Questions you want answered (P&C Edition)

Didn't used to be. For much of my life, politics was "I'll give you this, you give me that, and we'll both line up on the other thing."

mudbunny wrote:

The problem with politics is that it is the last place where saying that you were wrong and have changed your mind is a bad thing. Doesn't matter that you didn't have all the data before, or that it was misinterpreted, or that someone misled you.

In politics, once you have taken a position, god help you should you decide to change.

So you're saying you're a "flip-flopper", then?

Still amazed that grown adults used that term on TV a billion times in 2004.

DSGamer wrote:
mudbunny wrote:

The problem with politics is that it is the last place where saying that you were wrong and have changed your mind is a bad thing. Doesn't matter that you didn't have all the data before, or that it was misinterpreted, or that someone misled you.

In politics, once you have taken a position, god help you should you decide to change.

So you're saying you're a "flip-flopper", then?

Still amazed that grown adults used that term on TV a billion times in 2004.

Yeah, I still remain amazed that willingness to become informed, to learn, and to change your opinion on an issue is now seen as a terrible thing. To my mind, wilful ignorance is the greatest intellectual sin you can commit.

I've been told the logic on this particular point but I still can't seem to grasp it. Help me out here. A former classmate of mine and her husband have become missionaries. They have 3 small children, one of which is a special needs child, and over the last 3 years they have been missioning in Africa and South America for 9-10 months out of the year leaving their kids behind to be raised by their parents. When faced with accusations that they were essentially abandoning their own children to go off on mission trips they argued that they were no different than military families. They said that as some people feel the need to serve their country and go on year long deployments without their families, they felt the need to serve God and go overseas to do His work.

I still struggle with the idea that missionaries are still really needed in this modern world as I'm pretty sure most people have heard of Christianity by now. I especially feel this when I see these two missionaries posting pictures of their trips and generally they show them speaking in front of a local church and they're staying with a local pastor of that area. Obviously the area already has a Christian church and congregation so what exactly are they offering to these people in Africa? Aside from taking a ton of pictures of two blond haired blue eyed Americans posing with a bunch of African children I'm really not sure what they do.

Maq wrote:

Yeah, I still remain amazed that willingness to become informed, to learn, and to change your opinion on an issue is now seen as a terrible thing. To my mind, wilful ignorance is the greatest intellectual sin you can commit.

That's not what people complain about. The idea isn't that someone is ignorant, stakes out a position, then learns new information and alters his or her view. It's that a person is informed, stakes out a position, and then switches to the opposite position with no intervening change in the level of knowledge, leading people to believe that the change was made purely for political expediency.

People will tolerate a certain amount of flip-flopping in politics. It's the nature of the game to occasionally alter course. But when it becomes your defining feature, as it has with Romney, people start mistrusting you. Why vote for someone to do X if you suspect that they'll want to do the opposite the moment they see an electoral advantage in it? That's not who you want representing you.

Kehama wrote:

I've been told the logic on this particular point but I still can't seem to grasp it. Help me out here. A former classmate of mine and her husband have become missionaries. They have 3 small children, one of which is a special needs child, and over the last 3 years they have been missioning in Africa and South America for 9-10 months out of the year leaving their kids behind to be raised by their parents. When faced with accusations that they were essentially abandoning their own children to go off on mission trips they argued that they were no different than military families. They said that as some people feel the need to serve their country and go on year long deployments without their families, they felt the need to serve God and go overseas to do His work.

I still struggle with the idea that missionaries are still really needed in this modern world as I'm pretty sure most people have heard of Christianity by now. I especially feel this when I see these two missionaries posting pictures of their trips and generally they show them speaking in front of a local church and they're staying with a local pastor of that area. Obviously the area already has a Christian church and congregation so what exactly are they offering to these people in Africa? Aside from taking a ton of pictures of two blond haired blue eyed Americans posing with a bunch of African children I'm really not sure what they do.

Honestly, I think that logic holds up. They've decided on a job/calling that requires them to be away from their families for extended periods. There are many jobs that work that way - missionary is just one of them.

Your issue seems to be that you don't agree that missionary work is needed in the same way as say, soldiering, or working on an oil rig, or being a long-distance truck driver.

Jonman wrote:

Your issue seems to be that you don't agree that missionary work is needed in the same way as say, soldiering, or working on an oil rig, or being a long-distance truck driver.

The difference is the other jobs you've mentioned are usually taken out of economic necessity &/or lack of more family-friendly options. Missionary work is not an economic decision that provides for your family.

Being childless and doing it I totally understand. Deciding to love others more than your own children I do not get.

Kehama wrote:

I've been told the logic on this particular point but I still can't seem to grasp it. Help me out here. A former classmate of mine and her husband have become missionaries. They have 3 small children, one of which is a special needs child, and over the last 3 years they have been missioning in Africa and South America for 9-10 months out of the year leaving their kids behind to be raised by their parents. When faced with accusations that they were essentially abandoning their own children to go off on mission trips they argued that they were no different than military families. They said that as some people feel the need to serve their country and go on year long deployments without their families, they felt the need to serve God and go overseas to do His work.

I still struggle with the idea that missionaries are still really needed in this modern world as I'm pretty sure most people have heard of Christianity by now. I especially feel this when I see these two missionaries posting pictures of their trips and generally they show them speaking in front of a local church and they're staying with a local pastor of that area. Obviously the area already has a Christian church and congregation so what exactly are they offering to these people in Africa? Aside from taking a ton of pictures of two blond haired blue eyed Americans posing with a bunch of African children I'm really not sure what they do.

You know, I need to know a lot more about this family to criticize them. Leaving your kids to be raised by your grandparents isn't automatically neglect; in fact, I've read about the Grandparent Revolution being a major step in the cultural evolution of early humans. If there's love and communication and happiness and emotional growth, well, to each their own when it comes to family.

Also, how many times is it the case that both parents choose such line of work? And how many employers won't make special concessions to make sure that they're not both deployed at the same time? And if you know that both parents are choosing this sort of work, is it responsible to have children?

EDIT: Cheez's point is well taken though as well. There could very well be nothing wrong with their arrangement.

Jonman wrote:

Honestly, I think that logic holds up. They've decided on a job/calling that requires them to be away from their families for extended periods. There are many jobs that work that way - missionary is just one of them.

Your issue seems to be that you don't agree that missionary work is needed in the same way as say, soldiering, or working on an oil rig, or being a long-distance truck driver.

That's certainly what I would say, but not what he said at all. He's questioning the intended function of missionary work - getting a particular faith a foothold in an area where that faith is unestablished - when the area in question doesn't sound like a stranger to that faith in the slightest.

Maq wrote:
Jonman wrote:

Your issue seems to be that you don't agree that missionary work is needed in the same way as say, soldiering, or working on an oil rig, or being a long-distance truck driver.

The difference is the other jobs you've mentioned are usually taken out of economic necessity &/or lack of more family-friendly options. Missionary work is not an economic decision that provides for your family.

Being childless and doing it I totally understand. Deciding to love others more than your own children I do not get.

Couple of responses...

(1) Is missionary work uncompensated? I honestly have no idea how that works. I would assume that the church is paying them some money? Which, if true, negates that argument, right? Either way, this family (grandparents included) are seemingly continuing to provide for the kids, so where's the economic necessity? You use the phrase, "family-friendly options", which in this regard kind of misses the point - isn't living with your grandparents about as family-friendly as you can get?

(2) Why do we assume a lack of love for their children in this instance? It's not like they've been abandoned to the state - they're living with immediate relatives.

ianunderhill wrote:

That's certainly what I would say, but not what he said at all. He's questioning the intended function of missionary work - getting a particular faith a foothold in an area where that faith is unestablished - when the area in question doesn't sound like a stranger to that faith in the slightest.

So wouldn't that be a misunderstanding of what a purposes missionaries serve then? I would assume that actual missionaries know better what missionaries do than us lot of godless internet numpties

Well to criticize the logic. Military service is just as voluntary. We can debate being recalled from reserve or national guard duty, but it is a foreseeable event if you go into the ROTC, the Reserve, or serve.

Where we get into different territory. Rarely do both parents have a service history. And US Armed Services regulations will never call both parents onto active duty at the same time. Additionally most of our troops are serving a single tour of duty, next up are those serving 2, a minority(albeit a substantial one) will serve 3. Our soldiers, sailors, pilots are doing their duty, but they are also honoring a contract they signed.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Militar...

So I think doing 1 mission even 2 can compare to a military tour. 3+ and we are getting into other territory.

In all truth, they might say this is for God or church. But from my understanding of most biblical teaching for Judaism, Christianity, Islam is that the holiest duty is to raise a family in the faith. Parents at an infant baptism make certain pledges to this effect. I also cannot see how they cannot serve God with their children, by making roots somewhere to spread the faith. Or take their kids with them. I have read some wonderful works to mothers in fields of archaeology and anthropology who took their children with them, with tutors or had them attend the same schools that the locals did.

I had a conversation with my fiancee about the idea of us having children. My inkling for kids tends to dissipate once I go to the mall, so don't worry. To make your children a priority, you give up a lot-taking long vacations, substantial periods of work. For her to get pregnant we are talking pushing her return to grad school back at least 5-6 years for 1 kid. We want to travel the world, we want to be able to do things on a whim.

At the end of the day, they may be doing what they see as holy work. But they are leaving their children to be raised by other people while they satisfy their wander lust. And they know that their kids would only slow that down. They chose that over raising their own children.

I will have to remind myself not to laugh at the men with the white shirts, black ties and hybrid bicycles - they may be neglecting children under our very noses, after all. ;P

But that is just it, many religions call for a period of service or missionary work. But usually at an age before a person has their own family, and also not for 10 months and for 3 years.

The Mormon missionaries are teenagers typically.

First off, there's a huge misunderstanding of Missionaries do. They don't just bring people into the church. There's a whole lot of other work involving sustaining and supporting churches that are part of it. Helping an established church grow is just as important as starting one off in the hinterlands somewhere. Also, many people have a "cause" of some sort they focus on like clean water or dental care or translating the Bible into new languages, and work on over a wide area with many churches. I used those examples because I know three of the families my church supports are working on that - clean water in Cambodia and Laos, a training school to teach people to travel and provide at least urgent dental care to people in remote areas of Indonesia, and a couple who are working on helping a remote tribe in South America create a written version of their language and to compile a full dictionary to allow them translate the Bible (and the rest of the useful stuff we keep in print these days) into.

Mormon missionaries are more akin to required military service - they start saving for it when they're very young, they plan for it when they organize their life, and pay for a lot of it themselves and it's only 2 years, starting at age 18. However, there are also a great many older people, usually couples with grown children, who also go into the mission field, organizing and supporting the younger ones mostly. Their missions run in 2 year increments, but they can re-up if they want as long as their health holds out from what I understand.

That said, I don't feel I can sit in judgement of that family's decision. I wouldn't do it, but that's me. I see too much to be done right here at home.

Habitat for Humanity is essentially missionary work.

Missionary work is a lot different today than when Rome converted by sword. It's much more focused on helping God's people and celebrating God's gifts than getting some soul quota.

Disclosure: my parents were missionaries for two years when I was a young child. My dad ran a free clinic and my mom was a social worker. We lived in a group house for the Voluntary Service members (a Mennonite Group). There was no rampant evangelizing or subversive proselytizing, just people giving of their time and talents.

Fair points, all. I now see that my own idea of what family should be and what the responsibilities of the parents are was clouding my judgment on whether what they're doing is good for their kids. I also now see that missionary work is a lot more about helping communities and providing support to remote churches than it is the classic trekking into the jungle to tell the isolated natives about Christ.

I almost posted this in another thread but decided to avoid the possible derail. In that thread I had wondered who the US thought they were still defending against since they have 48% of the world's defense spending and the next largest, China, only has about 7%. Malor responded that military spending has essentially become welfare spending for which you're required to put a uniform on to receive.

That sparked a particular line of thinking for me. To me it seems like we've nearly deified military servicemen and women in this country and that simply by serving it seems to be assumed that they are somehow greater/better than those who do not serve. I feel like this is the result of an overreaction to how horribly those in the military were often treated during Vietnam. Yes, serving in the military is an honorable profession just as is being a police officer, fireman, nurse, teacher, etc. but military service seems to be on its own pedestal miles above the rest. I think police and firemen got a small taste of this reverence following 9/11 but that seems to have simmered down quite a bit.

The part that got me was that if Malor is accurate in looking at a function of military spending as welfare and a jobs program it seems funny to me that many in this country look down on those on welfare as being a blight on this country, whether they're trying to find employment or not, while those in the military are deserving of every tax payer dollar we can give them and more. If you talk about cutting military spending you're portrayed as some evil traitor to the nation who wants the US to be taken over by foreign powers while if you talk about cutting welfare you're held up as a hero for all good tax-paying Americans.

So, what I'm wondering, is where this great worship for those in the military came from. Was it because of how the nation treated its servicemen following Vietnam? A national guilt if you will. Or was it more a function of the US propaganda during the 80's which glorified the military as defenders of truth, justice and the American way or something else? Or am I just way off and people in the military aren't treated any different?

Kehama wrote:

So, what I'm wondering, is where this great worship for those in the military came from. Was it because of how the nation treated its servicemen following Vietnam? A national guilt if you will. Or was it more a function of the US propaganda during the 80's which glorified the military as defenders of truth, justice and the American way or something else? Or am I just way off and people in the military aren't treated any different?

Bingo. It's some killer PR, right?

Jonman wrote:
Kehama wrote:

So, what I'm wondering, is where this great worship for those in the military came from. Was it because of how the nation treated its servicemen following Vietnam? A national guilt if you will. Or was it more a function of the US propaganda during the 80's which glorified the military as defenders of truth, justice and the American way or something else? Or am I just way off and people in the military aren't treated any different?

Bingo. It's some killer PR, right?

Also, don't discount the very large impact such a move would have on the (completely cooked and laughably unreliable but still) widely-reported unemployment numbers. Reagan moved military from "not in the labor force" to "employed" during his tenure to lower unemployment -- before they were considered outside the economy, so to speak. Now any contraction in military must necessarily include an increase in "business" unemployment.

I have a question for Paleocon... Why are you still a Republican? You can very well hold your beliefs and be a Democrat. Or better yet, forget party politics all together and be an independent.

Is there any record of any president, prime minister, monarch, whatever being directly responsible for economic recovery or is it all just playing politics with promises they can't possible deliver on? Note that being responsible, at least in my mind, differs from simply being in office when it happens to take place and taking credit.

This has been done many times. Many people firmly believe the Great Depression was caused by Herbert Hoover, and Nixon caused the recession back in the 70's.

Doesn't make it right, but that's how people's brains work.

Well, our economy is big, and moves slow, and the President is far from the only entity affecting it. This wasn't always the case, but as we have increased the money supply, the Federal Reserve has become the dominant force in how the economy does over the short term, and it's way, way, WAY off into absolutely uncharted territory, intervening in ways and to degrees that have never been seen before.

In the face of intervention that extreme, Obama becomes kind of irrelevant. His policies may start to become slightly visible toward the end of his second term, as investments his administration has made start to pay off or fail, but he has very little power in the short run, and in the face of such large-scale manipulation, not much impact in the long haul, either.

krev82 wrote:

Is there any record of any president, prime minister, monarch, whatever being directly responsible for economic recovery or is it all just playing politics with promises they can't possible deliver on? Note that being responsible, at least in my mind, differs from simply being in office when it happens to take place and taking credit.

FDR

LeapingGnome wrote:
krev82 wrote:

Is there any record of any president, prime minister, monarch, whatever being directly responsible for economic recovery or is it all just playing politics with promises they can't possible deliver on? Note that being responsible, at least in my mind, differs from simply being in office when it happens to take place and taking credit.

FDR

I lol'd.

krev82 wrote:

s there any record of any president, prime minister, monarch, whatever being directly responsible for economic recovery or is it all just playing politics with promises they can't possible deliver on? Note that being responsible, at least in my mind, differs from simply being in office when it happens to take place and taking credit.

Hitler?

Jonman wrote:

(2) Why do we assume a lack of love for their children in this instance? It's not like they've been abandoned to the state - they're living with immediate relatives.

Sorry for the slow response. My point isn't that it isn't necessarily good for the children, my point is I can't spend a week away from my boy without feeling like I've lost an organ and can't empathise with someone who doesn't feel the same.

I knew the day would come when I'd play the "speaking as a parent" card. There 'tis.