Meanderings

Marriage and Homosexuals

2009-05-06T08:34:00.000-07:00

One of the big issues being debated today is marriage, specifically the desire of homosexual community to be able to enter the same arrangement. The institution of marriage is defined as: “the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.” The homosexual community wants to change this definition based on discrimination and perhaps a desire to feel accepted.

However, marriage has always been defined as an institution between man and women. Marriage and its definition are also sacred to many religious communities. They see that its definition can never be changed, because its very foundation is the basis for the genesis of a family, procreation, and the rearing of children. The attempt by the homosexual community to hijack the definition and change it, will always be challenged by the religious community, because the religious community disagrees not only with homosexuality as a practice, but also the attempt to change marriage’s definition is seen as an outside attack upon their beliefs.

I do not understand homosexuality, plain and simple. I know the Bible speaks against it, but I also live under a government today that accepts its practice. We are a government that tries to not dictate religious views.

I am empathetic to the homosexual community with regards to the state. If the state says homosexuality if not against the law, then perhaps the state should make provisions for what they have created.

Also, consider two spinsters that live together for several years. They have pooled their resources, bought a house together, and maintain a tight financial interdependence. Whether they are engaging in sex or not, it doesn’t matter. They are in their own right a family unit. The same is true with homosexual couples. Given that the state has said “it’s OK”, then the state needs to create similar contracts and tax mechanisms for homosexual couples.

However, the homosexual community has an obligation to create its own social institutional name for their type of relationship and not hijack the heterosexual community’s term: marriage. Doing so is an attempt to impose their will on the heterosexual community.

I challenge the homosexual community to create their own term for their relationship. It’s not hard and in fact very much respectful to those who don’t believe the way they do. Continuing to try and make the term marriage apply to both heterosexual arrangements and homosexual ones can only be seen by the heterosexual community as attempt to dictate the homosexual community’s view upon their lives, their institutions, and their religion.

Thoughts from “Expelled”, The Scientist, Religion, and the State

2009-05-05T05:36:00.000-07:00

I recently watched the movie “Expelled”. This movie is about systematic removal of teaching alternative views to evolution from public schools. Ben Stein presents a good case. Preaching evolution in government institutions goes beyond political correctness, science, and our first amendment. The present day governmental line is that we cannot teach other forms of human origins other than evolution, because it would violate the constitution. The government would then be adopting a religious stance.

However, the constitutional framers were believers of a deity, but were careful not to cater to one denomination or faith. Things like “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness….” should be a clue. I reference that famous quote from the Declaration of Independence not because it shows our forefathers were creationists, but rather they were believers in God. What has changed is the “separation of church and state” argument (which by the way is not in the constitution, but rather an evolved interpretation that has recently been twisted by those who are atheists). The removal of a concept of God from our learning institutions has in fact forced the government to violate our first amendment right by adopting a very specific state religion, atheism. Here is my proof. Scientist and author, Richard Dawkins, was one of the scientists offering an opposing view (pro-evolution) in the movie “Expelled”. He is a professed atheist. His approach to God is that you cannot prove God exists. His conclusion therefore is that God doesn’t exist. I have a problem with this biased way of scientific logic. The scientist must always be agnostic when approaching the concept of God. If one cannot offer proof to a hypothesis, it simply means that the proof may not be measurable at that time or an experiment has yet to be devised to offer proof. So, to say that there is no God actually takes faith, faith that no experiment or data can be produced that God exists. I ask Mr. Dawkins and all atheists. Show me proof there is no God. They can’t. As a deist and scientist one cannot make the logic mistake the atheists do by claiming the antithesis to their conclusion using the same data; since you cannot prove God doesn’t exist, then God exists. Therefore, when examining the debate of the existence of God and more specifically the application of Dawkin's logic, atheism and theism both require faith (some would argue in that the deist usually expresses that they have had some sort of encounter with God providing them with personal proof).

We should be asking our government; why have you violated the first amendment by adopting atheism as the state religion and expunging the concept of God from our institutions? Don’t the first amendment words cry out this present day constitutional violation, "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"?

By removing creation (or maybe more generally panspermia) from the classroom as other hypotheses as to our origin, the state violates the first part of the first amendment by establishing atheism (or minimally advocating it). They violate the following amendment statement by prohibiting through law the "free exercise thereof" by refusing to allow the deist the freedom of debate.

Minimum Belief to be Called Christian

2007-01-13T05:52:00.000-08:00

I must preface my thoughts by saying that logically, I have to believe in absolutes. There are either absolutes, or there are not. Believing that “There are no absolutes” is itself an absolute statement and humorously self-negating. Therefore, there must be this truth out there. Most intuitively perceive in the spiritual side of man (perhaps the use of the word paranormal fis more accurate for some) but can’t quite grasp it. We spend our lives getting glimpses of shadows cast by some ‘Light Source’. Most have a hunger and curiosity concerning the ‘Who’ that is creating this light. That is why we have many religions, faiths, and denominations. It is important that people understand that there are very earnest people seeking God.

In today’s postmodern world, it seems any and every belief is acceptable, except of course orthodoxy. There are many ways to salvation they say. Generally, if you live a good life and say your prayers, you go to Heaven no matter what you do or believe. What is strange is that it is today’s “Christian” who says these things. Some are seminarians, and I know many “Christian“ clergy as well that believe this to include the leader of my church, the Episcopal Church (TEC).

The uninitiated may not see this as a big issue. After all, if one believes that if you do “good” what’s the problem? The problem is what Christ himself said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me.” In fact, this is the crux of Christianity. Salvation is through Christ and Christ alone. Not that there is anything wrong with doing good, but Christ states He and more importantly He alone is the way to God. If one believes in other ways, that is fine, but it is not a Christian belief. Why then did Christ die and rise again? If there are other ways, why did he do so? Like my wife Naomi asked, What does that say about the Christian martyrs? Their faith was in Christ and Christ alone.

I am a Christian, Anglican, and Episcopalian. Our current Presiding Bishop does not seem to espouse Christianity. Rather her approach to religion is like choosing a line at a supermarket; any line will get you 'checked out' when in fact there should be convictions about the line she chose. Her beliefs, as I discern through her statements, concerning Christ are similar then to the Muslims, Jews, and other faiths that believe Christ was a good guy, prophet, teacher, Rabbi, but not the Messiah, THE Savior of the world.

For me, having her leading my denomination is like a Jew or Muslin receiving pork in their temple or mosque respectively.

Israel and Hezbollah

2006-08-05T05:22:00.000-07:00

A peace treaty between Palestine (whoever that is), Israel, Lebanon, and Syria has brought nothing to the area. Hezbollah used the opportunity to move weapons into the southern Lebanon area in preparation to attack Israel while Israel was removing squatters from the Israeli-occupied areas. There was alot Israeli emotion behind adhering to this treaty and when all was said and done, Israel lived up to its part. However, other anti-Israel political and terrorist organizations would or could not allow for it.

Citizens from both the Gaza strip and Lebanon CROSSSED the border and kipnapped Israeli citizens. Paramilitary organizations (also known as terrorists) started bombing (using rockets) Israel indiscriminately. These organizations wanted to use the "prisoners" as leverage to further barter with Israel for the release of prisoners Israel had captured prior to the treaty.

From Israel's perspective, what good is a peace treaty or "cease-fire" when those who sign it continually show no intergrity? Any agreement is AND WILL ALWAYS BE worthless. From Israel's perspective, they get nothing but temporary peace until the other side decides to wage war again.

The war is between two peoples with the following motives: Israel - the desire to exist, Radical Islam - Jews to be exterminated. Make no mistake about it. These are and have been their respective goals since 1948 as witnessed through their leaders and literature.

The only way that Israel can find a lasting peace is to eliminate those who desire their destruction.

Who is more just? Those who seek to merely exist in peace or those who seek genocide for their enemy?

Texas Gerrymandering

2005-10-18T14:12:00.000-07:00

One of the reasons that Tom DeLay has been targeted by a rabid democrat DA in Travis County is that DeLay was proactive Texas redistricting so that more republican US House members could be elected. This effort so angered Texas democrat congressmen that they left the state instead of being in session. They left the state to avoid being apprehended by the Texas Rangers.

This certainly sounds like a brave and righteous act until you consider some of the facts. Until recently, the Texas state congress has been controlled by the democrats. Having that control, they established the US congressional districts in favor of their own party. They claimed the republicans wanted to gerrymander the districts so as to give them more representatives. That is all true. But has anyone asked the question why? Did any news network question that the state of Texas was gerrmandered in favor of the democrats? No.

First of all, an unbiased judge would have to admit that if any party gets say 55% of the vote for congressmen, they should get approximately 55% of the representatives all things being equal. Texas has 32 seats in the house, so if democrat candidates recieve 55% of the vote, they should expect approximately 18 seats (32 X .55) in the US house and visa versa for any other party.

If you go to the Texas voting records of 2002, you will find that approximately 55% of all votes for Texas US house seats went to republican candidates. However, based on democrat gerrymandering of Texas state districts, the republicans only got 15 seats (47%). There is an 8% discrepency between the percentage that voted for republicans and what the party actually recieved in representatives to the US Senate, an advantage of 3 representatives, a 20% descrepency.

So, based on voting records and the democrat gerrymandered districts, one can see that the republicans had valid complaints about how the state had been gerrymandered.

Creationism and the Birth of Our Country

2005-10-15T04:47:00.000-07:00

Before separating from England, there was much debate concerning the matter. Many people did not want to leave the protection of England although England granted the colonies few rights that he citizens enjoyed.

During meetings of the Continental Congress in 1775, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin persuaded Thomas Jefferson to write a declaration to encapsulate the reasons for independence. Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence and after much debate and editing, it was eventually signed by all representatives from the 13 colonies.

In the second paragraph, the declaration states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Our country was established with the Creator in mind. In fact, for the new government to work, it had to recognize that the Creator (dare I say God) gave all men equal rights (slavery was much debated during the drafting process because some at that time did not recognize the rights of black people and others did). The thinking was that since God saw men as equal in the universe, the government should protect this universal law.

However, the very tenets of the theory of evolution are grounded in the fact that all men are NOT created equal. Some are more equal than others and therefore live longer. Those more evolved eventually dominate the species arising to a more higher form of life.

We teach evolution in our schools. So how can our children and our children's children support a government of equal rights when its state-sanctioned public school system teach that all men are not equal. The whole basis of equal rights established in our government is thereby eliminated by rejecting God and His creation.

Abortion vs. The Constitution

2005-10-12T06:20:00.000-07:00

Because our culture changes and evolves, we face new issues every year. These issues are complex and occasionally the US Supreme Court must decide on the constitutionality of them.

The constitution is a contract that promises that the government has the obligation to protect "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". These prioritized unalienable (vs. inalienable) rights can not be taken away. If so, the contract (constitution) becomes null and void.

The utmost right that the government should protect is "life". When a child is conceived, biology tells us that the uniqueness of that individual has been created. Life is born. To unnaturally cause that life to cease is in violation to the constitution. So, the taking of a life through abortion violates the constitution.

When you realize the reason behind the Roe vs. Wade decision was really property rights (rights of the mother of the right of life of the child) rather than life, Roe Vs Wade reestablishes those same tenets that were disposed of during slavery (rights of owners over the rights of slaves). In other words, Roe vs. Wade not only establishes that life is property, but it also elevates that property right over the right to life.

Heresy vs. Schism and the Episcopal Debate

2005-05-14T15:26:00.000-07:00

Heresy is a tricky issue. One must carefully balance the probability of a changing the heretic against the effect the heresy has on the health of the church body. The children of Israel illustrate what happens when we entertain heresy. It is one thing to live among people who practice it. It is altogether different when you adopt it as part of your own culture. God anticipated Israel’s problem when he told them to destroy the idols of the foreigners (and in some cases the nations themselves). When they did not, Israel adopted pagan rituals and gods that eventually led to their downfall. When you consider the current issue, the same is true with the blessing of homosexual relationships and leaders by our church.
There are some issues that really should be debated. We should allow wide berths for those that differ in those views. A few examples are: women priests; blasphemy against the Holy Spirit; transubstantiation. These concepts are vague in the scriptures. However, homosexuality is not. In the Old Testament, Israel killed homosexuals. In the New Testament, Paul calls it depravity. Therefore, there is no room for argument in my opinion on whether it is a sin. I am astonished that the laity seem to have a better grasp on this matter than the many clergy that have studied the Bible. It ain’t rocket science. Even nature dictates that it is an unnatural thing!
You have stated that sometimes schism is a greater sin than heresy. In this case, the ECUSA is practicing both schism and heresy. You have even stated that the ECUSA ordained a bishop against their own canon. This action alone produced the schism. Apparently endorsing homosexuality is more important to the ECUSA than church unity. What is remarkable is that after they have violently welded the cleaver against their charge, they point the finger and blame those who are left bleeding. That is the perspective I get from the pro-AAC crowd.
As to the realities of schisms in the church, in Matthew 10 Christ says: "because you are not speaking, but the Spirit of your Father is speaking in you. Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will even rise up against their parents and have them put to death. You will be hated by everybody because of My name. And the one who endures to the end will be delivered." Although Christ is not addressing homosexuality here, he is saying that His way will de divisive and sometimes not popular.
Additionally, Paul in Romans 3 discusses the purpose of the law, "For no flesh will be justified in His sight by the works of the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin.". The purpose of the law is to show we need Christ. If we change the law (which we can not do), we are telling those that break it that it is OK. There then is no need for repentance. If we did this, we would not be acting out of love. We would be condemning our fellow brethren.
I agree also that we should allow dialogue on this matter. For the most part, the dialogue is all one way: "you must adopt the ECUSA position", the canon be damned. Those against the ECUSA position have no means left to communicate their repugnance to the national church. We tried at council and our idea was struck down. That is why I support the AAC affiliation idea. It provides a clear statement as a church that we adamantly disagree with the ECUSA position. Individual membership is not by itself a strong enough statement. Those who oppose affiliation actually stifle the only means left to those in our church to say to the ECUSA that we oppose their action. I am sure that is why many have left not only this congregation but also the Episcopal Church. They have no more means of dialogue. It is important that our bishop know that AAC affiliation has nothing to do with our diocese but rather our church a and the ECUSA.
I too feel that we must not react rashly and not too quickly. We got to this point through negligence and passivity. I think the Anglican community is being wise to slowly introduce discipline to allow the ECUSA to reflect on their position and make the necessary changes.
AAC affiliation is not a rash act nor do I consider it schismatic. One can equate it to supporting the Order of St Luke’s. As they advocate healing, the AAC advocates the need for our church to remain scriptural. No one paints the Order of St Luke as an organization that wants to get rid of the medical profession. AAC affiliation is not schismatic but rather emphasizes the ministry of the scripture.
For those who do not support the ECUSA, we were told to ‘shut up’ a long time ago when the ECUSA violated canon.

Obsessed

2004-12-21T05:23:00.000-08:00

My wonderful wife brought up a very interesting point. It seems that those who are most obsessed with money are those who wish to control other people's pocketbooks. They obsess over what people give or don't give. They compare their income to what they think the more wealthy give. They desire to take it away from the 'rich' in the form of taxes so that they can control how the 'rich' should give. What is sad is that they feel they are righteous in their actions.
Instead of looking at someone else's pocket book and wanting to control it, wouldn't it be better to work hard and become wealthy so one can give to their heart's content while at the same time praying for those who are blessed with abundance to give to those who are in need?

True charity comes from the heart and is appreciated. Charity that is forced requires a task master and will be detested by all.

A Possible Headline

2004-12-16T14:39:00.000-08:00

Sacramento, CA – The California Supreme Court upheld a decision to allow the Van Nuys School Board to reallocate grade points taking them from higher performing students and giving them to lower performing students in order to allow less academic students to pass. The proposed system would take up to 20 points from A and B students. For example, a student that is making a grade of 95 percent in English could loose 15 percentage points to a student making only a 55 percent in order to allow the lower performing student to pass. The proposed system would raise the lower performing student’s grade to 70 percent and lower the grade of the 95 percent student to 80 percent. The plaintiff, Mr. John Braynes, plans to appeal the decision to protect his daughter’s current grade point average.

Rebuttal to Josh

2004-11-29T09:53:00.000-08:00

This Blog is written in reply to Josh Packard's blog at http://myfourwalls.net/blog/C1916498817/E973094337/index.html. Josh has made some assumptions that need clarification. It didn't matter who was running for president, approximately 35% were going to vote for a democrat and 35% for a republican. The real analysis should be done concerning the approximate 30% who COULD HAVE BEEN swayed by debate. If you analyze the "exit polls" you will see that the categories chosen by the pollsters were fashioned so as to draw Josh's (and the major networks) conclusion. They asked voters what was their biggest issue. They broke out Iraq and terrorism when most agree the two should have been lumped together under terrorism. This technique drives up the relevance of the other categories chosen including 'values'.

From my perspective, this was the first election that a third party candidate was a much better choice than what one of the parties offered (Kerry). I thought it profound that Kerry being the much better speaker was least clear articulating on his platform. My perception is that though "values' might have driven some in their selection of candidates, election demographics show that in there was no disproportionate number of evangelical Christians that voted. Even though there was a higher turnout, there was no significant increase in any one group (gender, race, religion, etc). So I disagree on his initial premise. I also disagree with his assumption that "values" necessarily mean Christian values. My perception of Kerry was that he had no values; honesty, integrity, sincerity, etc. In fact, I talked to a lifelong democrat who said she was voting for Bush. I asked her why. She said even though she did not agree with some of Bush's social agenda, she could trust the man because he had core values. The values she described were not abortion or gay marriage but simply someone who seemed genuine.

I thought it interesting that in a post-election analysis of speeches shown that Kerry invoked the name of "Jesus" or "God" three times more often than Bush. In fact, Kerry spoke in churches 3 times more than Bush.

I would not single out Christianity as the only corrupt religion. However, I do accept Josh's right to do so, because I agree that the way man tends to manipulate the gospel is oftentimes corrupt. I think it true for most other religions too. I find it ironic that reporters often avoid the "Muslim" designation when reporting terrorism. They appear to be concerned that people might become prejudice towards Islam, because almost all recent terrorism has been practiced by Islamic fundamentalists. However, they are not so careful with Christianity.

I am a conservative Christian who like Josh, believes there is something lacking in the practice of Christianity. However, I have heard his arguments on the major news networks before by democrats who want to broad-brush Christianity. Yes, there are some who believe the way they describe, but using these examples to represent Christianity is the worst form of stereotype.

I support Bush's stem cell research plan. Unlike President Clinton, he has taken bold steps to create an environment in which it can be legitimately used and researched without abuse. It does not disallow research but it does limit government's role. There is concern that without some restrictions, stem cell research using certain fetal tissue will encourage the nation's abortion industry.

As to sex education, there may be some who have the misperception that schools required kids to have sex, but that is the exception and the example is used to lampoon conservative Christians again creating a mindless stereotype. I do believe that abstinence is a legitimate option to be also taught as do most of my conservative friends.

As to gay marriage, the term is an oxymoron. Marriage is defined between a man and a woman. There is no discrimination. A gay man can still marry a woman. However, if the government provides certain benefits to people who have entered a contractual agreement (gay or not), those benefits should be provided to all. Forcing the church (Jewish, Christian, Islam) to change their definitions is the worst form of a violation between church and state.
Josh's attempt to stereotype all Christians and 'moral value' believers is extreme. The issues are much more complicated. Isn't he here using the very same technique he is complaining about regarding Christians?

Josh takes a big leap when he says, "If you want to keep women from being married to each other, that's fine. As long as you recognize that it’s because you dislike gays." He is trying to say that can be the ONLY reason. I agree that two women should not be married, but not because I dislike them. Actually, most gay people I have know I like. I have actually met a few people who have murdered human beings, and I liked them too, but it doesn't make what they did right. I simply believe homosexuality is unnatural and is looked down on in the Bible. There is no commandment in the Bible that states, "Thou shall not be a homosexual". The Bible says nothing about child abuse either.

What is wrong with someone voting their conscience? I don't care how future generations judge me. I vote based on what I think is best. I have reasoning, a belief system, and a culture I must consider when making my decision.

I also disagree with Josh's logic (as was discussed during the election) as to the reason for the war. Our reason for going to war was NEVER based on WMD. Its execution was accelerated due to the perceived threat (not just US but almost ALL nations). Our reason for going to war was that Saddam violated the peace accord signed in 1990. His willful disregard of that peace agreement was in fact negating the peace. In retrospect, I find it ironic that the very same democrats that opposed Bush, Sr. in 1990 for not taking Saddam out in the Gulf War (disregarding the UN mission), are the very ones now arguing we should not have dethroned Saddam and complain about not having UN support.

I believe as a Christian we should love our neighbor. I believe that the New Testament was a document written and assembled for our personal use and enrichment. It was written for man and his personal relationship with man and God. It was also written to help the church. It was not written as a plan for government. To do so would again violate the separation of church and state. Bush's opposition is fearful that he will somehow force people into religion. Here is a good example where might have to violate his Christian beliefs. As president, Bush (as well as other former presidents) vowed to PROTECT the people. In his best judgment, he believed the best course of action was to seek out terrorism and destroy it before it destroys us. He was supported by his opposition. He had to weigh the pros and cons. He just didn't come into office and decide, "Let's go kill us some Arabs!" I believe you are wrongly judging the man....and I do mean judging.

I believe we as Christians should do something about poverty, but at the personal level. I do not agree that it is the government's job. Prior to the depression, welfare and charity was accomplished through churches and local charity organizations. The government adopted welfare during the depression thereby (IMHO) taking it from the church, another violation to the separation of church and state. Charity should be accomplished via the church community.

As to poverty, I would think Josh would also be concerned with the UN Security Council's active participation into the Oil for Food scandal where millions of Iraqi's were starved due to the corruption within the UN. Since overtaking Saddam, millions of Iraqis can now EAT.
President Bush is not our salvation. The government will never be our salvation. I don't care what other people do about the poor. It is our personal responsibility to be charitable. I do not like the government's involvement when it comes to charity. Just as one argues that what people do in their bedroom is their business should also be applied to what people do with their charity.

I appreciate Josh's concern for those in need. I too don't understand how a billionaire can complain about his caviar when there are many starving. Perhaps we should be praying for those more fortunate to be more charitable. I do know this, as a country, we are the most charitable. Last I heard, we give more money to others than all countries combined! Maybe we are not where we could be but change takes time.

I agree we do not have equal opportunity in the US. I can prove to you that I have less opportunity that most minorities. Why, because there are laws on the books that promote discrimination. It is called affirmative action. It provides advantages to those that are minorities. So I agree, we should create a US that provides the same opportunities. I do not agree with Josh that we are one of the most unequal countries in the world. Last time I saw, it wasn't people in Miami building boats to go to Cuba. How many people flooded into East Germany when the wall came down? Why is the Muslim community growing in this country? It is because we do have the best country in the world.

Maybe some voted for Bush because they thought somehow they were hoping to "Christianize" America. I voted for Bush not because he was Christian, but because he seems ethical and sincere. I agree with the direction he wants to take this country. Although I do not agree with him on every issue, he unfortunately for the US was the only real choice offered this election.

My father-in-law went to a lecture where the professor felt like we should give 2/3 of everything we have to charity. After the lecture, my father-in-law approached the professor and asked, "How much did you give last year?" The professor replied, "Nothing." My father-in-law said, "I thought so!" So Josh I ask you, "How much did you give last year?"

Affirmative Action vs Equal Employment Opportunity

2004-09-22T10:59:00.000-07:00

Can one support both an Affirmative Action and an Equal Employment Opportunity program concurrently? Aren't the two mutually exclusive?

Immersion

2004-09-11T07:01:00.000-07:00

Our youth leader is very adamant about our youth doing a mission immersion experience in the El Paso area this next year. This type of mission trip allows the participant to fully submerge into another culture. It gives one the opportunity to serve but also allows the participant to see and experience the total culture, both the pleasant and unpleasant.

I went to the web site today of my favorite Christian singers/composers, Rich Mullins. He was killed in an automobile accident in 1997. I watched one of the videos offered on the site. The video showed stark poverty as his music, a tune called "Peace", created an interesting ambience. I saw deep poverty. People were living in shanties. Children wore rags. What I saw on their faces was something all together different. They were happy! Last week I was walking in the mall, and I saw the faces of hundreds of angry and haughty youth. They were overweight, wore designer clothing, had anything they wanted yet were miserable.

I thought this morning that perhaps in that immersion experience in El Paso, those (including myself) might relocate what we seem to lose through the distractions in our society. We may reconnect with God; realize that its PEOPLE not THINGS; learn how to live again; etc.

Micro Chasm of Life

2004-08-30T05:13:00.000-07:00

An interesting phenomenon happened to me yesterday. I help with my church's youth group. We were in a 2 hour meeting doing some long range planning with the kids. The purpose was to get their ideas and buy-in for our core values and goals.

As the meeting went on we needed to discuss those necessary things to make it all work such as money. One issue that had to be discussed was how to fund the various youth trips on out schedule. The way that it had been done in the past was to use the budget the church allows the youth plus several fund-raiser activities. The church youth would conduct these fund-raisers. Apparently in the past, many some reaped the benefit of other's fund raising efforts.

To make things fair, the youth leader invoked a rule. Those that contributed to the fund raising activities received a sort of credit toward youth trips. Let's say if 10 youth worked in an effort and raised $500, they would each get a credit of $50 in their imaginary bank account towards any future trips. By the time a trip came around if one youth had a $500 credit while another only had $400 and the trip cost $500, the one with the $400 credit would have to make up the difference, $100. When asked by a youth about it being unfair, the youth leader responded that it is a choice that each youth makes.

This reminded me of how our society is. This situation is nothing more than a micro chasm of a human phenomenon: generally, people take the path of least resistance. Our society is by no means perfect. Certainly there are those in America that are needy and require help. I believe that most that require public assistance do so because of choices they make. Just as these kids make the choice of participating in something other than fund raising, they are also making the choice of having to pay more out of their own pockets for youth trips. This is analogous to those choices we make as adults.

As did the youth leader, should we as adults remove the situation in society where people get a 'free ride' letting other people pay for their choices, or do we enable them by leaving it alone?

WMD Revisited

2004-08-26T08:03:00.000-07:00

Before going to war with Iraq, American intelligence sources made the assessment that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons. They also concluded that they were developing nuclear weapons capability. This assessment was made using data gathered before and after 9/11. Based on that assessment, Bush appealed to the UN to enforce 17 UN resolutions, one being the conditional peace agreement between Iraq and the UN. The UN passed another US sponsored resolution. Iraq failed to comply. The US desired to use force to make Iraq abide by the UN resolutions. The security council (specifically France, Russia, and Germany) voted against the use-of-force resolution.

The US congress backed the president and passed a joint resolution to use force. The US went to war with Iraq and defeated the Iraqi army.

Since then, Bush opponents claimed that he pressured intelligence officials to come to his 'conclusion' to support the war. They created the 9/11 commission to investigate US intelligence problems. Also, it was discovered that there was a major money laundering scandal within the UN in the Iraqi oil for food program where certain countries (namely those same that were against enforcing the UN resolutions France, Russia and Germany).

The 9/11 bipartisan commission exonerated Bush determining that he did not pressure the intelligence community. Bush opponents claimed he had lied to them using the terminology 'impending threat' when Bush said actually said 'building threat'. Bush opponents want to say that he had lied to the American public. We have found small numbers of chemical weapons (WMD) and equipment and raw materials used to manufacture them. Foreign intelligence sources have found that Iraq shipped out of the country (right under the noses of the UN weapons inspectors) WMDs.

Bush entered the presidency with an intelligence network gutted by the previous administration. He used intelligence data to justify the use of force.

The attempt by Bush opponents to say he 'lied' is analogous to viewers wanting to blame the meteorologist for forecasting rain when it doesn't. The meteorologist bases his forecast on available data. The forecast is not perfect but gives the public a heads-up as to what to expect.

I personally hate war. Solomon in the Bible says there are times for war and times for peace. War however is necessary at times to prevent innocents from being murdered as what happened at 9/11. In my opinion, we did not start this war. As a country we have not realized this until recently, that there are some organizations that have declared war on us.

Is God Female?

2004-08-19T09:27:00.000-07:00

I hate to admit it, but my thinking on this subject began with a debate between Yentl and another person in the movie Yentl. The two characters were discussing 'the rib of Adam' when Yentl said that in Hebrew the word for rib could be interpreted as 'part'. In other words, a translation of Genesis could be that God took a 'part' from Adam to make woman.

Given this idea coupled with 'the two shall become one flesh', I sorta developed my own idea (I am sure someone has written about this somewhere) that perhaps what God did when creating us in his likeness was that he separated his masculine and feminine to create male and female. Perhaps his intent was that when we are together as male and female in a relationship, we can only experience the real nature of God? Perhaps there is some deep spiritual truth that creation can only be accomplished through the union of the masculine and the feminine?

This brings up another interesting point. Although we address God as He, perhaps God is also She in traits. It seems to me that God has exhibited his masculine nature in the Old Testament and His feminine nature in the New?

Some thoughts for interesting discussion and debate......

Democrat National Convention

2004-08-01T06:27:00.000-07:00

This past week while in Huntsville, AL for work, I was able to catch bits and pieces of the Democrat National Convention. With the threat of terrorism on everyone’s mind, I was interested to see what the Democrats were planning to address the problem (as well as others). In all the rhetoric, I was saddened to hear to what depths these politicians sink. They actually hate President Bush. It was not a convention that elevated their candidate as the better choice by itemizing Senator Kerry’s strengths and accomplishments, but rather it took on a sort of quasi-fundamentalist church-like meeting where the delegates were whipped into a anti-Bush frenzy somewhat reminiscent of the very terrorists we are fighting. I suppose that was not their intent. Given the national audience, the Democrats chose to present to the American public a unified front. OK, I got it! You guys hate Bush, but why should I vote for you? For a party that taut a majority of America’s 'intelligentsia', they offered no solutions. It became quite clear that the Democrats’ apparent real enemy is not those that seek to destroy this country, but rather those that would keep them from power.

So, Senator Kerry, don’t tell me that you can do things better. First of all, to make that statement one must believe things are good now. You are tacitly endorsing the accomplishments of the current administration. Tell my HOW you can do things better. Using hate as a motivator reduces us to the level of those who are our enemy. Given your political tactics, I for one do not see ‘the hope that is on the way’.

Charity?

2004-07-30T05:21:00.000-07:00

I have been taught all my life to give 10 percent to the Church and strive to do so though I am not always successful. This practice (some would call a Christian requirement) grew out of the Jewish practice of giving a tithe to the tribe of Levi, the priests. Members of the tribe of Levi did not work in order to devote all their time to religious duties. Whatever the reason God set this system up, does not matter. This duty has been adopted by the Christian Church.

In a recent Episcopal confirmation class, we discussed stewardship, the practice of giving to the church time, talents, and finance. I performed a quick self-evaluation to see if I did do these things and if so, to what extent. Evaluating my time and talents is fairly easy to determine and is the most memorable and rewarding. The finance is a bit more elusive I have found. It is easy to go back through my checkbook to calculate all the times I have given, not to boast or take pride but to determine if I am doing what I should.

I don't know if I should be confused, angry, or happy. I realized in my search that I also give a whole bunch of money via taxes to national charitable causes like welfare and unemployment. Are these taxes "rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's?" or are they charitable donations? Since we are a democratic republic, Caesar is not making the demands but rather we have requested the government to take our money to help those in need. Isn't this charity? Have we ceded to the government what should be the Church's? Have we not violated the separation of church and state by doing so?

Reflection on Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11

2004-07-07T08:06:00.000-07:00

Michael Moore's movie, Fahrenheit 9/11 , makes the allegation that the republicans 'stole' the election in Florida. This charge is not uncommon among democrats. Michael Moore has been heralded by many liberals as a respected 'journalist'. He uses video layering and out-of-context interviews to make political statements in a humorous fashion (at least to those who would agree with him). I recently read an article by Ellen Goodman, a liberal, who writes for the Boston Globe. She agreed to only 3 points that Moore made in his movie. Otherwise, she thought the movie was over-the-edge. I decided I would investigate the Florida election allegation to which she agreed. Here is what I found:

The national presidential election was a very close both in the popular vote and the Electoral College. Gore won (as did Nixon in 1960 running against JFK) the national popular vote by approximately 500,000 votes but lost in the Electoral College. In my research, I discovered several million absentee votes were not counted in several states where counting them would not change the outcome of who won the presidential election. For example, in California (where Gore won by a significant margin), absentee votes were not counted because they would have not affected the final results, even if all the votes went to the other candidate, Bush. This practice is done by the states to save money. However, most absentee votes have been historically conservative. Counting all absentee votes would have reduced the Gore's 500,000 vote margin, not that it matters in the outcome.

Another point to be made prior to discussing Florida specifically is concerning the purpose of the Electoral College. The way the presidential election works is that each state has a certain number of delegates based on the number of representatives they have in the US House. In almost all states, if the popular vote goes to a particular candidate, that candidate receives all electoral votes. The purpose of the Electoral College is to balance any regional influence on the national election.

As to the Florida election, after Bush won the popular vote in Florida (by 537 votes), democrats complained that the voting punch cards (butterfly ballots) were difficult to read such that many voters mistakenly voted for Pat Buchanan rather than Al Gore (after examining the cards one could make the same claim for George Bush too). These ballots were designed, developed, and approved by local district state caucuses. In the four counties in question, these caucuses were chaired by democrat party representatives. Voting procedures are typically posted in the newspaper the week of the election and instructions are posted in the voting booth. Voting polls are manned by election volunteers to answer any questions if there is a problem with the ballot card. Since there was such an issue with the ballots, democrat party officials requested recounts of the ballots. For any ballots where more than one chad for a particular race was altered, they wanted them individually examined by a group of election officials to decide which chad the voter really wanted removed (voters were warned in voting instructions that any race where two chads were punched, that vote would be discarded, also known as an 'undervote'). The State of Florida has voting laws that require voting districts to report official results within 7 days in order to meet state and national voting deadlines. Gore requested that four Florida counties get an extension to have ballots in question examined individually by committee. The Secretary of State in charge of elections, abiding by state law, requested districts provide results by the deadline. The Florida Supreme Court (all democrats) made a ruling that undervote ballots in those counties challenged by Gore be hand counted. George W. Bush requested that the US Supreme Court examine the Florida findings and make a ruling. The US Supreme Court ruled if an undervote hand count was to be made, that it must be done statewide (equal treatment of all undervotes). Since the State of Florida could not accomplish this in a timely fashion, the original vote tally was upheld.

After the election, many people wanted to know the 'true' outcome of the election. In a separate independent study, findings showed that if the US Supreme Court did not intervene, Bush would have still won the election by 493 votes. If Gore got what he wanted, a hand count of votes of heavily democrat counties, Gore would have still lost by 225 votes. If Florida used the most liberal ballot counting standard, Gore could have won by a 42 vote margin.

All this voting ballot data is interesting but really pales in comparison on the Florida election results when compared to the effect the media had on the Florida election (as well as the national election). The media has a big influence on the voting public. Informed voters get their information from the media, especially television. There is a public trust that exists; the networks report truth, balanced and fair. For example, using the 2000 presidential election this is how CNN 'fairly' reported the 2000 presidential election results:

State...........Winner......Margin (%).....Time (after polls closed)
Maine...........Gore........5..............10 minutes
Colorado........Bush........9..............2 hrs, 41 minutes
Alabama.........Bush........15.............25 minutes
NC..............Bush........13.............39 minutes
Georgia.........Bush........12.............59 minutes
Arizona.........Bush........7..............2 hrs, 51 minutes
Michigan........Gore........4..............1 hr 24 minutes
Arkansas........Bush........6..............3 hrs, 42 minutes
Pennsylvania....Gore........4..............1 hr, 24 minutes
Tennessee.......Bush........3..............3 hrs, 3 minutes
Minnesota.......Gore........2..............1 hr, 25 minutes
West Virginia...Bush........6..............3 hrs, 16 minutes
Washington......Gore........5..............1 hr, 8 minutes

As anyone can see, there was an obvious CNN bias in favor of Gore to report results sooner even with less a margin of victory. If that is not enough to convince one, perhaps (and this is the real kicker) that calling Florida for Gore PRIOR to the polls closing would convince anyone of network media meddling into the election process (a violation of a 1985 US law). Three separate post-election studies conducted on the 10 western Florida panhandle counties affected (those in the central time zone) showed a dramatic voter drop-off (in ALL races). Evidently voters thought they could not change the outcome once the state had been called for Gore. Estimates of lost republican votes by the 3 separate studies (one sponsored by democrats) ranged from 8,000 - 37,000 votes.

In summary, I ask any sane person; who tried to steal the Florida election? Michael Moore's movie claims that Bush stole the election, but the facts support just the opposite. Democrats were not satisfied with the outcome. After the media dramatically affected the Florida results in favor of Gore, Gore asked the Florida Supreme Court to grant 'special privilege' with respect to four counties.

What really troubles me in my research is the unabashed attacks on our voting process and the media support for lies and disinformation. How can we have a good working democracy when those that vote base their vote on lies. Moore lies in his film and Ms.Goodman of the Boston Globe agrees, yet their conclusions are based on misperceptions and disinformation, not the facts. Perhaps that is the real comedy (albeit tragic) in Michael Moore's movie.

Relativism

2004-07-06T05:44:00.000-07:00

There exists all of this relativism in today's thinking. Like, it is how YOU see it. Although I do believe in the human experience we all have a perspective, I can not buy-in to the argument that truth is relative.

One hears the trite phrase often stated in sophomoric philosophical discussions, "There are no absolutes!" which requires the knee jerk response, "Absolutely!"

I am a scientist by training. I see order, physical laws, and a design in the universe. Is that a sort of faith based on experience? I mean, you see the sun come up every day. We expect it to happen. We understand mass, gravity, orbiting bodies, etc to know why it does so.

Common logic dictates (absolute argument above) there is an absolute truth. I believe it intellectually dishonest to accept relativism as it applies to absolute truth. I do however believe that we might have different experiences based on our 'angle of measurement'. For example, I think of a group of people sitting in a circle observing a cone lying on its axis. Some people might see the bottom or the top (straight on) as a circle, and they would swear the cone to be a circle. Whereas, those that see the cone from a side angle would see it a cone. Relativism plays a role here, based on the relative angle the group sees the cone, BUT (and this is my point) it does not change the FACT that the object is a cone..... an absolute.

In my experience with God, Jesus the Christ, the Bible, etc, I know (perhaps believe) there is an absolute concerning God. Certainly we all have different experiences in our perspective of God, but I believe that God is absolute. God's real nature may contain elements of every faith's experience, but above it all, God is absolute. There is a truth that is not based on experience. That knowledge, I believe, will be known in the after-life. God is love, slow to anger, judge, awesome, vengeful, full of wrath, pure, etc.

Refugees

2004-06-25T09:56:00.000-07:00

An indirect way to measure the stability of a society during a war as well atrocities that oftentimes are committed during that period is to sample and interview the refugees. During WWII, Korean War, and Viet Nam the American people were bombarded by images of displaced people fleeing to adjacent countries.

The problem with the Iraqi war is that there are no refugees. In fact, Saddam exiles are flocking back to their homeland. This phenomena illustrates several points: The press is reporting only the negative for apparent political reasons during an election year; The current Iraqi society is stable enough for Iraqis to remain; Iraqi citizens have hope for a future; and the coalition forces are surgical in their search and removal of insurgents.

Chairs and Science

2004-06-23T05:22:00.000-07:00

If I enter a cafeteria where the chairs are normally kept in disarray and see them neatly lined up in isles and rows, I can easily state the obvious, "Someone came in here and aligned all the chairs". Using basic deductive reasoning I make that conclusion.

I am a scientist by training and have a degree in chemistry and math. I see the universe like the auditorium chairs. It is well ordered. I find it intellectually dishonest science to observe and study this universe, quantifying that order yet blindly state it happened randomly. Using the auditorium example, scientists measure the height, width, and breadth of the chairs. They measure distances between the chairs. They try and determine if there are relationships between the chairs, yet overlook the simple fact that there is order and design. They quote the 'Big Bang' theory and I think, yeah........right! A mighty wind came in the auditorium and pushed all the chairs into the proper alignment.

This reminds me of what I read in Romans 1:19-22: "19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools"

Turning the Other Cheek

2004-06-22T12:15:00.000-07:00

I have always wondered about the scripture in the New Testament when Christ told us to 'turn the other cheek'. What does he mean? If you get slapped in the face, do you turn the other cheek to be struck? I have had questions like: How many times do you turn your cheek? Since you have only one cheek, do you only allow your enemy one more slap? In the scriptural context, Christ is saying no more 'eye for an eye' (tit-for-tat) thus making a contrast. Is he telling us to do this only at the personal level? Or does he desire us to do so at the church and/or government levels?

Basically, I see Christ telling us to forgive. We should provide allowances for those that mistreat us or misunderstand us. When confronted with kindness like turning the other cheek, most people become overwhelmed with conviction. That I believe is the essence of his teaching.

What happens though when 'the other cheek' is our brother's welfare or life? This problem occurs when applying Christ's teaching to government action. Take for example the twin towers in 9/11. As a country, do we offer up the Empire State building and the Sears Tower to Bin Laden? If a convict kills your wife, do you offer up your son also? Are the examples that Christ provided the ONLY cases where this command is recommended? Is Christ teaching us to be abused?

Islamic Fundamentalism

2004-06-22T11:26:00.000-07:00

Several years ago when abortion was the big issue in America, some fundamentalist Christian organizations elevated the issue so much that many became violent. Some, actually bombed abortion clinics killing innocents as a means to voice their opinion as well as influence the public. The US press came down hard on the Christian fundamentalists to the point that Christian clergy 'toned down' the message. The state took action against those criminals. Now, you hear very little about pro-life radicals. Not only were legal criminal channels pursued, but the press led an anti-violence movement to affect the Christian fundamentalist church leadership.

This is not the case today. For some reason the US press does not condemn the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. Rather, they pander to their 'reasons' for violence (Didn't the pro-life radicals have good reason too?). The major news networks want you to believe that terrorism IS our fault. I don't remember the US beheading any Islamic fundamentalist prior to any of the many anti-American terrorist activities in the 70's, 80's and 90's. In fact, the US did NOTHING but tolerate the killings. After 9/11 (an event precipitated by a beheading?), the US has finally realized that the Islamic fundamentalists have declared war on the US and their allies.

Islam has not yet emerged from the middle ages. They are still fighting the crusades. The Arab people WERE such a splendid people. They were mathematicians, physicians, architects, poets, and lawyers. Since the spread of Islam, the Arab people have fallen into decline and have become what appears to be the scourge of the Earth.

Why doesn't the press attack the Islamic doctrine of intolerance? Why don't they go after the Islamic extremist clergy that demand blood? Perhaps the mainstream press have allied themselves with those that would muzzle their 1st amendment right?

Mississippi Burning

2004-06-21T20:32:00.000-07:00

I was channel surfing this evening and was horrified by some of the video being shown on one of the news networks. The network was airing selected captured Iraqi video depicting many of Saddam’s atrocities against his own people. There were varying scenes of whipping, hacking off of limbs (without showing the final blow), etc. I was overwhelmed at cruelty of it all. I was both fascinated and appalled. I turned the channel for obvious reasons. I settled on AMC that was broadcasting the movie, “Mississippi Burning”. The movie was about the FBI trying to locate three students that were abducted and found murdered by the KKK. The FBI had to deal with local law enforcement who were part of the Klan. The similarities between the news and the movie were astonishing. Why was it fashionable in the 80’s to show the bigotry and hatred of the ‘white man’? Isn’t this the same sort of spirit we see today with Saddam (as well as terrorists)? Why isn't the American news media in an uproar about Saddam as it was about American bigotry?

Countries that opposed the US war with Iraq have been found linked to diverting food from Iraq in the UN’s Food for Oil program (thus starving some Iraqis). The police corruption depicted in the movie and those countries (France, Germany, and Russia) involved in the UN scandal seemed all too analogous. Perhaps that is why this country gets little respect overseas. We are all too hypocritical in the application of our ethics. I saw this best illustrated in the movie “Hart’s War” where the American Army was outraged at the Nazi treatment of Jews when we in our own country treated blacks as ‘untermenchen’.

Creeds

2004-06-21T20:12:00.000-07:00

I am attending the confirmation class at my Episcopal Church. The class is intended to teach basic beliefs prior to joining the Episcopal Church. We were reviewing and discussing the Apostle’s Creed (and the Nicene Creed). Part of the creed states “born of the Virgin Mary”. One lady confessed that she did not understand the Immaculate Conception but believed it. Her conflict was due in part to the fact that she was a science teacher. I gathered that she was used to having scientific answers for everything and the virgin birth was hard to grasp. I empathized with her. Some of the ensuing discussion illustrated that perhaps not everyone in the Episcopal Church believed in the virgin birth.

This was troubling in that the Apostle’s and Nicene Creeds were created to define the most basic and fundamental Christian beliefs. When the church was young and growing, many alien beliefs were being introduced by various sects. It was necessary that the church at the time define what was meant to be a Christian. In fact, many present-day church leaders and theologians use these creeds to define what is a true Christian denomination and what is a cult. It is interesting to note that in the creeds, nothing is said about the Ten Commandments, attending church, homosexuality, etc. The basic beliefs are a belief in: God the Creator, Jesus Christ His Son, the Holy Spirit, virgin birth, suffering under Pontius Pilate (notice it is Rome not the Jews), crucifixion, death, burial, descent into hell, resurrection, judge the living and the dead, a universal church, communion of saints (believers), resurrection of the dead, and everlasting life. If we deny or decide not to believe in any one of the Creed’s points of profession, are we not falling back into the very problem the church faced in 325AD? If one chooses to redefine what is meant to be a Christian, then should they not decide to start or join a church with similar beliefs?

Propaganda

2004-06-19T06:37:00.000-07:00

After the shock of 9/11 wore off, America was angry. Many wanted to have someone to blame. Some say that President Bush wanted to blame Iraq so he went after Saddam. Some wanted to blame President Bush in that he could have prevented 9/11. Now that the 9/11 commission released its report, the press is reporting there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11. Which isn't surprising since most people never believed that nor did President Bush ever made that assertion. President Bush's opponents however did. Bush's opponents claimed that he created the following relationship Saddam->Al Qieda->9/11 when in fact it was their own paraphrasing that did so. In other words, they created a spin (formerly called lying) and now that their spin has been proven false, they allege that Bush lied.

I am frightened that the mainstream press (CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN) have abandoned their duty to report the truth and ally themselves with liars. They have yielded their own 1st amendment right that provides for a free press by enslaving themselves to powers that require propaganda to deceive the masses. Didn't Jesus say, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."? How can a nation remain 'free' when the press becomes the propaganda arm to one political party. Joseph Goebels would have been proud.

During the democrat primaries, the biggest issue with democrats was the economy. The mainstream press was reporting how jobs were being lost, etc. Now that the economy is thriving and the Bush administration's job growth numbers have now been proven to be too low, you don't hear about it. A CNN reporter asked why is it being kept secret" His interviewer said, 'Because you are not reporting it'.

The Collection Plate

2004-06-17T11:55:00.000-07:00

Suppose you are sitting in church and the priest tells you that it is your Christian duty to give the poor. The priest attempts to appeal to your Judeo-Christian beliefs that you should be compassionate. He provides a scriptural argument in hopes that you respond. He leaves it up to your own conscience to give. You weigh what is said and take action or perhaps you don't.

Suppose he demanded that you give? Suppose he made it a requirement to give or you would be excommunicated? How would you feel about him? The church? The poor?

What is our welfare system but a forced collection plate? One would think I am a very selfish and greedy man with this analogy. I am merely comparing the two. Most of those that want and even demand that our government have a welfare program (by taking from those that have) are those that are generally opposed to the separation of church and state. However, their own state welfare argument is a religious issue and a forced one at that.

Giving to those that are in need (or any other program that someone else deems important) should be done voluntarily, not through a government collection plate. Certainly we should give according to our own conscience, not according to someone else's.

Government welfare can only foster a perpetual poor that believes it their right to charity, an increased overhead to manage the government 'charity', a disdain for the poor instead of compassion, a blurring between the functions of the church and state, and momentum for those that think your possessions are theirs for what they think is morally right.

I am a giving person, but it is my right to give to those charities I feel need help, not to those that someone else thinks are important. After all, isn't it my money to do with what I please? Where is the blessing in forced charity?

Shooting Arrows

2004-06-16T06:35:00.000-07:00

I thought of the archer. The archer hones his skills by practicing at hitting the smallest target possible. His intent is to be able to put the arrow exactly where he aims it. In his regimen of practicing aim, if he can't hit the target, what should he do? Change the size of the target or keep practicing until he can be more consistent? If he makes the target too large, what does that say for his skill? If he makes the target too small, it may be impossible to ever hit it. It all depends on how good an archer he wants to be. Does he want to be able to hit the side of a barn or be able to kill a deer for food? Also, the archer uses a target that contains concentric rings of alternating contrast to gauge his misses.

As a spectator watching the archer, if he keeps missing the target, should we get upset at the archer for selecting a target too small or praise him for his perseverance? As a fellow archer, when he misses, do we try and help him or condemn him, because he is not as good as we are?

As a Christian, the target has been defined. We try and maintain a certain moral code. In doing so, we should understand that like the archer, that code is our target. We are frail yet wonderfully made.

Most will say, "Look! You failed! You are a hypocrite!" Are we really hypocrites or are we merely trying to hit the target? Some would suggest that we change the size of the target, but if we do that, we wouldn't be very good archers.

Homosexuality and the Church

2004-06-15T10:54:00.000-07:00

The Episcopal Church, my church, is in a great debate concerning accepting a homosexual bishop. Though many like to couch the argument as an anti-homosexual argument, it really isn't. What would the church do if a non-Christian priest was accepted as a bishop? A practicing murderer? A Muslim terrorist? A dog?

I am not equating any of these examples but only use them to illustrate the fact that in the case of the church, certain beliefs MUST be maintained. First and foremost is the Nicene Creed that enumerates the basic core Christian beliefs. Minimally that should be the standard for a Christian believer. The Nicene Creed says nothing about murder, yet we know using other Biblical sources as well as our innate morals that murder is wrong. What then about homosexuality or theft or whatever? Do we adjust our moral code to accommodate those that refuse to live by it? We accept thieves, adulterers, divorcees, liars, homosexuals, and even murderers as believers. We ALL sin, so we can not exclude any 'class' sin. The real question in this debate is who do we appoint as leaders? If you accept a practicing homosexual priest (or even bishop), then you MUST accept the practicing murderer priest, the habitually lying priest, the practicing adulterer priest, the child molesting priest. All these are known sins outlined in the Bible, except maybe child molestation (go figure).

We should not ostracize homosexuals. However, we should not exalt them either. Our leadership should reflect the standards described in the Bible. If not, then those that support such doctrine should adopt another standard and break their communion.

Introduction

2004-06-14T08:11:00.000-07:00

I was introduced to blogging by a friend, Lucas Land. I hope to use this sight as a means to write my thoughts concerning relationships, religion, politics, ethics, current affairs, etc. Comments are appreciated as long as they are thoughtful and respectful. I enjoy hearing people's views. Most of the time, opposing views help solidify my own. Sometimes the antagonist can offer an oversight or a different means to view an issue that cause me to reexamine my own.

So, here it goes.

Problem with Blaming President Bush for the Abu Rhaid prison abuses

2004-06-14T07:53:00.000-07:00

We should ensure that those in authority over us are held accountable for their actions (or inactions). In the case of Abu Rhaid, what does the data show? One must view the recent historical perspective. The alleged perpetrators were turned in by their peers. The Army took action. Several months after the internal investigation began, the story broke. Someone leaked pictures (evidence) to the press and since then, we have been bombarded by those scenes. (By the way, I do believe the pictures should have eventually been released, but not during the investigation since their release will adversely affect the process.) I try to be careful to use words like 'potential and alleged', since all have not been tried.

This being an election year, opponents of President Bush have used this story as a means of discrediting his presidency and ethics in executing a war. His opponents have alleged that it was President Bush's policy that precipitated this abuse, but their spin makes no sense if you apply simple logic.

One must first understand the military justice system. Each soldier is sworn to uphold a certain code of ethics called the United States Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). If a soldier fails to do so, he can be investigated, charged, tried, and found guilty of violating the UCMJ.

The soldiers in question were turned in to their command by their peers for alleged violations to that UCMJ. One can say then that those soldiers at that echelon knew that it was wrong to abuse Iraqi prisoners. Allegations like these are given to the Corps Judge Advocate General (JAG) for investigation. Once an investigation is complete, if sufficient evidence is found, charges are brought against the alleged soldier/s. All investigations are brought to the Corps, division, battalion, and company commanders'. At least at the Corps level, command pursued the investigation. Why? If they thought it was policy to abuse prisoners, they would have dropped the investigation. No, they KNEW it was against the UCMJ and thus against the law and code of the military. In fact, to indiscriminately fire those commanders at the Corps or above would be doing precisely the WRONG thing. You would be firing those that took proper action.

Those in the military that took action against those solders that are accused of Iraqi prisoner abuse in fact disprove the politically motivated allegations that President Bush advocated such behavior by the prison guards.