My blogs have been dead as of late. I really have no excuse other than laziness and depression. But if you're here and reading this, thank you.
Today I am angry. Angier than angry. And I've had enough pussy footing around this topic out of fear I will offend someone or tread on their rights or some other such crap.
First, let me preface this by saying that much of what I am about to say is out of emotion. I do not have facts to back anything up, this is just my feelings and if you don't like it, too bad. My blog, my rules.
Ok, back to the rant.
Guns. I am angry about guns. Specifically I am angry that yet another gun has been used to kill yet another child. If you have seen the unfolding story (at the time of this writing), a teenager went into a high school, killed a student and himself (I don't currently know if said shooter was a student at that school or not. A teacher also sustained non-threatening injuries.)
How many dead children is it going to take for this country to wake up and DO something about it?
Ok, I know what some of you are going to say. "Well, if a teacher had been armed only the gunman would have died. More guns makes us safe. If he didn't have a gun he would have used a knife, just as many were killed with a knife by that one guy as with a gun. Good guys with guns. Blah blah blah blah blah."
So don't even tell me those. I've heard them all. And I honestly don't give a flying flipping crap about what you think about any of that. Guns kill people. No, not people killing people, guns. (If guns are safe, then let your toddler play with your's, go ahead. I'll wait. No? You see my point.) And yes, if you leave a gun on a table it's safe, but they never are, are they? Guns have infiltrated our entertainment, our media, our culture, and worst of all, our MINDS. There are some that practically worship them. Guns are more important to some than their family, their church, or their own health.
Why? Because it gives a sense of POWER, of god-like ability over life and death. And the illusion of safety. You have a gun to protect your family? That's swell. I'll just cut your gas line and wait for you house to blow up.See? Didn't really protect you, did it?
I'm so angry right now I can't even stay on track. My point is NO MORE DEAD KIDS!!
The President, Congress, and the courts need to stand up to the NRA and gun lobbyists and end this. Now. We are the only developed nation that this happens in. No other places in the world, even with similar gun rights, do we see kids killing other kids in schools. No where. The best time to act is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.
If it were up to me I would say ban them all. Get the National Guard, go door to door and just take them, all of them. All the guns. Every pistol, hunting rifle, antique, bb gun, all of them. Put them in a big pile and burn them. Then burn the factories. Institute the death penalty for anyone that has one.
But it's not. And I don't hold any fantasy that that will actually happen. The real world is too messy and like Pandora's box the demons are already lose. (Plus guns are actually useful tools when used that way.)
In spite of that, there are real things we can do. For starters, someone please tell the Open Carry idiots to put their toys away and grow up. Second, shut down the NRA. It is a terrorist organization that can no longer be allowed to exist. It's only purpose is to protect the so-called rights of those that continue to kill our children and that cannot be allowed in this or any other civilized place in the world.
Third, extremely harsh penalties to gun owners whose guns are used in a crime either by them or by others in their homes or those who stole them. If you own a gun, do everything possible to keep it from killing another person, not even in self defence. If it kills someone, even if another person did it, it's your fault. And you should be tried and convicted on the level equal to the crime. Death penalty. Period, the end. Your toddler gets a hold of it and accidentally shoots himself? That's not an accident, that's murder. Someone steals the gun you got to protect your possessions? Then why didn't you use it to stop them from stealing it? They used it in a crime? Too bad, that's on you.
Yes, I know. I'm a stupid hippy liberal that hates America. You know what? If love of guns equals love of America, then fine, I hate America. It's no longer "land of the free home of the brave". It's "land of the terrorized, home of the gun". That is not the America I was taught in school. That is not the country that Jefferson wrote about, nor the country Lincoln spoke of. It's degrading into "he who has the guns is in control" and I am not OK with my kids growing up in that country.
Dead children trumps gun rights. It just does. I don't care what Joe the (fake) Plumber or Sarah Palin or anyone else says. Dead kids trump all. We have seat belt laws, drunk driving laws, education laws, and even crossing the freaking street laws all designed to keep kids safe. But why aren't we doing something about GUNS? And no, the laws we have are not good enough. Don't tell me they just need to be enforced. The reason they aren't enforced is that when they were they were not effective. They are toothless. Real laws with real consequences to real people for every single bullet fired at a person. Period, the end.
Not one more. Not one more dead child from a gun. Not. One. More. No more excuses, no more "it's my right". NO.
If you want to argue, don't bother. I won't respond. Call me names if you wish. Send me hate mail. I don't care. I won't change my mind either. And yes, I vote.
Showing posts with label In the news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label In the news. Show all posts
Hopelessness
There's a lot of talk, at least on the Internet, about how the Republican party has set out to criminalize the poor. I see a lot of posts about how the problem with this country is that 47% of people are "living of the government", that there is this huge number of people that are getting food assistance and medical care and free money from the government for "doing nothing".
And while, to a degree, I believe there is a bit too much being "spread around" and that there are some that just need to tighten their belts, there are many who truly need help. Children, especially.
But what I don't understand is the hostility, the anger, the hatred toward those that need help.
I need help. While I am not in a wheelchair (yet), I am unable to work. My condition, which has yet to be fully diagnosed, prohibits me from doing some very basic things and working in any sort of environment where my dissociative episodes might put others at risk. I need help. Part of my help comes from Social Security and Medicare, programs that I paid into for my whole adult life. Those programs are doing what they were designed to do and I am thankful for them.
There is something else, though, something that most people don't understand and most won't in their lifetime. And I am glad that they won't but I wish there were a way to make them understand it without experiencing it.
The Bottom.
There is a bottom. A dark, bleak, scary hard bottom. And it is deep. And when you are down there you experience the scariest thing anyone can know.
Hopelessness.
Hopeless adjective:
1 a : having no expectation of good or success : despairing
b : not susceptible to remedy or cure
c : incapable of redemption or improvement
Hopelessness noun - Feeling of despair when you are hopeless.
If you've been here, you know it. The Bottom. Hopelessness. It's a real place. And it's the scariest thing you can imagine. More than monsters, more than death. It's a place you no longer fear death, and might even welcome it.
And this is what so many don't understand. They don't get that there is such a place that you would rather curl up and die than face another day in this place. The place where people say such stupid things as "why don't you move to a better place" and "just think yourself better" and "you just don't have enough faith" and "if you really cared you'd fight through this and act normal and get a job" and "I understand, really".
The phone rings. And rings. And rings. And you don't answer it. You know who it is. It's someone you owe money to. A lot of it. But you don't have it. Why? Is it because you spent it on an xbox or a new TV or nice clothes? Well, you have some of those, souvenirs of a better time. A time when you did have it to spend. The American dream of a home and a big TV and the nice clothes and the nice car. You lived that for a while and you have these things around you. Worthless now to anyone but yourself. You could sell some of them, sure, but for a fraction of a fraction of what they were worth new. Pawn shops are already flooded with these things and they aren't worth anything anymore. And still the phone ring. You owe hundreds to that one, thousands to that one, and that one is just waiting to cut off the water or the power or the gas.
And you cling to the things because the offer a pittance of escape. Moments when you can forget the dark and the fear, moments when you can almost believe that you're not where you know you are. Moments when the bottom can almost be forgotten.
Almost.
But then they come knocking at the door. Angry and not understanding. Threatening. And the kids don't understand and you don't know how to explain to them because you don't want them to feel what you feel.
Hopelessness.
So you smile. And you carry on. And you go to church and tell them "God is good, we're OK". But you're not OK. You're kind of angry at God for making things the way they are. There is no hope coming from the people at church or their God. But you don't know how to tell anyone that.
So you carry on.
And you put all the bills in a pile. It's a big one. But before you can even start on the pile you pay the mortgage and the electricity and the gas because you need those to survive. And then you buy groceries, cheap ones.No treats or fancy meats. Rice. Beans. And fatty chicken. And you live on that every day. Every single day because it's what you can afford to feed everyone. And the kids complain. And you try to jazz up the leftovers, but it's still beans and rice and chicken. And you stretch them into days, a week, until they're gone, before you even think about making a new batch.
And then there's the car. You have to have the car. So you pay the insurance and fill the tank and check the oil. You have to because it's the lifeline. There is no public transportation, you have to have the car. So after you feed the kids you feed that car. And it's barely holding together with baling wire and duct tape, but you have to have it. So you give it as much as you can.
And there's still the pile of bills. Past due. Past due. Last notice. Certified, threatening legal action.
The better times have gone, and now they need to be paid for.
And the money is gone. And then the gas is gone, and the groceries, and it's still more than a week before the paycheck comes. And the kids are hungry. And the phone is ringing. And you fear.
And you feel it. Failure. You are a failure. Not just as a husband or father or a member of society, but as a person, ans a human being, you have failed. Not only are you not producing anything, not making anything, but you are at a place where you cannot even care for yourself. You're worse than an animal, you're nothing.
Nothing. You aren't a writer or a computer programmer or a mechanic or a salesman or a secretary or anything. You are nothing. Nothing defines you. You can't play with your kids so you aren't really a father, you can't take care of the house or do much to help your wife, so you aren't really a husband. You're nothing. You're nearly a vegetable. A plant. Something that just needs to be watered.
Nothing.
And because you're nothing, you are hopeless. Without hope, but also no one has any hope placed i you. There is no future, there's just this. And worse.
And you fear.
And you dread.
And you are at the bottom.
And when you're there, no one cares. And if you can't get help, there is no way to get up. All you want, all you need is a little. A helping hand. Just enough to get going again. Enough to feed the kids, enough to put the gas in the car so the wife can go to school and create that light at the end of the tunnel.
But no. Lazy. Worthless. Faker. Taker.And others. They don't understand the bottom. And you wouldn't wish it on anyone. But you're there. And they kick you for it. And they kick hard. And you don't have the strength to kick back. You barely have a voice because it's been swallowed in despair.
And then you hear, what little help you're getting, you don't deserve that. You have to work for it. But you did work. For 25 years you worked hard and long, 60 sometimes 70 hours a week. Rarely a day off. Taking work home. Never having time for you kids. Working working working because THAT is what people are supposed to do. And then they make you feel guilty for being an absent father but you're making, your producing, you're being a person. And you pay into the system that is supposed to take care of you if something happens. You pay and you pay and you pay and you are grateful for that safety net.
And then you fall into that net. And you don't deserve it, they say. You're a taker, they say.
Kick. Kick. Kick.
And you're weak. And you can't fight. And you despair that the next kick will kill you. But at the same time you would welcome death, welcome that release from the pain.
From Hopelessness.
And that, my friends is why I try. Why I debate and argue and make the "Robin Hood" references. Those at the top don't understand the bottom, yet they continue to push people there. Minimum wage jobs that don't cover the cost of living, then criminalizing the assistance programs that make it possible to live. They don't get it.
I am up from the bottom now. But just barely. There is a light at the end of the tunnel. Soon there will be enough. It will mean sacrificing my wife for the good of the family, but I think we can overcome the issues and the long hours and BE a family again. And it's thanks to the help form the government. The help that others, even when we asked, were unwilling to give. And not just unwilling, spiteful, angry that we even had the audacity to ask.
But we're up. And we're climbing.
And I will take the energy I have and I will fight. I will fight for those at the bottom. I will be a voice to those who despair and I will continue to make sure they are not victims. I will rub it in the faces of the 'haves' who despise the 'have nots'.
I don't want anyone to feel what I have felt. I want hopelessness to become non-existent. I want there to always be hope.
And while, to a degree, I believe there is a bit too much being "spread around" and that there are some that just need to tighten their belts, there are many who truly need help. Children, especially.
But what I don't understand is the hostility, the anger, the hatred toward those that need help.
I need help. While I am not in a wheelchair (yet), I am unable to work. My condition, which has yet to be fully diagnosed, prohibits me from doing some very basic things and working in any sort of environment where my dissociative episodes might put others at risk. I need help. Part of my help comes from Social Security and Medicare, programs that I paid into for my whole adult life. Those programs are doing what they were designed to do and I am thankful for them.
There is something else, though, something that most people don't understand and most won't in their lifetime. And I am glad that they won't but I wish there were a way to make them understand it without experiencing it.
The Bottom.
There is a bottom. A dark, bleak, scary hard bottom. And it is deep. And when you are down there you experience the scariest thing anyone can know.
Hopelessness.
Hopeless adjective:
1 a : having no expectation of good or success : despairing
2
a : giving no ground for hope : desperate
b : incapable of solution, management, or accomplishment : impossible
If you've been here, you know it. The Bottom. Hopelessness. It's a real place. And it's the scariest thing you can imagine. More than monsters, more than death. It's a place you no longer fear death, and might even welcome it.
And this is what so many don't understand. They don't get that there is such a place that you would rather curl up and die than face another day in this place. The place where people say such stupid things as "why don't you move to a better place" and "just think yourself better" and "you just don't have enough faith" and "if you really cared you'd fight through this and act normal and get a job" and "I understand, really".
The phone rings. And rings. And rings. And you don't answer it. You know who it is. It's someone you owe money to. A lot of it. But you don't have it. Why? Is it because you spent it on an xbox or a new TV or nice clothes? Well, you have some of those, souvenirs of a better time. A time when you did have it to spend. The American dream of a home and a big TV and the nice clothes and the nice car. You lived that for a while and you have these things around you. Worthless now to anyone but yourself. You could sell some of them, sure, but for a fraction of a fraction of what they were worth new. Pawn shops are already flooded with these things and they aren't worth anything anymore. And still the phone ring. You owe hundreds to that one, thousands to that one, and that one is just waiting to cut off the water or the power or the gas.
And you cling to the things because the offer a pittance of escape. Moments when you can forget the dark and the fear, moments when you can almost believe that you're not where you know you are. Moments when the bottom can almost be forgotten.
Almost.
But then they come knocking at the door. Angry and not understanding. Threatening. And the kids don't understand and you don't know how to explain to them because you don't want them to feel what you feel.
Hopelessness.
So you smile. And you carry on. And you go to church and tell them "God is good, we're OK". But you're not OK. You're kind of angry at God for making things the way they are. There is no hope coming from the people at church or their God. But you don't know how to tell anyone that.
So you carry on.
And you put all the bills in a pile. It's a big one. But before you can even start on the pile you pay the mortgage and the electricity and the gas because you need those to survive. And then you buy groceries, cheap ones.No treats or fancy meats. Rice. Beans. And fatty chicken. And you live on that every day. Every single day because it's what you can afford to feed everyone. And the kids complain. And you try to jazz up the leftovers, but it's still beans and rice and chicken. And you stretch them into days, a week, until they're gone, before you even think about making a new batch.
And then there's the car. You have to have the car. So you pay the insurance and fill the tank and check the oil. You have to because it's the lifeline. There is no public transportation, you have to have the car. So after you feed the kids you feed that car. And it's barely holding together with baling wire and duct tape, but you have to have it. So you give it as much as you can.
And there's still the pile of bills. Past due. Past due. Last notice. Certified, threatening legal action.
The better times have gone, and now they need to be paid for.
And the money is gone. And then the gas is gone, and the groceries, and it's still more than a week before the paycheck comes. And the kids are hungry. And the phone is ringing. And you fear.
And you feel it. Failure. You are a failure. Not just as a husband or father or a member of society, but as a person, ans a human being, you have failed. Not only are you not producing anything, not making anything, but you are at a place where you cannot even care for yourself. You're worse than an animal, you're nothing.
Nothing. You aren't a writer or a computer programmer or a mechanic or a salesman or a secretary or anything. You are nothing. Nothing defines you. You can't play with your kids so you aren't really a father, you can't take care of the house or do much to help your wife, so you aren't really a husband. You're nothing. You're nearly a vegetable. A plant. Something that just needs to be watered.
Nothing.
And because you're nothing, you are hopeless. Without hope, but also no one has any hope placed i you. There is no future, there's just this. And worse.
And you fear.
And you dread.
And you are at the bottom.
And when you're there, no one cares. And if you can't get help, there is no way to get up. All you want, all you need is a little. A helping hand. Just enough to get going again. Enough to feed the kids, enough to put the gas in the car so the wife can go to school and create that light at the end of the tunnel.
But no. Lazy. Worthless. Faker. Taker.And others. They don't understand the bottom. And you wouldn't wish it on anyone. But you're there. And they kick you for it. And they kick hard. And you don't have the strength to kick back. You barely have a voice because it's been swallowed in despair.
And then you hear, what little help you're getting, you don't deserve that. You have to work for it. But you did work. For 25 years you worked hard and long, 60 sometimes 70 hours a week. Rarely a day off. Taking work home. Never having time for you kids. Working working working because THAT is what people are supposed to do. And then they make you feel guilty for being an absent father but you're making, your producing, you're being a person. And you pay into the system that is supposed to take care of you if something happens. You pay and you pay and you pay and you are grateful for that safety net.
And then you fall into that net. And you don't deserve it, they say. You're a taker, they say.
Kick. Kick. Kick.
And you're weak. And you can't fight. And you despair that the next kick will kill you. But at the same time you would welcome death, welcome that release from the pain.
From Hopelessness.
And that, my friends is why I try. Why I debate and argue and make the "Robin Hood" references. Those at the top don't understand the bottom, yet they continue to push people there. Minimum wage jobs that don't cover the cost of living, then criminalizing the assistance programs that make it possible to live. They don't get it.
I am up from the bottom now. But just barely. There is a light at the end of the tunnel. Soon there will be enough. It will mean sacrificing my wife for the good of the family, but I think we can overcome the issues and the long hours and BE a family again. And it's thanks to the help form the government. The help that others, even when we asked, were unwilling to give. And not just unwilling, spiteful, angry that we even had the audacity to ask.
But we're up. And we're climbing.
And I will take the energy I have and I will fight. I will fight for those at the bottom. I will be a voice to those who despair and I will continue to make sure they are not victims. I will rub it in the faces of the 'haves' who despise the 'have nots'.
I don't want anyone to feel what I have felt. I want hopelessness to become non-existent. I want there to always be hope.
Biblical Reasons Why Christians Should Vote
Over the course of the last 3 days or so, I have heard from at least 3 different sources - Christian/Church sources - the opinion that Christians shouldn't vote or be involved in the political process in any form.
In this article I want to flesh out their Biblical arguments and also answer them Biblically to demonstrate why, as Christians, it is important not just to vote but to be very involved in our American political system.
First of all, let me state that one of the sources is close to me and I am in no way intentionally showing any disrespect for this source or the other things that come from it. I am simply expressing my opinion which happens to be in opposition to this source on this topic. We as Christians do not have to agree on everything except one thing:" ...God gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life..."
So let's dive in. The sources will remain anonymous out of respect and I will address their arguments as a whole, but their talking points were all pretty much the same and can be found on the web by searching for "Why Christians Shouldn't Vote", the sites you will find present my sources in pretty much the same way.
The crux of this opinion is two-fold. First, Christians are not of this "earthly kingdom" and we should not put our trust in earthly leaders. The second, that God has ordained all earthly authority and therefore voting or not voting makes no difference because God places those who have authority in those positions.
We'll unpack the first: Christians are not of this world, our citizenship is in heaven.
This argument comes from this verse (and others like it). Here, Jesus is talking about his followers:
They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. - John 17:16
And also:
But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ - Philippians 3:20
A tangent to this argument comes from Ephesians 6:12
For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.
And also 2 Timothy 2:3-4
Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to please the one who enlisted him.
In other words, since our citizenship is not of this world, we are to fight the fight of the Kingdom of God and not worry about earthly battles, such as politics. We should speak only of Christ, sharing the gospel with everyone and not waste any energy on earthly pursuits.
Part 2 of the 'Christians should be apolitical' argument come from Romans 13:1-2:
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
And 1 Peter 2:13-14:
Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.
A tangent to this argument is that "Paul, an educated man, would have knows about democracy, yet he never mentioned it" and "Jesus never taught about democracy so why should we participate in one?"
And the question "What would Jesus do?" Some might say "Jesus wouldn't vote, why should we?"
There are other arguments against voting and participating in politics that you may here:
There are other things God chooses, your parents, the country you live in, whether or not you are saved, whether there is gravity... so be thankful that He chooses your leaders too.
The final argument I will discuss: "people's lives aren't changed by law, only by the gospel".
Further points to consider:
All verses are from the English Standard Version unless otherwise specified.
In this article I want to flesh out their Biblical arguments and also answer them Biblically to demonstrate why, as Christians, it is important not just to vote but to be very involved in our American political system.
First of all, let me state that one of the sources is close to me and I am in no way intentionally showing any disrespect for this source or the other things that come from it. I am simply expressing my opinion which happens to be in opposition to this source on this topic. We as Christians do not have to agree on everything except one thing:" ...God gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life..."
So let's dive in. The sources will remain anonymous out of respect and I will address their arguments as a whole, but their talking points were all pretty much the same and can be found on the web by searching for "Why Christians Shouldn't Vote", the sites you will find present my sources in pretty much the same way.
The crux of this opinion is two-fold. First, Christians are not of this "earthly kingdom" and we should not put our trust in earthly leaders. The second, that God has ordained all earthly authority and therefore voting or not voting makes no difference because God places those who have authority in those positions.
We'll unpack the first: Christians are not of this world, our citizenship is in heaven.
This argument comes from this verse (and others like it). Here, Jesus is talking about his followers:
They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. - John 17:16
And also:
But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ - Philippians 3:20
And they are right. When we became Christians, we became part of the Kingdom of Heaven. That is our real home. We are no longer of this world.
Paul, in his letters such as the letter to the Philippians quoted above, tells us that our citizenship is in heaven. But when he needed to, he exercised his rights as a Roman citizen as well.
But when they had stretched him out for the whips, Paul said to the centurion who was standing by, “Is it lawful for you to flog a man who is a Roman citizen and uncondemned?” - Acts 22:25
But Paul said to them, “They have beaten us publicly, uncondemned, men who are Roman citizens, and have thrown us into prison; and do they now throw us out secretly? No! Let them come themselves and take us out.” - Acts 16:27
What does that tell us about what Paul believed? Some might argue that in those cases he was scared and lost faith for a moment and chickened out. Well, maybe. But considering he used the opportunities to preach the Gospel, I don't think so. I think he understood, as we do, that while our citizenship is in Heaven, we have to live on this earth and should use every opportunity to do good.
A tangent to this argument comes from Ephesians 6:12
For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.
And also 2 Timothy 2:3-4
Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to please the one who enlisted him.
In other words, since our citizenship is not of this world, we are to fight the fight of the Kingdom of God and not worry about earthly battles, such as politics. We should speak only of Christ, sharing the gospel with everyone and not waste any energy on earthly pursuits.
And yes, as Christians we are to always fight the good fight and always aim to make disciples of all people. But does that mean we spend every waking moment doing just that?
The reality is we live in a world where we have to work to provide for ourselves and our families. If we as Christians were to just walk away from our earthly responsibilities, the results would be disastrous. Furthermore, should we give up TV and radio and movies and books and art and do nothing but preach Christ? I don't think so.
Paul understood that people had to work to meet their earthly needs.
[Paul] found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. And he went to see them, 3 and because he was of the same trade he stayed with them and worked, for they were tentmakers by trade. - Acts 18:2-3
Paul also talks about living in a secular world and dealing with unbelieving neighbors:
So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. - I Corinthians 10:31
In this context I am reminded of the words often attributed to Francis of Assisi (though the exact source is not known):
"Preach the Gospel always, and if necessary, use words."
My opinion is that THIS is how you preach the Gospel always and fight the good fight. Not always with your words, but with your example. In our day to day life of working and shopping and Internetting and so on we are always to be the highest example of Christ even when we cannot use words.
How does this apply to voting and the political process? Well, first of all, I do feel that during the political season, that Christians should be above the ugliness of the process. Talk about it, express your opinion in polite company, certainly, but avoid malice and slander. Stick to facts.
And then vote according to what you feel is the best example of Christ. The Bible tells us that we are salt and light in this world, we are a city on a hill. Our vote, as with every other aspect of our life should preach the gospel.
Part 2 of the 'Christians should be apolitical' argument come from Romans 13:1-2:
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
And 1 Peter 2:13-14:
Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.
And again, yes, this is true. And good. And right. But while the stations of authority are given by God, does that mean the men in those stations are chosen by God? Are we to obey no matter what?
I don't think so. Peter in Acts 5:28-29 gives us an example:
“We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he [the high priest] said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.” Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than human beings!"
Also, the early believers prayed in Acts 4:26:
‘Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed
If they believed that the kings were God's authority, why would they be worried about them setting themselves against God?
The examples of Paul exercising his Roman citizenship given above apply here as well. If he were subject to the authority over him, why would he appeal to a higher authority?
The question of the early church presents itself here. There was much persecution. How did the church survive if the believers did not resist authority? If they had simply given in to the men that were seeking to kill them, they would have been wiped out. If those men were appointed by God, why would they want to wipe out the church?
Also if authority is from God to the man and not the station, why do we have examples of men choosing men to fill the stations ordained by God?
Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” And what they said pleased the whole gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. - Acts 6:3-5
And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed. - Acts 14:23
Choose for your tribes wise, understanding, and experienced men, and I will appoint them as your heads.’ - Deuteronomy 1:13
Another point: The book of Revelation. There are too many references to cite here, but over and over again we are told the nations and the kings of the world will be destroyed. If God ordained those nations and kings, why do they have to be destroyed? The only explanation is that the men in the stations are not following God.
A tangent to this argument is that "Paul, an educated man, would have knows about democracy, yet he never mentioned it" and "Jesus never taught about democracy so why should we participate in one?"
And yes, democracy had existed prior to the time of Christ. And Paul, being highly educated, may have known of this form of government. The Roman Republic had only just dissolved recently, probably within the lifetime of Paul's parents or grandparents. However, at the time of his writings and ministry, no one he reached lived in a democracy. Rome, at the time, was run by the emperor. If anyone he had written to had be lived in a democratic society, he probably would have written about it.
It's also important to note that democracy as it existed prior to Paul's time and even during Paul's time in other parts of the world, was very different from our American republic. In most cases, only citizens could vote. To be a citizen you had to be a land owner. As a land owner you were also a farmer, a business man. So, in essence, only businesses could vote. Even within them there was a hierarchy of a ruling class and a subordinate classes, with the hierarchy having a larger vote than the lower classes.
And the question "What would Jesus do?" Some might say "Jesus wouldn't vote, why should we?"
Well, honestly, it's hard to know what Jesus would do since the gospels don't record any situation similar to casting a vote to hire a leader. This is a red-herring argument.
There are other arguments against voting and participating in politics that you may here:
There are other things God chooses, your parents, the country you live in, whether or not you are saved, whether there is gravity... so be thankful that He chooses your leaders too.
Well, OK, but then why doesn't God choose other things good for me, like only giving me a taste for vegetables, clean water from my city, immunity to all disease? How does God pick and choose some thing and not others? And how does he determine which He chooses and which I choose?Another is "has government ever changed the world for the better? Why would you want to participate in that?"
This one is funny in light of the previous argument that God gives all authority. If all authority, government, is from God, and government hasn't changed the world for the better, then we're blaming God for the government?
And besides, there is the Emancipation Proclimation, Women's right to vote, freedom of speech and religion, traffic laws that keep people from dying... I would say there is much that the government has done that has made the world better. More than has harmed the world.
The final argument I will discuss: "people's lives aren't changed by law, only by the gospel".
And this is very true. People's lives are not changed by law. However, they are maintained and protected by the law. Yes, only the gospel can save a man's soul, but earthly law, when followed and exercised (as Paul did exercising his Roman citizenship) can protect a man's earthly life allowing him to continue doing much good.
So should Christians participate in politics or not? I believe my points above demonstrate that, if your heart so convicts you in your Christian walk, YES, PLEASE VOTE! It is one way to act as the salt and light in this world, in one small way it is preaching as you practice.
Further points to consider:
1. Voting publicly recognizes that we submit to the authority of the political system in our nation as established by God. Romans 13:1-7. (This expands on our argument from earlier. If God has established a democracy, then he means us to participate in it.)
2. Voting recognizes the equality of all people and their right to speak and be heard. James 2:1.
3. Voting is one way that we can obey God’s command to seek the good of those around us and our nation as a whole. Philippians 2:3.
4. Voting shows that we care deeply about who our leaders are as we are urged to offer prayer and intercession on their behalf. 1 Timothy 2:1, 2 . (Again, if God placed the people in the stations of authority, why do we need to pray for them?)
5. Voting is a simple yet significant way we can do something about politics in our nation. ‘All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing, Edmund Burke. Psalms 34:14.
6. Voting makes a difference in the same way a grain of salt makes a difference, and that is how we are to influence our society for good. Matthew 5:13. (Another way of stating my salt and light argument...)
7. Voting is a privilege not to be taken for granted. Those of us who reap the benefits of living in a democracy should play a part in upholding democracy.
8. Not voting is a form of voting, as it will influence the outcome. We need to take responsibility for our actions, as well as our lack of actions. I Peter 1:13.
9. Voting is part of our stewardship to use all the resources we have been given in ways that honor God; to waste a vote is to squander a gift.
10. Voting is Biblical. Jesus commands us to fulfill our responsibility to the civil authority. Matthew 22:21. (Render unto Ceasar... our government asks us to vote, so shouldn't we render unto them our vote?)
All verses are from the English Standard Version unless otherwise specified.
September 11
It's become almost a cliche' to talk about what happened 11 years ago and our feelings about it. It's a part of our culture now, for better or worse.
I sometimes wonder what my grandparents felt this many years after Pearl Harbor. By that time The War had been over for a while, America was doing pretty good, and the baby boom (when my parents were born) was in full swing. Did they remember Pearl Harbor in moments of silence and prayer ceremonies or was it over shadowed by the horror of the war, the toll it took on the young men of that generation?
Our generation is different for many reasons. So many of us, maybe all of us, have seen the horrors of the attack on the World Trade Center. We've seen the footage of the second plane hitting the second tower played over and over again on TV and now the web. Pictures of dust covered people and crushed fire trucks are part of our common memory.
I don't think that is better. I think in our media saturated society the scenes and pictures make us numb. The long running wars in Iraq and Afghanistan became common. Five of my children can't remember an America without war. It's become normal. And I hate that.
Death and destruction and gore and death should not be normal to us or our children. I'm not advocating censorship and sheltering our children from reality, but rather let's fix reality. Let's not become complacent in our remembering of 9-11, Pearl Harbor, D-Day, or any of the other horrors that are sadly part of our lives. Rather let's do something to improve the world.
Let's create beauty, so much that it outshines the darkness of war. Write, draw, paint, dance, talk, build, DO beautiful things. Let's crowd our street corners, alleyways, homes, businesses, our LIVES with so much beauty that that is what is common.
And let's start now.
I sometimes wonder what my grandparents felt this many years after Pearl Harbor. By that time The War had been over for a while, America was doing pretty good, and the baby boom (when my parents were born) was in full swing. Did they remember Pearl Harbor in moments of silence and prayer ceremonies or was it over shadowed by the horror of the war, the toll it took on the young men of that generation?
Our generation is different for many reasons. So many of us, maybe all of us, have seen the horrors of the attack on the World Trade Center. We've seen the footage of the second plane hitting the second tower played over and over again on TV and now the web. Pictures of dust covered people and crushed fire trucks are part of our common memory.
I don't think that is better. I think in our media saturated society the scenes and pictures make us numb. The long running wars in Iraq and Afghanistan became common. Five of my children can't remember an America without war. It's become normal. And I hate that.
Death and destruction and gore and death should not be normal to us or our children. I'm not advocating censorship and sheltering our children from reality, but rather let's fix reality. Let's not become complacent in our remembering of 9-11, Pearl Harbor, D-Day, or any of the other horrors that are sadly part of our lives. Rather let's do something to improve the world.
Let's create beauty, so much that it outshines the darkness of war. Write, draw, paint, dance, talk, build, DO beautiful things. Let's crowd our street corners, alleyways, homes, businesses, our LIVES with so much beauty that that is what is common.
And let's start now.
In the news...
The subject of rape is blowing up all over the place because of a comment made by Missouri US Senate nominee Todd Akin.
Here's the gist of what was said:
As uneducated and mistaken as these remarks may have been, they are something I myself have been guilty of.
I have been guilty of not calling a rape "rape" and causing great pain for someone I love. Let me tell the whole story. (You'll have to pardon me being vague, I don't wish to reveal too much out of respect for the individual involved.)
We were all on the phone, her, my wife, and me. She also had a friend on her end, encouraging her to do the right thing and tell us. "I was raped".
I don't honestly remember what the first thing I might have said was, but I do remember the next thing: "are you sure?" As the story unfolded, "there was a party blah blah blah, ended up alone with a guy, blah blah blah", my next reaction was "why did you let that happen?" And I'm pretty sure I even used the words "How could you have been so stupid?"
Why? Why did I react that way? I don't honestly know, but looking back I guess that there was a part of me that couldn't imagine the horror of what my loved one went through and wanted to gloss over the crime and somehow make it a misunderstanding of sorts.
Don't get me wrong. I fully understand that rape is rape. No means no and if a man ignores that and pushes himself on a woman, even if she gives up fighting just to get it over with, it is rape. And it is wrong. Later, after my initial shock wore off, I tried to make up for my earlier statements, but I don't think I will ever be truly forgiven for reacting the way I did. I can blame shock, but that doesn't change the fact that I needed a change in my thinking,
And I think that's where a lot of people stand. They just don't understand the horror of it. Mr. Akin's statement was in response to a question about abortion, but the fact that he just wants to gloss over the horror that rape even exists - to make a classification of "legitimate" rape, implying that there must be some kind of "fake" rape - is just..... I don't even have words.
But, not to defend him, I understand. Why? Because I was where he is. Not understanding. Not "getting it". It's horrible that it took someone I love being subjected to that awfulness for me to "get it", and I really hope that most people can "get it" without that, but I was there, thinking that the woman was at least in part responsible and therefore making it not a real rape.
Fortunately in this case, there was no pregnancy. But the psychological damage goes on. This loved one of mine was dramatically changed by the rape and the person she was died that day. The person she will become is still a work in progress, even though it's been more than 2 years.
So to Mr. Akin and others talking on this topic. I get it. I've been there. But you just need to admit that you were wrong instead of trying to defend what you said. Just say that you honestly believed what you were saying but now you know that it was wrong and will educate yourself. I did. And I'm better off for it.
What I want my kids to know about same-sex marriage.
Dear Children of Mine,
We live in a very weird time in history. And a very weird place. The things you will see and do and experience in the course of your life are astounding. Technology is developing faster and faster every day and the things you will be able to do in your life will make my life seem like the playtime of you childhood.
But in the course of your life, with all the shiny new toys, I don't want you to forget to take care of yourselves and the people around you. More than that, I don't want you to forget to take care of all people. It's easy to watch a screen, read a blog, and make judgments about others and their actions, it's another thing to go out there and work and act and be with real people. Don't forget to take care of real people.
I want you to be able to decide for yourselves what is right and wrong. I didn't raise you in the church to just swallow everything everyone says. Even within our church people will say different things on the same subject. I don't want you to be confused, I want you to be informed. Most of all I have tried to give you the tools you need to make intelligent decisions for yourself on every topic. Even religion. I want you to use your amazing minds and plot your own course in everything you do.
We have raised you all in the church. Even in our own church you have heard it said "homosexuality is wrong". But you guys also go to public school and the older ones among you are going to a public college. You have been exposed to people who are homosexual. You might even have teachers that are. You also read and watch TV and movies and you know what being homosexual is all about.
As I write this the United States and other parts of the world are struggling with the issue of same-sex marriage. Many intelligent people on both sides of the issue are arguing whether it is "right" or "wrong" and many states are passing laws, some saying "same-sex marriage is ok" others saying "same-sex marriage is illegal". Many people have drawn lines, thumped the Bible, waved the constitution and generally gotten ugly. On both sides.
As with everything, I am not going to tell you what is right and wrong. I want you to figure out for yourself what you think and what you believe. All I can offer is my opinion and tell you how I arrived at it. So here goes:
There are two aspects to a marriage as it currently exists in the United States. There is the 'religious' ceremony, and there is the legal ceremony.
The religious part is what most people think of when they hear the word "wedding". Two people, a 'man of the cloth', a church, lots of people, the wedding march... that whole bit. Traditions vary among different churches and religions, but many people have some kind of ceremony with lots of pomp and circumstance.
Then there is the legal part. For most of us, this is more of a "thing you have to do" than a ceremony. You go to the courthouse (or other public office) obtain the license, then you, your spouse, the witnesses, and a person licensed to marry you all sign it. In the eyes of the law you are not married without this document properly signed (with the exception of 'common law' marriage, in which some states declare you married if you have lived together for a certain amount of time - but that's another issue).
I tried to do a little research on the civil part of marriage as it exists in the United States. There are differing opinions as to when, why, and how marriage licenses began to be issued, but one thing is clear, after the Civil War they became common and from that time until relatively recently they were used by many states and counties to limit who could be married and who couldn't. Many places would not allow mixed race marriages by not issuing a license to the couple. It was only recently (within the last 50-60 years) that these restrictions have begun to be lifted. For most couples in most parts of the United States, the marriage license is more of a formality and a nuisance than anything else.
So what is the "Same-Sex Marriage" issue all about? From a legal/civil stand point, same-sex couples want the same rights as heterosexual couples that have signed a marriage license. This includes a long list of things that include parental rights, tax purposes, making decisions in the event of a health crisis or death, and so on. For example, Bob and Moe have been together as a same-sex couple for 15 years. Suddenly, Bob dies. Moe, who knew Bob better than anyone, knows exactly what Bob would want for his funeral. Unfortunately, Bob can't make those plans because Bob's family, his surviving siblings and parents, have legal priority. In fact, in some places, they could even keep Moe from attending Bob's funeral.
That is an EXTREME example (and honestly I don't know of any actual cases of this happening) but following the letter of the law in many places this could happen. If you look in the news you will find many cases among same-sex couples where things like this ARE happening.
But what about from a religious/church/Biblical standpoint?
I know that you have gotten conflicting viewpoints on this from me over the years. I used to be very much "anti-gay". I thought I knew that being gay was a choice, and that choice is a sin, and since it's a sin those who choose to live that way are not worthy of God's love.
But as you know (or at least I hope you know), I don't think or feel that way anymore.
Am I going against God? Against the church? Maybe. But let me explain...
I am a sinner. There are many things in my life that are against things the Bible says are wrong. I have lied, stolen, lusted... I have a very large plank in my eye, so to speak. The verses that many point to in the Bible to show that homosexuality are wrong are printed right along side of many others that are about lying, stealing, eating shellfish... To be honest, it's hard to sort out what the Bible REALLY says about homosexuality.
Is it a sin? I don't know. But what I do know is that IF it is a sin, it is not one that I struggle with. But there are many others that I do struggle with. And, currently, there no laws to prevent me from "indulging" in those sins. My sins, from a legal standpoint, are legal.
Which brings me to my point. By legalizing same-sex marriage, no one is forcing anyone to perform the marriage ceremony of anyone else. By making it legal to sign a marriage license, states are not requiring that churches perform the religious part of a same-sex wedding. Some churches might choose to do so, but no one is requiring it (as far as I know). Churches and others who hold privately owned spaces are still free to choose who uses that space for what purpose.
Those advocating for Same-Sex Marriage are not trying to force any religion to change it's point of view. What they do want is the the same LEGAL rights as heterosexual couples. They want to be 'legal'.
So IF same-sex marriage is a sin, should it be illegal? That is the question many states are dealing with. Some say "yes, who cares if it's a sin, let it be legal" others say "no, we try to base our laws on how we interpret the Bible, so we can't let it be legal".
But then there are my sins. Even though, by definition, my sins are against the Bible, according to the law they are legal. I will not embarrass you, children, by telling you what they are, but it's enough to say that when I "indulge" them, I don't hurt anyone. My sins are not rape or murder, nor do they involve physically hurting another individual. Same-Sex marriage, again IF it is a sin, doesn't hurt anyone either. Why are my "harmless according to the law" sins legal, but same-sex marriage is not?
And that's how I came to the point of view that I currently hold. From a Constitutional, legal, standpoint, there is no reason that same-sex marriage should be prohibited. (Granted, I am not an expert on the Constitution, nor the law, but from what I can read, there is nothing that describes or defines marriage in the Constitution of the United States.) Why should my sins be legal while the "sins" of others are prohibited? Do I like the idea of Same-Sex Marriage? It makes no difference what I think.
In the end, I am responsible for my own relationship between me and my God. I am responsible to you, children, and those around me. Is it my job to go around pointing out the sins of others? No. Not while I have this huge plank in my eye - which we all have from our own personal sins. As I said before, don't forget to take care of real people. Starting with yourself. And remember that taking care of people doesn't mean going around pointing out what they are doing wrong, it means to pick them up when they fall down.
Always remember the story of the Good Samaritan. In the eyes of that Samaritan, the wounded Jewish man was the worst sinner imaginable. And the Jewish man would have seen him the same way. But instead of lecturing the man while he was down about how his sins were wrong and how he worshiped the wrong god in the wrong place and so on, he picked him up, took him to get help, and footed the bill. In the parable, Jesus did not tell us what they said to each other. Why? Because it wasn't important. What was important was the ACTION of one sinner taking care of another.
And that's what we should do. Instead of trying to prevent the world from committing what we see as 'sin', we instead need to go to those who have fallen down and help them back up. It doesn't matter what you think is right or wrong, children, when it comes to other people. Decide for yourself what is right and what is wrong and do you best to live by those guidelines, but DO NOT expect everyone everywhere to see the world as you see it. Instead, be a friend to everyone. Love everyone. Pick up those who fall down.
And leave the rest to God.
I'm off on a rant now, so I'll close it up here. I don't want you to get caught up in something that doesn't really concern you. Love and protect those around you, do your best to help others in need. Do no harm. Leave the rest because you don't need the stress. Trust God, always.
And remember, children, that no matter what you do, where you go, or what you become, I will always love you.
All my love,
Dad
We live in a very weird time in history. And a very weird place. The things you will see and do and experience in the course of your life are astounding. Technology is developing faster and faster every day and the things you will be able to do in your life will make my life seem like the playtime of you childhood.
But in the course of your life, with all the shiny new toys, I don't want you to forget to take care of yourselves and the people around you. More than that, I don't want you to forget to take care of all people. It's easy to watch a screen, read a blog, and make judgments about others and their actions, it's another thing to go out there and work and act and be with real people. Don't forget to take care of real people.
I want you to be able to decide for yourselves what is right and wrong. I didn't raise you in the church to just swallow everything everyone says. Even within our church people will say different things on the same subject. I don't want you to be confused, I want you to be informed. Most of all I have tried to give you the tools you need to make intelligent decisions for yourself on every topic. Even religion. I want you to use your amazing minds and plot your own course in everything you do.
We have raised you all in the church. Even in our own church you have heard it said "homosexuality is wrong". But you guys also go to public school and the older ones among you are going to a public college. You have been exposed to people who are homosexual. You might even have teachers that are. You also read and watch TV and movies and you know what being homosexual is all about.
As I write this the United States and other parts of the world are struggling with the issue of same-sex marriage. Many intelligent people on both sides of the issue are arguing whether it is "right" or "wrong" and many states are passing laws, some saying "same-sex marriage is ok" others saying "same-sex marriage is illegal". Many people have drawn lines, thumped the Bible, waved the constitution and generally gotten ugly. On both sides.
As with everything, I am not going to tell you what is right and wrong. I want you to figure out for yourself what you think and what you believe. All I can offer is my opinion and tell you how I arrived at it. So here goes:
There are two aspects to a marriage as it currently exists in the United States. There is the 'religious' ceremony, and there is the legal ceremony.
The religious part is what most people think of when they hear the word "wedding". Two people, a 'man of the cloth', a church, lots of people, the wedding march... that whole bit. Traditions vary among different churches and religions, but many people have some kind of ceremony with lots of pomp and circumstance.
Then there is the legal part. For most of us, this is more of a "thing you have to do" than a ceremony. You go to the courthouse (or other public office) obtain the license, then you, your spouse, the witnesses, and a person licensed to marry you all sign it. In the eyes of the law you are not married without this document properly signed (with the exception of 'common law' marriage, in which some states declare you married if you have lived together for a certain amount of time - but that's another issue).
I tried to do a little research on the civil part of marriage as it exists in the United States. There are differing opinions as to when, why, and how marriage licenses began to be issued, but one thing is clear, after the Civil War they became common and from that time until relatively recently they were used by many states and counties to limit who could be married and who couldn't. Many places would not allow mixed race marriages by not issuing a license to the couple. It was only recently (within the last 50-60 years) that these restrictions have begun to be lifted. For most couples in most parts of the United States, the marriage license is more of a formality and a nuisance than anything else.
So what is the "Same-Sex Marriage" issue all about? From a legal/civil stand point, same-sex couples want the same rights as heterosexual couples that have signed a marriage license. This includes a long list of things that include parental rights, tax purposes, making decisions in the event of a health crisis or death, and so on. For example, Bob and Moe have been together as a same-sex couple for 15 years. Suddenly, Bob dies. Moe, who knew Bob better than anyone, knows exactly what Bob would want for his funeral. Unfortunately, Bob can't make those plans because Bob's family, his surviving siblings and parents, have legal priority. In fact, in some places, they could even keep Moe from attending Bob's funeral.
That is an EXTREME example (and honestly I don't know of any actual cases of this happening) but following the letter of the law in many places this could happen. If you look in the news you will find many cases among same-sex couples where things like this ARE happening.
But what about from a religious/church/Biblical standpoint?
I know that you have gotten conflicting viewpoints on this from me over the years. I used to be very much "anti-gay". I thought I knew that being gay was a choice, and that choice is a sin, and since it's a sin those who choose to live that way are not worthy of God's love.
But as you know (or at least I hope you know), I don't think or feel that way anymore.
Am I going against God? Against the church? Maybe. But let me explain...
I am a sinner. There are many things in my life that are against things the Bible says are wrong. I have lied, stolen, lusted... I have a very large plank in my eye, so to speak. The verses that many point to in the Bible to show that homosexuality are wrong are printed right along side of many others that are about lying, stealing, eating shellfish... To be honest, it's hard to sort out what the Bible REALLY says about homosexuality.
Is it a sin? I don't know. But what I do know is that IF it is a sin, it is not one that I struggle with. But there are many others that I do struggle with. And, currently, there no laws to prevent me from "indulging" in those sins. My sins, from a legal standpoint, are legal.
Which brings me to my point. By legalizing same-sex marriage, no one is forcing anyone to perform the marriage ceremony of anyone else. By making it legal to sign a marriage license, states are not requiring that churches perform the religious part of a same-sex wedding. Some churches might choose to do so, but no one is requiring it (as far as I know). Churches and others who hold privately owned spaces are still free to choose who uses that space for what purpose.
Those advocating for Same-Sex Marriage are not trying to force any religion to change it's point of view. What they do want is the the same LEGAL rights as heterosexual couples. They want to be 'legal'.
So IF same-sex marriage is a sin, should it be illegal? That is the question many states are dealing with. Some say "yes, who cares if it's a sin, let it be legal" others say "no, we try to base our laws on how we interpret the Bible, so we can't let it be legal".
But then there are my sins. Even though, by definition, my sins are against the Bible, according to the law they are legal. I will not embarrass you, children, by telling you what they are, but it's enough to say that when I "indulge" them, I don't hurt anyone. My sins are not rape or murder, nor do they involve physically hurting another individual. Same-Sex marriage, again IF it is a sin, doesn't hurt anyone either. Why are my "harmless according to the law" sins legal, but same-sex marriage is not?
And that's how I came to the point of view that I currently hold. From a Constitutional, legal, standpoint, there is no reason that same-sex marriage should be prohibited. (Granted, I am not an expert on the Constitution, nor the law, but from what I can read, there is nothing that describes or defines marriage in the Constitution of the United States.) Why should my sins be legal while the "sins" of others are prohibited? Do I like the idea of Same-Sex Marriage? It makes no difference what I think.
In the end, I am responsible for my own relationship between me and my God. I am responsible to you, children, and those around me. Is it my job to go around pointing out the sins of others? No. Not while I have this huge plank in my eye - which we all have from our own personal sins. As I said before, don't forget to take care of real people. Starting with yourself. And remember that taking care of people doesn't mean going around pointing out what they are doing wrong, it means to pick them up when they fall down.
Always remember the story of the Good Samaritan. In the eyes of that Samaritan, the wounded Jewish man was the worst sinner imaginable. And the Jewish man would have seen him the same way. But instead of lecturing the man while he was down about how his sins were wrong and how he worshiped the wrong god in the wrong place and so on, he picked him up, took him to get help, and footed the bill. In the parable, Jesus did not tell us what they said to each other. Why? Because it wasn't important. What was important was the ACTION of one sinner taking care of another.
And that's what we should do. Instead of trying to prevent the world from committing what we see as 'sin', we instead need to go to those who have fallen down and help them back up. It doesn't matter what you think is right or wrong, children, when it comes to other people. Decide for yourself what is right and what is wrong and do you best to live by those guidelines, but DO NOT expect everyone everywhere to see the world as you see it. Instead, be a friend to everyone. Love everyone. Pick up those who fall down.
And leave the rest to God.
I'm off on a rant now, so I'll close it up here. I don't want you to get caught up in something that doesn't really concern you. Love and protect those around you, do your best to help others in need. Do no harm. Leave the rest because you don't need the stress. Trust God, always.
And remember, children, that no matter what you do, where you go, or what you become, I will always love you.
All my love,
Dad
A Christian Response to The Hunger Games, Harry Potter, and Other Popular Books and Movies
About 5 years ago I wrote this post on my other blog in response to what I saw as a very poor response from the Christian community to the Harry Potter phenomenon. Now, five years later, Harry Potter remains popular, but as new books and movies have come along, it's been pushed out of the spotlight by the newest and the latest.
As I write this today, the popular "thing" is The Hunger Games, by Suzanne Collins. In our media-centered world, people's interests and tastes change quickly. In a few months the Summer movie season will kick in and something else will be the next blockbuster.
So how should one respond to all this stuff coming from books and movies and television and the Internet? As a Christian are we close ourselves off from popular culture because it's too gory or deals with "new age" topics or witchcraft or magic? Should we limit our reading and movie choices to those produced by the Christian community and shun those created by 'secular' authors and producers? Do we limit our discussions only to Biblical and religious topics and avoid talking about the latest and greatest?
To put it bluntly, are we not allowed to enjoy that movie or book that everyone is talking about? Does being "in the world, not of it" mean that the only book we are allowed to read is our Bible and the only movie we can watch is The Ten Commandments? Is everything you can't buy at a Christian bookstore automatically "bad"?
As Christians the Bible is our "Instruction Manual". There are many verses that tell us about our relationship to this world:
This can get to be a very sticky issue, "In the world not OF it". There have been many sermons preached, many blog posts written, whole books devoted to the topic of how to be a Christian in a secular world. I am not going to rehash all those discussions because, honestly, I think most of them miss the mark.
I am not going to get into a deep, heavy, theological discussion here. That's what churches and preachers are for. I will encourage you to find your own way of being "in the world not of it". What I will offer here is my own experience and thoughts of how to react to the latest and greatest books, movies, games, websites, and everything else that comes down the pike in our media saturated western world.
In the blog post I mentioned at the beginning of this post I addressed Harry Potter specifically. As new things come along it's hard to discuss everything specifically. Besides, there are many that are more than happy to do that, to pick apart a book, movie, game, or website and tell you how good or bad the writer is, why the themes and story of the thing are good or bad. And as much as I would enjoy doing that with The Hunger Games books, The Avengers movie that comes out in a couple weeks, Diablo 3 that comes out next month.... it's all just too much to keep up with.
What I, and maybe you, need is some general guidelines on how to deal with this stuff. Should we read those books? Should we go to that movie? Should we play that game? What are we to do? Is any entertainment "OK", or should everything be about working for God's Glory (1 Corinthians 10:31)?
The answer is, there is no answer. This is where I divert into opinion and experience, because in the end that is really all I have to offer. My opinion and experience my not be better than anyone else's, but at my age I think I might have experienced enough that some of it might be helpful to you. So here goes.
I don't think "being in the world not of it" means we have to "shun" everything that is not "Christian". If you walk into a Christian store you will find Christian music, Christian fiction, Christian clothes, Christian toys, and so on an so forth. All these things are offering a substitute for it's secular counterpart. Some Christian music sounds a lot like what Christians call "secular" music. Those Christian T-shirts look just like the one's you see at the mall, only they changed the words to convey a "Christian" message.
Don't get me wrong, I really like some of these "Christian" things. There are fantastic Christian musicians and really good Christian writers. But if the secular version is so bad, why is the Christian version trying so hard to look and sound like it?
Let's be honest. Over the course of human history there have been some really amazing things come out of the human mind. The works of Shakespeare, the Mona Lisa, the music of Mozart, The Honeymooners, Gone With The Wind, I could go on. I'm betting that if you are a Christian you know these things. All of them "secular", that is to say, God is not the main character in any of these.
If God gave humans a mind to create these amazing things, did he mean for us not to enjoy them? I don't think so.
Now this is a slippery slope because I also don't think that he meant for us to just dive in and enjoy everything. There are things that the human mind has created that are horrible and demeaning not just to God but also the anyone that exposed to it.
So here is the rule to follow in deciding what to read, watch, listen to:
"...whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things."
Philippians 4:8 (ESV)
Does this mean only "Christian" things? I don't think so. Because if you are familiar with those things in the Christian store I mention, you know that there are even things there that are not "worthy of praise". Some of that music and some of those books are just awful. Just labeling something "Christian" does not make it good. And, likewise, labeling something "secular" doesn't automatically make it bad.
So what am I saying? Well, I'll cut right to the chase: Read that book. See that movie. Play that game. Visit that blog or website. Don't be an idiot about what is going on in the world around you. Don't close yourself off from the world. Be able to talk about that book or movie that everyone else is talking about.
Every conversation is an opportunity to do good in the world. Every status update is an opportunity to befriend someone.
How can I say this? Because Jesus himself used the popular entertainment of His time to befriend and teach people: story telling.
In an age long before television and movies, before the printing press made written works common, people told each other stories. Some about history, some made up. All of them entertaining. And Jesus did too. There are many "parables" recorded in the Bible. Which also tells of the crowds that gathered to hear them.
What is our Christian response to The Hunger Games? Twilight? Super heroes? And everything else in our media/entertainment centric lives? Use your judgement, but in my opinion, go ahead. Read it, or see the movie if you want to. If you are comfortable with who you are and what you believe, then a book or a movie is not going to change you. But maybe a conversation you have about it later on will add some good to the world.
One thing you shouldn't do is judge the work based on what you've "heard". Withhold any opinion on it until you've seen it or read it. If you don't know anything about it, don't take anyone else's word about what a work is or what it's about. You don't know if that person has read/seen it or not. This happened a lot when Harry Potter was the rage. A lot of Christians criticized it because it was about "witches and wizards and bad magic". Some churches went so far as to have Harry Potter book burnings. All based on what they thought it was about and not having read it.
And remember that what you are reading, watching, is a work of art. Maybe it's good art, maybe it's bad, but it's art. It's foolish to judge art with the same guidelines as you judge reality. The characters are doing things in a world created by the artist, not the real world.
Generally speaking, don't be a jerk. As I said, everything is an opportunity to do good.
And, in all things, don't be a jerk.
As I write this today, the popular "thing" is The Hunger Games, by Suzanne Collins. In our media-centered world, people's interests and tastes change quickly. In a few months the Summer movie season will kick in and something else will be the next blockbuster.
So how should one respond to all this stuff coming from books and movies and television and the Internet? As a Christian are we close ourselves off from popular culture because it's too gory or deals with "new age" topics or witchcraft or magic? Should we limit our reading and movie choices to those produced by the Christian community and shun those created by 'secular' authors and producers? Do we limit our discussions only to Biblical and religious topics and avoid talking about the latest and greatest?
To put it bluntly, are we not allowed to enjoy that movie or book that everyone is talking about? Does being "in the world, not of it" mean that the only book we are allowed to read is our Bible and the only movie we can watch is The Ten Commandments? Is everything you can't buy at a Christian bookstore automatically "bad"?
As Christians the Bible is our "Instruction Manual". There are many verses that tell us about our relationship to this world:
"If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you."
John 15:19 (ESV)
"Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect."Romans 12:2 (ESV)
"Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him."1 John 2:15 (ESV)
This can get to be a very sticky issue, "In the world not OF it". There have been many sermons preached, many blog posts written, whole books devoted to the topic of how to be a Christian in a secular world. I am not going to rehash all those discussions because, honestly, I think most of them miss the mark.
I am not going to get into a deep, heavy, theological discussion here. That's what churches and preachers are for. I will encourage you to find your own way of being "in the world not of it". What I will offer here is my own experience and thoughts of how to react to the latest and greatest books, movies, games, websites, and everything else that comes down the pike in our media saturated western world.
In the blog post I mentioned at the beginning of this post I addressed Harry Potter specifically. As new things come along it's hard to discuss everything specifically. Besides, there are many that are more than happy to do that, to pick apart a book, movie, game, or website and tell you how good or bad the writer is, why the themes and story of the thing are good or bad. And as much as I would enjoy doing that with The Hunger Games books, The Avengers movie that comes out in a couple weeks, Diablo 3 that comes out next month.... it's all just too much to keep up with.
What I, and maybe you, need is some general guidelines on how to deal with this stuff. Should we read those books? Should we go to that movie? Should we play that game? What are we to do? Is any entertainment "OK", or should everything be about working for God's Glory (1 Corinthians 10:31)?
The answer is, there is no answer. This is where I divert into opinion and experience, because in the end that is really all I have to offer. My opinion and experience my not be better than anyone else's, but at my age I think I might have experienced enough that some of it might be helpful to you. So here goes.
I don't think "being in the world not of it" means we have to "shun" everything that is not "Christian". If you walk into a Christian store you will find Christian music, Christian fiction, Christian clothes, Christian toys, and so on an so forth. All these things are offering a substitute for it's secular counterpart. Some Christian music sounds a lot like what Christians call "secular" music. Those Christian T-shirts look just like the one's you see at the mall, only they changed the words to convey a "Christian" message.
Don't get me wrong, I really like some of these "Christian" things. There are fantastic Christian musicians and really good Christian writers. But if the secular version is so bad, why is the Christian version trying so hard to look and sound like it?
Let's be honest. Over the course of human history there have been some really amazing things come out of the human mind. The works of Shakespeare, the Mona Lisa, the music of Mozart, The Honeymooners, Gone With The Wind, I could go on. I'm betting that if you are a Christian you know these things. All of them "secular", that is to say, God is not the main character in any of these.
If God gave humans a mind to create these amazing things, did he mean for us not to enjoy them? I don't think so.
Now this is a slippery slope because I also don't think that he meant for us to just dive in and enjoy everything. There are things that the human mind has created that are horrible and demeaning not just to God but also the anyone that exposed to it.
So here is the rule to follow in deciding what to read, watch, listen to:
"...whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things."
Philippians 4:8 (ESV)
Does this mean only "Christian" things? I don't think so. Because if you are familiar with those things in the Christian store I mention, you know that there are even things there that are not "worthy of praise". Some of that music and some of those books are just awful. Just labeling something "Christian" does not make it good. And, likewise, labeling something "secular" doesn't automatically make it bad.
So what am I saying? Well, I'll cut right to the chase: Read that book. See that movie. Play that game. Visit that blog or website. Don't be an idiot about what is going on in the world around you. Don't close yourself off from the world. Be able to talk about that book or movie that everyone else is talking about.
Every conversation is an opportunity to do good in the world. Every status update is an opportunity to befriend someone.
How can I say this? Because Jesus himself used the popular entertainment of His time to befriend and teach people: story telling.
In an age long before television and movies, before the printing press made written works common, people told each other stories. Some about history, some made up. All of them entertaining. And Jesus did too. There are many "parables" recorded in the Bible. Which also tells of the crowds that gathered to hear them.
What is our Christian response to The Hunger Games? Twilight? Super heroes? And everything else in our media/entertainment centric lives? Use your judgement, but in my opinion, go ahead. Read it, or see the movie if you want to. If you are comfortable with who you are and what you believe, then a book or a movie is not going to change you. But maybe a conversation you have about it later on will add some good to the world.
One thing you shouldn't do is judge the work based on what you've "heard". Withhold any opinion on it until you've seen it or read it. If you don't know anything about it, don't take anyone else's word about what a work is or what it's about. You don't know if that person has read/seen it or not. This happened a lot when Harry Potter was the rage. A lot of Christians criticized it because it was about "witches and wizards and bad magic". Some churches went so far as to have Harry Potter book burnings. All based on what they thought it was about and not having read it.
And remember that what you are reading, watching, is a work of art. Maybe it's good art, maybe it's bad, but it's art. It's foolish to judge art with the same guidelines as you judge reality. The characters are doing things in a world created by the artist, not the real world.
Generally speaking, don't be a jerk. As I said, everything is an opportunity to do good.
And, in all things, don't be a jerk.
Are we really that bad?
Recently I was introduced to a new friend by way of another friend. I really only know both of these fine folks through facebook, so I don't know either of them in a "real" way and what they know about me is only from things I post on facebook.
I bring this up because in making the introduction, my "old" friend described me to my "new" friend like this (not exact quote): "You'll like him, he's really cool. He's a Christian but don't let that bother you, he's a good guy anyway."
Everyone in on the conversation understood was was being said and nothing insulting or unkind was intended in any way and I didn't take it that way at all. But it made me think...
Are Christians, as a whole, so bad that something like this needs to be said in any context? It doesn't bother me that it was said about me, but why did it HAVE to be said? Do people need to be given a warning between "this kind of Christian" and "that kind of Christian"?
I know a lot of the Christian "public" image comes from the media. Especially in an election year it seems like the words "Christian values", "faith based issues", and this mysterious group called "value voters" get a lot of buzz. Discussions about this candidate's faith or that candidate's church get a lot of screen time too. Unfortunately, most of this attention is given to what the candidates and voters stand against. Christians are seen by some as those who say "no, you can't have that". Gay marriage? No, you can't have that. Abortion? No, you can't have that. And on it goes.
Then when you throw "conservative" into the mix (some assume Christian=conservative and conservative=Christian) and all the political issues that go alone with that, it gets even messier. "Fair" taxes on corporations and the wealthy? No, you can't have that. Universal health care? No, you can't have that. And on it goes.
That's what many people assume. Christians aren't for anything, but against everything.
Are we really that bad?
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!
Amber Alerts and Social Networking - So Far We're Kind Of Doing It Wrong
The other night, a friend of mine posted a rather angry status update on Facebook. This friend loves to play one of those virtual farming or fish tank games (I don't know which) on Facebook and someone in the game had accused her of being "heartless" for not forwarding an Amber Alert. As the story progressed, my friend was receiving more and more attacks from other people who play the game. Apparently, forwarding Amber Alerts had become part of the culture of this game and even though it wasn't required to play, it was expected. I am not sure how the situation was resolved, or if it ever was, but I do know my friend continues to play the game.
In case you don't know, an Amber Alert is a message sent out to local TV stations, radio stations, traffic signs, and any other place they can get the message out, whenever a child has been kidnapped or gone missing. The idea is that the sooner you get the message out and the more eyes you have looking for someone, the more likely the child is to be found really quickly and safe. Amber Alerts are issued by the local affiliates of the National Center For Missing and Exploited Children, who maintains a database of missing children.
Amber alerts have been around for 25 years. The name "Amber" is taken from the name of a girl who went missing in Texas and was later found murdered. There are variations on the name, such as "Levi's alert"in Georgia, but the concept it the same, alert as many people as possible to help find a missing child as quickly as possible. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amber_alert)
It's a fantastic idea, especially sending the message to traffic
signs on busy freeways where there are thousands of pairs of eyes and 99 times out of 100 if a child has been kidnapped, the kidnapper is probably getting away in a car.
As more and more people are becoming web-connected, it only makes sense that people want to share Amber Alerts through the internet as well. (It is possible to sign up for text messages or subscribe to an RSS feed to receive alerts on your mobile device, but neither option is well known and one must take the time to sign up, it doesn't go to everyone.) Somewhere down the line, someone decided to post one, or several, as Facebook status updates, asking people to forward it and many groups, such as the game my friend plays, have made Amber Alerts part of their culture.
Forwarding Amber Alerts, or missing children messages, from a home computer is not a new idea. Email services have been passing them around almost since email was invented. And while those who forward these messages, whether by email, Facebook, Twitter, or another social network, probably have the best of intentions, many times the messages are weeks, months or even years old, and yet are still in circulation, even though the child in question is no longer missing.
Or worse. Take, for example the case of Penny Brown. Sometime in 2001, an email began circulating that read something like this:
________________
This email is STILL circulating, even though Penny Brown would be at least 18 and the picture wouldn't look anything like her. But Penny is not missing. Penny was NEVER missing. And while the picture is of someone's little girl, Penny Brown may not even exist. Authorities in the United States and Canada testify that there has never been anyone by the name of Penny Brown listed as missing or kidnapped. The whole thing seems to be the product of someone's deranged imagination. (http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/missing/penny.asp)
So that Amber Alert that someone is asking your to forward or re-post might be outdated at best or a fake at worst. But there's a more important question, do Amber Alerts sent to people on their home computers fulfill their purpose and intent: to put as many eyes as possible to work looking for a missing child? And is forwarding an alert, via email or a social network, really the best way to distribute the information?
Let's look at each question separately.
Amber Alerts on the Desktop
Setting aside the issue of how you might receive an Amber Alert on a desktop computer (there are many ways besides email or social networking including official apps from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children), lets look at whether they fulfill their purpose and if they are at least potentially effective.
Picture this situation. You're sitting at home, at your desk or maybe on your bed with your laptop, and you get an Amber Alert. Unless there's a potential for the child to be in your house, it's not going to do you much good. However, imagine the same situation, only you're on your computer at work and it's a few minutes before you leave for the day. You could write down the license number and be on the look out for it on your way home. In that case, the Amber Alert could do a lot of good.
So, generally speaking, sending Amber Alerts to computers might be a good thing. In that light, it makes sense to send them to non-mobile web users. Even though those at home can't really use the information, it has the potential to reach many people in the workplace or are otherwise "out and about". It is probably still far more effective to deliver the information in a way that people will have access to while driving, but delivering it to non-driving citizens may be effective as well. After all, the idea is to get as many pairs of eyeballs activated as quickly as possible.
Passing Amber Alerts Person to Person
Picture the same situations, only instead of receiving the Amber Alert from an official source, you get it in an email or from a Facebook status update. Again, a home user can't do much with it, but someone in the workplace or out and about might be able to put it to use. However, if it's not coming from an official authority, how do you know the information is accurate or timely?
Maybe it is current and the information can be used appropriately. But maybe the Amber Alert is a fake. What if it was actually authored by an angry girlfriend and the license plate number in the alert is that of her boyfriend? Now, hundreds of people, if not more, are looking for a car that has nothing to do with a kidnapping and may not be doing anything wrong at all. What happens when someone finds it and 10 policemen with guns drawn pull this innocent guy over? Maybe this is an extreme example, but without someone checking the validity of the information, it is certainly possible.
The point here is, unless the Amber Alert is coming directly from the source - the police or other authority - then how do you know it's real? And even if it is real, how can you be sure it's current?
There's another issue. A friend of yours in California sends you an Amber Alert, but you live in Nebraska. What are you going to do with the information? Yes, it's conceivably possible that someone from California might end up in Nebraska, but by the time that happens, the alert will be several days old. And the chances of this individual being in the town you are in, in Nebraska, are pretty slim. And now your are the only one in Nebraska that has this information (unless you forward it to a very large number of others), and you are only one pair of eyes covering the whole state. Does the Amber Alert fulfill it's purpose in this case? In a very small way, maybe, but so small as to not really make a difference.
So passing an Amber Alert from person to person has the potential for being, at the very least, old information, and at the very worst, fake information, but also might totally fail to reach the people most likely to help find the missing child. Forwarding the information from person to person is obviously not the best way to distribute an Amber Alert.
There are a couple of arguments that can be made, like "but if it is real, why take the chance? Forward it anyway" and "if it was a child you knew you would forward it" and "I'd rather not waste time checking to see if it's real, every second counts, I 'm forwarding it". We will discuss those later.
Social Networking
People forwarding these messages do have the right idea, at least those who are honestly trying to be helpful and not generating fake alerts. Social networks have the potential to be an extremely powerful tool in the search for missing children. The problem is, so far, we're doing it wrong.
Like many technologies, business and government are only very slowly coming to realize the potential of social networking as a real communications tool and not just a toy. Facebook, for example, has been looked upon as a way to spread advertising, but not as a channel to provide help and support. Many companies, such as Dell, have started providing tech and sales support through Twitter; a great step, but there is so much more that can be done.
Let's look at Facebook, since it is arguably the most popular social networking tool on the Internet (at least in English speaking countries). In it's database, Facebook has information about where people live. An application could be built that could send targeted messages to people living in a certain city or county. This would be a perfect tool for Amber Alerts as it would send timely, targeted information to the people that could use it and not randomly out to people that couldn't. As more and more mobile devices become web-enabled, this becomes even more powerful as it reaches people in places where it can be the most effective, their cars, coffee shops, and shopping centers.
Arguments
When my friend was chided for not forwarding Amber Alerts, there were many arguments that were thrown at her such as "what if it was your child?" and "better safe than sorry" and "what's the harm?"
This article has already demonstrated a couple of the pitfalls of forwarding false or misleading information. In response to the arguments above I would ask: "what if it was your license plate that was being falsely distributed as a kidnapper?" and "what if this is someone's idea of a sick joke?" and "what if someone is arrested who has nothing to do with the missing child?"
Or how about these: "but if it is real, why take the chance? Forward it anyway" and "if it was a child you knew you would forward it" and "I'd rather not waste time checking to see if it's real, every second counts, I 'm forwarding it."
My response is: "but what if it's fake and someone is just having a big laugh?", "if it was a child I knew I would be out helping to look, not wasting time on the Internet", and "if the child has already been found, there's no need to waste OTHER people's time."
The Real Deal
If you or someone you know is truly concerned about missing children, as I am, then the right thing to do is to get your information from the source and use it properly.
Each state maintains it's own Amber Alert program, but the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) has access to their information and makes it available to the public at: http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PublicHomeServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US
While not every active Amber Alert may appear on this site, as it depends on information from local authorities, most will. You can also look up information on children who are still missing even though there is not an active Amber Alert.
Another good source of information is Code Amber (http://www.codeamber.com). This privately run,
advertising and donation supported, site works in much the same way as the NCMEC site, aggregating all available information and making it available to the public. Their home page offers not only the most current Amber Alerts that have been issued, but also provides information on past Amber Alerts, such as why it was canceled and if the child was found, and sometimes, sadly, that the child was not found alive. The also provide widgets that you can use on your computer and place on your website, including your Facebook profile.
Many states also have their own website. You can find a list compiled by the NCMEC here: http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/ServiceServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=1421
Hopefully more states will begin to provide the information over the Internet, but those that don't have contact information listed, including phone numbers if you need to reach them.
Conclusion
In closing, let me just say that there is a right way and a wrong way to do Amber Alerts. Like gossip, it's not a good idea to pass the information from person to person. The wrong people get the wrong information and someone could get hurt.
If you receive an Amber Alert and you think it might be real, take a second to check it on one of the sites listed above. Yes, every second counts, but passing on the wrong information is worse than not forwarding it at all. Bookmark the NCMEC or Code Amber sites and quickly pull them up when you need to.
The best option, in my opinion, is to only trust Amber Alerts that come from the authorities. If you see it on the news or hear it on the radio, or get it from another trusted authority, then you know it's real and can act on it accordingly.
Amber Alerts are serious business, and should be treated as such. Take the time to verify the information and ACT on it. They don't work unless people are looking. If you care, then get out and look.
In case you don't know, an Amber Alert is a message sent out to local TV stations, radio stations, traffic signs, and any other place they can get the message out, whenever a child has been kidnapped or gone missing. The idea is that the sooner you get the message out and the more eyes you have looking for someone, the more likely the child is to be found really quickly and safe. Amber Alerts are issued by the local affiliates of the National Center For Missing and Exploited Children, who maintains a database of missing children.
Amber alerts have been around for 25 years. The name "Amber" is taken from the name of a girl who went missing in Texas and was later found murdered. There are variations on the name, such as "Levi's alert"in Georgia, but the concept it the same, alert as many people as possible to help find a missing child as quickly as possible. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amber_alert)
It's a fantastic idea, especially sending the message to traffic
signs on busy freeways where there are thousands of pairs of eyes and 99 times out of 100 if a child has been kidnapped, the kidnapper is probably getting away in a car.As more and more people are becoming web-connected, it only makes sense that people want to share Amber Alerts through the internet as well. (It is possible to sign up for text messages or subscribe to an RSS feed to receive alerts on your mobile device, but neither option is well known and one must take the time to sign up, it doesn't go to everyone.) Somewhere down the line, someone decided to post one, or several, as Facebook status updates, asking people to forward it and many groups, such as the game my friend plays, have made Amber Alerts part of their culture.
Forwarding Amber Alerts, or missing children messages, from a home computer is not a new idea. Email services have been passing them around almost since email was invented. And while those who forward these messages, whether by email, Facebook, Twitter, or another social network, probably have the best of intentions, many times the messages are weeks, months or even years old, and yet are still in circulation, even though the child in question is no longer missing.
Or worse. Take, for example the case of Penny Brown. Sometime in 2001, an email began circulating that read something like this:
________________
PLEASE LOOK AT PICTURE THEN FORWARD___________________
I am asking you all, begging you to please, forward this email on to anyone and everyone you know, PLEASE. My9 year old girl, Penny Brown, is missing. She has been missing for now two weeks. It is still not too late, Please help us.
If anyone anywhere knows anything, sees anything, please contact me at zicozicozico@nonexistantemail.com
I am including a picture of her. All prayers are appreciated!!
It only takes 2 seconds to forward this on, if it was your child, you would want all the help you could get.
Please. thank you for your kindness, hopefully you can help us.
This email is STILL circulating, even though Penny Brown would be at least 18 and the picture wouldn't look anything like her. But Penny is not missing. Penny was NEVER missing. And while the picture is of someone's little girl, Penny Brown may not even exist. Authorities in the United States and Canada testify that there has never been anyone by the name of Penny Brown listed as missing or kidnapped. The whole thing seems to be the product of someone's deranged imagination. (http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/missing/penny.asp)
So that Amber Alert that someone is asking your to forward or re-post might be outdated at best or a fake at worst. But there's a more important question, do Amber Alerts sent to people on their home computers fulfill their purpose and intent: to put as many eyes as possible to work looking for a missing child? And is forwarding an alert, via email or a social network, really the best way to distribute the information?
Let's look at each question separately.
Amber Alerts on the Desktop
Setting aside the issue of how you might receive an Amber Alert on a desktop computer (there are many ways besides email or social networking including official apps from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children), lets look at whether they fulfill their purpose and if they are at least potentially effective.
Picture this situation. You're sitting at home, at your desk or maybe on your bed with your laptop, and you get an Amber Alert. Unless there's a potential for the child to be in your house, it's not going to do you much good. However, imagine the same situation, only you're on your computer at work and it's a few minutes before you leave for the day. You could write down the license number and be on the look out for it on your way home. In that case, the Amber Alert could do a lot of good.
So, generally speaking, sending Amber Alerts to computers might be a good thing. In that light, it makes sense to send them to non-mobile web users. Even though those at home can't really use the information, it has the potential to reach many people in the workplace or are otherwise "out and about". It is probably still far more effective to deliver the information in a way that people will have access to while driving, but delivering it to non-driving citizens may be effective as well. After all, the idea is to get as many pairs of eyeballs activated as quickly as possible.
Passing Amber Alerts Person to Person
Picture the same situations, only instead of receiving the Amber Alert from an official source, you get it in an email or from a Facebook status update. Again, a home user can't do much with it, but someone in the workplace or out and about might be able to put it to use. However, if it's not coming from an official authority, how do you know the information is accurate or timely?
Maybe it is current and the information can be used appropriately. But maybe the Amber Alert is a fake. What if it was actually authored by an angry girlfriend and the license plate number in the alert is that of her boyfriend? Now, hundreds of people, if not more, are looking for a car that has nothing to do with a kidnapping and may not be doing anything wrong at all. What happens when someone finds it and 10 policemen with guns drawn pull this innocent guy over? Maybe this is an extreme example, but without someone checking the validity of the information, it is certainly possible.
The point here is, unless the Amber Alert is coming directly from the source - the police or other authority - then how do you know it's real? And even if it is real, how can you be sure it's current?
There's another issue. A friend of yours in California sends you an Amber Alert, but you live in Nebraska. What are you going to do with the information? Yes, it's conceivably possible that someone from California might end up in Nebraska, but by the time that happens, the alert will be several days old. And the chances of this individual being in the town you are in, in Nebraska, are pretty slim. And now your are the only one in Nebraska that has this information (unless you forward it to a very large number of others), and you are only one pair of eyes covering the whole state. Does the Amber Alert fulfill it's purpose in this case? In a very small way, maybe, but so small as to not really make a difference.
So passing an Amber Alert from person to person has the potential for being, at the very least, old information, and at the very worst, fake information, but also might totally fail to reach the people most likely to help find the missing child. Forwarding the information from person to person is obviously not the best way to distribute an Amber Alert.
There are a couple of arguments that can be made, like "but if it is real, why take the chance? Forward it anyway" and "if it was a child you knew you would forward it" and "I'd rather not waste time checking to see if it's real, every second counts, I 'm forwarding it". We will discuss those later.
Social Networking
People forwarding these messages do have the right idea, at least those who are honestly trying to be helpful and not generating fake alerts. Social networks have the potential to be an extremely powerful tool in the search for missing children. The problem is, so far, we're doing it wrong.
Like many technologies, business and government are only very slowly coming to realize the potential of social networking as a real communications tool and not just a toy. Facebook, for example, has been looked upon as a way to spread advertising, but not as a channel to provide help and support. Many companies, such as Dell, have started providing tech and sales support through Twitter; a great step, but there is so much more that can be done.
Let's look at Facebook, since it is arguably the most popular social networking tool on the Internet (at least in English speaking countries). In it's database, Facebook has information about where people live. An application could be built that could send targeted messages to people living in a certain city or county. This would be a perfect tool for Amber Alerts as it would send timely, targeted information to the people that could use it and not randomly out to people that couldn't. As more and more mobile devices become web-enabled, this becomes even more powerful as it reaches people in places where it can be the most effective, their cars, coffee shops, and shopping centers.
Arguments
When my friend was chided for not forwarding Amber Alerts, there were many arguments that were thrown at her such as "what if it was your child?" and "better safe than sorry" and "what's the harm?"
This article has already demonstrated a couple of the pitfalls of forwarding false or misleading information. In response to the arguments above I would ask: "what if it was your license plate that was being falsely distributed as a kidnapper?" and "what if this is someone's idea of a sick joke?" and "what if someone is arrested who has nothing to do with the missing child?"
Or how about these: "but if it is real, why take the chance? Forward it anyway" and "if it was a child you knew you would forward it" and "I'd rather not waste time checking to see if it's real, every second counts, I 'm forwarding it."
My response is: "but what if it's fake and someone is just having a big laugh?", "if it was a child I knew I would be out helping to look, not wasting time on the Internet", and "if the child has already been found, there's no need to waste OTHER people's time."
The Real Deal
If you or someone you know is truly concerned about missing children, as I am, then the right thing to do is to get your information from the source and use it properly.
Each state maintains it's own Amber Alert program, but the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) has access to their information and makes it available to the public at: http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PublicHomeServlet?LanguageCountry=en_USWhile not every active Amber Alert may appear on this site, as it depends on information from local authorities, most will. You can also look up information on children who are still missing even though there is not an active Amber Alert.
Another good source of information is Code Amber (http://www.codeamber.com). This privately run,
advertising and donation supported, site works in much the same way as the NCMEC site, aggregating all available information and making it available to the public. Their home page offers not only the most current Amber Alerts that have been issued, but also provides information on past Amber Alerts, such as why it was canceled and if the child was found, and sometimes, sadly, that the child was not found alive. The also provide widgets that you can use on your computer and place on your website, including your Facebook profile.Many states also have their own website. You can find a list compiled by the NCMEC here: http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/ServiceServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=1421
Hopefully more states will begin to provide the information over the Internet, but those that don't have contact information listed, including phone numbers if you need to reach them.
Conclusion
In closing, let me just say that there is a right way and a wrong way to do Amber Alerts. Like gossip, it's not a good idea to pass the information from person to person. The wrong people get the wrong information and someone could get hurt.
If you receive an Amber Alert and you think it might be real, take a second to check it on one of the sites listed above. Yes, every second counts, but passing on the wrong information is worse than not forwarding it at all. Bookmark the NCMEC or Code Amber sites and quickly pull them up when you need to.
The best option, in my opinion, is to only trust Amber Alerts that come from the authorities. If you see it on the news or hear it on the radio, or get it from another trusted authority, then you know it's real and can act on it accordingly.
Amber Alerts are serious business, and should be treated as such. Take the time to verify the information and ACT on it. They don't work unless people are looking. If you care, then get out and look.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)