The Petra Zone

Hmm.. not sure I can really get angry about the above lyrics, though I admit they aren't exactly making a cogent argument - heh, who does nowadays?!

Some who I think this is going to turn into a "All of you is enough for all of me" swampfest. Bring it on!

Matthew:

I know you're heart is in the right place. I see what you're saying. If there was less poverty and less despair, perhaps there would be fewer abortions. While there's no way to prove it, I'm inclined to agree with you.

MatthewRJ wrote:No, let's not address the root causes of injustice but rather sit on our butts and pray hoping that something will magically change.

Now, there's the real problem. What are those "root causes" ... beyond the corruption of sin that has been in the world since since the "forbidden fruit" incident? We would all love to address them, but we have violent, vehement disagreements over just what they are.

I see a huge part of the problem as being taxes that are too high, government welfare programs that trap people in a cycle of dependency on those very government programs, and a government-run education system that is all too often a dismal failure. When and where it does work (and it does so far more often that many would like to admit), it is because of the dedication and hard work of teachers and principles who pour their hearts into educating kids thereby making our schools work in spite of the system.

In other words, I see one of the "root causes" as being far too much government interference. From what I can tell, however, liberals seem to see one of the "root causes" as being not enough government interference.

I agree with you that we (i.e. you, me, the guy next door) should address the root causes. I cannot agree with liberals who think the government should have any part of addressing the root causes other than repealing their oppressive regulatory burdens and taxes and enforcing those laws which state that I may not physically injure another person or steal his rightful property from him.

So you see, Matthew, when we try to address the "root causes", as you say, we end up in a tug-of-war with each other that essentially stymies both sides.

Only God can straighten this mess out.

As for lyrics, I won't say any "offend" me, but some do disturb me. One particular troubling set from a few years ago had the singer saying, "I'm going to walk in blind faith". I can't remember who sang it or the name of the song.

That just didn't sit right with me. Blind faith is faith that often fails when it is challenged. Faith should be educated and informed. Faith should understand that arguments against it and have answers to it. I've never, ever taught that faith should be blind. Faith should, on the contrary, see clearly.

I'm obviously going to agree with Matthew on this point. A lot of Christian bands tend to believe prayer in schools is a magic bullet to cure all society's ills, when they aren't even informed on what the law concerning prayer in schools is, and they certainly haven't looked at it from the perspective of the minority: If Muslims were the dominant religious tradition in America, would these songwriters like their children to be required to pray toward Mecca every day? Probably not.

There's a lot of songs like that. Not sure they make me mad, but it makes them difficult to listen to, and certainly to sing along with. Whiteheart's "King George" is along those lines:

The tide has turned, a different wave upon this shore,
Now we're so free, but tell me, what's the freedom for?
If we say his name...
If our message gets too strong...
The radio will never play this song,
The right is there to make a choice,
We can all speak with our own voice,
We can say, but we don't dare,
And all our schools don't have a prayer.

King George, I thought we got away,
King George, your laughing in your grave,
King George, it hasn't really changed,
King George, is your shadow here to stay?

I mean, seriously? King George wasn't even the king the Puritans were fleeing from when they left England (I believe it was Charles I), never mind that their repression of religious freedom was just as egregious as the English monarchy's. And the American Revolution against George III was fought over self-government and taxation without representation; it had nothing to do with religion at all. And I'm just not sure how a decision by private radio companies about which songs they put on the air has anything to do with government repression of religion, but just to tie that mess together, we have a one-liner about prayer in schools ... except, as Matthew noted, the Supreme Court has specifically required schools to allow prayer in school, just not teacher-led prayer, and Bible studies, too. As long as the school is allowing any other extracurricular student group to use its facilities, it has to do the same for Christian groups and student Bible studies. No one ever seems to mention those rulings though. Hard to really deliver a punch with all those caveats, I guess.

Ugh.

So yeah, there's a lot of that around. It's why musicians should really stay away from politics, on both sides of the aisle. There is no political message on any topic that can be accurately presented in four minutes, never mind within the verse-chorus-bridge rhyming structure of a song.

knotodiswrld wrote:I see a huge part of the problem as being taxes that are too high, government welfare programs that trap people in a cycle of dependency on those very government programs, and a government-run education system that is all too often a dismal failure.

Just to briefly address the ongoing misconception over welfare programs: A 2001 study of 11 government welfare-to-work programs showed that nearly all the programs helped the recipients find more stable, higher-paying employment, and that every program led to reduced expenditures after five years. In other words, the programs spend less money as time goes on because more people are finding jobs and working for longer and needing less assistance. Basically, the idea of the "welfare queen" trapped willingly or unwillingly in a cycle of dependence on the government was never very accurate to begin with, but it certainly stopped being in any way a resemblance of reality after the 1996 welfare reform bill.

And that's before we consider the fact that if we simply scrap all government welfare programs, a lot of children will die. I guess we'd have to argue whether there's any moral difference between killing children before they're born and killing them after they're born.

CatNamedManny I understand what you're trying to say. However, I still have to point out, that there are kids being told everyday by the schools not to pray, they are taking the law far beyond what it's there for and the teachers and school are being protected from changing. I do agree that I wouldn't want to be forced to pray to another God.

But I also have to say, it's not just so many bands, a Majority of Christians feel the same way these bands do. It wouldn't be such a touchy subject other wise.

Matthew RJ On the subject of Abortion. We (as in voters) have been trying to take care of the peverty issues for years, the problem is we vote and somehow we turn around and get taxed out of our rears when they get into office. If you put the money back in peoples hands then the money is in the peoples hands to live on.

About my grandmother had three miscarriage and never once in my life did I ever hear her blame God for that. My cousin just had one, and She didn't blame God either. Problems do happen it's because of the Human Body not God. Because of Man's choice to Sin, Sin has caused the decay of our Body Not God. That's like trying to say "God sends People to Hell" No People send themselves to hell by not accepting Christ.

bakersfieldpethead wrote:CatNamedManny I understand what you're trying to say. However, I still have to point out, that there are kids being told everyday by the schools not to pray, they are taking the law far beyond what it's there for and the teachers and school are being protected from changing. I do agree that I wouldn't want to be forced to pray to another God.

Yeah, there are lots of dumb teachers and principals out there who are just as uninformed about the law. They think "no prayer in schools!" and the next thing you know, some kid is in trouble for praying over his lunch in the cafeteria, even though that is perfectly legal, as it should be. Thankfully, there are plenty of Christian legal aid groups willing to take those kinds of cases on, and they routinely win them.

Do you believe in the sovereignty of God? If we give God glory for the safe arrival of a healthy baby, doesn't God bear some of the burden for the baby that doesn't make it? I'd like to think the miscarriage my wife went through was part of God's plan and not random forces of nature. I trust God, I'd rather not be a victim to fallen nature.

Yes I do believe in the sovereignty of God. I didn't mean forces of nature, the results of Sin, not in the meaning of saying someone is a fault for their own loss, but in the meaning that because Adam fell, Sin has brought this upon us. Although we have Grace, Grace give us assurance we will make Heaven, but at the moment we still must live here in this Body. There are things that Satan steps into, where he tries to destroy us and He works to destroy us spiritualy but also destroy us in our health as well, but God steps in and makes things better, I believe that God is there the moment that Baby passes and yes God has a plan.

We may not always know what that plan is, but God never fails.

CatNamedManny wrote:There's a lot of songs like that. Not sure they make me mad, but it makes them difficult to listen to, and certainly to sing along with. Whiteheart's "King George" is along those lines:

Yes, but the tune was oh so catch. And they had a good idea. They just needed to research the history a little better.

CatNamedManny wrote:It's why musicians should really stay away from politics, on both sides of the aisle. There is no political message on any topic that can be accurately presented in four minutes, never mind within the verse-chorus-bridge rhyming structure of a song.

By that token, there are few theological subjects that can be accurately presented in four minutes, though Bob Hartman did a better job than anyone else. Music that deals with such subjects is more to encourage the faithful than to make converts.

CatNamedManny wrote:Just to briefly address the ongoing misconception over welfare programs: A 2001 study of 11 government welfare-to-work programs showed that nearly all the programs helped the recipients find more stable, higher-paying employment, and that every program led to reduced expenditures after five years. In other words, the programs spend less money as time goes on because more people are finding jobs and working for longer and needing less assistance.

"A study of 11 government welfare-to-work programs"? This involves a common statistical flaw in such studies. As you can see, the study sample was taken from a population specifically designed to give the desired results. The 11 programs for the study were taken entirely from subset of welfare-to-work programs, not from the population of all welfare programs of all types. Furthermore, there is no way to know if those 11 were randomly picked from within the subset, or if they were in fact cherry picked to give the desired results.

The study you cite proves that it is possible to reform welfare in such a way that it rehabilitates people and helps them become productive. Conservatives have always desired that we do so.

The study you cite does not, however, indicate that this is the result of the welfare system overall, and I am unaware of any serious attempt to prove this. It is fairly well accepted that the welfare system as it stands primarily makes people slaves to the welfare state. The welfare reforms you cited were good, but they are the exception, not the norm.

CatNamedManny wrote:And that's before we consider the fact that if we simply scrap all government welfare programs, a lot of children will die.

Oh, it's worse than that CNM. Society would collapse before the week was out. There would be riots and chaos. Many city governments would fall, and perhaps some state governments as well. The Federal Government would stand for a while, but only by imposing martial law could it survive indefinitely. And then you have the military in charge and for all intents and purpose they will have overthrown the civilian government anyway.

No, no. No one is suggesting we simply abolish welfare overnight. That would be stupid. Not starting a welfare system in the first place would have been ideal, but that boat sailed long, long, long ago. Rather, we must begin the reforms that will free people from perpetual enslavement to the welfare system.

CatNamedManny wrote:Yeah, there are lots of dumb teachers and principals out there who are just as uninformed about the law. They think "no prayer in schools!" and the next thing you know, some kid is in trouble for praying over his lunch in the cafeteria, even though that is perfectly legal, as it should be.

Which is still a form of religious oppression and it is being carried out by employees of the state. The fact that it is illegal doesn't make it any less intimidating. Thus, students must often still fight for their right to pray.

More irritating/disturbing lyrics:

From "There's Just Something About That Name". The "fragrance after the rain" smells like dead earthworms to me. It smells like the shore of the lake we used to fish at. Not pleasant.

Jesus, Jesus, Jesus
There's just something about that name
Master, Savior, Jesus
Like the fragrance after the rain
Jesus, Jesus, Jesus
Let all heaven and earth proclaim
Kings and kingdoms shall all pass away
But there's something about that name.

From "There's Just Something About That Name". The "fragrance after the rain" smells like dead earthworms to me. It smells like the shore of the lake we used to fish at. Not pleasant.

I can see how that would be a problem for you

I love the song; of course I grew up on it.

One song that really makes me mad is The Batman theme from he 1960s.
BAM! and POW!, those are not accurate lyrics describing a fight.
It really bothers me and don’t like it.

Matthew RJ wrote:And the unborn children issue could certainly use prayer. But what about all the social problems that lead to abortion? Why not take care of poverty issues to help people realize there is a choice (oh, wrong choice of words there)? No, let's not address the root causes of injustice but rather sit on our butts and pray hoping that something will magically change.

I agree with you, but we shouldn't downplay the need for prayer either. A song isn't really going to do justice to complex issues like this, so I don't think we should get upset or assume that the song writer doesn't think there's other things that should be done to help the abortion issue. He only has 3-4 minutes to get a point across.

The study you cite does not, however, indicate that this is the result of the welfare system overall, and I am unaware of any serious attempt to prove this. It is fairly well accepted that the welfare system as it stands primarily makes people slaves to the welfare state. The welfare reforms you cited were good, but they are the exception, not the norm.

The welfare reform of 1996 made them the norm, at least for the program we usually think of as "welfare," which is why they were studied.

When you say, "fairly well accepted," by whom? I'm sure it's "fairly well accepted" among people who find accepting it to be a vital piece of their political belief system, but that doesn't make it true.

A 2005 study showed that the children of low-income parents who received "income supplements" (food stamps, WIC, etc.) showed better outcomes in school, which as we all know, is a strong predictor of their own ability to graduate and earn a living free of income supplements. A 2010 study showed alleviating poverty during pregnancy leads to healthier infants and children, which in turn alleviates further the poverty of the family.

The fact is there was very little research done on how welfare affected those who received it before the 1996 welfare reform law, and most of the stereotypes about welfare are based on misconceptions of the system pre-1996 and bear almost no resemblance to how the system currently works. Any research that was done was contradictory. The most thorough study I can find is this one (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... ntent;col1) from 2004 that summarizes a good bit of the research done previously, notes that most studies showing any negative relationship between welfare and its recipients failed to control for family background, etc., and concludes: "Our results indicate that it is income level as a young adult, as well as such factors as the unemployment rate in the area of residence, but not welfare receipt, that affect long-term income and marital outcomes."

Meanwhile, this recent European study (http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c3311.full) shows that increases in government spending on welfare programs leads directly to lower mortality rates among the poor, moreso even than government health care spending (at least in Europe, where health care systems have been shown to already be much more efficient than America's).

So, according to these studies, social services spending: 1. does not harm its recipients' long-term earning power or marital likelihood, and 2. directly prevents the death of low-income mothers, fathers, children.

Obviously, we need to be moderate about these things; we're not a communist state, and we don't need to be giving people middle-class salaries for no work. But that was the whole point of the 1996 law; that's why "welfare" as we knew it was ended and replaced with welfare-to-work. No one's living on food stamps or WIC; they are supplements -- and, at least according to these studies, they are effective, potentially life-saving supplements.

Matthew RJ wrote:Petra's "How Long" laments - (great song) but I never failed a silent child who has never seen the light. I prayed, a miscarriage still happened, and God is behind it all. I don't for a second believe "if His people prayed" this issue is going away. I'm not buying into their guilt trip.

Well, a lot of people don't understand the purpose of prayer, but I don't think anyone's trying to cause some sort of guilt trip. I guess I'm just not reading into it as much as you are.

I hate when an artist uses love as such a generic theme and then when asked what it means their answer is always "Whatever the listener wants it to mean to them"
I know this probably takes care of every artist out there including Petra, but I hate those type of songs.

I hate when an artist uses love as such a generic theme and then when asked what it means their answer is always "Whatever the listener wants it to mean to them"
I know this probably takes care of every artist out there including Petra, but I hate those type of songs.

It's not just the "Love" type of songs; it goes with all types of themed songs. I hate it too, they sing about a hot topic of the day, obviously making a strong statement for one side of it and then they turn around in an interview and say “We’re not taking sides on the matter, it is what it is to who ever the listen is”

This may be nitpicky, but..

In "Perfect World" from J&H, there are thses lyrics;

Some still worship Mother Nature in her glory
They do a good thing when they stand up for her right
But Mother Nature has a Father in the heavens
And His creation went astray but never left His sight

(Thank you Josh Renaud for having these on your site).

I completely understand what Bob's getting at, but it appears to add creadance to the existence of a diety Mother Nature.

From thew first time I heard that song, it always irked me those lyrics were in there.

Ahh, that fealt good. Think I'll go eat some candy now.