Saturday, March 29, 2014

 
Can Students of Jesus be Nationalist? No
I wanted to do a post on Tiosamismo and its correlation to our failed policy in the Ukraine, but ran across this old post from when I ran Balancingtheissues.com.  I let my ownership expire on the link and refuse to pay $688 to get it back. 
 
Our failed policies in Latin America will continue until we end our stupid policy towards Cuba.  It is sad a handful of Batistas in Florida along with the Ted Cruzes and Marco Rubio are allowed to dictate US policy on this small insignificant island - so it would seem.  But it is not insignificant in terms of our policy.  It remains the face of the Monroe Doctrine which the people of Latin America see as Tiosamismo.  So long as we continue our policy of isolation against Cuba, the U.S. will always be seen as a bully the rest of Latin America must tolerate.  We made Hugo Chavez.  We made President Morales of Bolivia -and the list goes on.  In Ecuador we had a good relationship and now it is going south. 
 
MY ORIGINAL POST FROM 2005
First and foremost to respond to those who would say this essay is just more secular demagoging of religion, I respond by saying - hogwash. I am a very strong student of the teachings of Jesus, and my faith in the teachings of Jesus is solid.

My first question is, where would Christianity be today had Paul when he went east faced the Minutemen and a fence that said border closed. My second question is, where would Christianity be today had Minutemen been on the shores of Italy turning Peter back at the water’s edge?

Being a student of Jesus is only challenging when I allow my self-interests to guide my views and responses to social, national and international issues. These same variables make it virtually impossible for most Americans or Christians to be true students of Jesus. This underbelly of American Christianity was exposed when Pat Robertson called for the assassination of Venezuela President Hugo Chavez.

Perhaps more disturbing than Mr. Robertson’s call for the assassination of a foreign leader was the rationalization of his policy based on the mandates of the Monroe Doctrine. In simple terms the Monroe Doctrine is the constructive enslaving of the people of Latin America for the benefit of the North American neighbor - the United States. In many parts of Latin American this is commonly known as Unclesamism - Tiosamismo.

Of note President Bush did not renounce the Monroe Doctrine in distancing the White House from Pat Robertson’s comments. In light of Bush’s Cuban policy when compared to open trade with China and Vietnam, Bush could not distant himself from the Monroe Doctrine because it is the cornerstone of his Latin American foreign policy. The Monroe Doctrine is a celebration of nationalism over the teachings of Jesus.

There was nothing remotely Jesus like in Pat Robertson’s call for the assassination of a foreign leader or Pat Robinson’s and President Bush’s continued support for the constructive enslaving of Latin America through the Monroe Doctrine. Would Jesus stand in support of either of these policies? If not, then how are they the product of the teachings of Jesus? Just because a spade calls itself a heart does not make it so.

Or is the problem American-Christianity. We are Christians unless it gets in the way of our nationalistic interests. We are Christians unless it gets in the way of our bigotry. This is in fact the bottom line. Americans, who seek nationalist interests over the teachings of Jesus are not students of Jesus and in fact want in any sense of faith in the teachings of Jesus. Let us not forget Jesus fed the masses - on his faith

The idea that Jesus would stand on the river’s edge with the Minutemen and tell the hungry masses they may not cross because the people on his side of the river cannot afford to feed the hungry masses is absurd. So the question is, if Jesus would welcome the hungry masses with open arms and rely on his faith to be able to feed and house these hungry masses, why then do not American Christians do the same? The answer is simple - American Christians are nationalist who want in true faith and Christians only when it is convenient. Once again would Jesus turn the hungry masses away at the river, or rely on his faith to be able to feed and house the masses? He would rely on his faith that God would provide one way or the other.

This essay is not addressed to non-Christians - true nationalist are on firm standing in their call for the securing of the United State’s border. Such a policy is what you would expect from a true nationalist. No judgment. It is not the policy, however, of Jesus. Hence the question, would Jesus stand with the Minutemen and turn the masses back and leave them to fend for themselves?. The answer is no. Would American nationalists turn the masses back on the river’s edge and leave them to fend for themselves? The answer is yes.

I wrote this essay not to question the policy of turning the masses back at the river’s edge, but to question whether Americans are people of faith. I will leave it to the American people to decide if a nation which could send the parents of a severely disabled child back to Mexico because the parents came here illegally, with full knowledge that it means separating the parent/child because the child would die in Mexico, is a nation of faith? I will leave it to the American people to decide if a nation which seeks to amend its constitution to strip American born children of illegal aliens of their citizenship, children who in some cases are severely disabled, is a nation of faith?

Once again, this is not a discussion on policy it is discussion on reconciling nationalist interests, which may be valid, with the teachings of Jesus.

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes

BalancingtheIssues.com - September 29, 2005

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

This post is non relevant to your style. It looks like you are trying to redefine yourself, maybe as a result of a comment you read about yourself. People already know your style. I suggest you go with it at this stage of your life.

BobbyWC said...

I wrote this in 2005 - so there is no redefining my style - this has been a very long term topic for me

Bobby WC