The Petra Zone

Some men are better than others. Moses, Abraham, Paul, and even Rahab are honored above Simon the Sorcerer, Judas, and King Saul. These heroes are imperfect sinners, and yet they are honored above the evil resisters of God's work. Rightly so. The heroes of the faith inspire us to be better and to contribute good to the world. Evil men make the world a worse place and do nothing to answer the model prayer's theme of advancing God's "will on Earth as it is in heaven."

A similar thread can be found among the nations of the world. God establishes nations. Without question, some nations are better than others. The U.S. is imperfect, as have been all nations throughout history. But perfection is NOT the standard with which we should be comparing nations. Instead, it is much more reasonable to compare nations with one another. When you look at things from that perspective, it becomes obvious that America is far and away the best nation on Earth. Of course it's a mistake to elevate one's national citizenship above that of one's membership in the family of believers. I have NEVER known ANYONE who suggested such a thing. This is a straw man argument raised by those on the Left and has no basis in reality.

Matthew, I have noticed over and over that those who are in the "leftist camp" have a knee-jerk tendency to rip America for her flaws and rarely if ever to laud her virtues. How about some balance? Most of those on the other side are quite capable of seeing her imperfections and simultaneously recognizing her virtues. Why can't those on the Left do the same?

Ask yourself this: if America were to disappear tomorrow, would the world be a better or worse place for mankind? Which remaining nation would resist the murderous tyrants of the world? Our country has contributed far more good to the world than it has evil. Compare this with the USSR, China, Germany, etc. One who cannot see the difference is willfully blind, or at least ingorant.

Leftists claim to be open minded and enlightened, but it seems to me that they are, on balance, people of darkened understanding who are unwilling to engage in honest introspection. And the hatred and disdain that they spew towards anyone who disagrees with them is unparalleled on the Right. Do you really want to be part of a mindset that is exemplified by people like Bill Maher, who routinely mocks Christians and misrepresents the Bible? Who spews vile hatred towards Conservatives and laces his rants with profanity? Maher is not an anamoly - he is a typical voice of the Left. There is NO PARALLEL in public life on the Right.

andy

Tutor_23 wrote:There is NO PARALLEL in public life on the Right.

Talk about a lack of honest introspection...

I would say Rush Limbaugh is the obvious response, except that Rush is far more powerful and influential to the right wing than Maher is to the left. So in that sense, Andy is absolutely accurate: Rush and Maher are not at all parallel.

I would say that America is often a force for good in the world and also often a force for evil.

Sure, if you compare us to evil dictatorships like those in Iran and Cuba, we come out looking pretty good ... until you remember that we are directly responsible for those dictatorships rising to power in the first place. Oops.

Regardless, since all men and all nations are the result of a broken, hurting world, it seems futile to compare one broken, hurting group of people to another. How would we even begin to do this? Fewest number of innocent people slaughtered (I'm not sure we'd win that one, thanks to our various adventures against the American Indians and in Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Mexico, Cuba, the Philippines and the questionable decisions to firebomb German cities and drop nuclear weapons on Japan)? Dictators toppled (counteracted by the dictators we've supported because they were sufficiently pro-American despite their atrocities)? Souls saved (in which case, no need for the church, I guess, and there's the coercion problem)?

The problem is it's impossible to compare nations without begging the question. Whatever criteria you choose to decide whatever nation you like is better will depend on the priorities you've already decided are the best. If I argue a compassionate nation with collective concern for the poor and a reluctance to use violence to achieve its goals is the best one, then I'm looking at Sweden, Norway or Switzerland as the model nation. But if you're arguing for economic liberty and a robust police role in the world, then you'll look at America as at or near the top. But that's just a difference of opinion, one that we see enshrined in our own political debates, over the role of government in a variety of different contexts. All you've done is take a political disagreement and imbued your priorities with the moral weight of patriotism while dismissing the priorities of others as implicitly unpatriotic and amoral or, worse, immoral. Which kind of makes it difficult to have a conversation.