After reading Ito’s chapter (here) yesyerday, I wrote a dew things about how this got me thinking about the implications for the Church in all this exploration of new democracy; e-democracy; and the way that all this “participatory technology” can revive some of the public debate that needs to be happening (the kind of real debate that would have Bush’s team counting the writing on the wall for sure — since they could not survive the test of results, accuracy, and open discussion. They depend upon deception, unsubstantiated “facts” and ironically named “Programs”, and attack politics — since they quickly run out of things to say about their own policies and aims, and don’t see much of a future in too deep of an analysis of those policies.)

I just started reading the second chapter by James F. Moore, The Second Superpower Rears its Beautiful Head (PDF) , and it begins with this:

The beautiful but deeply agitated face of this second superpower is the worldwide peace campaign, but the body of the movement is made up of millions of people concerned with a broad agenda that includes social development, environmentalism, health, and human rights. This movement has a surprisingly agile and muscular body of citizen activists who identify their interests with world society as a whole—and who recognize that at a fundamental level we are all one. These are people who
are attempting to take into account the needs and dreams of all 6.3 billion
people in the world—and not just the members of one or another nation.

What is it about “peace” that riles the conservatives so much? What is it about cooperation that appears to them as somehow “sinister”? It’s seemingly something to do with criticism; and to criticize the party and the administration that has been declared “the solution” by the appointed pundits is to be associated with efforts to “tear down” and to be associated with a conspiracy of destruction. They refuse to “check the facts” when their spokespersons relay deceptive information, or just plain wrong information. My conservative acquaintances ask me questions that are being framed and hammered over and over on the airwaves by such outfits as Fox News, and they are aghast ast the suggestion that Fox News just might be biased toward right-wing conservatism of their owner, Rupert Murdoch. After all, they report, we decide, right? It’s the “NO Spin Zone”.

(I have ended up with a really long stream of thought here, and I was looking at breaking it up into smaller postings, but will go ahead and post it as is, and cut it into sections later as I continue and some semblance of organization emerges)…..so on we go

It seems to be that Christians should recognize the rather obvious fact that the Bible needs to read outside the United States (IOW, it was not written in, for, or by people in the U.S. , and had a bit of a wider notion of humanity than this current brand of nationalistic patriotism would allow its adherents.) I have a T_shirt that has flags of about 200 nations on it, and includes the words at the top: “Citizen of the World”. I wear it at least once a week to relay my identification with humanity — I’m a God-Family-Humanity-Country person rather than a God-Family-Country person. I may address local, national issues far more, but only because my familiarity with these allows me to have something to say, as opposed to other less covered international news. But when our nation’s interests intersect with those of other people of other nations, there is a consideration of what effects a certain approach will have. What I’m saying is that The Bible is a WORLD BOOK, not a proof text for putting the U.S. on the side of “good” vs “evil”. The rest of the world is recognizing that we are EMPIRE, and the Bible has plenty to say about the pitfalls and spiritual traps a nation falls into when it expresses itself as empire. This is a very prevalent Biblical and thus Theological theme. To hold that the pious drippings (or should I say “droppings”) of the present administration are signs that “God is on our side” and exempt us from the responsibility for holding our own nation under the critical eye of Scripture and its calls to do justice and to “walk humbly”, is a path to ultimate arrogance.

When the people of the world begin to have means of interconnecting via such technologies as the Internet, a wider conversation can take place. This “recognition” and “exposure” presents us with more to consider than we had when we had to depend upon (often unfortunately so) the “wisdom” of those who acted on our democracy’s behalf to implement activity toward a political goal. Most of America remains ignorant of the effects of our activity as a Nation; the present administration seems more prone than any adminstration in memory to obscure the human costs of their activity, becasue they actually fear the backlash if enough people knew. They ran on promises of “patience” (“we need to be patient with other countries” and “I don’t think I would want to be using our troops for Nation building” siad Bush during the 2000 campaign) and claimed “concern for the environment” to keep opposition less determined to oppose them, and talked a talk of fiscal reponsibility, when it was always their goal to carry out a blind faith in “cut taxes” and “let the trickle effect happen” (which of course, hasn’t and won’t happen).

People who back this suicidal tax plan are mostly the unwitting victims of it; they receive far more of the burden than the people of the top 1% — and so they “patiently wait”— they maintain a trust in the pundits who “report the news” with strategic selectivity, careful to use the portions that butress the talking points that keep the music playing. Since this dogma of trickle down economics is what the Bush mantra proclaims, and that “the economy is turning the corner”, and the “Iraq war was the right thing to do” and “Christ changed my heart”, then the righteousness of the administration is confirmed, and its adherents maintain faith. Let me hear an “amen” little flock. Those who aren’t “with us” are against us. They don’t love America.

I keep digressing, because my zeal for the possibilities of “Open Source Theology” is fanned by the flames of passion for recovery of the justice and integrity that is being dismantled by this greedy administration. With an unprecedented bowing to the whims of the super-lobbyists, and appointing many of the most powerful lobbyists to regulatory posts in the industries for which they have lobbied, the “quick-buck” has become the guiding principle, and the “future generations” whose birthrights they are selling out, are rapidly approaching those of our own generation. (I just did it again)

When we lay open the theology to interpretation by varying interests and concerns the world over, we are made aware of the blinders we have when we approach the gospel. This is what the neocons fear. Since theirs is a crusade based on a clear dogma, to let that be “subject to” perspectives OTHER THAN those which allow their agenda to advance, there is massive wailing over the loss of orthodoxy, and the dismantling of morality.

I hear conservatives complain about the use of “Progressive” to describe political or theological movements, as if that implies that they are “stuck” and the “Progressives” are moving. In a way, that’s really it. Progressive implies movement, dialogue, openness and flexibility (another dirty word in the conservative camp— you start letting your mind get changed, then chaos will erupt)

The blog phenomenon seems to be heavily slanted toward freedom and dialogue, resulting in a leftward leaning — you don’t see much about “conversations” being encouraged on bush.com, or on Al MOhler’s blog (the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president who writes a column with blog software, but hosts no comments or trackbacks. He basically uses the blog to push out the traditional column. They don’t get it. WIRED magazine’s e-politics issue this month is dominated by Democratic groups, mainly because the conservative groups have not adopted “conversation”; they natuarlly rebel against it. They will back it if they can control it, and perhaps they’re trying to figure out how to “tame it” before they deploy it. It’s all about “them” and not the people they represent. It’s like a massive spoon-feed; dominated by “talk radio” and “talk news” (such as on Fox News with O’Reilly and Hannity and Stein)