Public Service Announcement: Be Careful About What you Say in Public

I'm a pretty avid proponent of free speech; this blog is a testament to that. But people, use some common sense--just because you can say it, doesn't mean you should.

There were two interesting cases in the news today that stood out for me: a woman is being sued for libelous statements made on twitter against a former landlord, and a Boston police officer will probably lose his job after sending an email to entirely too many people containing racist comments about the Gates incident. Yikes!

This is a sobering reminder to be careful what you say, especially when its documented--be it on facebook, twitter, myspace, or even a blog. If you know something confidentially, don't post it on facebook. If you get into a fight with someone, don't slander him or her on twitter. And make ABSOLUTELY sure not to put anything on the internet that will interfere with your career. The government shouldn't censor people, but people should learn to censor themselves sometimes.

This actually brings me to my second point. I'm in the process of talks with a church about being their full time pastor. I'm really excited at the possibility to serve people in a full time, professional capacity, and I believe God will do amazing things. But I know that there will be certain sacrifices I must make, and one of those is keeping my political views "quiet." I can't stand it when pastors preach politics; it cheapens the pulpit, which should be reserved for proclaiming the message of scripture.

Sadly, that means I will have to stop posting my opinions here. I've enjoyed having a venue to express my frustrations with the American political system, but its time to hang up my hat. To my 2 loyal readers (I'm an internet sensation!), thank you for listening to me rant and I hope you've enjoyed it as much as I have.

Be smart and safe out there, everyone!

Palin quits her job!

Ok, this isn't exactly news anymore, but Sarah Palin is stepping down as governor of Alaska, moving out of the public eye. Most political commentators think this is a mistake, but I disagree. I think it was the best decision she's made in years.

Why, you might ask, do I think stepping down as governor when you've done nothing wrong (and yes, I think the ethics complaints against her are bogus) is a good idea? Its simple: Sarah Palin simply can't handle the media. She's been outraged at everyone since her run for vice president began: the news media, David Letterman, some local yahoo who photoshopped a conservative talk show host's face over Palin's child's face in a picture, and even the people behind the McCain presidential campaign. Eventually, she had to either 1) come to grips with the fact that some people were going to say unkind things about her, or 2) step out of the limelight. It looks like she chose option 2.

Alot of people have suggested that she's a quitter for stepping down when she did, but I disagree. Rather, I think she simply wanted the media circus which has repeatedly skewered her to end. And I think it was a good move: for her, for her family, and for the people of the state of Alaska (all 10 of them--I kid, I kid!).

So to Palin I say: good for you. No one can make you do something you hate, and you obviously hate being picked on by the media. To the media, I say: leave Palin alone. She's chosen to return to the life of a private citizen, and I think the media should respect that. At least, if I were in her shoes, I would hope that they would.

More "Outrage" from Sarah Palin

This is getting ridiculous. Getting upset over a joke at your kid's expense is one thing. Getting upset over a sophomoric photoshop gag worthy of the most childish of email jokes/chain letters is just plain absurd.

I don't know what else to say, except this: EVERYONE GROW UP AND STOP GETTING OFFENDED, DANG IT!!! Has anyone besides me ever heard the aphorism "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me?" My mother taught it to me when I was 5 years old!! If a child of 5 can comprehend the fact that being picked on is not the worst thing in the world, then I'd like to think the governor of the state of Alaska is also capable of such a thought.

One thing I'll say for George W. Bush. He may not have been a great president, but one thing I have to admit: the man was unflappable. No matter what was thrown at him (sometimes literally!), he just grinned and bore it. He never "called for an apology." He never "decried" anything. Heck, I don't think he knows what the word "decried" even means (I'm so sorry, that was my lame attempt at a joke)! But he took it all in stride, let people say or think whatever they wanted to, and continued to do his job--leading the free world, for weal or woe.

My advice for Palin? Its obvious you have ambitions for national politics. There's even been talk of you topping a presidential ticket. You're going to need to develop a thicker skin, though, or you won't make it past the primaries. In the big leagues, you need to learn to ignore the hecklers.

Sarah Palin: An Example of What's Wrong with America

Sarah Palin is relatively new to the spotlight, so maybe I should cut her some slack when she can't handle being picked on by the late night crowd. But then, she's the latest fussbucket in a long succession of politicos who are always offended.

And that's a problem.

See, people have the freedom to speak their minds in America (so long as such speech does not constitute a "clear and present danger"). You think Obama smells like cheese and oughta go soak his head? Go right ahead and say it. You think the Queen of England is an alien, and you'd like to see her sent back to Mars? You're certainly free to say as much. Go America, right?

But for, oh, the past 30 or 40 years, that right to say whatever you want, no matter how weird, stupid, wrongheaded, or just plain insane (so long as it doesn't constitute a threat on the lives of others) has been under attack. It used to be the "Liberals," with their insistance on politically correct speech. But more and more, speech has been limited by both sides of the aisle. And the criterion determining what is acceptable speech? "Feelings." How will what you have to say make people "feel?" Will you hurt someone's "feelings" by speaking your mind? Because if so, then you'd better keep your darn trap shut!

The real problem is this: I cannot hurt your feelings, and you cannot hurt my feelings. Our feelings are based on our own thoughts. So when Sarah Palin cried foul because she insisted Letterman's joke targetted her 14 year old daughter (even though the joke doesn't even make sense if understood that way), the fault wasn't Letterman's joke, it was Palin's mindset. Or, in the words of the old proverb, "people who are looking for a fight usually find one."

Now I'm not saying Letterman was completely innocent. He took a cheap shot at an easy target. And really, it isn't Sarah Palin's fault her 18 year old daughter went and got pregnant out of wedlock. Sarah Palin didn't make that decision, her daughter did. It's a low blow and pretty tasteless, and he was right to apologize.

But Sarah Palin needs to come to terms with the fact that this kinda crap is gonna happen to her from now on. She chose to go into national politics. She chose for her name to become a household word. That means being picked on by Letterman, Jimmy Kimmel, Conan O'Brian, and the rest of the late night crowd. It happened to Bush (both of them), it happened to Clinton, and it'll happen to Obama--just give him time to make a few good goof ups.

Anyhow, to come back to the topic, if I could tell everyone one thing, it would be this: chill out! If someone says something that offends you, just shrug it off. Does it really matter what others say or think about you? Let's get back to being a nation where people are able to say whatever stupid thing is on their minds without fear of being lynched. After all, they're only feelings-there are more important things to worry about, right?

North Korea needs a butt whoopin'

Yes, I was against the war in Iraq. I didn't think the situation there warranted military intervention, and I felt the cost of war (both financial and in terms of human lives) was simply unjustified when dealing with a malevolent, but well contained, crack-pot (aka Saddam Hussein).

But N. Korea is different. They tested 2 nuclear weapons so far (yeah, they didn't really work, but it was a start). They've been testing long range missiles. They've been outright belligerent. Now they're telling us that they're going to continue weaponizing plutonium, and they'll declare nuclear war on anyone who threatens them.

No one wants to be embroiled in yet another war. Especially me. But as Popeye might say, "I've had all I can stands, and I can't stands no more!" This regime can't be bargained with. They perceive everyone as a threat, and as far as they're concerned, the only way they'll be safe is if they have nuclear missiles pointed at everyone they've ever had a problem with. And that simply isn't acceptable.

I love how optimistic President Obama is, as a person. It is both refreshing and beneficial as we face the problems of our age. But there has to come a point where optimism ends and pragmatism begins. And continuing to try and "talk" with North Korea is simply no longer pragmatic.

Who are the bad guys again?

In the past week, I've been told (on separate occasions) that a liberal supreme court, the homosexual agenda, and the worldwide spread of Islam are "the bad guys." On other occasions, the "bad guys" have been terror sponsoring states (Iran, Syria, N. Korea, etc), the influx of Latin American "pseudo-Catholics," and pro-abortion activists.

Now I'm no political genius--I'm a pastor, not a politician (thank GOD!!!). But it seems to me that if these guys are our collective "enemies"--"us" being conservative, Protestant Christians--then there must be some major dissention in their ranks. The GLBT agenda is about as far from the "Terror state" agenda as you can get. A liberal supreme court is going to retard constitutional freedoms (speech, right to bear arms, etc), which isn't going to jive well with the Middle Eastern Islamic worldview of "everyone who isn't Muslim is an infidel and deserves a grisly death!" Latin American "pseudo-Catholics" (I qualify my calling them Catholics because most Latin American Catholics have beliefs that aren't compatible with proper, "papal" Catholicism) aren't exactly going to be in bed with the pro-abortion people.

Now I don't want to minimalize the differences we as conservative Christians have with these other groups. They're real, authentic, and should be taken seriously. But enough sensationalization guys! Our job is to preach the Word and make disciples, not to socially engineer global demographics. Whatever happens is God's will for the world; we just need to do our job, no matter what.

Free Speech, Censorship, and the FCC

Recently the Supreme Court upheld the FCC's right to fine television networks in violation of standards and practices, even if said violation is "fleeting" (meaning, it was said at a live event without a broadcast delay). The Courts only ruled on the FCC's authority to enact punishments, however; they did not address the "free speech" angle of the cases in question.

I'm generally against censorship. The very first amendment to the US Constitution grants us the right to free speech. Government shouldn't decide what I can and can't say. Sometimes, government has a hard enough time deciding what it should say itself. But I think it bears mention that Constitutional free speech isn't just a blanket that lets you say whatever the heck you want, without consequence.

Let's say, for instance, that I falsely shout "fire" in a crowded movie theater. In the resulting chaos, people will be hurt and property will be damaged. In this instance, my exercise of free speech has impeded on someone else's right to safety and property. Because of such a possibility, the Courts created the "clear and present danger" litmus test for whether speech is considered lawful or not.

Naturally, profanity, violence, and sexually explicit material on television has little to do with the "clear and present danger" argument (well, some ultra-right wingers probably think that showing a woman's breasts on television might cause riots). But that doesn't mean that free speech does mean you can do and say whatever you want.

I think the real issue is that most people don't understand the concept of free speech. When the constitution was written, they were concerned about protecting speech--as in "the communication of ideas." They weren't trying to protect your ability to use any particular word in public. If I choose to buy airtime on ABC and make commercials for the Communist party, I'm well within my constitutional rights (as is the station in airing such a commercial, even if it is in poor taste). I have the right to communicate my ideas. But that doesn't mean that I can drop a few "f bombs" in the commercial for impact. Why? Because I have a right to share my thoughts, but I *don't* have a right to force my crass language on you.

The same applies for sexually explicit material, violent material, drug references, etc. Simply put, network television is a "public" forum; it travels over publical airwaves and is freely available to anyone. If someone doesn't want this material in their homes, they shouldn't have to choose between putting up with it or just not having a television. And lets face it, bad words don't make bad tv shows good.

Why Politics and Faith Just Don't Mix

As you've probably figured out by now, I don't think terribly well of those who mix faith and politics. I don't care which political party you identify with, none of them are "Christian" in nature. Read my first post if you want to see why.

But even if there were a party that didn't compromise the message of Christ, where you could always vote that party and know you were voting for Christian values, politics would still be inherently secular. Here's why:

Back when this country was founded, shortly after it was determined that the Articles of Confederation had failed, the Constitution was written. The idea behind the whole system was people looking out for their own self-interests at the expense of others: the house of representatives favored the poor while the senate favored wealthy, the executive branch was originally designed to protect against a "tyranny of the masses," etc. The system has changed since then; senators are no longer elected by state legislatures but by the people, the president is more or less chosen by the people rather than state legislatures, and so on. But, the basic principle of balancing self-interests out remains; it is accomplished now via PACs, lobbyists, voter blocs, etc.

It goes without saying, but this system is fundamentally anti-Christian. As Christians, we are supposed to serve, not be served: "whoever wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all" (Mk. 9:35). Now granted, if our system were based on servant-leadership, it wouldn't work. You can pretty much guarantee the success of a system based on greed, and likewise, you can pretty much guarantee the failure of a system based on selflessness. But that doesn't change the fact that, as Christians, we are called to a higher standard than the world around us.

So how should you vote? I'm afraid I don't have a good answer for that. Vote your conscience. Pick the candidate whose position and values most closely match your own. Ultimately, this country is going to be run by selfish people looking out for themselves; its just how the system was designed.

But while I don't have a good answer for how to vote, I do have a terrific answer for how to handle the worldly nature of our country: "For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ" (Phil. 3:20). Christ will return, and when He does, we will finally see the ultimate system of justice, fairness, and peace, because our leaders will be replaced by the ultimate leader, Jesus Christ.

This is humiliating

I can't believe this poll. We as Christians are called to a higher standard of living, and torture is never acceptable for us. Ever.

God has lovingly and amazingly given us the right to be called His children (1 John 3:1), entrusting us with His Good News of Salvation. We were called to change the world, not to conform to it.

We ought to be ashamed.

How I can vote democrat and be anti-abortion

Ok, first things first. I am not "pro-life," and you aren't "pro-choice." There is nothing more insane to me than an argument where each side claims to be "pro" something, as if that gives them some sort of moral prerogative over the opposition. Actually, there is one thing that is more insane: being pro or con something other than what you're talking about. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who isn't for "life." Or "choice" for that matter. The sides in this argument are actually "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion." I'm anti-abortion.

The problem with abortion is that people on both sides of the aisle have very deep convictions on the subject. People like myself, who believe the fetus becomes a living person at some point in the womb, feel that it's murder. Others, who don't believe the fetus is a living person until it is born, feel that preventing abortion is basically forcing a woman to suffer a medical condition--pregnancy--for 9 long months. All for something that isn't even a living thing.

And so we come to the great American impasse. Pro-abortion people will never back down, ever, no matter what, and anti-abortion people will never back down, ever, no matter what.

***

Having just outlined the problem, here's where the politicians have turned the whole situation into a catastrophe. We, as Americans, live in a two-party system. You either vote Republican, vote Democrat, or "waste" your vote (because independents are rarely able to muster the funds needed to run a successful campaign).

Politicians are smart. They've latched onto the abortion issue, knowing that there is a significant group of people out there who will vote on a candidate based solely on his or her position regarding abortion. Lets pretend I make it onto the ballot as the republican senate candidate from my state. All I have to do is say that I am "pro-life" and I will get a guaranteed set of votes. The democrat running against me will say that he is "pro-choice" and he will get a guaranteed set of votes. Those voters are now a given; my opponent and I will spend the rest of our campaigns attempting to woo everyone else.

This is, in my opinion, tragic. If you base your vote solely on someone's position on abortion, you are marginalizing yourself. You have given your vote away, basically abdicating on all other issues. Going back to my example, I, as the republican candidate, could betray my Moral Majority voters (who are more or less guaranteed to vote for me) in all other areas--the budget, the economy, global politics, porkbarrell spending, etc--and they'd still vote for me because, the way the problem has been set up, they do not have a valid alternative.

The worst part is that, in most cases, the elections you vote in have little to nothing to do with the legality of abortion. Abortion was upheld as legal (or, more accurately, anti-abortion laws were held as unconstitutional) in the landmark 1973 case Roe v Wade, in a 7-2 decision. Given the current make up of the supreme court, including George W. Bush's replacement of two justices, Roe v Wade could be overturned today with a likely 5-4 decision. But, the supreme court has chosen not to hear a case that would call the controversial decision into question.

The problem, then, is that the only other way to outlaw abortion is by a constitutional amendment. To do this, the proposed amendment would need to pass by a 2/3rds majority in both houses of congress, and then would need to be ratified by the state legislatures of 3/4ths of the states. Talk about something that isn't gonna happen!!

So I don't even worry about abortion when I vote. It's a non-issue. Just isn't going to go away. I wish it would, but with the divide on the issue being what it is, a constitutional amendment isn't going to happen, and with our very conservative (and very young) chief justice refusing to hear a case that would overturn the original decision, I don't expect it on the docket any time soon.

Stop letting politicians take you for granted. Hold their feet to the fire, and if they don't perform, vote for the other guy, no matter how he feels about abortion.

Edit:
I realized after the fact that I might not have been clear about how I feel about abortion. I hate it. It is a social evil and a form of violence that has no place in our civilization. If it were up to me, I'd wave a magic wand and make the whole stinkin' mess go away.

I mean, if you're not married, you aren't supposed to be having sex at all, but if you do, there are 80 gazillion forms of birth control: IUDs, condoms, diaphragms, "the pill," morning after pills (which are a whole other story), injectable hormone treatments, etc. We can't be held responsible to use at least one of them when engaging in sexual activity? Its no wonder that STDs are spreading at such an alarming rate.

As an interesting ending note, Norma McCorvey ("Jane Roe" from the landmark Roe v Wade case) is actually anti-abortion. The basis of her case was that she was impregnated due to rape, and as such, had extenuating circumstances and deserved the right to choose whether or not to terminate the pregnancy. The following was taken from the Roe v Wade page on wikipedia:

It was my pseudonym, Jane Roe, which had been used to create the "right" to abortion out of legal thin air. But Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee never told me that what I was signing would allow women to come up to me 15, 20 years later and say, "Thank you for allowing me to have my five or six abortions. Without you, it wouldn't have been possible." Sarah never mentioned women using abortions as a form of birth control. We talked about truly desperate and needy women, not women already wearing maternity clothes.

Why gay marriages don't bother me as a Christian

I heard a sermon a very long time ago wherein the speaker turned my whole world upside down. He asked a question, and as far as I'm concerned, he could have just stopped talking right then and there, because he had us all by the jugular.

His question: "Why do we spend so much time trying to get sinners to stop sinning? Sinning is what sinners do. We ought to be trying to save them."

Wow. I don't know if the profundity of that reached anyone else in the room, but it hit me like a sack of bricks.

This is partially why I am so bothered by the "Christian Republican Agenda." Gay marriages have to be stopped! Pornography must be outlawed! Public profanity of any time should be purged! Stop sinning everyone!!!

I think the problem is that we forgot who our true enemies are. We aren't enemies with homosexuals, pornographers, or whatever. Our enemies are the "principalities and powers of the air." (Eph 6:12) Our spiritual enemies, the devil and his kin (yes, I believe there are such things as demons), don't care about getting people to sin--all they want to do is keep people from accepting Jesus as their savior. Everything else--the self-destructive living, the sins, etc--will come naturally.

We don't like being told to reach people with the gospel. That's hard work! It's much easier to give our sinners a shave and a new set of clothes--let's polish those turds!--than it is to change them from the inside out. And yet, this is the example our Lord set for us when He went and ministered to the dregs of his society.

Now I'm not saying people should be allowed to do whatever they want. There are some sins that victimize others, and these need to be outlawed. For instance, let's consider murder. Murder is a sin. But murder hurts others, and so our government has to do something about it. But there are also sins that that either victimize only ourselves or don't victimize anyone (like homosexuality, sexual promiscuity, drinking in excess, etc). Those sins may be distasteful, but so what? A sinner sins, it what make him or her a sinner! Don't get upset about their sinning, get busy reaching them with the gospel!

So gay marriages. Don't care. Let the sinners sin, its what they do. While everyone else is busy trying to keep them from getting married, I'm going to try and reach them with the good news of Jesus Christ. Nuts to politics.

Welcome to my blog!

Hi to everyone! Welcome to my blog; I hope you enjoy it as much as I do.

This blog is all about about cognitive dissonance. I am a Christian. And not just the Christmas/Easter type, I'm a real Christian, with real convictions and beliefs in moral absolutes. I am also an American citizen, born and raised here in the good ol' US of A, of voting age (29, actually). That means that I have an obligation to my country to vote.

This is where things get difficult. See, in the US we have a two-party system; in any given election, there are only going to be two viable candidates (anyone can run of course, but if you aren't in one of the political parties, you're gonna lose). The Republican party has done a fairly good job of convincing people that they were the "Christian" party since the 1980s, but with the recent landslide election for Barak Obama as president in 2008, which included many evangelical Christians, its clear that people are finally seeing past this facade.

See, the problem is that the Republican party isn't the "Christian" party. At least, its no more a Christian party than the Democratic party is. Here are some of the reasons the Republican party is not Christian:

• The majority of our deficit spending has been under Republican leaders. The Bible, however, tells us that the borrower (the US) is the slave of the lender (largely other nations, such as China and the UAE) (Prov. 22:7).
• The basic Republican fiscal policy is to give upper class citizens tax breaks, with the idea that this will prompt them to spend more, making everyone wealthier. This is a far cry from the Biblical concept of finances, which teaches that we ought give our "first fruits" (10% of our income) to the church, set aside 10% of our income in "the store houses" (aka a savings account), provide for our families, and use the rest to give alms (aka helping the poor).
• Under the Bush/Cheney administration, we engaged in two wars, one of which was unprovoked (Iraq). During this war, we tortured our prisoners of war, including the barbaric process of simulating drowning sensations called "waterboarding." Several prisoners were subjected to waterboarding over 200 times. Our Savior, Jesus, handled His enemies a little differently: "For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many." (Mark 10:45)

So I guess I must be a Democrat, huh? Think again:

• Abortion is absolutely incompatible with Christianity. Many don't realize this, but abortions date back to ancient times. Didache, a church patriarch in 150 AD, declared "do not murder a child by abortion or kill a new-born infant."
• Homosexuality is a sinful lifestyle, directly forbidden by Lev. 18:22. This said, we as Christians are taught to not just tolerate others, but love them--even those living in sin. Gay bashing or harming homosexuals in anyway is absolutely wrong. But we as Christians still declare the immorality of homosexual behavior, along with everything that goes along with it (homosexual marriages, homosexual couples adopting, etc).
• More liberal leaning Democrats tend to want to repress all public Christian speech, especially that which condemns immorality. We as citizens of this nation have an obligation to stand up for our right to freely practice our faith and freely speak.

So there's my dilemma. I'm a Christian, and I'm an informed citizen who is eligible to vote. Which do I pick? Which is the lesser of the evils? Because I'll tell you right now, there is no such thing as a "Christian political party."