You may be surprised to hear me say such a thing, but this post is most likely not what you're expecting. Republicans have often touted as part of their logic that they are the most patriotic, that they uphold American values the best. And to that I say, they're right.

When we think about American values, we think of a highly individualized culture. You should be able to do whatever you want with your money, what's most important is that you feel good about things. But why do we attach ourselves to such values so readily? If we were to examine other cultures, we would find a much more collective feel to the people. While the individual is important, it is not so important that it forgets about the greater good of the whole.

Let's take a practical example in the news, Universal Health Care (UHC). One proposed idea for UHC is to raise taxes on people but provide health care for everyone in the United States. Immediately the individualistic part of ourselves cry out. We say, "No one should be able to tell me how I can spend my money." It's an interesting argument when you think about it, because you would be spending that same money on health care anyway. The only difference is that you are choosing to spend that money instead of it being spent for you.

Now individual choice and freedom is an important thing. Without individual choice and freedom, we become mindless drones. There is always room for critical thinking. But there is something interesting happening in the collective conscious of the people where perhaps focusing on individual values alone isn't going to cut it. Perhaps there are more noble goals to live for. As the world becomes a smaller place, it becomes harder to ignore the needs of the ones around us.

So I'll make the claim again: Republicans are more American than any other political party. But here's the question. Are those American values really what we should be holding to? It is immediately at this point when someone makes a comment like this that they are branded an anarchist or wanting to take down America. I don't want any part of that. But I have to ask, what are those values?

Freedom? What exactly does freedom mean? Does freedom mean wanting to have a free market economy, but not the freedom to allow people to make their own moral choices about abortion? What about liberty? Is there more than one specific way to choose to display one's patriotism for their country? Is it possible to be pro-America without abusing hegemonic power?

These are but a few critical questions about American values. I do think as a people, we need to do some serious examination about what exactly American values are and if we want them to be the things that we hold as our paradigm. When doing so, we may find that there are other values that are more important that the ones we've been told are true and good.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, one of the books I listened to on the drive over to Spokane was Myth of a Christian Nation by Greg Boyd. I've had this book recommend to me on numerous occasions because I was told my political views would line up with those of the book. I did find the "read" enjoyable overall, but there are a few places where I think Boyd's pessimism overshadows his overall message.

But first, the book is about what is essentially the myth about America. Boyd shows how America is not a Christian nation and never was a Christian nation. While Christian in name, our government was not founded on true Christian principles. He then moves on from that point to discuss how politics is not the place where Christians should be focusing their time, but instead on helping other people. Boyd contends we cannot become so focused on arguing about ideas that we forget to take action.

These are all points I can fully agree with. Ithink politics is still an important thing because the political system is what shapes the everyday lives of a nation. But what is important is to not mix feelings of political policies with religious ideas. For example, if I spout out some ideology about my political opinions and then further go on to support my ideas with Scripture and claim it is only the right idea, then I've become an arrogant thinker. I've stopped my mind from allowing myself to listen to the ideas and opinions of other people and I'm immediately vilifying everyone that disagrees with me. The only person Christ vilified was Satan, and I do not think those who disagree with me are satanic (though many conservatives may think that about their detractors).

The one point I do not agree with in Boyd's book is his claim that the Kingdom of Heaven cannot be an ideal for modern government to be like. He claims this because he thinks the Kingdom of Heaven is an entirely different thing from any established kingdom on earth already. While I agree that the Kingdom of Heaven is a pretty lofty idea, what is to say that we can't work to help bring some of that to earth now? Why not aspire to help abolish suffering, to help the widow, the orphan, and the slave? Why should we not set our goals to help those who are homeless and hungry, to help those with AIDS? To say that we cannot aspire to those things now is an attitude of defeat, and to be honest is one I am not comfortable with.

I do believe we can make a difference in the world now, and I want to use those beautiful Kingdom of Heaven principles to do it. It's like communism, perhaps it looks good on paper, but it will never work out in real life. But just because it won't work out in our lifetimes doesn't mean we can't aspire to the good that can be.

What do you think? Should we aspire to these ambitions or just realize that the world will always have bad things happening in it? Am I being to optimistic?