I am a liberal. That is to say that my political views, for the most part, line up on the side of others that call themselves liberal.
I am pro-choice. I support same-sex marriage. I support the use of government assistance programs, such as SNAP (food stamps), The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), and Social Security. I support unions. And generally, overall, I believe that government should solve the common problems of the people they govern.
I am also Christian. I believe in God, that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God. That God has revealed himself in the writings of the books of the Bible. (I won't go deeper into theology than that, but if you'd like to talk about it, please ask.)
Some, many in fact, claim that I cannot be both Christian and Liberal. That if I believe in the Bible that I cannot be pro-choice, pro same-sex marriage, and most of all I cannot be pro-"government should help people". Others have written long treatise on what they see as Biblical evidence that a conservative political view is what God wants us to have.
I am not going to argue against a conservative view. And I'm not going to argue for a liberal view. Rather I just want to share how I got to where I am.
When I first became a Christian, about 14 years ago (well, I have always considered myself "Christian" since I was a teen and went to church camp, but I can't say I really became a serious "church going" Christian until relatively recently, but that's another story...) I was convinced that I had to have a conservative view. The biggest issue at the time, at least in the circles I was in, was the pro-life/pro-choice argument. God doesn't want people killing babies. And, like now, the view was either "you're on this side" or "you're wrong". And I didn't want to be wrong. And God is boss, He says "don't kill babies", so therefore I had to support the side that was pro-life. That meant a conservative political view and in the US that meant I vote republican.
I hadn't really been involved in the political process up to that point. But at the same time I became an active Christian I also became an active voter.
Churches aren't allowed to talk about politics, but they are allowed to talk about the issues. During the 2000 election, what we heard about the most was abortion. And how it's just plain wrong for any reason. Many of us believed that Bush was going to end abortion. (This was pre-9/11 and terrorism and war weren't in the headlines yet.) We really honestly believed it. I think Bush even said if a bill banning abortion landed on his desk he would sign it. In my circles, that was really the only issue during that election.
I was naive. I was new to the political process, in spite of being in my 30s. I honestly thought that we could make it happen. It didn't. 4 years later the country was at war. Or at least we were led to believe it was war. The War On Terror. And This Is America! We're not going to let them win! And we heard about how God is on our side and that the war was the most important thing. Any talk of ending the war just wan't in God's will. So Bush won again. And yes I voted for him again.
And this is where I started to see the light. As I started to learn about the government, how it really works, and things like debt and deficit, taxes and spending, the debt ceiling, states' rights vs. federal jurisdiction, and so on, I found that there are things that are way more complicated than I was made to believe.
I will continue to use the pro-life issue as an example. I learned that government can't, and really won't ever, completely do away with the infamous Roe v. Wade decision. And even if they they did, that won't end abortion. The issue is way more complex than "don't kill unborn babies".
What the issue really is about is thoughts, feelings, opinions, beliefs, practices, attitudes, money, fear,etc. It's way more complicated than "you can do this" or "you can't do this".
The opinion of the church I was in at the time, and the continuing view of many churches, is that it was our job to fix the world. And the way we start doing that is to use government and legislation to enforce God's will (or what we saw as God's will) on the world. In other words, to put it bluntly, it was our job to force people to follow God's plan by making laws that would make it illegal not to follow God's plan.
And what I came to realize is that many thought God and his followers were kind of a bunch of assholes (in their opinion). They saw us as a bunch of people that just wanted to force everyone to follow their God and had no respect for their religious positions. We honestly believed that the founding fathers were Christian, that America was supposed to be a Christian nation, and freedom of religion really meant to be whatever Bible believing Christian you wanted, but not anything else.
So I started to ask questions. My first was "I don't think I'm an asshole, why do others?" I read the news. I talked to friends. Facebook wasn't a thing yet, but I had chatroom friends and I talked to them. I talked to people that had an abortion, I asked people why they were pro-life or pro-choice. I talked to doctors.
And the answer I came to is that people saw Christians of my ilk as assholes because they didn't bother to investigate the issues. We saw only black and white, right and wrong. And no issue, especially not abortion, is ever black and white.
This was about the time that the Westboro Baptist folks started getting a lot of attention with their protests at soldiers funerals and their "God hates Fags" signs and so forth. Non-Christians started seeing all Christians as they saw the Westboro Baptist folks.
And you know what? They were right. While many in the church were condemning their methods, many more were agreeing with Westboro's message. Many in the church really did think God hates fags and that dead soldiers were God's punishment to America for killing babies and so on and so on. People had stopped seeing the gospel message of love and hope as a message of love and hope. Now we were a group of people of division, doom, and hate.
And I began to hate me for being part of it. I was part of a system that was not only spreading the wrong message, but in our votes and political actions we were hurting people.
At the time I came to this conclusion, I was managing a Christian bookstore. Almost every book on the shelf supported a conservative world view. Every book I sold propagated a system that I didn't agree with.
And then I learned something else. Christian and conservative were not married. In spite of what many would have me think, faith and political views are not co-dependent.
This changed things. Most of all, it changed my faith. I stopped reading the Bible looking to support my politics and started reading it for what it was. It's not a political manual. The only politics in it is within the history of the Israelite people as it's recorded. There's stories of kings and assassinations and scandal. And there is beautiful poetry, and sad songs of lament and depression. And there are rules for living a life of joy and being with other people. Overall it is a story of love.
And one rule stood out to me, as it should to all who believe in Jesus. "Love your neighbor as yourself".
If there is one thing that, to me, describes the liberal political position more than any other, it is that. Love people. Take care of people.
At that moment, I became fully liberal.
But Allen, how can you reconcile "thou shalt not kill" with the pro-choice view?
Again, I've been using abortion as the example, there are other issues, political and otherwise that led to my political shift, but let's continue.
My view is that abortion cannot and will not end with political action. Don't get me wrong, I fully believe the act of abortion is murder. It stops a beating heart. And when abortion ends I will be leading the parade in celebration. But HOW we end it is where my opinion differs from my conservative friends.
Abortion ends when every pregnancy is wanted and every child has a home. We do that through education, even with very young children. We do that through birth control (something some Christians won't agree with) that is easily available, super effective, and really cheap. We work to eliminate poverty, provide good healthcare, and... and... Am I dreaming? Maybe. Can it happen? I think so. But it takes time, money, a change in attitude.
And that's how it is with every other issue. I and my conservative brothers and sisters want the same end results in most cases. What we don't agree on is government's role in getting us from here to there.
So here I am. I've gone from thinking I had to be extremely conservative, to realizing I can accept my political view and still reconcile it with my faith.
And that's the crux of it. Religion shapes my world view, including my politics. This is true for everyone. But I think it's important for people to really honestly examine what they think they believe and stop listening to the loudest voices around them. If your preacher says "a christian should do this", think about it. Do you agree that you should do that? What does the Bible say about that topic? What proof did your preacher provide for that argument?
The same is true for other faiths. Do you agree with your leaders' teachings? Do your religion's writings support what your leaders say?
In other words, do you really believe what they are telling you to believe? The Bible says "Trust in the LORD with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding". Some take this to mean "follow your leaders" but I don't think so. I think that means seek what the Lord wants. Learn, read, study, pray, work out what the Bible really says, not what some preacher is telling you.
And I greatly admire and respect those of differing faiths that have done that as well. When it comes to faith issues, I think other religions are "wrong" otherwise I wouldn't be a Christian, but I respect that they are following what they have found to be true, so long as they have really investigated it.
The same with the political process. If you have really investigated your point of view and can discuss it realistically and not in terms of what others have said, then I have great respect for that.
And now I'm just devolving into a rant.
I hope that this opens up some discussion. Please feel free to chat me up.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
I am Christian, but not part of the Christian Right
Christian Conservative, Conservative Christian, Christian Right, Religious Right,whatever they want to call themselves it all means the same thing, at least in the United States: Christians (or those who call themselves Christian) and others of faith that support the Republican party.
I do respect the movement in the fact that they are standing up for what they think is right. At heart they are standing for what they believe are Biblical values and are trying to promote those values in the American political system. However, I think that they are foundationally flawed in their platform and therefore are not correct in their political views.
Let me explain.
I am a Christian. I believe in the Bible. It is a recorded history of God's people and the teachings of Christ and therefore the Word of God. However, I do not agree with what many claim the Bible says.
The Christian Right - as I will refer to them for the rest of this post - at least in it's modern incarnation, had it's foundation in the '70s. Jerry Falwell and his followers in the "Moral Majority" began a campaign to involve Christians more pro-actively in the political process. Roughly during the Carter administration the movement began to take shape and though Falwell and others did not take direct aim at Carter, they did promote an image of "... godless, spineless leaders have brought our nation floundering to the brink of death." My own theory is that this lead to Reagan being elected in 1980 and under Reagan's administration the Christian Right found solid roots to become what it is today.
And what is it today? What things characterize the Christian Right?
Pro-life. That is to say, anti-abortion. Abortion is abomination and needs to be stopped, made illegal.
Educational reform. The Bible and Biblical values should be taught in public school. This includes no longer teaching evolution and instead teaching creation or at least intelligent design.
Sex education. The prevailing view is that 'abstinence only' is the best way to teach sex. Others feel that sex education is the responsibility of parents and should not be taught in school.
Sexuality (particularly homosexuality). The prevailing view in the Christian Right is that homosexuality is a choice and a sin and therefore should not be presented in any context as 'normal' and homosexuals should not be allowed to marry or otherwise receive the rights assigned to "traditional marriage". Some even refer to a "homosexual agenda" that must be stopped.
Lately some in the Christian Right have described a "war on Christianity" by the government citing cases where some have sued to have "under God" removed from the pledge of allegiance, the false assertions that prayer is not allowed in public schools, and so on.
There are many other things that form the "platform" of the Christian Right, but these are the things that I have the most problem with and find it difficult - impossible actually - to align myself with them. Let me run them down.
Abortion rights. Since 1973, with the Roe vs. Wade case in the Supreme Court, a woman's right to an abortion has been protected in the United States. In short, she has the right to choose. Since that time many many many attempts have been made to get that decision overturned and all of them have failed.
Here's my take. Abortion is horrible. Abortion is murder. That may be a harsh way to put it but that is my feeling. Abortion stops a beating heart and ends a life.
With maybe a very few exceptions, I don't think any woman who has had an abortion would say that it was an easy decision for them. It's not something women take lightly.
But the decision has already been made. Pandora's box has already been opened. Women have the right to choose. No matter what happens, no matter who is elected, there is no way, absolutely no way that decision by the Supreme Court, is going to be overturned. Many attempts have been made and they have all failed. Even if you claim that a conservative President could do it, we've had Reagan, George HW Bush, and George W Bush. None of them even came close to getting it done.
Abortion as an issue in political elections is a red herring. It's a paper-mache carrot hung in front of the Christian Right to get them to vote. Common sense tells us that it can never, ever be made illegal and ending abortion by legislative means won't happen.
In other words, voting on the right simply to protect unborn children is a waste of your vote. Abortion can't be made illegal. It just can't. The only way to end abortion is to make it unnecessary. I don't feel the Republican party, as influenced by the Christian Right, has a plan in place to do that.
Education Reform. I do feel that our current education system would benefit from the careful application of some Biblical values. I do not feel, however, that our public school system should be teaching The Bible, nor do I feel that the lessons in the Bible should be taught over prevailing scientific theories.
In other words, I think "love thy neighbor" is a great thing to teach. But once you start down the path of teaching The Bible as a guidebook to life you run into a whole SLEW of problems. Which version? Which interpretation? Should we teach what this church teaches or that church? How is this passage to be presented? And so on and so on and so on. If Biblical teaching is so important to parents, then they should take their kids to someone that has been taught the Bible. In other world, the Bible should be taught by those who went to Bible college (and those taught by that person). Those people are found in churches. You can find a church that most matches your view of what the Bible says. Find it and take your kids there if you want them taught the Bible.
The question of Evolution vs. Creation (or Intelligent Design) is at heart a religious - or at least philosophical - question. It has no place in the science classroom. Science teachers teach science. Period. Science is not anti-religion. I don't think religion is really anti-science either, but there are those who disagree. In either case, science needs to be taught. Regardless of one's religious beliefs, science HAS to be taught if we are going to keep America strong. And that means teaching the theory of evolution.
There is a huge misunderstanding and villainization of Charles Darwin and his writings. Darwin did not write something that disproves the Bible, he wrote science. He wasn't out to kill God, he was out to figure things out. That's all science is, figuring things out.
No one will argue that on some level Darwin's theories are true. You can see it. Every farmer, pet breeder, insect exterminator can explain the basics of evolution. Characteristics of parents are passed down to children. Characteristics that are strengthened by the environment are more likely to be passed to the next generation. No one argues that. The problem comes with you extend that line of thinking and draw links between on species and another and start seeing common ancestry and tracing that line of thinking all the way back to a single common ancestor for all life. That's when the Christian Right gets twitchy because "that's not what the Bible says."
My thinking: so what? You want the Bible taught to your kids, take them to an expert in the Bible. You don't agree with the theory of evolution, fine, tell you kids that, BUT THEY STILL NEED TO BE TAUGHT IT. Why? Because it is the prevailing theory in our day and age and so much that has come out of that theory pervades other branches of science as it exists today. In other words, you want your children to be smart, you want America to have the advantage over other countries, then kids have to be taught evolution, agree with it or not.
Now I am a Christian, doesn't that mean that I am hating on God's word by promoting evolution? No. Here's what I believe: The Bible tells us God created the world and the heavens and the earth and everything that is in it in 6 days. Except for Adam and Eve (made from the dust of the ground and Adam's rib respectively) the Bible does not tell us how everything was created.
My own theory, just me and not supported by anything except my own brain, is that it may be something like this:
Think of a guy working in a fireworks factory. He builds those big shells that you see on the 4th of July, the ones that shoot up in the air and then burst into sparks and colors, making shapes and colors that make everyone say "oo" and "aaahh". Everything in that big, bright display is carefully planned. The fireworks artist knows that when he puts in this ingredient that it will make things green, and when he puts in these pellets that they will make whistles, and so on. He knows exactly what each thing he puts in will do and how it will react with other things and exactly how it will look when it goes off.
God made the Universe that way. He put in just the right ingredients so that it will expand and grow and glow in just the way He wants it to. He packed it all in and then BANG - the so called Big Bang. Created in 6 days, then exploding and unfolding for millions of years.
Just my take on it. You can call that intelligent design if you want. But do I feel my theory should be taught in public schools? No. Why? God, the Bible, do no belong in the science classroom. I don't want my preacher teaching science, I don't want my science teacher teaching the Bible. Simple as that.
Ok - on to the next topic.
Sex education. On the one hand, I do feel that the primary responsibility for teaching our kids about sex lies with the parents. However, the environment of the 21st century household may make that teaching difficult. At best parents can speak from their own education and experience. If sex education is taught in public schools it needs to balance what is taught at home with what science and medicine and psychology have to offer. In our modern society venereal disease is a reality and things change so quickly and scarily that parents can't keep up and that's where public educators come in.
On the question of abstinence. I think that's awesome. Preach it. But you need to face the reality that "kids are doing it anyway" and an "abstinence only" stance is not only irresponsible, it's dangerous. Even the most religious, devout teenager can be swept up in peer pressure and hormones. To leave them with only the message "just don't do it" can lead to all sorts of disasters. The message "don't do it" needs to be given along with "but if you do, then you need to be aware of this and this and this.." I put myself in some very dangerous positions when I was in high school. I dodged many bullets, but not all kids are so lucky. If I had been taught the pitfalls of sex I might have acted in much different ways.
That brings us to sexuality. In particular homosexuality. How do we handle this?
To be honest, this one is hard for me. Many point to verses in Leviticus and other places in the Old Testament to show homosexuality is wrong. That doesn't line up with me because those same sections teach about restrictions on what to eat, what to wear, and so on and if we're going to follow the rules about homosexuality, then we have to follow the others as well. There are places in the New Testament that mention it. Those are harder to wrap my brains around.
But regardless of what I think or believe, it doesn't change that this is an issue in our society. Many will tell you that homosexuality is a choice. I don't think so. I honestly haven't had a lot of contact with gay people but those I have talked to, to a one, do not describe 'being gay' as something they chose. Every one of them said they 'always knew' and 'since they were a kid' they had just 'been that way'.
Now, I do think that there are cases among young people, because of how they are treated by their peers, or something that happened at home, or some other thing, where they are having trouble defining their identity and personality and someone will say or do something that makes them take a path on a sexual lifestyle that does not really line up with who they are. That works both ways, gay kids trying to live straight and straight kids trying to live gay, because they are confused. In that respect there are cases where it might seem that someone is "cured" of being gay or someone is "recruited" into being gay when in actuality they are either dealing with that confusion or overcoming that confusion and living their true identity.
All that being said, here's what I think: No matter what I believe or the church believes or others believe, individual people, just themselves, are responsible for being true to themselves. It's not my job or anyone else's to tell someone what to believe, how to act, or who to be. If they are interested in finding out more about what I believe, great! I'll bring them to church. But other than that, I do no think it's anyone else's job to tell others what to do in their own morality.
And gay marriage? Why not? They'd have to pay for marriage licenses, that adds to the public coffers. The marriage ceremonies will lead to a stimulation of the local economy - gifts and so forth. And public recognition of that relationship makes it easier for loved ones to take care of each other. Many speak of the "sanctity of marriage" and "traditional marriage". The sanctity of MY marriage is not threatened by the marriage or non marriage of someone else, only I and my wife have anything to do with that. And "traditional marriage"... traditions change.
"Gay marriage" is inevitable. You might vote to try to stop it, and your candidate, if elected, might be able to hold it off for a while, but it is inevitable. It will become a reality in every state in the United States. If that is the only reason you are casting your vote, then you are wasting your vote.
And that brings me to my final talking point. The "War on Religion".
I only have one thing to say on that. Until our government starts raiding churches, carrying away preachers that are never seen or heard from again, until armed forces crash though our neighborhoods, destroying the homes and businesses of those who believe a certain way, until someone pins an emblem to your clothing marking you as belonging to a certain religious group, then don't talk to me about a war on Religion.
You are still free to go to your church. You are still free to read your Bible. You are still free to watch religious programming that is still allowed to come into your home. Until any of those above things happen, it is INSULTING to say that your religion is under attack. It insults those in other countries, China for example, where the Christian church really is under attack. It's insulting to those missionaries that have laid down their lives trying to share the love of Christ with others. It's insulting to 6 million Jewish men women and children that died at the hands of the Nazis in the 30s and 40s.
Insulting.
And to claim that one party or another is out to expunge religion from America... insulting. Yes, times have changed. The attitudes of people regarding religion in public places, schools for example, have changed since the 50s. That doesn't mean that those times were "better" religiously speaking, it just means people had a different attitude. My kids can still say "under God" during the pledge of allegiance (if their classroom does it at all). They can still pray in their classroom so long as they don't jump up and disrupt things to lead a public prayer. Prayer is a personal thing anyway and I feel it's better for them to do it quietly, privately. (As long as there are math tests, there will always be prayer in school.)
The only war on religion in the United States is a war by the Christian Right insisting that 'their' religion is right and the choices of others is wrong.
----
So, Mr. Author of this Blog who calls himself Christian - why don't you tell us what you really think.
I am part of a small but growing group, not really organized more than just sharing common beliefs, that calls ourselves The Christian Left. Now I am not saying that by calling myself that that I am fully aligned with the far left and "liberals". For me, in my political life, my Christians beliefs have led me to a place that is "not on the right", and by that definition, I am on the left.
But what does that mean?
I means that I have read the Bible. Many times and am reading it again now. I have found that what the Bible says is not what the Christian Right would have you believe. To represent the true love of Christ we should support a government that takes care of all people in the country and not tell people what they can't do with their own life and body.
That's that. No complicated theology. Theology has no place in politics.
Thanks for letting me rant some more.
I do respect the movement in the fact that they are standing up for what they think is right. At heart they are standing for what they believe are Biblical values and are trying to promote those values in the American political system. However, I think that they are foundationally flawed in their platform and therefore are not correct in their political views.
Let me explain.
I am a Christian. I believe in the Bible. It is a recorded history of God's people and the teachings of Christ and therefore the Word of God. However, I do not agree with what many claim the Bible says.
The Christian Right - as I will refer to them for the rest of this post - at least in it's modern incarnation, had it's foundation in the '70s. Jerry Falwell and his followers in the "Moral Majority" began a campaign to involve Christians more pro-actively in the political process. Roughly during the Carter administration the movement began to take shape and though Falwell and others did not take direct aim at Carter, they did promote an image of "... godless, spineless leaders have brought our nation floundering to the brink of death." My own theory is that this lead to Reagan being elected in 1980 and under Reagan's administration the Christian Right found solid roots to become what it is today.
And what is it today? What things characterize the Christian Right?
Pro-life. That is to say, anti-abortion. Abortion is abomination and needs to be stopped, made illegal.
Educational reform. The Bible and Biblical values should be taught in public school. This includes no longer teaching evolution and instead teaching creation or at least intelligent design.
Sex education. The prevailing view is that 'abstinence only' is the best way to teach sex. Others feel that sex education is the responsibility of parents and should not be taught in school.
Sexuality (particularly homosexuality). The prevailing view in the Christian Right is that homosexuality is a choice and a sin and therefore should not be presented in any context as 'normal' and homosexuals should not be allowed to marry or otherwise receive the rights assigned to "traditional marriage". Some even refer to a "homosexual agenda" that must be stopped.
Lately some in the Christian Right have described a "war on Christianity" by the government citing cases where some have sued to have "under God" removed from the pledge of allegiance, the false assertions that prayer is not allowed in public schools, and so on.
There are many other things that form the "platform" of the Christian Right, but these are the things that I have the most problem with and find it difficult - impossible actually - to align myself with them. Let me run them down.
Abortion rights. Since 1973, with the Roe vs. Wade case in the Supreme Court, a woman's right to an abortion has been protected in the United States. In short, she has the right to choose. Since that time many many many attempts have been made to get that decision overturned and all of them have failed.
Here's my take. Abortion is horrible. Abortion is murder. That may be a harsh way to put it but that is my feeling. Abortion stops a beating heart and ends a life.
With maybe a very few exceptions, I don't think any woman who has had an abortion would say that it was an easy decision for them. It's not something women take lightly.
But the decision has already been made. Pandora's box has already been opened. Women have the right to choose. No matter what happens, no matter who is elected, there is no way, absolutely no way that decision by the Supreme Court, is going to be overturned. Many attempts have been made and they have all failed. Even if you claim that a conservative President could do it, we've had Reagan, George HW Bush, and George W Bush. None of them even came close to getting it done.
Abortion as an issue in political elections is a red herring. It's a paper-mache carrot hung in front of the Christian Right to get them to vote. Common sense tells us that it can never, ever be made illegal and ending abortion by legislative means won't happen.
In other words, voting on the right simply to protect unborn children is a waste of your vote. Abortion can't be made illegal. It just can't. The only way to end abortion is to make it unnecessary. I don't feel the Republican party, as influenced by the Christian Right, has a plan in place to do that.
Education Reform. I do feel that our current education system would benefit from the careful application of some Biblical values. I do not feel, however, that our public school system should be teaching The Bible, nor do I feel that the lessons in the Bible should be taught over prevailing scientific theories.
In other words, I think "love thy neighbor" is a great thing to teach. But once you start down the path of teaching The Bible as a guidebook to life you run into a whole SLEW of problems. Which version? Which interpretation? Should we teach what this church teaches or that church? How is this passage to be presented? And so on and so on and so on. If Biblical teaching is so important to parents, then they should take their kids to someone that has been taught the Bible. In other world, the Bible should be taught by those who went to Bible college (and those taught by that person). Those people are found in churches. You can find a church that most matches your view of what the Bible says. Find it and take your kids there if you want them taught the Bible.
The question of Evolution vs. Creation (or Intelligent Design) is at heart a religious - or at least philosophical - question. It has no place in the science classroom. Science teachers teach science. Period. Science is not anti-religion. I don't think religion is really anti-science either, but there are those who disagree. In either case, science needs to be taught. Regardless of one's religious beliefs, science HAS to be taught if we are going to keep America strong. And that means teaching the theory of evolution.
There is a huge misunderstanding and villainization of Charles Darwin and his writings. Darwin did not write something that disproves the Bible, he wrote science. He wasn't out to kill God, he was out to figure things out. That's all science is, figuring things out.
No one will argue that on some level Darwin's theories are true. You can see it. Every farmer, pet breeder, insect exterminator can explain the basics of evolution. Characteristics of parents are passed down to children. Characteristics that are strengthened by the environment are more likely to be passed to the next generation. No one argues that. The problem comes with you extend that line of thinking and draw links between on species and another and start seeing common ancestry and tracing that line of thinking all the way back to a single common ancestor for all life. That's when the Christian Right gets twitchy because "that's not what the Bible says."
My thinking: so what? You want the Bible taught to your kids, take them to an expert in the Bible. You don't agree with the theory of evolution, fine, tell you kids that, BUT THEY STILL NEED TO BE TAUGHT IT. Why? Because it is the prevailing theory in our day and age and so much that has come out of that theory pervades other branches of science as it exists today. In other words, you want your children to be smart, you want America to have the advantage over other countries, then kids have to be taught evolution, agree with it or not.
Now I am a Christian, doesn't that mean that I am hating on God's word by promoting evolution? No. Here's what I believe: The Bible tells us God created the world and the heavens and the earth and everything that is in it in 6 days. Except for Adam and Eve (made from the dust of the ground and Adam's rib respectively) the Bible does not tell us how everything was created.
My own theory, just me and not supported by anything except my own brain, is that it may be something like this:
Think of a guy working in a fireworks factory. He builds those big shells that you see on the 4th of July, the ones that shoot up in the air and then burst into sparks and colors, making shapes and colors that make everyone say "oo" and "aaahh". Everything in that big, bright display is carefully planned. The fireworks artist knows that when he puts in this ingredient that it will make things green, and when he puts in these pellets that they will make whistles, and so on. He knows exactly what each thing he puts in will do and how it will react with other things and exactly how it will look when it goes off.
God made the Universe that way. He put in just the right ingredients so that it will expand and grow and glow in just the way He wants it to. He packed it all in and then BANG - the so called Big Bang. Created in 6 days, then exploding and unfolding for millions of years.
Just my take on it. You can call that intelligent design if you want. But do I feel my theory should be taught in public schools? No. Why? God, the Bible, do no belong in the science classroom. I don't want my preacher teaching science, I don't want my science teacher teaching the Bible. Simple as that.
Ok - on to the next topic.
Sex education. On the one hand, I do feel that the primary responsibility for teaching our kids about sex lies with the parents. However, the environment of the 21st century household may make that teaching difficult. At best parents can speak from their own education and experience. If sex education is taught in public schools it needs to balance what is taught at home with what science and medicine and psychology have to offer. In our modern society venereal disease is a reality and things change so quickly and scarily that parents can't keep up and that's where public educators come in.
On the question of abstinence. I think that's awesome. Preach it. But you need to face the reality that "kids are doing it anyway" and an "abstinence only" stance is not only irresponsible, it's dangerous. Even the most religious, devout teenager can be swept up in peer pressure and hormones. To leave them with only the message "just don't do it" can lead to all sorts of disasters. The message "don't do it" needs to be given along with "but if you do, then you need to be aware of this and this and this.." I put myself in some very dangerous positions when I was in high school. I dodged many bullets, but not all kids are so lucky. If I had been taught the pitfalls of sex I might have acted in much different ways.
That brings us to sexuality. In particular homosexuality. How do we handle this?
To be honest, this one is hard for me. Many point to verses in Leviticus and other places in the Old Testament to show homosexuality is wrong. That doesn't line up with me because those same sections teach about restrictions on what to eat, what to wear, and so on and if we're going to follow the rules about homosexuality, then we have to follow the others as well. There are places in the New Testament that mention it. Those are harder to wrap my brains around.
But regardless of what I think or believe, it doesn't change that this is an issue in our society. Many will tell you that homosexuality is a choice. I don't think so. I honestly haven't had a lot of contact with gay people but those I have talked to, to a one, do not describe 'being gay' as something they chose. Every one of them said they 'always knew' and 'since they were a kid' they had just 'been that way'.
Now, I do think that there are cases among young people, because of how they are treated by their peers, or something that happened at home, or some other thing, where they are having trouble defining their identity and personality and someone will say or do something that makes them take a path on a sexual lifestyle that does not really line up with who they are. That works both ways, gay kids trying to live straight and straight kids trying to live gay, because they are confused. In that respect there are cases where it might seem that someone is "cured" of being gay or someone is "recruited" into being gay when in actuality they are either dealing with that confusion or overcoming that confusion and living their true identity.
All that being said, here's what I think: No matter what I believe or the church believes or others believe, individual people, just themselves, are responsible for being true to themselves. It's not my job or anyone else's to tell someone what to believe, how to act, or who to be. If they are interested in finding out more about what I believe, great! I'll bring them to church. But other than that, I do no think it's anyone else's job to tell others what to do in their own morality.
And gay marriage? Why not? They'd have to pay for marriage licenses, that adds to the public coffers. The marriage ceremonies will lead to a stimulation of the local economy - gifts and so forth. And public recognition of that relationship makes it easier for loved ones to take care of each other. Many speak of the "sanctity of marriage" and "traditional marriage". The sanctity of MY marriage is not threatened by the marriage or non marriage of someone else, only I and my wife have anything to do with that. And "traditional marriage"... traditions change.
"Gay marriage" is inevitable. You might vote to try to stop it, and your candidate, if elected, might be able to hold it off for a while, but it is inevitable. It will become a reality in every state in the United States. If that is the only reason you are casting your vote, then you are wasting your vote.
And that brings me to my final talking point. The "War on Religion".
I only have one thing to say on that. Until our government starts raiding churches, carrying away preachers that are never seen or heard from again, until armed forces crash though our neighborhoods, destroying the homes and businesses of those who believe a certain way, until someone pins an emblem to your clothing marking you as belonging to a certain religious group, then don't talk to me about a war on Religion.
You are still free to go to your church. You are still free to read your Bible. You are still free to watch religious programming that is still allowed to come into your home. Until any of those above things happen, it is INSULTING to say that your religion is under attack. It insults those in other countries, China for example, where the Christian church really is under attack. It's insulting to those missionaries that have laid down their lives trying to share the love of Christ with others. It's insulting to 6 million Jewish men women and children that died at the hands of the Nazis in the 30s and 40s.
Insulting.
And to claim that one party or another is out to expunge religion from America... insulting. Yes, times have changed. The attitudes of people regarding religion in public places, schools for example, have changed since the 50s. That doesn't mean that those times were "better" religiously speaking, it just means people had a different attitude. My kids can still say "under God" during the pledge of allegiance (if their classroom does it at all). They can still pray in their classroom so long as they don't jump up and disrupt things to lead a public prayer. Prayer is a personal thing anyway and I feel it's better for them to do it quietly, privately. (As long as there are math tests, there will always be prayer in school.)
The only war on religion in the United States is a war by the Christian Right insisting that 'their' religion is right and the choices of others is wrong.
----
So, Mr. Author of this Blog who calls himself Christian - why don't you tell us what you really think.
I am part of a small but growing group, not really organized more than just sharing common beliefs, that calls ourselves The Christian Left. Now I am not saying that by calling myself that that I am fully aligned with the far left and "liberals". For me, in my political life, my Christians beliefs have led me to a place that is "not on the right", and by that definition, I am on the left.
But what does that mean?
I means that I have read the Bible. Many times and am reading it again now. I have found that what the Bible says is not what the Christian Right would have you believe. To represent the true love of Christ we should support a government that takes care of all people in the country and not tell people what they can't do with their own life and body.
That's that. No complicated theology. Theology has no place in politics.
Thanks for letting me rant some more.
I am Pro-Choice Because I Don't Know What Else To Be
This is probably going to cost me, posting this. There are some friends I have that won't be so any more. There are many at my church, that, if they should read this (they probably won't) might ask me to the door. But I don't care. There are things I need to say.
I am a Christian, and I am Pro-Choice. No, that is not an oxymoron. Seriously, you can be both. Let me explain.
I don't like death of any kind. I think life is important, sacred, and should be preserved. Whether it's a baby in the womb, an AIDS victim, or a 98 year old great grandmother with Alzheimer's, we need to do everything we can to protect, preserve and heal those lives.
I don't LIKE abortion. If anyone claims they LIKE it, that person should be put away in a rubber room. No one LIKE death or blood or violence. But these things exist in our world. Even those who make money off of selling weapons and such will tell you that, if the gun they sold was pointed at their own head, they wouldn't like it so much.
And while the phrase is "Pro-Choice", I don't LIKE the choice. I don't like that there has to BE a choice. I don't like that a teenage girl or a woman living in poverty or even a successful business woman has to make a CHOICE about what to do with their unborn child. I don't LIKE that there exists situations where a woman has to choose between the relationship there are in or their baby, keeping a minimum wage job with no benefits and a baby, keeping their hard earned success and a baby. I don't like that we live in a world where unwed mothers are stigmatized and ostracized and a choice has to be made.
But that is the world we live in.
Now at this point we could start arguing facts and figures. Figures about how many loving parents are waiting for babies to adopt, or how many women died from illegal abortions before it was legalized, or how many women are able to successfully juggle kids and careers, or how many unwanted children are mistreated, abused and sick, how much taxpayer money is used to perform abortions, how much medical research can be advanced, and on and on and on. But I'm not writing about facts and figures. I'm not writing about how bad the act of abortion is or what would happen if it suddenly became illegal (my opinion is that it would be bad and bloody, but that's another post), or the benefits of keeping it legal.
What I'm talking about is us, the people of the world, all of us everywhere that have built ourselves a society where such a thing as abortion can even exist. That there can be even one woman, somewhere, anywhere on the planet at any time, who has to face that choice, that has to find out she's pregnant and think "Oh, God, what will I do now". How have we come to that?
And what can be done about it?
I don't have answers to either one. At least not on a "OMG that's the answer for the whole world" scale.
What I do know is that suddenly stamping the word "Overturned" on Roe v. Wade solves nothing. It doesn't solve the issue of 'unwanted pregnancy'. Electing a President or Congress-person because they will "end abortion" is not the way to go. Cutting off taxpayer money funneled to Planned Parenthood doesn't make it stop. Making the act of ending a pregnancy illegal doesn't touch the root of the problem - the fact that an unwanted pregnancy could even exists.
But it's a start, you might say, chop the head off the dragon and eventually the rest will die.
I respectfully disagree. Like the mythical Hydra, this dragon will just grow more heads. And more. And more. The only way to slay the dragon is the heart.
And the heart of this problem is not ending abortion, it's making it UNNECESSARY.
And how do we do that?
I don't know. And that's why I'm pro-choice. Because I don't know what else to be. I don't have any answers. Oh, I have opinions, ideas, things I can do, like educate my children, talk to the boys and girls in my life, at my church, my nieces, nephews, and grandchildren and TEACH them how not to cause an unwanted pregnancy, but that's not a solution. And no guarantee that any of those kids will actually listen to me.
Until there is a sweeping change in society, where every pregnancy is wanted (whatever form that may take) we all must act in love, peace, and compassion for our fellow woman (and man). Until we stop judging the pregnant woman for getting pregnant, then judge her again for her choice, then judge her again after that choice is made - until there comes a time when there doesn't have to BE a choice, then all we should do, all we MUST do is act in love.
Everything else feeds the dragon.
I am a Christian, and I am Pro-Choice. No, that is not an oxymoron. Seriously, you can be both. Let me explain.
I don't like death of any kind. I think life is important, sacred, and should be preserved. Whether it's a baby in the womb, an AIDS victim, or a 98 year old great grandmother with Alzheimer's, we need to do everything we can to protect, preserve and heal those lives.
I don't LIKE abortion. If anyone claims they LIKE it, that person should be put away in a rubber room. No one LIKE death or blood or violence. But these things exist in our world. Even those who make money off of selling weapons and such will tell you that, if the gun they sold was pointed at their own head, they wouldn't like it so much.
And while the phrase is "Pro-Choice", I don't LIKE the choice. I don't like that there has to BE a choice. I don't like that a teenage girl or a woman living in poverty or even a successful business woman has to make a CHOICE about what to do with their unborn child. I don't LIKE that there exists situations where a woman has to choose between the relationship there are in or their baby, keeping a minimum wage job with no benefits and a baby, keeping their hard earned success and a baby. I don't like that we live in a world where unwed mothers are stigmatized and ostracized and a choice has to be made.
But that is the world we live in.
Now at this point we could start arguing facts and figures. Figures about how many loving parents are waiting for babies to adopt, or how many women died from illegal abortions before it was legalized, or how many women are able to successfully juggle kids and careers, or how many unwanted children are mistreated, abused and sick, how much taxpayer money is used to perform abortions, how much medical research can be advanced, and on and on and on. But I'm not writing about facts and figures. I'm not writing about how bad the act of abortion is or what would happen if it suddenly became illegal (my opinion is that it would be bad and bloody, but that's another post), or the benefits of keeping it legal.
What I'm talking about is us, the people of the world, all of us everywhere that have built ourselves a society where such a thing as abortion can even exist. That there can be even one woman, somewhere, anywhere on the planet at any time, who has to face that choice, that has to find out she's pregnant and think "Oh, God, what will I do now". How have we come to that?
And what can be done about it?
I don't have answers to either one. At least not on a "OMG that's the answer for the whole world" scale.
What I do know is that suddenly stamping the word "Overturned" on Roe v. Wade solves nothing. It doesn't solve the issue of 'unwanted pregnancy'. Electing a President or Congress-person because they will "end abortion" is not the way to go. Cutting off taxpayer money funneled to Planned Parenthood doesn't make it stop. Making the act of ending a pregnancy illegal doesn't touch the root of the problem - the fact that an unwanted pregnancy could even exists.
But it's a start, you might say, chop the head off the dragon and eventually the rest will die.
I respectfully disagree. Like the mythical Hydra, this dragon will just grow more heads. And more. And more. The only way to slay the dragon is the heart.
And the heart of this problem is not ending abortion, it's making it UNNECESSARY.
And how do we do that?
I don't know. And that's why I'm pro-choice. Because I don't know what else to be. I don't have any answers. Oh, I have opinions, ideas, things I can do, like educate my children, talk to the boys and girls in my life, at my church, my nieces, nephews, and grandchildren and TEACH them how not to cause an unwanted pregnancy, but that's not a solution. And no guarantee that any of those kids will actually listen to me.
Until there is a sweeping change in society, where every pregnancy is wanted (whatever form that may take) we all must act in love, peace, and compassion for our fellow woman (and man). Until we stop judging the pregnant woman for getting pregnant, then judge her again for her choice, then judge her again after that choice is made - until there comes a time when there doesn't have to BE a choice, then all we should do, all we MUST do is act in love.
Everything else feeds the dragon.
Just can't take it anymore. I might regret posting this, but....
Recent events have again brought the "Islam vs. The World" discussion into the spotlight again. The so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" continues to be debated, argued, and protested.
I've made a couple of comments here and there, but really tried to stay out of the debate because, honestly, it doesn't really affect me and I don't have the energy to be able to fight battles that aren't mine.
A couple of days ago, however, I received the most hateful, hate-filled, email from someone I thought was above such things. Someone, as a veteran and a pastor, I thought should have known better. The email, obviously one of those chain letters, but with his own diatribe attached, is so vile that I can't repost it here. But the gist of it was that we should cover the site of the "Ground Zero Mosque" in pig blood so the Muslims won't want it. And more so, we should just throw pig blood at anyone who uses a prayer rug or wears "Muslim" head coverings. (I know, that alone is pretty vile, but the language of the email was just disgusting.)
My dear wife, the kind, loving soul that she is, tried to remind our pastor friend that "They will know we are Christians by our love." His response was "you have no idea" and "they want to kill all Christians" and "maybe instead of telling me off maybe you should do your homework", and various other things that sounded like he'd heard them on Fox News.
Well, Mr. Preacher friend, we have done our homework, which obviously you haven't. I have read the Qur'an and I know what it says. Which obviously you haven't. Here's some things I've found, I will share them with you so maybe next time you will know what you are talking about:
Just like the Bible or any other writing for that matter, context is everything. Taking a word or a sentence out of context, you can claim it means anything. But in context is where it's true meaning lies.
So, mr. pastor man, you say the Qur'an says to kill Christians? Where does it say that? Oh, right here, you might say, pulling up a passage such as 5:51 which says:
But when you read the context, you know, the whole story that this verse is just a part of, you see clearly that it's about a camp of Muslims that is under assault by an enemy that is composed of Christians and Jews (not ALL Christians and Jews, just the "local" ones in this scenario, get it?) In fact, it's not even talking about devout Christians in this situation, but some that are obviously acting like idiots. Passage 5:59, part of this story, says:
Ok, you might say, but what about 3:85 that says:
Yeah, you say, but what about 2:191 that says:
OK, smart guy who actually reads, you might say, I've got you this time. 9:29 says:
We can go on and on and on. There is a lot of verses in the Qur'an that talk about killing and fighting and destroying. Taken out of context, you can claim they mean anything. But guess what? The Bible has a lot of verses about killing and fighting and destroying, too.
But you, mr. pastor man who went to Bible college (or at least claimed you did), should know that. If I point out verses from the Old Testament where the Israelites were taking the promised land and were ordered to kill every child and woman and animal when they took a city, you would give me a long list of reasons why God told them they could do that. True Muslims will have the same answers for what is in their writings.
The point here, mr. pastor man, before you go out throwing pig blood on innocent people, maybe you should do your homework and actually know what they believe. Should we characterize all Christians by the actions of the Westboro Baptist church (the ones who picket soldier's funerals with signs that say "God hates f**s")? Do you , mr. pastor man, want your church lumped in with them? No. Then neither should you lump all Muslims in with a small group of terrorists.
Ok. Rant over.
In full disclosure, I am a Christian. I do not agree with the writings of Muhammed. However, though I wish everyone could understand and believe as I do, I understand that others have made their choice of what to believe and I feel they should be free to do so and be free to practice the religion of their choice as long as it does not lead to harming other people.
I do not feel that all religions lead to the same god, or the same heaven. I believe Christ is the only way to find peace, forgiveness, and eternal life. But Muslims, Jews, atheists, and all others who have made a conscious choice of what they believe, are not my enemies. We are all children of God, no matter what we believe, and as such I feel everyone, all people, should be treated with love, respect, and dignity.
Yes, I know there are terrorists out there who thump their Qur'an and say they are doing what it says. That they feel they are going to be rewarded with they blow themselves up in a suicide bombing. And I know that many good young Americans have died at their hands. I know that, and am deeply distressed by it. But when you look at what the terrorist groups are saying the Qur'an says, you will see they are making the same mistake my pastor friend is, taking things out of context. And I feel they represent all Muslims as much as Westboro Baptist represents all Christians: not at all.
And, yes, I believe the "Ground Zero Mosque" should be allowed to proceed. They need to replace the one that was inside the Twin Towers. (Yes, there was a Muslim prayer room in the Twin Towers. Look it up.)
Ok, now my rant is truly over. Hate me if you want. I don't care. I'm a Christian, so I love you whether you like it or not!
I've made a couple of comments here and there, but really tried to stay out of the debate because, honestly, it doesn't really affect me and I don't have the energy to be able to fight battles that aren't mine.
A couple of days ago, however, I received the most hateful, hate-filled, email from someone I thought was above such things. Someone, as a veteran and a pastor, I thought should have known better. The email, obviously one of those chain letters, but with his own diatribe attached, is so vile that I can't repost it here. But the gist of it was that we should cover the site of the "Ground Zero Mosque" in pig blood so the Muslims won't want it. And more so, we should just throw pig blood at anyone who uses a prayer rug or wears "Muslim" head coverings. (I know, that alone is pretty vile, but the language of the email was just disgusting.)
My dear wife, the kind, loving soul that she is, tried to remind our pastor friend that "They will know we are Christians by our love." His response was "you have no idea" and "they want to kill all Christians" and "maybe instead of telling me off maybe you should do your homework", and various other things that sounded like he'd heard them on Fox News.
Well, Mr. Preacher friend, we have done our homework, which obviously you haven't. I have read the Qur'an and I know what it says. Which obviously you haven't. Here's some things I've found, I will share them with you so maybe next time you will know what you are talking about:
Just like the Bible or any other writing for that matter, context is everything. Taking a word or a sentence out of context, you can claim it means anything. But in context is where it's true meaning lies.
So, mr. pastor man, you say the Qur'an says to kill Christians? Where does it say that? Oh, right here, you might say, pulling up a passage such as 5:51 which says:
"You who believe, do not take the Jews and Christians as allies: they are allies only to each other. Anyone who takes them as an ally becomes one of them – Allah does not guide such wrongdoers.”
But when you read the context, you know, the whole story that this verse is just a part of, you see clearly that it's about a camp of Muslims that is under assault by an enemy that is composed of Christians and Jews (not ALL Christians and Jews, just the "local" ones in this scenario, get it?) In fact, it's not even talking about devout Christians in this situation, but some that are obviously acting like idiots. Passage 5:59, part of this story, says:
"People of the Book, do you resent us for any reason other than the fact that we believe in God, in what was sent down to us, and in what was sent before us, while most of you are disobedient?"
Ok, you might say, but what about 3:85 that says:
"He that chooses a religion other than Islam, it will not be accepted of him and in the world to come, he will be one of the lost."Well, yeah, that says if you don't believe in Islam you are going to "hell". How is that different from where Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life..."? Obviously Islam will claim to be the only way, just as Christianity does.
Yeah, you say, but what about 2:191 that says:
"...Slay them where you find them..."Obviously that refers to anyone who is not Muslim! Well, no, mr. pastor man. Again, you haven't done your homework and you're taking it way out of context. The story here is that early Muslims, upon migrating to Medina, were in a battle for their lives. They were fighting just to stay alive. Yes, it says to 'slay them', but guess what? it also says:
2:193 - "...if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression."In other words, 'when they stop trying to kill us, stop killing them'. The story here is "acting in self-defense" in this particular situation.
OK, smart guy who actually reads, you might say, I've got you this time. 9:29 says:
"Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day..."Sigh, I say, context context context. The verse before is referring to pagans who are trying to attack the mosque. It's about defending their "temple" against an enemy who wants to destroy it. Again, self-defense in a particular battle.
We can go on and on and on. There is a lot of verses in the Qur'an that talk about killing and fighting and destroying. Taken out of context, you can claim they mean anything. But guess what? The Bible has a lot of verses about killing and fighting and destroying, too.
But you, mr. pastor man who went to Bible college (or at least claimed you did), should know that. If I point out verses from the Old Testament where the Israelites were taking the promised land and were ordered to kill every child and woman and animal when they took a city, you would give me a long list of reasons why God told them they could do that. True Muslims will have the same answers for what is in their writings.
The point here, mr. pastor man, before you go out throwing pig blood on innocent people, maybe you should do your homework and actually know what they believe. Should we characterize all Christians by the actions of the Westboro Baptist church (the ones who picket soldier's funerals with signs that say "God hates f**s")? Do you , mr. pastor man, want your church lumped in with them? No. Then neither should you lump all Muslims in with a small group of terrorists.
Ok. Rant over.
In full disclosure, I am a Christian. I do not agree with the writings of Muhammed. However, though I wish everyone could understand and believe as I do, I understand that others have made their choice of what to believe and I feel they should be free to do so and be free to practice the religion of their choice as long as it does not lead to harming other people.
I do not feel that all religions lead to the same god, or the same heaven. I believe Christ is the only way to find peace, forgiveness, and eternal life. But Muslims, Jews, atheists, and all others who have made a conscious choice of what they believe, are not my enemies. We are all children of God, no matter what we believe, and as such I feel everyone, all people, should be treated with love, respect, and dignity.
Yes, I know there are terrorists out there who thump their Qur'an and say they are doing what it says. That they feel they are going to be rewarded with they blow themselves up in a suicide bombing. And I know that many good young Americans have died at their hands. I know that, and am deeply distressed by it. But when you look at what the terrorist groups are saying the Qur'an says, you will see they are making the same mistake my pastor friend is, taking things out of context. And I feel they represent all Muslims as much as Westboro Baptist represents all Christians: not at all.
And, yes, I believe the "Ground Zero Mosque" should be allowed to proceed. They need to replace the one that was inside the Twin Towers. (Yes, there was a Muslim prayer room in the Twin Towers. Look it up.)
Ok, now my rant is truly over. Hate me if you want. I don't care. I'm a Christian, so I love you whether you like it or not!
Ask Yourself "What Would Jesus Do?" (Unless it's a question of money, then you should fight to keep it)
I have some conservative friends that will probably never speak to me again after reading this, but that's their choice. This is just my opinion and they don't have to like me for it. I consider myself fairly conservative, leaning toward libertarian, but I am honestly frustrated and disgusted by what many conservatives are doing these days to get their point across. What's worse, many are doing it under than banner of "The Religious Right" (as in "we are Right and you are wrong").
Let me start with one that was just completely ridiculous. I saw this commercial the other night on late-night TV. I haven't seen it since and couldn't find the website, so I'm hoping someone told them how much of an idiot they are and they shut down. The commercial said something like this:
"The liberals are trying to shut down American industry by declaring CO2 a pollutant. If they do, then the world will end because CO2 is actually good for the planet and if we produce more of it it will be good for all of us. Let congressman Joe Blow know that we want our CO2."
Seriously, that's what it said. Now any 4th grade student will tell you that plants use CO2 to produce oxygen, but they will also tell you that too much CO2 isn't a good thing. They will tell you that plants use so little CO2 that if everything that produces CO2 were to suddenly go away (humans, animals, all that stuff) and the plants were left alone with the CO2 that's already in the air, they would never run out. They can also point to a time when there was more CO2 and the world wasn't any better. They teach this stuff in GRADE SCHOOL. (Let's not go to the whole "All teacher's are Liberal Fascists" argument, ok?)
So are we honestly counting on the stupidity of the American people that we are willing to invent an issue that doesn't really exist to try to disable our current government? Or are we honestly too stupid ourselves to know how stupid we are in our attempts to distract our government from real issues?
The one that's driving me and everyone else up the wall is health care reform. No one, except maybe the insurance companies that are doing quite will, will deny that there are problems with our current system. Everyone that's been to the doctor or knows someone who's been to the doctor can tell you about some experience with the system, be it large or small, that is a symptom of it's broken-ness. Can we all agree on that? Yes? Good. No? Then I'm really happy that you don't have any serious health problems, because if you did, then you would know just how broken it is.
Either way, everyone has on opinion in the current debate over health care. There are so many sides to this problem that I don't think it's possible, unless someone devotes themselves to it full time, for anyone to fully understand the current debate in Washington. But the biggest thing that everyone seems to be howling about is the so-called "Public Option".
This, in itself, is a complex issue, but here's how I understand it. Imagine a Wal-Mart. (Let's call it Insurance-Mart.)The products on the shelves of this Insurance-Mart represent all the options you have for buying health insurance. That can there represents MetLife, that box is Blue Cross, etc. If you are buying health insurance you have many bright shiny options to choose from in the Insurance-Mart. Some people don't have to shop at Insurance-Mart because their employer shops there for them, but other people come here when they need to.
Now, when you shop at a real Wal-Mart, next to the name brands you'll see a Wal-mart brand. Like if you are buying spaghetti sauce, you'll see Ragu and Prego and Hunts, but you'll also see Sam's Choice or Member's Mark or something like that.
The public option for health care would be like the "store brand" in our Insurance-Mart. It's cheaper, doesn't taste quite the same, but it's just as good. Some people will choose the store brand because they can't afford the name brand.
Now, it's a lot more complicated than that, but that's a pretty good way of looking at it from a layman's point of view.
Now what people are freaking out about is paying for it. Someone has to produce the store-brand for it to be on the shelf. The people freaking out don't want their hard-earned tax dollars going to help people that don't deserve it. (Let's just forget the reality of tax-payer supported programs like Medicaid and Medicare and how many people on those programs don't deserve it...) And that's a valid point. But what if people DO deserve it? What if someone is really honestly desperately in need or they will die?
(Incidentally, if you want to read the bills, here they are:
senate bill: http://documents.propublica.org/senate-health-care-bill#p=1
house bill: http://documents.propublica.org/house-health-care-bill#p=1
senate finance bill (the one that says how it's all getting paid for):http://www.opencongress.org/baucus_bill_health_care.html )
Some people would say, "So what? Let them die. I'm keeping my money." And the worst part about this is, some of the people who are saying that are saying things like "The Bible doesn't say I have to help people this way" or "God wants me to be rich, you must have done something to deserve to be poor."
And that just makes me want to puke. To these folks, "What Would Jesus Do?" seems to apply to every part of their life except where their money is concerned.
A conversation with them might go some thing like this:
What would Jesus do? Well, let's look at what Jesus DID do. He walked on water, He gave some sermons, He healed the sick and the lame, He died on a cross, He came back to life.... wait.. go back a couple... what was that? He healed the sick and the lame? Yes, he helped people who couldn't help themselves.
You mean the very people that I, I mean, some are saying don't deserve to live because they are poor are the very people that Jesus helped while he was here on Earth?
Yes. Exactly. So why wouldn't you want to do the same?
Well, it's all very well and good if I want to do it on my own, but the government shouldn't force me to do it by taking my money and giving it to others.
Ok, I see that point. (Let's just not discuss how you want the government to force other people to do things, like not get an abortion. But OK.) So, exactly how much of your money do you give out to help these people? Oh, and before you answer, did you ever consider that if you and everyone else who thinks it's a good idea actually DID it, the government wouldn't have to, did you ever think of that?
That's when they usually start calling me a liberal socialist and throw things at me.
If you want to debate health care reform and what is right and what is wrong, fine, but don't hide behind your Bible and say you're entitled to keep your money. As a believer you should believe that it's not your money anyway, everything belongs to God and He loans it to you to do something with it. Don't hide behind James Dobson and pretend you know what you're talking about.
Ok. I'm off on a rant. I'll stop that now.
My original point was, why are some so gung-ho to derail this President and his programs? Is it just because he is a liberal? I don't think so. The Clinton era had much more radical programs and ideas and I didn't see people saying we should shoot him. In fact, many of the things that are coming around now are things that Clinton tried to do when he as in office. (Does anyone remember the flap over Clinton's plan for a single-payer health care system? No, of course not.) There just seems to be something about the individual that is President rather than what he says that seems to get to people.
Now, for the record, let me just say, I'm not too fond of the President's plans - not all of them anyway. But that's not an attack on him as a person or his beliefs, just his policies. Also, there are some things he stands for that I LOATHE. However, I'm not going to go out there and make up lies to try to derail the process. Lies will backfire from both ways. All I or anyone else can do is KNOW what is TRUE and work the system the right way. That's how Abraham Lincoln did it, that's how Truman did it, and that's how we need to do it.
I'm ranting again aren't I? I can't help it. I'll shut up now.
Let me start with one that was just completely ridiculous. I saw this commercial the other night on late-night TV. I haven't seen it since and couldn't find the website, so I'm hoping someone told them how much of an idiot they are and they shut down. The commercial said something like this:
"The liberals are trying to shut down American industry by declaring CO2 a pollutant. If they do, then the world will end because CO2 is actually good for the planet and if we produce more of it it will be good for all of us. Let congressman Joe Blow know that we want our CO2."
Seriously, that's what it said. Now any 4th grade student will tell you that plants use CO2 to produce oxygen, but they will also tell you that too much CO2 isn't a good thing. They will tell you that plants use so little CO2 that if everything that produces CO2 were to suddenly go away (humans, animals, all that stuff) and the plants were left alone with the CO2 that's already in the air, they would never run out. They can also point to a time when there was more CO2 and the world wasn't any better. They teach this stuff in GRADE SCHOOL. (Let's not go to the whole "All teacher's are Liberal Fascists" argument, ok?)
So are we honestly counting on the stupidity of the American people that we are willing to invent an issue that doesn't really exist to try to disable our current government? Or are we honestly too stupid ourselves to know how stupid we are in our attempts to distract our government from real issues?
The one that's driving me and everyone else up the wall is health care reform. No one, except maybe the insurance companies that are doing quite will, will deny that there are problems with our current system. Everyone that's been to the doctor or knows someone who's been to the doctor can tell you about some experience with the system, be it large or small, that is a symptom of it's broken-ness. Can we all agree on that? Yes? Good. No? Then I'm really happy that you don't have any serious health problems, because if you did, then you would know just how broken it is.
Either way, everyone has on opinion in the current debate over health care. There are so many sides to this problem that I don't think it's possible, unless someone devotes themselves to it full time, for anyone to fully understand the current debate in Washington. But the biggest thing that everyone seems to be howling about is the so-called "Public Option".
This, in itself, is a complex issue, but here's how I understand it. Imagine a Wal-Mart. (Let's call it Insurance-Mart.)The products on the shelves of this Insurance-Mart represent all the options you have for buying health insurance. That can there represents MetLife, that box is Blue Cross, etc. If you are buying health insurance you have many bright shiny options to choose from in the Insurance-Mart. Some people don't have to shop at Insurance-Mart because their employer shops there for them, but other people come here when they need to.
Now, when you shop at a real Wal-Mart, next to the name brands you'll see a Wal-mart brand. Like if you are buying spaghetti sauce, you'll see Ragu and Prego and Hunts, but you'll also see Sam's Choice or Member's Mark or something like that.
The public option for health care would be like the "store brand" in our Insurance-Mart. It's cheaper, doesn't taste quite the same, but it's just as good. Some people will choose the store brand because they can't afford the name brand.
Now, it's a lot more complicated than that, but that's a pretty good way of looking at it from a layman's point of view.
Now what people are freaking out about is paying for it. Someone has to produce the store-brand for it to be on the shelf. The people freaking out don't want their hard-earned tax dollars going to help people that don't deserve it. (Let's just forget the reality of tax-payer supported programs like Medicaid and Medicare and how many people on those programs don't deserve it...) And that's a valid point. But what if people DO deserve it? What if someone is really honestly desperately in need or they will die?
(Incidentally, if you want to read the bills, here they are:
senate bill: http://documents.propublic
house bill: http://documents.propublic
senate finance bill (the one that says how it's all getting paid for):http://www.opencongress.or
Some people would say, "So what? Let them die. I'm keeping my money." And the worst part about this is, some of the people who are saying that are saying things like "The Bible doesn't say I have to help people this way" or "God wants me to be rich, you must have done something to deserve to be poor."
And that just makes me want to puke. To these folks, "What Would Jesus Do?" seems to apply to every part of their life except where their money is concerned.
A conversation with them might go some thing like this:
What would Jesus do? Well, let's look at what Jesus DID do. He walked on water, He gave some sermons, He healed the sick and the lame, He died on a cross, He came back to life.... wait.. go back a couple... what was that? He healed the sick and the lame? Yes, he helped people who couldn't help themselves.
You mean the very people that I, I mean, some are saying don't deserve to live because they are poor are the very people that Jesus helped while he was here on Earth?
Yes. Exactly. So why wouldn't you want to do the same?
Well, it's all very well and good if I want to do it on my own, but the government shouldn't force me to do it by taking my money and giving it to others.
Ok, I see that point. (Let's just not discuss how you want the government to force other people to do things, like not get an abortion. But OK.) So, exactly how much of your money do you give out to help these people? Oh, and before you answer, did you ever consider that if you and everyone else who thinks it's a good idea actually DID it, the government wouldn't have to, did you ever think of that?
That's when they usually start calling me a liberal socialist and throw things at me.
If you want to debate health care reform and what is right and what is wrong, fine, but don't hide behind your Bible and say you're entitled to keep your money. As a believer you should believe that it's not your money anyway, everything belongs to God and He loans it to you to do something with it. Don't hide behind James Dobson and pretend you know what you're talking about.
Ok. I'm off on a rant. I'll stop that now.
My original point was, why are some so gung-ho to derail this President and his programs? Is it just because he is a liberal? I don't think so. The Clinton era had much more radical programs and ideas and I didn't see people saying we should shoot him. In fact, many of the things that are coming around now are things that Clinton tried to do when he as in office. (Does anyone remember the flap over Clinton's plan for a single-payer health care system? No, of course not.) There just seems to be something about the individual that is President rather than what he says that seems to get to people.
Now, for the record, let me just say, I'm not too fond of the President's plans - not all of them anyway. But that's not an attack on him as a person or his beliefs, just his policies. Also, there are some things he stands for that I LOATHE. However, I'm not going to go out there and make up lies to try to derail the process. Lies will backfire from both ways. All I or anyone else can do is KNOW what is TRUE and work the system the right way. That's how Abraham Lincoln did it, that's how Truman did it, and that's how we need to do it.
I'm ranting again aren't I? I can't help it. I'll shut up now.
Seriously? I mean, Seriously?
The NRA just assumes they have enough power to intimidate senators not to vote for a supreme court nominee? Seriously?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32251444/ns/politics-capitol_hill/
At what point did any lobby group come to have such a high opinion of itself? The fact that they have that opinion shows there has to be some truth behind it.
Seriously.
Time to shoot all lobbyists on sight and get the government to listen to the people again.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32251444/ns/politics-capitol_hill/
At what point did any lobby group come to have such a high opinion of itself? The fact that they have that opinion shows there has to be some truth behind it.
Seriously.
Time to shoot all lobbyists on sight and get the government to listen to the people again.
I don't want him to fail
I do hold some conservative values. Being a Christian I am often lumped in with extreme conservatives because of what many presume I believe based on my religious orientation. However, when I truly examine my political views, I find I fall outside of mainline conservatives. Nor am I a liberal, by the strictest political definition. If I have to affiliate myself with a political party, I am closest to being a Libertarian.
There has been a lot of talk on the talk shows lately (I guess that's what they're for) about a comment from Rush Limbaugh saying he wants President Obama to fail. Some conservatives have even gone so far as to say "he's not my president". I hate that. Like his views or not, voted for him or not, Barak Obama was legally voted by a majority to be THE President of the United States. If you are an American citizen, he is your President.
Some say Mr. Limbaugh's quote was taken out of context. I've read what was said, the whole monologue in which the quote took place. I've heard a replay of the radio broadcast. There is no mistaking that the quote is meant exactly as it stands. He wants Obama to fail. To say such a thing show contempt for the office, and likewise for the American people.
Now, do I like everything that has happened in the last 35 days or so since President Obama was sworn in? No. I don't think anyone does 100%, not even the President himself. Do I like the fact that the stimulus package was designed to help corporations and government instead of bailing out the people directly? No. But, do I want these programs to fail? No. Why? Because unlike Mr. Limbaugh and other "loud" conservatives, I don't have a pot of gold hanging from my butt. Me and my family are $5 away from having to skip a meal because we can't afford food. I already have had to do without my medication for about 2 months which has led to a rapid decline in my condition. We're having to pick and choose what things our children participate in and which functions we drive to because we can't afford the gas.
Failure of Obama's (and the Democratically controlled congress') plans means disaster for my family and many of my friends. Every day another "for sale" sign goes up in my neighborhood with "foreclosed" pasted to it. And we live in an area with lots of cheaply made mobile/modular homes. It's scary. I don't think the plans in action are the best options, but failure is not an option, and to say that or to think that shows nothing except a level of self-centered-ness and narcissism that American's don't need right now. Especially when you don't have any other ideas except "don't raise my taxes because I'm rich". Being rich in a time of need shows a contempt for your fellow man that is disgusting. I'm not talking about relative wealth, I'm talking you have millions in the bank, make hundreds of thousands a year while your former neighbor lives in a tent down by the river.Shut up, pay your taxes, open your heart and wallet and DO SOMETHING.
AND if I hear one more person say "pull yourself up by your bootstraps like I did", I'm gonna punch them. It's hard to pull yourself up by your bootstraps when the the banks, stock market, and AIG (why do we keep giving them money?) lost your boots.
So, my conservative friends, I am officially distancing myself from anyone who supports Mr. Limbaugh or who shares his views. President Obama IS my president and I DON'T want him to fail.
I pray fervently that he doesn't.
There has been a lot of talk on the talk shows lately (I guess that's what they're for) about a comment from Rush Limbaugh saying he wants President Obama to fail. Some conservatives have even gone so far as to say "he's not my president". I hate that. Like his views or not, voted for him or not, Barak Obama was legally voted by a majority to be THE President of the United States. If you are an American citizen, he is your President.
Some say Mr. Limbaugh's quote was taken out of context. I've read what was said, the whole monologue in which the quote took place. I've heard a replay of the radio broadcast. There is no mistaking that the quote is meant exactly as it stands. He wants Obama to fail. To say such a thing show contempt for the office, and likewise for the American people.
Now, do I like everything that has happened in the last 35 days or so since President Obama was sworn in? No. I don't think anyone does 100%, not even the President himself. Do I like the fact that the stimulus package was designed to help corporations and government instead of bailing out the people directly? No. But, do I want these programs to fail? No. Why? Because unlike Mr. Limbaugh and other "loud" conservatives, I don't have a pot of gold hanging from my butt. Me and my family are $5 away from having to skip a meal because we can't afford food. I already have had to do without my medication for about 2 months which has led to a rapid decline in my condition. We're having to pick and choose what things our children participate in and which functions we drive to because we can't afford the gas.
Failure of Obama's (and the Democratically controlled congress') plans means disaster for my family and many of my friends. Every day another "for sale" sign goes up in my neighborhood with "foreclosed" pasted to it. And we live in an area with lots of cheaply made mobile/modular homes. It's scary. I don't think the plans in action are the best options, but failure is not an option, and to say that or to think that shows nothing except a level of self-centered-ness and narcissism that American's don't need right now. Especially when you don't have any other ideas except "don't raise my taxes because I'm rich". Being rich in a time of need shows a contempt for your fellow man that is disgusting. I'm not talking about relative wealth, I'm talking you have millions in the bank, make hundreds of thousands a year while your former neighbor lives in a tent down by the river.Shut up, pay your taxes, open your heart and wallet and DO SOMETHING.
AND if I hear one more person say "pull yourself up by your bootstraps like I did", I'm gonna punch them. It's hard to pull yourself up by your bootstraps when the the banks, stock market, and AIG (why do we keep giving them money?) lost your boots.
So, my conservative friends, I am officially distancing myself from anyone who supports Mr. Limbaugh or who shares his views. President Obama IS my president and I DON'T want him to fail.
I pray fervently that he doesn't.
Our Stolen Governor
If you haven't heard, it's practically a done deal that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson will be joining Obama as Commerce Secretary. (Personally, I feel he would have made a better Secretary of State than whats-her-name, but in this economy I think the position of Commerce Secretary will prove to be much more important.)
I applaud Obama for reaching out to his former opponents. I think that's going to prove to be his real talent: putting the right people in charge of the right things.
One thing that's bugging me (not about Obama). If I get one more "scary" email about how "share the wealth" is going to destroy the country I'm going to send that person an email bomb (totally crash their computer - I can do it, don't tempt me.) The democratic party is not about enslaving the American people. We're not going to become a Socialist or Communist or Islamic country just because Obama was elected. We still have a government "of the people, by the people, for the people". When our new President and congressmen take office and you don't like the way things are going, get involved. Don't sit back and complain, get on the phone and complain, send emails and letter. That's the beauty of a representative government, you can contact your senators and representatives and tell them what you want. Will they always listen? I can't promise that, since they represent more than just you, but at least you'll be heard.
I applaud Obama for reaching out to his former opponents. I think that's going to prove to be his real talent: putting the right people in charge of the right things.
One thing that's bugging me (not about Obama). If I get one more "scary" email about how "share the wealth" is going to destroy the country I'm going to send that person an email bomb (totally crash their computer - I can do it, don't tempt me.) The democratic party is not about enslaving the American people. We're not going to become a Socialist or Communist or Islamic country just because Obama was elected. We still have a government "of the people, by the people, for the people". When our new President and congressmen take office and you don't like the way things are going, get involved. Don't sit back and complain, get on the phone and complain, send emails and letter. That's the beauty of a representative government, you can contact your senators and representatives and tell them what you want. Will they always listen? I can't promise that, since they represent more than just you, but at least you'll be heard.
Did I hear that right?
Ok, I know the election is over and everyone is tired of talking about politics and just wants to get on with fixing what's wrong with America.
(Wasn't it President Clinton who said "There is nothing wrong with America that can't be fixed by what is RIGHT with America."? Love him or hate him, that's a good quote.)
But I heard a sermon yesterday that has me really confused and upset and I'm hoping my Christian friends (and non-Christian friends, if you have an opinion!) can help me figure this out.
Basically, the message of the sermon is that while Christians are free to vote, there's really no point because:
A) [Pilate said] “... Do you not know that I have authority to release you and authority to crucify you?” 11 Jesus answered him,“You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above...." John 19:10-11 (ESV)
Which means all authority comes from God, He has chose who should be in power, so our vote means nothing.
B) (Earlier in the conversation) Jesus [said] “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” John 18:36 (ESV)
Which means if we are followers of Christ, He is our King, and our kingdom is not of this world, so there's no point in voting because we are not truly citizens here.
Now I wish I had taken notes during this sermon, because the preacher did make some excellent points that I have blogged about before, such as:
Christian ≠ Republican and vice versa
Churches that are out there handing out flyers and such to "get the vote out" and then disappear for another 4 years are doing it wrong.
Christians need to worry less about what is being taught in public schools and more about what we are teaching at home. (ie. Why fight for Intellegent Design to be taught in biology class if you never talk about it at home - and may not know enough about it to do so anyway.)
and, one of my mantras
You can't, and shouldn't try to legislate morality. To change the law, you must first change the hearts of people. (For example, to end abortion, you don't just outlaw it, you reach the heart of every woman until the option of abortion is no longer and option to them.)
So he made some good points, but I just can't get my head around this not voting thing. I know many Christian groups are like that, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses. However, our founding fathers were very well versed in Scripture and many were believers. They knew what they were doing when they laid down the Constitution and made the United States a republic.
In a republic the authority belongs to the PEOPLE. In the Gettysburg address, Abraham Lincoln described democracy in his closing lines:
"...that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the Earth.”
So, my conclusion is, all authority is given by God, but in a democracy, that authority is given to the people. The President, Congress, and all authority in the US ultimately answers to the people. However, just because that authority is given does not mean that it is endorsed. Those in authority have the ability to really screw things up. In the case of the United States, we the people are free to really mess things up by not voting or voting the wrong way.
Am I making sense? Do you think I'm on the right track here? What do you think?
(Wasn't it President Clinton who said "There is nothing wrong with America that can't be fixed by what is RIGHT with America."? Love him or hate him, that's a good quote.)
But I heard a sermon yesterday that has me really confused and upset and I'm hoping my Christian friends (and non-Christian friends, if you have an opinion!) can help me figure this out.
Basically, the message of the sermon is that while Christians are free to vote, there's really no point because:
A) [Pilate said] “... Do you not know that I have authority to release you and authority to crucify you?” 11 Jesus answered him,“You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above...." John 19:10-11 (ESV)
Which means all authority comes from God, He has chose who should be in power, so our vote means nothing.
B) (Earlier in the conversation) Jesus [said] “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” John 18:36 (ESV)
Which means if we are followers of Christ, He is our King, and our kingdom is not of this world, so there's no point in voting because we are not truly citizens here.
Now I wish I had taken notes during this sermon, because the preacher did make some excellent points that I have blogged about before, such as:
Christian ≠ Republican and vice versa
Churches that are out there handing out flyers and such to "get the vote out" and then disappear for another 4 years are doing it wrong.
Christians need to worry less about what is being taught in public schools and more about what we are teaching at home. (ie. Why fight for Intellegent Design to be taught in biology class if you never talk about it at home - and may not know enough about it to do so anyway.)
and, one of my mantras
You can't, and shouldn't try to legislate morality. To change the law, you must first change the hearts of people. (For example, to end abortion, you don't just outlaw it, you reach the heart of every woman until the option of abortion is no longer and option to them.)
So he made some good points, but I just can't get my head around this not voting thing. I know many Christian groups are like that, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses. However, our founding fathers were very well versed in Scripture and many were believers. They knew what they were doing when they laid down the Constitution and made the United States a republic.
In a republic the authority belongs to the PEOPLE. In the Gettysburg address, Abraham Lincoln described democracy in his closing lines:
"...that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the Earth.”
So, my conclusion is, all authority is given by God, but in a democracy, that authority is given to the people. The President, Congress, and all authority in the US ultimately answers to the people. However, just because that authority is given does not mean that it is endorsed. Those in authority have the ability to really screw things up. In the case of the United States, we the people are free to really mess things up by not voting or voting the wrong way.
Am I making sense? Do you think I'm on the right track here? What do you think?
My Voting Experience
We got to our polling place about an hour after it opened. It's the garage of the local water company, so the building isn't very big, but there were about 20 people inside and we had to wait outside (in the cold and rain) for about a minute before the line moved.
All total we waited maybe 20 minutes before it was our turn to vote. There were 4 workers checking people in, one guy managing the machine, and one playing hostess (happily putting the "I voted" stickers on everyone.)
When I put my ballot in, the machine said I was number 95. As we went out the line was probably 20 people long outside the door.
All well and good - for us.
There was an incident that happened while we were there that has me seriously considering contacting the county clerk.
When we came into the building a young Native American woman was having a discussion with the fellow managing the machine. You couldn't help but overhear, as it was getting pretty heated. Apparently the woman had filled in too many circles on the ballot and needed to do another one. They took her back in the line to get a new one (not to the end, jut to the worker who hands out ballots), she waited for a polling table to open and went to fill in the new one. By this point, it was almost my turn. As it turned out, she had filled in the second ballot wrong, stating "I was just checking people I knew". I had a glance at the ballot (sincerely not trying to evade her privacy, but they passed it right in front of my face) I saw that she had filled in almost every circle, including the "Democrat" and "Republican" circles as well as voting for McCain and Obama and two of the independed candidates that were on the ballot.
She asked if she could come back later- but being as she had already signed the book I don't know if they would let her vote again.
I sincerely don't know if the poor woman couldn't read or was just having trouble understanding the ballot or what. Her accent was very heavy and it was apparent English was not her native language. San Juan county has a very large Navajo population, but there are some smaller tribal groups in the area as well. However, no one seemed interested in really helping her. They seemed more interested in just getting rid of her.
I don't know if she came back or not. But I think I will contact the county clerks office. None of the workers there spoke Navajo (if that's what she needed) nor did any of them really seem to want to take the time to read and explain the ballot to her. By law I believe they are required to help those who, for whatever reason, can't read the ballot.
I hope there weren't too many like that. In this county, a handful of votes could have effected the outcome.
All total we waited maybe 20 minutes before it was our turn to vote. There were 4 workers checking people in, one guy managing the machine, and one playing hostess (happily putting the "I voted" stickers on everyone.)
When I put my ballot in, the machine said I was number 95. As we went out the line was probably 20 people long outside the door.
All well and good - for us.
There was an incident that happened while we were there that has me seriously considering contacting the county clerk.
When we came into the building a young Native American woman was having a discussion with the fellow managing the machine. You couldn't help but overhear, as it was getting pretty heated. Apparently the woman had filled in too many circles on the ballot and needed to do another one. They took her back in the line to get a new one (not to the end, jut to the worker who hands out ballots), she waited for a polling table to open and went to fill in the new one. By this point, it was almost my turn. As it turned out, she had filled in the second ballot wrong, stating "I was just checking people I knew". I had a glance at the ballot (sincerely not trying to evade her privacy, but they passed it right in front of my face) I saw that she had filled in almost every circle, including the "Democrat" and "Republican" circles as well as voting for McCain and Obama and two of the independed candidates that were on the ballot.
She asked if she could come back later- but being as she had already signed the book I don't know if they would let her vote again.
I sincerely don't know if the poor woman couldn't read or was just having trouble understanding the ballot or what. Her accent was very heavy and it was apparent English was not her native language. San Juan county has a very large Navajo population, but there are some smaller tribal groups in the area as well. However, no one seemed interested in really helping her. They seemed more interested in just getting rid of her.
I don't know if she came back or not. But I think I will contact the county clerks office. None of the workers there spoke Navajo (if that's what she needed) nor did any of them really seem to want to take the time to read and explain the ballot to her. By law I believe they are required to help those who, for whatever reason, can't read the ballot.
I hope there weren't too many like that. In this county, a handful of votes could have effected the outcome.
Christian Conservatives have a short memory.
I get probably 15 emails a day telling me why I should vote for McCain and if I don't I'm not voting my "Christian Values".
Apparently my Christian friends have a short memory. Here's a quote from McCain during the 2000 campaign where he lost the Republican nomination to Bush.
"Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right."
Here's the link to the source.
Now, personally, I'm no supporter of Sharpton, Robertson, or Falwell. But read that carefully. He's calling all these fellows "the outer reaches of American politics" and "agents of intolerance". Read the whole speech at the link and you'll see that it's not just these guys, but their followers. He also mentions names like Chuck Colson and James Dobson in that mix.
Christians (and other religious folk) = Agents of intolerance.
In spite of Pat Robertson's endorsement this time around (which makes my skin crawl - when did Pat Robertson become a voice that mattered again? I thought we got rid of him in the '80s), if you are following his campaign seriously you can see that his opinion hasn't changed much.
Go read the speech for yourselves. Check his stand this time around. Instead of assuming that McCain is the only option for your Christian Values, check both sides.
Apparently my Christian friends have a short memory. Here's a quote from McCain during the 2000 campaign where he lost the Republican nomination to Bush.
"Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right."
Here's the link to the source.
Now, personally, I'm no supporter of Sharpton, Robertson, or Falwell. But read that carefully. He's calling all these fellows "the outer reaches of American politics" and "agents of intolerance". Read the whole speech at the link and you'll see that it's not just these guys, but their followers. He also mentions names like Chuck Colson and James Dobson in that mix.
Christians (and other religious folk) = Agents of intolerance.
In spite of Pat Robertson's endorsement this time around (which makes my skin crawl - when did Pat Robertson become a voice that mattered again? I thought we got rid of him in the '80s), if you are following his campaign seriously you can see that his opinion hasn't changed much.
Go read the speech for yourselves. Check his stand this time around. Instead of assuming that McCain is the only option for your Christian Values, check both sides.
For my neighbors
Election information for the Bloomfield/East San Juan County area
Ok, so here's what you need to know. First, make sure you are registered. Unfortunatly, it's past the deadline to register, but you can make sure you are registered and find out where your polling place is by going to:
Voterview.com
The site is really picky. The only way I got it to find me is by putting in only my last name and county. But, once you find yourself, you can find out where your polling place is, and what districts you are in. There are many ads running on TV here in northern New Mexico that have nothing to do with anyone here, they are running in districts for Albuquerque and further south. So once you know your disticts, then you can know who you need to look at as candidates.
Fortunately, I've done the homework for you. You can find the basic information at:
http://www.sjcclerk.net/08General.aspx
There is also some information to be found in this newspaper article from Farmington:
http://www.daily-times.com/news/ci_10701191
So, here's whose running for what and where you can find more information about them. These are the ones that directly apply to our area:
U.S. Senate (To fill seat vacated by Pete Dominici, who is retiring at the end of his term due to health reasons.)
R: Steve Pearce http://www.peopleforpearce.com/
D: Tom Udall http://www.tomudall.com/
U.S. House of Representatives (New Mexico District 3) - To fill seat vacated by Tom Udall who is running for Senate.
R: Daniel East http://www.daneast4congress.com/
D: Ben Lujan http://www.benrlujan.com/
New Mexico Senate (District 2)
R: Steven P. Neville (Incumbant) http://legis.state.nm.us/lcs/legdetails.asp?Name=307 (Legislative site - no election site found)
Running uncontested.
New Mexico House of Representatives (District 2)
R: James R. J. Strickler (Incumbant) http://www.sjcgop.org/strickler (Republican party website)
D: Alice Marie Slaven-Emond http://www.slaven-emond.com/
Magistrate Judge, District 6 (Bloomfield is split between Districts 4 and 6, only District 6 is up this time around)
D: Dan Cleavinger (Incumbant) (No election information found, but check newspaper articles for some information on his rulings.)
R: Barry D. Sharer (No information found AT ALL - see link to clerks office to obtain contact information.)
County Commissioner District 3 (Bloomfield is split between Districts 2 and 3, only District 3 is up this time around - to replace Keith Johnson.)
D: Robert E. Oxford - only information is From Aztec NM newspaper in 2004 when he ran for city council.
R: Scott A. Eckstein - no information available.
Also, here is a list of Constitutional Amendments (New Mexico) and Bond Issues that are up this election cycle. Please visit the County Clerks site above to get all the details. Make sure what you're voting on.
CA 1 (2007) Increase the size of certain school boards to nine members and conduct elections by mail-in ballot. (This applies only to districts with more than 200,000 residents - the only district in the state, by far, that this applies to, is Albuquerque.)
CA 2 (2007) Allow midterm salary increases for county officers.
CA 3 (2008) Require confirmation of heads of cabinet-level departments ora gencies who are subject to senate confirmation at the beginning of each term of a governor.
CA 4 (2008) Allow school elections to be held with other non-partisan elections.
CA 5 (2008) Require the governor to fill a vacancy in the lieutenant governor'soffice by appointment, with consent of the senate.
Bond Question A
(A) "The 2008 Capital Projects General Obligation Bond Act authorizes the issuance and sale of senior citizen facility improvement, construction and equipment acquisition bonds. Shall the state be authorized to issue general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed fourteen million seven hundred twenty‐five thousand dollars ($14,725,000) to make capital expenditures for certain senior citizen facility improvements, construction and equipment acquisition projects and provide for a general property tax imposition and levy for the payment of principal of, interest on and expenses incurred in connection with the issuance of the bonds and the collection of the tax as permitted by law?
Bond Question B
(B) "The 2008 Capital Projects General Obligation Bond Act authorizes the issuance and sale of library acquisition bonds. Shall the state be authorized to issue general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed eleven million nineteen thousand dollars ($11,019,000) to make capital expenditures for academic, public and tribal library acquisitions and provide for a general property tax imposition and levy for the payment of principal of, interest on and expenses incurred in connection with the issuance of the bonds and the collection of the tax as permitted by law?
Bond Question C
(C) "The 2008 Capital Projects General Obligation Bond Act authorizes the issuance and sale of health facility improvement bonds. Shall the state be authorized to issue general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed fifty‐seven million nine hundred twenty‐five thousand dollars ($57,925,000) to make capital expenditures for cancer research and treatment facilities, other statewide and regional health facilities, educational facilities for statewide dental services and public health and behavioral health facilities and provide for a general property tax imposition and levy for the payment of principal of, interest on and expenses incurred in connection with the issuance of the bonds and the collection of the tax as permitted by law?
Bond Question D
(D) "The 2008 Capital Projects General Obligation Bond Act authorizes the issuance and sale of higher educational and special schools capital improvement and acquisition bonds. Shall the state be authorized to issue general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed one hundred forty million one hundred thirty‐three thousand dollars ($140,133,000) to make capital expenditures for certain higher educational and special schools capital improvements and acquisitions and provide for a general property tax imposition and levy for the payment of principal of, interest on and expenses incurred in connection with the issuance of the bonds and the collection of the tax as permitted by law?
Full details of amendments and bond questions can be found at the link to the county clerks office above.
A sample ballot can be found Here. There are some judges that are up for re-instatement that I did not list here, you can view the ballot to find out who they are.
Please, please, PLEASE take the time to review all the candidates and issues before you go to vote. Democracy depends on an educated electorate. Get educated, then vote.
Ok, so here's what you need to know. First, make sure you are registered. Unfortunatly, it's past the deadline to register, but you can make sure you are registered and find out where your polling place is by going to:
Voterview.com
The site is really picky. The only way I got it to find me is by putting in only my last name and county. But, once you find yourself, you can find out where your polling place is, and what districts you are in. There are many ads running on TV here in northern New Mexico that have nothing to do with anyone here, they are running in districts for Albuquerque and further south. So once you know your disticts, then you can know who you need to look at as candidates.
Fortunately, I've done the homework for you. You can find the basic information at:
http://www.sjcclerk.net/08General.aspx
There is also some information to be found in this newspaper article from Farmington:
http://www.daily-times.com/news/ci_10701191
So, here's whose running for what and where you can find more information about them. These are the ones that directly apply to our area:
U.S. Senate (To fill seat vacated by Pete Dominici, who is retiring at the end of his term due to health reasons.)
R: Steve Pearce http://www.peopleforpearce.com/
D: Tom Udall http://www.tomudall.com/
U.S. House of Representatives (New Mexico District 3) - To fill seat vacated by Tom Udall who is running for Senate.
R: Daniel East http://www.daneast4congress.com/
D: Ben Lujan http://www.benrlujan.com/
New Mexico Senate (District 2)
R: Steven P. Neville (Incumbant) http://legis.state.nm.us/lcs/legdetails.asp?Name=307 (Legislative site - no election site found)
Running uncontested.
New Mexico House of Representatives (District 2)
R: James R. J. Strickler (Incumbant) http://www.sjcgop.org/strickler (Republican party website)
D: Alice Marie Slaven-Emond http://www.slaven-emond.com/
Magistrate Judge, District 6 (Bloomfield is split between Districts 4 and 6, only District 6 is up this time around)
D: Dan Cleavinger (Incumbant) (No election information found, but check newspaper articles for some information on his rulings.)
R: Barry D. Sharer (No information found AT ALL - see link to clerks office to obtain contact information.)
County Commissioner District 3 (Bloomfield is split between Districts 2 and 3, only District 3 is up this time around - to replace Keith Johnson.)
D: Robert E. Oxford - only information is From Aztec NM newspaper in 2004 when he ran for city council.
R: Scott A. Eckstein - no information available.
Also, here is a list of Constitutional Amendments (New Mexico) and Bond Issues that are up this election cycle. Please visit the County Clerks site above to get all the details. Make sure what you're voting on.
CA 1 (2007) Increase the size of certain school boards to nine members and conduct elections by mail-in ballot. (This applies only to districts with more than 200,000 residents - the only district in the state, by far, that this applies to, is Albuquerque.)
CA 2 (2007) Allow midterm salary increases for county officers.
CA 3 (2008) Require confirmation of heads of cabinet-level departments ora gencies who are subject to senate confirmation at the beginning of each term of a governor.
CA 4 (2008) Allow school elections to be held with other non-partisan elections.
CA 5 (2008) Require the governor to fill a vacancy in the lieutenant governor'soffice by appointment, with consent of the senate.
Bond Question A
(A) "The 2008 Capital Projects General Obligation Bond Act authorizes the issuance and sale of senior citizen facility improvement, construction and equipment acquisition bonds. Shall the state be authorized to issue general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed fourteen million seven hundred twenty‐five thousand dollars ($14,725,000) to make capital expenditures for certain senior citizen facility improvements, construction and equipment acquisition projects and provide for a general property tax imposition and levy for the payment of principal of, interest on and expenses incurred in connection with the issuance of the bonds and the collection of the tax as permitted by law?
Bond Question B
(B) "The 2008 Capital Projects General Obligation Bond Act authorizes the issuance and sale of library acquisition bonds. Shall the state be authorized to issue general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed eleven million nineteen thousand dollars ($11,019,000) to make capital expenditures for academic, public and tribal library acquisitions and provide for a general property tax imposition and levy for the payment of principal of, interest on and expenses incurred in connection with the issuance of the bonds and the collection of the tax as permitted by law?
Bond Question C
(C) "The 2008 Capital Projects General Obligation Bond Act authorizes the issuance and sale of health facility improvement bonds. Shall the state be authorized to issue general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed fifty‐seven million nine hundred twenty‐five thousand dollars ($57,925,000) to make capital expenditures for cancer research and treatment facilities, other statewide and regional health facilities, educational facilities for statewide dental services and public health and behavioral health facilities and provide for a general property tax imposition and levy for the payment of principal of, interest on and expenses incurred in connection with the issuance of the bonds and the collection of the tax as permitted by law?
Bond Question D
(D) "The 2008 Capital Projects General Obligation Bond Act authorizes the issuance and sale of higher educational and special schools capital improvement and acquisition bonds. Shall the state be authorized to issue general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed one hundred forty million one hundred thirty‐three thousand dollars ($140,133,000) to make capital expenditures for certain higher educational and special schools capital improvements and acquisitions and provide for a general property tax imposition and levy for the payment of principal of, interest on and expenses incurred in connection with the issuance of the bonds and the collection of the tax as permitted by law?
Full details of amendments and bond questions can be found at the link to the county clerks office above.
A sample ballot can be found Here. There are some judges that are up for re-instatement that I did not list here, you can view the ballot to find out who they are.
Please, please, PLEASE take the time to review all the candidates and issues before you go to vote. Democracy depends on an educated electorate. Get educated, then vote.
Christian Priorities and the Upcoming Presidential Election
So I try hard not to let the media influence my opinions when it comes to politicians, instead going to the candidates' websites and reviewing the platform of their political party. The negative ads and slanted TV and newspaper stories don't tell me much.
I do, however, listen to some Christian radio (or to be exact, podcast versions of radio broadcasts). Now, legally, Christian radio personalities aren't supposed to be allowed to express their political opinions, but thanks to legal loopholes and sneaky double-talk, they somehow make their opinions on the issues prevalent. And annoyingly, frustratingly, there seems to be one and only one issue that matters to these radio personalities: abortion.
Sidebar: For the record, I am very pro-life. I hate abortion. No one would jump for joy more than me to have Roe v. Wade be overturned. However, I am also very pro-choice. That may seem contradictory, but let me explain. I cannot impose my morality on other people. To do so would be tyranny. I would like everyone to believe as I do that abortion is murder, but not everyone does. So, until they do, we have to give them a choice. If we don't, then they will make the choice anyway, even if it's illegal. To overturn Roe v. Wade would lead to the death and disability of many women - mostly young women - who would turn to illegal means to exercise their choice. Do you see where I'm going here? I'm pro-life, but I respect choice. I believe we need better choices, but that's where we are now.
So, to these radio personalities, the only issue that matters is whether our next president is pro-life or not. Many insinuating that they next president would have the power to end abortion and that's all that matters. (Incidentally, I heard the same thing when Bush was elected, and re-elected.) With the economy in shambles, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan going on without resolution, the housing market in ruins, they still stomp their feet and insist abortion is our biggest problem.
Does anyone else see a problem here? Now I'm not going to say one candidate is better than the other (that's another post), but to have the Christian right elect our next president on the premise that he could end abortion is foolish at best, and dangerous at worst.
As I said, I would like nothing more than to end abortion, but with the world in the state it's in, that is not going to happen. If you are truly pro-life, then consider everything that's going on. Families going broke and their kids not having anything to eat, young men coming home from the Middle East in a box instead of into the arms of their loved ones, children dying from exposure because they got kicked out of their house and had to live in a box under the bridge at the city park, people suffering in their sickness because they have to choose food or gasoline over prescriptions, veterans who served their country with honor only to have their country strip their benefits and leave them jobless, sick, and forgotten.
This presidential election is arguably the most important in American history, especially when recent events are taken into consideration. I can only pray that Christians are smart enough to make decisions for themselves instead of relying on their favorite talk radio personality to decide for them. DO YOUR HOMEWORK! Don't go to the polls without KNOWING what the person you are voting for stands for on ALL the issues, not just your pet cause. Especially on issues that affect your friends and family.
I do, however, listen to some Christian radio (or to be exact, podcast versions of radio broadcasts). Now, legally, Christian radio personalities aren't supposed to be allowed to express their political opinions, but thanks to legal loopholes and sneaky double-talk, they somehow make their opinions on the issues prevalent. And annoyingly, frustratingly, there seems to be one and only one issue that matters to these radio personalities: abortion.
Sidebar: For the record, I am very pro-life. I hate abortion. No one would jump for joy more than me to have Roe v. Wade be overturned. However, I am also very pro-choice. That may seem contradictory, but let me explain. I cannot impose my morality on other people. To do so would be tyranny. I would like everyone to believe as I do that abortion is murder, but not everyone does. So, until they do, we have to give them a choice. If we don't, then they will make the choice anyway, even if it's illegal. To overturn Roe v. Wade would lead to the death and disability of many women - mostly young women - who would turn to illegal means to exercise their choice. Do you see where I'm going here? I'm pro-life, but I respect choice. I believe we need better choices, but that's where we are now.
So, to these radio personalities, the only issue that matters is whether our next president is pro-life or not. Many insinuating that they next president would have the power to end abortion and that's all that matters. (Incidentally, I heard the same thing when Bush was elected, and re-elected.) With the economy in shambles, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan going on without resolution, the housing market in ruins, they still stomp their feet and insist abortion is our biggest problem.
Does anyone else see a problem here? Now I'm not going to say one candidate is better than the other (that's another post), but to have the Christian right elect our next president on the premise that he could end abortion is foolish at best, and dangerous at worst.
As I said, I would like nothing more than to end abortion, but with the world in the state it's in, that is not going to happen. If you are truly pro-life, then consider everything that's going on. Families going broke and their kids not having anything to eat, young men coming home from the Middle East in a box instead of into the arms of their loved ones, children dying from exposure because they got kicked out of their house and had to live in a box under the bridge at the city park, people suffering in their sickness because they have to choose food or gasoline over prescriptions, veterans who served their country with honor only to have their country strip their benefits and leave them jobless, sick, and forgotten.
This presidential election is arguably the most important in American history, especially when recent events are taken into consideration. I can only pray that Christians are smart enough to make decisions for themselves instead of relying on their favorite talk radio personality to decide for them. DO YOUR HOMEWORK! Don't go to the polls without KNOWING what the person you are voting for stands for on ALL the issues, not just your pet cause. Especially on issues that affect your friends and family.
9/11 - again
It's 2 in the afternoon and I just realized it's 9/11. That in itself is not unusual, I sometimes go long stretches where I lose track of the day - just part of the joy of living with chronic pain, but it took me a while to remember why 9/11 is significant.
That made me sad. It's been only 7 years. Worse yet, we are still at war in Afganistan and Iraq, how could I forget that?
Have we become so numb to war that it no longer affects us? I hope not.
That made me sad. It's been only 7 years. Worse yet, we are still at war in Afganistan and Iraq, how could I forget that?
Have we become so numb to war that it no longer affects us? I hope not.
The Truth behind the Bridge to Nowhere
I was curious, so I Googled it. Here's a CNN story from almost a year ago (Sept. 22, 2007):
'Bridge to nowhere' abandoned
Read it carefully.
The "champions" of this project were REPUBLICANS. ("U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young, both Republicans, championed the project.....")
Did you notice that while Congress stripped the earmark, they still sent the money? Nowhere does it say Gov. Palin said "don't send the money. Read that again: Gov. Palin killed the Bridge, but kept the money. So if the bridge was a waste of money, what DID she spend it on?
hmmmmm......
_________________________________
pol·i·tics [pol-i-tiks] noun - From the latin suffix "poli" [pol-ee] meaning 'many', and a contraction of the word "ticks" [tiks] meaning 'blood sucking leeches'.
- the practice or profession of conducting political affairs.
'Bridge to nowhere' abandoned
Read it carefully.
The "champions" of this project were REPUBLICANS. ("U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young, both Republicans, championed the project.....")
Did you notice that while Congress stripped the earmark, they still sent the money? Nowhere does it say Gov. Palin said "don't send the money. Read that again: Gov. Palin killed the Bridge, but kept the money. So if the bridge was a waste of money, what DID she spend it on?
hmmmmm......
_________________________________
pol·i·tics [pol-i-tiks] noun - From the latin suffix "poli" [pol-ee] meaning 'many', and a contraction of the word "ticks" [tiks] meaning 'blood sucking leeches'.
- the practice or profession of conducting political affairs.
Global Warming - what I tell my young children
This is an extreme hot button topic that I really didn't know much about - that is until my 6 year old asked me about it. Being at a total loss as to how to explain it in terms her young mind could understand, I did what I always do when stumped - research. I learned a few things. I also learned that there are those who argue on the other side. I took the time to look at both views and tried to dig deep enough to get to the facts, the solid truth behind the media and the fear-mongers.
So, what follows is the explanation I came up with for my 6 year old. I write this to preserve it for my younger children who will be asking about it in a few years, and also for those of you out there who have or know young children. (This is told from our religious world view, so those of you who don't believe similarly, please forgive me and I hope you still find this useful.)
Why is everyone saying the world is getting hotter?
God made the world in a very special way. It's made just right so people and animals can live here. One thing He did was set it up so that most of the planet can never get too cold. Do you know what a greenhouse is? It's a house made of glass for growing plants. When the door of a greenhouse is shut, it gets very warm inside. The glass lets the sunlight in, but it does not let the warmness out. The earth is made like that. The air kind of acts like glass that lets the sunlight in and keeps some of the heat from getting out. If it didn't work like that, it would get really cold at night, so cold that people, animals, and even plants couldn't live.
Do you know what air is made of? There are many different parts. The most important part for people and animals is called oxygen. But God included other parts that help keep the warmness in. People call these parts "greenhouse gasses". Greenhouse, because they act just like the glass in a real greenhouse, and gasses because they are part of the air.
Some people think the world is getting warmer because there are more of these greenhouse gases in the air. It's like putting more glass on a real greenhouse and having it get hotter inside. These gasses come from cars and factories and other places that people have built. Because these cars and factories keep putting more of these gasses into the air, the air holds more warmness from sunlight and makes the world hotter and hotter.
What will happen if it gets too hot?
Only God knows what will happen in the future, but some say that if the world gets too hot then no one will be able to live here anymore. Even the North Pole will get so hot that all the ice will melt.
What can we do?
Well, if the people who say cars and factories are putting the bad gasses in the air are right, then what we need to do is put less of those gasses in the air. You know how Mommy and Daddy are always asking if we need milk or anything from the store when we have to go into town? That's so we can drive less. If we drive the cars less, then our cars will put less of the bad gasses in the air. Have you seen the commercials on TV that show those big white fans on the tops of hills? (Being an election year, there are many ads by politicians bragging about how they are responsible for New Mexico 'taking the lead' in the use of wind-generated energy. There are in fact many "wind farms" around the state now, though I'm not exactly sure who truthfully deserves the praise for that, though I'm pretty sure it's not the politicians.) Those fans are windmills that make electricity. If our state builds enough of them then the factories that make electricity can shut down. Those factories have to burn things to make electricity (at this point I showed her the "Schoolhouse Rock" song that talks about electricity, pointing out that something has to be burned to make steam to turn the turbine - and so on). When those factories burn things, it puts bad gasses in the air. Until there are enough of those windmills, we can help by using less electricity at home.
You know how I'm always telling you to shut your bedroom light off when you're not in there? It's because it wastes electricity. You know those curly-q light bulbs we bought and put in all the fixtures? Those use less electricity than the old kind. You know how I tell you to keep the TV off, that it doesn't need to be on all the time? The TV uses a lot of electricity. If all the people everywhere did little things like that it would help the whole world.
--------
That was pretty much the end of my discussion with my 6 year old, but my teenagers had questions too. In another post I'll share about my conversations with them. Including the "deny-er's" point of view.
So, what follows is the explanation I came up with for my 6 year old. I write this to preserve it for my younger children who will be asking about it in a few years, and also for those of you out there who have or know young children. (This is told from our religious world view, so those of you who don't believe similarly, please forgive me and I hope you still find this useful.)
Why is everyone saying the world is getting hotter?
God made the world in a very special way. It's made just right so people and animals can live here. One thing He did was set it up so that most of the planet can never get too cold. Do you know what a greenhouse is? It's a house made of glass for growing plants. When the door of a greenhouse is shut, it gets very warm inside. The glass lets the sunlight in, but it does not let the warmness out. The earth is made like that. The air kind of acts like glass that lets the sunlight in and keeps some of the heat from getting out. If it didn't work like that, it would get really cold at night, so cold that people, animals, and even plants couldn't live.
Do you know what air is made of? There are many different parts. The most important part for people and animals is called oxygen. But God included other parts that help keep the warmness in. People call these parts "greenhouse gasses". Greenhouse, because they act just like the glass in a real greenhouse, and gasses because they are part of the air.
Some people think the world is getting warmer because there are more of these greenhouse gases in the air. It's like putting more glass on a real greenhouse and having it get hotter inside. These gasses come from cars and factories and other places that people have built. Because these cars and factories keep putting more of these gasses into the air, the air holds more warmness from sunlight and makes the world hotter and hotter.
What will happen if it gets too hot?
Only God knows what will happen in the future, but some say that if the world gets too hot then no one will be able to live here anymore. Even the North Pole will get so hot that all the ice will melt.
What can we do?
Well, if the people who say cars and factories are putting the bad gasses in the air are right, then what we need to do is put less of those gasses in the air. You know how Mommy and Daddy are always asking if we need milk or anything from the store when we have to go into town? That's so we can drive less. If we drive the cars less, then our cars will put less of the bad gasses in the air. Have you seen the commercials on TV that show those big white fans on the tops of hills? (Being an election year, there are many ads by politicians bragging about how they are responsible for New Mexico 'taking the lead' in the use of wind-generated energy. There are in fact many "wind farms" around the state now, though I'm not exactly sure who truthfully deserves the praise for that, though I'm pretty sure it's not the politicians.) Those fans are windmills that make electricity. If our state builds enough of them then the factories that make electricity can shut down. Those factories have to burn things to make electricity (at this point I showed her the "Schoolhouse Rock" song that talks about electricity, pointing out that something has to be burned to make steam to turn the turbine - and so on). When those factories burn things, it puts bad gasses in the air. Until there are enough of those windmills, we can help by using less electricity at home.
You know how I'm always telling you to shut your bedroom light off when you're not in there? It's because it wastes electricity. You know those curly-q light bulbs we bought and put in all the fixtures? Those use less electricity than the old kind. You know how I tell you to keep the TV off, that it doesn't need to be on all the time? The TV uses a lot of electricity. If all the people everywhere did little things like that it would help the whole world.
--------
That was pretty much the end of my discussion with my 6 year old, but my teenagers had questions too. In another post I'll share about my conversations with them. Including the "deny-er's" point of view.
A Vent - A Ramble - A Rant
I'm becoming increasingly disheartened with Dr. Dobson. Don't get me wrong, he's done some fantastic work for marriages and families. His organization, Focus on the Family is tops. I have no bones to pick with the group.
My beef is with Dr. Dobson and his increasing sense of self-importance in the political arena. News organizations often call on him, usually to ridicule his views and pick him apart, but he now sees himself as an important person in the political arena. He's found a loophole in the non-profit rules that allows him to pre-empt his own Family themed radio show and use it as a soap-box to expose his political views and arouse fear among his listeners.
Strong words? Maybe, but like most in the Christian community he has taken to using sound bites and carefully chosen rare cases to build a mountain that he then turns into a landslide and dumps it upon his under-informed listeners. Making himself out to be an expert when what he really is is an alarmist.
Take his most recent broadcast (as of this writing). Using this disclaimer that the broadcast was funded by "Focus on the Family Action - a non-tax-exempt foundation", he takes the time away from the issues of family and children that the radio time is usually used for and spent the half hour in a outright attack on Barak Obama. The issue? Abortion.
Now, hear me on this. I hate abortion. I honestly feel abortion is murder. I would like nothing better than for every single abortion clinic in the world to shut down. I would like to see organizations such as Planned Parenthood go out of business. That is my personal view. However, the only thing worse than the holocaust of millions of aborted babies would be to make the practice of abortion illegal, endangering the lives of millions of women who would then seek illegal means to obtain abortions.
Let me clarify. The way to end abortion is not through legal channels. I've said it before and I'll say it again, you cannot legislate personal morality. While you can legislate rules for the common good, like "Thou shall not commit murder" and "Thou shall not steal", you can't control what's in an individuals mind. In spite of what laws are passed, people are still going to break them because their personal morality does not line up with the "public morality" that has been legislated. We, as a country, have tried to impose a morality that the public as a majority did not agree with. It was called prohibition. If you took history in high school I don't have to explain to you how that went over.
Like it or not, Roe v. Wade opened the door. Now we cannot close it, not through legal means. The way to close it is to reach out to individuals and stop unwanted pregnancies. Only then, once there are no longer any unwanted children will abortion stop. (I realize it's more complicated than that, but I'm getting away from my point.)
Ok, so there's that. Like it or not, abortion is here and cannot be stopped through legal channels. However, Dr. Dobson (among others) don't see it that way. He believes that government must act and any candidate that doesn't agree with his point of view is not worth voting for.
That was his attack upon Barak Obama in yesterday's broadcast. (I personally am not fully schooled in the senators views on abortion, his voting record, or any public statements he has made on the subject. However, being a member of the Democratic party, their stand on abortion is very clear.) Dr. Dobson got on his radio show - this particular episode funded by his "FOTF Action" thing- and basically said "don't vote for Obama, he likes killing babies because he won't outlaw abortion". That's not an exact quote, but if you listen to the broadcast that's what you'll hear. Dr. Dobson clearly has an over-simplistic view of abortion laws and is making himself out to be some kind of political expert when he is not.
My opinion? I am not sure I have one yet. I am waiting for the debates between Obama and McCain to hear from their own mouths rather than what is filtering through the media. I hate abortion - as I said - but there is SOOOOO much more at stake in this upcoming election. The wars, foreign relations, so-called "gay marriage", oil prices, illegal immigration, etc. etc. Declaring that we should or should not vote for a candidate based one or two issues is irresponsible, narrow minded, and ridiculous.
I urge those in the Christian community with a public pulpit to give your constituency all the facts and not sound the alarm on any one axe you may have to grind. The world is much more complicated than most Christians see it. Give them the opportunity to open their views a little and not keep their focus on just a few things. While our focus and trust should always be on Christ, that doesn't excuse us from being educated citizens. While we should always approach any decision with humility and prayer, that doesn't mean we should just close our eyes and trust God to guide our hand. Let's turn off Dr. Dobson and his fear-mongering and be educated and responsible. Then trust God to take care of the rest.
My beef is with Dr. Dobson and his increasing sense of self-importance in the political arena. News organizations often call on him, usually to ridicule his views and pick him apart, but he now sees himself as an important person in the political arena. He's found a loophole in the non-profit rules that allows him to pre-empt his own Family themed radio show and use it as a soap-box to expose his political views and arouse fear among his listeners.
Strong words? Maybe, but like most in the Christian community he has taken to using sound bites and carefully chosen rare cases to build a mountain that he then turns into a landslide and dumps it upon his under-informed listeners. Making himself out to be an expert when what he really is is an alarmist.
Take his most recent broadcast (as of this writing). Using this disclaimer that the broadcast was funded by "Focus on the Family Action - a non-tax-exempt foundation", he takes the time away from the issues of family and children that the radio time is usually used for and spent the half hour in a outright attack on Barak Obama. The issue? Abortion.
Now, hear me on this. I hate abortion. I honestly feel abortion is murder. I would like nothing better than for every single abortion clinic in the world to shut down. I would like to see organizations such as Planned Parenthood go out of business. That is my personal view. However, the only thing worse than the holocaust of millions of aborted babies would be to make the practice of abortion illegal, endangering the lives of millions of women who would then seek illegal means to obtain abortions.
Let me clarify. The way to end abortion is not through legal channels. I've said it before and I'll say it again, you cannot legislate personal morality. While you can legislate rules for the common good, like "Thou shall not commit murder" and "Thou shall not steal", you can't control what's in an individuals mind. In spite of what laws are passed, people are still going to break them because their personal morality does not line up with the "public morality" that has been legislated. We, as a country, have tried to impose a morality that the public as a majority did not agree with. It was called prohibition. If you took history in high school I don't have to explain to you how that went over.
Like it or not, Roe v. Wade opened the door. Now we cannot close it, not through legal means. The way to close it is to reach out to individuals and stop unwanted pregnancies. Only then, once there are no longer any unwanted children will abortion stop. (I realize it's more complicated than that, but I'm getting away from my point.)
Ok, so there's that. Like it or not, abortion is here and cannot be stopped through legal channels. However, Dr. Dobson (among others) don't see it that way. He believes that government must act and any candidate that doesn't agree with his point of view is not worth voting for.
That was his attack upon Barak Obama in yesterday's broadcast. (I personally am not fully schooled in the senators views on abortion, his voting record, or any public statements he has made on the subject. However, being a member of the Democratic party, their stand on abortion is very clear.) Dr. Dobson got on his radio show - this particular episode funded by his "FOTF Action" thing- and basically said "don't vote for Obama, he likes killing babies because he won't outlaw abortion". That's not an exact quote, but if you listen to the broadcast that's what you'll hear. Dr. Dobson clearly has an over-simplistic view of abortion laws and is making himself out to be some kind of political expert when he is not.
My opinion? I am not sure I have one yet. I am waiting for the debates between Obama and McCain to hear from their own mouths rather than what is filtering through the media. I hate abortion - as I said - but there is SOOOOO much more at stake in this upcoming election. The wars, foreign relations, so-called "gay marriage", oil prices, illegal immigration, etc. etc. Declaring that we should or should not vote for a candidate based one or two issues is irresponsible, narrow minded, and ridiculous.
I urge those in the Christian community with a public pulpit to give your constituency all the facts and not sound the alarm on any one axe you may have to grind. The world is much more complicated than most Christians see it. Give them the opportunity to open their views a little and not keep their focus on just a few things. While our focus and trust should always be on Christ, that doesn't excuse us from being educated citizens. While we should always approach any decision with humility and prayer, that doesn't mean we should just close our eyes and trust God to guide our hand. Let's turn off Dr. Dobson and his fear-mongering and be educated and responsible. Then trust God to take care of the rest.
Revisiting separation of church and state.
I've written on this topic before and probably will again.
Like most people, as you go through life, your beliefs and opinions on things change. Maybe you'll completely change your mind about something. Maybe you'll look deeper into why you believe something and that belief will become deeper, sharper, more defined. Maybe you'll stop believing in something all together. I say all this to clarify - the things I post here are my personal brain dump. Nothing I post here should be taken as my manifesto on anything. I can, and probably will contradict myself on several issues. I just writes them as I sees them at that point in time.
So, here's what's going through my brain today.
After my last post regarding California's decision on same-sex unions and the evangelical community's reaction to it, I got to thinking....
My friend Adam corrected me on something that I had taken on the word of an elder at our church to be true: Churches aren't allowed to discuss political issues. As I said, that was a mistaken belief. On some level, EVERYTHING is political. But the fact is, churches are allowed to talk about issues that are questions of morality, even if they cross into what some deem the realm of politics. Same-sex marriage, abortion, pre-marital sex, just to name a few.
By the same token, in the political realm, it's impossible to avoid issues that some deem religious. The church that Barak Obama used to attend makes national news almost every day. During the campaigning, the beliefs of Mitt Romney were debated and discussed in the context of how good a president a member of the LDS church might make.
Someone once said that man is a political creature. Man (mankind) is also a creature of faith. That is to say that when it comes to God - or Allah or Buddha or Brahman or nature - everyone believes something, even if their belief is that they don't believe anything.
As such, this brings to bear the question, exactly how can we separate Church and State if mankind is both a political creature and a faithful creature?
This is where it's important to draw the line between the individual and the "organization". An individual's beliefs don't constitute "church". Likewise, one's political opinions don't constitute "state". The principle of "separation of church and state" cannot be applied to the individual. It's not like one can shut down the "religious" part of his brain when he goes to vote, nor can he shut down his political beliefs when he goes to church.
In my post cited above I rambled angily about how some are revising history books by moving any mention of anything that might be religious in the name of "separation of church and state". This doesn't change the facts that throughout the history of the world individuals have acted on their faith beliefs. This doesn't make it "church". The same applies to those who have acted on their political views, rightly or wrongly, doing so doesn't make them "the state". Teaching or writing history without paying attention to these facts is to present history that is not the truth. Likewise, those studying the Bible, writing books and commentaries need to keep the Bible as a whole and not pick and choose a verse here and a verse there to justify their positions.
So what is meant by "Church" and "State" and the separation thereof? First of all, nowhere in the Constitution is the phrase "separation of Church and State" used. The phrase comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group of Baptist leaders, and is not in any legislation. However, it has become the rule of the land and has been defined by the courts. (See my post cited above for a brief description of Everson v. Board of Education, 1947 and the writings of James Madison.) The church is not an individual's faith beliefs, it is the organized church, the denominations and individual churches with their own leadership. Likewise, the state is not people, it is the governing body. Here in the United States, it would be the Federal government - the President, Congress, and Supreme Court - the states' governments - and the local governing bodies.
As I see it, government can't tell people how to practice religion and an organized church can't tell people how to practice politics. That doesn't mean that a person's beliefs, which are truly a part of him, whether political or religious won't dictate how he acts, thinks, speaks, prays, and votes. Government and the organized church cannot dictate what is in a persons mind. The rights of the individual remain sacred. Even if they weren't, the law of the land or the rule of the church cannot get inside someone's head.
I had a point when I started, but it seems to have slipped my mind. I guess, what I'm trying to say is that when it comes to issues like same-sex marriage, abortion, et. al. The church cannot tell people how to vote or participate on a political level. Likewise, the government, or "the state" cannot tell people what to believe or what they can do on a religious level.
So, on the topic of same-sex marriage in the state of California: the state can decide whether to allow it or not, but it cannot tell people to accept it as a moral position if such a position is against their sincerely held religious beliefs. It cannot tell churches how they can use their own property and it cannot force them to perform a religious ceremony to add pomp and circumstance to a civil union. Likewise, the church cannot tell it's members to vote a certain way to overturn a decision made by the state. It can say all it wants about the morality of same-sex unions, but it cannot participate in the political process.
California cannot tell it's residents what to think or feel about same-sex unions. The passage of a law or the decision of a court may make it the law of the land, but that doesn't mean that it has to be accepted as a moral position by those who see it as immoral.
It all comes down to what's in a person's head. Church and State co-exist there and there's really nothing either one can do about it.
Too much rambling, so I'll get off my soapbox now.
Like most people, as you go through life, your beliefs and opinions on things change. Maybe you'll completely change your mind about something. Maybe you'll look deeper into why you believe something and that belief will become deeper, sharper, more defined. Maybe you'll stop believing in something all together. I say all this to clarify - the things I post here are my personal brain dump. Nothing I post here should be taken as my manifesto on anything. I can, and probably will contradict myself on several issues. I just writes them as I sees them at that point in time.
So, here's what's going through my brain today.
After my last post regarding California's decision on same-sex unions and the evangelical community's reaction to it, I got to thinking....
My friend Adam corrected me on something that I had taken on the word of an elder at our church to be true: Churches aren't allowed to discuss political issues. As I said, that was a mistaken belief. On some level, EVERYTHING is political. But the fact is, churches are allowed to talk about issues that are questions of morality, even if they cross into what some deem the realm of politics. Same-sex marriage, abortion, pre-marital sex, just to name a few.
By the same token, in the political realm, it's impossible to avoid issues that some deem religious. The church that Barak Obama used to attend makes national news almost every day. During the campaigning, the beliefs of Mitt Romney were debated and discussed in the context of how good a president a member of the LDS church might make.
Someone once said that man is a political creature. Man (mankind) is also a creature of faith. That is to say that when it comes to God - or Allah or Buddha or Brahman or nature - everyone believes something, even if their belief is that they don't believe anything.
As such, this brings to bear the question, exactly how can we separate Church and State if mankind is both a political creature and a faithful creature?
This is where it's important to draw the line between the individual and the "organization". An individual's beliefs don't constitute "church". Likewise, one's political opinions don't constitute "state". The principle of "separation of church and state" cannot be applied to the individual. It's not like one can shut down the "religious" part of his brain when he goes to vote, nor can he shut down his political beliefs when he goes to church.
In my post cited above I rambled angily about how some are revising history books by moving any mention of anything that might be religious in the name of "separation of church and state". This doesn't change the facts that throughout the history of the world individuals have acted on their faith beliefs. This doesn't make it "church". The same applies to those who have acted on their political views, rightly or wrongly, doing so doesn't make them "the state". Teaching or writing history without paying attention to these facts is to present history that is not the truth. Likewise, those studying the Bible, writing books and commentaries need to keep the Bible as a whole and not pick and choose a verse here and a verse there to justify their positions.
So what is meant by "Church" and "State" and the separation thereof? First of all, nowhere in the Constitution is the phrase "separation of Church and State" used. The phrase comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group of Baptist leaders, and is not in any legislation. However, it has become the rule of the land and has been defined by the courts. (See my post cited above for a brief description of Everson v. Board of Education, 1947 and the writings of James Madison.) The church is not an individual's faith beliefs, it is the organized church, the denominations and individual churches with their own leadership. Likewise, the state is not people, it is the governing body. Here in the United States, it would be the Federal government - the President, Congress, and Supreme Court - the states' governments - and the local governing bodies.
As I see it, government can't tell people how to practice religion and an organized church can't tell people how to practice politics. That doesn't mean that a person's beliefs, which are truly a part of him, whether political or religious won't dictate how he acts, thinks, speaks, prays, and votes. Government and the organized church cannot dictate what is in a persons mind. The rights of the individual remain sacred. Even if they weren't, the law of the land or the rule of the church cannot get inside someone's head.
I had a point when I started, but it seems to have slipped my mind. I guess, what I'm trying to say is that when it comes to issues like same-sex marriage, abortion, et. al. The church cannot tell people how to vote or participate on a political level. Likewise, the government, or "the state" cannot tell people what to believe or what they can do on a religious level.
So, on the topic of same-sex marriage in the state of California: the state can decide whether to allow it or not, but it cannot tell people to accept it as a moral position if such a position is against their sincerely held religious beliefs. It cannot tell churches how they can use their own property and it cannot force them to perform a religious ceremony to add pomp and circumstance to a civil union. Likewise, the church cannot tell it's members to vote a certain way to overturn a decision made by the state. It can say all it wants about the morality of same-sex unions, but it cannot participate in the political process.
California cannot tell it's residents what to think or feel about same-sex unions. The passage of a law or the decision of a court may make it the law of the land, but that doesn't mean that it has to be accepted as a moral position by those who see it as immoral.
It all comes down to what's in a person's head. Church and State co-exist there and there's really nothing either one can do about it.
Too much rambling, so I'll get off my soapbox now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)