tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-62426773207668081862024-03-13T12:56:31.164-04:00With reasonable men, I will reason...Mike Brookshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09587157877218964446noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6242677320766808186.post-52710804015967149342017-05-23T22:32:00.000-04:002017-05-24T11:56:55.579-04:00Southern Pride<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gaOapH8FkvU/WSTOIkC3CHI/AAAAAAAABwg/zoKQMApsgBgMx4FeFNRP464qsIOptw20gCLcB/s1600/longwood.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="190" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gaOapH8FkvU/WSTOIkC3CHI/AAAAAAAABwg/zoKQMApsgBgMx4FeFNRP464qsIOptw20gCLcB/s200/longwood.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Longwood - Natchez, MS</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Having been born and largely raised in the South, there are days that I miss being there greatly: any time a friend posts pictures of magnolias in bloom, whenever anyone mentions Texas or Carolina barbecue (on which I am blissfully neutral), the last week or so leading up to Mardi Gras, and of course, every time I have to scrape ice or snow from my windshield.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
On a trip many years ago, I introduced my wife to the South by touring much of my college stomping grounds - from my alma mater in Hattiesburg, Mississippi to Biloxi and on down to New Orleans. I proposed to her in Natchez, overlooking the river at sunset. We toured several historic sites and plantations, including Beauvoir (the post-war home of Jefferson Davis) and Oak Alley. At Longwood, a tour guide explained that the owner began the construction in 1859 but that the work was never completed because of the Civil War - an event she spoke of very much as if one were describing the Huns invading the Balkans. The Union had destroyed this man's life and dreams; she of course did not mention that his wealth (and the mansion itself) were made possible only by the unpaid and physically demanding labor of his many slaves.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
More recent events have made it evident that the South is experiencing a cultural shift, however. In 2001, the state of Georgia removed the image of the "stainless banner" (the second flag of the Confederate States of America, most often known simply as "the confederate flag") from its state flag. Two years ago, the state of South Carolina stopped flying the confederate flag separately in front of the capitol and other government buildings. That same year, I took my daughters to New Orleans and we toured Oak Alley again to find that not only had they reconstructed the slave quarters, but that the content of the tour had changed as well. No longer did it focus only on the owners, but on the work and resourcefulness of the slaves that built it. And just last week, the city of New Orleans removed several statues of confederate figures, most notably the statue of Robert E. Lee atop a 60 foot pedestal in the center of Lee Circle. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qgZVmR8XNbs/WSTRES-NO_I/AAAAAAAABws/-GfWjwJlDZQ7aGd9YN1P6YbjJh4pzZmXACLcB/s1600/leecircle.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qgZVmR8XNbs/WSTRES-NO_I/AAAAAAAABws/-GfWjwJlDZQ7aGd9YN1P6YbjJh4pzZmXACLcB/s200/leecircle.jpg" width="138" /></a></div>
<div>
Not everyone is happy about the change. Mississippi state representative Karl Oliver expressed his outrage in a racially charged Facebook post:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The destruction of these monuments, erected in the loving memory of our family and fellow Southern Americans, is both heinous and horrific. If the, and I use this term extremely loosely, "leadership" of Louisiana wishes to, in a Nazi-ish fashion, burn books or destroy historical monuments of OUR HISTORY, they should be LYNCHED! Let it be known, I will do all in my power to prevent this from happening in our State."</blockquote>
A few hundred people "liked" the rant (including two other Republican state representatives and Mississippi Highway Patrol spokesman Tony Dunn) before it was deleted - an ironic twist, given that the GOP considers itself "the party of Lincoln." But while Mr. Oliver's comments are certainly incriminating, I don't mean to imply that all Republicans, Southerners, or even CSA monument supporters are racists or support violence. It is worth noting that other state officials, both Republican and Democrat, quickly condemned his words.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vckbDp41oQY/WSTRKLPmkwI/AAAAAAAABw0/nUVx1X5yfmEz8UTrMbcq0UfGXv2vn5E0gCEw/s1600/NOLA%2BCSA.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="163" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vckbDp41oQY/WSTRKLPmkwI/AAAAAAAABw0/nUVx1X5yfmEz8UTrMbcq0UfGXv2vn5E0gCEw/s320/NOLA%2BCSA.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Still, the removal of these monuments remains controversial. Some consider it the ultimate genuflection to the power of political correctness and a revision of history; others consider it more than a century overdue. As one might expect, the division runs closely along both racial and generational lines.<br />
<br />
As someone who has lived in and loves the South, and as someone who strongly opposes the continued veneration of the Confederacy, please allow me to address those who may argue in opposition. I have no interest in arguing over "the War of Northern Aggression". I've heard people argue that the rebellion was not over slavery, although this cause is clearly the most prominent in the charters and constitutions of the confederate states. I've heard them claim they are not racists, and indeed, many of them are not, but the flag is inseparable from the concept of racial superiority. I've heard them speak of Robert E.Lee as some sort of hero against an oppressive government, all but ignoring the oppression of slavery. Rehashing all of the usual arguments is hardly worthwhile; all that I ask is... why?<br />
<br />
Of all that the South can take pride in, why do so many choose to correlate Southern identity with the flag of an aggressor against our mutual country? Why take pride in a "nation" that no longer exists? Why hoist the flag of the enemy that more American soldiers died fighting than against the Nazis in the second world war? Is it just to indicate one is prone to rebel? Given that we rebelled against England, does not the American flag imply enough rebel spirit?<br />
<br />
Why continue to present the South by symbols of her darkest hour? We are not opposed to the USA, as the flag suggests - anyone who has lived in the former CSA will know that southerners are quite patriotic. Simply put, it does not represent who we are. Instead of controversy, let us proclaim our contributions.<br />
<br />
Modern music, for example, would simply not exist as it does now if it were not for the South. "American" music: country, zydeco, bluegrass, jazz, blues, and rock and roll, were all born in the South (especially in Mississippi and Louisiana). Great authors, such as Faulkner and (Harper) Lee, should be celebrated over the ignorant, which have sadly become our stereotype. Why not lift up our best, such as Martin Luther King, Jr. or Rosa Parks, instead of glorifying the culture that made their sacrifices necessary?<br />
<br />
From my perspective, it is quite easy to be a proud Southerner, but we simply can't be defined by a military failure. The removal of these statues aren't an effort to deny history, but rather a sign that we have finally accepted it. As the mayor of New Orleans recently said, "the Confederacy lost and we are better for it."<br />
<br />
Yes, the stainless banner is part of our history, but our heritage is far greater.Mike Brookshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09587157877218964446noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6242677320766808186.post-41353797833242959562017-01-22T19:40:00.000-05:002017-01-23T18:46:39.251-05:00PrejudicePrejudice.<br />
<br />
Wrote a blog about it. Like to read it? Here it goes.<br />
<br />
<br />
I have long had issues with the so-called "religious right", but the recent inauguration of President Donald Trump, along with the glowing praises of so many evangelicals, has put me in such a situation that I would feel personally liable if I failed to state my disgust with the apparent racism (or at least, prejudice) that has become acceptable within a group of people who should know better.<br />
<br />
This is not about politics. I have many friends who are strongly conservative, and others who are quite liberal (I consider myself a moderate). This has nothing do with party platforms. Given the polls going into Election Day, I can say that I was surprised at the result, but I have not questioned them. I have not suggested in any way that the win was questionable due to Mrs. Clinton receiving three million more votes - everyone was aware of what the Electoral College was prior to the campaign, and President Trump won the contest under the same rules as his predecessors. I refuse to dishonor President Trump by claiming he's "not my president".<br />
<br />
This is not about "sour grapes", as I did not vote for Hillary Clinton. While I recognize that she was perhaps the most qualified candidate in terms of experience, I had my concerns about her as well. I voted for a third-party candidate with the full knowledge that my chosen candidate would not be successful. Of course, I had friends on both wings attempt to sell me on the notion that a vote for anyone but Trump was really a vote for Clinton, and vice versa, but in spite of the result, I can still say that my conscience is clear.<br />
<br />
This isn't even about Donald Trump, though I do find him morally detestable. For all of the issues I have with President Trump, I am also forbidden to hate him. He, like everyone else, was created in the image of the God I claim to serve, and if I claim to love God but hate his creation, I make myself a liar. This does not mean that I can't speak out against wrong, even when it comes from our leaders; it simply means that, with God's help, I should strive to avoid becoming hateful towards anyone as a person.<br />
<br />
The results of the election don't concern me nearly as much as the heart-wrenching realization that the same professed Christians, from whom I have witnessed countless attacks upon President Obama's character for over eight years now, are openly praising a man like Donald Trump. Such a travesty is only possible by doing one thing: moving the goalpost - by making the standard to which a black man is being held five times higher than the goalpost set for the white man. Or, in the case of Hillary Clinton, the goalpost for a white woman being set higher than that of a white man. But the existence of a sexist double standard can not be used to excuse the existence of a racist double standard ("See? I'm not racist because I also discriminate against a white person!" Or, "I can't be sexist because I also made up lies about Obama and he's not a woman."). Both are detestable, yes, even deplorable, and any person of faith should be speaking out against such injustice rather than employing them in their political rhetoric.<br />
<br />
Let me start with perhaps the most egregious example, the unofficial Council of Evangelicals who decide every election who is, and who is not, a Christian. From an interview published in Christianity Today in January of 2008:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; font-family: ff-more-web-pro-n4, ff-more-web-pro, serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.7em; margin-bottom: 25px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px 40px 0px 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<strong style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">CT: You've talked about your experience walking down the aisle at Trinity United Church of Christ, and kneeling beneath the cross, having your sins redeemed, and submitting to God's will. Would you describe that as a conversion? Do you consider yourself born again?</strong></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; font-family: ff-more-web-pro-n4, ff-more-web-pro, serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.7em; margin-bottom: 25px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px 40px 0px 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
BO: I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life. But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful. I didn't 'fall out in church' as they say, but there was a very strong awakening in me of the importance of these issues in my life. I didn't want to walk alone on this journey. Accepting Jesus Christ in my life has been a powerful guide for my conduct and my values and my ideals.</blockquote>
To me, that sounds like someone who gets it - someone who, as Romans says, has confessed with his mouth the Lord Jesus. While the interviewer doesn't elaborate on it, he acknowledges that Obama had an understanding of what sin was, and that he needed to be redeemed. Of course, he could be simply saying what someone wants to hear, but in this sense, so could anyone. So why was the evangelical response to this statement of faith to call him a liar? Evangelical leaders, including Franklin Graham, continued to question his faith, or at the least, state "I can't say whether or not he's a Christian", playing to the unfounded claims that Obama was some sort of secret Muslim infiltrator to America. I saw many people from my own church argue, again without any cause, that he wasn't a Christian, and more importantly, that even if he wasn't a Muslim, that he was against Christians. Some went as far as claiming Obama was the anti-Christ, or perhaps a messenger sent to pave the way for the anti-Christ. In short, their minds had been already closed to the very possibility that Barack Obama could simply be a brother with different political positions than they. There was nothing he could have done or said that would convince millions of "evangelicals" that he was a fellow Christian.<br />
<br />
Now, let us compare this with a similar interview with Donald Trump during his campaign: the Family Leadership Summit in Ames, Iowa (July 2015). After host Frank Luntz asked Trump if he had ever asked for forgiveness for his actions, Trump replied:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I am not sure I have. I just go on and try to do a better job from there. I don't think so. I think if I do something wrong, I think, I just try and make it right. I don't bring God into that picture. I don't....</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
When I drink my little wine - which is the only wine I drink - and have my little cracker, I guess that is a form of asking forgiveness, and I do that as often as possible because I feel cleansed; I think in terms of let's go on and let's make it right."</blockquote>
<br />
While I am not questioning President Trump's faith, I have to admit that I am puzzled, with what I know of Christian theology, how one becomes a Christian without asking for forgiveness of sins. Maybe he just misspoke, but the troubling thing, again, was the lack of skepticism among the same evangelicals that never accepted Obama's confession of faith. Conservative Christians largely fell in line, accepting Trump's identification as a fellow Christian without question. They not only lowered the goalpost, they kicked the field goal on his behalf and called it good.<br />
<br />
These same people, many of whom continued to entertain the "birther" attempt to de-legitimize President Obama's authority as President (interestingly enough, Donald Trump himself continued to push that false narrative for years) and who demanded that he produce his birth certificate (never demanded of any previous - read "white" - presidents) aren't now asking for Donald Trump's tax returns (which were previously expected of all candidates since Nixon), but they are whining about people attempting to de-legitimize Trump. I could spend hours writing dozens of other examples of evangelical hypocrisy, but it suffices to say that even though most Christians balk at the charge of racism, creating hurdles for the black man and removing them for the white man is the textbook definition.<br />
<br />
The same applies for discrepancies with the most recent race against Hillary Clinton. Like nearly all politicians, Mrs. Clinton has said some things that were untrue, and as these occurred in the campaign, I could count on my conservative friends to use them as evidence that Clinton was "untrustworthy" or "a liar". In itself, I take no issue with Christians speaking out against untruths and misinformation. In fact, I highly encourage anyone to stand up for truth, but many (thankfully not all) of my conservative friends made nonsensical statements akin to "She's such a liar, so I'm voting for Trump". One might as well state that because they can't support anti-Semitism, they can't in good conscience vote for Mel Gibson, so they'll just have to vote for Reinhard Heydrich.<br />
<br />
Nowhere was the double-standard between these two more evident than in attacks on Bill Clinton's well-known womanizing. Many evangelicals, along with Donald Trump himself, attacked Hillary with Bill's infidelity, as if it was her fault. Meanwhile, evangelicals were lining up behind Donald Trump, who had an affair with his second wife while married to his first wife (and is now on his third). The Republican male may be supported in spite of his philandering, while the Democratic female should be blamed and shamed for HER HUSBAND'S infidelity.<br />
<br />
In spite of Jerry Falwell Jr.'s endorsement of Trump, he would have been kicked out of Liberty University (or just about any other Christian college or university) five times over. His marital record would disqualify him from being a pastor at the majority of protestant churches in the United States. And yet, 81 percent of evangelicals (four in five) supported Mr. Trumps bid to lead the entire nation.<br />
<br />
On Friday, at the inauguration, many conservative faith leaders (again including Franklin Graham) stated that Donald Trump won because of God, that his victory in the race was evidence of his being God's choice. Of course, such rhetoric was completely absent from their collective commentary in 2008. In other words, God is with those who are declared so by an elect committee of evangelical leaders. With such evident political double standards, it should be no surprise that among millennials, even the most charismatic Christians are steering clear of the "evangelical" label.<br />
<br />
Lastly, I should note that this in not an attack on Republicans, or conservatives, or Christians, or even Trump voters. Many conservatives refused to back Trump, and even some who reluctantly voted for him are still willing to speak out against his attacks on religious freedom, boasts of sexual conquest, infidelity, bullying, untruthfulness, misogyny, and xenophobia. Not all Christians unfairly attacked President Obama (some of us even voted for him), or support Trump, but the statistics remain inverse: roughly 1 in 5 white evangelicals supported Obama in both 2008 and 2012, while 4 in 5 supported Trump in 2016. And the bottom line remains, that we just elected the first thrice-married admitted genital grabber with overwhelming evangelical support. May God forgive our hypocrisy.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />Mike Brookshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09587157877218964446noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6242677320766808186.post-30568161947473928162016-07-08T20:16:00.001-04:002016-07-08T23:30:59.385-04:00Outrage Concerning a Lack of Outrage?<div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lCxchjh5mvM/V4A-3MTwcEI/AAAAAAAAAcc/Y61I8M8Tf_UXj_XXA-szpEOaOjT1qZ1AgCLcB/s1600/sterling1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="222" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lCxchjh5mvM/V4A-3MTwcEI/AAAAAAAAAcc/Y61I8M8Tf_UXj_XXA-szpEOaOjT1qZ1AgCLcB/s320/sterling1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
On Tuesday (7/5/16), two major news stories hit the internet. One was that of a black man by the name of <a href="http://www.khou.com/news/nation-now/doj-to-investigate-fatal-baton-rouge-police-shooting/265149502" target="_blank">Alton Sterling</a> who was shot and killed by two white police officers in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; the other was that of the FBI reaching a decision concerning <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/07/05/james-comey-fbi-hillary-clinton/86702072/" target="_blank">Hillary Clinton</a>'s improper storage of government e-mail. Both stories generated a lot of heated discussion on Facebook and other sites allowing public comment. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Yesterday (7/6), a friend posted the following observation concerning these stories:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px;">"There is a racial line down my friends newsfeed. Those posting about the Hillary email scandal and those about the shooting of a black man in Louisiana. White and Black, which way do you think it goes?"</span></blockquote>
Although my friend was doing little more than posting an observation, I began to notice a disturbing trend as more an more people turned their anger toward "white people" who had not spoken out concerning Mr. Sterling's death (or that of another black man, <a href="http://www.kare11.com/news/falcon-heights-fatal-shooting-what-we-know/266174103" target="_blank">Philando Castile</a>, who was shot at a simple traffic stop near St. Paul, Minnesota the next day). More than once I saw that my lack of comment on the matter was being taken, at least by some, as evidence of racism - or at the least, a lack of empathy - since, at the time these erroneous accusations were being made, I had in fact posted concerning the Hillary Clinton news story, but not the Alton Sterling story.<br />
<br />
So, for the record, let me state that the deaths of these two men, and of the <a href="http://www.wsaz.com/content/news/Violence-erupts-at-march-in-Dallas-Texas--385948821.html" target="_blank">five Dallas police officers</a> shortly thereafter, concern me greatly. Any death of any human being, at the hands of another human being, is a tragedy. Period. Even in cases of an individual's demise by their own reckless actions, these people are loved - by a mother, a brother, a child, a friend, a spouse. These events hurt our collective humanity as well, often turning friends and neighbors against one another over differences of opinion or reaction.<br />
<br />
These events are nothing new. The fact that nearly everyone in America now carries a camera on them at all times, and that this camera can quickly share photographs, video, and commentary with millions of people is the new aspect. And while I believe there are some positives of us being shown a reality that we may never have to face ourselves, there is also a danger to this ease of communication.<br />
<br />
There is an old proverb (ironically often falsely attributed to Mark Twain), that "a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can even put on its shoes." For our generation, this should perhaps be altered somewhat to say "public outrage can go viral before fact can even log on." It's very easy to get millions of people outraged these days, independent of fact - just look at the campaign of Donald Trump. I have friends now who are already convinced that the police were in the right, having absolutely no facts on the incident, already hard at work to assassinate the character of the deceased as well. Others are convinced that the police involved were racist murderers, again, without anyone having the details of the events. This is exactly why I haven't made any comment - it is not for lack of empathy, but for lack of the truth.<br />
<br />
This is, ironically, the exact reason I was posting concerning the issue of Hillary Clinton's e-mails and not of the tragic deaths of these men. This is not a racial issue, but one of information. Although Clinton's malfeasance was uncovered some time ago - I waited for over a year for the investigation to run its course. I was then able to report, as I had suspected, that the truth of the issue was neither as innocent as many Democrats had stated nor as damning as the narrative Republicans had been repeating.<br />
<br />
In early August of 2014, another black man was killed by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. For weeks, reactions to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown" target="_blank">death of Michael Brown</a> dominated news feeds and community conversations. Early reports claimed that Brown had surrendered to the police, with his hands up, before he was killed. As a result, public opinion was greatly steered against police officer Darrell Wilson, with everyone from the <a href="http://www.si.com/nfl/2014/11/30/st-louis-rams-ferguson-protests" target="_blank">St. Louis Rams</a> football team to black members of Congress making the gesture "in support" of Michael Brown. The phrase <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hands_up,_don%27t_shoot" target="_blank">"hands up, don't shoot"</a> quickly became a mantra against police brutality.<br />
<br />
By March of 2015, more than one autopsy concluded that the numerous individuals who had claimed to be eyewitnesses to the shooting had in fact fabricated this part of the story. The Department of Justice reported that:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #111111; font-family: "georgia"; font-style: italic; line-height: 36px;">"Investigators tracked down several individuals who, via the aforementioned media, claimed to have witnessed Wilson shooting Brown as Brown held his hands up in clear surrender. All of these purported witnesses, upon being interviewed by law enforcement, acknowledged that they did not actually witness the shooting, but rather repeated what others told them in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. … Witness accounts suggesting that Brown was standing still with his hands raised in an unambiguous signal of surrender when Wilson shot Brown are inconsistent with the physical evidence, are otherwise not credible because of internal inconsistencies, or are not credible because of inconsistencies with other credible evidence. In contrast, Wilson’s account of Brown’s actions, if true, would establish that the shootings were not objectively unreasonable under the relevant Constitutional standards governing an officer’s use of deadly force."</span></blockquote>
All of this is not to say that I don't believe that racism continues to plague many aspects of our nation, including within law enforcement. While the Department of Justice did find that the facts did "not support federal civil rights charges against Ferguson police officer Darrell Wilson", it also found that the FPD collectively "engaged in a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the First, Fourth, and 14th Amendments of the Constitution". In other words, the truth was again found in the middle - Mr. Wilson did not murder a black man in cold blood, but at the same time, those defending the police as "heroes" were also incorrect.<br />
<br />
Without detracting from the issue of these shootings, they are in fact complicated by another unfortunate reality: we have contracted an ugly strain of polarization, which flares up with every new tragedy. With every shooting, every court case, and every election, we continue to point fingers at one another, dividing ourselves voluntarily by lines of color, ideology, or religion. More and more people are all too comfortable with assigning guilt (almost always on a group of "those people" to which the judge does not belong), with collectively less concern with the truth.<br />
<br />
By all means, there are problems with our society that will require more than outrage. We can't solve these issues by posting insults, accusations, or a volley of snarky Facebook memes. Bumper-sticker talking points aren't helpful, either. A fractured society will simply be unable to correct any of the issues we face; as Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "we must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools." So for those of you angered by my lack of commentary on any given subject, please be patient. I know many of you are hurting, and perhaps it is simply human nature to lash out in such situations, saying things we might not otherwise say, but I am your brother, not your enemy. I will gladly stand beside the oppressed, but justice can't be built upon outrage alone. It requires the foundation of truth.<br />
<br />
<br />Mike Brookshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09587157877218964446noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6242677320766808186.post-71145450448859458022016-05-10T20:26:00.002-04:002016-05-10T20:28:10.072-04:00Taking It Back<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-IaMg8XZdFgM/VzJlz3x-biI/AAAAAAAAAbA/FFEHX_7VvnYKjNkefTuRknbCbjOTVhqOACLcB/s1600/queenLiz.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="287" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-IaMg8XZdFgM/VzJlz3x-biI/AAAAAAAAAbA/FFEHX_7VvnYKjNkefTuRknbCbjOTVhqOACLcB/s400/queenLiz.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Who would have ever thought this would happen? It is all but certain now that the nominee for the "family values" party has had three wives, and the likely nominee for the Democratic party will, if successful, return the last president to be impeached by the House of Representatives to the White House. What have we done? Where did we go wrong? How did we end up the prodigal son, finding ourselves in squalor, living among swine? Can't we just go back home and admit the error of our ways?<br />
<br />
This isn't the first time I've suggested returning to British rule, but given the state of our politics today, this may just be the first time it gets some serious traction. It's not like I'm suggesting we all move to what is currently the United Kingdom; no need to abandon American regional cuisine, or to live in a land of ubiquitous rain and fog. We need not start "talking funny" by finally speaking "the King's" correctly - although it makes sense as everyone but Sarah Palin already speaks "English" - she "speaks American". All we have to do is admit that we blew it, and ask to come back home. I'm sure that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Great Britain, Ireland, and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Head of the Commonwealth and Defender of the Faith (a lot longer to say than "President Trump", but so much less painful) would take us back with open arms. I hear she's getting soft in her old age.<br />
<br />
Sure, we had some good times, even decades to be proud of. We can carry with us all the fond memories of our two-century national rumspringa; no one's taking that away. We've simply run our course, and now have reached that age where we are finally mature enough to know that Mum always knew best. Best of all, the idea has some merit for every mindset in America.<br />
<br />
For the religious right, so often lamenting (or even denying the existence of) the separation of church and state, this is your opportunity to finally make Christianity the official state religion! Unlike America, which is prohibited from establishing a national church, Great Britain has had an official state religion for centuries. The Church of England welcomes you. Just be forewarned that you can't have extreme points of view.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/8jc2OIJ3VRk/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8jc2OIJ3VRk?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
If you're a Bernie Socialist, you can finally relax. You may even be able to feel your blood pressure return to normal as you realize that there is no need to re-invent the wheel. Great Britain already has a national health service, and a progressive (yet relatively simple) tax code. You'll even win on gun control.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Grand_Union_Flag.svg/2000px-Grand_Union_Flag.svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="133" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Grand_Union_Flag.svg/2000px-Grand_Union_Flag.svg.png" width="200" /></a></div>
For traditionalists or history buffs, you can instantaneously multiply your national history and traditions by four or five. We can even return to our first flag, the Grand Union Flag, and consequently need not worry about having to fit in a 51st star for Puerto Rico. We can keep our patriotic colours of red, white, and blue.<br />
<br />
If you're a political outsider tired of the same two-party system, the Parliamentary system might be just the thing. Yes, they still have two major parties, but there are a number of other parties represented in Parliament, and they can often break a stalemate by siding with one side over the other. If you're a conservative, you'll be pleased to know that the conservative party not only currently controls Parliament (and thus also names the Prime Minister), but<i> their</i> conservatives are not in the midst of a civil war. And if you're a Trump fan, and just like to see politicians insult each other, these guys wrote the book.<br />
<br />
If you like the celebrity gossip, you'll still get a steady stream of all that, but with royals instead of Kardashians. Will and Kate beats Jon and Kate even with only two instead of eight (and they have yet to separate). The BBC can actually still broadcast neutral news, where Fox and MSNBC frequently abandon reality.<br />
<br />
As Scotland recently showed us, we can still reject independence. Who says you can't go home?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Mike Brookshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09587157877218964446noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6242677320766808186.post-51947183897450811552015-03-31T22:56:00.000-04:002015-04-01T19:52:15.154-04:00Blurred Lines<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eT_OYirhU1E/VRSEPUo4NbI/AAAAAAAAASg/dzOy4UvcbCA/s1600/robin-thicke.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eT_OYirhU1E/VRSEPUo4NbI/AAAAAAAAASg/dzOy4UvcbCA/s1600/robin-thicke.jpg" height="320" width="240" /></a></div>
Recently, the courts ordered Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke to <a href="http://time.com/3739900/blurred-lines-pharrell-robin-thicke-marvin-gaye/" target="_blank">hand over seven million dollars</a> to the estate of Marvin Gaye for blatantly ripping off his 1977 groove "Got to Give It Up". Unfortunately, it stopped short of demanding some compensation to the rest of America for putting the sleazy pick-up line, "I know you want it" into ubiquitous rotation. At least something good came from it - a scholar by the name of Al Yankovic took the opportunity to educate us all on "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc" target="_blank">Word Crimes</a>", a message the nation actually needs to hear.<br />
<br />
In another sense, "blurred lines" have been a problem in the past year or two, specifically about issues dealing with religion. Last year the Supreme Court had to weigh in on the objections of Hobby Lobby and other groups dissatisfied with the inclusion of certain contraceptives in mandated insurance coverage (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell_v._Hobby_Lobby_Stores,_Inc." target="_blank">Burwell v. Hobby Lobby</a>). Over the last year, many opposed to the legalization of gay marriage have argued from a religious stance, though the courts continue to overturn prohibitions in <a href="http://graphics.latimes.com/usmap-gay-marriage-chronology/" target="_blank">state after state</a>. A month ago, New York Public Schools caused a furor by adding two <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/04/us/new-york-muslim-school-holidays/" target="_blank">Muslim holidays</a> to the school calendar. And just days ago, Indiana governor Mike Pence signed into law the <a href="https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101" target="_blank">Religious Freedom Restoration Act (SB 101)</a>, which has divided the state, with fault lines fracturing Hoosier communities and congregations. In addition, there are even older discussions with various recent flare-ups, like those about "taking back" what was once a "Christian nation" or "putting God back in schools". At this rate, arguing about religious freedom is on track to overtake baseball as the national pastime (oddly enough, while church attendance continues to decline).<br />
<br />
One of the major obstacles in this discussion, if one can call it that, is that both ends of the spectrum are using misleading language, or at the least, intentionally blurring the lines between two concepts. I'm not suggesting that there are always easy answers to conflicts concerning religious freedom, even with more appropriate language, but certainly we could all benefit by taking a fair-minded look at some of these blurred lines:<br />
<br />
<h4>
1. "Christian nation" (or "Judeo-Christian Principles") v "Religious Freedom"</h4>
<div>
Frankly, I can't understand why there continues to be any assertion that the United States of America is founded in Christianity. Not only does Romans 13 instruct that colonists were to do the exact opposite of arming themselves to demand official representation (and other verses instruct paying taxes even without representation), but John Adams specifically addressed this assumption in Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, one of our earliest national documents:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"As the Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tanquillity, of Mussulmen (Muslims) ......"</blockquote>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8CG6qSTfhKU/VRn6Cq9PHQI/AAAAAAAAAS8/_v99TeFZ96I/s1600/oneway.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8CG6qSTfhKU/VRn6Cq9PHQI/AAAAAAAAAS8/_v99TeFZ96I/s1600/oneway.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">That's certainly another way to look at it.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
There is no mention of Christianity in the Declaration or Constitution, but there are several phrases that show how important the concept of religious freedom was to our founders - most notably the first amendment in our Bill of Rights. Having seen Europe in a constant state of religious conflict, with kings and rulers demanding at least a minimum of identification as Catholic or Anglican, this new experiment sought to welcome all faiths (or none) and require no religious belief. There was to be no establishment of any official religion.<br />
<br />
Why is this distinction important to recent discussions? In the most simple terms, they contradict each other. Either this is a nation for all faiths, or it is a Christian one. Even if it's not the intent, it is not difficult to infer from such statements that Christians are more "American" than others - that this country belongs to Christians, who simply let others live here. If you cherish religious freedom, as our founders did, then perhaps it is best that we lay off the claims of privilege. Christianity may have, at various times, been treated by the government as superior, but so has the male gender, or white skin. I certainly wouldn't suggest talking about "racial equality" but leading off with "America is a White nation".<br />
<br />
<h4>
2. Biblical Position v Political Position</h4>
<div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4xHlma14RiI/VRn9z8hkn7I/AAAAAAAAATI/LpZx6fdysaY/s1600/holy_bible.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-4xHlma14RiI/VRn9z8hkn7I/AAAAAAAAATI/LpZx6fdysaY/s1600/holy_bible.jpg" height="132" width="200" /></a></div>
It's easy to see why these lines get blurred, since a religious stance has at least some claim of protection, while a political position does not (outside of the normal democratic process). While I have often been told that "the Bible says" something, it should be noted that, in just the past few centuries, the Bible has said a lot of things that we no longer claim it says, about slaves, women, charging interest, and so on. Quite often, when I hear someone making some objection on religious grounds, it really comes from political idealism.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
One recent example would be the national discussion on the legalization of marriage for homosexuals. If one says that they believe homosexuality is a sin, that could very well be a religious position. There are several verses that indicate as such. However, there is no verse in the Bible that even suggests that Christians should oppose the legalization of "gay marriage". That is a political position.<br />
<br />
Interracial marriage in the Bible is not prohibited (and, in fact, Moses married a Cushite), although opposition normally took on a religious tone: </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." - Judge Leon M. Bazile, 1/6/59</blockquote>
Sadly, that wasn't even settled in the sixties; the Christian <a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/marchweb-only/53.0.html" target="_blank">Bob Jones University finally allowed students to date someone outside of their own race</a> in 2000. Yes, you read that right: the year begins with a two. The Bible does not explicitly prohibit women voting or working outside the home, nor declare it sinful to sell flowers or cakes to a person who will use it in a wedding that legally unites two persons of the same sex. If someone claims that his religion demands he (or she) take a certain position, then how can it be that others in the very same congregation, following that same religion, are adamantly opposed? Perhaps it is not the religion, but one's politics, that generate such discomfort with certain things.<br />
<div>
<br />
<br /></div>
<h4>
3. Moral Right v Legal Right</h4>
<div>
While this will be evident to most people, there still exists a vocal minority that doesn't seem to understand that the laws of the United States are based on the Constitution, not the Bible (oddly enough, this same minority is quite critical of certain nations in the Middle East who operate under "sharia law", the idea that laws should be based on the Qur'an). As such, there will always be a freedom to act or believe outside of what may be condoned by any one particular faith, and perhaps outside what is condoned by any faith.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-kZy1T0_Fkmk/VRn-GRlxsVI/AAAAAAAAATQ/YIlnnSRV0zc/s1600/bop.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-kZy1T0_Fkmk/VRn-GRlxsVI/AAAAAAAAATQ/YIlnnSRV0zc/s1600/bop.jpg" height="132" width="200" /></a></div>
In America, it is legal to cheat on a spouse. I personally feel such an action is immoral, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/29/gallup-poll-reveals-ameri_n_3354778.html" target="_blank">as do the overwhelming majority of Americans</a>, but it is legally permissible. The Ku Klux Klan can legally spew hateful rhetoric about blacks. It is legal to laugh at a child with Down's Syndrome who has fallen down the stairs. Despicable, but legal - and that's just a few examples on which nearly all Americans can agree.<br />
<br />
Even less of a case can be made to ban something legally that people may or may not find morally wrong. Though we had a national era of (alcohol) Prohibition, we corrected our course. A religious person may believe that all other religions are false and thus pose an eternal danger to adherents of those faiths, but most Americans would agree that we are a better nation by allowing all to be legal. On the other side of the coin, students of American history can point to several points in time under which a moral good, such as freeing slaves, was an illegal act.<br />
<br /></div>
<h4>
4. Church v Business</h4>
<div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pfp0xBOuiMU/VRoA6cQufuI/AAAAAAAAATo/XDRwU8erJio/s1600/old-first-church-bennington.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pfp0xBOuiMU/VRoA6cQufuI/AAAAAAAAATo/XDRwU8erJio/s1600/old-first-church-bennington.jpg" height="200" width="149" /></a></div>
As mentioned above, one of the bedrock principles in the founding of our nation was the concept of religious freedom. The very first amendment reads, in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". You may not know it from hearing some people talk about being "under attack", but churches in America are perhaps the least burdened in the world.<br />
<br />
Like other non-profits, churches do not pay income tax. Unlike all other non-profits, houses of worship <a href="http://www.churchlawandtax.com/web/2009/october/churches-form-990.html" target="_blank">are exempted</a> from even having to fill out the IRS <a href="http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f990.pdf" target="_blank">form 990</a> that would publicly disclose their sources of income, employee compensation, expenses, and more. Additionally, the courts have recognized a "ministerial exception" to employment discrimination laws, stating that religious groups must be free to choose their leaders without government interference. Obviously, a board choosing a new Catholic priest can't very well be forced to hire an Orthodox Jew.<br />
<br />
A business, however, is prohibited from asking an applicant about their religious views. Where a Baptist church can get away with stating upfront, "we will not consider women for this position", a business may not. Much of the current discourse on religious freedom (from both sides) seems to ignore this separation. If gay marriage is made legal, some say, then churches will be forced to perform ceremonies they believe are sinful. Certainly not: a single man has the right to marry an atheist female today, but the Catholic Church will not marry them. Again, churches are unique in American society and law. The far left may feel that we must eradicate the ability of anyone to discriminate, and I would agree that businesses must serve the public equally, but churches must remain protected.<br />
<br /></div>
<h4>
5. Religious Freedom v Discrimination</h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SZUjSklT4qI/VRn_lSVgp2I/AAAAAAAAATc/NGCbfPVTtMs/s1600/persecution.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SZUjSklT4qI/VRn_lSVgp2I/AAAAAAAAATc/NGCbfPVTtMs/s1600/persecution.png" height="172" width="200" /></a></div>
<div>
Even the freedoms guaranteed to Americans in the Bill of Rights are not absolute. Try joking about explosives to the TSA agent checking your bag before you hop on your next flight, and you'll quickly learn that claiming "freedom of speech" will not spare you from the consequences. There are limitations on religious freedom as well. Mormons argued against the government's push to ban polygamy, for example, in vain, and I'm sure many a self-proclaimed Rastafarian has been charged with marijuana possession.<br />
<br />
One of the limitations on religious freedom is common law; while one is free to believe as they wish, it doesn't always mean that they may <i>act </i>as they wish. While government can and should make a "reasonable accommodation" for religious objectors, no magnitude of religious fervor can legally excuse discrimination. Ah, but what is (improper) discrimination? There are differing laws in every state, and lawyers make a lot of money every day by arguing what is and is not allowable in those laws. But, interestingly enough, I'd say the best answer comes from religion: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.<br />
<br /></div>
<h4>
6. Expressed Contents of Legislation v Feared Consequences of Legislation</h4>
My more conservative friends have an excellent point about the recent outrage concerning Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA): a lot of people are freaking out over (almost) nothing. The vast majority of business owners aren't going to turn down money, regardless of their religious beliefs. While it is more broad than the federal statute to which it is often compared, nothing in the bill condones discriminatory practices. It does not prevent judicial recourse, nor does it guarantee that everyone who thinks they have religious grounds for their actions will be ultimately supported by the state. It does little more than set a legal standard by which future lawsuits over certain conflicts will be judged; it sets a framework for resolving questions of religious liberty. Surely, there is a distinction that needs to be made here that the left, as a whole, seems to be ignoring: there is a difference between what a law actually says and what people fear fear may happen as a result of its passage. I completely agree that the text of the law itself carries more weight than speculation about what may or may not happen if something passes (or doesn't pass).<br />
<br />
Of course, hearing this sort of logical defense from the right seems a little convenient...especially after years of trying to say this very same thing to outraged conservatives. The text of the Affordable Care Act does not contain any reference to a "government takeover of healthcare", "taking away the ability to choose your doctor", or establishing "death panels". Changing the top tax rate does not meet any definition of "socialism". States that have legalized gay marriage have not enacted subsequent laws allowing for bestiality. Nothing in any legislation even proposed has contained the threat of "them coming for our guns". But now, suddenly, people need to focus on what the law actually says, and not on fearful extrapolation? As the Church Lady would say.....<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-VMooshLTbsM/VRs-3NVqjpI/AAAAAAAAAT8/7KrmCkPncNM/s1600/churchlady_convenient.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-VMooshLTbsM/VRs-3NVqjpI/AAAAAAAAAT8/7KrmCkPncNM/s1600/churchlady_convenient.jpg" height="296" width="400" /></a></div>
<h4>
</h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h4>
7. Tolerance v Support/Agreement</h4>
<div>
I know, I know. Tolerance is a bad word. It means that no one can tell anyone else they are wrong about anything. It is just some code word for people who want to cram their beliefs down your throat, right? Part of the liberal agenda? Well, even Mike Pence appealed for tolerance on Sunday, saying, "tolerance is a two-way street". It was the one thing I believe we agreed on.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
However, he evaded direct questions about the law he recently signed, and he likewise missed an opportunity to talk about that two-way street. Do critics of the political right, or of evangelical Christianity, still need to disagree with civility? Absolutely. Should people be free to express unpopular views, and to hold uncomfortable beliefs? Of course. That doesn't mean, however, that there can be no criticism. The same first amendment that guarantees us freedom of religion also grants freedom of assembly - people opposed to a law can protest. It also guarantees the freedom of the press - the media can support or condemn. I don't believe exercising these freedoms equate to "intolerance", from either side. According to the "great agnostic", Robert G. Ingersoll, "tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Certainly, this does not imply agreement. There is a difference between respectful disagreement and intolerance. Unfortunately, many can't accept that difference. If I buy lunch for a friend who left his wife, am I supporting adultery? Perhaps the better question is this: if some disagreement or sin disqualifies a person from the pool of people I am to serve, then how can I serve others, at all? Who is good? None.<br />
<br /></div>
<h4>
8. My Religious Freedom v Your Religious Freedom</h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NdmY8Frun7w/VRtUWE4h5fI/AAAAAAAAAUM/rDUye76Px7Y/s1600/9cd93d04f3_mosque-protest.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NdmY8Frun7w/VRtUWE4h5fI/AAAAAAAAAUM/rDUye76Px7Y/s1600/9cd93d04f3_mosque-protest.jpg" height="240" width="320" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
This last point is somewhat of a reversal: in the above points, many people enter the conversation without distinguishing two separate things, where in this case, people tend to draw lines of exception where there can be none. Humorist Dave Barry once remarked that "if someone is nice to you but rude to the waiter, they are not a nice person." In similar fashion, the man who demands religious freedom for his own faith while actively working to limit the rights of others is not a man of principle - he is a man of convenience.<br />
<br />
One must enter political discussions in particular with a certain level of forethought, something often absent in heated debates. I can't relay how many times, or example, I have heard people defend a law or executive action by one president, only to condemn another for using the same law or action. Anything we allow for one person, or group, or faith, must be allowable for all; equality is the foundation of justice. So, if a woman tells me that we should have teacher-led prayer in schools, and that if non-believers don't agree they can just sit and listen, I just imagine her outrage when a Muslim teacher asks the students to face Mecca. If you would not be comfortable with giving another faith the floor before a somewhat captive audience, then perhaps you can understand the opposition some have to being subject to yours.<br />
<br />
It would be one thing if all beliefs were in fact treated equally, but one need look no further than Indiana's failed attempt to constitutionally ban gay marriages to see that politics trump principles. Even staying within the Christian faith, there are a number of denominations that believe officiating marriage ceremonies for homosexuals is simply the right and equitable thing to do. Yet the state actively worked to limit the freedoms of these churches to do so. It is certainly no coincidence that many feel "religious freedom" must be protected where the action is condoned by the Republican party, but not where the action runs counter to the GOP platform. Can the liberty of certain denominations be legally upheld, while those of others are not?<br />
<br />
Again, keeping these things in mind may help improve communication in the charged debates over religious freedom and personal liberties, but spirited differences will continue. In an ideal world, debates about what may be allowed legally would be irrelevant, because people would do the right thing anyway. Of course, that would require some level of humility, grace, and caring about others more than ourselves. If only there was a religion like that.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-eT_OYirhU1E%2FVRSEPUo4NbI%2FAAAAAAAAASg%2FdzOy4UvcbCA%2Fs1600%2Frobin-thicke.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eT_OYirhU1E/VRSEPUo4NbI/AAAAAAAAASg/dzOy4UvcbCA/s1600/robin-thicke.jpg" -->Mike Brookshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09587157877218964446noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6242677320766808186.post-506593233434895032015-03-19T23:34:00.001-04:002015-03-20T06:15:48.796-04:00Burden of Proof<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1Ikh_UP7A4I/VQtm6Sd-MjI/AAAAAAAAAR4/wc4_jUGxa74/s1600/doyourduty.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1Ikh_UP7A4I/VQtm6Sd-MjI/AAAAAAAAAR4/wc4_jUGxa74/s1600/doyourduty.jpg" height="192" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
In 2003, the American Film Institute released their lists of the all-time <a href="http://www.afi.com/100Years/handv.aspx" target="_blank">50 greatest heroes and villains</a> in American movies. The lists themselves could spur many discussions and debates, but it is interesting to note that the greatest hero, according to the AFI, is the principled Southern lawyer Atticus Finch, from <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056592/?ref_=ttqt_qt_tt" style="font-style: italic;" target="_blank">To Kill A Mockingbird</a><i> </i>(1962). Finch represents the perfect man: a gentle, caring father and a model citizen with a hunger for justice and truth. What the list seems to ignore, however, is that heroes typically save the day - and Atticus, while successful in passing on his virtues to his daughter, ultimately fails to convince the jury that Tom Robinson is an innocent man, in spite of sound logic and a heck of a closing argument.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #fcfae7; color: #333333; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;"> To begin with, this case should never have come to trial. The state has not produced one iota of medical evidence that the crime Tom Robinson is charged with ever took place... It has relied instead upon the testimony of two witnesses, whose evidence has not only been called into serious question on cross-examination, but has been flatly contradicted by the defendant...</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #fcfae7; color: #333333; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;">The witnesses for the State, with the exception of the sheriff of Maycomb County have presented themselves to you gentlemen, to this court in the cynical confidence that their testimony would not be doubted, confident that you gentlemen would go along with them on the assumption... the evil assumption that all Negroes lie, all Negroes are basically immoral beings, all Negro men are not to be trusted around our women. An assumption that one associates with minds of their caliber, and which is, in itself, gentlemen, a lie, which I do not need to point out to you. And so, a quiet, humble, respectable Negro, who has had the unmitigated TEMERITY to feel sorry for a white woman, has had to put his word against TWO white people's! The defendant is not guilty - but somebody in this courtroom is. Now, gentlemen, in this country, our courts are the great levelers. In our courts, all men are created equal. I'm no idealist to believe firmly in the integrity of our courts and of our jury system - that's no ideal to me. That is a living, working reality! Now I am confident that you gentlemen will review, without passion, the evidence that you have heard, come to a decision and restore this man to his family. In the name of GOD, do your duty. In the name of God, believe... Tom Robinson.</span></blockquote>
Sadly, but perhaps not surprisingly, the all-white, all-male jury still finds Mr. Robinson guilty. The facts of the case couldn't even create a reasonable doubt for the men who had likely made up their minds before the trial ever began. It should be noted, however, that such a tale of willful ignorance is not exclusive to the rural South, nor to decades past, nor to the subject of race.<br />
<br />
In the 21st century, the inability (or perhaps more precisely, unwillingness) to reason is more clearly visible through the technological advances of the internet. There are entire sites built around sensational "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clickbait" target="_blank">click bait</a>" - undocumented stories that play on known biases in an effort to generate ad revenue. These sites tell people what they want to hear, which in turn, cause people to feel like there is some legitimate support for their own views; each click is a small but instant pat on the back, an assurance that their views are legitimate, and that the views of others are not. Like Mr. Robinson's jury, the public can remain assured without the interference of fact.<br />
<br />
The irony, of course, is that this same internet allows those of us with an interest in reality to obtain reliable information within a fraction of a second. If someone posts that unemployment is getting worse, for example, one can quickly prove the opposite with official numbers from the Department of Labor. A rumor concerning the death of an actress yesterday can be easily squashed by her tweet today. With such access to information, how can these shady sites continue to exist?<br />
<br />
In blunt terms, it's because we don't want information, we want to be right. In a <a href="http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/" target="_blank">2006 study</a>, researchers at the University of Michigan found that "<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px;">when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs." In other words, even the strongest evidence will not be enough for some.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9qtEK5jSy9o/VQuJJQy1EWI/AAAAAAAAASI/Gk_N1YaFK9U/s1600/reasonswift.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9qtEK5jSy9o/VQuJJQy1EWI/AAAAAAAAASI/Gk_N1YaFK9U/s1600/reasonswift.jpg" height="187" width="400" /></a></div>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px;">Take, for example, the "birther" controversy concerning President Obama's place of birth. In one poll, over 40 percent of those identifying as Republicans believed that Obama was born in Kenya. Of course, there was no documentation to support this claim, but the cry continued to build for Obama to release the document proving he was born in the United States, and he eventually did so. Logic suggests that this would be the end of it, but rather than concede to the evidence, birthers merely suggested that the image was a fake. If Obama had paid for millions of official copies, and all were notarized by raised seal, and mailed directly to every household in America, there would still be many who would suggest they were fraudulent. There is nothing that could be produced that would convince those who refuse to be convinced. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px;">The desire for evidence is not in itself a problem, but rather the inequitable burden of proof. Nearly anything can be "evidence" to support an idea to which one is already inclined, while mountains of evidence may be easily dismissed if it is contrary to what one wants to see or hear. In terms of these bias-catering websites, they are often shared on social media without a second look (sometimes, it appears that it was sent based on a headline alone, and that the re-poster didn't even read the entire article), and if I attach a contrary synopsis from Snopes to my reply, I can expect to be "informed" that Snopes, of course, is fake. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px;">In church circles, this inequitable interpretation of "evidence" can be easily seen whenever a well-known church member encounters some significant tragedy. If Jim loses his job one week and his wife leaves him the next, then what does this mean? If another church member had a negative perception of Jim, then this is evidence that God is punishing him for some sin, or at least that Jim's life is falling apart because of some diminished faith. However, if Jim is well liked, then the same circumstances are evidence that - because he is so godly and therefore a threat - Satan is coming at him, trying to destroy his witness. The only difference is how much one likes or dislikes the subject.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px;">Surely, everyone has opinions, and almost by definition believes that such opinions or positions are superior to others (or else, why would you have them?), but as J.P. Moynihan once said, "everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not to his own facts". If two friends who root for opposite teams come together to watch the Super Bowl, there is nothing wrong with each believing that his team will be victorious. But what does it say about our society if, after the game is over, they continue to disagree about who won? Is the sports page now suspect? </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px;">Each of us carries the baggage of personal bias, yet we have a moral duty to at least attempt to reason, to acknowledge the evidence with some measure of fairness. In the name of God, do your duty.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px;"><br /></span></span>
<br />
<br />Mike Brookshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09587157877218964446noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6242677320766808186.post-9667136809849305002014-08-16T15:55:00.002-04:002014-08-16T15:55:43.546-04:00Making It Up As They Go<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-UeoW5rEsYYo/U-673JyS4HI/AAAAAAAAAM8/W2d7Ty45afY/s1600/marshall.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-UeoW5rEsYYo/U-673JyS4HI/AAAAAAAAAM8/W2d7Ty45afY/s1600/marshall.jpg" height="187" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #252525; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22.399999618530273px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.<br /> Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "<br /> "But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.<br /> "When <i>I</i> use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."<br /> "The question is," said Alice, "whether you <i>can</i> make words mean so many different things."<br /> "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #252525; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22.399999618530273px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #252525; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22.399999618530273px;"> Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. "They've a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they're the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, </span><i style="background-color: white; color: #252525; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22.399999618530273px;">I</i><span style="background-color: white; color: #252525; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22.399999618530273px;"> can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That's what </span><i style="background-color: white; color: #252525; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22.399999618530273px;">I</i><span style="background-color: white; color: #252525; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22.399999618530273px;"> say!"</span><span style="background-color: transparent;"> </span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #252525; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22.399999618530273px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #252525; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22.399999618530273px;"> -- From Lewis Carroll's <i>Through the Looking-Glass</i> (1872)</span><span style="background-color: transparent;"> </span></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">I have to admit to feeling rather like Alice recently. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Yes, I'm aware that people will have varying opinions, and that there will inevitably be different interpretations of written works. There are a number of theologians, for example, that have strong but opposing interpretations of the scriptures on matters more than trivial, from pacifism and capital punishment to divorce and gender roles. In the business world, attorneys representing two different parties bound by an agreement or contract may argue for opposing interpretations of the same document. In politics, elected officials and pundits wage war every day over what the US Constitution does and does not "say". As long as the human race may endure, such debates will never cease.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">What concerns me is just how malleable even those interpretations have become, especially with regard to the Constitution. Just as some Christians love to wave the Bible around, and proclaim their love loudly for the Word that they may never even read (yet they are certain of what it says and what it really means), public displays of affection for the US Constitution have become almost a requirement, especially for conservatives. I do not doubt that the men and women who swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States are, in fact, sincere in their devotion to the historical document, but I am concerned that they consider it as clay, rather than of iron. Varying interpretations aside, in order for anything to have any meaning at all, there must at least be some consistency, and consistency appears to have been mortally wounded by situational pragmatism. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Certainly, there is nothing new with the political flip-flop. Both parties have waffled on a number of issues, and continue to do so, even though curious constituents today have technology at their disposal. One can pull up videos of a politician in campaign mode and compare them to his or her words as an elected official. Fact checking sites like <a href="http://www.snopes.com/" target="_blank">Snopes</a> and <a href="http://www.politifact.com/" target="_blank">PolitiFact</a> can weed out reality from hearsay (or even engineered rumor). <a href="http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/24/matthew-dowd/matthew-dowd-says-barack-obama-harry-reid-and-mit/" target="_blank">One recent example</a> was the change in Senate rules known as the "nuclear option"; we can easily see for ourselves that President Obama and Harry Reid each argued against the very rule change in 2005 (when it would aid the Republican majority) that they supported just a few months ago (when it would be an advantage to Democrats). During the last presidential election, Mitt Romney was attacked by both the right and left for "<a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/mitt-romneys-biggest-flip-flops-20120801" target="_blank">being for it before he was against it</a>", especially with regard to the hot-button issues of abortion and health care reform. It is obvious that such convenient changes in position plague both parties.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The recent focus on the Constitution of the United States, however, has caused these sadly commonplace turnarounds to evolve into something more dangerous. As mentioned earlier, there are a number of different opinions within the church on a number of issues, but the moment one adds, "the Bible says...", the line is crossed. No longer is the speaker giving a personal opinion, but wading into fact (or untruth); such escalation should not be taken lightly. Likewise, when people start throwing the Constitution around, I tend to be more critical of the speaker - and when that speaker becomes self-contradictory from a lack of consistent interpretation, I can't help but notice. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<h4>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Graham to Constitution: All of Me Loves <strike>All</strike> Some of You</span></h4>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Is it possible to simultaneously praise the Constitution and propose trashing some of it? Senator Lindsey Graham (SC) apparently thinks so. In the video below, Senator Graham responds to a prodding Piers Morgan concerning the second amendment.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/AcFqImUaSpE?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">To clarify, I agree with Senator Graham on the issue of the second amendment, and said as much in a <a href="http://maikeru174.blogspot.com/2014/06/second-amendment-rumpus.html" target="_blank">recent post</a> about the gun control debate. Surely, constitutional rights must not be subject to the approval of others. Senator Graham's own words at the end of this video are worth noting: </span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">"...if my individual rights under the Constitution are limited by the sensibility of others, I don't have a whole lot of rights."</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">But a subsequent amendment begins:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; border: 0px; font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, 'sans serif'; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
AMENDMENT XIV </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; border: 0px; font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, 'sans serif'; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.</blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Yet, Senator Graham recently<a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40395.html" target="_blank"> proposed a repeal of the 14th amendment</a>. His apparent devotion to the COTUS extends to some amendments, but not others; his rights are protected, those of others, not so much. To be fair, Republicans split over this issue, with many objecting to the re-write, but it is interesting to note that while the majority of Republicans have labeled President Obama's efforts to expand background checks or to ban certain rifles as "an attempt to repeal the second amendment", none have suggested that Senator Graham's literal attempt to repeal a constitutional amendment makes him a threat to the Constitution. </span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span><br />
<h4>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Birther Backtrack</span></h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RrFDxXUls6g/U-9jvMV_nGI/AAAAAAAAANM/n8nno_KGhoY/s1600/birth-certificate.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RrFDxXUls6g/U-9jvMV_nGI/AAAAAAAAANM/n8nno_KGhoY/s1600/birth-certificate.jpg" /></a></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">No need to go into the history of this one. Anyone of legal voting age in 2008 (and perhaps even some younger) will recall the nationwide outrage over Barack Obama's place of birth. Although there was no Kenyan birth certificate to document the claim, approximately <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40644.html" target="_blank">40 percent of Republicans still believed that Obama was not born in the United States</a> in July of 2010. Why was his birthplace of such interest to conservatives, especially those who considered themselves part of "the tea party"? The answer is found in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;">No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The interpretation of this clause was that Obama would have had to been born in the United States in order to be eligible for the presidency. I disagree with this interpretation, but again, my issue is not so much with a different view than with gross inconsistency. The Tea Party proclaimed that <a href="http://www.teaparty.org/not-eligible/" target="_blank">Obama was an ineligible fraud</a>. So as to not also disqualify John McCain, who was born in Panama, <a href="http://conservative-daily.com/2012/04/20/is-obama-constitutionally-eligible-to-be-president/" target="_blank">Conservative Daily</a> added a bit of a rider:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #262626; font-family: Lato, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px;">The phrase “natural born citizen” is widely interpreted to mean being born on American soil or being born of two American citizens....</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #262626; font-family: Lato, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px;">Therefore, the question becomes whether or not Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. was born in Hawaii or was he in fact born in Kenya and therefore INELIGIBLE to be the U.S. President? </span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The message was repeated over and over: his foreign father was of concern; he must be able to produce an American birth certificate in order to be eligible.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Imagine my surprise, then, upon reading that in <a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/ted-cruz-rand-paul-top-huge-tea-party-poll-chris-christie-jeb-bush-dead-last/article/2543832" target="_blank">a recent poll of Tea Party conservatives</a>, the one person with the highest amount of support in the next presidential election was none other than <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz#Early_life" target="_blank">Rafael "Ted" Cruz</a>, the foreign-born son of a white mother who was an American citizen by birth and an ethnic, foreign-born father. Even before this poll, Forbes Magazine pointed out the <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/03/21/birther-hypocrisy-right-wing-has-no-problem-with-canadian-born-senator-ted-cruz-running-for-president/" target="_blank">obvious and unavoidable double standard</a> given the political rise of Senator Cruz. Apparently, the Constitution means just what some choose it to mean, and only until they choose for it to mean something else.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<h4>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Following Suit</span></h4>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Back in 1998, Republican Whip Tom DeLay was pushing for a vote of impeachment against President Bill Clinton, for lying under oath about his sexual relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky. While some Democrats (and even President Clinton himself) were trying to steer the House response toward "censure", DeLay countered that the only recourse for the House of Representatives to reprimand the President's actions was the process of impeachment. Anything else "violates the rules of the House", Representative DeLay warned. "It's unconstitutional. It's a terrible precedent." An article in the Washington Post (December 15, 1998) echoed the same:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;">In their decision to remove censure as an option in the debate over how to punish the president, House Republican leaders have found comfort and cover in the Constitution, arguing that voting on the lesser penalty would violate the separation of powers and create a precedent not envisioned by the framers of the Constitution.</span></blockquote>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://newshour-tc.pbs.org/newshour/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/451971864-1024x704.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://newshour-tc.pbs.org/newshour/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/451971864-1024x704.jpg" height="220" width="320" /></a></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">What exactly is constitutional? Concerning the process of impeachment, the Constitution states the following:</span><div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Article I, Section 2: "The House of Representatives shall chuse [sic] their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have to sole power of impeachment."</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Article I, Section 3: "The Senate shall have to sole Power to try all Impeachments. When siting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Article II, Section 4: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Once again, my point here is not to support President Obama or to take sides one way or the other if the use of executive orders qualifies as "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors". Some believe that the President has acted unlawfully, and some do not, largely by party lines, and the Constitution does give the House of Representatives the sole discretion of deciding what qualifies as an impeachable offense. They are then to vote on it, and if there is more "yea" than "nay", the case goes to the Senate, presided over by the Chief Justice. This is the avenue provided to the House by the Constitution of the United States.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The Constitution does not mention "censure", nor allow for the Speaker of the House to sue the President on behalf of the entire House of Representatives. In spite of this inconvenient truth, the<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/30/politics/gop-obama-lawsuit/" target="_blank"> House voted on July 30th to authorize such action</a>. In other words, Speaker Boehner suggested that the President had acted beyond the authority granted to him by the Constitution of the United States, and that in response the House would act beyond the authority granted to it by the Constitution of the United States. While suggesting that the President was trying to circumvent the process of amending law, House Republicans were writing <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c113:1:./temp/~c113Q002Qe::" target="_blank">HRES 676</a>, which appears to be an attempt to circumvent the process of impeachment.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Calls to impeach the current president have been fairly constant over the past few years; in fact, the <a href="http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Impeach_Obama_groups_hit_Facebook_1105.html" target="_blank">cry to impeach Barack Obama</a> began as soon as he won the 2008 election, before he even took office. Much like Super Bowl Champion hats and T-shits, there were boxes of signs and bumper stickers urging impeachment ready to go in case the McCain/Palin ticket was unsuccessful. In my opinion, while there are some actions by the Obama administration that I can't agree with, nothing is so egregious as to require a vote of impeachment. I understand that many Republicans disagree with that, and they are welcome to make a case for impeachment. Going through the back door, however, is exactly what they claim to be fighting against.</span></div>
Mike Brookshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09587157877218964446noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6242677320766808186.post-19239672761197448162014-07-29T21:27:00.002-04:002014-07-29T21:27:54.005-04:00Phoning It In<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eqMAPboSIPI/U9gnV6KlLdI/AAAAAAAAAMI/UIt-viUvhig/s1600/zack+morris+phone.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eqMAPboSIPI/U9gnV6KlLdI/AAAAAAAAAMI/UIt-viUvhig/s1600/zack+morris+phone.JPG" height="240" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Hey, Kelly, I just got the coolest new phone. I'm so rad.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
No, I am not writing this blog post using only the tiny keypad on my smartphone. That would be madness.<br />
<br />
However, like many people today, I do use my phone for the majority of my online interactions, including Facebook posts and e-mail. Although it is a "phone", I rarely use it for actually speaking with anyone, and since I don't want my R2D2 ringtone to go off unexpectedly at work or during a church sermon, the ringer is typically off. I rarely even use it for texting. I don't take "selfies". For me, it's merely a small tablet, a way to access the internet at any hour of the day. I may never be able to mentally download Kung Fu or how to pilot a B-212 helicopter like in <i>The Matrix,</i> but being able to get just about any information at any time is pretty awesome. Besides, I'm pretty sure a Matrix-style download would be outside my Verizon data plan.<br />
<br />
There are legitimate concerns dealing with cell phone use in public. Surely, if someone is in line at a fast food restaurant or at he bank, it should be turned off before getting up to the counter. There are numerous public service announcements about the dangers of texting and driving, as well as the embarrassment quite likely to come from sharing questionable photos (right, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Weiner#Sexting_scandals" target="_blank">Anthony Weiner</a>?). Like any object, a smartphone can be misused. There are cases in which using a phone could be considered rude, but I, for one, think the phone backlash has gone a little too far.<br />
<br />
There are a number of memes, posts, and other criticisms all over the internet about how people should stop using their cell phones (so much). The irony, of course, is that these are often read and shared via a smartphone - just there are thousands of posts on Facebook complaining about Facebook. This sort of finger-pointing is easy; we can assume the post is about that guy or girl over there using their phone, not us. The truth is that we all have erred at some point; we have all been at least perceived to be that jerk by someone who was waiting for us to do something else. Still, I don't think that increased use of phones/tiny computers is necessarily a bad thing.<br />
<br />
Recently, a friend shared a <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2014/07/viral_craigslist_post_on_smartphones_in_restaurants_is_tech_ruining_the.html" target="_blank">viral post</a> by an anonymous poster who claimed to be a restaurant owner in New York, about an unnamed restaurant, who hired an unnamed firm to help them look into complaints about their service. Of course, this "study" was only published on the "Rants and Raves" section of Craigslist. While it appears to be a hoax, it spread like wildfire. People were happy to have some sort of quantified "proof" that (other) people using their phones were destroying our society, starting with restaurants. Some excerpts from the post:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: 'Bitstream Vera Serif', 'Times New Roman', serif;">7 out of the 45 customers had waiters come over right away, they showed them something on their phone and spent an average of 5 minutes of the waiter's time...</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: 'Bitstream Vera Serif', 'Times New Roman', serif;">26 out of 45 customers spend an average of 3 minutes taking photos of the food...</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: 'Bitstream Vera Serif', 'Times New Roman', serif;">27 out of 45 customers asked their waiter to take a group photo. 14 of those requested the waiter retake the photo as they were not pleased with the first photo. On average this entire process between the chit chatting and reviewing the photo taken added another 5 minutes and obviously caused the waiter not to be able to take care of other tables he/she was serving....</span></blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-E4QhTfu95zg/U9hD8oFLaVI/AAAAAAAAAMg/R2EA-tjx-wI/s1600/phones.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-E4QhTfu95zg/U9hD8oFLaVI/AAAAAAAAAMg/R2EA-tjx-wI/s1600/phones.jpg" height="190" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
The post concludes that the average guest time in 2004 (from being seated to leaving) was just about an hour, and that in 2014 it had almost doubled (nearly two hours) - yet their establishment is busier than it was in 2004. I'm not sure how that is mathematically possible, but we already know that viral posts and fact rarely travel together. I'm not saying that there isn't some truth behind the post - I am sure that many waiters and waitresses have had to wait longer because of diners doing something on a phone. If the author had been more conservative on the numbers, estimating that the average stay at perhaps ten minutes more than in the past, that would have been much more believable. <br />
<br />
People tend to assume the worst about someone using their phone. For example, if someone sees a single mom sitting on a park bench, using her phone while her young son plays on the playground in front of her, many naturally assume she is a bad mom. She's ignoring her child, who may even be calling "Mom...mom!" repeatedly, and we'd never do something so rude. Of course, if we knew that she was setting up Skype so that she could show her husband in Afghanistan images of his son at play, we might feel differently, but that's not our first thought, is it? I'm thinking it has something to do with the phone/tablet itself, with technology, rather than the actual act of not answering her child. Let's say she is merely chatting on the phone (text or voice) with her best friend. If we see this situation happen via the phone, we may be far more likely to consider the mother as rude, but if she is standing there in person, speaking with her friend face to face, while the son tugs on her coat trying to get her attention, we may be more likely to consider the son rude for interrupting.<br />
<br />
I get this sometimes myself. Especially before they were as common as they are now, I used to get stares in church from people seeing me use the phone during the sermon. I am sure they thought I was doing something inappropriate, but I was merely opening my Bible. Apparently, silent flat screens are more distracting to some than the flutter of onion-skin paper. Likewise, people might assume I can't read a (paper) map if I'm looking at the same map on a screen. The guy reading a newspaper as he drinks coffee at the diner is cool, but the guy reading the same newspaper on a phone should move along. Some might see a tourist taking photos with his phone and think that they are somehow missing the experience, but if that same tourist was taking photos with an old-school 35 mm camera, they are doing it right.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tOB3Tr6rEuI/U9hDRDflM6I/AAAAAAAAAMY/wrNNpOhcRJg/s1600/treebeard.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tOB3Tr6rEuI/U9hDRDflM6I/AAAAAAAAAMY/wrNNpOhcRJg/s1600/treebeard.jpg" height="240" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Part of it must be the inevitable backlash against technology. Our grandparents were likely warned by our great grandparents that putting a television in the family room would destroy the family, and new advances are often considered evil, especially if not understood. Anti-technology sentiment is particularly strong in Tolkien's <i>Lord of the Rings</i>: the good forces are those closest to primitive nature (the Shire is "all that's good and green in the world"), while evil relies on technology. Saruman is described as having "a mind like metal and wheels", and the Uruk-hai are created in a hive of furnaces and gears. Of course, the LOTR books sit on my bookshelf, produced at least in part by the destruction of trees, and the movies, as well as the DVD player, are products of technology.<br />
<br />
Our society continues to change, and technological advances do have some impact. People are waiting longer to marry than on previous generations, and teen pregnancy rates continue to fall. I'm certainly not suggesting that smartphone use by teens is responsible for a decline in teenage sexual activity, but in all seriousness, considering drug use, underage drinking, gang violence - all the things that "those kids today" could be doing instead - I am relatively fine with someone keeping to themselves, reading or chatting, using a computer-phone. It's really not so bad, is it?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Mike Brookshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09587157877218964446noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6242677320766808186.post-59087974447685983672014-06-29T19:13:00.000-04:002014-06-29T19:13:56.113-04:00Rendering Unto CaesarI'm not sure to what degree author Suzanne Collins researched the Roman Empire before writing <em>The Hunger Games</em> and its two sequels, but there are more than a few similarities between the fictional Panem and the Roman Empire in decline, during the time of Christ. Life in the Capitol was filled with wine and song, while taxation increased the further one went out from it. Iniquitous leaders were skilled at projecting an image of benevolence, but often had administration officials killed when they felt threatened. Hedonistic crowds enjoyed watching games in which people pulled from conquered outlying territories were forced to kill each other. Existence in the outlying districts could be oppressive.<br />
<br />
The setting for much of the New Testament is in one such district, Judaea. Local politicians and religious leaders had some autonomy there, but they also knew that the key to holding on to any local power was to remain in good graces with the Empire. This required a delicate balance on their part: they could not appear too aligned with Rome, or the people would despise them, but they also could not challenge Rome without grave consequences. Seeing that Jesus was gaining quite a following (and that he was often critical of these religious leaders), they plotted to eliminate this threat. From the Gospel of Mark, Chapter 12:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of the Herodians, to trap him in his talk.<span class="verse-num" id="v41012014-1"> </span><a alt="esv_01" class="va" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" rel="v41012014"></a>And they came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are true and do not care about anyone's opinion. For you are not swayed by appearances, but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? Should we pay them, or should we not?” But, knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, <span class="woc">“Why put me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.”</span> And they brought one. And he said to them, <span class="woc">“Whose likeness and inscription is this?”</span> They said to him, “Caesar's.”<span class="verse-num" id="v41012017-1"> </span><a alt="esv_01" class="va" href="https://www.blogger.com/null" rel="v41012017"></a>Jesus said to them, <span class="woc">“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.”</span></blockquote>
Surely his reply was a bit of a disappointment not only for those who had hoped to put him on Rome's watch list, but also for those who had hoped he would be more confrontational for their own sake. Many had started to wonder if this guy might be their (earthly) salvation from Roman rule, the long-awaited king that would rise up and destroy Rome, liberating the Jewish nation. The sixth chapter of John records that the people wanted to <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=JOhn+18%3A35-36&version=ESV" target="_blank">make Jesus their king "by force".</a> Of course, that wasn't the plan; in speaking with Roman prefect Pontius Pilate, Christ states, "<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=JOhn+18%3A35-36&version=ESV" target="_blank">my kingdom is not of this world</a>."<br />
<br />
Judging by recent events, it appears that many followers of Jesus in America today never got the memo. The recent federal court ruling against the state of Indiana's ban on gay marriage has caused the chorus again to swell: "The Bible says it's wrong, so we must get our way legally!" The song's verses spell out the doom of all society, typically following slippery-slope mentions of plural marriages, pedophilia, and bestiality; usually a charge of infringement on religious freedom is thrown in for good measure.<br />
<br />
I would be one of the loudest voices among them, if the state was somehow mandating that I (or anyone else) would be forced into a marriage with a person of the same sex. However, such a strong reaction against the very idea that the secular government may allow things legally that individuals (or even churches) may oppose on religious grounds is puzzling. Legality does not make something morally correct, and even within the church there are great differences of opinion in what is or is not sinful: drinking, dancing, swearing, playing cards, second marriages, birth control - the list goes on and on. Of course, all of those things are legal options for me, whether I agree or not.<br />
<br />
Perhaps part of the problem is the failure to understand that the church and the state have different roles, which is why there must be "a wall of separation between church and state." Fortunately, we had reasonable voices at our founding as a nation that demanded protection of religious liberty. In a pluralistic society, church and state must disagree, as they have opposite roles. The state must ensure freedom and equality; in other words, they must not endorse one thing over another, they must not discriminate. It is the church's job to discriminate; they must uphold a specific code or creed as superior, by definition. A church can exclude persons from church membership based on action or even belief, a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" can not refuse the same citizenship or rights based on creed. <br />
<br />
Another recent challenge to the government (specifically, to the Affordable Care Act, more commonly called "Obamacare") from organized religion has been over the mandate that companies offer insurance, that they pay a portion of those premiums, and that those plans must include coverage for contraception. The Catholic Church, for example, opposes the use of contraception and has argued that forcing them, in effect, to pay for something they oppose is a violation of their religious liberty. The Supreme Court will soon announce a decision on this matter, and with it split so closely (5 conservatives and 4 liberals), it could go either way - but the argument itself does not hold water in either a historical (biblical) or a modern (legal) context.<br />
<br />
As illustrated in the story above, Christ himself paid taxes that he knew were used in large part for things he did not condone. Quite plainly, an organization that claims to emulate Christ should do as he taught, to render unto Caesar what is Ceasar's, without expectation that the government do as they would have them do with those funds. While American colonialists were willing to kill to obtain independence from a system that taxed them without representation, this was not Christ's example; there was no hint of representation associated with the revenues collected for Rome, and yet he twice <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+17%3A24-27&version=ESV" target="_blank">supported tax payment</a> (and later Paul would urge obedience to the government and tax payment in the <a href="http://www.esvbible.org/Romans+13/" target="_blank">thirteenth chapter of Romans</a>). Unlike the usual reply from the American mentality, Jesus did not respond with a concern for his own rights or a knee-jerk opposition to earthly authority. <br />
<br />
The argument is also faulty on a modern basis, in that there are a number of Christian sects, especially <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaptists#Legacy" target="_blank">Anabaptists</a>, that promote pacifism and oppose violence. Yet, persons belonging to these sects must still pay the same taxes as everyone, even though <a href="http://madashelland.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/USBudget2010.png" target="_blank">approximately 20 percent of the budget goes to the defense department</a>. In a time of war, that means that the monies paid by such groups is actually going to pay for the bombs and bullets that kill human beings, sometimes child civilians. There are numerous groups that oppose capital punishment, and yet some states will use a portion of state taxes paid for this purpose (it is not practiced in all states). There might be some conservative sect that opposes women working outside the home, but taxes paid by individuals with such beliefs may still be used by the state or even federal government on programs to advance career opportunities for women. In short, the concept of religious liberty does not prohibit another person, who may not share my views, from ever using funds I give them for some purpose I would condemn. No matter where you are on the political spectrum - liberal, conservative, moderate (and <em>especially</em> if libertarian) - I can guarantee that the government is doing something with your money that you would find repulsive. Even in the course of normal congressional elections (both state and federal), 49% of the voters may have chosen the other candidate, and thus do not approve of the winner's agenda, but everyone pays their salary, agreement or not.<br />
<br />
<h4>
The Violent Take it by Force</h4>
<br />
In no way am I suggesting that Christians should not be involved in political activism. Citizens of the United States, no matter their faith, enjoy freedoms almost unheard of through most of human history, and it would be rather discriminatory in itself to deny the voice of those aligned with a particular faith in a democratic republic. At the same time, we must be aware that others may have different views on a number of subjects, even within the very same congregation. Thus, what one person may see as an attack on his or her religion may be in complete alignment of another's understanding of the same religion. Disagreements can be had without tactics of intimidation.<br />
<br />
As a case study, let us examine the controversy over Chick Fil A back in 2012. Chief Operating Officer Dan Cathy, in a radio interview, expressed his views against same-sex marriage. Given his background, the philosophy of Chick Fil A as a company, and the conservative-Christian radio show Mr. Cathy was being interviewed on, the content (and even tone) of his comments should have surprised no one. While liberal groups and the mayor of Boston at the time suggested boycotts of Chick Fil A in response, even the ACLU (supportive of same-sex marriage) <a href="http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/july/pro-gay-marriage-aclu-defends-chick-fil-a/" target="_blank">defended the rights of Mr. Cathy</a> to believe (and speak) against same-sex marriage without fear of government interference or economic threats. <br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://i.imgur.com/k0icT.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://i.imgur.com/k0icT.jpg" height="240" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Yeah, not so much.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
This would have been a great opportunity to have a meaningful national conversation, but it instead became a national shouting match. Mike Huckabee called for a "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy#Chick-fil-A_Appreciation_Day" target="_blank">Chick Fil A Appreciation Day</a>" (note: not appreciation of free speech or even religion, but of a corporation) that was, to be honest, intended as a show of force. The intended message was clear: the majority of people who eat here are in agreement against same-sex marriage, we outnumber you, we have more money. These supporters were not in the habit of appearing en masse to simply to defend the right of business leadership to decide its own message, as they certainly did not hold a World Partners Appreciation Day to defend their leadership's decision in 2014 to simply allow homosexuals to work there (quite the opposite). In both support and boycott, the "Christian" response was to flex their own muscle, their economic power, rather than show compassion.<br />
<br />
In the Sermon on the Mount, believers are referred to <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A13-15&version=ESV" target="_blank">as salt and as light</a>. But salt does not compete with food, and there is certainly no mandate to overpower it. In the same way, some light is quite helpful, but it is also capable of causing blindness. There is no mandate for Christians to collectively throw their weight around politically or economically to achieve dominion over the national culture. It is unfortunate that even faith is not immune from the pervasiveness of American culture, that almost instinctual response to conflict that says, "I'll show you". It's the same attitude expressed more coarsely by Toby Keith in his reactionary 2002 anthem "Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue". It's the American way.<br />
<br />
Perhaps this explains the apparent fear behind various posts that I've seen predicting that the current majority - Christians, Caucasians, even speakers of English as a first language in some parts of the country - may soon become a statistical minority. At least on a subconscious level, we know how minorities have been treated. Like Macbeth, we fear that we may someday be the victim of the same sort of disrespect (if not disenfranchisement) that we have (at the least) allowed.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Kingdom v Kingdom</h4>
<br />
The relationship between the state, culture, and Christianity was of particular interest to 19th century Danish philosopher-theologian <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%B8ren_Kierkegaard" target="_blank">Soren Kierkegaard</a>. In the "concluding unscientific" postscript to <em>Philosophical Fragments, </em>Kierkegaard argues that true faith (or, "religiousness") is inward, and as such can't be touched by cultural norms or restrictions. His words then (in 1846) retain a particular relevance to the state of religion today.<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Kierkegaard.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Kierkegaard.jpg" height="200" width="135" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">S. Kierkegaard</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"When at times religiousness in the Church and state has wanted legislation and police as an aid in protecting itself against the comic [critic], this may be very well intentioned; but the question is to what extent the ultimate determining factor is religious, and it does the comic an injustice to regard it as an enemy of the religious. The comic is no more an enemy of the religious - which, on the contrary, everything serves and obeys - then the dialectical. But the religiousness that essentially lays claim to outwardness, essentially makes outwardness commensurable, certainly must watch its step and fear more for itself (that it does not become esthetic) than fear the comic, which could legitimately help it to open its eyes."</blockquote>
Simply put, reducing religion to a set of cultural positions is already admitting defeat. Yes, it is nice to live in a nation where faith is protected (and Kierkegaard certainly approved of the concept of separation of church and state), but faith is untouchable by earthly authorities. It does not require that the government agree, that we pay no taxes, or that we not face any conflict for our beliefs. It certainly does not require that we impose our will on those who believe differently. <br />
<br />
Again referencing the Sermon on the Mount, Christ instructed that, should a Roman soldier command you to walk a mile (likely carrying armor or some other load for him, as was the rule at the time), that the response was not to fight the power (as tempting as that is), but to "walk with him two". Not only would refusal to walk the first mile be against the law, but using one's religious beliefs to get out of some obligation (including the Affordable Care Act) could easily be seen as convenient - perhaps the "conviction" was manufactured simply to get out of having to pay one's fair share. However, if due to our convictions we do more than required, or serve where there is no gain to ourselves, how is this not a greater impression? <br />
<br />
Or, more directly, why is it that (some) faith-based organizations can throw millions toward specific candidates or to efforts to pass some legislation it sees as favorable (or to defeat legislation it does not approve of), much of which amounts to nothing (especially if their side should lose), yet not provide for those in need (especially non-Christians)? Perhaps the Church is not here to serve itself?<br />
<br />
Mike Brookshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09587157877218964446noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6242677320766808186.post-6674512527537454332014-06-09T20:01:00.001-04:002014-06-10T18:11:50.863-04:00Second Amendment Rumpus<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02469/obama-shoot_2469253b.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02469/obama-shoot_2469253b.jpg" height="248" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
It seems to me that every decade or two, almost as if by human nature, society must deal with some great panic. Some of these are reactions to real events, such as the stock market crash of 1929 or the terrorist plot of 2001; events such as these throw us all into understandable distress as we deal with uncertainty. However, real events are not necessary fuel for mass hysteria. In spite of the Red Scare and <a href="http://www.ushistory.org/us/53a.asp" target="_blank">McCarthyism</a>, it turns out that most actors in Hollywood during the 1950's were not, in fact, Communist agents. "<a href="http://www.vpcalendar.net/the-y2k-disaster-that-never-was.html" target="_blank">Y2K</a>" did not render all of our power stations, computer networks, and ATMs useless. The world did not end in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/reasons-Why-Rapture-Will-1988/dp/B00073BM8O" target="_blank">1988</a> or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_(song)" target="_blank">1999</a> or <a href="http://www.npr.org/2011/10/18/141427151/doomsday-redux-prophet-says-world-will-end-friday" target="_blank">2011</a> or <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mayan-calendar-ends-world-doesnt/" target="_blank">2012</a>. Even though Barack Obama was elected president in 2008 and won re-election in 2012, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/04/09/media-conservatives-fearmongering-obama-will-ta/149054" target="_blank">numerous</a> <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/wayne-lapierre-obama-wants-national-registry-to-take-away-guns-video" target="_blank">prophets</a> <a href="http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/07/16/why_the_left_wants_your_guns" target="_blank">of doom</a> were incorrect in that, to date, there has still been no proposal to confiscate firearms or to repeal the second amendment. <br />
<br />
I find it quite difficult to discuss any aspect of gun use in America in an open forum (like Facebook) because the vast majority of argument - on both sides - is built on misinformation. While I don't believe that the government is plotting to steal privately-held guns, I also don't believe that gun owners are irresponsible, or that the mere presence of guns are a detriment to society. I can't begin to understand the grief of a parent who has lost a child to gun violence, but I have to confess that there may not be an effective legislative response, no matter how well-intentioned.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.westernjournalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/second-amendment-SC.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.westernjournalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/second-amendment-SC.jpg" height="320" width="259" /></a></div>
There has been a lot of debate about the wording of the second amendment, and what the intent of the "founding fathers" was in adding it to the Bill of Rights. I will concur that the simple fact of it being the second amendment implies particular importance, being listed next after the five freedoms of the first amendment: religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition of grievances. Since the second amendment itself refers first to "a well regulated militia", some have suggested that the right applies only to those in military service, but the Supreme Court ruled in 2008 (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller" target="_blank">District of Columbia v. Heller</a>) that it does guarantee an <em>individual's</em> right to bear arms independent of association with a militia. This was upheld in 2010 (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago" target="_blank">McDonald (et al) v City of Chicago, Illinois</a>), in which Justice Samuel Alito stated, "it is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty." Even Supreme Court decisions can be wrong, and/or later reversed, but I would agree with the fundamental right of individual ownership. I believe that an individual gun owner does have every right to use that weapon in defense of his (or her) own family and even property, but I should also note that this passage, and others from our founding fathers, indicate that the intent was not "each man for himself", but rather the need for a common defense. The second amendment is concerned primarily with "the security of a free State", indicating that the mindset was more concerned with the impact to society than to individuals. <br />
<br />
With the first half pretty well decided, impassioned debates continue over the latter half: "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Does it mean all arms? Is regulation a form of infringement? Does "bear" mean one can carry a gun everywhere? Can anyone be denied a firearm for any reason? Can the federal or state government require training, a waiting period, or registration?<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/--ROyVNWqjSs/U5GVuw6rWdI/AAAAAAAAAKE/MF7JKU66ZqY/s1600/100779-guns-in-america.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/--ROyVNWqjSs/U5GVuw6rWdI/AAAAAAAAAKE/MF7JKU66ZqY/s1600/100779-guns-in-america.gif" height="225" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Today, there are an estimated 300 million guns in the US, the vast majority in the hands of private citizens. The USA is, by far, the nation with the most guns, both in raw number and per capita. I should point out, however, that there are different ways to describe gun ownership in America, and each side manipulates the statistics to their perceived greatest advantage. While the number of guns divided by the number of people produces a number like the one above, it is also true that the <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx" target="_blank">majority of US households do not have a gun</a>. The reason for this is that many households with a gun have more than one. Likewise, depending on what the desired outcome is (right or left), statistics can show that gun ownership in the US is on the rise (especially in just the past few years), or that it is on a downward trend...and that violent crime is on the rise, or in decline, with implications that more (or less) guns are the reason why. In my research, I have found no convincing parallel either way. <br />
<br />
<h4>
Agreement with the Right</h4>
<br />
As stated earlier, I concur with recent Supreme Court rulings that individuals do have a constitutional right to firearms, for any lawful purpose. Some people hunt, others enjoy shooting as a pastime (typically at clay pigeons or a target at the shooting range). Some are merely collectors of weapons, perhaps even as investments, and have no intention of ever pulling the trigger. Some have purchased weapons as a means of self-defense. As for myself, I have never owned a gun (that didn't fire either water or balls of paint), and may never do so. The decision to own or not to own is one guaranteed by law (except for when <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792#Second_Militia_Act_of_1792" target="_blank">George Washington had a little government-decreed "individual mandate"</a> of his own requiring men of a certain age to purchase a gun and certain supplies). <br />
<br />
This is why I cringe just a little when I hear comments akin to the following:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Nobody needs a 15-round ammunition magazine unless they are a domestic terrorist or a gangster.” - Bryan Miller, Executive Director, Heeding God's Call (a faith-based group committed to reducing gun violence)</blockquote>
I understand where Mr. Miller is coming from, and he may even be correct in the strictest sense (how many things does anyone really <em>need</em>?), but there is a difference between a "need" and a "right". What is a right, if not something one can do without a requirement of proving need? I despise racist hate speech, for example, and would agree that no one needs to spew that kind of garbage, but I also strongly believe in the right of free speech. The first amendment is in "the top ten", collectively known as the Bill of Rights (not the Bill of Needs) - as is the second. Do we really want to start a legal precedent of having the government decide if individual rights are really "necessary"?<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qS-2DcSaOUg/U5T3ieU_ZMI/AAAAAAAAAKg/WZhPqDAozWI/s1600/K849q.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qS-2DcSaOUg/U5T3ieU_ZMI/AAAAAAAAAKg/WZhPqDAozWI/s1600/K849q.jpg" height="256" width="320" /></a></div>
Another point on which I find myself in agreement with the right is the rather amorphous methodology of defining the term "assault rifle". The term itself seems engineered toward negativity, as an assault is typically considered a bad thing, outside of war. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban" target="_blank">Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994</a> banned some guns by model, but most due to having <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Criteria_of_an_assault_weapon" target="_blank">certain attachments or capabilities</a>, including grips, adjustable stocks, and other largely cosmetic enhancements. In some cases, a banned "assault rifle" was nearly identical to a legal rifle, and gun manufacturers were able to bypass restrictions in many cases with very slight modifications. The 1994 ban was passed with bipartisan support (even <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/how-ronald-reagan-passed-the-assault-weapon-ban" target="_blank">President Ronald Reagan lobbied for its passage</a>) but expired in 2004. Since then, a number of weapons have been unofficially given the label, even if they would not have qualified for it by the terms of that now-expired legislation.<br />
<br />
According to the <a href="https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf" target="_blank">official study by the National Institute of Justice</a>, the ban had <a href="http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/" target="_blank">little impact</a> on overall gun violence, in part because (even before the ban) such weapons constituted <a href="http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolreport/2013/01/16/assault-rifles-are-not-involved-in-many-u-s-murders-a-look-at-the-data/" target="_blank">such a small minority</a> of those used in violent crime. While certain high-profile cases have caused a national focus on certain models (like the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15" target="_blank">AR-15</a>), even a legal rifle can be used for illegal purposes. In fact, any focus on rifles is somewhat off the mark, as the <a href="http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf" target="_blank">majority of gun crimes are committed with handguns</a>. As a comparison, <a href="http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8" target="_blank">more people are murdered by blunt objects each year than by rifles</a>.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Agreement with the Left</h4>
<br />
Perhaps the Church of England <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZVjKlBCvhg" target="_blank">can't have extreme points of view</a>, but apparently there are no such limitations within the GOP. According to Public Policy Polling, half of Republican primary voters believed (even in 2011) that <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49554.html" target="_blank">Barack Obama was not born in the United States</a>. Additionally, the majority of right-leaning voters (in a 2009 Gallup poll) thought that President Obama would "attempt to ban the sale of guns in the United States". <br />
<br />
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eNe1LYWAbn0/U5D6UlFLKaI/AAAAAAAAAJ0/5pU9CbdJ76Q/s1600/gunban+graph.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eNe1LYWAbn0/U5D6UlFLKaI/AAAAAAAAAJ0/5pU9CbdJ76Q/s1600/gunban+graph.gif" /></a>I have already stated that I have a good deal of agreement with my more conservative friends on the scope of the second amendment. However, the more extreme assumptions of the far right seem irrational, from my perspective. For example, while we agree that the second amendment does guarantee the right of gun ownership (and legal use), I must add that no freedom is absolute. If you joke about explosives or hijacking an aircraft while going through the airport's security checkpoint, do not be fooled into thinking that you will be able to successfully defend yourself from any charges by claiming "freedom of speech". Use of marijuana (outside of Colorado or Washington) is still illegal, even if a Rastafarian calls it an attack on religious freedom. The tenth amendment (at least after the Civil War) can't be interpreted as to allow for slavery. All rights are still subject to some measure of regulation, and for my part, I do not equate regulation with infringement. I have a right to vote (and I urge everyone to do so, no matter who they support) - but I also must register to vote months before election day, a de facto waiting period. Additionally, in the state of Indiana my registration does undergo a limited background check: according to IndianaVoters.in.gov, the registration database "also exchanges data with the...Department of Correction to...remove incarcerated voters convicted of crimes." By the logic of the NRA, the government is obviously aiming here to remove my ability to vote.<br />
<br />
The National Rife Association itself illustrates the recent drift toward the extreme: as recently as 1999 (in the wake of the Columbine tragedy), <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/18/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-nra-used-support-expanded-backgr/" target="_blank">NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre stated</a>, "we think it's reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere for anyone." Mr. LaPierre has recently (and quite emphatically) reversed his opinion on the matter, even though <a href="http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2013/apr/04/lee-leffingwell/lee-leffingwell-says-polls-show-90-percent-america/" target="_blank">74 percent of NRA members support universal background checks.</a> The growing distance between the leadership of the NRA and its members was cited by Adolphus Busch VI in his <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/anheuser-busch-heir-quits-nra-gun-background-checks-article-1.1321379" target="_blank">high-profile resignation</a> from the NRA last year, which he blasted as "dominated by manufacturing interests." As a mouthpiece for companies looking to sell more guns, reliance on the NRA as an authority on gun matters makes about as much sense as relying on Hostess as an authority on nutrition. <br />
<br />
The earlier argument against the Assault Rifle Ban, that criminals can use another model nearly identical, also works the other way. While the NRA and others on the right have suggested that they desire certain models for defense, other (legal/non-banned) models would work just as well. I have heard several people suggest that this or that rifle, or even guns in general, works much like a magic wand, able to prevent any tragedy. A gun is simply a tool. Buying or having a gun in itself does not make one safe - it is still a contest, assuming the adversary also is armed. The best gun in the world can still be useless against the worst; such violent situations have many factors, almost all of them out of your control. Will you be able to access it in time (robbers, rapists, and murderers typically will not politely announce themselves and/or their intentions), and if so, are you able to fire more quickly and more accurately than your attacker? If self-defense is one's purpose for a gun, then regular training is also essential. Imagine if I suggested that if I only could buy the same running shoes Usain Bolt uses, then I'd simply be able to run down anyone that tried to dash off with my wallet. <br />
<br />
I know that (some on) the right are fond of suggesting that, if only the school hadn't been a gun free zone, then lives would have been saved. Unfortunately, there are plenty of examples otherwise: Reagan was shot while standing feet from armed guards. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Kyle" target="_blank">Chris Kyle</a>, a Navy SEAL and reportedly the most lethal sniper in American military history, was shot and killed on a shooting range. Unfortunately, <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/09/justice/las-vegas-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1" target="_blank">another situation occurred just yesterday</a> in which a man and a woman in Las Vegas shot two armed police officers, and when an armed citizen attempted to confront the duo, he was also shot and killed. There are times when a "bad guy with a gun" is stopped by a "good guy with a gun", but more often (at least in cases of mass shootings), the bad guy is stopped by his own gun. Carrying even the best weapon, with years of training, is not a guarantee of safety for the individual or for society.<br />
<br />
Still, many have argued that the real reason for the second amendment is to protect us from our own leaders. Rising conservative star Dr. Ben Carson recently wrote that the amendment was designed to be "a deterrent to the development of a tyrannical central government", and he is not alone in this idea. Such a stance is understandable, especially in an age in which the vast majority of Americans (not just the party opposite the President) does not feel adequately represented. I may also go so far as to say that our founding fathers may have had a similar idea in mind while assembling the Bill of Rights, but it simply breaks down under logical scrutiny, at least in today's world.<br />
<br />
Firstly, while government guns are seriously outnumbered by those in private hands, even a million AR-15s are no match for one M4 Sherman tank, a single battleship, or a couple of Tomahawk missiles. One might be able to shoot down a single drone, but to use Tony Stark's words, "there is no version of this where you come out on top." If this dreaded scenario ever takes place, a host of handguns and shotguns would be all but useless. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-WH-x8fG4kcQ/U5Y_o6Qx1zI/AAAAAAAAALI/6ofYEy8rZzw/s1600/troops.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-WH-x8fG4kcQ/U5Y_o6Qx1zI/AAAAAAAAALI/6ofYEy8rZzw/s1600/troops.jpg" height="213" width="320" /></a>It is interesting to note that the people I know who are most "pro-gun" are also often quite vocal about their support for "our troops", the men and women who serve in the American armed forces. They tend to be quite patriotic, and yet they often rail against the government. More than once, a Republican candidate has put out a lightly veiled threat about an armed revolution. In a recent campaign, Republican candidate for Senate Sharron Angle said "...if this, this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those second amendment remedies" (Sarah Palin and Rick Perry have each made similar comments). I wonder if any of them have thought that idea out. I know it's easy to stir up fear or hate of the incumbent one is running against, and I am sure that public opinion polling showed that such comments were popular especially with the Tea Party (a group that named itself after an act of vandalism and theft as an acceptable means of protest) - but if the big bad government comes for you, it won't be President Obama, or Nancy Pelosi, or any other suited government official knocking on your door. It will be these same, uniformed men and women that the right claims to support. So, Mr. Let-them-just-try-to-take-my-gun, which of these American soldiers are you planning on killing first?Mike Brookshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09587157877218964446noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6242677320766808186.post-51557968884210643782014-05-25T18:07:00.000-04:002014-05-25T18:07:37.895-04:00The Power of X<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools." - Martin Luther King, Jr.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div id="r1PostCPBlock" style="background-color: white; border-image: none; border: currentColor; color: black; left: -99999px; overflow: hidden; position: absolute; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
<span class="bqQuoteLink"><a href="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/malcolmx389773.html" title="view quote">Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery.</a></span><br />
Read more at <a href="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/malcolm_x.html#CosGYQqmZxugWl50.99" style="color: #003399;">http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/malcolm_x.html#CosGYQqmZxugWl50.99</a></div>
<div id="r1PostCPBlock" style="background-color: white; border-image: none; border: currentColor; color: black; left: -99999px; overflow: hidden; position: absolute; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
<span class="bqQuoteLink"><a href="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/malcolmx389773.html" title="view quote">Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery.</a></span><br />
Read more at <a href="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/malcolm_x.html#CosGYQqmZxugWl50.99" style="color: #003399;">http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/malcolm_x.html#CosGYQqmZxugWl50.99</a></div>
"Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery." - Malcolm X</blockquote>
<br />
There once was a pharaoh (c. 1350 BC) by the name of Amenhotep IV. For the first five years of his reign, he was much like any ruler before him. He managed a growing nation and an evolving government, lived in relative luxury, and considered himself divine (or, at the least, allowed all of Egypt to do so). After five years on the throne, however, it appears that Amenhotep IV had some sort of epiphany. He declared that Egypt should turn away from polytheism and instead worship only (one) God, which he called Aten. He penned a revolutionary <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hymn_to_the_Aten#Excerpts_of_the_hymn-poem_to_Aten" target="_blank">hymn</a> that declared the universe was created by one sole god, and denying his own claim to divinity, declared himself a mere servant of Aten (officially changing his name to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten" target="_blank">Akhenaten</a>). <br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/ReliefPortraitOfAkhenaten01.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/ReliefPortraitOfAkhenaten01.png" height="200" width="143" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Akhenaten</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The nation of Egypt was less than receptive. When Akhenaten died twelve years later, his edicts and religious beliefs died with him. Egypt returned rather quickly to its traditional mythology, and Akhenaten's son <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutankhamun" target="_blank">Tutankhamun</a> (better known as "King Tut") abandoned the temple built by his father. I would submit that this return to traditional mythology, however, was more a matter of cultural identity than any matter of religious conviction. While Akhenaten desired a discussion about the nature of God, the focus of Egyptian mythology was earthly: explanations of seasons, justification of the ruling class, and most importantly, narrative explorations of human nature through a host of superhuman characters. These characters, though called "gods", were merely projections of humanity: they had human desires and weaknesses, they had limited abilities, they fought amongst themselves, and could be punished or even killed.<br />
<br />
In many other times and places, a similar mythology would repeat in Greece, Rome, Scandinavia, and Japan. Though names and specifics would change, the myths would continue to vicariously explore the human condition and provide cautionary tales about love and hate, grace and greed, honor and treachery, life and death. Today, our mythology - no less powerful - does not require a specific religion or even ethnic identity. We consider them fictional, but enjoy the stories no less; we get them from people like George Lucas and Stan Lee. <br />
<br />
While I will have to wait another year and a half for the new Star Wars movie, I did have the chance to check out the latest Marvel flick, <em><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1877832/?ref_=hm_otw_tt1" target="_blank">X-Men: Days of Future Past</a>, </em>yesterday afternoon. Like the gods of ancient mythology, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Men" target="_blank">X-Men</a> are many. They have various abilities and limitations. They know pain, loss, love, and hope. They hunger for justice and yet argue about how best to obtain it. In other words, their struggles are our struggles. <br />
<br />
The X-Men were created in the early sixties, and as such, the stories reflected much of what was going on in the United States at that time, primarily the American Civil Rights Movement. In an August 2000 interview with The Guardian, Stan Lee explained: <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I couldn't have everybody bitten by a radioactive spider or zapped with gamma rays, and it occurred to me that if I just said that they were mutants, it would make it easy. Then it occurred to me that instead of them just being heroes that everybody admired, what if I made other people fear and suspect and actually hate them because they were different? I loved that idea; it not only made them different, but it was a good metaphor for what was happening with the civil rights movement in the country at that time."</blockquote>
Specifically, Professor Charles Xavier represented the idealism of Martin Luther King, Jr., while the character of Magneto in many ways parallels the life of Malcolm X: terrorized as a youth, he harbors "the hate that hate produced", willing to fight for his own people by any means necessary. They are not sworn enemies, as was prevalent in comic books of the time, but friends who are brought into conflict by opposing methods toward a common cause.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://imagecache6.allposters.com/LRG/37/3729/8UQAF00Z.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://imagecache6.allposters.com/LRG/37/3729/8UQAF00Z.jpg" height="320" width="240" /></a></div>
<br />
Beyond the Civil Rights Movement, parallels have been made to many other "us v them" conflicts, with mutants being equated with foreigners, homosexuals, religious minorities, or even political idealists. The characters themselves are quite diverse: Archangel is a privileged "pretty boy", Nightcrawler is a devout Catholic from Germany, and Storm is a reformed childhood pickpocket later worshipped as a goddess in Africa. The diversity of ideas among these characters has allowed for many a dialogue by proxy, sadly lacking in the public arena. <br />
<br />
As a long-time X-Men fan and comic book collector, I had many issues with all of the X-Men movies (Wolverine is not six feet tall), but I was pleased with this latest movie. Specifics aside, the film did a great job of staying with the message of the X-Men, which I hope will not be lost on those who see it. As "Stan the Man" said, "the whole underlying principle of the X-Men was to try to be an anti-bigotry story, to show there's good in every person." It may sound idealistic, but none of us need mutant powers to take a stand against ignorance. <br />
<div id="r1PostCPBlock" style="background-color: white; border-image: none; border: currentColor; color: black; left: -99999px; overflow: hidden; position: absolute; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
<b><i>The whole underlying principal of the X-Men was to try to be an anti-bigotry story to show there’s good in every person.”</i></b> <br /><span>Read more at <a href="http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/USSENTERPRISE/news/?a=84477#sJLrMp4peFSAyDye.99" style="color: #003399;">http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/USSENTERPRISE/news/?a=84477#sJLrMp4peFSAyDye.99</a></span></div>
<div id="r1PostCPBlock" style="background-color: white; border-image: none; border: currentColor; color: black; left: -99999px; overflow: hidden; position: absolute; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
The whole underlying principal of the X-Men was to try to be an anti-bigotry story to show there’s good in every person<br /><span>Read more at <a href="http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/USSENTERPRISE/news/?a=84477#sJLrMp4peFSAyDye.99" style="color: #003399;">http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/USSENTERPRISE/news/?a=84477#sJLrMp4peFSAyDye.99</a></span></div>
<br />
Excelsior!<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div id="r1PostCPBlock" style="background-color: white; border-image: none; border: currentColor; color: black; left: -99999px; overflow: hidden; position: absolute; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
<span class="bqQuoteLink"><a href="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/malcolmx389773.html" title="view quote">Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery.</a></span><br />
Read more at <a href="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/malcolm_x.html#CosGYQqmZxugWl50.99" style="color: #003399;">http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/malcolm_x.html#CosGYQqmZxugWl50.99</a></div>
<div id="r1PostCPBlock" style="background-color: white; border-image: none; border: currentColor; color: black; left: -99999px; overflow: hidden; position: absolute; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
<span class="bqQuoteLink"><a href="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/malcolmx389773.html" title="view quote">Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery.</a></span><br />
Read more at <a href="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/malcolm_x.html#CosGYQqmZxugWl50.99" style="color: #003399;">http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/malcolm_x.html#CosGYQqmZxugWl50.99</a></div>
<div id="r1PostCPBlock" style="background-color: white; border-image: none; border: currentColor; color: black; left: -99999px; overflow: hidden; position: absolute; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
<span class="bqQuoteLink"><a href="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/malcolmx389773.html" title="view quote">Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery.</a></span><br />
Read more at <a href="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/malcolm_x.html#CosGYQqmZxugWl50.99" style="color: #003399;">http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/malcolm_x.html#CosGYQqmZxugWl50.99</a></div>
<div id="r1PostCPBlock" style="background-color: white; border-image: none; border: currentColor; color: black; left: -99999px; overflow: hidden; position: absolute; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
<span class="bqQuoteLink"><a href="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/malcolmx389773.html" title="view quote">Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery.</a></span><br />
Read more at <a href="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/malcolm_x.html#CosGYQqmZxugWl50.99" style="color: #003399;">http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/malcolm_x.html#CosGYQqmZxugWl50.99</a></div>
<div id="r1PostCPBlock" style="background-color: white; border-image: none; border: currentColor; color: black; left: -99999px; overflow: hidden; position: absolute; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
<span class="bqQuoteLink"><a href="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/malcolmx389773.html" title="view quote">Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery.</a></span><br />
Read more at <a href="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/malcolm_x.html#CosGYQqmZxugWl50.99" style="color: #003399;">http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/malcolm_x.html#CosGYQqmZxugWl50.99</a></div>
</blockquote>
Mike Brookshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09587157877218964446noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6242677320766808186.post-31597629554274815442014-05-11T18:39:00.000-04:002014-05-11T20:05:59.144-04:00No Such Thing as a Free Lunch<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/10/16/us/16joe-531.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/10/16/us/16joe-531.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
It was during an October 2008 campaign stop that America was introduced to instant celebrity Samuel J. Wurzelbacher - or, as he was to be more commonly known, "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_the_Plumber" target="_blank">Joe the Plumber</a>". As then-candidate Barack Obama was making the rounds in Holland, Ohio, he was approached by Wurzelbacher with a pointed question concerning a hypothetical small business purchase, which he identified as "the American dream":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I’m being taxed more and more for fulfilling the American dream," he said, in reference to the candidate's previously-stated plan to allow a partial expiration of the Bush tax cuts.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama replied. "I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success, too… My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off [...] if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody." </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Wurzelbacher later incorrectly described this proposal as "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism" target="_blank">socialism</a>". </blockquote>
<br />
While "Joe" happened to be the man in front of the cameras, he was certainly not the only person at the time to label the now-president a socialist - and many still do. For many years, talk about "redistribution of wealth" became less frequent and less passionate, but two news stories in the past week or so have brought discussions of wealth (re)distribution to the forefront once more: the recent Senate vote against a <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/04/30/senate-minimum-wage-filibuster/8509441/" target="_blank">minimum wage increase</a>, and Pope Francis' comments at the UN in support of "<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/05/09/pope-urges-legitimate-redistribution-wealth-by-state-to-poor-in-spirit/" target="_blank">legitimate redistribution</a>" (though he had touched on the idea <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/pope-francis-attacks-tyranny-unfettered-capitalism-idolatry-money-f2D11658760" target="_blank">before</a>). <br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><u><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDIGaiNO270" target="_blank">Minimum Wage</a></u></strong><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.dol.gov/minwage/images/chart-minwage-1938-to-2012.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://www.dol.gov/minwage/images/chart-minwage-1938-to-2012.jpg" height="182" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The purchasing power of an hourly wage decreases over time due to inflation.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Most people I know, conservative or liberal, agree on at least the existence of a minimum wage, but if we are to have one at all, it must be raised regularly, lest it become meaningless (can you imagine still allowing a quarter-per-hour minimum wage?) The red line on this graph is in "2012 dollars", showing that the minimum wage in 1968 (just under $2) was like getting just over $10 today. Of course, that was the highest point on the graph, and if one looks more broadly at the past 60 years or so, our current minimum is not too far below that average.<br />
<br />
So, why is this such an issue? There are many factors, not the least of which is politics. Each side believes they have something to gain by taking their stance: Democrats will now be able to say that they acted "democratically", in that they fought to increase the minimum just as the <a href="http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303330204579250473005492880" target="_blank">majority of Americans favor raising it</a>. Republicans, long favored by business owners, will be able to demonstrate that they sought to keep labor costs down in what they consider a still-fragile economy. It is not a coincidence that this push came up just a few months before the mid-term elections. <br />
<br />
Another reason, however, is that it ties in to the larger narrative about wealth distribution. Even though the "Occupy" movement failed miserably by having no common consensus more than dissatisfaction with corporate America (and by being horribly disorganized as a collective force), the legitimate discontent that fueled them remains widespread. Corporate profits recently hit<a href="http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/Screen%20Shot%202013-03-04%20at%2012.35.48%20PM.png" target="_blank"> all-time highs</a>, and <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/07/news/economy/compensation-productivity/" target="_blank">worker productivity continues to climb</a>, even though average <a href="http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/files/el2012-10-1.png" target="_blank">wages have remained flat</a>. Many companies have enacted wage reductions in the last decade and/or have decreased (or eliminated) yearly increases, leaving many, myself included, with less nominal income than ten years ago. However, the wealthiest few have, during this same time, <a href="http://www.cbpp.org/images/2010.09.29tax-f1.jpg" target="_blank">managed to see great gains</a>. As such, the current situation could be accurately described by replacing the phrase "open war" in <em>Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers</em> with "redistribution of wealth":<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Théoden: "I know what it is you want of me, but I...will not risk (have) <em>redistribution of wealth."</em></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Aragorn: "<em>Redistribution of wealth</em> is upon you, whether you would risk (have) it or not."</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_liqe4oBs7O1qi2rejo1_500.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" src="http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_liqe4oBs7O1qi2rejo1_500.jpg" height="128" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<strong><u>Legitimate Redistribution?</u></strong><br />
<strong><u></u></strong><br />
Of course, there is no free lunch; everything has its cost. Much like the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics" target="_blank">first law of thermodynamics</a> states that energy remains constant (it can be neither created nor destroyed, only converted from one form to another), wealth and power are finite pools. Even the very existence of life on Earth requires taking life: though I know several people who do not eat meat for ethical reasons (and respect their decision), they can't survive without killing, even if only plants. Living things sustain themselves by eating other living things.<br />
<br />
In similar fashion, the government has no money of its own, which means anything it spends, it has to either borrow from another nation, or take from its own people in the form of taxation. Just as I don't feel it is wrong to eat, I do not consider taxation to be a moral wrong, though some have equated it with theft. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Homes once remarked that "taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society", and I would agree that taxation is more akin to membership dues rather than a penalty.<br />
<br />
Still, the amount of taxes paid, and the distribution of that revenue, continue to be greatly debated, although not using consistent criteria. For example, while many accused Obama of "socialism" based on a proposal to raise the tax rate on those making more than 250k a year back to 39 percent, the top tier during the<a href="http://tax-cut.org/wp-content/uploads/Marginal-Tax-Rates-History.png" target="_blank"> majority of Ronald Reagan's presidency was 50%</a>, and no one accused him of being a socialist. Any program has a cost, but merely having a cost is no reason in itself to oppose something; the question is, will it work - will it be worth the cost?<br />
<br />
To be quite clear, economic equality is an impossibility. Though both parties are fond of including words like "fair" and "unfair" in such discussions, they don't really apply. Progressive taxation may be called unfair, but the government must pull revenue from where it lies, and certainly not everyone is born into equal resources. The more wealth becomes concentrated, the less tax policy can tax all people equally; a well that has already been drained cannot be drained again. Perhaps the questions should revolve less around indefinable "fairness", and more about sustainability.<br />
<br />
To use an analogy, let us look at the popular board game, Monopoly. In that game, all players begin the game with equal resources. There is no progressive taxation, the rules apply equally to all players, and everyone gets the same $200 for completing the square (how many turns it will take to do so is beyond the player's control). Even with such "fairness", the game can't last forever, even though it may feel like it - someone will inevitably walk away with all the money and property that used to belong to everyone (and all "fair and square"). Of course, being a board game, losing does not mean you can no longer keep your (real) home or afford to send your kids to college.<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><u>The American Dream?</u></strong><br />
<br />
<a href="http://b.3cdn.net/naeh/eea1cca25651d78003_46m6bnt69.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://b.3cdn.net/naeh/eea1cca25651d78003_46m6bnt69.jpg" height="121" width="320" /></a>The "American dream", as I understand it, is perhaps best illustrated in the works of American author <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horatio_Alger,_Jr." target="_blank">Horatio Alger, Jr</a>. His stories were typically variations on the "rags to riches" theme, about the penniless lad who started working for some rich and powerful corporate mogul, and who eventually caught his attention through his character and work ethic. Certainly, capitalism can't succeed without some measure of "legitimate" inequality, whereby those that work harder or longer should be entitled to greater monetary reward. However, it appears that American society has moved away from rewarding hard work and toward rewarding wealth itself.<br />
<br />
The American dream is not merely about allowing an unlimited monetary potential, but about providing opportunity to anyone willing to work. Two years ago, on a trip to Washington, DC, I noticed the following quote at the Roosevelt Memorial, "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." A similar comment was made by Barack Obama in his 2009 Inaugural Address: "The nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on the ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart -- not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good."<br />
<br />
Like a fountain requires water to fall back to the base, a free market simply can't long exist without redistribution. A progressive tax system is one way the government can help replenish the base, but certainly not the only way, and I admit that some proposals concerning redistribution (downward) don't involve the government at all. The ideal, as explained to me by conservative Christians, is a system by which individuals voluntarily provide for the needs of those without, perhaps facilitated by the Church. I fully agree that such a system would be ideal, but it is hardly a realistic option. The average church spends the vast majority of its budget on itself: staff wages, maintenance of facilities, and programs aimed at religious instruction.<a href="https://www.eccu.org/resources/advisorypanel/2013/surveyreports20" target="_blank"> Less than three percent of the monies received by a church (though they are considered charitable contributions) will go to help anyone outside of it</a>. I do not fault the typical church's leadership for this as much as those of us that provide the income; I'd like to think that the Church would provide more humanitarian aid than it does (relative to what it keeps for itself) if they had more money to spend - obviously there is a de facto minimum cost of operation. I would like to live in a world where people were happy to give to others (I'd also like to live in a world without illiteracy or war), but I would rather the poor be aided by an inefficient government program that obtains its money from less-than-voluntary means, than for virtually no aid to be provided at all.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z205/JekyllnHyde_photos/July%2019th%202010/Cartoon20100715.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z205/JekyllnHyde_photos/July%2019th%202010/Cartoon20100715.jpg" height="248" width="320" /></a></div>
One point that has been made by those in opposition to raising either the minimum wage or tax rates is the likelihood that any additional costs encountered by business will merely be passed on to consumers (rather than reductions being made elsewhere, such as executive compensation). While this is a fair assumption, the same could be said for any cost. Should we then all demand that executive compensation be capped at a maximum, because the money paid to the CEO ultimately comes from our wallets as consumers? Should we ban business seminars in Vegas? It just seems odd to demand fiscal conservatism on the low end, but not the top - whether we are talking about a corporate or national budget. Such selectivity allows for continued redistribution of wealth - but only in one direction.<br />
<br />
<br />Mike Brookshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09587157877218964446noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6242677320766808186.post-68681130633472813722014-04-12T23:10:00.000-04:002014-04-12T23:10:23.783-04:00Keeping It Real<div class="yiv9569450502MsoNormal" id="yui_3_13_0_1_1397329395905_1778" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.managedmoms.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/reading.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://www.managedmoms.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/reading.jpg" height="240" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">STORY TIME!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<span id="yui_3_13_0_1_1397329395905_1777" style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;">
</span><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Christians love a good story.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9569450502MsoNormal" id="yui_3_13_0_1_1397329395905_2109" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span id="yui_3_13_0_1_1397329395905_2108" style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;">The typical sermon centers on a few specific verses, but reading those few verses would take all of four minutes. If the pastor or speaker adds a few personal thoughts on those verses, or gives some additional information about the history and culture of the time period, or whips out a word or two in Greek or Hebrew – maybe twenty minutes. What seems to flesh out a sermon (and more importantly grab the attention of the congregation), however, is the extra-biblical story, and I’ve never heard a sermon that didn’t include at least one or two.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9569450502MsoNormal" id="yui_3_13_0_1_1397329395905_2113" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span id="yui_3_13_0_1_1397329395905_2112" style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;">These stories might be telling of a personal experience growing up, or of a news story from a couple of years ago, or even a humorous anecdote. There is certainly nothing wrong with telling stories, as even untrue stories can illustrate things that are true. In <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0434409/?ref_=nv_sr_1" target="_blank">V for Vendetta</a> (2005), Evey Hammond tells the masked vigilante known as “V” a bit about her parents:</span></div>
<div class="yiv9569450502MsoNormal" id="yui_3_13_0_1_1397329395905_2114" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"></span><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;">“My father was a writer. You would’ve liked him. He used to say that artists use lies to tell the truth, while politicians use them to cover the truth up.” </span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;">
</span><br /></div>
<div class="yiv9569450502MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;">Even Jesus, who describes himself in part as “the truth” in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14:6&version=ESV" target="_blank">John 14:6</a>, told many stories that not even the strictest Biblical literalists believe were actually true in themselves: stories about a man buying a field for<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+13:44-46" target="_blank"> hidden treasure</a>, or a <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2018:1-8" target="_blank">persistent widow</a> pleading for justice, or a roadside mugging and a <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+10%3A29-37" target="_blank">kind Samaritan</a>. His audience (typically the disciples) understood the concept of a story intended to teach a principle rather than to relay factual events. The idea was that the listener was supposed to figure out the meaning behind the story rather than to defend the authenticity of the details within; fact checkers were not necessary because no one was claiming that the story was true or condemning skeptics who remained unconvinced that the events relayed literally happened.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9569450502MsoNormal" id="yui_3_13_0_1_1397329395905_2117" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span id="yui_3_13_0_1_1397329395905_2118" style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;">Today’s stories are quite different. Even as a relative introvert, rarely does a week go by that I am not told some untrue story by a Christian friend or acquaintance. I have no problem with untrue stories in themselves – I personally have told an untrue story many times about a <a href="http://leefe.ratestheworld.com.au/2011/06/15/a-piece-of-string-walks-into-a-bar-joke/" target="_blank">piece of string</a> that walks into a bar – but the ones I hear or read on Facebook are almost always presented as factual, often leading off with “this is a true story” (causing the sender to literally bear false witness).</span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> While there is some overlap in a few cases, I've noticed that these widely-circulated tales fall into one of four categories. </span></span></div>
<div class="yiv9569450502MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"><strong>Overstated Anecdote</strong></span></span></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.hoax-slayer.com/images/pastor-steepek-story.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://www.hoax-slayer.com/images/pastor-steepek-story.jpg" height="320" width="224" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Actual Homeless Guy - Not A Pastor</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="yiv9569450502MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">In my opinion, this is the most innocent of the falsehoods. It's really just a modern parable meant to point out some truth, and would be a great story if it wasn't so bent on being portrayed as real. A recent example would be the story of pastor <a href="http://www.snopes.com/glurge/homelesspastor.asp" target="_blank">Jeremiah Steepek</a>, who allegedly disguises himself as a homeless man on the day he is to be introduced to his new megachurch congregation. It's a great story with a nice message, but portrayed as factual, it is easily discredited. Obviously, a megachurch would have an online presence by which the pastor could at least be verified as a real person. Additionally, the photo attached (reportedly of Steepek) had already been published and the man identified as an actual homeless man. Apparently after writing a nice little story, it was just too much work for the author to take a photo himself, rather than just typing "homeless guy" into the Flickr search. These stories simply aim for the "warm fuzzy" and are practically engineered to go viral in Christian circles, the equivalent of cute kitten pictures among pet lovers.</span></span></div>
<div class="yiv9569450502MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"></span></span> </div>
<div class="yiv9569450502MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"><strong>Proof of God (or the End of Days)</strong></span></span></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.chicagonow.com/an-agnostic-in-wheaton/files/2014/03/godsnotdead.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://www.chicagonow.com/an-agnostic-in-wheaton/files/2014/03/godsnotdead.jpg" height="200" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Yes, all state-college professors are angry atheists...</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="yiv9569450502MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Such stories are basically the overstated anecdote on steroids, often based on urban legends. They are more aggressive, usually leaning on a stereotype (such as the angry intellectual atheist, or the violent Muslim) and yet maintaining the claim of being a true story. The picture of actor Kevin Sorbo here is from the recent film <em>God Is Not Dead</em>, which does not claim to be non-fiction, but it also has striking similarities to the "true story of something that happened a few years ago at USC" involving <a href="http://www.graceemmaus.org/stories/The%20Professor%20and%20the%20Chalk.htm" target="_blank">dropped chalk as a proof of the existence of God</a>. Not surprisingly,<a href="http://www.snopes.com/religion/chalk.asp" target="_blank"> Snopes reached out to USC </a>and was informed that nothing of the sort has ever happened there. Having attended a (secular) state college myself, I also find the idea of 300 students staying in their seats to hear one other student share his faith to be quite preposterous. </span></div>
<div class="yiv9569450502MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">As a believer, these sorts of claims are very disturbing. For one thing, especially in the age of Google, these are easily discredited. But where finding out that Pastor Steepek may be fictional is of little consequence, these claims put the veracity of Christianity itself on the line. For example, if you claim that <a href="http://www.snopes.com/religion/noahsark.asp" target="_blank">Noah's Ark has been located in Turkey</a> and it is found to be completely false, does this not throw the entire biblical narrative of the flood into question? </span></div>
<div class="yiv9569450502MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Additionally, I wonder about the faith of those that rely on such legends and falsehoods. Not only are they spreading misinformation to others in direct opposition to one of the ten commandments, but they appear to need such stories as a type of evidence to support their faith, as if someone can't believe in a Christian eschatology without believing an urban legend about a <a href="http://ichthys.com/mail-red%20heifer.htm" target="_blank">red heifer</a> or believe in even a literal interpretation of Joshua 10 without buying a story that <a href="http://www.snopes.com/religion/lostday.asp" target="_blank">NASA discovered evidence of a missing day</a>. For my part, my religious beliefs do not hinge on tales of modern "proofs".</span></div>
<div class="yiv9569450502MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<strong><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Political Nonsense</span></span></strong></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/files/2008/10/maranatha.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/files/2008/10/maranatha.jpg" height="240" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Yep...this was in Indiana.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="yiv9569450502MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">To be very frank, these are perhaps the most pathetic falsehoods, and certainly among the most frequently shared. They are simply political attack ads, sometimes granted a sense of legitimacy by "Christian" organizations. The timing is always interesting, as some furor about an incumbent (most often President Barack Obama) always seems to be gaining momentum before a primary or national vote. For the record, Obama did not <a href="http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/photos/ovaloffice.asp" target="_blank">change the Oval Office</a> to "look Muslim", he did not <a href="http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/prayerday.asp" target="_blank">cancel the National Day of Prayer</a>, and he was not <a href="http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp" target="_blank">born in Kenya</a>. He did not <a href="http://www.factcheck.org/2012/05/obama-criminalize-free-speech/" target="_blank">make free speech a felony</a>. I could go on and on, but there would be no point...All lies and jests, still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9569450502MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">To be fair, political falsehoods are not new, nor are they limited to just Democrats or Republicans. But regardless of political leanings, anyone of integrity (Christian or not) should refrain from spreading misinformation whether or not they agree with a person, or who they hope wins an election. Putting politics over ethics is certain to destroy one's credibility. Again, in the age of information, just about anyone can check your facts instantaneously - don't be a Liar for Jesus.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9569450502MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><strong>Playing the Victim</strong></span> </div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bryansr.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Michael-Salaman.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://www.bryansr.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Michael-Salaman.jpg" height="179" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Or maybe it was building code violations and fraud.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="yiv9569450502MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span id="yui_3_13_0_1_1397329395905_2124" style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;">These are also quite frequent in the Facebook feed, often visible to me due to a "like" granted to a post by Focus on the Family, the American Center for Law and Justice, or other religious-political hybrid organization (that post often includes a request for donations to help the fight against an imaginary or overstated injustice). Once recent outrage was over the arrest of <a href="http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2012/07/michael_salman_is_not_in_jail.php" target="_blank">Michael Salman</a>, characterized by some religious groups as persecution by the state of Arizona against a Christian doing nothing more than holding a bible study in his home. The story was so misconstrued that the city of Phoenix had to defend itself with an <a href="http://www.christianpost.com/news/city-of-phoenix-release-fact-sheet-in-michael-salman-jail-pastor-home-bible-study-case-78153/" target="_blank">official "fact sheet"</a> detailing the city's actual complaints. </span></div>
<div class="yiv9569450502MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Many of these sorts of posts invoke the ACLU Boogeyman, like the claim that they are trying to <a href="http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/cemetery.asp" target="_blank">remove crosses from cemeteries</a> or to <a href="http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/marines.asp" target="_blank">stop prayer within the United States Marine Corps</a>. Others focus on (and some even authored by) Christian "celebrities" who claim they are being targeted: <a href="http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/duckdynasty.asp" target="_blank">"liberals and atheists" are targeting <em>Duck Dynasty</em></a>, Facebook is <a href="http://www.snopes.com/computer/facebook/unstoppable.asp" target="_blank">trying to censor Kirk Cameron</a> promoting his new film, and country stations are refusing to play a song by Diamond Rio entitled <a href="http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/diamondrio.asp" target="_blank"><em>In God We Still Trust</em></a><em>.</em> Oddly enough, it has been my own personal experience that the people most hostile toward my beliefs are not governmental authorities, but Christians themselves. </span></div>
<div class="yiv9569450502MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><strong>Follow the Money</strong></span></div>
<div class="yiv9569450502MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">As a churchgoing teen in the late 1980s, I would often hear (and honestly enjoy) the routines of "Christian comedian" Mike Warnke. I couldn't have cared less about his many claims from some past life (which eventually were all <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Warnke#Investigation.2C_debunking_and_disgrace" target="_blank">exposed as complete fabrications</a>); I just liked listening to this goofy guy with clean but genuinely funny jokes, many with religious overtones. It wasn't until he was off the radar that I learned that he rode to fame based on lies. Like several televangelists of the time, his gig was up once his lies were exposed; before that time, he was held up as a sort of living proof of the power of God to transform a life. His story was custom-made for the exact hopes and longings of a select group.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9569450502MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://allchristiannews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/heaven-is-for-real-for-kids.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://allchristiannews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/heaven-is-for-real-for-kids.jpg" height="320" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Yes, but is "Heaven is for Real" for real?</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">In just a few days, TriStar Pictures will release a movie version of the incredibly popular book <em>Heaven is For Real</em>, a story custom-made for the exact hopes and longings of a select group. There is no indication that this book/movie is a fraud, but I must confess that I would personally be more persuaded that the story was factual if the Burpo family had not profited financially (and greatly) from the book. I would caution those who strongly defend the tale as true, however, to acknowledge that just as there is no evidence that the book is a fraud, there is also no evidence that the story is true, no matter how much one would like it to be. Not only do the details of NDEs (near death experiences) vary, but I was once (no, twice) the parent of a four year old. Maybe a child wished to entertain or impress his father, or maybe the four-year-old never said anything he was reported to have said. Maybe the tales are completely true. The only thing that is certain is that it makes for a good milkshake - and Christians will drink it up.</span></div>
Mike Brookshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09587157877218964446noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6242677320766808186.post-41449437156827963372014-04-04T09:36:00.001-04:002014-04-04T14:59:43.195-04:00No, We Can't All Get Along<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4pGh6p9T2ow/Uz37Nk_iMDI/AAAAAAAAAIs/QIbmGFFuwmU/s1600/protected-intolerance.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4pGh6p9T2ow/Uz37Nk_iMDI/AAAAAAAAAIs/QIbmGFFuwmU/s1600/protected-intolerance.png" height="170" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Like most people, I can distinctly recall where I was when certain news events occurred. On the morning of September 11th, 2001, I was getting ready for work when I saw the second plane hit the towers on live television. On the day after my 12th birthday, I was home sick from school but wanted to watch the Challenger take off. And when the Rodney King verdict was delivered, sparking riots in Los Angeles, I was a freshman at the racially diverse University of Southern Mississippi.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
While the Challenger explosion was tragic, it was largely without conflict in terms of public opinion, where the acquittal of four police officers seemed to put many communities on edge, including our campus. In the aftermath of that verdict, I was never in danger of being harmed, and I did not fear for my safety. What I did lament, however, was how the issue seemed to be driving a wedge between black and white students. Rodney King (in a broken tone) asked the open question, "Can we all just get along?" The answer, it appeared, would be "no".</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Of course, divisive issues are not new; the history of the USA is really just one big argument. In the beginning, there were heated discussions about King George and independence. There were then passionate debates about blacks being property or people, resulting in the repulsive "three fifths compromise". Ongoing questions of slavery and varying interpretations of the tenth amendment actually tore the nation in half, resulting in a war between the states; the union was eventually restored, but with almost a million fewer men. After much yelling and marching we have survived the arguments about a women's right to vote and public school integration. More recently, there have been many other issues that have divided our country and communities, including hanging chads, shock and awe, defining marriage, and Obamacare. </div>
<br />
And yet, thanks in large part to the internet and the ubiquitous reach of various groups skilled at working the public to a boil for their own monetary advantage, it appears we are developing a new front. In this field, the very compliance of thought is demanded by any means necessary, typically through economic threats. One recent example is that of the evangelical humanitarian organization <a href="http://www.worldvision.org/" target="_blank">World Vision</a>.<br />
<br />
For anyone not aware of the recent controversy, World Vision works with dozens of Christian denominations to organize support for humanitarian aid "in nearly 100 countries, serving all people, regardless of religion, race, ethnicity, or gender...motivated by our faith in Jesus Christ, we serve alongside the poor and oppressed as a demonstration of God’s unconditional love for all people." This is not an organization that primarily intends to convert people to some brand of Christianity (how could they, as converting a population to the teachings of the pentecostal Assemblies of God denomination would certainly be a concern for Southern Baptists) - but to simply meet the basic needs of "the least of these" from Matthew 25. <br />
<br />
In the interest of focusing on this common mission rather than taking a position on a number of other controversial issues, the board <a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/march-web-only/world-vision-why-hiring-gay-christians-same-sex-marriage.html" target="_blank">announced on March 24th that they would allow homosexuals to work for World Vision</a>. At the time of this announcement, president Richard Stearns told <em>Christianity Today</em>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"It's easy to read a lot more into this decision than is really there. This is not an endorsement of same-sex marriage. We have decided we are not going to get into that debate. Nor is this a rejection of traditional marriage, which we affirm and support. We're not caving to some kind of pressure. We're not on some slippery slope. There is no lawsuit threatening us. There is no employee group lobbying us. This is not us compromising. It is us deferring to the authority of churches and denominations on theological issues. We're an operational arm of the global church, we're not a theological arm of the church. This is simply a decision about whether or not you are eligible for employment at World Vision U.S. based on this single issue, and nothing more."</blockquote>
The backlash was immediate, as if Max had just decreed, "Let the wild rumpus start!" Within 48 hours <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/26/world-vision-reverses-decision-to-hire-christians-in-same-sex-marriages/" target="_blank">the organization was forced to condemn its own action</a> as "a mistake" after <a href="http://matthewpaulturner.com/2014/04/03/ten-thousand-kids-in-2-days/" target="_blank">ten thousand children</a> were financially abandoned by self-proclaimed Christians, their very lives considered acceptable collateral damage in the effort to punish the organization for their employment policies. Of course, not all groups responded in such a way; some denominations had themselves already accepted homosexual members (and some even clergy).<br />
<br />
It should not be surprising that most evangelical denominations would not agree with allowing gay staff members in the organization, but the scorched-earth retribution made as much logical sense as people destroying their own neighborhoods in Los Angeles or Detroit to protest a national news event. No, it is far worse: rioters and looters do not claim their efforts to destroy flow from their love of Jesus. To quote artist and blogger Matt Appling, "We have proven how many Bible verses we are willing to ignore to enforce what we believe about a few Bible verses."<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://recodetech.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/brendan-eich-mozilla-firefox-square.jpg?w=480" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://recodetech.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/brendan-eich-mozilla-firefox-square.jpg?w=480" height="200" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Former CEO Brendan Eich</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
This demand for conformity is by no means limited to the religious right. Just yesterday, <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/04/03/mozilla-ceo-steps-down/7262129/" target="_blank">the CEO of Firefox maker Mozilla was dethroned</a> after being in his position only eleven days. The reason was not embezzlement or incompetence (just think how many CEOs would be fired tomorrow if there were an actual standard on these issues alone), but that he dared to donate $1,000 six years ago supporting California's ban on gay marriage. The donation was personal (not done corporately) and he had not made any declarations on the matter as CEO; as an employer Mozilla supports same-sex marriage and provides benefits to same-sex spouses. So, the furor that eventually caused Mozilla to cast Brendan Eich overboard Jonah-style seemed unnecessary. <br />
<br />
Every poll I see on the issue of "gay marriage" indicates that pubic opinion is solidly moving in the direction of acceptance, like it or not, so that battle is all but over. What someone said or did, especially years ago, has little bearing on one's competency in a corporate role, but again groups lined up to demand conformity. If your family is anything like mine, you may also have a grandfather (or uncle, or even mom or dad) that has made a comment here or there that is sexist or racist, but I have yet to oust my 90-year old grandfather for not conforming to the cultural norms of the 21st century. I can disagree with him about certain things and still accept him (maybe even love him) anyway. If he were the CEO of some large corporation, I wouldn't boycott or demand his head - the company would still operate by post-2000 norms even if the CEO still retained a small bit of 1950's bigotry. <br />
<br />
While both of these recent stories revolved around positions on homosexuality, this is certainly not merely "a gay thing". There are other issues that have been as divisive (such as the role of church and state relative to the Affordable Care Act), I am just using a couple of recent examples where disagreements have translated into a demand for a certain result - or else. <br />
<br />
I'm not saying there aren't issues of black and white. My wife is <strike>sometimes</strike> often frustrated by my own absolutism and "strong sense of justice". I am in no way suggesting that evangelicals should define their views on homosexuality by public opinion, that progressives should settle for "separate but equal" arrangements, or that you should accept racism because some relatives express it. What I am suggesting is that there is a difference between "black and white" and "all or nothing".<br />
<br />
While actions can be black and white, people can't be classified in such a manner. No one is "bad" or "good". This does not mean that I accept some median gray where there is no absolute morality outside of personal perspective; a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QR_code" target="_blank">QR code</a> may seem "gray" from a distance, but it is definitively black and white. How can society operate with groups that are willing to take such drastic measures because they can't accept a few pixels being the color opposite their preference? If the president of a group protesting another group has some personal belief that I don't agree with, do I now refuse to work with that group as well? Exactly how far down the rabbit hole are we willing to go?<br />
<br />
This is exactly why we can't all get along.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Mike Brookshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09587157877218964446noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6242677320766808186.post-50540374413828884382014-03-15T16:45:00.001-04:002014-03-15T16:45:10.337-04:00The Problem With Authority<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://img.cache.vevo.com/Content/VevoImages/video/A82B5F157F030C84DA47925F1D7232F9.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://img.cache.vevo.com/Content/VevoImages/video/A82B5F157F030C84DA47925F1D7232F9.jpg" height="225" width="400" /></a></div>
In the late fifties, a man by the name of Sonny Curtis joined the Crickets (taking the place of the late Buddy Holly) and they recorded a song Curtis wrote entitled <em>I Fought the Law.</em> It was a top ten hit for the Bobby Fuller Four in 1965, and was even covered by the Clash in 1979. In each version, however, the inevitable outcome was the same - the law won. John Mellencamp practically paraphrased the chorus of <em>I Fought the Law</em> in his 1984 rebel anthem <em>Authority Song</em>: "I fight authority and authority always wins". Since then a number of other popular American songs (and movies) have revolved around rebels, both with and without a cause.<br />
<br />
With all due respect to the idealism of Superman, one could say that even from the colonial age, it's fighting authority that has been the American way - but there is another "problem with authority" that is sometimes overlooked: the limits on personal freedom that come with actually being in a position of authority. Recently this problem caused <a href="http://www.christianpost.com/news/air-force-academy-removes-bible-verse-from-cadets-whiteboard-116061/" target="_blank">a ruckus at the US Air Force Academy</a>, causing several right-wing news outlets to pounce on an act of apparent religious intolerance. The official response from the Air Force Academy can be <a href="https://www.facebook.com/USAFA.Official?hc_location=timeline" target="_blank">found on their Facebook page here</a>. Personally, I take no umbrage at the posting of a verse from the Bible, the Qur'an, or any other text on a dorm room door, but according to the USAFA the problem is one of authority: "...we in the military who are charged with the important burden of leadership or command must avoid the actual or apparent use of our position to promote personal, political, religious, or other beliefs to our subordinates or to extend preferential treatment for said beliefs."<br />
<br />
I should note that I have never served in the armed forces. While I have a great respect for those who do sacrifice years (and some their lives) to serve our nation, it seems to me that doing so also involves surrendering many of the same personal freedoms that many have suggested our military fights for. So, where writing a verse on a whiteboard at a dorm at a secular state university would likely be protected as "free speech", it may be inappropriate according to the Air Force. I may not agree with their call, but I have far more ability to write a critical opinion of their process as a civilian than I would if I were a cadet. For better or worse, the armed forces don't always operate by the same set of rules.<br />
<br />
To be fair, though, it's not just the military that has exercised authority at the expense of individual freedoms. Many private schools (especially religious-based) require students to abstain from the consumption of alcohol even when they are of a legal age to do so. They may require attendance to religious services or ban student organizations they oppose (theologically or politically). I don't imagine a student at Liberty University, for example, would be allowed to maintain a whiteboard on their dorm room door quoting the Qur'an (4:171): "...Jesus, son of Mary was only a messenger of Allah...Verily, Allah is the One and only worthy of worship, He is Holy. Far above having a son." Reprimand would be fierce and swift...and that's assuming the student had no authority. Imagine if the student posting was in some leadership role over a number of other students, and suddenly the Air Force's stance doesn't look so harsh.<br />
<br />
Personally, I think it has been a great detriment to our society that we have largely abandoned public discourse of certain subjects. However, any productive discussion must be among equals; if any one has authority over another, it is easy for that person's opinions to be considered superior. Such an egalitarian ideal is all but impossible in the armed forces, which is built on rank and chain of command. And because our forces are made up of volunteers (usually) with many ethnic, religious, and political backgrounds, there can't be any response that would make everyone happy. <br />
<br />
To some degree, this recent conflict reminds me of the<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/05/20/us.military.bibles.burned/index.html" target="_blank"> reports of Bibles being burned by the US Army in Afghanistan</a>, sent by a US church to a base there. The Bibles were in Pashto and Dari - obviously intended for the indigenous population and not for American soldiers. In that case, it is interesting to note that the reports came out in May of 2009, giving many perceived fuel for criticizing the Obama administration, even though the actions actually took place in the spring of 2008. To my knowledge, no one suggested that these actions by a military commander, while regrettable, were evidence of George W. Bush being "a Muslim" and/or "anti-Christian". <br />
<br />
I can say, however, that I would not want to be in a decision-making role when placed in such a position by the ambition of an American church. It's certainly easier to criticize those in authority than to take responsibility ourselves - I noticed that the church in question had just enough zeal to get the Bibles and send them to our military (which is not in the Gospel business), but not enough to send their own pastors and deacons into a civilian area so they could distribute them personally. <br />
<br />
We would do well to keep in mind that those in authority are just like anyone else, in the sense that they are fallible human beings yet equally entitled to their own beliefs (religious or otherwise). I would consider it a positive thing to have more openness from those in authority, but if we're only going to condemn them when their opinions are not our own, who can expect anything different? We get cold, impersonal authority figures because we demand them. <br />
<br />
I'd suggest changing that, but I don't want to be offensive.<br />
<br />
Mike Brookshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09587157877218964446noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6242677320766808186.post-29026189175034987202013-12-21T12:59:00.001-05:002013-12-21T12:59:43.145-05:00And Here's To You, Mr. Robertson<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/phil-robertson-suspended-duck-dynasty-ae.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="261" src="http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/phil-robertson-suspended-duck-dynasty-ae.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span class="userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}">"I predict, this 19th day of December of the year 2013, that Mike Brooks will soon compose a blog post on the difference between our 1st amendment rights to the free exercise of speech and our need to be accountable for the consequences that flow from our free exercise of speech, complete with Phil Robertson references ..." - Jeff Weldon</span></blockquote>
It was early Thursday morning when I read about what, judging by the number of people weighing in via Facebook, must be the most important news story since the World Trade Center was destroyed by terrorists: some old, conservative, Southern, Christian dude believes - correctly - that the Bible condemns homosexuality. This is not an uncommon position (and can even be held by some young, moderate, Yankee, Muslim woman), so I was a little surprised at the outrage. After reading up on what was actually said <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nSKkwzwdW4" target="_blank">(oh my.....),</a> I started to wonder if anyone posting their support had actually done the same, or if they simply wanted to state a position in the imaginary "war on free speech".<br />
<br />
I should begin with a disclaimer as well as an admission of my own personal bias in this situation. I have never watched a single clip from "Duck Dynasty". I had seen these bearded guys pop up in the Facebook news feed in the past year or two with a similar frequency to Candy Crush invites, but largely ignored them both - just as I scrolled past more than a few statements about Jesus and sisters and moms being the best without a "like" or "share" (Sorry, Mom). It appears the draw for many evangelicals is that it portrays a family outspoken about their faith, without inappropriate language or situations; this of course stands in contrast to the commentary about human anatomy in the interview which I would not want my kids to read.<br />
<br />
I also fully admit, right here and now, that I really have a strong dislike for "reality television" in general. I sadly witnessed the birth of this genre when tuning in to MTV one day (the M stood for "music") hoping to see that zany "Once in a Lifetime" video - but instead being rudely introduced to a "Real World". Video may have killed the radio star, but "reality" was killing the video, and I was not a fan. Why can it never just be the same as it ever was?<br />
<br />
Fortunately, it would be many years later before the virus would spread to claim much of television. For much of my youth, I could still watch scripted sitcoms like Family Ties or The Cosby Show on the main networks, thank God. To this day, seeing another commercial for the 56th reincarnation of The Bachelor or America's Got Cooties or for the newest group of B-list celebrities dancing or diving or writing haiku drives me to my knees, begging the Almighty for even an ALF rerun. So, even if the Robertsons are better role models than the Kardashians, I would still tend to root for the cancellation of "Duck Dynasty", simply on principle.<br />
<br />
And now, to fulfill the prophecy.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances..." - First Amendment</blockquote>
The first amendment is often referenced by its individual protections by phrases like "freedom of religion" or "freedom of speech". The purpose of the Bill of Rights, if not the entire US Constitution, is to restrain the power of government to ensure a measure of personal liberty, and it is no coincidence that religion and speech are mentioned first in the amendment that is the first of the American Magna Carta. To the best of my knowledge, however, Congress has made no law as a result of Phil Robertson's recent comments, so any reference to the first amendment in his defense is misplaced. People may debate whether the television network reacted appropriately or inappropriately to the comments, but it is not a constitutional matter.<br />
<br />
Perhaps the greatest irony in this (or any) discussion of "free speech" is that often, the phrase is used in an attempt to silence or dismiss the speech of someone with an opposing viewpoint. I fully support Mr. Robertson's right to answer a question in any fashion he sees fit, and to hold any religious belief (or none), but I do not see those voicing opposition to his comments as enemies of free speech - they are merely exercising it for themselves. I've seen a lot of threats back and forth over the last couple of days, starting with GLAAD and the NAACP (the last organization in the country allowed by society to use the word "colored", but I digress) threatening the network, but expanding to people threatening advertisers (if they support the show, or if they drop the show), the network threatening Mr. Robertson, and fans of the show threatening the network. It's Chick-Fil-A on steroids. It's messy, and much of it regrettable, but it's all "free speech".<br />
<br />
It's also all economics. Yes, Mr. Robertson used some unnecessary, harsh, and completely illogical comments about homosexuality. I certainly can't support his comments personally, but even if he had been respectful and to the point - if he had simply said, "As a Christian I consider homosexuality to be sinful" and left off the bits about vaginas, anuses, and terrorists - I am pretty sure that A&E would have still released the usual disclaimer that the views of Mr. Robertson are his own and do not reflect the ideals of the network. But Mr. Robertson pushed a little harder than that, and then GLAAD pushed back on A&E, and they in turn completed the triangle by pushing back on him. Mr. Robertson's comments very likely come from his own personal convictions, but the network's reaction is more likely out of economic consideration. The stronger the wording, the more likely there may be an economic cost to someone involved, whether the loss of a contact, contract, or position. Often the real enemy of free speech isn't another's free speech, it's capitalism.<br />
<br />
I can't help but think how little I heard the phrase "freedom of speech" ten years ago, when in March of 2003, lead singer Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks told an audience in London: "Just so you know, we're on the good side with y'all. We do not want this war, this violence, and we're ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas." The backlash was strong and swift; radio stations dropped the Chicks from rotation (their cover of Landslide dropped from #10 to #43 in a single week), and groups organized public destruction of their CDs. A lot of the same people who are today suggesting that actions taken against Mr. Robertson are un-American and/or violations of the freedom of speech were also highly supportive of such retribution against the country trio.<br />
<br />
As the saying goes, freedom isn't free. There are costs to taking a stand for anything, which is why many politicians (and sadly, many religious leaders) don't really say anything that means anything. One should speak his or her mind with conviction, based on the power we have through our liberty. But, as Spidey will tell you, with (great) power comes (great) responsibility. Simply having the right to say what you wish does not imply that either the content of your message or the manner in which it is delivered is right. Part of communication is at least giving some thought to how the message will be heard by one's intended audience. This isn't "political correctness", it is prudent forethought.<br />
<br />
For those who may equate the backlash against Mr. Robertson to an attack on religious belief, consider for a moment that 45% of Americans believe homosexuality to be a sin, and I have never heard anyone suggest that almost half of the population are bigots. Pope Francis has affirmed the teachings of the Catholic church on the matter, and the "liberal media" has named him Person of the Year. If the media is simply opposed to the idea that homosexuality is a sin, or opposed in general to the gospel of Christ, then how could this be? It's very easy to dismiss offense with religion, to suggest that the problem is that someone merely doesn't want to acknowledge "truth" as defined by someone else, but is the goal of religious conversation to offend, or to mend? Most often, the conflict is not one with God - it is with the self-appointed messenger.<br />
<br />
I have no doubt that Phil Robertson did not intend offense at his comment. I'm sure he did not mean to present Christianity in a negative (and strange) way. I take him at his word when he says that he does not hate anyone and wants to see people accept his faith, but if this is the goal, perhaps the methods of the Pope are more effective? Mr. Robertson is on a show with a huge viewership, and I don't know what he does on it, but I also see Pope Francis in the headlines about every week: he's feeding people, ministering to the homeless, washing the feet of young prisoners, embracing the physically deformed. Granted, no one expected a GQ article to change the world, but it is very odd that most Christians I know have little to say about the Pope (except for a few who criticize his comments about economics) and yet so many have posted a zealous defense of Mr. Robertson. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1527442/thumbs/o-AFDS-facebook.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="160" src="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1527442/thumbs/o-AFDS-facebook.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<span data-reactid=".r[4epxc].[1][3][1]{comment10203073982114221_65963152}.[0].{right}.[0].{left}.[0].[0].[0][3].[0].[3].[0].[14]">Yes, it is true that you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, but going in to the grocery store, picking up a dozen eggs, and dashing them to the ground is not making an omelet, it's just making a mess. What are you cooking today?</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Mike Brookshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09587157877218964446noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6242677320766808186.post-43153199376859436782013-12-08T19:28:00.002-05:002013-12-08T19:28:17.998-05:00American Culture Under Attack by Religious Extremists!<div style="text-align: left;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1JWgiFR43AQ/UqSGUehlxqI/AAAAAAAAAGE/p4MCY_2THhk/s1600/nuns+911.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1JWgiFR43AQ/UqSGUehlxqI/AAAAAAAAAGE/p4MCY_2THhk/s320/nuns+911.jpg" width="249" /></a></div>
Every religion seems to have some level of division - there are differing schools of Buddhist thought, Sunni and Shiite camps in Islam, a few major sects in Judaism, and far too many different denominations to even name in Christianity. As such, there will always be some measure of conflict, but lately I've seen a number of reports that have convinced me that America may soon be at war with a small but growing religious minority. One of the major figures in this war is a radical cleric who recently expressed his support of Ahmed al-Tayyeb, the top imam of the University of Al-Azhar, and has been known to visit imprisoned Muslims. Last year, he moved his base of operations to southern Europe and took a new identity, but that didn't stop him from publishing an 84-page manifesto just two weeks ago that railed against the "tyranny" of American capitalism. Oddly enough, he titled the work "Evangelii Gaudium", or "Joy of the Gospel". <br />
<br />
The next week, I saw another attack, this one on well-known financial guru Dave Ramsey, when a religious feminist criticized a post explaining the apparent path to wealth that is the American dream; she attacked the very foundations of America by calling it a land of "slavery, ethnic cleansing, gender inequality, and Jim Crow". Lastly, at the recent death of a religiously motivated, convicted African terrorist who was on the American terror watch list until 2008 (and known for several high-profile criticisms of the USA), President Obama suggested that Americans lower their flags to half staff out of respect (and calling him a "courageous and profoundly good human being"). There he goes again, palling around with terrorists.<br />
<br />
In all <strike>political correctness</strike> fairness, one should note that the majority of Christians worldwide are peaceful, and are not out to destroy America. Yes, there are violent-sounding passages in the Bible, and plenty that condemn "the rich", but more moderate Christians are highly supportive of wealth and the USA. Vocal opponents include Methodist Rush Limbaugh, who condemned Pope Francis' teachings as "pure Marxism", but sadly, the average Christian refuses to condemn the more extreme rhetoric of these radicals and terrorists. As a result, the stage is set for an ineluctable conflict that could become the next stage of warfare between religious and cultural ideals, one that the virtually disbanded "Moral Majority" would never touch with a 39 1/2-foot pole.<br />
<br />
<strong>Nothing New</strong><br />
<strong></strong><br />
While it may seem a new direction, the progressive economic idealism of Pope Francis (formerly known as Jorge Mario Bergoglio) is not without precedent. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache" target="_blank">Didache</a> 4:6 states: "share all things with your brother, and do not say that they are your own. For if you are sharers in what is imperishable, how much more in things which perish!" Individual wealth was attacked by many of the early doctors: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_the_Great" target="_blank">St. Basil the Great</a> echoed the sentiment in the fourth century: "That bread which you keep belongs to the hungry; that coat in your closet, to the naked." <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo" target="_blank">St. Augustine</a> went so far as to say that "business is in itself an evil"; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome" target="_blank">Jerome</a> claimed that "a man who is a merchant can seldom if ever please God." <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Chrysostom" target="_blank">St. John Chrysostom</a> railed, "So destructive a passion is avarice that to grow rich without injustice is impossible." <br />
<br />
Jesus does not use the word "impossible", but it's possible one could assume that from his statement that "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!" (Matt. 19:24, ESV) James linked wealth with oppression: "<span class="selected" original-title="">Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who </span>drag you into court? Are they not the ones who blaspheme the honorable name by which you were called?" (James 2:6,7) There are numerous other verses that paint the wealthy in a negative light as well, but it will suffice to say that Pope Francis is not pulling his negative view of personal wealth from a source outside of Christianity. Both biblically and historically, there is a wealth of Christian criticism of wealth.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://thedialog.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/0830.pope_.youth_1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="209" src="http://thedialog.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/0830.pope_.youth_1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Again, not all Christians would agree with the statements above. Sarah Palin was slow to criticize the Pope, suggesting instead that his words were being twisted by "the liberal media", but such assignment of blame (and thus evasion of the conflict proper) is becoming harder to maintain as Francis continues to speak and pen his sentiments in his own hand. If the Vatican itself posts an official treatise critical of wealth disparity, the media is largely taken out of the equation, unless of course one considers the Vatican to be a part of the liberal media. Fortunately, the Pope's character is so admired (by persons of any religion, or none) that the typical political ad hominem attacks will only backfire, indicating the inevitability of conflict among American Christians, in particular.<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>What's Wrong With Wealth?</strong><br />
<br />
Dave Ramsey has some experience with wealth. He has helped thousands of people (primarily churchgoers) manage and increase their wealth, and he has increased his own wealth in doing so. Like any rising star within evangelical circles (ie Rick Warren, Rob Bell), he has attracted a fair amount of criticism in the process. The most recent controversy concerned a post on Dave's website that was actually written by Tim Corley, entitled <a href="http://www.daveramsey.com/blog/20-things-the-rich-do-every-day" target="_blank"><em>20 Things The Rich Do Every Day</em>.</a> In a rebuttal posted on CNN, <em><a href="http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/30/what-dave-ramsey-gets-wrong-about-poverty/" target="_blank">What Dave Ramsey gets wrong about poverty</a></em>, blogger Rachel Held Evans questioned the implied causality of the list as well as the theological implications - and battle lines were drawn.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://willypowell.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/dave-money.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://willypowell.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/dave-money.jpg" /></a></div>
After reading Corley's list, I can't say that I disagree with any of the points (although many are slight variations of others, as if there was a quota to meet twenty). Most seem like common sense; it is highly advisable for anyone to read more, take education seriously, eat healthy and exercise, and so forth. However, I also see the point of those that question this list. While many of these points are simply good advice not unlike after school public service announcements, the latter are simply presented as helpful advice. Corley's list advises people to so these things because these are what "rich people do", making the assumption that we all are envious enough of them to want to mimic them, so that we too may become rich people. Of course, as Mr. Ramsey claims to teach from a biblical perspective, he should be aware that the Bible's mentions of the wealthy are far more often the direct opposite, contrasting a moral good with the actions and attitudes of the wealthy (Interestingly enough, a <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/rich-people-cheat-poor-people-wealthy-apt-lie-dodge-traffic-laws-candy-children-article-1.1033304" target="_blank">recent study</a> came to this same biblical conclusion).<br />
<br />
As many others have pointed out, the list is also not scientific, in that there is no control. There was no definition given as to what income level was considered "rich" or "poor", and it also failed to account for other factors. For example, if we are talking about millionaires, the majority of them are over 60 years of age. Especially if no inheritance was involved, it simply takes time to pay off a mortgage (and then for that property to appreciate in value), to compound enough interest in one's 401k, et cetera. People may be wealthy and retired: if a large number of millionaires work far less than 40 hours, does that mean that we all should do so, to emulate success? Statistics also indicate that the wealthy are more likely than the poor to be non-religious/atheistic, is that also advisable? If numbers indicate that 90% of rich people have only one or two children, and the poor average four, does this make one morally better? Or, to use a real example, if most of the mega-rich agree that taxes should be higher on the wealthy, should we not make their superior opinion our practice?<br />
<br />
Perhaps the most disappointing aspect to this whole exchange was Mr. Ramsey's ungracious comeback to those who questioned the post. Calling his critics "ignorant", "spiritually immature", "doctrinally shallow", he instructs them to "grow up", while at the same time perpetuating the idea that, at least in America, wealth is the reward of those good enough to earn it. It should come as no surprise that those with little feel they deserve better, while those with much feel they have earned their wealth by being better than those without.<br />
<br />
The link between moral goodness and wealth is drilled into Americans at the earliest of ages. Before any of us learn the truth behind the ruse, most of us are taught that Santa Claus rewards good behavior with material goods, and thus the child with one poor parent, who receives little if anything on Christmas, must have misbehaved. The child with two wealthy parents, who receives anything he requests, must be very, very good. Sadly, many of the comments I've read in the defense of wealth are not far removed from this false correlation: the poor (at least in America) are so out of choice, and if they were not so lazy, or foolish, or without faith, they wouldn't have to endure poverty, which is merely the consequence for their lack of vision.<br />
<br />
To clarify, I don't believe Mrs. Evans was criticizing wealth, but rather the importance assigned to it in our culture. I certainly don't oppose wealth, and could easily accept having more of it myself, but I also acknowledge that in theological and moral terms, wealth is no better than poverty. The irony is that some of the same media sources that complain about envy of the rich also feed the public a steady stream of coverage of (and praise for) them; if "class warfare" exists, surely they are the aggressors.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.biblebasedministries.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/NelsonMandela.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="222" src="http://www.biblebasedministries.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/NelsonMandela.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<strong></strong><br />
<strong>Why Praise Communist Rebels?</strong><br />
<strong></strong><br />
If there's one communist out there more widely praised than Pope Francis, it has to be Nelson Mandela. But where the Pope has preached non-violence, Mandela was convicted for plotting against the government of South Africa, including acts of terrorism. A lifelong Methodist and a member of the communist-aligned ANC, Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela did more than just speak out against the dangers of capitalism, he took up arms against his oppressor.<br />
<br />
Of course, in this respect he was no different than the Episcopalian George Washington (not that the Stamp Act was in any way equal to Apartheid), leading fellow colonial subjects in a fight for representation. In fact, it would be hard to criticize Mandela's actions and statements at all if they were not so regularly aligned with our Cold War enemies. Mandela most closely related with Fidel Castro, with whom he had a strong friendship. On a visit to Cuba in 1991, he proclaimed:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>“...</em>the Cuban Revolution has also been a source of inspiration to all freedom-loving people. We admire the sacrifices of the Cuban people in maintaining their independence and sovereignty in the face of the vicious imperialist-orchestrated campaign.... Long live comrade Fidel Castro<em>.”</em></blockquote>
In the same speech, he also praised Che Guevara, calling him "an inspiration to all human beings who cherish freedom." A decade later, expressing his disapproval of the Iraq invasion, Mandela went so far as to say, "If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America." <br />
<br />
He also worked tirelessly to promote an anti-capitalist agenda, considering nationalization of some industries and maintaining ties with the Communist Party. Stopping short of calling wealth an evil, Mandela said in a CNN interview on his 90th birthday that the rich do have an obligation to share their wealth with those in poverty. He helped author a government initiative in 1996 known as the GEAR (Growth, Employment, And Redistribution) policy, and yet was celebrated (and now mourned) by a number of American conservatives.<br />
<br />
While there are certainly differences between a humble Catholic who happens to be the Pope, a liberal-leaning American blogger, and a communist South African freedom fighter, the common thread is that the new "enemies" of the American way of life are not faceless Soviet atheists, nor are they stereotypical fundamentalist jihadists - they are principled Christians seen in a positive light by most Americans.<br />
<br />
<strong>Flooding the Engine</strong><br />
<br />
Even the late Nelson Mandela was not opposed to capitalism <em>per se</em>. South Africa, to this day, still operates primarily as a free market economy, as does the United States. While many classify them as "socialist", most European nations also operate by free market principles, even with a greater measure of taxation or government regulation. With this in mind, one must be careful to suggest that a critic of concentrated wealth is opposed to capitalism - more often than not, the issue is with the distribution of wealth and the priorities of the society, which are different matters than the mechanics of an economic theory.<br />
<br />
In its purest form, free market capitalism is equivalent to economic Darwinism; that is to say, that the craftiest among us deserve to have all they can get, and the less successful only to starve. No one truly desires such a system, regardless of political leanings. The truth is that we all believe, to some degree, in a redistribution of wealth from those who are able to those who are in need. We merely disagree on the definitions of "able" and "need", as well as the amounts to be involved and the degree to which the transfers are voluntary.<br />
<br />
My personal issue with the current state of American capitalism is that I believe we have abandoned the principle of merit. Where once we rewarded hard work with wealth, we now praise wealth itself, and celebrate those who have it and yet do as little as possible. I acknowledge that (as my friend Tom has said more than once) self-interest is not the same as greed, and that it is the necessary fuel for capitalism to prosper. However, even the most conservative auto mechanic will not argue that more fuel will always make the car run more smoothly, or that it is unfair for the brakes to hinder the ability of the fuel pump. Elaborate systems of regulation are required to maximize the performance of the car and to ensure the safety of those who rely on it.<br />
<br />
Certainly, it is not an oxymoron to be a religious capitalist, nor to be a religious socialist. There will continue to be debate on the ethics and responsibilities of wealth. The new wrinkle is that through an expanded marketplace of ideas made possible by the internet and other technological advances, Christianity is being slowly pulled away from American (conservative) idealism. Perhaps history will repeat itself. Unfortunately, those that have expressed an interest in returning to the faith of our fathers likely did not have St. John Chrysostom in mind.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Mike Brookshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09587157877218964446noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6242677320766808186.post-5763298920362480502013-11-30T13:11:00.000-05:002013-11-30T13:11:38.794-05:00Quid Est Veritas?First off, I love science. <br />
<br />
Through observation and experimentation, we have come to define and understand our natural world. We understand the paths of planets and of comets and the anatomy of all sorts of plants and animals. We are able to diagnose and treat a number of medical conditions; we can land a mobile robot lab safely on the surface of another planet.<br />
<br />
Of course, this is all possible because we are dealing with empirical evidence. We can observe and test the physical, allowing us great understanding. Mankind has had much greater difficulty, however, with defining philosophical ideals like valor, justice, or love. Still, in spite of our inability to truly and consistently define these concepts, we remain not only collectively convinced of their existence, but mystified by them. In fact, the ancient Greeks actually created deities to personify many of these ideals. Many great philosophers have written at length on these matters, and inquiries continue to cycle through works of literature, music, and art with varying depth, from the Shakespearean soliloquy to Haddaway's ubiquitous question of 1993. <br />
<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://tolearnsomething.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/eccehomo1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="306" src="http://tolearnsomething.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/eccehomo1.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><em>Ecce Homo</em> ("Behold the Man"), Antonio Ciseri, 1871</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
From a philosophical (or even theological) standpoint, the greatest question has to be that of truth. Before one can tackle "true love" or "true goodness", one must answer how to know what is true. Certainly, Pontius Pilate was not the first to ask, "what is truth?" - but his inquiry is probably the most well known, being recorded in the Gospel of John and thus in just about every hotel nightstand in the United States of America. Scholars debate Pilate's motivation, but in any case, there is no record of a response to his question.<br />
<br />
As I hope to finish this post yet this week, I must keep things rather basic. With that in mind, there are two main philosophical camps concerning this question, based on whether one considers truth (to the degree it exists) to be relative or absolute. If one man considers something to be true, is this based on his own mind and perception, or is he either right or wrong about a universal standard? Is our reality truth? Or, as Morpheus famously asked in <em>The Matrix</em>, "what is real?"<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/p2vDxJbvGFo?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
Morpheus is indeed illustrating a position of philosophical realism, that although perception may create a false reality - there is in fact another reality, a universal truth that remains true even if unknown or rejected. I, like most theists, gravitate toward this school of the absolute. Plato illustrated this same concept with an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave" target="_blank">allegory of the cave</a> and shadows of reality, coming to the same conclusion: while truth exists independent of our perception, our definition of the real is often warped by our own experience. But how does one mine the true from the untrue? <br />
<br />
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, speaking through his fictional character Sherlock Holmes, proposed that "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Although I agree that the truth is often considered improbable, I must also admit that such a statement is only plausible coming from a fictional super-detective. The ability to ascertain truth from clues and observation is limited, in the case of a police detective, to that which one can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if he or she correctly identifies the guilty, there must be evidence, and it must be admissible. It must be properly obtained within the confines of the law. In short, it may not be enough to know truth - one must be able to relay it to the minds of others by means of producing something they will accept. <br />
<br />
Although it follows the lines of Sherlock's sentiment, I prefer the allegory set forth by Tolstoy: "Progress consists, not in the increase of truth, but in freeing it from its wrappings. The truth is obtained like gold, not by letting it grow bigger, but by washing off from it everything that isn't gold." In the age of the internet, Tolstoy seems even more a genius. We have instant access to all means of "information", but as anyone can post just about anything, fool's gold abounds. If you wish to "prove" any position, a simple Google search will reveal at least one or two supporting sites. Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, or Mark Twain can be attributed with any quote you wish, instantly endorsing your favorite ideology.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-N58yvvGzdPU/UplFIPJikwI/AAAAAAAAAFs/qjfyiP0opHI/s1600/dont-believe-everything-you-see-on-the-internet.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="208" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-N58yvvGzdPU/UplFIPJikwI/AAAAAAAAAFs/qjfyiP0opHI/s320/dont-believe-everything-you-see-on-the-internet.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">THIS IS REAL!!!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
While these "wrappings" are evident in all forums, perhaps none is as dangerous as those done in the name of religion. To again quote Tolstoy, "it is terrible when people do not know God, but it is worse when people identify as God what is not God." Christianity (like most religions) centers on the word of God being absolute truth, with God being the only pure example of the ideals humans universally seek, including justice and love. Unfortunately, even divine revelation is subject to limited perception and is thus often warped and misinterpreted, both knowingly and unknowingly. <br />
<br />
Without question, any biblical scholar must devote himself to study, but even among a small number of genuine truth seekers there will be conflict. I know of some who believe God has condoned the practice of (earthly) capital punishment, for example, while others are convinced that Christians are called to oppose the practice and defend life. In both cases, I respect those positions and know they were not arrived at lightly. As I wrote about several weeks ago, it is quite possible to have two people from the same congregation with conflicting interpretations of the account of creation that begins Genesis. Many groups consider the Bible to be inerrant, some do not. Reading the same book, some will be inclined more toward pacifism than others. Some will argue against the consumption of alcohol, some will lean more Arminian, some will insist a pre-tribulation rapture must take place. Everyone's theology is a little different.<br />
<br />
This leads me to the conclusion that every believer inevitably has at least a position or two that is in error, myself included. Even with the best resources, humans can't help but make mistakes. Absolute truth most certainly exists, but no one can claim to know it completely. There is an important distinction to be made, though it so rarely is: absolute truth exists, but your perception (or mine) of what it is may not be entirely correct. A disagreement on one's biblical position is not equivalent to disagreement with the word itself, only to an interpretation of it, and if we can be honest with ourselves, many of the details are relatively inconsequential. <br />
<br />
Seek God. Seek justice, seek truth. Accept that we will all fail to comprehend these fully. To err is human, but fortunately for us all, there is divine forgiveness.Mike Brookshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09587157877218964446noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6242677320766808186.post-69178260525091185602013-11-23T08:18:00.000-05:002013-11-23T16:44:52.933-05:00The Dream of Anarchy, or, Strange Women Lying in Ponds<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.dirtycarsmillioncows.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/anarchy-in-the-uk.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://www.dirtycarsmillioncows.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/anarchy-in-the-uk.jpg" width="229" /></a></div>
<br />
If there is one thing that political liberals and conservatives can agree upon, it is that the government is inefficient, misguided, detached, and morally deficient (they will, of course, differ on which actions are good and bad, as well as defining the ideal). Recent polls clearly indicate that Americans are unhappy with Congress in particular, <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/nov/12/congress-approval-rating-low-gallup/" target="_blank">currently at a nine percent approval rating.</a> While I would agree that our current elected representatives are historically poor, I acknowledge that even in the best of times, government is rarely popular. As G.K. Chesterton put it, "The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all."<br />
<br />
This is not really surprising; it's practically human nature to question and even resist authority. Especially in a culture that emphasizes individuality and competition, rules are often viewed as roadblocks to success and happiness. To some degree, we are all guilty of justifying unlawful actions; I myself often mentally rewrite posted speed limits with what I believe to be the <em>de facto</em> limit, perhaps five mph more. Business leaders may be pressured to ignore regulations in pursuit of greater profit, just as athletes are often pressured to use drugs or other banned substances for greater performance (leading to more money and fame). However, in all of these cases, cheaters still desire the law to limit others; merely rebelling does not make one an anarchist.<br />
<br />
In fact, it's rather difficult to define the positions of an anarchist, just as it is nearly impossible to define anarchy itself. In popular use, anarchy is used often in place of "chaos", but the etymological definition means only "no ruler", just as a monarchy means "one ruler", typically a king. But perhaps, old <strike>woman</strike> man, you <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Xd_zkMEgkI" target="_blank">are perfectly content with your anarcho-syndiclist commune</a>? Is this not itself a system of government, with a ruler? How is any order possible at all without a government (and is a government possible without a "ruler")?<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<strong>"We started off trying to set up a small anarchist community, but people wouldn't obey the rules." - Alan Bennett</strong></blockquote>
<br />
Simply put, if rules need to exist, then a ruler needs to exist; this is really the central point of the social contract theory and the writings of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes" target="_blank">Thomas Hobbes</a>. Certainly, there will be disagreement on the best system of government, but my point is that even those that advocate "anarchy" really aren't: they often are using the idea as an antithesis to the system they wish to dismantle without giving much definition to the alternative, one that will certainly still involve some measure of rule. Another individual or group may consider that new system barbaric, and the dislike for government continues.<br />
<br />
Of course, I do not typically converse with anarchists, nor do I personally advocate a totalitarian, Palpatinian rule. The political discussions I see in our present age are from slightly more moderate positions, arguing for more or less government intervention in a number of issues. I believe such discussions are healthy and necessary to any republic in which the public has a voice in their representation. The only real conflict I have in such conversations (other than that they are often less than civil and amount to name-calling) is one of dealing with mankind's inherent flaws: advocates for strong, centralized government often do so out of a concern for what society would become without such oversight, given the state of man, while those that advocate less government control do so out of a concern for what a ruler would or could do to a society, given the state of man. If "corporations are people", then are not governments people, too? <br />
<br />
The bottom line is that the flaws of government are our own flaws. We elect people to represent us, and in spite of the naysayers, the American public gets it right: it elects prideful, selfish, immoral opportunists into office - who could better represent the American public? <br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="quoteText">
</div>
Mike Brookshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09587157877218964446noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6242677320766808186.post-28850417110066367642013-11-02T15:52:00.000-04:002014-08-02T08:20:08.746-04:00The Nightmare Before Christmas<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://cdn.culturemass.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/nightmare1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://cdn.culturemass.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/nightmare1.jpg" height="204" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
One of my favorite opening lines in literature, and certainly the one I recall most often, is the one that begins <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Go-Between" target="_blank"><em>The Go-Between</em></a> by L.P. Hartley (1953): “"The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there."<br />
<br />
As I have mentioned previously in my writings, I do not take this to mean that morality is not constant. Certainly, there are absolute ideals of good and evil that are recognized across borders and centuries, but there are also concepts that are embraced (or shunned) due to cultural ideas that are subject to change. Even the recidivist thief H.I. McDunnough summarized this duality (albeit hypocritically) by stating “There's what's right and there's what's right, and never the twain shall meet.” (<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093822/?ref_=nv_sr_3" target="_blank">Raising Arizona</a>, 1987)<br />
<br />
This past week I got to observe (the Protestant, American Midwest) society’s intricate dance around the holiday called Halloween. Because some religious conservatives object to the traditional holiday, there appears to be a widespread re-branding, not unlike the one these same people complain about come Christmas-time, with events having names like “Fall Party”, “Harvest Festival”, and the like. Of course, the events still have plenty of costumes and candy, they just won’t call it by its actual name so as to not offend – but come December, watch your butt if you dare say “Happy Holidays” or have a “Winter Party”. Apparently, it is acceptable to rename some holiday events, but not others.<br />
<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FMBm1Q8f0zQ/UnXQosbH2gI/AAAAAAAAAEk/NQF_M5H3nnQ/s1600/waynegarth.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FMBm1Q8f0zQ/UnXQosbH2gI/AAAAAAAAAEk/NQF_M5H3nnQ/s200/waynegarth.jpg" height="150" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Potty on, Wayne. Potty on, Garth.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Of course, of those people I know who may be opposed to celebrating Halloween, none suggest that dressing up in a costume, walking with one’s children through the neighborhood, or eating fun size Twix bars is inherently wrong. Surprisingly, none of them even refer to the redistribution of candy as an indoctrination of children toward socialism. As best I can understand, the objection is that the modern holiday, though commercialized and diluted, is derived from ancient, non-Christian rites, but again the problem must either be selective principle or historical ignorance.<br />
<br />
While there are some similarities between Halloween and some Celtic pagan rituals (especially Samhain), these are commonalities due primarily to the time of year in which the holiday falls. Bonfires may have been lit with some intent or significance thousands of years ago, for example, but a church youth group lighting one in the 21st century is hardly a nod toward paganism; it is little more than a sign of the season turning a bit colder. In fact, many scholars believe that in spite of certain correlations, our holiday is primarily of Christian origin, as the very name is derived from “All Hallows’ Even”, which also spawned “All Saints’ Day”, “All Souls’ Day”, and its Latin American version “<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_the_Dead" target="_blank">Dia De (los) Muertos</a>”, or Day of the Dead.<br />
<br />
Of course, the average trick-or-treating ten-year-old boy concerns himself with neither Celtic nor Catholic rituals, and adults will largely fail to complement the sights of skeletons and caskets with introspection on the certainty of mortality. It is merely a nation-wide dress-up day. Sure, we can take advantage of the North American contribution to the day by carving a pumpkin or two; pumpkins entered the Halloween narrative only in the last couple of centuries, as they were native to North America when Irish settlers brought a similar tradition with them (in Ireland, they carved turnips). And let’s face it, if it were not for this gourd genocide, what would we do with all those pumpkins? I’m sure handling this surplus <a href="http://www.latomatina.org/" target="_blank">La Tomatina</a>-style could result in some serious injury. <br />
<br />
But, if one is going to object to the holiday based on a tie to pagan symbolism or pre-Christian ritual, then why celebrate Christmas? While it does commemorate the supposed birth of Christ (scholars disagree on the time of year, and even the year), it has been well-documented that decorating a fir or other tree that lived through the winter (at or near the Winter Solstice) was a pre-Christian tradition. In fact, when Christmas was first celebrated (not until the mid-fourth century), it too bore little resemblance to the holiday we know today.<br />
<br />
Even the typical Nativity scene (with Magi alongside shepherds in front of a pale-skinned newborn) is obviously errant according to the gospel of Matthew. While I acknowledge that this is merely a harmless, cultural adaptation, it still puzzles me why certain foreign elements are largely accepted while other elements (even that are not actually counter to orthodox Christianity) are equated with evil (see "yoga", "karate", "meditation", "rock music", and "quesadilla"). <br />
<br />
Puritan pilgrims to the New World disapproved of celebrating Halloween, but they did not approve of celebrating Christmas, either. The Puritans of today seem to be more selective. While they largely disapprove of Halloween's focus on deception and trickery, they take no issue with the blatant hypocrisy of telling a child caught in telling an untruth that "if you lie, Santa won't be coming on Christmas Eve". They take no issue with supporting a materialistic society that claims to work on merit but really only reflects the budget of parents and grandparents (subtly equating the notions of wealth and goodness). They may just trample you when the store opens at 8pm on Thanksgiving Day. But whatever you do, don't greet them with "Happy Holidays". That's just wrong.<br />
<br />Mike Brookshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09587157877218964446noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6242677320766808186.post-51205509199472872422013-10-20T18:51:00.000-04:002013-10-20T18:51:56.173-04:00How Romantic...<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://graphics.nytimes.com/images/2007/05/16/arts/16once600.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="185" src="http://graphics.nytimes.com/images/2007/05/16/arts/16once600.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
My wife and I just returned from a whirlwind trip to Chicago, which was mostly enjoyable. I did learn that day passes for the CTA can only be purchased at certain locations, which meant we did a lot more walking than I had planned to do. During the day, this was not too much of a burden as the weather was pleasant and even warm for mid-October, but by nightfall the weather had turned colder with sporadic light rain. I slept well.<br />
<br />
The reason, or at least the primary destination, for our trip was yesterday afternoon's performance of <em>Once</em> at the Oriental Theatre. Although there were changes made, the musical is based on the 2006 shoestring-budget indie flick of the same name (and unlike <em>The Lion King</em>, I must say I still prefer the movie to the play). I could say that I would echo the sentiments in this <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/movies/16once.html?_r=0">New York Times review</a>, but I would also add that my bias toward the movie is likely in large part due to its two leads, as irreplaceable as Bogart and Bergman in <em>Casablanca. </em>It's certainly not your average movie musical (I am glad to report that the audience is not asked to peer into Irgolva's nostrils as she finishes up <em><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW0DfsCzfq4">Summer Nights</a></em>), but more importantly, it is not your average "romance" movie.<br />
<br />
Surely, I do not mean to sound puritanical; <em>Once</em> has plenty of strong language, as it was shot in Ireland, where I believe the government requires even priests to utter at least one f-bomb fortnightly. I do not dislike typical romantic movies because of language, or skin, or even sex; I dislike them because they are moronic, and as such, are not by any means romantic. I'm glad that I didn't watch such movies as a teenager - not because they would have given me unrealistic expectations, but because they (like most teen-horror films) must portray the average high-school student as a complete idiot. Of course, in all fairness, 1) adults in such movies are just as foolish, and 2) the average high-school student (or adult) is a complete idiot. <br />
<br />
Yes, characters making unwise decisions have populated human stories since the beginning of recorded literature, but where <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macbeth"><em>Macbeth</em></a> presents a cautionary tale, the average "romantic" movie actively encourages at least temporary insanity. Sex is to be reserved for the second date, and any ruse in pursuit of a lover is more than acceptable; in fact, the more outlandish the better. If you find out your boyfriend/girlfriend is the one lying or cheating, don't be so harsh with them as to expect anything more; show how mature you are by accepting as much of their heart as they are wiling to give you.<br />
<br />
But, especially as a man, nothing bothers me more than variations on a theme of infidelity in the pursuit of real love. In <em><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108160/?ref_=nv_sr_1">Sleepless in Seattle</a>,</em> for example<em>, </em>Annie is so moved by a radio conversation that she leaves her well-mannered fiancé Walter in the dark as she travels across the country to hopefully meet this lonely widower. In <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0332280/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1"><em>The Notebook</em></a>, young Allie meets up with former flame Noah for a fling in an abandoned house, though she is engaged to be married to respectable lawyer Lon. In <em><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0256415/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">Sweet Home Alabama</a></em>, Melanie actually doubles the feat: she leaves her husband Jake in Alabama and starts a new life for herself in New York, but when her new man Andrew in New York proposes, she goes back to Alabama to convince her husband to sign the divorce papers he rejected seven years prior so she can continue without letting her fiancé know she was previously married (and still is). But, she ends up falling for her husband again, and still continues with the wedding plans until calling it all off during the wedding itself. Unfaithful to two men at the same time, and yet both are patient enough to wait for her to make up her mind.<br />
<br />
Of course, if the man is not understanding, all the better, because this simply justifies the infidelity as rebellion against a controlling, rude man. In <em><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120338/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">Titanic</a></em>, Rose takes a trip on an ill-fated luxury liner on the tab of fiancé Cal, and being a free spirit not to be tethered to him, she decides to go drinking and dancing with an artist named Jack. She later poses nude for Jack wearing a large jewel given to her by Cal. But unlike the men listed above, Cal gets upset about her secret rendezvous and confronts her, she snaps back:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000701/?ref_=tt_trv_qu"><span class="character">Rose</span></a>: I am not a foreman in one of your mills that you can command. I am your fiancée. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000708/?ref_=tt_trv_qu"><span class="character">Cal</span></a>: My fian... my fiancée! Yes, you are, and my wife. My wife in practice if not yet by law, so you will honor me. You will honor me the way a wife is required to honor a husband. Because I will not be made a fool, Rose. Is this in any way unclear?</blockquote>
I have noticed that this phenomenon does seem to be partial to the female half of an engagement; men who do the same are typically (and rightfully) portrayed as immature and/or selfish, while a female exploring her options in similar situations is often portrayed in a more positive light, as strong and independent. <br />
<br />
Now I am not suggesting that engagement is legally equivalent to marriage. Certainly, even very serious couples may at some point decide to call it quits, and obviously this is more easily done before the wedding than after. There is no legal or even moral judgment on my part toward persons of either gender who decide to end an engagement, but is it too much to ask that one officially end a relationship before starting another? I'm not sure hedging one's bets really says "I love you" to either party, but this continues to be common in "romantic" movies: one is the public and respectable man, the other the desired rebel. <br />
<br />
Of course, should the rebel win such a maiden's heart, is he to propose? If so, I will assume he's not familiar with Macbeth.<br />
<br />
<br />
Mike Brookshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09587157877218964446noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6242677320766808186.post-12899206855091298872013-10-13T20:32:00.001-04:002013-10-13T20:34:08.346-04:00Does Christianity Hate Equality?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://temp_thoughts_resize.s3.amazonaws.com/f0/d94d89052e0908f5c4b8a3d73b1190/images.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="211" src="http://temp_thoughts_resize.s3.amazonaws.com/f0/d94d89052e0908f5c4b8a3d73b1190/images.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<blockquote>
<em>"From the equality of rights springs identity of our highest interests; you cannot subvert your neighbor’s rights without striking a dangerous blow at your own."</em> - Carl Schurz</blockquote>
<blockquote>
"<em>For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers,what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same</em>?" - Matt. 5:46,47</blockquote>
Students of geography will tell you that there are actually two Americas: North America and South America, both continents. One sits entirely north of the equator, and the other primarily (but not entirely) to the south of it. Students of history will tell you that there are two (United States of) Americas. One is a nation based on religious tolerance, equality, and "Christian principles"; the other is what they learn about by studying history. <br />
<br />
From the beginning, there has been a considerable disconnect between the ideals so eloquently stated by many of the "founding fathers" and the reality of the American experience, including the lives and actions of several of those same eloquent statesmen. These men were still politicians, after all. And yet, this phenomenon is not unique to the United States of America; every nation in the history of the world has been aided by inspirational, premeditated rhetoric, with varying levels of correlation to truth. Fortunately, our nation is much more egalitarian today than at our conception. Surely we're not perfect, but we have learned (albeit rather slowly) the error of our ways. A quote (<a href="http://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/11/11/exhaust-alternatives/">probably wrongly</a>) attributed to Winston Churchill sums it up rather well, "The Americans can always be trusted to do the right thing, once all other possibilities have been exhausted."<br />
<br />
Certainly a lot of men and women suffered and died for the cause of equality, and some of those men and women did identify as Christians. Unfortunately, they are exceptions; far more often than not, Christians have sided with the oppressor over the oppressed. Sometimes this was out of apathy, or a desire to take the path of least resistance, but sadly there were also many times the collective Church actively fought for the oppressor because they <em>were</em> the oppressor. According to historian Brian R. Farmer (Lubbock Christian University), "two-thirds of the national Klan lecturers were Protestant ministers" at their height in the 1920's. <br />
<br />
This unfortunate and predatory pattern began quite early, long before any thought of what we now know as the western hemisphere. The nascent faith of Christianity quickly contracted a nasty strain of anti-Semitism. In 325 the Council of Nicea voted to separate Easter from Passover:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"For it is unbecoming beyond measure that on this holiest of festivals we should follow the customs of the Jews. Henceforth let us have nothing in common with this odious people...we desire dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews..."</blockquote>
In 339, conversion to Judaism became a criminal offense; in 415 St. Augustine wrote:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The true image of the Hebrew is Judas Iscariot, who sells the Lord for silver. The Jew can never understand the Scriptures and forever will bear the guilt for the death of Jesus<em>.</em>" </blockquote>
Religious tolerance was certainly not a concern as Pope Leo forced the baptism of Jews, nor for the Crusaders in Jerusalem in 1099. Below is an excerpt from an article written by Michael D. Hull and originally published in the June 1999 issue of <i>Military History</i> magazine:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The Crusaders spent at least that night and the next day killing Muslims, including all of those in the al-Aqsa Mosque, where Tancred's banner should have protected them. Not even women and children were spared. The city's Jews sought refuge in their synagogue, only to be burned alive within it by the Crusaders. Raymond of Aquilers reported that he saw piles of heads, hands and feet on a walk through the holy city. Men trotted across the bodies and body fragments as if they were a carpet for their convenience. The Europeans also destroyed the monuments to Orthodox Christian saints and the tomb of Abraham.</blockquote>
In 1543, the original Protestant Martin Luther penned an essay entitled <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies">On the Jews and Their Lies</a> that advocated oppression of Jews, including limits on speech, worship, and property ownership. It would later greatly influence Adolf Hitler's <em>Mein Kampf, </em>although Hitler would identify as Catholic and not Lutheran. There were some notable Christians who would sacrifice everything to defend and save Jews from the Holocaust, but the very reason we know a few names like Schindler or Bonhoeffer is because they were exceptions; most Germans identified themselves as both Christians and members of the Nazi party. Indeed, the Holocaust would have been impossible if the majority of Christians had refused to cooperate.<br />
<br />
Time after time, power granted to a Christian group often resulted in the oppression of others, including other Christians (such as the bloodshed between Catholic and Protestant groups in Europe). This literally flowed over to America. Puritan and Separatist sects in England, who had long sought to reform the Anglican Church toward Calvinism, made their way to a New World in the first half of the 17th century, in part out of a desire for greater religious freedom. The degree to which they were actually persecuted in England is one that is debated by scholars, but it is important to note that at any rate, they considered themselves persecuted - oppressed by religious authorities closely tied to the government. After a couple of decades to establish authority of their own in this new land, talk of religious tolerance all but disappeared. Instead, citizens who did not meet (subjective) criteria were <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials">tried and killed as "witches".</a> <br />
<br />
The African slave trade was one issue on which many Christians took a stand. Men like John Wesley and William Wilberforce worked to end the practice in England, while George Whitefield (who is credited for sparking the Great Awakening of American evangelicalism) argued for the legalization of slavery even where it was illegal. While slavery had been already been outlawed in the American Province of Georgia, it was legalized in 1751 due in large part to Whitefield's efforts - and would remain legal for over a century more. Through these years, numerous pastors would preach racism to their congregations, such as Presbyterian theologian R. L. Dabney: "Every hope of the existence of church and state, and of civilization itself, hangs upon our arduous effort to defeat the doctrine of Negro suffrage." As would become the pattern in America, the rhetoric from churches in support of oppression would fade after government action defined them as the losing side, and eventually the consensus among Christians would fall in line with the "progressive" stance they once opposed. Today, one is highly unlikely to encounter such racism spoken from the pulpit.<br />
<br />
Likewise, Christian attitudes on women have changed dramatically. The typical church position in the mid 19th century was opposed to women having the right to vote, as they were considered subordinate to men. President Grover Cleveland (also Presbyterian) remarked in 1905 that "sensible and responsible women do not want to vote. The relative positions to be assumed by a man and a woman in the working out of our civilization were assigned long ago by a higher intelligence than ours", published oddly enough in <em>Ladies Home Journal (1905). </em>While he was not speaking on behalf of his denomination, the sentiment was still very commonplace among churchgoers. After the ratification of the 19th amendment in 1920, such commentary also faded away. I know of no current pastors that believe that it is wrong for women to have the right to vote. <br />
<br />
A southern minister by the name of Martin Luther King, Jr. said that "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." He challenged Christians of all colors to consider the injustice of racial prejudice in public policy, and to act in the interest of justice, but where such a call to action was (as one might expect) answered enthusiastically by many black congregations, white congregations did little to help. Certainly, there were white persons who joined in the many marches for racial equality, but consider for a moment that among all persons identified as Christians in the 1960's, blacks were about twelve percent, whites over 80 percent. Contrast that with pictures from the time period, where black faces outnumber white ones at an inverse ratio (at least).<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://officialmlkdream50.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/March_on_washington_Aug_28_1963.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="254" src="http://officialmlkdream50.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/March_on_washington_Aug_28_1963.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1435315.1377292328!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/gallery_635/martin-luther-king-jr-march-washington.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="251" src="http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1435315.1377292328!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/gallery_635/martin-luther-king-jr-march-washington.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
The message, intentional or not, is clear: the oppressed are responsible to fight for themselves, you can't expect churches that aren't personally affected to help you. Even today, Christian-affiliated groups often lobby the government against what they may perceive as oppression (including the Affordable Care Act), but will not lift a finger to help any other group experiencing injustice. A very recent example comes from the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), founded by Pat Robertson.<br />
<br />
According to the group's website, the ACLJ is "committed to ensuring the ongoing viability of freedom and liberty in the United States and around the world." It goes further to specify that they aim to "protect religious liberty and safeguard human rights and dignity." Surely, a group dedicated to protecting religious freedom would be something I could support, if there wasn't again a large disconnect between these stated ideals and reality. <br />
<br />
Where the ACLJ considered it defense of religious liberty to present oral arguments against the prohibition of Christian literature distribution and fund solicitation at post offices (<em>United States v. Kokinda,1990 - the prohibition was upheld by the Supreme Court)</em>, they not only failed to defend the rights of Muslims to build a mosque in Manhattan - <a href="http://aclj.org/ground-zero-mosque/aclj-to-new-york-court-no-mosque-at-ground-zero">they actually argued against it</a>. How can one claim to value religious freedom only for some? While it may be noble to fight for the rights of some persecuted group that you are affiliated with, it takes a man (or woman) of principle to fight for the rights of another group, where there is little or no opportunity for personal gain. Even more impressive is one who insists on solidarity with the oppressed, as when Dora demands to be put on the train in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Is_Beautiful"><em>Life is Beautiful</em></a> or when <a href="http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/William_Lloyd_Garrison">William Lloyd Garrison</a> demanded he not be buried in any location that does not allow blacks to be buried there as well. <br />
<br />
Pursuit of "justice" only for your own simply isn't. Freedom demands justice, and justice demands equality. No, I do not believe that Christianity hates equality - quite the opposite. I believe it demands that believers fight for the oppressed, and not just fellow Christians. Gay or straight, liberal or conservative, white or black, Muslim or Jew or Atheist, any attack on any of them is an attack on us all; there can be no better presentation of the faith than showing our principles to be unwavering. What better contrasts with the norm?<br />
<br />Mike Brookshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09587157877218964446noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6242677320766808186.post-67535585854240784832013-10-05T12:41:00.000-04:002013-10-05T21:28:47.783-04:00Occupational Veneration<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://mnprairieroots.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/downtown-fergus-business-district-shot.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="197" src="http://mnprairieroots.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/downtown-fergus-business-district-shot.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
I was very recently engaged in a political discussion with a friend that I will not reference here, other than to say that in the course of our exchange he wisely referenced the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Wobegon#The_Lake_Wobegon_effect">Lake Wobegon Effect</a> among political figures. The name, of course, is derived from the many tales of the fictional Minnesota town as spun by Garrison Keillor on the radio program "<a href="http://prairiehome.publicradio.org/">A Prairie Home Companion</a>." **WARNING: Do not visit the PHC website if you consider public radio to be a liberal machination for the purpose of widespread indoctrination against Jesus and His many teachings on free market principles.**<br />
<br />
Of course, in all truthfulness this is quite unavoidable. On an individual level, one could argue that self-image is often warped. Sometimes these warped images manifest in unrealistic self-criticism, as it does in the case of anorexia. Surely decades of edited photographs and unrealistic ideals in media have taken a toll, especially on women, but outside of these external idols an intrinsic illusion of superiority is far more common. Nearly every time I peruse the comments on any current-event website that could possibly have a political angle (and sometimes even where there is no tie to politics), someone will proclaim their views immediately after or before the two-word imperative "wake up", typically in all capital letters and excessive punctuation. This, of course, politely informs the reader that the views of the poster are the obvious truth, and that anyone who disagrees with his or her position is obviously asleep, or drugged by "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBeUGqeYsQg">Kool-Aid</a>".<br />
<br />
While I acknowledge the phenomenon on an individual level, and even to some degree concerning a group that the individual may be associated with, I am a little more perplexed about the veneration of certain occupational groups that seem to steep into all of society. While lawyers, for example, tend to enjoy a negative occupational reputation, veterinarians are usually assumed to have a kind devotion similar to that of the nuns that <em>didn't</em> teach at parochial school. While stable, this unwritten list is obviously subject to change, as teachers used to be on the "noble" list when I was growing up but in more recent national discussions tend to be portrayed as opportunistic and overpaid. I still hold to the former ranking, but that's probably another post.<br />
<br />
Sometimes the relative position is so great that it comes with an almost oxymoronic title of nobility, such as the <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/10/03/randy_neugebauer_park_ranger_video_flag_wearing_gop_congressman_berates.html">Honorable Randy Neugebauer</a> or His Holiness Pope Francis. Among the Christians that do not believe a human (outside of Christ himself) can embody holiness is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/world/europe/an-interview-with-pope-francis.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0">Pope Francis himself</a>, who when asked recently to describe himself began with "I am a sinner." I greatly admire Pope Francis for such humility, which contrasts so starkly with Congress who more often than not believe themselves to be honorable. I suppose we have the feudal system to thank for these many titles.<br />
<br />
Two other occupations, that I believe to both be honorable in themselves, have also approached dishonesty in their unofficial marketing: medical doctors and military servicemen. Now, before everyone grabs the pitchforks, I appreciate our men and women of the military and their service to our nation, as well as the sacrifices their families must make while they are away. Obviously, many never return from armed conflict. I also greatly admire and give due respect to medical doctors, knowing the years of study and work that they must complete in order to obtain their title and position. I refer more to the public rhetoric of these groups in general, which I will further explain. <br />
<br />
I have heard many people credit a doctor with "saving lives". While I understand the sentiment, I think the wording goes a bit too far. Beyond theological objections, I still think it might be more appropriate to say "extend" a life, because no one treated (or "healed", or "saved") by a doctor 150 year ago is alive today. Again, this is more a public sentiment than a proclamation from doctors as a group. Surely their work is valuable, and I might go so far as to say a patient may be saved from symptoms, or pain, or maybe even that years of a life were saved, but the simplified version of "saving a life" is somewhat misleading. Indeed, hearing an MD object to the phrase himself/herself would be as refreshing as hearing the Pope call himself a sinner.<br />
<br />
Likewise, I have heard many (non-military) people rightly express gratitude to the individuals of our armed forces but incorrectly include the phrase "they are fighting for our freedom" or something similar. I have heard some go so far as to say that we can worship in church or assemble peacefully thanks to those serving in today's military, which is obviously incorrect. One could make a case that there were, in a certain age, men who sacrificed for the cause of American independence, from which flowed the Bill of Rights some years later. Our rights in these regards have been unchanged (for white persons) in the past two centuries. It might even be appropriate to say that since the Patriot Act, we enjoy fewer freedoms today than we did 20 years ago. Our military does an admirable job defending our nation's interests as defined by various administrations, and as they by design do as commanded, I certainly object to the way many in the military are demonized by persons opposed to specific military actions (most notably the Vietnam conflict, yet sadly still an issue today). Yet, on the other side of the coin, I've had people insist that opposition to a specific conflict is "not supporting our troops", which I find rather odd; what better way to support those families than to bring the absent back safely? <br />
<br />
Again, I do not fault either group for these errant phrases. I have never heard an actual serviceman (or woman) make a statement like "you owe your freedom to me". They are typically too humble to take credit even where it is due. It just seems that in each of these cases, the public latches on to an ideal that pushes the boundary of truth...but why? And if a veteran comes home and becomes a civilian police officer, does he or she go from selfless hero to arrogant pig? Mike Brookshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09587157877218964446noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6242677320766808186.post-996254745502303812013-09-27T23:16:00.000-04:002013-09-27T23:19:42.560-04:00Truth is Truth (no matter who speaks it)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.minnesotacountry.com/wp/assets/vincewestboro.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://www.minnesotacountry.com/wp/assets/vincewestboro.jpg" width="213" /></a></div>
In a sense, I hate to have to mention Westboro Baptist. I'm sure everyone has heard of them, often making nonsensical correlations so they can "protest" the very existence of homosexuals by blaming the phenomenon on everyone from grieving military families to the Foo Fighters. Fortunately, their targeting of the military has energized many of my more conservative friends to join my more liberal friends in rare bipartisanship. In the interest of full disclosure (did my saying "full disclosure" just make me pro-gay?), I don't think there would be such agreement if they merely targeted actual homosexuals - they might even be praised, as some have praised Mr. Putin recently, but perhaps that is another post.<br />
<br />
Mentions of Westboro have been down as of late, as there is nothing new here, and that's fine by me. Yet, a couple of weeks ago, they appeared again in USA Today with news of a small tiff with...<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2013/09/09/vince-gill-westboro-baptist/2790931/">Vince Gill</a> (are they starting to go the B-list, Celebrity Apprentice route)? The most shocking part of this recent endeavor was that there was no gay-bashing; they were after him for his affair, divorce, and remarriage (to former star of Christian radio Amy Grant). But as much as I do not support WB in their rhetoric (against homosexuals or heterosexuals), I must give them credit: where so many people of faith I know are more than willing to explain the evils of homosexuality, the damage it does to our otherwise pious nation, and the perils of even casual tolerance, I almost never hear the same about heterosexual infidelity.<br />
<br />
I've never been a fan of Mr. Gill, either. Yes, at the risk of outing myself as judgmental, I considered the Grant affair scandalous (on both parts), and still do, but the truth is that Vince could be completely celibate and I still probably wouldn't be a fan. I'm not into country music, and the little I can tolerate is on the rockabilly side as opposed to the whiny, saccharine ballads for which Mr. Gill is known. I do credit him for responding to WB protesters claiming (rightly) that the Bible condemns divorce and remarriage under his circumstances by saying, "You know what else [Jesus] said? He said a lot of stuff about forgiveness, about grace. You guys don't have any of that."<br />
<br />
And so I find myself unable to fully agree with the actions of either party here, nor able to write off either as completely wrong. The better question here, however, is not who is right (about what) and who is wrong, but if such confrontations are even necessary. There are a great many things that I believe are wrong, but I can't imagine having any motivation to picket individuals for their transgressions. At the same time, I openly acknowledge that I too fall short (often), but can't imagine why anyone would want to take to the streets over them. Why is it that some people feel the need to respond to a group of people with hostility, even if they can identify sin? Does such a confrontation aid either party? <br />
<br />
Yes, truth is truth, no matter who speaks it. Yet, knowing something to be true does not always require a proclamation. Even when spoken, something true can be stated in an incorrect (or even merely inefficient) fashion, and it appears the delivery often causes more issues than the validity of the statement. <br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://asocialcacophony.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/god-hates-figs11.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://asocialcacophony.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/god-hates-figs11.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Hey, it's true...figs are certainly not portrayed all that positively. Maybe a boycott is in order? </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Now I throw it out for you: what are the criteria for necessary statement of truth? Equal and consistent treatment? Likely danger? Possibility of acceptance/correction? Mere statement of personal principle (and if so, how often)? Obviously, everyone believes their own position to be superior (or why have it?), but is silence always approval? If so, I can't imagine a peaceful quiet anywhere.Mike Brookshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09587157877218964446noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6242677320766808186.post-90132060410474296622013-09-18T19:32:00.003-04:002013-09-19T18:10:34.943-04:00In The Beginning...<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><img border="0" closure_lm_38758="null" height="300" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_601_NY5Ok68/TIcMiFpR5qI/AAAAAAAACQE/iX1v0z8HQfU/s400/Creation+Museum+017.jpg" vsa="true" width="400" /></div></div></blockquote><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">From terrorist attacks to more typical schoolyard bullying, we live in an age of ideological imperialism. In culture, we get messages left and right that in order to be cool, one must buy this or that, or listen to this or that. In politics, we've seen the rise of smaller groups planting their flag into the larger one to claim it, which recently caused several Republicans in particular to be dismissed as "RINO" (Republicans in Name Only) when they fail to agree on a specific remedy to perceived social ills. The American public has been told more than once (from both the right and the left) that opposition to a policy or military campaign is "unamerican". Sadly, Christianity is no different, as I've been informed more than once that I was not Christian (or somehow less of one) because I did not agree with a certain viewpoint. </div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">This is nothing new in the history of religion; nearly every system of belief has been fractured into smaller ones that all claim to be more true than the others, and often this conflict boils into actual violence between religious sects. For my part, I consider diversity of thought to be a strength - but to foster this diversity there must be some level of freedom, of tolerance. I see no such freedom apparent in the age-old debate about the origins of the Earth. <a href="http://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/sciencetest.asp">Let us consider this example:</a> creatures described in the Bible are literally dinosaurs. </div><br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><a href="http://americablog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/creationist-science-test.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" closure_lm_231731="null" height="400" src="http://americablog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/creationist-science-test.jpg" vsa="true" width="300" /></a>I've seen tests of this kind before, prevalent in private/home school scenarios. I'm not sure it's productive for a group that identifies with Christianity to encourage smarting off to parents (not to mention easily backfiring, for who can say there was ever an Eden: "...were you there?"). That aside, I have nothing against "New Earth Creationists", and while I disagree with some things associated with the label, I believe they have a right to their opinion. I've seen fairly harsh criticisms of NEC from the OEC camp as well, but where these may paint New Earthers as misguided, naive, or even willingly ignorant, I have yet to see any of them claim that their view is the only acceptable view of Scripture, or suggest that New Earthers are somehow less Christian. </div><br />
The lead Conquistador in this NE endeavor to claim the whole of Christianity appears to be Ken Ham of group "Answers In Genesis". His language in defense of the exam did not escape me: "...we teach children the history of the universe from the Bible, with special emphasis on teaching dinosaurs from a biblical perspective..." and later, saying that parents should have known that children "would be taught biblical Christianity". <a href="http://www.cslewis.org/journal/cs-lewis-on-intelligent-design/">Hear that, CS Lewis?</a> Ken's perspective is the only true, biblical Christianity. Enjoy Hell.<br />
<br />
Another apparent schoolyard bully is Mr. Ray Comfort. When someone asked him recently, "can someone be a Christian and believe in evolution?" he replied: <br />
<blockquote>"A theistic evolutionist has to make up a false god to keep his belief in evolution. He is what the Bible calls an idolater. Jesus said, "In the beginning God made them male and female." A professing Christian who believes in evolution thinks Jesus was lying. He is like someone who says, "I'm an atheist, but I believe in God."</blockquote>I would have responded to him myself, but I was beaten to the punch by a Mr. Tyler Francke, who runs his own blog more focused on this specific issue, <a href="http://www.godofevolution.com/">God of Evolution.</a> His witty reply surely deserves an award of some kind: <br />
<blockquote>A theistic water cyclist has to make up a false god to keep his belief in the water cycle. He is what the Bible calls an idolater. Jesus said that God "sends rain on the just and unjust." A professing Christian who believes in the water cycle thinks that Jesus was lying....<br />
<br />
...any Christian knows that the water cycle — atheistic scientists’ attempt to explain atmospheric conditions without God — is just as unbiblical as evolution. The Bible is clear and consistent: Precipitation comes from God alone, not some messy, unguided process of “evaporation” and “condensation.” See <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2028:12&version=ESV">Deuteronomy 28:12</a>, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2038:22-30&version=ESV">Job 38:22-30</a> and <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20147:8&version=ESV">Psalm 147:8</a> if your faith needs a booster shot.</blockquote><br />
Yes, a tad snarky, but completely spot on. I know a number of Christians who have made comments like "God made us with a purpose", but I would like to think that they know, on a literal, physical level, that we owe our existence to the process of sexual reproduction. Have not glaciers created lakes and caves? If one can accept that "God made us" in a different sense and accept the science behind it, why is it that people insist everyone of faith must reject this on the macro level?<br />
<br />
As stated in my orientation post "<a href="http://maikeru174.blogspot.com/2013/09/declaration.html">Declaration</a>", it is not my intent to debate here, at least not NE v OE (or even evolution without divine intervention). What I will argue (apparently for eternity) is that belief in God, or in intelligent design, does not require that one buy into a specific interpretation. One might say my primary position is that I (and others) may have a position other than your sanctioned position. Is there really such consequence to the interpretation of the word "day" that one group must potentially turn away people otherwise interested in faith simply because they refuse to sign off on a superfluous addendum?<br />
<br />
At the heart of these sorts of claims tends to be the concept of literal interpretation, that Scripture must mean exactly what it says. However, I can't help but point out that such means are not consistently applied. Women speak inside the walls of my church, although a literal interpretation of the New Testament would prohibit it. Jesus himself almost pulled a facepalm when he was asked, "How can I be born again, am I to enter my mother's womb?" I see nothing "unbiblical" about interpreting certain verses to allow for scientific knowledge. And of course, religious authorities have not had the greatest track record. <br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/files/2012/08/Bellarmine-To-assert-that-the-earth-revolves-around-the-sun-is-as-erroneous-as-to-claim-that-Jesus-was-not-born-of-a-virgin-600x304.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" closure_lm_231731="null" height="162" src="http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/files/2012/08/Bellarmine-To-assert-that-the-earth-revolves-around-the-sun-is-as-erroneous-as-to-claim-that-Jesus-was-not-born-of-a-virgin-600x304.jpg" vsa="true" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">...and one must assume St. B believed the latter.</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
I've heard people use <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+3%3A4&version=ESV">Romans 3:4</a> in situations where one's beliefs do not seem to match up with general consensus, which is, in my opinion, extremely pompous. *Right now, one reader in three is thinking, "Did <i>Mike Brooks</i> just say something <i>else</i> was pompous?"* The issue, from my perspective, is not a dichotomy. I do not believe that faith requires rejection of science, nor that a good scientist must be an atheist. The conflict seems to start when a human extrapolates information (from religion or science) beyond what is known to arrive at a desired conclusion. What if, St. Bellarmine, your religion is true, and science is true? Why are your explanations that science is wrong, or God - could it not be that you are the one in error?<br />
<br />
Mike Brookshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09587157877218964446noreply@blogger.com0