In my view, Republicans have managed to do something both sinister and genius at the same time: convince Christian's that a vote for them is a vote against our nation's downward spiral away from God. They'll point to the School Prayer Decision, a decision in such-and–such a community to disallow the nativity scene or the Ten Commandments in front of the courthouse. They'll say all this is evidence that the "secular progressives" (the current term for "liberal") are trying to take power and turn our Christian Nation away from God, and something must be done.
Listen to Glen Beck. Watch O'Rielly and his "Culture Wars". Listen to the rhetoric that comes out of the mouths of Sarah Palin and Newt Gengrich. They have attacked the current Ground Zero Mosque issue like a pack of dolphins to a school of tuna, eager to show concerned Americans how "Christian" they are in an election year. (And in my opinion, they are ignoring the Constitution and common decency in the process.) They mercilessly attacked the President for fulfilling his oath and defending the Constitution.
Think about it. If you study Republican talking points as a whole, the message they are trying to sell is that government is both the cause of and solution to our nation's apparent wickedness.
The Republicans have one thing right. Wickedness (sin) in our nation is a problem. But the lie they are selling my fellow Christians is that they (Republicans) can change it. Obviously, Sin has been a problem since Eve ate the Apple. Yes, our nation is digressing on moral ground in a lot of areas (recreational sex, pornography, abortion etc.) but we are progressing in others (racism, civil rights).
I am not saying Christians shouldn't be concerned with society's moral downfall. I am saying your vote at the ballot box can do nothing about it. The only way for Christians to make a difference morally in our society is the same way we've always done it. First, see what "wickedness" is in your life and correct it. Then do what God is asking you to do by helping teach others to do the same in Christ Jesus. Of couse, that is a lot harder than attending a Tea Party rally and blaming the Democrats for our nation's moral downfall.
When it comes to your responsibility at the ballot box, of course you should vote based on your faith. I hope you don't think I am saying otherwise. Just think about what the parties stand for on all the issues instead of buying everything the Republicans are selling you, hook line and sinker.
Crime: Republicans want to lock criminals up and throw away the key. Democrats want to make a more concerted effort to rehabilitate criminals and bring them back into society. Christ is for forgiveness. Heck, Christ is Forgiveness.
Welfare: Republicans want to drastically cut welfare in efforts to get the recipients of such programs back to work. Democrats want to provide a safety net for the most vulnerable among us. Christ was for taking care of the poor. He told us taking care of the poor was like taking care of Him.
Abortion: Republicans want to make abortion illegal. Done. Problem solved. Democrats are actually making steps to reduce the number of abortions by trying to help troubled pregnant women with government services, so they might be able to afford to keep the child and teaching students about the importance of contraception.
Immigration: Some Republicans want to repeal the 14th amendment's clause that says anyone born in the United States is a citizen so that illegal immigrates can't come here and drop their "anchor babies" or worse, so terrorists can't come here and drop their "terror babies." Democrats think that is the stupidest thing they've ever heard. Christ said "Let the little children come to me…"
Global Warming/ Environment: Republicans won't even acknowledge Global Warming as a real concern. Most of the time, they are not in favor of making environmentally conscious decisions if it means cutting profits. Democrats think environmental issues such as Global Warming are a major concern and are aggressively trying to acknowledge and fix the problem. God commanded us to take care of the earth.
Health Care: Democrats are at least trying to fix our nation's health care system and are attempting to provide for those who cannot afford adequate coverage. Republicans refuse to admit there is a major problem and are using health care reform as a wedge issue instead of coming to the table with solutions. Christ healed all who asked.
Look, I am not suggesting Democrats are correct in all their views. I am not saying Republicans don't have any valid ideas. All of these issues require very complex solutions. In no way, do I adhere to any particular Party line. I am just suggesting that I don't believe Christ would want us to follow one party so blindly.
Just remember, Republicans do this for only one reason: We are stupid enough to fall for it.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Saturday, August 21, 2010
School Prayer
The topic of prayer in public schools is not currently discussed by the media and politicians as much as other issues relevant to religion and government. However I have an opinion on it and I figure it is a good of an issue as any to blog on, so here ya go:
A lot of Christians are quick to tell you decisions such as Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), where the Supreme Court ruled school-sponsored prayer was a violation of the Establishment Clause, are some of the moments where our nation began a downward spiral away from God; a spiral we are still suffering from today.
I disagree. If you think about it, prayer was not taken out of our schools. Mandatory prayer was. As far as I know, students are still allowed to exercise their 1st Amendment right and pray at school. They are also free to have religious after-school activities. They just can't disrupt class without getting in trouble. It's not as if, when the courts decided that prayer couldn’t be a part of official school programming, we all of a sudden weren't allowed to pray at our schools. We just simply stopped. That's on us, not the government. Besides, I think the Jesus was pretty clear about mandatory, ritualistic prayers that don't come from the heart in Matthew 6:5-13. And, let's face it, that is all we lost in those decisions.
A lot of Christians are quick to tell you decisions such as Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), where the Supreme Court ruled school-sponsored prayer was a violation of the Establishment Clause, are some of the moments where our nation began a downward spiral away from God; a spiral we are still suffering from today.
I disagree. If you think about it, prayer was not taken out of our schools. Mandatory prayer was. As far as I know, students are still allowed to exercise their 1st Amendment right and pray at school. They are also free to have religious after-school activities. They just can't disrupt class without getting in trouble. It's not as if, when the courts decided that prayer couldn’t be a part of official school programming, we all of a sudden weren't allowed to pray at our schools. We just simply stopped. That's on us, not the government. Besides, I think the Jesus was pretty clear about mandatory, ritualistic prayers that don't come from the heart in Matthew 6:5-13. And, let's face it, that is all we lost in those decisions.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
More Thoughts On The Mosque Issue
The Ground Zero mosque controversy has gotten much more heated in the weeks since I made the original post. I also sent the same blog into my county's local paper as a letter to the editor and it was printed yesterday. I think it's important for me to weigh in on this issue again because I feel we, as a country, are making a huge mistake in our reaction to this.
Let me say a few thoughts I have had since the post.
I will admit, building the mosque at its present location is huge public relations blunder for its supporters. That is to say, if their goal is to foster peace and understanding of Islam, they are doing a very poor job. Be that as it may, that's a political issue on their end, not a legal one.
If proof comes out that the backers of the mosque have ties to radicalism I will do a 180 on my position. Public safety trumps 1st amendment.
I have heard the Imam has said he wants Sharia law to be recognized in America. That will never happen. How do I know? Because of the Establishment Clause. Any pundit who makes that argument is just trying to scare the public. Puls, after doing a simple wikipedia search, I learned that there are very different interpretations of Sharia law within Islam. That means any Muslim that says something affrming Sharia is not necessarily talking about the brutal treatment of women.
What bothers me the most about this issue is how willing the American public is to paint mainstream Islam and radical Islam with the same brush. I don't think we realize how dangerous this is. The best way we can make a dent in curving the interest in radical Islam across the world is to let mainstream Islam help. Every time we speak out against the mosque, we are comparing the Muslims who destroyed the World Trade Center to the Muslims who want to build the mosque.
Imagine if Eric Rudolph, a Christian terrorist whose goal was to overthrow the government because of the abortion issue, had killed 200 instead of 2 people at the Olympic Park bombing of '96. If a Baptist church wanted to build 2 blocks away, nobody would care. Why? Because we understand the difference between radical Christianity and mainstream Christianity. We know Christianity didn't attack us; a radical nutjob claiming to be a Christian did.
Complaining that we aren't allowed to build churches in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries is a ridiculous argument. They don't allow churches because they don't have freedom of religion. We do.
I wish we would care more about the 1st Amendment than we do about our feelings and emotions.
Let me say a few thoughts I have had since the post.
I will admit, building the mosque at its present location is huge public relations blunder for its supporters. That is to say, if their goal is to foster peace and understanding of Islam, they are doing a very poor job. Be that as it may, that's a political issue on their end, not a legal one.
If proof comes out that the backers of the mosque have ties to radicalism I will do a 180 on my position. Public safety trumps 1st amendment.
I have heard the Imam has said he wants Sharia law to be recognized in America. That will never happen. How do I know? Because of the Establishment Clause. Any pundit who makes that argument is just trying to scare the public. Puls, after doing a simple wikipedia search, I learned that there are very different interpretations of Sharia law within Islam. That means any Muslim that says something affrming Sharia is not necessarily talking about the brutal treatment of women.
What bothers me the most about this issue is how willing the American public is to paint mainstream Islam and radical Islam with the same brush. I don't think we realize how dangerous this is. The best way we can make a dent in curving the interest in radical Islam across the world is to let mainstream Islam help. Every time we speak out against the mosque, we are comparing the Muslims who destroyed the World Trade Center to the Muslims who want to build the mosque.
Imagine if Eric Rudolph, a Christian terrorist whose goal was to overthrow the government because of the abortion issue, had killed 200 instead of 2 people at the Olympic Park bombing of '96. If a Baptist church wanted to build 2 blocks away, nobody would care. Why? Because we understand the difference between radical Christianity and mainstream Christianity. We know Christianity didn't attack us; a radical nutjob claiming to be a Christian did.
Complaining that we aren't allowed to build churches in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries is a ridiculous argument. They don't allow churches because they don't have freedom of religion. We do.
I wish we would care more about the 1st Amendment than we do about our feelings and emotions.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Meeting with Mike Rogers
Friday, during a meet-the-common-folk swing through Randolph County, my congressmen, Republican Mike Rogers, sat down with my father and me over a basket of fried catfish at Lakeside Market and Grill. (On a side note, Lakeside Market and Grill does not serve hush puppies with their fried catfish. I might cover this blatant violation of Southern catfish etiquette in a later post.) I thought I would blog on our conversation.
I must confess I did not have the foresight to bring a tape recorder to this meeting. Nor did I identify myself as a political blogger. Therefore I will be paraphrasing the congressmen's comments as best I can from memory. I will email a copy of this post to his office and if he feels he was misrepresented in any way, I will be sure to make corrections and post a retraction if necessary.
The conversation started with Dad reminding Rep. Rogers of the working relationship of Reagan and then Speaker of the House, Democrat Tip O'Neal, and asking why the two parties of today were polarized and seemingly so unwilling to work together. Dad, a former nuclear submariner in the Navy, cited nuclear power as a possible similarity the two parties now share. (Nuclear power is an issue Republicans have been championing for years and President Obama has said he is in favor of more nuclear power plants.) Congressman Rogers agreed that Republicans would be glad to help the president in passing legislation to build more nuclear power plants, but said the Democratic leadership recently attached pro-nuclear power legislation to a bill about cap-and-trade, an issue Republicans are strongly opposed to. As a result, Republicans were forced to either vote for nuclear power and cap-and-trade or vote against both. Rogers said most Republicans voted against the bill. The congressman alluded to an issue that I have thought needed to be addressed since I started following politics closely: the ability to attach any language to any piece of legislation. I asked Mr. Rogers why this rule couldn't be changed suggesting the system would work better if each piece of new legislation was required to have a mission statement and no language could be attached to that legislation that was not related to that mission statement. He said he, and many of his colleagues on both sides of the isle, would love for the rules to be amended in such a way. However, he said the House Rules Committee has to sign off on all rule changes and members of the committee were assigned by the party leadership, in particular, the Speaker of the House. He said passing a rule that takes power away from the powerful is very hard, because the powerful have to agree to such a rule change, thus relinquishing some of their power. He also complained that a repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" was attached to an important defense spending bill and Republicans were forced to vote against the bill for that reason. I quipped that Republicans do the same thing when they are in power. He was quick to agree, saying that was how the Bush tax cuts were passed. I asked why they didn't go to the media and in an effort to expose the members of congress that benefit from the status-quo and unethically use the system for their own political gain. He said that the media thinks House rule changes are not sexy enough and therefore are would be uninterested in covering such a story.
Then Dad then brought the conversation to the fact that the FCC has Randolph and Cleburne county in the Atlanta media market despite the fact that most residents of both counties would rather be in the Birmingham market in order to better follow Alabama weather and politics. Rogers agreed that this was a major problem in his district, and said that he and some of his colleagues that represent similar districts across the country have tried every way they could think of to "skin that cat" for a long time. He regretted not having solved the issue, citing bureaucracy at the FCC as the reason. Dad offered a solution and Rogers said he would have his legislative director contact him so Dad could help him put his solution in legislative language.
I must say, I was impressed with Congressman Rogers' candor. He seemed like a nice man genuinely trying to serve the interests of his district. I deliberately didn't bring up any issues that I knew we probably disagreed on, not wanting to engage in a pointless debate.
However, I believe the rule change I alluded to, and the congressman agreed with, would do more to improve our government's effectiveness than almost any other piece of legislation. If passed, politicians would no longer be forced to vote on three different issues with one vote. Politicians on both sides of the isle always seem to campaign on cutting wasteful spending. Think of how much wasteful spending would get cut! That is how wasteful pork programs make it through the system to begin with: by getting attached to more popular pieces of legislation. The amount of language in the recent health care bill that has nothing to do with health care would surprise you. I must say, I disagree with the congressman's assessment of the issue not being sexy enough for the media. I bet if the congressman and his bi-partisan collegues called out the selfish party leadership by name, especially members of their own party, saying they are obviously more concerned with keeping or re-gaining their power than making popular changes that would make congress and the government work better, it would get the media's attention. The framers of the Constitution obviously didn't foresee this problem because, in their day, they were forced to be in the same room when drafting and amending legislation. The media loves to call out crooked politicians that are out of touch of the needs of the voters. I bet the congressman could get the media's attention if he wanted to. I know if I were in congress, I would make this my number one issue. I wouldn't shut up about it. Because I know this ridiculous example of ignoring common sense is the base that the entire house of cards of ineffective governing and partisan bickering rests on.
I must confess I did not have the foresight to bring a tape recorder to this meeting. Nor did I identify myself as a political blogger. Therefore I will be paraphrasing the congressmen's comments as best I can from memory. I will email a copy of this post to his office and if he feels he was misrepresented in any way, I will be sure to make corrections and post a retraction if necessary.
The conversation started with Dad reminding Rep. Rogers of the working relationship of Reagan and then Speaker of the House, Democrat Tip O'Neal, and asking why the two parties of today were polarized and seemingly so unwilling to work together. Dad, a former nuclear submariner in the Navy, cited nuclear power as a possible similarity the two parties now share. (Nuclear power is an issue Republicans have been championing for years and President Obama has said he is in favor of more nuclear power plants.) Congressman Rogers agreed that Republicans would be glad to help the president in passing legislation to build more nuclear power plants, but said the Democratic leadership recently attached pro-nuclear power legislation to a bill about cap-and-trade, an issue Republicans are strongly opposed to. As a result, Republicans were forced to either vote for nuclear power and cap-and-trade or vote against both. Rogers said most Republicans voted against the bill. The congressman alluded to an issue that I have thought needed to be addressed since I started following politics closely: the ability to attach any language to any piece of legislation. I asked Mr. Rogers why this rule couldn't be changed suggesting the system would work better if each piece of new legislation was required to have a mission statement and no language could be attached to that legislation that was not related to that mission statement. He said he, and many of his colleagues on both sides of the isle, would love for the rules to be amended in such a way. However, he said the House Rules Committee has to sign off on all rule changes and members of the committee were assigned by the party leadership, in particular, the Speaker of the House. He said passing a rule that takes power away from the powerful is very hard, because the powerful have to agree to such a rule change, thus relinquishing some of their power. He also complained that a repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" was attached to an important defense spending bill and Republicans were forced to vote against the bill for that reason. I quipped that Republicans do the same thing when they are in power. He was quick to agree, saying that was how the Bush tax cuts were passed. I asked why they didn't go to the media and in an effort to expose the members of congress that benefit from the status-quo and unethically use the system for their own political gain. He said that the media thinks House rule changes are not sexy enough and therefore are would be uninterested in covering such a story.
Then Dad then brought the conversation to the fact that the FCC has Randolph and Cleburne county in the Atlanta media market despite the fact that most residents of both counties would rather be in the Birmingham market in order to better follow Alabama weather and politics. Rogers agreed that this was a major problem in his district, and said that he and some of his colleagues that represent similar districts across the country have tried every way they could think of to "skin that cat" for a long time. He regretted not having solved the issue, citing bureaucracy at the FCC as the reason. Dad offered a solution and Rogers said he would have his legislative director contact him so Dad could help him put his solution in legislative language.
I must say, I was impressed with Congressman Rogers' candor. He seemed like a nice man genuinely trying to serve the interests of his district. I deliberately didn't bring up any issues that I knew we probably disagreed on, not wanting to engage in a pointless debate.
However, I believe the rule change I alluded to, and the congressman agreed with, would do more to improve our government's effectiveness than almost any other piece of legislation. If passed, politicians would no longer be forced to vote on three different issues with one vote. Politicians on both sides of the isle always seem to campaign on cutting wasteful spending. Think of how much wasteful spending would get cut! That is how wasteful pork programs make it through the system to begin with: by getting attached to more popular pieces of legislation. The amount of language in the recent health care bill that has nothing to do with health care would surprise you. I must say, I disagree with the congressman's assessment of the issue not being sexy enough for the media. I bet if the congressman and his bi-partisan collegues called out the selfish party leadership by name, especially members of their own party, saying they are obviously more concerned with keeping or re-gaining their power than making popular changes that would make congress and the government work better, it would get the media's attention. The framers of the Constitution obviously didn't foresee this problem because, in their day, they were forced to be in the same room when drafting and amending legislation. The media loves to call out crooked politicians that are out of touch of the needs of the voters. I bet the congressman could get the media's attention if he wanted to. I know if I were in congress, I would make this my number one issue. I wouldn't shut up about it. Because I know this ridiculous example of ignoring common sense is the base that the entire house of cards of ineffective governing and partisan bickering rests on.
Friday, August 13, 2010
More FOX nonsesnse
Last night during the O'Rielly Factor, they showed Harry Reid saying (paraphrasing) "I don't know how anybody of Hispanic decent would vote republican." Then, in the same opening, they showed an ad by GOP Senatorial candidate Ben Quayle where he says "Barack Obama is the worst President ever." Reid was called incendiary, out of touch, and insensitive whereas Quayle was bold. The same segment! You gotta love FOX.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Why all the opposition building new Mosques?
It really bothers me when I see my fellow Christians being so opposed to building new mosques in the United States. The controversy doesn't just apply to the proposed Ground Zero mosque; some of the same people are opposed to a new mosque being built in Tennessee. Local pastors are speaking out against it. Don't get me wrong, it's not like I want more mosques to be built, I am an evangelical Christian… I don't like it when any religion but mine scores converts. But you better believe I am going to defend the 1st amendment rights of Muslims. Religious freedom is for every religion. Not just Christianity.
I suppose the controversy stems from an irrational fear of Islam. Understand this: we are NOT at war with Islam. We are at war with Muslim extremists. Comparing the terrorists we are fighting to mainstream Islam is exactly like comparing the KKK to mainstream Christianity. Think about it: the KKK claims to do what they do in defense of white Christians. They believe they are soldiers of God. But if someone judged you based on the hate and violence they have perpetrated you would probably be very offended. Another example is Eric Rudolph. In his mind, he was acting as a Christian doing God's will. What if someone called you a hate monger and sited Rudolph being a member of your faith as an example? I bet you would say, "He just says he's a Christian, he's not a real Christian. He has it all wrong." And, you would be right. But, that is how the vast majority of Muslims feel when you compare their faith and how they worship to the terrorists of 911. There are over one BILLION Muslims in the world. 99% of them don't hate us and don't consider us the infidel.
You might say, "I don't mind building new mosques, just not so close to Ground Zero. That's rubbing salt in the wound." That's one way of looking at it. I say it would be an extraordinary testament to America's tolerance and willingness to accept mainstream Muslims as a part of our community.
I have said this before and I'll say it again: if you care about your freedom of worship, you have to care about the freedom of worship for those who you disagree with. Imagine if a misguided member of your church blows up an abortion clinic. Then imagine members of the public wanting to shut your church down as a result. Imagine them accusing your pastor of being a terroist. Then imagine the government wanting to freeze your church's missionary spending. Now you can perhaps understand what it's like to be a Muslim living in America. And THAT'S why defending the freedom of worship, wherever it is attacked, is so important to me. Because, one day, my freedom might come under attack too.
I suppose the controversy stems from an irrational fear of Islam. Understand this: we are NOT at war with Islam. We are at war with Muslim extremists. Comparing the terrorists we are fighting to mainstream Islam is exactly like comparing the KKK to mainstream Christianity. Think about it: the KKK claims to do what they do in defense of white Christians. They believe they are soldiers of God. But if someone judged you based on the hate and violence they have perpetrated you would probably be very offended. Another example is Eric Rudolph. In his mind, he was acting as a Christian doing God's will. What if someone called you a hate monger and sited Rudolph being a member of your faith as an example? I bet you would say, "He just says he's a Christian, he's not a real Christian. He has it all wrong." And, you would be right. But, that is how the vast majority of Muslims feel when you compare their faith and how they worship to the terrorists of 911. There are over one BILLION Muslims in the world. 99% of them don't hate us and don't consider us the infidel.
You might say, "I don't mind building new mosques, just not so close to Ground Zero. That's rubbing salt in the wound." That's one way of looking at it. I say it would be an extraordinary testament to America's tolerance and willingness to accept mainstream Muslims as a part of our community.
I have said this before and I'll say it again: if you care about your freedom of worship, you have to care about the freedom of worship for those who you disagree with. Imagine if a misguided member of your church blows up an abortion clinic. Then imagine members of the public wanting to shut your church down as a result. Imagine them accusing your pastor of being a terroist. Then imagine the government wanting to freeze your church's missionary spending. Now you can perhaps understand what it's like to be a Muslim living in America. And THAT'S why defending the freedom of worship, wherever it is attacked, is so important to me. Because, one day, my freedom might come under attack too.
Friday, August 6, 2010
flawed right-wing talking point #2 "American Was Founded On Christian Principles"
I am a Christian. I realize that statement means different things to different people. I feel it is important to understand what it means to me. I don't just simply believe that Jesus was a good man and if I am a good man, I will go to heaven. I believe that I am a sinner and because of my sins, I deserve to go to hell, but God, in His grace, sent his Son, Jesus, to die in my place. As a result, my sins are paid for and it is for that reason, I get to spend eternity with God in heaven. Not only that, but my life on earth has a unique hope and joy that only comes from truly knowing your Creator. I say all that so that you can understand where I am coming from when I say this:
Nothing makes me want to throw the remote through the TV more than when I hear someone say "America was founded on Christian Principles." No, I take that back. I actually heard Sarah Palin tell Bill O'Rielly something along the lines of "the Constitution is based on Biblical principles." The worst part was, O'Rielly agreed with her. He even used the transitive property to prove that our founding documents come from the Ten Commandments! This angers the stew out of me. Do you know why? Because it's not true! I have read the entire Bible. I have read the entire US Constitution. There are no parallels. None. Any non-biased person would easily come to that conclusion. I can't find anything resembling representative democracy in the Bible. I don't know why Christians continue to make claims like this. We should stop saying these things because they aren't true. That's not very Christian.
O'Rielly and Palin were discussing this because President Obama declined to participate in or acknowledge the National Day of Prayer. What is up with the National Day Of Prayer? Do we NEED a national day to remind us to pray for our country? Shouldn't we be what Paul said in 1st Thessalonians 5:17 and always be praying? Isn't the National Day Of Prayer going against what Jesus says in Matthew 6:5-7?
Why are other Christians so eager to want to believe our Government was somehow set up with Christian principles? Do you want a theocracy? Aren't you glad the government can't mess with your faith? Are you not thankful for the freedom of worship that this country views as an absolute right? Do you think that if there were parallels, it would make your life easier? I am ok with the fact that there are no parallels between the Bible and the Constitution. One is a list of rules regarding how our federal government should operate. The other is the story of God relating to His creation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LahUxkyaRh8
Nothing makes me want to throw the remote through the TV more than when I hear someone say "America was founded on Christian Principles." No, I take that back. I actually heard Sarah Palin tell Bill O'Rielly something along the lines of "the Constitution is based on Biblical principles." The worst part was, O'Rielly agreed with her. He even used the transitive property to prove that our founding documents come from the Ten Commandments! This angers the stew out of me. Do you know why? Because it's not true! I have read the entire Bible. I have read the entire US Constitution. There are no parallels. None. Any non-biased person would easily come to that conclusion. I can't find anything resembling representative democracy in the Bible. I don't know why Christians continue to make claims like this. We should stop saying these things because they aren't true. That's not very Christian.
O'Rielly and Palin were discussing this because President Obama declined to participate in or acknowledge the National Day of Prayer. What is up with the National Day Of Prayer? Do we NEED a national day to remind us to pray for our country? Shouldn't we be what Paul said in 1st Thessalonians 5:17 and always be praying? Isn't the National Day Of Prayer going against what Jesus says in Matthew 6:5-7?
Why are other Christians so eager to want to believe our Government was somehow set up with Christian principles? Do you want a theocracy? Aren't you glad the government can't mess with your faith? Are you not thankful for the freedom of worship that this country views as an absolute right? Do you think that if there were parallels, it would make your life easier? I am ok with the fact that there are no parallels between the Bible and the Constitution. One is a list of rules regarding how our federal government should operate. The other is the story of God relating to His creation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LahUxkyaRh8
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Fox News "Charlie Rangel is sinking the Democratic Party"
I love how Fox News keeps saying how Charlie Rangel's ethics allegations are going to sink the Democrat's chances in the November elections. No, Fox, while it is looking like the Dems are going to lose a lot of seats come November, to say that voters will vote Republican across the country because of one corrupt Congressman in New York is a pretty big stretch. We are pretty used to corrupt politicians from both sides of the isle. If the Democrats lose ground in November, it will be because of the Tea Party's very well executed fear campaign.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
My Opinion on Gay Marriage
I have a very different opinion regarding the issue on a Constitutional Amendment to limit marriage to a man and a woman than most outspoken Christians.
First of all, I should start by saying I believe homosexuality is immoral. We know this because it is unnatural and, more importantly, the Bible says so. Of course I don't think homosexuals should get married. However, I do not think we have any right to say such a union would be illegal. Please don't take that to mean I believe I am somehow superior to homosexuals. I have sin in my life as well. God dosen't make different levels of sevearity of sin.
Marriage is a spiritual matter. To me, marriage is recognized by the Church, not the government. Therefore, since marriage is recognized by the church, we, the members of the Church, have no reason to recognize a homosexual marriage (spiritually, that is). We (the Church) will never be forced to spiritually recognize a marriage that is preformed by the government. The Church will also never be forced to marry any couple it dosen't want to. This is guaranteed in the First Amendment. I believe that it should be none of the governments business whom is married to whom. If the government wants to recognize a particular marriage, who says we (the Church) have to recognize it spiritually? Who are we to be enforcing our morals on other people in this case? Do we expect non Christians not to sin? That is like expecting someone with pneumonia not to cough.
My argument was that it is unwise for us, as Christians, to try to enforce our viewpoint on the law in this case. Laws should be designed to protect society and ensure personal freedom. When two consenting adults decide they want to "get married" who are we to say the government shouldn't recognize their union and grant them whatever tax and estate privileges that heterosexual couples get? In what way are these two people threatening others? I still believe they are immoral, but my personal viewpoint is irrelevant. Just because something is immoral in my point of view, or even from a Christian perspective, doesn't mean it their behavior should be illegal.
We have laws against speeding because if you exceed the speed limit, you are more likely to get into an accident. Innocent people are hurt or killed in accidents, therefore it should be illegal to speed and it is right and necessary to enforce such laws. Who is hurt in a homosexual marriage? Who is forced to live their life a way that they don't want to? Nobody. The argument I always hear is "this Amendment will protect the sanctity of marriage." Really? Who's marriage? Are you telling me that your Christian marriage is somehow weakened or threatened if two homosexuals get married? Of course not! Because your marriage is based on Christ and their's is based on a piece of paper issued by the government.
Therefore I believe it is simply unwise for Christians to be so zealous about the homosexual marriage position because it does nothing but re-enforce stereotypes that Christians intolerant and judgmental. If this Amendment were passed today, do we expect the gay community will say "Gee, now that there is an amendment in the Constitution, I better stop being gay and find a Christian wife, live in a monogamous lifestyle, and raise Christian babies."?
In closing:
1) Just because the government may recognize a marriage legally for tax and estate purposes, doesn't mean we, as Christians, have to recognize the marriage spiritually, which should be the real issue with marriage.
2) Our laws are based on protection and personal freedom, not Biblical morals. Our laws are NOT based on the Ten Commandments or the Bible. (More on this Right-Wing talking point in a later entry) Is there a law against worshiping other God's? No. Is there a law against making false idols? No. Is there a law against using the Lord's Name in vain? No. Is there a law against not honoring the Sabbath? No. Is there a law against not honoring your father and mother? No. Is there a law against murder? Yes. Is there a law against adultery? No. Is there a law against stealing? Yes. Is there a law against giving false testimony? Yes, assuming you are under oath or talking to the police. Is there a law against coveting? No. That's 3 out of 10. Why do we keep saying our laws are based on the Ten Commandments? I believe the Ten Commandments and other Biblical moral principles are a step above the law, and are not and should not nessessarily be the laws of our government or society. Every time we say, "Our laws are based on the Ten Commandments," we look foolish and are foolish because it isn't true.
3) It is unwise to look foolish to the outside world. Paul writes in Colossians that we should be wise in the way we act towards outsiders. Fighting for these viewpoints to become law is foolish and does nothing to spread the Gospel or tell others about the LOVE of Christ.
4) We have to protect our right to express ourselves in whatever we do. This is a basic American principle. If homosexual couples are not allowed to live their lives the way they want, who's to say that one day my rights might be violated also? The way I make sure I can do what I please and worship however I want is to make sure that those who I disagree with can do what they please and worship however they want.
5) If the amendment were passed, it would accomplish nothing except giving the secular society more ammo when they claim Christians are judgmental and intolerant.
I am NOT saying Christians should not be active in our government. We should be. We should be more active. I just feel the things we have chosen to be active in are foolish. We should be trying to bring about change, within the boundaries of the Constitution, which benefit our society.
First of all, I should start by saying I believe homosexuality is immoral. We know this because it is unnatural and, more importantly, the Bible says so. Of course I don't think homosexuals should get married. However, I do not think we have any right to say such a union would be illegal. Please don't take that to mean I believe I am somehow superior to homosexuals. I have sin in my life as well. God dosen't make different levels of sevearity of sin.
Marriage is a spiritual matter. To me, marriage is recognized by the Church, not the government. Therefore, since marriage is recognized by the church, we, the members of the Church, have no reason to recognize a homosexual marriage (spiritually, that is). We (the Church) will never be forced to spiritually recognize a marriage that is preformed by the government. The Church will also never be forced to marry any couple it dosen't want to. This is guaranteed in the First Amendment. I believe that it should be none of the governments business whom is married to whom. If the government wants to recognize a particular marriage, who says we (the Church) have to recognize it spiritually? Who are we to be enforcing our morals on other people in this case? Do we expect non Christians not to sin? That is like expecting someone with pneumonia not to cough.
My argument was that it is unwise for us, as Christians, to try to enforce our viewpoint on the law in this case. Laws should be designed to protect society and ensure personal freedom. When two consenting adults decide they want to "get married" who are we to say the government shouldn't recognize their union and grant them whatever tax and estate privileges that heterosexual couples get? In what way are these two people threatening others? I still believe they are immoral, but my personal viewpoint is irrelevant. Just because something is immoral in my point of view, or even from a Christian perspective, doesn't mean it their behavior should be illegal.
We have laws against speeding because if you exceed the speed limit, you are more likely to get into an accident. Innocent people are hurt or killed in accidents, therefore it should be illegal to speed and it is right and necessary to enforce such laws. Who is hurt in a homosexual marriage? Who is forced to live their life a way that they don't want to? Nobody. The argument I always hear is "this Amendment will protect the sanctity of marriage." Really? Who's marriage? Are you telling me that your Christian marriage is somehow weakened or threatened if two homosexuals get married? Of course not! Because your marriage is based on Christ and their's is based on a piece of paper issued by the government.
Therefore I believe it is simply unwise for Christians to be so zealous about the homosexual marriage position because it does nothing but re-enforce stereotypes that Christians intolerant and judgmental. If this Amendment were passed today, do we expect the gay community will say "Gee, now that there is an amendment in the Constitution, I better stop being gay and find a Christian wife, live in a monogamous lifestyle, and raise Christian babies."?
In closing:
1) Just because the government may recognize a marriage legally for tax and estate purposes, doesn't mean we, as Christians, have to recognize the marriage spiritually, which should be the real issue with marriage.
2) Our laws are based on protection and personal freedom, not Biblical morals. Our laws are NOT based on the Ten Commandments or the Bible. (More on this Right-Wing talking point in a later entry) Is there a law against worshiping other God's? No. Is there a law against making false idols? No. Is there a law against using the Lord's Name in vain? No. Is there a law against not honoring the Sabbath? No. Is there a law against not honoring your father and mother? No. Is there a law against murder? Yes. Is there a law against adultery? No. Is there a law against stealing? Yes. Is there a law against giving false testimony? Yes, assuming you are under oath or talking to the police. Is there a law against coveting? No. That's 3 out of 10. Why do we keep saying our laws are based on the Ten Commandments? I believe the Ten Commandments and other Biblical moral principles are a step above the law, and are not and should not nessessarily be the laws of our government or society. Every time we say, "Our laws are based on the Ten Commandments," we look foolish and are foolish because it isn't true.
3) It is unwise to look foolish to the outside world. Paul writes in Colossians that we should be wise in the way we act towards outsiders. Fighting for these viewpoints to become law is foolish and does nothing to spread the Gospel or tell others about the LOVE of Christ.
4) We have to protect our right to express ourselves in whatever we do. This is a basic American principle. If homosexual couples are not allowed to live their lives the way they want, who's to say that one day my rights might be violated also? The way I make sure I can do what I please and worship however I want is to make sure that those who I disagree with can do what they please and worship however they want.
5) If the amendment were passed, it would accomplish nothing except giving the secular society more ammo when they claim Christians are judgmental and intolerant.
I am NOT saying Christians should not be active in our government. We should be. We should be more active. I just feel the things we have chosen to be active in are foolish. We should be trying to bring about change, within the boundaries of the Constitution, which benefit our society.
Monday, August 2, 2010
flawed right-wing talking point #1 "Socialism is evil"
If you watch the pundits on Fox, listen to the Tea Partiers, or hear Republicans open their mouth during the campaign season, it is very likely that you will hear this common sentiment: "Socialism is EEEEVILLLLL." The logic they use is simple enough: Marx was a socialist. Communism has its roots in Marxian philosophy. Communism is BAD. Therefore, socialism is bad. This is a major criticism of Obama. "He's a Socialist!" But I believe all that is hogwash, and let me tell you why.
"Socialism" is NOT a system of government. Communism is. I agree that Communism is not the best system of government. Heck, I even agree with the generalized sentiment: "Communism is bad." It is too much government. It is too little personal freedom. Socialism is not Communism. Socialism is simply the government using its resources to serve the public. Think about it: The Post Office- Socialism. Public Education- Socialism. National Parks- Socialism. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Department Of Transportation... I can go on and on, but you get my point. Are you glad you can mail a letter across the country for 40someting cents? Are you glad Yellowstone National Park is not a multi-billion dollar profiteering enterprise? Are you glad you get to drive on our Interstate Highway System without paying a toll every few miles? Are you glad that every child in this country at least has the chance to get an education, regardless of their social-economic class? If you answered yes to any of these questions, you are a socialist. And, according to the Republicans, you are evil. I am not saying that all forms of socialism are good. I am simply saying they are not all evil, as the Republicans would have you believe. It is ok to suggest and implement ways that the government can better serve the public. You are not evil for doing so.
On the other hand, we have the opposite if socialism: Capitalism. Capitalism, Republicans are quick to tell you, is awesome! Wholesome. American. Freedom-promoting. Godly. Republicans hate government infringements on capitalism. The less the government tries to mettle in business, they argue, the faster the economy will grow, the stronger the economy will be, the more free we all are. They want to get back to a free market, with little-to-no government oversight. They want the government to "get off our backs!" But, they are quick to forget history. When this country was founded, the economy was designed exactly the way they want it to work now: businesses had total freedom to make their own decisions, without the government being "on their backs." However, this economy created a very small wealthy class, a very small middle class, and a HUGE lower class. The majority of Americans were living in poverty. 1% of the population had 95% of the wealth. This was no surprise. We are a greedy people. It wasn't until Teddy Roosevelt fought for government oversight and better pay for workers did conditions improve. After that, the middle class exploded in population. It was government oversight (socialism) that made it possible for the Average Joe to earn a livable wage and created the middle class as we know it today. In the years that follow, more regulations were passed. Each one designed to help the middle class get a larger share of the profits.
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying capitalism is evil. I believe rich people have the right to be rich. We have the right to start a business, be successful, and earn all the money we can. Free markets mean free people. I really believe that. But if we do not attempt to regulate some of the rules regarding our economy, we will digress back to the unbalanced class system of our past. In other words: without some socialism, pure capitalism is not what is best for this country.
To sum it all up, I am saying this: the Capitalism vs. Socialism Debate is not as simple as Republicans make it out to be. It shouldn't even a debate! It takes elements of both to have the society we all want. But Republicans have succeeded in dumbing-down this important discourse to a good versus evil dialogue, thus making their base afraid of government. As a result, we can't have an honest debate about healthcare reform, banking regulations, or anything else without getting labeled as "evil" or "un-American" for disagreeing with a Republican principle. They have made "socialism" a dirty word.
"Socialism" is NOT a system of government. Communism is. I agree that Communism is not the best system of government. Heck, I even agree with the generalized sentiment: "Communism is bad." It is too much government. It is too little personal freedom. Socialism is not Communism. Socialism is simply the government using its resources to serve the public. Think about it: The Post Office- Socialism. Public Education- Socialism. National Parks- Socialism. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Department Of Transportation... I can go on and on, but you get my point. Are you glad you can mail a letter across the country for 40someting cents? Are you glad Yellowstone National Park is not a multi-billion dollar profiteering enterprise? Are you glad you get to drive on our Interstate Highway System without paying a toll every few miles? Are you glad that every child in this country at least has the chance to get an education, regardless of their social-economic class? If you answered yes to any of these questions, you are a socialist. And, according to the Republicans, you are evil. I am not saying that all forms of socialism are good. I am simply saying they are not all evil, as the Republicans would have you believe. It is ok to suggest and implement ways that the government can better serve the public. You are not evil for doing so.
On the other hand, we have the opposite if socialism: Capitalism. Capitalism, Republicans are quick to tell you, is awesome! Wholesome. American. Freedom-promoting. Godly. Republicans hate government infringements on capitalism. The less the government tries to mettle in business, they argue, the faster the economy will grow, the stronger the economy will be, the more free we all are. They want to get back to a free market, with little-to-no government oversight. They want the government to "get off our backs!" But, they are quick to forget history. When this country was founded, the economy was designed exactly the way they want it to work now: businesses had total freedom to make their own decisions, without the government being "on their backs." However, this economy created a very small wealthy class, a very small middle class, and a HUGE lower class. The majority of Americans were living in poverty. 1% of the population had 95% of the wealth. This was no surprise. We are a greedy people. It wasn't until Teddy Roosevelt fought for government oversight and better pay for workers did conditions improve. After that, the middle class exploded in population. It was government oversight (socialism) that made it possible for the Average Joe to earn a livable wage and created the middle class as we know it today. In the years that follow, more regulations were passed. Each one designed to help the middle class get a larger share of the profits.
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying capitalism is evil. I believe rich people have the right to be rich. We have the right to start a business, be successful, and earn all the money we can. Free markets mean free people. I really believe that. But if we do not attempt to regulate some of the rules regarding our economy, we will digress back to the unbalanced class system of our past. In other words: without some socialism, pure capitalism is not what is best for this country.
To sum it all up, I am saying this: the Capitalism vs. Socialism Debate is not as simple as Republicans make it out to be. It shouldn't even a debate! It takes elements of both to have the society we all want. But Republicans have succeeded in dumbing-down this important discourse to a good versus evil dialogue, thus making their base afraid of government. As a result, we can't have an honest debate about healthcare reform, banking regulations, or anything else without getting labeled as "evil" or "un-American" for disagreeing with a Republican principle. They have made "socialism" a dirty word.
Blog Beginnings
I am what you would a call a born-again Christian. Evangelical, even. I go to a Baptist church. The things I believe about God come entirely from the Bible. But I am NOT a Republican. I do not see how the Church has come to believe that everything Republican is good and everything Democrat is bad. I am starting this blog to discuss politics from a "Christian-Left" perspective. Let the fun begin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)