Make America Good; like never before

American Evangelical Christianity has so much merged with the Republican Party that for many observers, the two institutions are almost one. My purpose here is not to defend Democrats or liberals. But liberals have not aligned themselves with religion in the same way that Republicans have. Basically, Republicans have highjacked Christianity and made it represent principles that are appalling to non-Republican Christians. Let me offer examples:

Capitalism: I acknowledge that there are Biblical precedents for protecting private property and principles of capitalistic economy; “Thou shall not steal,” plus the many Biblical instances of financial prosperity seen as a blessing. But there are also Biblical precedents for social welfare; the tithe collected from all Israelites was used to care for the poor, plus many verses mandating care for the poor, “Whoever oppresses a poor man insults his Maker” (Proverbs 14:31 ESV). I also recognize that most all of our modern scientific advances were developed under capitalism. Every one of us can thank capitalism for the cell phone in our pocket. However, due to human nature, unbridled capitalism takes the most out of workers for the least amount of pay – even slavery when possible.

The Republican devotion to capitalism results in several destructive policies: they oppose restraints on industry, attempting to deregulate industry and repeal the regulations of the EPA. It appears that in a Republican world the oil companies get whatever they want. Their policies endorse the insurance lobby which fights against universal healthcare. The Bible calls this bribery which corrupts justice (Deuteronomy 16:19). Protectionist policies of imposing tariffs on imports could be replaced with policies that require all imports to be produced by workers making a living wage. This policy would slowly elevate the living standards in poor countries and alleviate the push to migrate to America. But Republicans consider minimum wage laws an obstruction to free market economy. Our Bible warns, “Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter” (James 5, ESV). Oh yes, people will make excuse saying it is not fraud because we paid them something. But the spirit of this verse is that God cares about those workers who produce our goods, and when we benefit from their suffering, then we are accountable.

Please understand, I have nothing against rich people. That is between them and God. Rich people are a gift. Most of my personal income has been made working for rich people. However, I am ethically bound to be concerned for how rich people attain their money, especially when low wages are concerned.

Great or Good? When someone proposes to “Make America great – again” I am appalled. Try this slogan, “Make America good – like never before.” The presumption that power equals greatness is an ungodly lie. A bully on the school ground may boast of his greatness, but he is despicable. True greatness must be in accord with qualities of goodness, not power.  A truly good, godly nation shows respect to other nations regardless of their military power.

Historical Patterns: The history of America shows that when capitalism and religion are united with a spirit of superiority, minorities get oppressed. The atrocities heaped upon the Native Americans and the African Americans demonstrate that Christianity has been at least complicit in endorsement. In these cases, Christianity had the opportunity to lead by showing the nature of a just Creator, but it failed miserably.  Social justice has often been despised by America’s version of Christianity, preferring instead to protect capitalism. Capitalism, along with delusions of racial superiority, was the demonic force behind slavery and the oppression of Native Americans.

Earthly Kingdom: Christendom often seizes principles from the Old Testament and the kingdom of Israel, attempting to force those principles into the kingdom of Christ; but they do not fit! When these ideals are then merged with American nationalism the mixture is horribly toxic. If Americans want to love their country and have nationalistic goals, fine, but do not mix it with religion. It is not the goal of true Christianity to build a worldly empire. The term, “Christian nation” is not Biblical, nor is there a Biblical mandate to create a Christian nation. This has been a plague upon Christianity since Emperor Constantine.

Meekness: Jesus says, “Blessed are the meek for they will inherit the earth,” not conquer the earth. Psalm 37 defines the spirit meekness as opposed to the conquering spirit, “The meek shall inherit the land and delight themselves in abundant peace…the wicked plots against the righteous…the wicked draw the sword and bend their bows to bring down the poor and needy” (Psalm 37 ESV). This spiritual principle is really the heart of the issue. It is a perversion of Christianity that proposes that God’s goal is to create superior people that dominate others. The spirit of Christ comes in meekness to free the oppressed, but the spirit of anti-christ is the spirit of superiority and oppression. To be led by a spirit of superiority is nothing but Darwinian religion, “survival of the fittest.”

Meekness is misunderstood as self-debasement. True meekness is simply taking one’s place before God, in the created order, showing respect to others as equals. This is true both personally and nationally. Bottom line: arrogance is not a virtue!

Summary: For these reasons I am often apologetic of Christianity to those in my skeptical secular world. My own prayer is, “Jesus, free me from Christendom.” When religion embraces the spirit of anti-christ, we are morally obligated to resist.  This unholy union needs to be broken for the sake of creating a good America.


This is a poem on privilege. It focuses on financial privilege. I could have placed it under my creative writing tab “oops” but chose to put here for the topic.


Behold, the White man’s prison

that he does not escape

that he built, erected, and polished,

that holds, molds, conforms, and traps

us foolish souls that are enticed

with lust for power.


These beautiful prisons bleed

out the red, white and blues,

binding and grinding infants into cells.

From youth we have freely, joyously

enlisted, for the sake of pride

and power – our snare.


These prisons have amazing power

to bring the worlds hungry workers

to produce wonderful i-toys

for those in the magical kingdom.

But, these prisons have turned their power

upon their builders, to bind in chains.


When the pain of the loss

of innocence that was the cost

of adam’s leap awakens our souls

we moan, asking, what force,

could have devised this cage

from which no white bird flees?


When the bars that require submission

do not ask permission to subdue,

and to lay a crushing load of conformity,

then, in the dark all men cry,

“Was this my own design?”

Blue on Black violence

One source of the tension between police and civilians is the “in your face” attitude towards authority figures that is so prevalent. In my generation I was raised with the “stick up your hands or I’ll shoot” vision we learned from TV. I remember running from police as a teen, but I also remember doing exactly as I was told when arrested.

I suppose every generation has members that are angry at authority and take their anger out at police. In the 60’s we went through an era when we called police pigs. I don’t know why. Maybe the anarchist element of hippiness despised all authority. The hip hop generation has really majored in anti-authority rage, especially the gangster rap. So the dilemma; a lot of authority figures are pretty messed up: religious, political, parents, and police. That’s a problem.

About 2500 years ago when China’s society was in turmoil the philosopher Confucius influenced a kind of revival of values. At the core was a return to respect of authority. You can see how this value dominates Asian cultures today.

I see authority in nature, especially if we relate authority to responsibility. Every bird has responsibility and authority over her chicks. You could even say that gravity has authority in the realm of physics. Societies have always needed authority to function; parents, village elders, and tribal chiefs. In those older societies there was relationship to validate the authority. If a 15 year old boy went messing around with a girl the men would take him aside and say, “Hey you can’t be playing with our daughters. You’re gonna have to marry and take responsibility.” But these were the boy’s father and uncles; people who had invested in him since birth, not a stranger with a badge.

If we truly care about the Blue on Black violence trend, maybe there are social issues to look at. I don’t think just changing police policies will be enough.

++We need to train teens in high school on how to respond to police.

++We need to mentor all kids to better trust authority figures.

++We need responsible fathers in the homes.

++We need the entertainment industry to take responsibility for the influence they have over culture.


OLD HIPPY (autobiography)    Mark Anderson 2003

I hate and despise authority,

until my computer does not submit to the command entered.

I hate and despise authority,

until I become a manager at my job.

I hate and despise authority,

until I become a school teacher.

I hate and despise authority,

until I need some cops, to save my ass from some gangsters.

I hate and despise authority,

until I become a father.

I hate and despise authority,

until I become an authority.

I hate and despise all authority!

Until our Creator, the only truly good authority,

reaches out to me.


In 1969 after a Crosby Stills and Nash concert some gangsters attacked me and my friends outside the old Salt Palace. It could have been horrible but police and security guards quickly stopped it.

Systemic racial injustice

Maaark’s platform for correcting systemic racial injustice

The purpose of this is to recognize specific systems that affect marginalized citizens and may perpetuate their marginalized status. These cut across racial lines but African Americans are affected more often. Our laws should work towards centralizing people rather than casting them off to the margins.

 1- Ex-felons should have the right to vote. Voting rights may be denied during incarceration but once penalties have been paid felons should be encouraged to re-enter society with full citizen rights.

2- Ex-felons should have the right to possess guns. Some special restrictions may apply depending upon category of crime committed, but blanket denial of that citizen right is unjust.

3- Ex-felons should be eligible to serve as law enforcement officers. The reason that minority communities are not proportionally represented in law enforcement is that many are disqualified for their criminal past. It would be better to utilize our prisons as a recruitment resource to build law honoring civil servants.

4- The national minimum wage needs to be high enough that local economy housing can be afforded at less than 35% of the monthly income. In the McDonalds near me all the workers are Black. They are honest hardworking people and should get paid enough to lift out of poverty, not perpetuate it.

Choosing a tribe

Choosing a tribe

I am exhausted from being torn between the polarities of the social strife in America. Everyday there are the racial battles. There are Blacks who resent Whites and want “reparations” and there are Whites who resent being resented and want Blacks to take responsibility for their poor choices. But I don’t want to take sides. Tribalism is almost as old as humanity, and racism is just another form of tribalism. Isn’t there another tribe I can join?

There are capitalists who see no problem with poverty in conflict with the socialists who want to bring them down. What a mess, is there no moderate voice here?

There are anti-immigration patriotic loyalists who feel that immigrants are not really pro-American in conflict with immigrants who are not so different from the parents of the anti-immigrant group. But the battle rages and I am caught as a moderate, trying to consider both sides.

The political insanity of this year’s presidential race could make a grown man cry. Sometimes it is embarrassing to be an American. I want to form a new political party; the Political Peace Party, or the Party of Moderates, or Party of Poets Crying in the Night!

There are religious tribes. Our constitution that separates church and state should be a safe guard against government intruding into religion, and religion placing itself over government. Yes, religions do have a right to influence government, but not to rule over government. Many religions specialize in social issues and engage in a power struggle for control of society. It is always about power. And it is very dark. Is there a way out?

I do have deep concerns for our society and all of the issues above, but striving in these conflicts seems to be insane, and I will not align with any of the tribes. If the Kingdom of Jesus is truly as he claims, a spiritual kingdom not of this world, then maybe that has been in front of me all along, and I need to fall back into it. Pilate asked Jesus if he was a king, Jesus replied, “If my kingdom were of this world, then my servants would fight. My kingdom is not of this world” This seems to be the only place I will find peace.




Wages to Live By

Wages to Live By

If workers in other countries receive wages that are insufficient to elevate their life beyond poverty, and are producing goods consumed in our country by us, that is an issue of social injustice we are obligated to be concerned about. Addressing the issue of wages on the international level is vital for the sake of the future of our own country, and also because of ethical justice for the workers.

Some people will surely say that the capitalist based free market economy is successful in producing wealth and so we should let nature take its course, let the market set wages, and let the law of survival of the fittest rule in all the affairs of mankind. We should agree with this model that it is competition and struggle that have produced some of the greatest accomplishments of mankind-and some of the worst. If we compare unfettered capitalism to the law of the jungle, or survival of the fittest, then its guiding ethic to place one’s own interest ahead of others and maintain a place at the top of the food chain, at all costs. This ethic could lead to the conclusion that the underpaid workers of the world are a simple necessity for the benefit of others.

We may also consider other voices speaking into this situation. We may choose to view humans as having a higher responsibility than to live by the base rule of survival of the fittest. There may be many factors to consider before casting off our responsibility for the poor of the world. Recognizing that the desperation that stems from poverty will eventually affect us here in the comfort of our affluence, President Truman said in 1947, “The seeds of totalitarian regimes are nurtured by misery and want. They spread and grow in the evil soil of poverty and strife. They reach their full growth when the hope of people for a better life has died. We must keep that hope alive.” Therefore it is foolish and short sighted to think only of the economic prosperity of our own country. If we consider the interrelated aspects of our global economy we must consider the economic well-being of other countries as a benefit to world stability.

Because I am a worker I feel especially passionate about this issue. I have been a hard working carpenter most of my adult life, but I have always had good work clothes. The first time I saw carpenters working in bare feet in India, my heart was deeply ashamed at my American affluence. When I traveled to the Philippines I personally met good, hardworking people, who would work 12 or more hours a day, in an electronics factory, just to stay hopelessly poor. I simply think a worker should get paid a decent wage for a day’s work.

Some people say that this economic situation is ok because everything is cheap in their economy. That is a half-truth. True the rent for their shack may only be $25- per month but a computer still costs $800-. That is the situation. It is also true that the industrialization of poor countries by western enterprise has already greatly benefited these countries. But it is also true that these benefits have not been great enough to elevate these people beyond dependence upon us. The benefits are just enough to keep them in financial slavery.

I am not against capitalism, and I am not against rich people-that is their choice. Really, I am as materialistic as any other American. I have a nice computer, nice camera, and beautiful musical instruments. But my things are made mostly by people overseas and therefore I have a vested interest-even an obligation to be concerned about the people who make my stuff. If people are working at slave labor wages, living in want, producing products so that others may live in luxury, then this is an issue of ethical justice; before man and God. A Biblical passage challenges rich people saying, “You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who harvested your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty!” (James 5:3-4)

Major electronics leaders have already taken a huge step in forming the Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition, (EICC) ( Membership in this organization is voluntary and its members conduct self-audits of their suppliers down to the third tier. The EICC Code of Conduct monitors in the categories of: Labor, Health and Safety, Environment, Ethics, and Management Systems. Under the labor category it monitors: freely chosen employment, (including child labor avoidance), working hours, (including wages), humane treatment, and freedom of association (unions). Current standards set by the EICC Code of Conduct require workers to be paid wages equivalent to local standards including 50% more for overtime. This standard perpetuates a problem of people working excessively long hours for overtime pay. For example if a worker works at thirty cents per hour for the first eight hours and can get forty five cents per hour for the next four hours they will always want the full twelve hour shift. And if they can get sixty cents per hour for the last four hours of a sixteen hour shift, they will work until they drop. The standards currently established in the EICC Code of Conduct should be modified to mandate a living wage rather than merely conform to local minimum wage and should limit the rate of overtime pay so that workers will have less motivation for working excessively long hours.

The solution is not socialism. The solution is not in an extreme government that will enforce a worldwide minimum wage. The solution is a voluntary elevation of wages by the corporations. If we don’t want international government regulations then the corporations should take the lead voluntarily. This is good ethically and it is good for the worldwide economy. If factory workers can get great paying jobs it will boost the economy in the entire region. American corporations should take the lead in setting a high living wage as the standard for the EICC Code of Conduct.

This issue cannot continue to be ignored by Americans. If we are complacent about this because we are the beneficiaries of the current status quo, we may also be the big losers in the long run. Don’t think that the world will continue on forever without major revolutions. Don’t be so short sighted that we only think of our own immediate needs. We must relinquish our insistence to be at the top of the food chain. We must dream of a better world, beyond our own borders.

Please sign the petition on the Facebook page to let the electronics industry know that as consumers, we would pay more for our products if we could be assured that the increase would go to the workers rather than the profits of their companies.

Facebook page:

Copyright; Mark Anderson 2016

Immigration: Race and Religion

A major social problem facing America today is immigration. Our society is being torn apart through suspicion, political ranting, violent terrorism, vandalism, and deep fears. I am deeply concerned for the future of the USA in this area. Immigration is not the real problem; it is the social conflicts that arise from multiple ethnic groups inhabiting the same geographical space. If Americans do not find resources to blend in peace, then our current social problems will escalate to social wars and violence.


            There is a civil war in Syria that has caused the mass exodus of thousands of refugees. Many of these refugees are Muslim and many Americans are fearful of their ability to adapt to American culture, values, and norms. American citizens can see the turmoil in many Muslim countries and do not want that violent unrest imported. The thought of people bombing schools because they are against education is fearful. There is an irony here because it is for humanitarian principles that American immigration policy is welcoming refugees from war torn Islamic countries, and it is possible that in future generations, violence will be our reward.

Islam as a religious institution has aggression and conflict imbedded in its values. I am speaking of an institution not of individual people who must be given the right to be judged on the merits of their own character. Islam has aggression written within its creed, “And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere” (Surah 8:39) and “If you gain mastery over them in war…” (Surah 8:57) and “Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah” (Surah 8:60, Quran).  Islam has 14 centuries of aggression towards outsiders. Its founder led the first violent incursion against Mecca; as the leader is, so follow the people.

American immigration policy has historically served the security of the homeland. Immigration regulation is not expected to allow entrance by individuals with an explicit agenda to harm citizens or promote violence uprising against the government. Currently the USCIS has a rigorous screening policy for Syrian refugees. This is not a racist policy, it is proper concern.

In the beginning of Islam, when Muhamad was delivering his message, the country was a social mess with idolatry, drunkenness, and many other social problems. Islam was able to that stabilize society and so it has always been a religion of social reform. It does not pretend to separate government and religion the way we attempt to do here. Even in America we are in constant tension over this issue. We should be aware that as Muslims gain local majority they will have to choose how to adapt to their new land. Many Muslims choose to see their ancient text with a moderate view and many realize that extremism invalidates their religious credibility.

We are a pluralist society and a nation of immigrants. In the past assimilation was expected but now we value cultural diversity. Our society must choose the minimal level of integration or adaption necessary to live within the borders, and those choosing to live here should acknowledge these norms. Many Muslims do have a history of integration into American society while retaining their ethnic heritage. There are also examples of Muslims pushing Sharia as soon as they gain majority strength.  Considering what Whites immigrants did to Native Americans we should not be naïve about future possibilities. Muslim immigrants are coming to America by their own choice. I hope they are choosing to accept the values of a pluralistic society.

US Aggression

We should also be aware that US foreign policies contribute to terrorism. Our ethnocentric view of the world has led to policies of democratic expansion/imperialism, which will always lead to resistance from the oppressed. President George Washington warned America to not get involved in the conflicts of other countries. Since then we have moved towards policies of intrusion into other governments, especially since World War 2. There is no justifiable excuse to invade countries to replace their rulers; even when their rulers are tyrants. Iraq, Libya, and Syria are examples of our tragic errors. Muslim governments understand dictators because Islam is based upon authoritarian rule. That is their problem and not for Americans to solve! Other cultures may not separate church and state the way we do. Muslims may view our policies as a religious assault. What we see as defending democratic values they may view as a religious war. American leaders have been sadly ignorant of cultural issues. I propose a constitutional amendment to define foreign policy, restraining the American urge to intrude into other governments. As a democracy we need to urge our leaders in this choice.

Race and Majority Power

I have deliberately chosen to use the word “majority” rather than “Whites.” Whites happen to be the current majority in America, but the principles I am discussing apply to other countries and eras where Whites are not the majority. To use the term “Whites” is racist. It makes a certain race guilty of crimes that are committed by most any group in the majority position. Dealing with the issue of majority power and control is my goal, not debasing any ethnic group. Power is the critical issue; power to control a society and its norms, structures, and laws, is the essence of this social problem.

Immigrants claim that objections to immigration are racially based, but the objectors to immigration claim to simply want to protect their lifestyles and values. Many Americans expect assimilation by immigrants into the American “melting pot” as was the norm in past generations. But the modern paradigm in our pluralistic society is the American “salad bowl” where immigrants retain their former cultural identity and may not even learn the majority language. American culture has been largely shaped by values of the majority white Anglo ethnic group so it is understandable that the majority could fear the loss of their way of life as they are displaced by new ethnicities.

Cultural norms are not evil, they can become oppressive, but in general they are valuable to help us live together. In my sociology text I read, “In any culture, there exists a set of ideas about what is right, just, and good, as well as what is wrong and unjust. Norms are the common rules of a culture that govern the behavior of people belonging to it” (Chambliss & Eglitis 2014 p. 55). The sociologist Emile Durkheim foresaw the turmoil of a society where norms were disrupted through many groups moving into the industrial cities; industrialization and urbanization, and called this a state of “anomie” or normlessness (Chambliss & Eglitis 2014). America is the classic example of this state and the resulting social tension. Many of America’s ethnic majority are simply dreading the loss of social cohesion that comes from shared norms and values. If we are honest, we know that any society on earth would feel the same.

Racial Peace

Racism is elevating our own ethnic race above others and using race as justification for oppression. Anytime we choose elevate our group above others or use privilege to oppress others we engage the conflict attitude, which will destroy America. For multiple ethnicities to dwell together on the same piece of land we must make hard choices. We want everyone to have the right to be proud of their heritage! We want to rejoice in the colorful diversity all around us; this is the future of America! It is our choice.

Copyright; Mark Anderson 2016





Ali, A. Y., & K̲h̲ān̲, V. (2011). The Quran. New Delhi: Goodword Books.

Chambliss, W. J., & Eglitis, D. S. (2014). Discover sociology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Leon-Guerrero, A. (2014). Social problems: Community, policy, and social action (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Marx, K. (1888). The communist manifesto (F. Engels, Ed.; A. Lutins, Trans.) [Release date 1993 Etext #61]. Retrieved April 27, 2014, from

New international version. (2005). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

U.S.A., Department of Homeland Security, USCIS History office and library. (2012). Overview of INS History. Retrieved February 24, 2016, from



Immigration and the White Man’s Karma

Immigration and the White Man’s Karma

            A major social problem facing America today is immigration. Our society is being torn apart through suspicion, political ranting, violent terrorism, vandalism, and deep fears. I am deeply concerned for the future of the USA in this area. Immigration is not the real problem; it is the social conflicts that arise from multiple ethnic groups inhabiting the same geographical space. If Americans do not find resources to blend in peace, then our current social problems will escalate to social wars and violence.

Historical Perspective            The history of immigration in America really begins with the immigration of White Europeans. The indigenous Native Americans would rightfully have had a fear of losing their cultural norms, lifestyle, and lands. In retrospect we can see that whatever fears they had were well founded. Historically there were many success stories of the new Anglo immigrants and Native Americans living in harmony. But in the long run, after all the battles, the indigenous people did lose all that was precious to them. The sad irony of today’s immigration conflicts is that the roles are reversed, as the majority White culture is slowly being displaced by arriving ethnicities. We may be sympathetic to the natural fears of Anglos as they feel their cultural norms and lifestyle being displaced. Maybe we could call this problem the story of the White man’s karma!

The next significant migration to America was the forced migration of thousands of African people brought as slaves. The economic principle of cheap labor to support big business was radicalized through slavery. For a long time ethnic cultural conflict was suppressed as one culture used force to subdue the other. A long slow struggle for equality has ensued.

The website of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service tells the history of Immigration (USCIS). In America’s first century immigration was free and open. In 1875 immigration law was declared a federal responsibility. Events then led to further legislation to protect the interests of the majority population, “The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and Alien Contract Labor laws of 1885 and 1887 prohibited certain laborers from immigrating to the United States. The general Immigration Act of 1882 levied a head tax of fifty cents on each immigrant and blocked (or excluded) the entry of idiots, lunatics, convicts, and persons likely to become a public charge”.

Between 1900 and 1920 over 14.5 million new immigrants arrived (USCIS 2012). This wave of immigrants was from various parts of Europe, with similar cultural norms as the majority Anglo culture and actively pursued assimilation into the majority culture.

After World War 1 for the first time immigration was restricted with numerical quotas. Then due to illegal immigration and smuggling, the U.S. Border Patrol was established in 1924 (USCIS 2012). After World War 2 regular immigration quotas were still low but immigration policies shifted to aiding refugees fleeing communist countries (USCIS 2012). Current Mexican immigration policies took shape after the war in an age of American economic prosperity, “the Mexican Agricultural Labor Program, commonly called the ‘Bracero Program,’ matched seasonal agricultural workers from Mexico with approved American employers. Between 1951 and 1964, hundreds of thousands of braceros entered the country each year as non-immigrant laborers” (USCIS 2012).

By the mid-20th century, the majority of applicants for immigration visas came from Asia and Central and South America rather than Europe (USCIS 2012). These new immigrants were brought under the humanitarian category rather than as laborers. The humanitarian category covers asylum seekers and refugees which is a major portion of today’s immigration.

Since the terrorist events of 9/11/2001 security has been tightened and overhauled. Multiple agencies were combined under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2002, including the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service. Even though restrictions are tight, in principle the, “United States retained its commitment to welcoming lawful immigrants and supporting their integration and participation in American civic culture” (USCIS 2012). And as Leon-Guerrero says, “the United States still has the most open immigration policy in the world (2014, p. 83).

Major Immigration Dynamics           We can observe from this brief historical overview two key dynamics governing immigration. #1- Economics have been a major factor in who migrates to America; slaves, migrant workers, and special talent workers.  #2- Humanitarian principles also contribute to immigration as people flee wars, oppression, and persecution to find sanctuary in the Land of the Free.

Perspectives from Sociology            The purpose of sociology is to examine the dynamics of how society is formed, how it functions, and seek solutions for social problems. The three dominant sociological theories are: functionalist, social conflict, and symbolic interactionist.

From the functionalist perspective assimilation is the solution. The functionalist view favors the role of the majority and institutions because they maintain the norms and social solidarity within society. It views the struggles of the poor as an acceptable and beneficial to the whole body of society. If the main solution this view offers is assimilation, I think it would be difficult to persuade American minorities of the benefits. (I wonder how this view would treat slavery).

The social conflict perspective is very accurate in describing this social problem but is also the most pessimistic because this conflict does have potential for violence. The conflict perspective is based upon the views of Carl Marx, and would view the majority as desiring to maintain their grip of power over the minority immigrants and encourages conflict to overcome the majority – even violence. The Marxist conflict theory is based upon biological evolution and the principle of natural selection, or “survival of the fittest.” Marx viewed struggle as the essential social dynamic. Viewing immigration tensions primarily through his lens would be very pessimistic with our future only perpetual conflict.

The symbolic interactionist theory focuses on how our society is formed through the labels we use and that all society is a social construct. This means that things like race or gender are concepts developed by society. In the case of immigration they would say that borders are just our inventions and solution would be to deconstruct our social constructs. They may say that terms such as “immigrant,” or “illegal immigrant” are labels we have constructed to perpetuate social roles. If we mix in conflict theory then we may assume that these social roles are negative roles constructed by the majority for oppressing minorities. However, I wonder if this theory places too much weight on the power of symbols to shape society rather than seeing symbols as an outward manifestation of society, and there by ignore the deeper forces that shape our society.

Solutions            I propose that we analyze immigration and the social conflicts that arise from multiple ethnicities inhabiting the same geographical space, through another paradigm. I have been taking some freedom to form my own sociological theory to analyze society. It is very biased towards creationism and personal accountability. My social theory begins with a premise that life was created as good, but humans distort things to create oppressive structures. Capitalism is not inherently oppressive but because of greed capitalism can be horribly oppressive and often needs to be restrained. Gender roles are part of nature as based upon biology, but humans distort nature and use gender as a means of oppression. Even in race, it is natural to value and appreciate one’s own group, but racism is when we elevate our group above others or oppress members of another group or race. To God there is only one race, the human race.

My theory holds to the premise that a healthy society is one in which individuals and groups are held accountable for their actions. It recognizes the significant contribution of agency that all humans make to their own life and to society. It also recognizes systemic structural problems which limit human choices and holds those institutions accountable.   From my proposed perspective humans are capable of and expected to rise above basic biological instincts of survival of the fittest and greed of power, to acknowledge our accountability for treating others with justice and compassion. I will continue working on my sociological lens but this is my starting point.

Economics:  If global economics were not so out of balance then workers would not be rushing to America for jobs. Global economic stratification as left about 40% of the world living on under $2- per day (Chambliss & Eglitis 2014, p. 426). The irony is that we are a country with two signs; “help wanted” and “keep out.” We need structural reform on a global level. The USA must be willing to pay a living wage to workers in all countries that produce our goods. We must be willing to promote global economic equality. This may result in our dollar not having the same purchasing power but that will be the price of peace. If economic conditions are better around the world then there will be less incentive to migrate to America which would reduce the magnitude of the problem. I recommend my essay, “Wages to Live By” in the Pages section of this blog.

When resources are low then competition between work groups will result in conflict. Consider the rapidly changing demographics of foreign born workers. In 1970, 4.3 million, and in 2011 there were over 24 million foreign born workers in the USA (Leon-Guerrero, 2014 p. 231). The structures of society should promote equality. All workers within the country, including immigrants, must be paid a living wage. An ancient text promoting equality within a newly formed utopian society (Israel) says, “You are to have the same law for the alien and the native-born” (Leviticus 24:22 NIV 2005). This passage specifies that the alien, or migrant worker, must be treated equally within society.

The Bible actually speaks several times about proper treatment of immigrants and it is crazy that with all the religious political talk these passages are ignored. In the 10 commandments we are told to take a day of rest from work. This command is given to Israel which had been slaves in Egypt. Slaves don’t normally get days off work so this command to rest was significant. Now, I can imagine ancient laws that gave nobility a day of leisure but this command is given to all the people. In fact the verse reads, “you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates” (Exodus 20:8 NIV). Even the animals were to rest! These laws were given to Israel, not to all nations. We should use caution before trying to apply the laws of the Bible to America or any nation. However, we do see a valuable principle of justice applied equally to all the people.

Therefore            When greedy human nature goes unrestrained we oppress others for our gain such as over running Native Americans or slavery. Solutions to conflicts in the economic arena work when people recognize a higher mediating Authority and choose to be accountable to It. Government laws as a secondary authority do need to restrain capitalism and provide basic equal opportunities. If employees choose working over starvation or thievery, then even in the lowest jobs they should receive enough to live on. It is fair for government to intervene on their behalf.

Those in power; financial, political, or majority, have a choice to treat others with justice and compassion. If not, perpetual conflict between ethnicities and classes will be the result.

Copyright; Mark Anderson 2016


Chambliss, W. J., & Eglitis, D. S. (2014). Discover sociology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Leon-Guerrero, A. (2014). Social problems: Community, policy, and social action (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Marx, K. (1888). The communist manifesto (F. Engels, Ed.; A. Lutins, Trans.) [Release date 1993 Etext #61]. Retrieved April 27, 2014, from

New international version. (2005). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

U.S.A., Department of Homeland Security, USCIS History office and library. (2012). Overview of INS History. Retrieved February 24, 2016, from



Social Dynamics Theories

Theories of Social Dynamics

My textbooks claim that the goal of sociology is to improve society, “Since its inception, sociology has been considered a means to understand and improve what is wrong with the world” (Leon-Guerrero 2014 p. 457). The principle of the “sociological imagination” proposed by C. W. Mills is that the sociologist explores the relationships between the individual and society (Chambliss & Eglitis 2014). The texts also present a very important concept; the tension between individual responsibilities called “agency” and “structure” or the larger forces beyond our control, “Sociologists take a strong interest in the relationship between structure and agency. On one hand we all have the ability to make choices….on the other hand, the structures that surround us impose obstacles or opportunities for us” (Chambliss & Eglitis 2014 p. 5). I really appreciate the way they present this concept. I am one who leans towards personal accountability for actions. I believe that a society that emphasizes personal accountability is healthier than one that gives people excuses for misbehaviors. This should be balanced by the realization that people have limited choices imposed by structural systems. These dynamics are apparent daily in American society as minority groups claim to be victims of systems of oppression and majority groups claim that minorities are just seeking excuses to justify their poor behavior. We will examine specific cases later.

If the goal of this study is examining our social problems then we are going to be absolutely honest about when individuals are making choices and to what extent they are responsible for the results of those choices, balanced with structural obstacles. We must look at choices made by society as a group choice and impose accountability for these. We must hold corporations accountable. The concept of agency is vital in analysis and finding solutions. Most modern sociology leans towards holding the structures responsible for social problems and dismissing individual accountability. This is a significant difference in approach and may define the conflict between conservative and liberal approaches.

Foundations of Sociology

Two founding fathers of modern sociology were Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) whose branch of sociology is called functionalist, and Karl Marx (1818-1883) whose thoughts were foundational in the social conflict branch of sociology.

Durkheim used a metaphor comparing society to a biological body in which every part is necessary. Functionalist theory adapts evolutionary principles by seeing all the parts of society as evolving to serve a purpose. Example; humans have two arms and not three because a third is a hindrance. He could view institutions such as marriage, the educational system, capitalism, and the military as necessary and benign for our world. His theory led him to this reasoning; “since deviance is universal, it must serve a social function – if it did not serve a function, it would cease to exist” (Chambliss & Eglitis 2014 p. 16). Maybe he was just seeing these objectively without casting them as harmful. He was concerned about the ways that industrialization and urbanization would affect society. He observed the social solidarity that people in villages had because they all shared similar values and norms. He observed waves of migrants moving into the new industrial centers such as London and foresaw the breakdown of social solidarity because of a lack of common norms, or “anomie” (Chambliss & Eglitis 2014). This seems very insightful to our American problems. He was optimistic that the new society would form new shared norms. However, in America today our new norms seem to be socially destructive or very shaky at best.

The evolutionary principle of natural selection or survival of the fittest supported the theories of Marx. He viewed the essence of all things as struggle, “The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles” (Marx & Engels 1888, p. 11). He viewed the capitalist structures as oppressing workers. He saw social conflict as the norm, and that social evolution would eventually lead to a state where, “all societies would advance to the same final destination; a classless, stateless society” (Chambliss & Eglitis 2014 p. 449). Marx focused upon economic principles as the base for conflict but modern sociologists recognize other contributing factors such as gender, status, religion, or race. Feminist sociology is categorized by the texts as a subcategory of conflict theory, with patriarchy as the oppressive structure.

Each of these theories is unashamedly biased. The functionalist view is biased towards preferring the majority. The Marxist social conflict perspective views capitalism as oppressive without considering its positive aspects. It also views human nature as negatively controlled by competition and does not consider the aspect of human nature that rises above conflict. The feminist perspective assumes that male leadership is always oppressive and ignores aspects of gender roles that are imbedded within nature. I value each of these perspectives for significant observations into our society. The textbooks were clear that none of the theories present absolute truth but are merely lenses for viewing society (Chambliss & Eglitis 2014 p. 15). The common theme seem in all of the social theories seems to be power; power to control a society and its norms, structures, and laws. That is the nature of our struggle in society.

Alternative Theory

Since the texts treats these theories as subjective I began taking some freedom to form my own sociological theory to analyze society. It is very biased towards creationism and personal accountability. My social theory begins with a premise that life was created as good, but humans distort things to create oppressive structures. Capitalism is not inherently oppressive but because of greed capitalism needs to be restrained. Gender roles are part of nature as based upon biology, but humans distort nature and use gender as a means of oppression. Even in race; it is natural to value and appreciate one’s own group, but racism is when we elevate our group others or oppress members of another group or race. My theory is interested in discerning the relationship between agency and structure. It holds to the premise that a healthy society is one in which individuals and groups are held accountable for their actions. It attempts to recognize systemic structural problems and hold those institutions accountable which is the beginning of change. It seeks to recognize the significance of the contribution of agency that all humans make to their own life and to society. I will continue working on my sociological lens but this is my starting point.



Chambliss, W. J., & Eglitis, D. S. (2014). Discover sociology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Leon-Guerrero, A. (2014). Social problems: Community, policy, and social action (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Marx, K. (1888). The communist manifesto (F. Engels, Ed.; A. Lutins, Trans.) [Release date 1993 Etext #61]. Retrieved April 27, 2014, from

Sociology and Bias

I just finished 2 classes; “Introduction to Sociology,” and “Social Problems.” This will be the beginning of a short series on sociology and social problems. I hope to cover immigration, race, the achievement gap in education, and crime. My textbooks were: Discover Sociology; by Chambliss and Eglitis, 2014 Sage Publications, and

Social Problems; Community, Policy, and Social Action 4th; by Anna Leon-Guerrero, 2014 Sage Publications.

Sociology is

Sociology as a modern science began in the 19th century in the same era that Darwin developed his theory of evolution. This is important to note because the main sociological theories share some principles with evolution. Sociology, though it was not labelled that, is actually an ancient art covered in the past by philosophers. Plato speculated that if we could understand the principles of the universe as designed by the master craftsman then we could understand how to organize and run society. Confucius philosophy was addressing social crises because society was in chaos. His remedy proposed a restoration of order by restoring respect for authority. Modern sociology is different in that it proposes to be a science, “Sociology is the scientific study of human social relationships, groups, and societies” (Chambliss & Eglitis 2014 p. 3).

Auguste Comte (1798-1857) gave us the name “sociology” and set forth principles for the new science, it is to be based upon facts alone and these facts should, “be allowed to speak for themselves” (Chambliss & Eglitis 2014, p. 9). From my observations, modern sociology attempts to use facts, but mostly it is highly opinionated and biased. All of the statistical facts must still be interpreted, and this is a subjective process. Chambliss and Eglitis warn us about misuse of statistical data, “statistics illuminate the social world around us…on the other hand….may also obscure some important issues” (2014 p. 169).

Correlations and Theories

The scientific method begins with observations and inquiry, then forms a hypothesis and tests it, confirming or rejecting it and then forms a new hypothesis. After a hypothesis is confirmed with tests it becomes a theory. The beginning observations are typically in the form of correlations. We seek factors that have a causal relationship to what we have observed. With statistics there may be many factors involved in what is observed, the challenge is determining which factors have a causal relationship and which are spurious. This is where the element of bias becomes critical; bias can, “misrepresent the full dimensions of what is being studied” (Chambliss & Eglitis 2014 p. 35). A good sociologist is aware of their own bias, and the bias of others, and takes precautions. The bias apparent within both texts leans towards blaming institutions for social problems and denial of agency as a contributing factor.

Examples of bias

Here are some examples of bias in these texts: In chapter one, Leon-Guerrero is giving an example of using the sociological imagination to understand social problems and says, “Let’s consider homelessness. …it emerges from familiar life experiences. The loss of a job, the illness of a family member, domestic violence, or divorce could make a family more susceptible to homelessness” (2014 p. 20). These are all valid contributing factors but it seems that the exclusion of substance abuse conveniently portrays the homeless as only innocent victims. Substance abuse is a major factor in homelessness and should not be ignored. Go to any homeless shelter and take your own survey by asking or getting to know the people. There are many types of homelessness and many circumstances such as the underemployed so I am not judging all homeless, but pressing for objectivity.

Leon-Guerrero’s author bias is evident in chapter 2, Social Class and Poverty. She presents the functionalist and conflict perspectives without challenge, but debunks the interactionist perspective. Some from that perspective have proposed that lifestyles contribute to poverty as she explains, “Some sociologists have suggested that poverty is based on a culture of poverty, a set of norms, values, and beliefs that encourage and perpetuate poverty” and she sites sociologists who claim that “the poor are socialized differently and pass these values on to their children” (2014 p. 51). It did not bother her when the conflict theory claimed that capitalism oppressed the poor into poverty, but now she spends two more paragraphs explaining why the poor never contribute to their own situation through poor lifestyle choices, and she shames those who suggest otherwise.

We should have expected this bias because in the introductory chapter referencing (Irwin 2001) she states that we can use the sociological imagination to find the source of problems not “based on individual behaviors, instead reminding us how the problem is rooted in society, in our social structures themselves” (2014 p. 8).

Science delivered us from harmful superstitions of the dark ages and it is this critical thinking that I expect of a social science. Religion and science sometimes diverge because religion claims that physical science does not have the capacity to test or analyze non-physical realms. Like religion, maybe sociology recognizes that dealing with humanity is very different from hard physical sciences, yet it does proclaim to be a science. I propose that if sociology is a valid science then it should stay connected to physical science as much as possible.

In chapter 7; Families, Leon-Guerrero says, “The nuclear family – two parents and their biological children living together – is exalted as the ideal family” (2014 p. 166). This is more than a social construct; this is the biological definition of family. In nature there is no other way to have family. Today, as always, it still takes X and Y chromosomes to make babies. Our text has a problem with nature, “In addition to the false image of the nuclear family, we also embrace other myths about the family” (2014 p. 167). This textbook, and possibly sociology in whole, quickly loses credibility.

A concept presented in sociology is social construction and socialization which both mean that we are products of society. The tension between nature and nurture or between biology and socialization is presented relating to family, gender, and deviance. Chambliss and Eglitis begin with a fair discussion of gender, “Sociologists acknowledge that a complex interaction between biology and culture shapes behavioral differences associated with gender. They seek to take both forces into account, though most believe culture and society play more important roles in structuring gender and gender roles” (2014 p. 209). They are upfront declaring that most of sociology leans towards the contributing factors of socialization. After this declaration they spend the remainder of the chapter explaining how harmful and oppressive gender roles are to society and portray a neutered society as preferential, “When parents interact with their children on the basis of gender stereotypes, they may reinforce them. Yet parents can play an equally important part in countering such patterns, by being role models and socializing their children into norms and values reflecting greater gender equality” (2014 p. 212). The premise of modern sociology that gender differences mean inequality frustrates the sociologist as they continually attempt to separate humanity from biology. They attempt in vain to show that inclinations in education are socialized rather than innate (I guess that without this they would be unemployable). It is frustrating to them that in general males do prefer certain subjects and females prefer others.

And so

I agree with sociology that many aspects of gender are social constructs. I do appreciate the insights into social dynamics that sociologists have observed. But I start with biology and see gender as based in biology. I see no advantage or equality benefit with a neutered society. What I see is that the social constructs are often distortions of nature. For example: biology has equipped females for child bearing and some societies attempt to limit the role of females only to childbearing. This is a harmful distortion of nature. We should be able to affirm nature and still affirm the rights of individuals to be all that they dream of.

It troubles me that these textbooks go unquestioned as authorities into higher education. I am concerned that the great influence of higher education over society is used for perpetuating sloppy thinking. If these text books are used as standards in many classes across the country, what is the effect on our society? Is academia a social problem? The conflict theory would propose that the elite class uses education to maintain their status through the illusion that they have authority, because we are a “credential” society. If sociology and it representative texts is a truly valid science, then it should make sincere efforts to be objective.



Chambliss, W. J., & Eglitis, D. S. (2014). Discover sociology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Leon-Guerrero, A. (2014). Social problems: Community, policy, and social action (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.