I love the computer. I love the internet. I love being able to read news stories or entertainment bits and business news any time I want, when I'm ready to read them. I'm most definitely a child of the 70's who grew up just in time for computers to come into the mainstream. I remember when my High School installed its first six PC terminals in Mrs. Mason's typing classroom with fondness and nostalgia. Of course, this was before Windows operating system when everyone used DOS or MS DOS. And before anyone but military personnel had ever heard of the internet or world wide web.
I also remember when finding a mistake in a newspaper article or magazine was a rare thing and resulted in clipping said article for inclusion in a scrap book. When I was in school (both High School and college) I was constantly reminded by teachers and professors to proofread, proofread, proofread and when done proofreading, proofread again just to be certain. Now, I will admit that I have posted comments on Facebook or tweeted things that I didn't proofread which included misspelled words or doubled words or incorrect words and even synonyms which didn't quite fit with my intended thought, but I'm not paid to write for a news agency, newspaper or magazine. I've had numerous conversations with most of my friends and close relations about this topic, and they, too, are as confounded as I at the blatant errors to be found in nearly every news item or article found on the internet and especially in those articles produced for the AP or online magazines and newspapers.
I understand the ease of using F7 to check the spelling of the document you're working on, and even my computer offers basic grammar rules in the spell checker. I've copied and pasted certain text from online articles to a blank Word document and pressed F7 only to find that spell checker did find the same mistake I did, so I'm truly at a loss as to how some of these mistakes make it into print, as it were. So, not only does it seem the writers aren't proofreading, some of them aren't even using a very good spell checker! But even if the writer and their spell checker misses something in their article, don't these articles have to be read by an editor before they're posted online, published or printed? Are there not at least two or three people other than the author who read these things before they're released to the public?
I realize the state of education in this country isn't what it once it was, but these mistakes are simple, stupid and are things even a third grader would spot.
Saturday, December 29, 2012
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Freedom of Speech: Whose Right Prevails?
I recently read an article about a Christian man who was complaining because he had made some comments regarding homosexuals which had resulted in him losing his job. He was angry that his employer had fired him for his comments and called his former employer several names. Among his complaints, he charged that the employer was promoting a homosexual agenda by firing him for his views, which he claimed he had the rights and freedom to express under the 1st Amendment.
Today I read about a petition to force a university to re-hire a coach whom they had fired despite the coaches winning season, citing the fact the coach did not reflect the values of the university and they wanted to find someone who "better represented" them. The student who started the petition didn't think it was fair that the university had terminated the coach based on his personal life and was upset that the university had the right to do so because they are in a right to work state where the employer does not have to show cause for termination.
In both of these instances, freedom of speech is the central issue, however, in both instances the "injured" party doesn't take into consideration the rights of the others involved. They want THEIR rights but they don't want to allow others to have, or exercise those same rights and privileges and freedoms.
So, where do our rights to freedom of speech and expression end and the rights of others to freedom of speech and expression begin? We all want the right to speak our minds, to have our say, without restriction. But in doing so, where do we draw the line in limiting what others have the right to say in opposition? Or in what situation do others have the right to limit or even prevent us from speaking our opinions freely? It is definitely a difficult question to answer and an even more difficult quandary to be in.
Many people feel that they are "right" so therefore they have the right to speak their mind without restriction. They fail to recognize those of the opposing opinion also believe themselves to be "right" and believe they have the same right to speak without restriction. With each side believing themselves to be right, neither is going to relinquish the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution. And even though both parties consider their opposition to be wrong, in some cases it could happen that neither side is actually wrong.
In the instances presented at the beginning of this blog, the gentleman who lost his job does, indeed, have the right to say what he feels is right and wrong according to his beliefs and morals, however his employer also has the right to limit what may be said in the workplace, therefore the termination of the employment would be legitimate. As for the coach losing his job, again, the university was within its rights to terminate that coach. No matter how the student feels, the university is located in a state where no cause is necessary for terminating an employee. If the person in charge of the hiring and firing of that coach didn't like the tie the coach was wearing that day or the way the coach parted his hair, they are allowed to fire the coach even for those silly little reasons in that state. We may believe it was fair, but that doesn't matter: they have the right.
The first amendment guarantees us the right to speak freely but we also have the responsibility to speak responsibly at the time and in the place that is appropriate.
Today I read about a petition to force a university to re-hire a coach whom they had fired despite the coaches winning season, citing the fact the coach did not reflect the values of the university and they wanted to find someone who "better represented" them. The student who started the petition didn't think it was fair that the university had terminated the coach based on his personal life and was upset that the university had the right to do so because they are in a right to work state where the employer does not have to show cause for termination.
In both of these instances, freedom of speech is the central issue, however, in both instances the "injured" party doesn't take into consideration the rights of the others involved. They want THEIR rights but they don't want to allow others to have, or exercise those same rights and privileges and freedoms.
So, where do our rights to freedom of speech and expression end and the rights of others to freedom of speech and expression begin? We all want the right to speak our minds, to have our say, without restriction. But in doing so, where do we draw the line in limiting what others have the right to say in opposition? Or in what situation do others have the right to limit or even prevent us from speaking our opinions freely? It is definitely a difficult question to answer and an even more difficult quandary to be in.
Many people feel that they are "right" so therefore they have the right to speak their mind without restriction. They fail to recognize those of the opposing opinion also believe themselves to be "right" and believe they have the same right to speak without restriction. With each side believing themselves to be right, neither is going to relinquish the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution. And even though both parties consider their opposition to be wrong, in some cases it could happen that neither side is actually wrong.
In the instances presented at the beginning of this blog, the gentleman who lost his job does, indeed, have the right to say what he feels is right and wrong according to his beliefs and morals, however his employer also has the right to limit what may be said in the workplace, therefore the termination of the employment would be legitimate. As for the coach losing his job, again, the university was within its rights to terminate that coach. No matter how the student feels, the university is located in a state where no cause is necessary for terminating an employee. If the person in charge of the hiring and firing of that coach didn't like the tie the coach was wearing that day or the way the coach parted his hair, they are allowed to fire the coach even for those silly little reasons in that state. We may believe it was fair, but that doesn't matter: they have the right.
The first amendment guarantees us the right to speak freely but we also have the responsibility to speak responsibly at the time and in the place that is appropriate.
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Blaming God for Tragedies
Like most Americans, heck most of the world, I've struggled with trying to understand why the tragic murder of 20 children and 6 teachers happened in Newtown, Connecticut. Some were quick to blame it on guns, which made others scoff with ridicule and cliché. Some immediately jumped on the bandwagon that the cause was violent video games which brought many to their feet shouting down that idea. And, of course, there's the ubiquitous argument that violence in movies and television caused it.
In the past couple days I've been hearing preachers and about preachers who claim the massacre was God's judgment for a variety of sins, a long list of sin. I really try to not get angry at people, but when I hear someone who proclaims they are God's spokesman state that tragedies like Sandy Hook Elementary School or Katrina or flooding along the Mississippi or tornadoes are God's judgment on the United States for a long litany of sin, I get truly angry!
Yes, these people have Biblical examples to show of God judging a city or a nation for sin by destruction, but all those examples are in the Old Testament. And while God is the same yesterday, today and forever, the fact is that we are no longer under The Law of the Old Testament but are under the Law of Grace and Mercy purchased by the crucifixion, death and resurrection of one Jesus Christ, Son of the Most High God. God isn't sending destruction on innocent people for the sins of others; He is not going to send someone to murder 20 innocent children to show judgment on America! Jesus was very clear in His views on children and the harming of children. God would not warn us to not hurt a child by telling us of horrible consequences if He were going to send someone to murder little children as a way of sending Judgment on a nation of people who didn't know those children.
It amazes me to hear these preachers claim these judgments from God on our nation when they'll tell an individual in their church that God doesn't send the bad things that happen to them, that His gifts are good. And it is true that what God sends to us is always good! Nothing bad can come from God and trust me when I say the massacre that took place at Sandy Hook Elementary is the epitome of bad. From the moment Christ rose from the dead, things changed so that each one of us are responsible only for our own sins. That is unless you are a pastor or parent, then you are responsible, to a point, for your flock and your family. From the moment Christ arose from the dead, judgment for each soul on earth was reserved for that soul on the day all humanity stands before Jesus! We call it Judgment Day.
In our attempts to make people live the way we think they should (which is nothing more than us trying to force people to live under the law, which we, ourselves, could not do, according to Peter, John and the others at the Jerusalem conference) we tend to begin spouting things like disasters and massacres and other things which are just too terrible for our human hearts and minds to accept, are God's judgment on mankind. This, however, is contrary to what we are taught in the New Testament portion of the Bible. You know, the covenant under which we live!
No, the Law has not passed away, but Jesus told us full out that He came and fulfilled the Law. And what has been fulfilled we no longer have to try to satisfy!
In the past couple days I've been hearing preachers and about preachers who claim the massacre was God's judgment for a variety of sins, a long list of sin. I really try to not get angry at people, but when I hear someone who proclaims they are God's spokesman state that tragedies like Sandy Hook Elementary School or Katrina or flooding along the Mississippi or tornadoes are God's judgment on the United States for a long litany of sin, I get truly angry!
Yes, these people have Biblical examples to show of God judging a city or a nation for sin by destruction, but all those examples are in the Old Testament. And while God is the same yesterday, today and forever, the fact is that we are no longer under The Law of the Old Testament but are under the Law of Grace and Mercy purchased by the crucifixion, death and resurrection of one Jesus Christ, Son of the Most High God. God isn't sending destruction on innocent people for the sins of others; He is not going to send someone to murder 20 innocent children to show judgment on America! Jesus was very clear in His views on children and the harming of children. God would not warn us to not hurt a child by telling us of horrible consequences if He were going to send someone to murder little children as a way of sending Judgment on a nation of people who didn't know those children.
It amazes me to hear these preachers claim these judgments from God on our nation when they'll tell an individual in their church that God doesn't send the bad things that happen to them, that His gifts are good. And it is true that what God sends to us is always good! Nothing bad can come from God and trust me when I say the massacre that took place at Sandy Hook Elementary is the epitome of bad. From the moment Christ rose from the dead, things changed so that each one of us are responsible only for our own sins. That is unless you are a pastor or parent, then you are responsible, to a point, for your flock and your family. From the moment Christ arose from the dead, judgment for each soul on earth was reserved for that soul on the day all humanity stands before Jesus! We call it Judgment Day.
In our attempts to make people live the way we think they should (which is nothing more than us trying to force people to live under the law, which we, ourselves, could not do, according to Peter, John and the others at the Jerusalem conference) we tend to begin spouting things like disasters and massacres and other things which are just too terrible for our human hearts and minds to accept, are God's judgment on mankind. This, however, is contrary to what we are taught in the New Testament portion of the Bible. You know, the covenant under which we live!
No, the Law has not passed away, but Jesus told us full out that He came and fulfilled the Law. And what has been fulfilled we no longer have to try to satisfy!
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Architecture, Cathedrals, Money and the Poor
I recently saw a photo of a magnificent cathedral in Europe. I have to admit, I'm a great fan, and student, of architecture; I love to draw designs for new homes, both great and small. I'm in awe at the majestic creations of those who lived in times without the equipment we have today and yet managed to create some of the most beautiful and inspiring buildings known to modern man. Yet, somehow when I see these cathedrals with all their grandeur, ornate facades and magnificent interiors, the words of Jesus creep into my head: "they've cleaned the outside of the cup and left the inside dirty."
I'm sure many who might read these words would wonder what I'm talking about considering the interiors of these cathedrals are just as wondrous, if not more so, than their exteriors. I'm also reminded of the words Jesus spoke about people wanting to be seen and about our hearts will be where our treasure is. These ostentatious cathedrals and churches make me wonder where the hearts of those who built those buildings are; they've built such rich, gorgeous buildings in the name of God and called them churches when we all know the church is not a building, but rather the body of Christ. The buildings we gather in are not the church. And why do we need multi-million dollar buildings to hold services in? Do those buildings somehow enhance the message of Christ? Are those decorative accents and embellishments truly needed to share the message that Jesus came to earth, born of a virgin, to save all mankind from the sin of Adam, to give us healing, peace and eternal life through His torture, crucifixion, death and resurrection?
I'm reminded of the scriptures in the book of Acts where all the newly converted sold everything they owned and brought the proceeds to apostles to distribute to each, according to his or her need. I'm sure some of those people who sold everything lived in what we today would call mansions, yet they gladly sold those castles of stone in order to ensure all their fellow Christians had what they needed because they knew there was a mansion awaiting them in Glory. And I'm quite certain the leaders of the first century church didn't take any of those funds and rush out to buy or build a huge building for the congregations to worship in. The first century saints met in one another's homes, not a centralized church. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the fact that in this day and age it's much easier, even better, for the local congregation to meet in their own separate building versus trying to host the church in someone's home. But do we really need multi-million dollar compounds to hold those services in?
Jesus warned us about doing things to be seen; or putting on airs by sitting in high places in order to be held in higher esteem. Our modern day sanctuaries are often built with the idea of "wait til they see how much grander our church is than the so-and-so congregation down the street." Having all the latest bells and whistles in the sanctuary or in the classrooms, etc., don't matter to Jesus. Well, they probably do matter, but not in the way we hope. How many of the hungry, naked and thirsty in those neighborhoods/cities could have been fed, clothed and satiated with the funds used to build a structure that is not needed? How many homes for the homeless could have been provided while we've built a building that is largely empty 95% of the time?
The local congregation's "church" has become a business in many respects. And that was never the intention of Jesus or the first century leaders. In fact, I do believe Jesus is, and the apostles would be, appalled at what is presently called the church of Jesus. I've been in services in those mega-million dollar complexes and I've been in services in buildings that were very, very humble with barely electricity, heat and a/c, and I've felt the spirit of God just as strongly in both. God doesn't need us to build Him ornate buildings. Our pride is what drives us to build these ornate, majestic, architectural wonders we call church.
I'm sure many who might read these words would wonder what I'm talking about considering the interiors of these cathedrals are just as wondrous, if not more so, than their exteriors. I'm also reminded of the words Jesus spoke about people wanting to be seen and about our hearts will be where our treasure is. These ostentatious cathedrals and churches make me wonder where the hearts of those who built those buildings are; they've built such rich, gorgeous buildings in the name of God and called them churches when we all know the church is not a building, but rather the body of Christ. The buildings we gather in are not the church. And why do we need multi-million dollar buildings to hold services in? Do those buildings somehow enhance the message of Christ? Are those decorative accents and embellishments truly needed to share the message that Jesus came to earth, born of a virgin, to save all mankind from the sin of Adam, to give us healing, peace and eternal life through His torture, crucifixion, death and resurrection?
I'm reminded of the scriptures in the book of Acts where all the newly converted sold everything they owned and brought the proceeds to apostles to distribute to each, according to his or her need. I'm sure some of those people who sold everything lived in what we today would call mansions, yet they gladly sold those castles of stone in order to ensure all their fellow Christians had what they needed because they knew there was a mansion awaiting them in Glory. And I'm quite certain the leaders of the first century church didn't take any of those funds and rush out to buy or build a huge building for the congregations to worship in. The first century saints met in one another's homes, not a centralized church. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the fact that in this day and age it's much easier, even better, for the local congregation to meet in their own separate building versus trying to host the church in someone's home. But do we really need multi-million dollar compounds to hold those services in?
Jesus warned us about doing things to be seen; or putting on airs by sitting in high places in order to be held in higher esteem. Our modern day sanctuaries are often built with the idea of "wait til they see how much grander our church is than the so-and-so congregation down the street." Having all the latest bells and whistles in the sanctuary or in the classrooms, etc., don't matter to Jesus. Well, they probably do matter, but not in the way we hope. How many of the hungry, naked and thirsty in those neighborhoods/cities could have been fed, clothed and satiated with the funds used to build a structure that is not needed? How many homes for the homeless could have been provided while we've built a building that is largely empty 95% of the time?
The local congregation's "church" has become a business in many respects. And that was never the intention of Jesus or the first century leaders. In fact, I do believe Jesus is, and the apostles would be, appalled at what is presently called the church of Jesus. I've been in services in those mega-million dollar complexes and I've been in services in buildings that were very, very humble with barely electricity, heat and a/c, and I've felt the spirit of God just as strongly in both. God doesn't need us to build Him ornate buildings. Our pride is what drives us to build these ornate, majestic, architectural wonders we call church.
Monday, December 3, 2012
Christ: The Truth versus The Concept
This being the season we celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, and Easter coming in just 1/3d of a year, there are tons of pictures, drawings and artist renditions of Jesus that will be shared. I've always been amazed at how wrong these are. As an old Dallas Holm song says, "they just can't seem to get it right, they soften it up and make it light!"
Jesus was a Jew. A Middle Eastern, dark skinned, dark haired, dark eyed man. The images showing Him with blue eyes, or light eyes are far from correct. The Bible tells us He was not a comely-looking man (i.e., He wasn't a model type, good looking man), He was a Nazarene of the sect that didn't put razor to hair or beard so all these renditions that show Him with a neatly trimmed beard and nicely brushed curls around His shoulders are just wrong. He was a carpenter so He would have had arms as big as many men's thighs, yet He's portrayed as this wimpy looking, almost effeminate character. Meek and mild does not equal thin and weak!
As for the images of Him on the cross, let's remember that His beard was pulled out by His tormentors. He was beaten until the flesh on His body was ripped off, leaving the muscle exposed (i.e., He looked like hamburger) and the crown of thorns He wore were 3 to 4 inches long and they pierced His brow, they didn't sit neatly atop His head. He was in agony as He hung on the cross.
And while I'm at it, what is with Christians suddenly deciding that the scientists must be right and now portray the spikes as driven into His wrists, not the palms of His hands? I don't care what modern men say HAD to be the way He was crucified, those who were there said the spikes were driven into His palms, and Jesus, Himself, told Thomas to feel the scar in the palm of His hands, therefore those spike were driven into His palms, not into His wrists.
My Savior was not the weak, soft, bright eyed, model that is portrayed in the images that are put out there today. He wasn't hung on a cross with a few minor scratches on His body. The stripes He took on His back were for every person that has ever lived on this planet. And those who delivered those stripes hated Him with a furious passion. They didn't just beat Him in some scene of showmanship, they beat Him unmercifully. They wanted Him to suffer and they tortured Him far beyond what most men could endure. Yet, He took each strike to His face, each tug of His beard, each lash to His back, each pounding blow on the spikes and the spear in His side because He knew that was the only way you and I would have a chance at eternal life with God. He endured the unspeakable anguish of not only the physical torture but the weight of every sin every man and woman who has ever taken a breath on this planet has ever or will ever commit. Or even think of committing. Those stripes on His back for our healing meant that He endured every pain and every disease and illness that every person in history would ever suffer.
When you think of it like this, it's not hard to see how much He loved us and for me, it's not hard to live my life sharing Him with others and trying to win them over to Him and showing them the love and grace and mercy that He showed to me those days in Jerusalem and at Calvary and the battle He fought for me when He descended to the pits of hell and took the keys to death and the grave. I'm grateful and I gladly offer my life to Him, not in the manner of laying it down in death, though I'd gladly do that, too, but rather giving my life to Him to live for Him in the same manner He lived His. To do His will, His work and carry His message to the masses.
I pray you have a wonderful Christmas, a blessed New Year and you receive all the miracles God has put your name on.
Jesus was a Jew. A Middle Eastern, dark skinned, dark haired, dark eyed man. The images showing Him with blue eyes, or light eyes are far from correct. The Bible tells us He was not a comely-looking man (i.e., He wasn't a model type, good looking man), He was a Nazarene of the sect that didn't put razor to hair or beard so all these renditions that show Him with a neatly trimmed beard and nicely brushed curls around His shoulders are just wrong. He was a carpenter so He would have had arms as big as many men's thighs, yet He's portrayed as this wimpy looking, almost effeminate character. Meek and mild does not equal thin and weak!
As for the images of Him on the cross, let's remember that His beard was pulled out by His tormentors. He was beaten until the flesh on His body was ripped off, leaving the muscle exposed (i.e., He looked like hamburger) and the crown of thorns He wore were 3 to 4 inches long and they pierced His brow, they didn't sit neatly atop His head. He was in agony as He hung on the cross.
And while I'm at it, what is with Christians suddenly deciding that the scientists must be right and now portray the spikes as driven into His wrists, not the palms of His hands? I don't care what modern men say HAD to be the way He was crucified, those who were there said the spikes were driven into His palms, and Jesus, Himself, told Thomas to feel the scar in the palm of His hands, therefore those spike were driven into His palms, not into His wrists.
My Savior was not the weak, soft, bright eyed, model that is portrayed in the images that are put out there today. He wasn't hung on a cross with a few minor scratches on His body. The stripes He took on His back were for every person that has ever lived on this planet. And those who delivered those stripes hated Him with a furious passion. They didn't just beat Him in some scene of showmanship, they beat Him unmercifully. They wanted Him to suffer and they tortured Him far beyond what most men could endure. Yet, He took each strike to His face, each tug of His beard, each lash to His back, each pounding blow on the spikes and the spear in His side because He knew that was the only way you and I would have a chance at eternal life with God. He endured the unspeakable anguish of not only the physical torture but the weight of every sin every man and woman who has ever taken a breath on this planet has ever or will ever commit. Or even think of committing. Those stripes on His back for our healing meant that He endured every pain and every disease and illness that every person in history would ever suffer.
When you think of it like this, it's not hard to see how much He loved us and for me, it's not hard to live my life sharing Him with others and trying to win them over to Him and showing them the love and grace and mercy that He showed to me those days in Jerusalem and at Calvary and the battle He fought for me when He descended to the pits of hell and took the keys to death and the grave. I'm grateful and I gladly offer my life to Him, not in the manner of laying it down in death, though I'd gladly do that, too, but rather giving my life to Him to live for Him in the same manner He lived His. To do His will, His work and carry His message to the masses.
I pray you have a wonderful Christmas, a blessed New Year and you receive all the miracles God has put your name on.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Polarization and Christianity
I recently read an article that discussed the political polarization of America. The author cited an anecdote about a man who had a flat tire and another man stopped to help change the tire, but after it was done, the good Samaritan stated, "'If I'd known you were Obama people I wouldn't have stopped." Seriously? I have a cousin who was actually proud of herself when she posted on Facebook that she had stopped for gasoline but due to some problem with the pumps she had to go inside to pay for her purchase. Half-way across the parking lot, she turned around and got back in her vehicle and drove off without getting fuel because the station had an "Obama/Biden 2012" sticker on their front window.
In the 1970's fewer than 5% of people polled cared what a prospective son or daughter-in-law's political party affiliation was; today that group is nearly half of those surveyed. People will like everything about another person they meet but will refuse to establish a friendship with them simply because they find out that person is a card carrying member of the opposing political party. Is this what our founding fathers envisioned for this country when they established this democratic republic? I highly doubt that would be the case, if we could go back in time and question them about it. In fact, our first President, in his farewell address upon leaving the Presidency, spent several minutes talking about the downfall of society if the country allowed political parties to become the norm. He even predicted the downfall of our society because of the polarization caused by party politics.
In the 236 years this nation has been in existence, we've always had ways of separating ourselves; landowners versus non-landowners, slaveholders versus abolitionists, yankees versus rebels, religious versus non-believers, protestant versus catholic, white versus native, white versus Asian, white versus black, east coast versus west coast and the list goes on. Today, however, it seems the only real division between us falls into the category of Republican versus Democrat.
Congress is more polarized than any time since the end of the Civil War. We're seeing a downward spiral that began when the Democrats became "the party of civil rights" and the Republicans "the party of the religious right." I've actually heard people say they wouldn't vote for a Democrat because they only vote for Christians, implying no Christian could ever be a registered Democrat and no Democrat could ever be a true Christian.
What does all this truly mean, though? Are we truly fighting one another based on political differences or is there an underlying shift in the ideology of individuals and political parties which is underscoring the great divide? Many in the Republican party (read: the religious right) balk at the idea that it's the Democratic party that is for civil rights. They believe themselves to be just as pro-civil rights as the Democrats, except when it comes to equal rights for all people regardless of gender, skin color, nation of origin, religious affiliation and, of course, sexual orientation. Many believe the Constitution of the United States only applies to native born, heterosexual Christians. If someone is not white, Christian, Republican, they honestly and truly believe the Constitution and Bill of Rights doe not apply to them.
As always, my question goes back to what would Jesus do? What did Jesus teach us regarding this subject? Jesus taught us that we are to love all people. There were no caveats to His command to love everyone. We cannot exclude someone from our love because they're not a white, straight, Christian, employed Republican. And I simply cannot find a place in scripture, much less those scriptures in red, where we are taught or even given permission to discriminate against someone who isn't like us or doesn't believe exactly the way we believe. No basis is given for writing laws that outlaw the behaviors we don't agree with or excluding those who don't share our ideology from participating in the civil liberties we enjoy. Truth be told, Jesus more or less tells us that we shouldn't write laws to ban such because He came to free us from the law by giving us grace and mercy; a new covenant purchased by His blood because we couldn't live up to the standards of the law. Doesn't matter whether it's codified as the Law of Moses or the Law of the United States of America. Law is law!
Oh yes, I mustn't forget the old mantra that justifies judgment and discrimination: love the sinner, hate the sin. Malarkey! It is rare that I hear this excuse from someone who is truly showing the love of Christ toward their fellow man without exception. They have somehow convinced themselves that they can love someone while stripping that person of rights and freedoms or banning that person from exercising the free will God gave them. That's right, people, God gave each and every one of us free will to do exactly what we choose to do, to live exactly how we choose to live and be a part of whichever political party or religion we choose to be part of. Even if it's not the one we think they should be involved with.
What Jesus did tell us is that if we honestly believe we have shared the truth with someone and they refuse to hear what we have to say, we are to shake the very dust off our sandals and walk away, leaving that person to do what they choose. It doesn't say we are to write laws preventing them from doing what they choose. And it doesn't say we can't have anything to do with them, whatsoever. If you choose to not associate with them, fine. But, how will they ever see you living the life of Christ if you don't?
Now, there are certain laws that we have in this country, and in any civilized society, that must stand. Anything that constitutes usurping the free will of another person is forbidden. Or doing anything that would harm someone who is not able to make a free choice is forbidden. So please don't try to tell me that I'm advocating allowing child molestation or beastiality or what-not. A child or an animal doesn't have free will or the ability to consent. That makes doing anything with them a crime as well as a sin.
But, the truth is, by completely polarizing ourselves from those who are choosing a different political party and accusing them of not loving this country or calling them names or judging them as sinners is not following the teachings and commandments of Christ. Yes, we all have the freedom to not patronize businesses for any reason whatsoever, including because they have a political poster in their window for candidates we don't support. But helping someone in need? Nowhere are we given permission to pass that person by! In fact, the parable of the Good Samaritan tells us we are especially directed to help that person or people.
In the 1970's fewer than 5% of people polled cared what a prospective son or daughter-in-law's political party affiliation was; today that group is nearly half of those surveyed. People will like everything about another person they meet but will refuse to establish a friendship with them simply because they find out that person is a card carrying member of the opposing political party. Is this what our founding fathers envisioned for this country when they established this democratic republic? I highly doubt that would be the case, if we could go back in time and question them about it. In fact, our first President, in his farewell address upon leaving the Presidency, spent several minutes talking about the downfall of society if the country allowed political parties to become the norm. He even predicted the downfall of our society because of the polarization caused by party politics.
In the 236 years this nation has been in existence, we've always had ways of separating ourselves; landowners versus non-landowners, slaveholders versus abolitionists, yankees versus rebels, religious versus non-believers, protestant versus catholic, white versus native, white versus Asian, white versus black, east coast versus west coast and the list goes on. Today, however, it seems the only real division between us falls into the category of Republican versus Democrat.
Congress is more polarized than any time since the end of the Civil War. We're seeing a downward spiral that began when the Democrats became "the party of civil rights" and the Republicans "the party of the religious right." I've actually heard people say they wouldn't vote for a Democrat because they only vote for Christians, implying no Christian could ever be a registered Democrat and no Democrat could ever be a true Christian.
What does all this truly mean, though? Are we truly fighting one another based on political differences or is there an underlying shift in the ideology of individuals and political parties which is underscoring the great divide? Many in the Republican party (read: the religious right) balk at the idea that it's the Democratic party that is for civil rights. They believe themselves to be just as pro-civil rights as the Democrats, except when it comes to equal rights for all people regardless of gender, skin color, nation of origin, religious affiliation and, of course, sexual orientation. Many believe the Constitution of the United States only applies to native born, heterosexual Christians. If someone is not white, Christian, Republican, they honestly and truly believe the Constitution and Bill of Rights doe not apply to them.
As always, my question goes back to what would Jesus do? What did Jesus teach us regarding this subject? Jesus taught us that we are to love all people. There were no caveats to His command to love everyone. We cannot exclude someone from our love because they're not a white, straight, Christian, employed Republican. And I simply cannot find a place in scripture, much less those scriptures in red, where we are taught or even given permission to discriminate against someone who isn't like us or doesn't believe exactly the way we believe. No basis is given for writing laws that outlaw the behaviors we don't agree with or excluding those who don't share our ideology from participating in the civil liberties we enjoy. Truth be told, Jesus more or less tells us that we shouldn't write laws to ban such because He came to free us from the law by giving us grace and mercy; a new covenant purchased by His blood because we couldn't live up to the standards of the law. Doesn't matter whether it's codified as the Law of Moses or the Law of the United States of America. Law is law!
Oh yes, I mustn't forget the old mantra that justifies judgment and discrimination: love the sinner, hate the sin. Malarkey! It is rare that I hear this excuse from someone who is truly showing the love of Christ toward their fellow man without exception. They have somehow convinced themselves that they can love someone while stripping that person of rights and freedoms or banning that person from exercising the free will God gave them. That's right, people, God gave each and every one of us free will to do exactly what we choose to do, to live exactly how we choose to live and be a part of whichever political party or religion we choose to be part of. Even if it's not the one we think they should be involved with.
What Jesus did tell us is that if we honestly believe we have shared the truth with someone and they refuse to hear what we have to say, we are to shake the very dust off our sandals and walk away, leaving that person to do what they choose. It doesn't say we are to write laws preventing them from doing what they choose. And it doesn't say we can't have anything to do with them, whatsoever. If you choose to not associate with them, fine. But, how will they ever see you living the life of Christ if you don't?
Now, there are certain laws that we have in this country, and in any civilized society, that must stand. Anything that constitutes usurping the free will of another person is forbidden. Or doing anything that would harm someone who is not able to make a free choice is forbidden. So please don't try to tell me that I'm advocating allowing child molestation or beastiality or what-not. A child or an animal doesn't have free will or the ability to consent. That makes doing anything with them a crime as well as a sin.
But, the truth is, by completely polarizing ourselves from those who are choosing a different political party and accusing them of not loving this country or calling them names or judging them as sinners is not following the teachings and commandments of Christ. Yes, we all have the freedom to not patronize businesses for any reason whatsoever, including because they have a political poster in their window for candidates we don't support. But helping someone in need? Nowhere are we given permission to pass that person by! In fact, the parable of the Good Samaritan tells us we are especially directed to help that person or people.
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Drama In Our Lives
Many people complain about the amount of drama in their lives or on their Facebook pages. Often they are complaining about how others are bringing the drama to their lives/pages and how sick they are of it, but if you look close, at all, you notice that most of the time the drama they're complaining about is something they are creating themselves. And more often than not, they're not happy if there's no drama going on around them.
Why do we want, or tolerate, these soap operas in our lives? What is it about the conflict of drama that we find so enticing that we must have its presence at all times, or at least most times, or we feel something is lacking? Truth be told, all the drama is is chaos. And without that chaos in our lives we tend to feel like our lives are boring or uninteresting. Let's take a look at the differing forms that drama takes in our environment.
Drama can be chaos or it can be turmoil. It can often take the form of argument amongst our closest friends and relatives. It could be nothing more than a sense of tension. Or maybe it's one person in your circle who complains constantly about everything. Or a member of your circle who talks about everyone else in your circle. Anyone who keeps some kind of negative emotion or attention going is one who creates drama. More often than not, however, when you have constant drama in your life it's you who is the source not those around you.
How do you rid yourself of the drama? You can start by eliminating all the negative speech that you, yourself, share. Stop saying anything that does not edify, uplift, encourage or otherwise add positivity to the conversation. If you are constantly being positive, those who are negative will eventually wander off and find someone else to be negative with. Positive people repel negative people, just as negative people repel positive.
Why do we want, or tolerate, these soap operas in our lives? What is it about the conflict of drama that we find so enticing that we must have its presence at all times, or at least most times, or we feel something is lacking? Truth be told, all the drama is is chaos. And without that chaos in our lives we tend to feel like our lives are boring or uninteresting. Let's take a look at the differing forms that drama takes in our environment.
Drama can be chaos or it can be turmoil. It can often take the form of argument amongst our closest friends and relatives. It could be nothing more than a sense of tension. Or maybe it's one person in your circle who complains constantly about everything. Or a member of your circle who talks about everyone else in your circle. Anyone who keeps some kind of negative emotion or attention going is one who creates drama. More often than not, however, when you have constant drama in your life it's you who is the source not those around you.
How do you rid yourself of the drama? You can start by eliminating all the negative speech that you, yourself, share. Stop saying anything that does not edify, uplift, encourage or otherwise add positivity to the conversation. If you are constantly being positive, those who are negative will eventually wander off and find someone else to be negative with. Positive people repel negative people, just as negative people repel positive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)