themselves on the steering wheel or smash their heads and faces into the windshield in an accident.

Think about that for a moment.