It has been seven years since that very sad and difficult day. Over the years I have thought about it a great deal and I do think that there are some lessons we need to learn.
The first lesson is a lesson of culture. We were attacked by a culture that we did not have any understanding of. When Timothy McVeigh did the Oklahoma City bombing, he lit a fuse and ran away. While do we not understand his act of violence and cold-bloodedness, we do comprehend how he did it. There were hints of violence using an airplane flying into a building. Those hints did not register. Most of his would never even imagine such a thing happening, let alone doing such a thing. The problem is that we didn’t quite understand the culture. I don’t know if we do now, but we will never have any success in fighting terrorism until we begin to understand the culture from whence terrorists come.
During World War II there was a similar difficulty in fighting the war with Japan. We did understand much of the German culture, but the Japanese culture was a complete mystery to us. We suffered greatly for it. Conversely, the Japanese did not understand American culture and attacked Pearl Harbor with little awareness of what the consequences would be for them. The failure to understand other cultures is dangerous.
The second lesson is our shameful partisanship. There was ample intelligence handed over to the Bush Administration from the Clinton Administration about Osama Bin Laden. It was ignored. To be quite fair, if it had been handed over to the Clinton Administration from the first Bush Administration, it would have been ignored. The levels of division are so deep between our two political parties that there has grown to be an intense dislike and lack of trust. Talk Radio, Talk TV, agenda specific media of all sorts has helped cultivate this division. It has grown and continues to grow. Shame on us. It was part of the problem and remains part of the problem. This war on terror is an American issue, not a Democrat or Republican issue.
The upcoming Presidential Campaign is becoming increasingly partisan and increasingly stupid. The fighting, right now, is mostly over nonsense. This is a horribly dangerous thing for us as a nation at the moment. We cannot allow this to continue or we will continue to struggle and be vulnerable to attack and it will be our own fault.
The third lesson is a failure of imagination. NASA officials, when Apollo I blew up said that they had a weakness. It was a failure of imagination. They hadn’t thought through and imagined all the potential problems. Years later, the 0 Rings was a similar instance. We live in a very concrete, cut and dry society. We long for easy answers to complex questions and often view the world in black and white.
The party is over. We no longer have this luxury. The world around us is smaller and deadlier than it has ever been. Our greatest threats no longer come from nations, but they come from rogue groups. If we fail to have imagination, we will continue to be woefully vulnerable to attack. Sadly, what happened seven years ago may be small in comparison.
The fourth lesson is the danger of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is a strict and literal maintenance of religious ideas and can also be applied to political beliefs. While they held opposite views and were both atheists, both Ayn Rand and Karl Marx were fundamentalists. There was little gray in their worlds. Everything was absolutely clear.
In religion it’s very much the same. Fundamentalism often rejects science and history to hold on to whatever it wants to hold on to. Christian fundamentalism has little resemblance to historic Christianity. Islamic fundamentalism has little resemblance to historic Islam. Etc. As we live in a world in which fundamentalism of all sorts of being embraced, we live in an increasingly dangerous world. Ayn Rand and Karl Marx could never, ever, come to a consensus on anything because they were both right about everything. This is a lethal danger to the world.
That day, seven years ago was a tragic day. Perhaps even more tragically has been our national failure to have learned from the events of that day.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Monday, September 08, 2008
Ah, NFL, Week I
NFL football is back. And none too soon.
There are two games tonight. I may have to add to this, but I don’t think tonight is going to be a ‘game changer.’
First off, the Giants won. Their offense came out looking great, but the more lead they built the more conservative they became. The Redskins have a great defense and I think that the Giants were overly cautious.
On defense it is difficult to tell how good the Giants are and how bad, offensively, the Redskins are. The Giants defense pretty much stopped them cold----helped by miserable play calling and game management by the Redskins’ staff.
A win, however, is a win.
The Bengals are a bad football team. They are highly undisciplined, bad defense, and not a very good offense. It makes me wonder if Marvin Lewis, who is a great defensive coordinator, has a clue on being the Head Coach.
The AFC East is a different world with no Tom Brady at the helm for the Patriots. I do believe that they need to sign someone better than what they have. They barely beat the Chiefs and the Chiefs are not, at least as of now, a powerhouse. This leaves it open to the Bills who had a fantastic game on Sunday and the Jets who suddenly look like geniuses in signing Brett Favre. (We will see how smart the Packers were...)
Pittsburgh was, wow. Awesome.
The Cowboys played a great game against the Browns. Hard to tell if the Browns’ defense is that bad or the Cowboy’s offense is that good.
The Bears played a great game against the Colts. Manning was rusty. They also lacked blocking and their defense made Kyle Orton look All-Pro. The Bears embarrassed the Colts in the Colts first game in their new home. What an ugly game. Ugh.
Two other big surprises. Atlanta looked really good against a Lions’ team that people said was going to challenge for a playoff shot this year. It didn’t look that way. And the Panthers defeated the Chargers. Wow.
Great week of football!!!
There are two games tonight. I may have to add to this, but I don’t think tonight is going to be a ‘game changer.’
First off, the Giants won. Their offense came out looking great, but the more lead they built the more conservative they became. The Redskins have a great defense and I think that the Giants were overly cautious.
On defense it is difficult to tell how good the Giants are and how bad, offensively, the Redskins are. The Giants defense pretty much stopped them cold----helped by miserable play calling and game management by the Redskins’ staff.
A win, however, is a win.
The Bengals are a bad football team. They are highly undisciplined, bad defense, and not a very good offense. It makes me wonder if Marvin Lewis, who is a great defensive coordinator, has a clue on being the Head Coach.
The AFC East is a different world with no Tom Brady at the helm for the Patriots. I do believe that they need to sign someone better than what they have. They barely beat the Chiefs and the Chiefs are not, at least as of now, a powerhouse. This leaves it open to the Bills who had a fantastic game on Sunday and the Jets who suddenly look like geniuses in signing Brett Favre. (We will see how smart the Packers were...)
Pittsburgh was, wow. Awesome.
The Cowboys played a great game against the Browns. Hard to tell if the Browns’ defense is that bad or the Cowboy’s offense is that good.
The Bears played a great game against the Colts. Manning was rusty. They also lacked blocking and their defense made Kyle Orton look All-Pro. The Bears embarrassed the Colts in the Colts first game in their new home. What an ugly game. Ugh.
Two other big surprises. Atlanta looked really good against a Lions’ team that people said was going to challenge for a playoff shot this year. It didn’t look that way. And the Panthers defeated the Chargers. Wow.
Great week of football!!!
Monday, September 01, 2008
Is Religious Faith Reasonable? Part I
Is religious faith reasonable? By reasonable I’m not saying that it’s low priced or even just acceptable. I’m using the word in an older definition of this. Can religious faith and reason dance together?
I think that this is a valid question because, increasingly, people are questioning whether there are any valid, rational reasons to have faith in God. Sadly, this is often a response to the increasing irrationality of much of modern day Christianity. This irrationality comes from a lot of places and each place is unique unto itself. My humble plan is to look at each group’s contribution to this.
I’m going to start with the church of my roots, the Roman Catholic Church.
A year ago or so the Pope summoned Bishops to Rome to have a ‘serious’ discussion on Holy Communion within the Roman Catholic Church. As Holy Communion, the Eucharist, is pretty central to Roman Catholic theology, this was a major event. For many people it was a sign of hope that perhaps the Roman Catholic Church was going to finally address some serious issues within their theological realm. And there were/are some serious issues.
The Eucharist is central to Roman Catholicism. The centrality of the Mass, the coming together of the people, and the literal re-enacting the sacrifice of Jesus Christ is central to Roman Catholicism. Increasingly more churches are having to do without Sunday Morning Mass because there is a critical shortage of priests. Furthermore, this is an aging profession. In 1999, the last year they did a study, the average age of Roman Catholic priests in the United States was 60. No one doubts that it is higher; probably much higher than that. Priests are spread too thinly now and this promises to only get worse.
As a result, many churches share a priest with other churches----and these are often large congregations----and there simply are not enough of these men to cover all that needs to be done.
There is a two-fold problem in attracting priests. The rule of celibacy and the ordination of women. The problem, at least from a seemingly rational perspective, is that they have an easily solved problem if they ended the discipline of celibacy and ordained women.
The discipline of celibacy is just that. A discipline. Celibacy is not a central doctrine of Christianity.
Celibacy dates back to the early part of the second millennium of church history, which is to say that the first 10 centuries this was not a central issue, although it was debated. The debate was two-fold. The first was sexual and the second was structural. They did not understand human sexuality, saw it as debasing behavior, and somehow unholy. Additionally, the rules of property ownership and the Church was in play and inheritance of one’s children became an issue. The response was to have a discipline of celibacy.
Celibacy is NOT a doctrine----it is a discipline, something one does to increase one’s holiness. Praying each day or reading the Bible each day, or not eating meat on Friday, or fasting, are all disciplines. A discipline, by design, ought to be one’s choice. The Roman Catholic Church, made this a mandated discipline.
The problem is that by maintaining celibacy the Roman Catholic Church has demonstrated that a discipline trumps a doctrine.
The meeting in Rome, many hoped, would address this.
The ordination of women should also have been on the table. Churches that do not want to ordain women use St. Paul to ‘validate’ their opinion. Paul’s words come from a particular context and the argument that women shouldn’t be ordained is as thin as rice paper. This is more a case of using Scripture to back an opinion rather than to discover the truth underlying it.
Within Roman Catholicism, there is a belief that the priest is the ‘persona Christi’ the literal ‘person of Christ’ at the time of consecration. The presumption, I guess, is that it requires a penis in order to transcend one’s self. Who’d have thunk it?
Actually, I have a difficult time even debating the ordination of women. The arguments in opposition are usually too shallow to even remotely approaching a reasonable discussion.
Again, they had this meeting in Rome.
There were other issues as well.
With the rising divorce rate many Roman Catholics had chosen to remarry and either couldn’t attain or couldn’t afford an annulment. When they remarried, they cut themselves off from the table. Many simply left the Roman Catholic Church, many joined Protestant churches, and many just gave up on religion (and God) all together.
Again, they had this meeting in Rome.
And....
The meeting in Rome discussed the serious issues of:
How to teach people to hold their hands property when receiving Holy Communion.
The increasing problem of people sitting while other people in the church were receiving Holy Communion.
Along with this, assorted quirks of individual priests during the Mass.
Is religious faith reasonable or ludicrous. Unfortunately, by these examples, there is a great argument for the latter.
I think that this is a valid question because, increasingly, people are questioning whether there are any valid, rational reasons to have faith in God. Sadly, this is often a response to the increasing irrationality of much of modern day Christianity. This irrationality comes from a lot of places and each place is unique unto itself. My humble plan is to look at each group’s contribution to this.
I’m going to start with the church of my roots, the Roman Catholic Church.
A year ago or so the Pope summoned Bishops to Rome to have a ‘serious’ discussion on Holy Communion within the Roman Catholic Church. As Holy Communion, the Eucharist, is pretty central to Roman Catholic theology, this was a major event. For many people it was a sign of hope that perhaps the Roman Catholic Church was going to finally address some serious issues within their theological realm. And there were/are some serious issues.
The Eucharist is central to Roman Catholicism. The centrality of the Mass, the coming together of the people, and the literal re-enacting the sacrifice of Jesus Christ is central to Roman Catholicism. Increasingly more churches are having to do without Sunday Morning Mass because there is a critical shortage of priests. Furthermore, this is an aging profession. In 1999, the last year they did a study, the average age of Roman Catholic priests in the United States was 60. No one doubts that it is higher; probably much higher than that. Priests are spread too thinly now and this promises to only get worse.
As a result, many churches share a priest with other churches----and these are often large congregations----and there simply are not enough of these men to cover all that needs to be done.
There is a two-fold problem in attracting priests. The rule of celibacy and the ordination of women. The problem, at least from a seemingly rational perspective, is that they have an easily solved problem if they ended the discipline of celibacy and ordained women.
The discipline of celibacy is just that. A discipline. Celibacy is not a central doctrine of Christianity.
Celibacy dates back to the early part of the second millennium of church history, which is to say that the first 10 centuries this was not a central issue, although it was debated. The debate was two-fold. The first was sexual and the second was structural. They did not understand human sexuality, saw it as debasing behavior, and somehow unholy. Additionally, the rules of property ownership and the Church was in play and inheritance of one’s children became an issue. The response was to have a discipline of celibacy.
Celibacy is NOT a doctrine----it is a discipline, something one does to increase one’s holiness. Praying each day or reading the Bible each day, or not eating meat on Friday, or fasting, are all disciplines. A discipline, by design, ought to be one’s choice. The Roman Catholic Church, made this a mandated discipline.
The problem is that by maintaining celibacy the Roman Catholic Church has demonstrated that a discipline trumps a doctrine.
The meeting in Rome, many hoped, would address this.
The ordination of women should also have been on the table. Churches that do not want to ordain women use St. Paul to ‘validate’ their opinion. Paul’s words come from a particular context and the argument that women shouldn’t be ordained is as thin as rice paper. This is more a case of using Scripture to back an opinion rather than to discover the truth underlying it.
Within Roman Catholicism, there is a belief that the priest is the ‘persona Christi’ the literal ‘person of Christ’ at the time of consecration. The presumption, I guess, is that it requires a penis in order to transcend one’s self. Who’d have thunk it?
Actually, I have a difficult time even debating the ordination of women. The arguments in opposition are usually too shallow to even remotely approaching a reasonable discussion.
Again, they had this meeting in Rome.
There were other issues as well.
With the rising divorce rate many Roman Catholics had chosen to remarry and either couldn’t attain or couldn’t afford an annulment. When they remarried, they cut themselves off from the table. Many simply left the Roman Catholic Church, many joined Protestant churches, and many just gave up on religion (and God) all together.
Again, they had this meeting in Rome.
And....
The meeting in Rome discussed the serious issues of:
How to teach people to hold their hands property when receiving Holy Communion.
The increasing problem of people sitting while other people in the church were receiving Holy Communion.
Along with this, assorted quirks of individual priests during the Mass.
Is religious faith reasonable or ludicrous. Unfortunately, by these examples, there is a great argument for the latter.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Interesting Article
This is an interesting article:
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=mccains_sexist_vp_pick
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=mccains_sexist_vp_pick
Sarah Palin
Sarah Palin is an interesting, audacious choice, by John McCain. I strongly suspect that before yesterday, most people did not know who Governor Sarah Palin was.
Why her?
John McCain recognized that he is running against an historic opponent. Running against history is a difficult proposition, to be sure. Ask those who ran against Hillary and Obama. McCain, by choosing Sarah Palin, made his ticket historic. No matter who wins, this will be a first. He now brings this to the table.
This also gives John McCain a crack at the PUMA voters. Many of those who voted for Hillary Clinton, who loved Hillary Clinton, who voted for HER, will NOT vote for Obama. McCain is trying to make his candidacy more attractive and his hope is that they will vote for him instead of staying home or choosing a third party candidate.
Bigger than this, and seemingly lost on the press, is that Sarah Palin puts cultural conservatism back on the table. This is a very clear attempt to place someone on the ballot who can motive the Religious Right to come out and vote for him. Frankly, they have had great success running against gay marriage and abortion, and she helps them with this. McCain had no real issue to run on before Sarah Palin’s choice. The Bush legacy, something that the Obama campaign is going to tie to him, is not something that McCain wants to run on.
Governor Palin, for her part, seems to be an intelligent, very capable woman. Her speech in Dayton was fine. She showed great poise and was younger, more energetic voice than McCain.
She does bring down sides to this, however.
First, Sarah Palin is not Hillary Clinton and many women are going to be enraged by this as being perceived as being shallow and stupid. I have heard many women express disgust at this because they are seen as supporting Hillary because of gender as opposed to agenda. Her gender and her agenda made her an incredibly attractive candidate. Palin only brings gender to the table. Her agenda and Hillary’s agenda are pretty much mirror opposites.
Secondly, she is from Alaska and is very reflective of that state. She grew up there and is very acculturated to Alaskan culture which is not exactly the same as the mainland. Her husband is a commercial fishermen, they are both avid hunters, and her favorite meat is moose meat. They are part of a very unique culture filled with great people and great charm. It is also a different world and she might experience some major culture shock. The photograph of her in her office, dead bear and king crab is very much her, and very unique to that region. Alaska has a smaller population than the Louisville Metro area. It will be interesting to see how she plays in the rest of the country. She will be a novel candidate----but is novelty enough?
Then there is the ‘she doesn’t believe that global warming is being impacted by humans.’ Duh. Just great. We need another leader who doesn’t believe in science.
The question is going to be if Sarah Palin is a good choice. I would be very, very cautious if I were the Obama campaign to not underestimate this person and this ticket. Sarah Palin is a smart woman, very personable and poised, and brings cultural conservativism back on the table in a big way. People are asking if she’s the ‘next Dan Quayle.’ Dan Quayle won.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
The Issue of Values
I remember the last time we had a Presidential election I was asked about voting for values. I do not think, four years ago, that I entirely grasped what this was all about.
The issue of voting for values seemed to boil down that people ought to vote for the person who inspired the best values. The two major values that were 'key' were abortion and gay marriage. My slowness at this was based on the premise that I thought that there were other values as well.
I guess that these two issues are not what motivate me a great deal. For one, many of the people who are adamantly anti-abortion and pretend that they are pro-life. Pretend. Strong word. If they are pro-capital punishment I don't want to hear about their 'pro-life' stand. It's insulting to anyone who is serious about ethics. What I also found ironic was that many of these people were also 'pro-torture.' I will respect that they are anti-abortion and that's fine. To say that they are pro-life, however. Please.
Secondly, the more I deliberate on the issue of gay marriage the more I keep coming to the realization that this is more and more a civil rights issue. I read arguments concerning inter-racial marriage written years ago and the arguments were chillingly similar. Race and sexual orientation are not life styles and not choices. I think that churches have actually been on the wrong side of this debate.
There are values that I do hold dear.
First, is the issue of poverty. The poverty rate in this country is growing exponentially. Instead of waging a war on poverty, we seem to be waging a war on the impoverished. This needs to be reversed.
Secondly, is health care. I read of a young boy who died from an abscessed tooth. He had a tooth-ache and no insurance and no money, so no dental care took place. An infection set in and since they had no insurance they avoided doctor. The boy ultimately die. In the United States of America. When such things happen and we don't fundamentally make changes, I have no idea where are values are.
Thirdly, there is the issue of justice. One of the greatest things the United States has given the world is our way of doing justice. A jury of one's peers. A right to face one's accuser. A need to be clearly charged. A right to counsel. As much as we often make folly of the legal profession, many of these hard-working professionals are helping to maintain a sense of justice for all that so many people have died for. The fact that we are holding people, off our shores so that we do not have to follow our own rules, is appalling.
Funny thing about values. The priorities often end up being what ever we choose them to be as opposed to what we are told that they are.
The issue of voting for values seemed to boil down that people ought to vote for the person who inspired the best values. The two major values that were 'key' were abortion and gay marriage. My slowness at this was based on the premise that I thought that there were other values as well.
I guess that these two issues are not what motivate me a great deal. For one, many of the people who are adamantly anti-abortion and pretend that they are pro-life. Pretend. Strong word. If they are pro-capital punishment I don't want to hear about their 'pro-life' stand. It's insulting to anyone who is serious about ethics. What I also found ironic was that many of these people were also 'pro-torture.' I will respect that they are anti-abortion and that's fine. To say that they are pro-life, however. Please.
Secondly, the more I deliberate on the issue of gay marriage the more I keep coming to the realization that this is more and more a civil rights issue. I read arguments concerning inter-racial marriage written years ago and the arguments were chillingly similar. Race and sexual orientation are not life styles and not choices. I think that churches have actually been on the wrong side of this debate.
There are values that I do hold dear.
First, is the issue of poverty. The poverty rate in this country is growing exponentially. Instead of waging a war on poverty, we seem to be waging a war on the impoverished. This needs to be reversed.
Secondly, is health care. I read of a young boy who died from an abscessed tooth. He had a tooth-ache and no insurance and no money, so no dental care took place. An infection set in and since they had no insurance they avoided doctor. The boy ultimately die. In the United States of America. When such things happen and we don't fundamentally make changes, I have no idea where are values are.
Thirdly, there is the issue of justice. One of the greatest things the United States has given the world is our way of doing justice. A jury of one's peers. A right to face one's accuser. A need to be clearly charged. A right to counsel. As much as we often make folly of the legal profession, many of these hard-working professionals are helping to maintain a sense of justice for all that so many people have died for. The fact that we are holding people, off our shores so that we do not have to follow our own rules, is appalling.
Funny thing about values. The priorities often end up being what ever we choose them to be as opposed to what we are told that they are.
Friday, August 15, 2008
A Little More to the Last Post
I was thinking some more about this.
There are two things that I find particularly revolting.
Rush Limbaugh found Michael J. Fox's illness to be hilarious. He's finding it greatly entertaining that Elizabeth Edwards has a terminal illness. Actually, both of these people do. Both Michael J. Fox and Elizabeth Edwards confront their illness each and every day.
There is nothing funny about a terminal illness. These are people who blow out birthday cake candles and wonder if this is their last birthday. At Thanksgiving they wonder if this is the last turkey they share with their families. At Christmas they wonder if this is their last Christmas. They live lives with a very direct confrontation of their own morality. Each day may be a turning point for the worst. What is more, they know it is going to happen, sooner rather than later.
Over the I have dealt with a lot of people dealing with terminal illness. They are some of the most remarkable people I have ever met. THEY occasionally find humor in their lives and can have really good laughs. They are remarkable because they appreciate each day, so much, that they live lives with greater enthusiasm then most. They make decisions, and life choices based on their circumstances; circumstances never far from their immediate thoughts.
When this sorry excuse for a human being mocks them, he mocks the sacred, he mocks anything and everything that is good about humanity. He finds folly in the midst of their suffering, their pain, their very lives. How incredibly pathetic is this?
Here's the second thing I find revolting. He still has people who listen to him every day and admire him. I cannot imagine how.
There are two things that I find particularly revolting.
Rush Limbaugh found Michael J. Fox's illness to be hilarious. He's finding it greatly entertaining that Elizabeth Edwards has a terminal illness. Actually, both of these people do. Both Michael J. Fox and Elizabeth Edwards confront their illness each and every day.
There is nothing funny about a terminal illness. These are people who blow out birthday cake candles and wonder if this is their last birthday. At Thanksgiving they wonder if this is the last turkey they share with their families. At Christmas they wonder if this is their last Christmas. They live lives with a very direct confrontation of their own morality. Each day may be a turning point for the worst. What is more, they know it is going to happen, sooner rather than later.
Over the I have dealt with a lot of people dealing with terminal illness. They are some of the most remarkable people I have ever met. THEY occasionally find humor in their lives and can have really good laughs. They are remarkable because they appreciate each day, so much, that they live lives with greater enthusiasm then most. They make decisions, and life choices based on their circumstances; circumstances never far from their immediate thoughts.
When this sorry excuse for a human being mocks them, he mocks the sacred, he mocks anything and everything that is good about humanity. He finds folly in the midst of their suffering, their pain, their very lives. How incredibly pathetic is this?
Here's the second thing I find revolting. He still has people who listen to him every day and admire him. I cannot imagine how.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Talk Radio’s Offshore Driller
I live in constant amazement of Rush Limbaugh. I have often seen Limbaugh as the quintessential bottom-dweller, the person who delights in uniting people by their lowest common denominators. Instead of being just a bottom dweller he has now taken on to being an offshore driller. When sinking to the bottom is not low enough, one must drill to go down deeper. Rush wins. No one has sunk deeper.
It all begins with John Edwards.
I was a fan of John Edwards. I thought that he would have been a far better Presidential Candidate than John Kerry who I never really liked. Edwards was my early choice for the Democratic nomination. I thought that he offered compelling insights into the American economy. My wife, however, believed he was as genuine as a three-dollar bill----and she proved to be very correct.
The story of his affair is a sleazy story. His interview was quite bad. His wife had cancer but he said that when he had the affair she was in remission. Oh, goody. That makes it all better. I have strong doubts that it ended when he said that it ended and I have strong doubts that he is not the father of the child in question. Telling a little truth sometimes is used to deceive people into believing you are totally honest. Edwards was and is not being totally honest. There is nothing good to be said. Edwards decided to sink to the bottom.
The problem is, Rush Limbaugh doesn’t want anyone to beat him. When John Edwards proved to be a bottom dweller, Limbaugh had to figure a way to go even lower than Edwards. Alas, the problem with John Edwards was, and a mighty drum roll ought to take place, Elizabeth Edwards. She is the problem, says Rush, because she keeps talking and doesn’t know when to keep quiet.
Elizabeth Edwards, Rush Limbaugh proclaimed, is said to be smarter than John Edwards and it was she who pushed him into staying in the race, etc., etc., etc. Mrs. Edwards, in the words of Rush Limbaugh, just didn’t know when to shut up. And poor John Edwards had to go out and find a woman who would use her mouth for something other than speaking. Yes. He said this on the radio. Oh, he laughed, thus making it funny and not offensive. Right.
Most people have given Elizabeth Edwards a great deal of sympathy. She has terminal cancer and confronts her mortality each day. To add to this her husband had an affair that has been splashed all over the media and she has endured great humiliation as a result of this. All of this and her fool husband seems to lean toward justifying this by saying, ‘she was in remission.’ Ugh. It is, frankly, difficult to not give some sympathy toward Elizabeth Edwards.
But, not Rush. He went right in there and decided to insult her. He went right in there and essentially blamed John Edwards’ affair on Elizabeth’s intelligence and her talking. It’s her fault.
Rush Limbaugh, marriage expert.
It is funny how Rush Limbaugh assaulted the Clintons, especially Hillary, following Bill’s affair(s). The Clintons have remained married for a long time. They have never been married to anyone else.
The Edwards are under assault. They have been married for a long time and they have never been married to anyone else.
Ever hear of Roxy Maxine McNeely? She was married to Rush Limbaugh from 1977-1980 when they divorced.
Ever hear of Michelle Sixta? She was married to Limbaugh from 1983-1990.
In 1994 Justice Clarence Thomas officiated at the wedding of Rush and Marta Fitzgerald who parted company in 2004.
Alas, Rush Limbaugh loves to do commentary on the marriages of others as if he were an expert. His track record indicates otherwise.
We are a culture in need of dialogue. Right and left need to work together to solve problems. This is true in politics and religion. There is an ideological divide in this country that is dreadful and damaging for everyone in the long term. I find myself always struggling with the likes of Rush Limbaugh because he, like so many others, both right and left, fan the flames of hostility and work diligently to prevent civil discourse and exchange.
But this is not political. There is something called human decency. Sadly, this off shore driller has none.
It all begins with John Edwards.
I was a fan of John Edwards. I thought that he would have been a far better Presidential Candidate than John Kerry who I never really liked. Edwards was my early choice for the Democratic nomination. I thought that he offered compelling insights into the American economy. My wife, however, believed he was as genuine as a three-dollar bill----and she proved to be very correct.
The story of his affair is a sleazy story. His interview was quite bad. His wife had cancer but he said that when he had the affair she was in remission. Oh, goody. That makes it all better. I have strong doubts that it ended when he said that it ended and I have strong doubts that he is not the father of the child in question. Telling a little truth sometimes is used to deceive people into believing you are totally honest. Edwards was and is not being totally honest. There is nothing good to be said. Edwards decided to sink to the bottom.
The problem is, Rush Limbaugh doesn’t want anyone to beat him. When John Edwards proved to be a bottom dweller, Limbaugh had to figure a way to go even lower than Edwards. Alas, the problem with John Edwards was, and a mighty drum roll ought to take place, Elizabeth Edwards. She is the problem, says Rush, because she keeps talking and doesn’t know when to keep quiet.
Elizabeth Edwards, Rush Limbaugh proclaimed, is said to be smarter than John Edwards and it was she who pushed him into staying in the race, etc., etc., etc. Mrs. Edwards, in the words of Rush Limbaugh, just didn’t know when to shut up. And poor John Edwards had to go out and find a woman who would use her mouth for something other than speaking. Yes. He said this on the radio. Oh, he laughed, thus making it funny and not offensive. Right.
Most people have given Elizabeth Edwards a great deal of sympathy. She has terminal cancer and confronts her mortality each day. To add to this her husband had an affair that has been splashed all over the media and she has endured great humiliation as a result of this. All of this and her fool husband seems to lean toward justifying this by saying, ‘she was in remission.’ Ugh. It is, frankly, difficult to not give some sympathy toward Elizabeth Edwards.
But, not Rush. He went right in there and decided to insult her. He went right in there and essentially blamed John Edwards’ affair on Elizabeth’s intelligence and her talking. It’s her fault.
Rush Limbaugh, marriage expert.
It is funny how Rush Limbaugh assaulted the Clintons, especially Hillary, following Bill’s affair(s). The Clintons have remained married for a long time. They have never been married to anyone else.
The Edwards are under assault. They have been married for a long time and they have never been married to anyone else.
Ever hear of Roxy Maxine McNeely? She was married to Rush Limbaugh from 1977-1980 when they divorced.
Ever hear of Michelle Sixta? She was married to Limbaugh from 1983-1990.
In 1994 Justice Clarence Thomas officiated at the wedding of Rush and Marta Fitzgerald who parted company in 2004.
Alas, Rush Limbaugh loves to do commentary on the marriages of others as if he were an expert. His track record indicates otherwise.
We are a culture in need of dialogue. Right and left need to work together to solve problems. This is true in politics and religion. There is an ideological divide in this country that is dreadful and damaging for everyone in the long term. I find myself always struggling with the likes of Rush Limbaugh because he, like so many others, both right and left, fan the flames of hostility and work diligently to prevent civil discourse and exchange.
But this is not political. There is something called human decency. Sadly, this off shore driller has none.
Saturday, August 02, 2008
Let's Sit These Olympics Out...
I do not believe that the United States ought to participate in the Olympics this year. I suspect that most of the world will disagree with me about this, but I really believe we ought not, in good conscience, be a part of this venture.
For one, I don’t believe that the Olympics have much value any longer. Sure. There are wonderful athletes from around the world who are competing against one another. Sure, there are some heart warming stories of the accomplishments of some young (or somewhat old) amateurs who are competing. But let us be honest. At this juncture, the Olympics is a contest of professional athletes from around the world. What made 1980 so special when the United States Hockey Team defeated the Soviet Union is that the US team were truly amateurs going against pros. These days have long since passed. It’s now all pros, some trying to pretend to be amateurs.
The Olympics are not what they were intended to be. Frankly, we should all boycott them on TV.
My second reason is China and my reasoning is two-fold.
We are reading and observing China clamping down on dissidents. They want to give the world a vision of China as one, big, happy country where everything is great. It is not. China is one of the world’s leaders in human rights violations. They practice misogyny openly and have little problem destroying baby girls so that they can have baby boys and fulfill the ‘one child to a family’ rule. We were, rightly, horrified by the cruelties of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The sad reality is that China is really no better. By even venturing into this country we are giving tacit approval to a horrendous, murderous, regime.
Additionally, whether we want to accept this our not, China is become our leading economic enemy. I use the word enemy very deliberately. They have a goal to destroy us economically and they are being successfuly.
A large reason the Soviet Union crumbled was because of economics and an inability to compete with the United States in spending. In the early 1980's, we heightened the Cold War and began, essentially, creating a wartime economy. Large amounts of money went into purchasing weapons and technology for weapons. A war time economy when there is no war, for a capitalist nation, means that there are plenty of jobs and plenty of money in the pipeline. The downside is that often the government does this with hot checks. Ronald Reagan’s plans had lots of people working and lots of manufacturing of arms, but he put it all on MasterCard. That brings about its own set of problems, obviously.
The problem the Soviets had was that this drained them financially beyond a point of no return. They were in a wartime economy that they couldn’t afford----but they were also fighting a war. A wartime economy when a nation is at war, drains the country. As a result, the money runs out as the debt accumulates. The Soviet Union collapsed.
History is repeating itself. China is building itself up militarily and financially, and is not in a war. They are using more and more oil----thus raising the prices of oil, and generating capital----much of which the United States is borrowing.
We are in a wartime economy but we are fighting two wars. Incomes are not growing. There is no place to invest money for it to grow. Interest rates are going higher and prices are going higher. We are borrowing more and more money and facing economic collapse ourselves.
Our big opponent in all of this is China as well as ourselves. By participating in the Olympics, a large amount of American money will flow into China and put us further and further in economic trouble.
We have no business going there.
For one, I don’t believe that the Olympics have much value any longer. Sure. There are wonderful athletes from around the world who are competing against one another. Sure, there are some heart warming stories of the accomplishments of some young (or somewhat old) amateurs who are competing. But let us be honest. At this juncture, the Olympics is a contest of professional athletes from around the world. What made 1980 so special when the United States Hockey Team defeated the Soviet Union is that the US team were truly amateurs going against pros. These days have long since passed. It’s now all pros, some trying to pretend to be amateurs.
The Olympics are not what they were intended to be. Frankly, we should all boycott them on TV.
My second reason is China and my reasoning is two-fold.
We are reading and observing China clamping down on dissidents. They want to give the world a vision of China as one, big, happy country where everything is great. It is not. China is one of the world’s leaders in human rights violations. They practice misogyny openly and have little problem destroying baby girls so that they can have baby boys and fulfill the ‘one child to a family’ rule. We were, rightly, horrified by the cruelties of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The sad reality is that China is really no better. By even venturing into this country we are giving tacit approval to a horrendous, murderous, regime.
Additionally, whether we want to accept this our not, China is become our leading economic enemy. I use the word enemy very deliberately. They have a goal to destroy us economically and they are being successfuly.
A large reason the Soviet Union crumbled was because of economics and an inability to compete with the United States in spending. In the early 1980's, we heightened the Cold War and began, essentially, creating a wartime economy. Large amounts of money went into purchasing weapons and technology for weapons. A war time economy when there is no war, for a capitalist nation, means that there are plenty of jobs and plenty of money in the pipeline. The downside is that often the government does this with hot checks. Ronald Reagan’s plans had lots of people working and lots of manufacturing of arms, but he put it all on MasterCard. That brings about its own set of problems, obviously.
The problem the Soviets had was that this drained them financially beyond a point of no return. They were in a wartime economy that they couldn’t afford----but they were also fighting a war. A wartime economy when a nation is at war, drains the country. As a result, the money runs out as the debt accumulates. The Soviet Union collapsed.
History is repeating itself. China is building itself up militarily and financially, and is not in a war. They are using more and more oil----thus raising the prices of oil, and generating capital----much of which the United States is borrowing.
We are in a wartime economy but we are fighting two wars. Incomes are not growing. There is no place to invest money for it to grow. Interest rates are going higher and prices are going higher. We are borrowing more and more money and facing economic collapse ourselves.
Our big opponent in all of this is China as well as ourselves. By participating in the Olympics, a large amount of American money will flow into China and put us further and further in economic trouble.
We have no business going there.
Friday, July 25, 2008
No Matter Who You Are or Where You are on Life's Journey; You are Welcome Here.
This is the famous Steeples' Ad for the United Church of Christ. It is self-explanatory. And wonderful.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Give Me a Break!
Give me a break!
Do you remember Steve Bartman? Bartman is the Cubs' fan who caught a foul ball that was still in play. Moises Alou, the Cubs' left-fielder was going to attempt a play on the ball and didn't give the opportunity.
After that play the Cubs fell apart and lose the game and lost the playoffs.
Bartman is being offered to attend a sports' show and if he autographs one copy of his 'catch' they will give him $25,000.00.
Bartman is still hated in Chicago and blamed the the Cubs losing the 2003 National League Championship Series to the Marlins.
Luis Castillo hit a foul ball that Alou went after. Alou never caught the ball (and this day questions whether he actually WOULD caught the ball---that was NOT a given...)
* Castillo, given new life, drew a walk. Ball four was a wild pitch from Cubs starter Mark Prior, which allowed Pierre to advance to third base.
Bartman did not throw the wild pitch.
* Iván RodrÃguez singled to drive in the first run of the inning, making the score 3-1.
Bartman was not the pitcher giving up the hit.
* Miguel Cabrera hit a ground ball to Alex S. Gonzalez, who misfielded the ball. Had Gonzalez fielded the ball properly, the Cubs could possibly have ended the half-inning with a double play. Instead all runners were safe and the bases were loaded.
Bartman was not on the field with Gonzalez.
* Derrek Lee doubled, tying the score and chasing Prior from the game.
Again, Bartman was not pitching.
* Relief pitcher Kyle Farnsworth issued an intentional walk, then gave up a sacrifice fly to give Florida a 4-3 lead. Another intentional walk again loaded the bases.
Again, Bartman was not pitching.
* A bases-clearing double from Mike Mordecai broke the game open, making the score 7-3.
Again, Bartman was not pitching and not fielding allow the double to fall in.
* Pierre singled to put Florida ahead 8-3.
Again, Bartman was not pitching.
* Finally Luis Castillo, whose foul popup initiated the controversy, popped out to second to end the inning. In total, the Marlins had sent twelve batters to the plate and scored eight runs. Florida won the game 8-3.
The Bartman play took place when there was only one out and the play itself was not a hit. It was a foul ball.
Here is the sad reality that Cubs' fans need to grasp. Steve Bartman did not lose the game for them. The Cubs lost the game. Bad pitching and bad fielding lost the game.
I think it's about time people give Steve Bartman a rest. He didn't blow the Cubs' season. The Cubs did.
This year the Cubs look good, very good. They are a distinct possibility to go to the World Series this year. If they succeed it will be because they played well; if they don't, it's because another team beat them.
And Steve Bartman, again, will have nothing to do with it.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Random Musings
It is difficult to put long, complex thoughts together after a great vacation. These are just some random musings.
If you have never been to Kitty Hawk, North Carolina or the Outer Banks, it's an awesome place to go. We had a hotel room right on the ocean. Totally perfect.
The Giants traded Jeremy Shockey. They won all their play off games and pulled off an incredible Super Bowl upset without him. They will miss an excellent, if not drop prone receiver. They won't miss his poor blocking ability and lack of interested in blocking. They will not miss his ego or his mouth. One ought to note that Eli Manning's productivity rose after Shockey got hurt. He didn't have someone in the huddle yelling at him, 'I was open," on every play. Adios!
Is it just me or is Mr. Foreign Policy Experience McCain adopting Mr. No Foreign Policy Experience Obama's positions on things like Afghanistan...
If you have not seen "The Dark Knight" run, run to the theater and see it. Wow. The movie is better than I thought it would be and I expected it to be great. It is long and intense and great. My only regret was that there wasn't a Batman III to watch right afterwards.
Brett Favre was a great, great NFL quarterback who appears to be behaving like an infant at the moment. If he comes back the Packers should probably trade him to an AFC team that has no chance of the playoffs. Someone said that the Dolphins would be a good choice. Of course, the fact that they cannot block might hamper his productivity a tad....
Back to Shockey...the Saints made a bad move getting Shockey. He's talented, but he's an ego-maniacal fool who only wants to be part of a player. This is like getting a cornerback who only wants to make interceptions but no tackles.
If you have never been to Kitty Hawk, North Carolina or the Outer Banks, it's an awesome place to go. We had a hotel room right on the ocean. Totally perfect.
The Giants traded Jeremy Shockey. They won all their play off games and pulled off an incredible Super Bowl upset without him. They will miss an excellent, if not drop prone receiver. They won't miss his poor blocking ability and lack of interested in blocking. They will not miss his ego or his mouth. One ought to note that Eli Manning's productivity rose after Shockey got hurt. He didn't have someone in the huddle yelling at him, 'I was open," on every play. Adios!
Is it just me or is Mr. Foreign Policy Experience McCain adopting Mr. No Foreign Policy Experience Obama's positions on things like Afghanistan...
If you have not seen "The Dark Knight" run, run to the theater and see it. Wow. The movie is better than I thought it would be and I expected it to be great. It is long and intense and great. My only regret was that there wasn't a Batman III to watch right afterwards.
Brett Favre was a great, great NFL quarterback who appears to be behaving like an infant at the moment. If he comes back the Packers should probably trade him to an AFC team that has no chance of the playoffs. Someone said that the Dolphins would be a good choice. Of course, the fact that they cannot block might hamper his productivity a tad....
Back to Shockey...the Saints made a bad move getting Shockey. He's talented, but he's an ego-maniacal fool who only wants to be part of a player. This is like getting a cornerback who only wants to make interceptions but no tackles.
Friday, July 18, 2008
July 6th Sermon
A Bell’s Message
Text: Leviticus 25:1-10
Rev. Dr. John E. Manzo
July 6, 2008
One of the great symbols of the 4th of July is the Liberty Bell.
Years ago if you went to Philadelphia the Liberty Bell was in Independence Hall. They eventually built a building just for the bell and moved it onto a green in front of Independence Hall. Since the events of September 11th, however, that building is now used as a security building and the bell resides in a new building next to Independence Hall.
I’ve seen the bell on numerous occasions and have listened to the speech about the bell’s history. Several years ago, a Park Ranger who gave the speech was stunned into silence. He was explaining how the bell had been silenced in 1846 and had not run since that time.
Suddenly a large GONG emanated forth from the bell. People stood in a little bit of surprise looking to hear if this was a recording. GONG. The Park Ranger was rather ashen, however, because he knew that there was no recording.
GONG.
As the Park Ranger approached the bell a little boy, no more than 7 or 8 came out from underneath the bell and said, “I fooled you, didn’t I?”
The little boy did.
There is widespread disagreement about when the first crack appeared on the Bell. Hair-line cracks on bells were bored out to prevent expansion. However, it is agreed that the final expansion of the crack which rendered the Bell unringable was on Washington's Birthday in 1846.
The Philadelphia Public Ledger took up the story in its February 26, 1846 publication:
"The old Independence Bell rang its last clear note on Monday last in honor of the birthday of Washington and now hangs in the great city steeple irreparably cracked and dumb. It had been cracked before but was set in order of that day by having the edges of the fracture filed so as not to vibrate against each other ... It gave out clear notes and loud, and appeared to be in excellent condition until noon, when it received a sort of compound fracture in a zig-zag direction through one of its sides which put it completely out of tune and left it a mere wreck of what it was."
The Liberty Bell gives to us a bell’s message.
The first is Scriptural. The bell has, on it, a quote from Leviticus 25:10.
Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the Inhabitants thereof.
We have used the section of Leviticus from whence this comes.
The quote on the Liberty Bell from Leviticus is powerful. This concept of Liberty in the Bible is generally tied, as it is in Leviticus, to the time of Jubilee. Jubilee was celebrated every 50 years as a time to free people from debts and give everyone a fresh start. At least that was it in theory as most scholars are unclear as to whether Jubilees, in the fullest sense of the word, were ever actually practiced. It’s great to be released from debt----but the people others were indebted to saw it from a different perspective.
This concept of liberty, even jubilee, however, was very much on the minds of the leaders of our soon to be nation in the late 18th century. They had a vision of a nation, and perhaps more importantly, they had the courage and the fortitude to make that dream, that vision, become a reality.
The second thing about this bell that is fascinating, however, are the cracks.
Please note. I said cracks.
The ‘big crack’ that everyone sees on the Liberty Bell is NOT the crack that silenced the bell. That big crack is actually not really a crack but evidence of the repair of a crack. When a bell did crack, they drilled out the cracked section of the bell and placed large bolts in it. The big crack we see is just that. It’s the repair of a crack rather than the crack that silence the bell.
However, up higher, along the top of the bell there is a long hairline crack. This crack, the hairline crack is the one that silence the Liberty Bell.
It is the crack that we don’t usually see that silenced the bell.
There is, in my mind, something of an allegory in all of this.
In recent months and in the coming months the discussion of patriotism is going to be front and center. What, exactly, does it mean to be patriotic?
There seems to be two schools of thought. The protagonists and the antagonists. To put it simply, the cheerleaders and the peanut gallery.
For some people, patriotism is a vocal and obvious love and devotion to country. It is an approach that, quite simply, waves the flag and loves country, no matter what. They are the protagonists, the cheerleaders of our nation.
For others, the antagonists, patriotism and love of country are often being critical of the nation. These people serve as the peanut gallery, reminding people of what might be wrong. Often the cheerleaders get angry at the peanut gallery and the peanut gallery gets mad at the cheerleaders.
We have, as a nation, been well served by both.
During World War I people rallied and felt a deep sense of patriotism. I served a church in Alexandria, Pennsylvania, a small, rural town. Over the front door there was a cement plaque that said’ Reformed Church.’ If you looked at it, however, you’d see that a word had been chiseled out. The word was ‘German.’ When World War I broke out, the people of the church, all of whom were of German descent, took up a ladder and chiseled the word German from their name. They were Americans.
December 7th, 1941, Pearl Harbor. July 20th, 1969, the first person on the moon. September 11th, 2001 and we are attacked. People band together and cheer for our nation. We are well served by this.
Conversely, the peanut gallery has served us well. In the latter part of the 18th century, individuals such as Ben Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson were very much antagonists to the nation----the nation of England. It was on their antagonism a concept of liberty was born.
The fight to end slavery, even the war, came as a result of the peanut gallery decreeing that slavery is wrong, calling people to something better. In the latter part of the 1960's civil rights came as a result of people who were critical of the nation.
The fact that there are different approaches is the large crack in the Liberty Bell. It is there, it is obvious, but it still rings. The little crack, the one that silences the bell’s message is the subtle undertone that there is only one voice, and anyone who disagrees is evil.
When the cheerleaders condemn and mock the peanut gallery the bell is silenced. When the peanut gallery condemns and mocks the cheerleaders, the bell is silence. The little crack dominates the bell.
Which takes me back to Leviticus. Leviticus was decreeing a time of Jubilee, a time of triumph, a time to proclaim liberty to a waiting world. All too often people work hard to silence that bell. Let’s not. Let’s use this weekend, this time, to let the bell ring out and proclaim its message to a waiting world.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
CJ Article about St. Marks
I'm back from vacation. My first day in the office is today and yesterday St. Marks had a wonderful article about what we are doing. Dale Moss did a great job with this:
Mission accomplished at St. Marks church
Members are tops at hands-on help
Send little things, like books and videos and candy and gum. That's what a member of St. Marks United Church of Christ, who was stationed in Iraq, asked of his congregation.
The New Albany church shipped nine boxes, for starters.
It shipped more than plenty, St. Marks was told. Spread the care, and that it did. It rerouted a second batch to flood victims.
This old church, at 222 E. Spring St., makes the most of a relatively new inspiration. St. Marks pushes its missionary spirit increasingly beyond the norm, and then beyond the beyond. It helps with food, with clothing, with manpower to build and fix homes. It provides both at holidays and routinely, and many thousands of people are in its debt.
"I find myself 10 times more energized -- that what I do matters," member Donna Garrison said.
The majority pitches in, in some way, so the church ambitiously follows God's charge.
"This congregation seems to have a passion for hands on," said David Riekhof, its president. "It's not just sending money."
St. Marks stands out by reaching out. From its Indiana-Kentucky denomination office, the church recently received the Barnabas Award for extraordinary local service. Only when member Alan Mason started in on the application did he realize fully the size of his church's heart.
"We had never put it together," Mason said. "It was just what we did."
St. Marks could corral more of a "market share" in suburbia. Established in 1837, St. Marks stays downtown in part because many of those in need are there.
"It does matter where we are, when it comes to opportunities for mission." Garrison said.
Associate pastor Lori Lewis recalls St. Marks deciding to make local missions more of a priority. "It came to life after that," she said.
Lewis guesses members will do more, realizing the impact that is possible.
"We're definitely not tapped out at this point," Lewis said. "I can see the list longer, with cautions."
St. Marks sponsors a weekly free lunch on Saturdays and twice-a-week clothes giveaways. Members pitch in on community Repair Affair projects and they helped Habitat for Humanity in Floyd County get going. Food baskets are distributed for Thanksgiving and toys at Christmas time.
These are only key examples of a daily, commonplace determination. Plus, St. Marks continues to come up with resources for far-flung mission work.
Being downtown, being a mostly traditional, mainline faith, the church indeed pays with fewer people regularly in the pews (200) and on the rolls (500). There is never too much money and always the potential of still more losses to the mega churches. Then again, Francesca Kemper chose St. Marks so she wouldn't be lost in a crowd. She feels at home, appreciates the church's love of music and admires its melting-pot diversity.
"I love the fact that everybody is OK, that there may be people in the room who don't feel the same way you do," Kemper said. "I've heard it called 'a thinking person's church.' "
Mason is proud that the membership of St. Marks resembles the real world. "We're not like most churches," he said. "We're not homogeneous and we don't try to fix people."
At St. Marks, women are a vital part of leadership. A worship service will not remind anyone of a Vegas act, yet the music especially leans occasionally toward the contemporary. Members discuss and vote on significant moves and expenditures. If a venture fails -- like having a Saturday evening service did -- another will be tried.
"Change is not a scary thing," Lewis said.
Just do not count on St. Marks changing locations or its commitment to care.
Dale Moss' column appears on Sundays, Wednesdays and Fridays. Reach him at (812) 949-4026 or dmoss@courier-journal.com. Comment on this column, and read his blog and previous columns, at www.courier-journal.com/moss.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
A Veteran's Bill----and Dishonesty
I found the President’s comments on signing the Veteran’s bill the other day to be unsettling. Senator Jim Webb, from Virginia was instrumental in getting this past. It increased veterans’ benefits for those returning from active service and granted educational opportunities. I do recognize that it is expensive, but when we send soldiers overseas on numerous tours of duty in combat situations they have earned this.
The President signed it because of how it was attached and then praised himself for signing it. The problem with this is that he was in stark opposition to this. It wasn’t until the bill was attached to something he wanted to sign and because of the fact that veteran’s groups were not happy with his lack of interest in this bill didn’t seem to occur to him.
One of the people he thanked for his hard work on this bill was a Senator who was opposed to the bill as ‘too generous.’ That Senator is Senator John McCain who, frankly, should know better. I do respect his service to our nation in the military and think he should be respected for it. I also think that he needs to demonstrate respect to the veterans of these two very difficult wars in which we are engaged.
What disturbs me the most and what truly makes me feel unsettled is that the President praised himself and Senator McCain when, in fact, this was a bill they were opposed to. I disagree with their opposition and certainly don’t understand it. It is, however, their right to have their own opinion and act on it. I really have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the dishonesty of praising a bill which they truly did oppose. I’m tired of the lies and wish that they would finally stop.
The President signed it because of how it was attached and then praised himself for signing it. The problem with this is that he was in stark opposition to this. It wasn’t until the bill was attached to something he wanted to sign and because of the fact that veteran’s groups were not happy with his lack of interest in this bill didn’t seem to occur to him.
One of the people he thanked for his hard work on this bill was a Senator who was opposed to the bill as ‘too generous.’ That Senator is Senator John McCain who, frankly, should know better. I do respect his service to our nation in the military and think he should be respected for it. I also think that he needs to demonstrate respect to the veterans of these two very difficult wars in which we are engaged.
What disturbs me the most and what truly makes me feel unsettled is that the President praised himself and Senator McCain when, in fact, this was a bill they were opposed to. I disagree with their opposition and certainly don’t understand it. It is, however, their right to have their own opinion and act on it. I really have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the dishonesty of praising a bill which they truly did oppose. I’m tired of the lies and wish that they would finally stop.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
The Ongoing Dilemma and Gil Grissom’s Rule
If you are a fan of CSI, the original one, you know a bit about Gil Grissom’s Rule. The rule is this. Follow the evidence. Simple rule.
It has come into play on numerous occasions when, on the show, one of the suspects is really a despicable character who one of the agents truly wants to be guilty and go to jail. As a result, they try to pull the evidence together so that they can arrest the person and get them convicted.
On more than one occasion things did not go well because the evidence wasn’t matching up with their conclusion. Grissom’s rule comes into play. Follow the evidence. Don’t try to force the evidence where you want it to go; follow the evidence where it actually leads you.
We suffer both politically and theologically from a desire or need to begin where we want to end up instead of beginning at, well, the beginning. We decree something to be the ‘Truth’ and then do a construct to demonstrate how we got there. If the evidence does not lead to where we wanted it to, we ‘adjust’ the evidence to get us where we want to go.
We preachers often do this. We develop an opinion and then go about proving our opinion. We hang Scripture verses on our opinion like Christmas lights with little regard to context or consistency.
The end result of this, however, has been a growing lack of credibility. Theology is often replaced by political beliefs. Political beliefs are not persuaded by theology, but much the opposite.
The problem often lies with the Bible. It’s not the Bible but what we choose to do or not do with it.
The first problem is when we use the Bible for our own ends instead of following where it is leading us. I heard a sermon once where the preacher was speaking about Jesus wanting lower taxes. He had some interesting quotes but if one actually reads the entire Gospel narratives Jesus didn’t really have much interest in discussing taxes other than his famous render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s remark. We can all have our own opinions about taxes but the reality is that Jesus really doesn’t offer us a lot of insight on this.
This is most often abused with issues of sexuality. One would get the impression that Jesus spent the vast amount of his time, effort, and energy talking about the sex lives of people and mostly what they couldn’t do and who they couldn’t do it with. In reality Jesus said virtually nothing on the subject.
This is a problem when we start at the finish line instead of the starting line. We make conclusions based on what we want them to be as opposed to where the Bible actually might be leading us.
Conversely the Bible does not exist to be ignored. There are issues that are very Biblical that you can nuance any way you want to and they still come out as issues.
People, men actually, have tried to finesse the adultery laws in the Bible creating exceptions to the rule and attempting to make women property. No matter how one tries to finesse it, however, it is still wrong.
People have attempted to rationalize stealing or gouging people and all sorts of things simply ignoring that which they wanted to ignore.
Gil Grissom’s rule is a good one. Start at the starting line and follow the evidence. Don’t presume to start at the conclusion; the lack of evidence makes us look foolish.
It has come into play on numerous occasions when, on the show, one of the suspects is really a despicable character who one of the agents truly wants to be guilty and go to jail. As a result, they try to pull the evidence together so that they can arrest the person and get them convicted.
On more than one occasion things did not go well because the evidence wasn’t matching up with their conclusion. Grissom’s rule comes into play. Follow the evidence. Don’t try to force the evidence where you want it to go; follow the evidence where it actually leads you.
We suffer both politically and theologically from a desire or need to begin where we want to end up instead of beginning at, well, the beginning. We decree something to be the ‘Truth’ and then do a construct to demonstrate how we got there. If the evidence does not lead to where we wanted it to, we ‘adjust’ the evidence to get us where we want to go.
We preachers often do this. We develop an opinion and then go about proving our opinion. We hang Scripture verses on our opinion like Christmas lights with little regard to context or consistency.
The end result of this, however, has been a growing lack of credibility. Theology is often replaced by political beliefs. Political beliefs are not persuaded by theology, but much the opposite.
The problem often lies with the Bible. It’s not the Bible but what we choose to do or not do with it.
The first problem is when we use the Bible for our own ends instead of following where it is leading us. I heard a sermon once where the preacher was speaking about Jesus wanting lower taxes. He had some interesting quotes but if one actually reads the entire Gospel narratives Jesus didn’t really have much interest in discussing taxes other than his famous render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s remark. We can all have our own opinions about taxes but the reality is that Jesus really doesn’t offer us a lot of insight on this.
This is most often abused with issues of sexuality. One would get the impression that Jesus spent the vast amount of his time, effort, and energy talking about the sex lives of people and mostly what they couldn’t do and who they couldn’t do it with. In reality Jesus said virtually nothing on the subject.
This is a problem when we start at the finish line instead of the starting line. We make conclusions based on what we want them to be as opposed to where the Bible actually might be leading us.
Conversely the Bible does not exist to be ignored. There are issues that are very Biblical that you can nuance any way you want to and they still come out as issues.
People, men actually, have tried to finesse the adultery laws in the Bible creating exceptions to the rule and attempting to make women property. No matter how one tries to finesse it, however, it is still wrong.
People have attempted to rationalize stealing or gouging people and all sorts of things simply ignoring that which they wanted to ignore.
Gil Grissom’s rule is a good one. Start at the starting line and follow the evidence. Don’t presume to start at the conclusion; the lack of evidence makes us look foolish.
Monday, June 30, 2008
The Ongoing Dilemma---Learning to Lose Labels
Many people often refer to the Lincoln-Douglas debates as a high point in American politics. Two individuals spent hours discussing and debating their points of view. If people attended the debates or read about what was said, in detail, they had a clear perspective on each candidate. The debates were serious, deep, and done very respectfully.
People often wish that this kind of debate could take place now. The difficulty of such debates, however, is that we live in a society that dwells in the trivial, superficial, and personal. We can blame, in part, political handlers who keep their charges from speaking in an unscripted and unplanned fashion. We can blame the news media for trivializing serious stories and dwelling on the silly. We can blame talk radio for its shallowness. It’s cruelty, and its pettiness.
We can blame others very easily. The problem is that we, as a society, have consumed all of this. We no longer seem to be interested in listening to complex explanations of complex issues. We respond and often delight in cruelty and pettiness and see nothing wrong with it.
A great part of the dilemma plays itself out in the use of labels. We delight in labels. We label someone ‘conservative’ and decree that it expounds conservative values or condemn these ideas. We label someone ‘liberal’ and decree that this person expounds liberal values or, in turn, condemn the ideas. What always strikes me is the use of the world ‘values’ in describing ideology. Ideological opinions are many things, but to label them as values suggest a limited desire to even understand what a value is.
This is a long, roundabout way of making a point. The words ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ are political words. They are words that, at least in their inception, were used to define a perspective and demonstrate that there are differences of perspective on subjects. The problem with the words now is that they are seen as having meaning in and of themselves. The usage of the words tends to presume that there are never more than two sides to any issue and that the world and its problems can be summarized briefly and quickly.
They are political words----and badly used political words.
The great dilemma within Christianity, however, is that the words ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ have crept into the vocabulary of Christians. We now have ‘liberal’ churches ‘conservative’ churches. We now have ‘liberals’ in a denomination and ‘conservatives’ within a denomination. A person’s expression of their Christianity is now couched in an ideological perspective.
There is a problem with this, however.
If the Bible is, indeed, a guide of faith and the source of how we know God, and what the priorities of God are, than the usage of the words ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ is problematic. They simply are not Biblical words. These two words actually never show up in the Bible. One translation uses the word ‘liberal’ but in reference to generosity and not ideology. The word, in one definition, refers to generosity and people are invited to be ‘liberal’ in their giving. Most translations render this as generous and generous is the better word.
If we are driven by the Bible, the usage of the words ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ just do not make sense.
Furthermore the words ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ did not show up in any sort of theological discussions until the latter part of the 19th century and the early part of the 20th century. It makes one realize (or ought to make one realize) that these are not historic theological terms. Christianity is based on faith in God and not on any ideological perspective. Actually, when we use the words ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ to describe or even define Christianity, we are making the presumption that Christianity is based on an idea or actually is an idea. One would like to think it is significantly more than that.
Jesus’ prayer that all may be one has become a sorry joke within Christianity right now. Christianity has become more sectarian and more polarized than it has been in a long time. People have embraced the words ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ and, frankly, have made these ideas the foundation of their faith rather than Christ. We, in the churches, have dug trenches where we sit and wait for....
Meanwhile, 80% of the American population under the age of 18 has never had any church affiliation whatsoever. A group of young people who are looking to make a difference and are searching for places that offer substance and meaning to life have found the Christian Church to be little more than a political machine which demonstrates little distinction from any other political group in society. Much of this is because we have embraced the words ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ and use them as much as possible.
What happens when you base your theology on what you want to base it on instead of where the Bible leads you is that you ultimately get lost. What happens when you define your theological outlook from an ideological perspective is that you have made an idea more important than God.
Frankly, Christianity will diminish and just get itself more lost clinging to labels that offer the world very little.
People often wish that this kind of debate could take place now. The difficulty of such debates, however, is that we live in a society that dwells in the trivial, superficial, and personal. We can blame, in part, political handlers who keep their charges from speaking in an unscripted and unplanned fashion. We can blame the news media for trivializing serious stories and dwelling on the silly. We can blame talk radio for its shallowness. It’s cruelty, and its pettiness.
We can blame others very easily. The problem is that we, as a society, have consumed all of this. We no longer seem to be interested in listening to complex explanations of complex issues. We respond and often delight in cruelty and pettiness and see nothing wrong with it.
A great part of the dilemma plays itself out in the use of labels. We delight in labels. We label someone ‘conservative’ and decree that it expounds conservative values or condemn these ideas. We label someone ‘liberal’ and decree that this person expounds liberal values or, in turn, condemn the ideas. What always strikes me is the use of the world ‘values’ in describing ideology. Ideological opinions are many things, but to label them as values suggest a limited desire to even understand what a value is.
This is a long, roundabout way of making a point. The words ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ are political words. They are words that, at least in their inception, were used to define a perspective and demonstrate that there are differences of perspective on subjects. The problem with the words now is that they are seen as having meaning in and of themselves. The usage of the words tends to presume that there are never more than two sides to any issue and that the world and its problems can be summarized briefly and quickly.
They are political words----and badly used political words.
The great dilemma within Christianity, however, is that the words ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ have crept into the vocabulary of Christians. We now have ‘liberal’ churches ‘conservative’ churches. We now have ‘liberals’ in a denomination and ‘conservatives’ within a denomination. A person’s expression of their Christianity is now couched in an ideological perspective.
There is a problem with this, however.
If the Bible is, indeed, a guide of faith and the source of how we know God, and what the priorities of God are, than the usage of the words ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ is problematic. They simply are not Biblical words. These two words actually never show up in the Bible. One translation uses the word ‘liberal’ but in reference to generosity and not ideology. The word, in one definition, refers to generosity and people are invited to be ‘liberal’ in their giving. Most translations render this as generous and generous is the better word.
If we are driven by the Bible, the usage of the words ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ just do not make sense.
Furthermore the words ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ did not show up in any sort of theological discussions until the latter part of the 19th century and the early part of the 20th century. It makes one realize (or ought to make one realize) that these are not historic theological terms. Christianity is based on faith in God and not on any ideological perspective. Actually, when we use the words ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ to describe or even define Christianity, we are making the presumption that Christianity is based on an idea or actually is an idea. One would like to think it is significantly more than that.
Jesus’ prayer that all may be one has become a sorry joke within Christianity right now. Christianity has become more sectarian and more polarized than it has been in a long time. People have embraced the words ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ and, frankly, have made these ideas the foundation of their faith rather than Christ. We, in the churches, have dug trenches where we sit and wait for....
Meanwhile, 80% of the American population under the age of 18 has never had any church affiliation whatsoever. A group of young people who are looking to make a difference and are searching for places that offer substance and meaning to life have found the Christian Church to be little more than a political machine which demonstrates little distinction from any other political group in society. Much of this is because we have embraced the words ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ and use them as much as possible.
What happens when you base your theology on what you want to base it on instead of where the Bible leads you is that you ultimately get lost. What happens when you define your theological outlook from an ideological perspective is that you have made an idea more important than God.
Frankly, Christianity will diminish and just get itself more lost clinging to labels that offer the world very little.
Friday, June 27, 2008
The Ongoing Dilemma - Revisionism Christianity
One of the dilemmas of Christianity we have right now is that there is a great deal of revisionism taking place. What is most interesting in the debate between Dobson and Obama is that Obama is the first Democrat with the testicular fortitude to argue back and call what Dobson is representing for what it is. There is, however, a great deal more involved than the Obama/Dobson debate. This is a glimpse of the current revisionism within Christianity.
A significant issue has been the rise of Fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is actually a relatively recent phenomenon in Christianity. Its roots go back to the latter part of the 19th century and much of its growth came because of people responding to Darwin and the industrial and scientific revolution. People’s world view began to change and grow more expansive. Fundamentalism became a way to address the complexities of an ever-changing world by giving very simple answers to very complex questions and issues.
Part of the problem with the rise of Fundamentalism is that for it to survive it must survive despite the fact that facts often get in their way. They have, as a result, begun to practice revisionism. They practice a revisionist science, revisionist history, and ultimately revisionist theology.
The first book of the Bible is the Book of Genesis. Genesis is, on its own, an interesting read in the fact that it chronicles the origins of Judaism and points out some of the conflicts of the era. It mostly chronicles the life of one family, beginning with Abraham and ending with Joseph of the amazing technicolor dream coat fame. It is, on many levels a character study and there are some incredible characters in the narrative. All of this begins on Chapter 12.
The first eleven chapters of Genesis, however, are a theological reflection on how the world came into being and how things ended up the way they are. Much of it was written while in captivity by several different authors with actually two divergent views of how human beings came into existence within the first three chapters. It was not written from a scientific vantage point----it was written to make a theological point. God created and God’s creation is good. For most people within Christianity and Judaism the conflict is not about believing God created but more on how that creation actually came to be. Genesis put forth a world view 500 years older than Jesus.
The story of Noah and the ark was a theological response to, at that time, a 200-year-old Sumerian epic poem entitled the Epic of Gilgamesh. The story has a boat, a hero, and destruction. The ancient Jews, in great conflict with the influence of the Babylonians on their children, culture, and even religion, used this as a theological resource in response to this ancient epic.
It wasn’t until about a year ago that I began to truly grasp the extent of the revisionism that is growing within Christianity. In reading this from a Fundamentalist perspective they have revised the history of the era and now claim that Genesis was written before Gilgamesh. The anthropology and history to demonstrate this is, frankly, made up. They are attempting to change facts rather than to follow the evidence as to where the facts actually lead them.
We were all taught in school about the age of dinosaurs and how long before humans they wandered the earth. Revisionist science is now placing them living together. There is now even a museum in suburban Cincinnati calling itself the Creation Museum so that people can know the ‘truth’ about God’s creation. For $21.95 admission one can see this tribute to a world view we haven’t seen since we watched Fred Flintstone and Barney.
My sarcasm comes from deep anger. Christians are now often seen as ignorant fools who turn a blind eye to science, who change history to suit them, and who have no ability to adapt to the modern world. Ultimately they have been reduced to simpleton status because of the fervent desire to respond to complexity with simplistic responses.
Oh, and yes, those Christians who embrace complexity and are willing to grapple with complexity in a serious manner are labeled as ‘liberals’ and ‘elitists.’
This, however, is one piece of revisionism within Christianity. Christianity does not have a history of ignorance. Many of the finest colleges and universities in the United States were founded by Christians who demanded and longed for great educations. They longed for great educations where research led them to ideas and theories rather than allowing opinions to drive their research. Albert Einstein, as an example, did research and taught at Princeton University----an institution founded by Presbyterians. There is a long list of great schools built by people within Christianity; places of serious learning where complexity is allowed to flourish. Lots of places where ambiguity is not only accepted but celebrated.
A significant issue has been the rise of Fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is actually a relatively recent phenomenon in Christianity. Its roots go back to the latter part of the 19th century and much of its growth came because of people responding to Darwin and the industrial and scientific revolution. People’s world view began to change and grow more expansive. Fundamentalism became a way to address the complexities of an ever-changing world by giving very simple answers to very complex questions and issues.
Part of the problem with the rise of Fundamentalism is that for it to survive it must survive despite the fact that facts often get in their way. They have, as a result, begun to practice revisionism. They practice a revisionist science, revisionist history, and ultimately revisionist theology.
The first book of the Bible is the Book of Genesis. Genesis is, on its own, an interesting read in the fact that it chronicles the origins of Judaism and points out some of the conflicts of the era. It mostly chronicles the life of one family, beginning with Abraham and ending with Joseph of the amazing technicolor dream coat fame. It is, on many levels a character study and there are some incredible characters in the narrative. All of this begins on Chapter 12.
The first eleven chapters of Genesis, however, are a theological reflection on how the world came into being and how things ended up the way they are. Much of it was written while in captivity by several different authors with actually two divergent views of how human beings came into existence within the first three chapters. It was not written from a scientific vantage point----it was written to make a theological point. God created and God’s creation is good. For most people within Christianity and Judaism the conflict is not about believing God created but more on how that creation actually came to be. Genesis put forth a world view 500 years older than Jesus.
The story of Noah and the ark was a theological response to, at that time, a 200-year-old Sumerian epic poem entitled the Epic of Gilgamesh. The story has a boat, a hero, and destruction. The ancient Jews, in great conflict with the influence of the Babylonians on their children, culture, and even religion, used this as a theological resource in response to this ancient epic.
It wasn’t until about a year ago that I began to truly grasp the extent of the revisionism that is growing within Christianity. In reading this from a Fundamentalist perspective they have revised the history of the era and now claim that Genesis was written before Gilgamesh. The anthropology and history to demonstrate this is, frankly, made up. They are attempting to change facts rather than to follow the evidence as to where the facts actually lead them.
We were all taught in school about the age of dinosaurs and how long before humans they wandered the earth. Revisionist science is now placing them living together. There is now even a museum in suburban Cincinnati calling itself the Creation Museum so that people can know the ‘truth’ about God’s creation. For $21.95 admission one can see this tribute to a world view we haven’t seen since we watched Fred Flintstone and Barney.
My sarcasm comes from deep anger. Christians are now often seen as ignorant fools who turn a blind eye to science, who change history to suit them, and who have no ability to adapt to the modern world. Ultimately they have been reduced to simpleton status because of the fervent desire to respond to complexity with simplistic responses.
Oh, and yes, those Christians who embrace complexity and are willing to grapple with complexity in a serious manner are labeled as ‘liberals’ and ‘elitists.’
This, however, is one piece of revisionism within Christianity. Christianity does not have a history of ignorance. Many of the finest colleges and universities in the United States were founded by Christians who demanded and longed for great educations. They longed for great educations where research led them to ideas and theories rather than allowing opinions to drive their research. Albert Einstein, as an example, did research and taught at Princeton University----an institution founded by Presbyterians. There is a long list of great schools built by people within Christianity; places of serious learning where complexity is allowed to flourish. Lots of places where ambiguity is not only accepted but celebrated.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
In Today's New Albany Tribune
Two men accused of stealing copper from church
Two New Albany men were arrested at about 9:05 a.m. Monday after allegedly trying to sell copper down-spouts they had reportedly stolen from St. Marks United Church of Christ on Spring Street in New Albany.
Church officials first noticed two down-spouts missing June 15. Last Sunday night, they noticed five more missing.
A church trustee said he took a foot-long piece of copper to two local recycling places and told them to be on the lookout. He said that about an hour after he went to Riverside Recycling in New Albany, two men came in with shopping carts filled with crushed pieces of copper matching the description of the down-spouts stolen from St. Marks.
Donald W. Bruce, 45, of New Albany was arrested for receiving stolen property, a class D felony. Thomas M. Eaton, 30, of New Albany was arrested for theft, also a class D felony. They could face six months to three years in prison with up to a $10,000 fine if convicted. They are being held in the Floyd County Jail, and bond is fixed at $10,000. Each must pay $1,000 cash to be released.
The trustee said damage was done to the bricks holding the spouts as well. He said that if the thieves would have used screw drivers, there would have been no damage to the building.
The trustee said replacements will cost $4,500, not including installation costs and the cost to repair the bricks. He was told the thieves would have made about $290 recycling the copper.
The church plans to replace the pipes with a new metal. Copper theft has become a problem nationally with the price of copper soaring in recent years.
Two New Albany men were arrested at about 9:05 a.m. Monday after allegedly trying to sell copper down-spouts they had reportedly stolen from St. Marks United Church of Christ on Spring Street in New Albany.
Church officials first noticed two down-spouts missing June 15. Last Sunday night, they noticed five more missing.
A church trustee said he took a foot-long piece of copper to two local recycling places and told them to be on the lookout. He said that about an hour after he went to Riverside Recycling in New Albany, two men came in with shopping carts filled with crushed pieces of copper matching the description of the down-spouts stolen from St. Marks.
Donald W. Bruce, 45, of New Albany was arrested for receiving stolen property, a class D felony. Thomas M. Eaton, 30, of New Albany was arrested for theft, also a class D felony. They could face six months to three years in prison with up to a $10,000 fine if convicted. They are being held in the Floyd County Jail, and bond is fixed at $10,000. Each must pay $1,000 cash to be released.
The trustee said damage was done to the bricks holding the spouts as well. He said that if the thieves would have used screw drivers, there would have been no damage to the building.
The trustee said replacements will cost $4,500, not including installation costs and the cost to repair the bricks. He was told the thieves would have made about $290 recycling the copper.
The church plans to replace the pipes with a new metal. Copper theft has become a problem nationally with the price of copper soaring in recent years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)