Timshel

The single biggest issue with the two-party system is on display once again. Instead of holding elected leaders accountable to operating within the bounds of the constitution, those with deeply held party allegiances view every action up against equivalent actions of the opposing party. When President Obama bypassed congress to accomplish his agenda, his supporters praised him and his critics were enraged. Now President Trump has done the same and the exact same reactions are on display, but flipped. Where is the voice of those who judge both as unacceptable? It seems as though we only hear of the necessity of obedience to the bounds set forth in the constitution when they are violated by the "opposing party." As long as we keep listening to those who view political developments through the lens of the partisan divide, we remain distracted from honestly assessing how we would view the same decisions if they were made by those on the other side of the isle. This country need

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." From our earliest days we are introduced to "The Golden Rule" as a simple way to find the right way to act in any situation. Since we only want the best, or at least what is fair, done to us, we can quite easily determine how to treat others if we imagine that roles were reversed. While this has served as a simple ethical guide for children (and adults, see Matthew 7v12), in practice we tend to disregard this approach as impractical. We see it as a good way to get little Tommy to share his toys, but when approached by the homeless requesting a few bucks, the simplicity of "How would I want to be treated in this situation?" is replaced with thoughts of "What will he spend this money on? Am I encouraging and enabling poor behavior by giving to him? Did Jesus really mean 'Give to everyone who asks of you'?". This morning I'm writing from a place of conviction, as I've waffled