Most of the country diagrees with me. I hope they are right and I was wrong.
I am going to make an honest effort to give President Elect Obama a chance. Lord knows he will need the support with a crumbling economy, rising unemployment, people all around the world that want to kill us in the name of Muhammad, and Russia, China, and Iran circling like sharks in the water as our democracy begins it's descent from a good and decent, if imperfect, world power.
I will afford him every acknowledgement of good dealings, legislation, and effort.
I hope with all my heart that I was blind and now I will see.
I will honestly try. However the good thing about the internet, or the bad thing I suppose, is that years from now I will be able to look back and see if I was right, or if they were right.
In 1747, Dr Alexander Tytler, a Scottish proffessor wrote the following:
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage. "
Travis and I discussed this cycle about 6 years ago and came to the conclusion that we were likely in our Apathetic stage.
When I see multi billion dollar company's CEOs getting out of their coorporate jets with tin cups in their hand begging for money from the tax payers, I am afraid we have entered Dependence.
National debt 1994 - $4,500,000,000,000.00
National Debt October 2007 - $9,060,000,000,000.00
National Debt October 2008 - $10,300,000,000,000.00
God speed, President Obama, may you keep all of your campaign promises and still manage to reverse the cycle, I will gladly stand up and proclaim my eys are open.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Obama Baby!
WARNING: The following is a politically motivated blog posting.
Maybe you have been doing the same. I really don’t want to offend anyone with these questions but please help me understand how a Christian could support the following 3 items, regardless of your political views.
1. Obama voted against the following bill 3 times:
Public Law 107-207U.S. CodeTitle 1, Chapter 1: Rules of ConstructionSection 8.
''Person'', ''human being'', ''child'', and ''individual'' as including born-alive infant
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words ''person'', ''human being'', ''child'', and ''individual'', shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b) As used in this section, the term ''born alive'', with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being ''born alive'' as defined in this section.
In other words, if an abortion isn’t successful and a baby is born alive and even healthy, Obama did not feel that another doctor should be called in to then do what doctors do: Everything medically necessary to maintain human life. The baby was unwanted, for whatever reason, and should be terminated. Obama’s reasoning was that it chipped away at Roe vs. Wade and he wouldn’t do anything that chipped away at that. If anyone agrees with this, please help me understand.
2. He also voted for partial birth abortion every time he had the opportunity. One method of partial birth abortion is the "brain suction" or "D&X" method. These are done after 4 or 5 months. 80% of babies are normal. Most babies are viable.
This is like a breech delivery. The entire infant is delivered except the head. Scissors are jammed into the base of the skull. A tube is inserted into the skull, and the brain is sucked out. The now-dead infant is pulled out. Please help yourself to find illustrations of this procedure online- I don’t even feel comfortable posting them on my blog- but you cannot fully comprehend this procedure until you see it for yourself. Some links are:
http://www.nrlc.org/ABORTION/pba/diagram.html
http://www.priestsforlife.org/partialbirth.html
Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps.
The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.
The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.
The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole.
The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.
***If you are still not offended by this procedure, please see item 1 where if it fails and the baby is born alive, Obama would still vote against a doctor saving this:
Which 2 hours later looked like this:
3. I read a friend of a friend's blog, which shall go nameless.The blog was a very well written rationalization of how no candidate will line up in every way with our beliefs therefore if abortion is a lesser evil than say, greed, you should vote against greed. And I agree, but neither will any church service, pastor, family member or friend. So of course not every Christian will be a Republican. She also conveniently establishes her argument on the foundation of her “burning” which means if you disagree you are “judging” her. I see no reason why a person who votes for Obama will go to Hell any more than a person who votes for McCain will go to Heaven. So it’s a non point to the argument.
But she makes a huge mistake in her political philosophy (Even excluding the position Jesus might take on abortion) which is the core and fundamental difference between the parties. I actually think it a little arrogant that she believes she can be a bigger person than just a one issue voter and that all Christian Republicans are republicans because of just one issue. The difference is who’s responsible.
1) She said, “Jesus calls us to love and respect others and provide for those who cannot provide for themselves.” A great, accurate Biblical statement. However, Jesus never one time had a conversation with Caesar. He never one time appealed to the Romans to give tax money to the poor. He asked us to love and respect others. Paul asked us to care for the widows and orphans (James 1). He asked us to go out into the world, not the Feds. Jesus asks us for our lives, all of them. Voting for a person to govern the country based on the fact that he will determine who and how much we should give is a lazy excuse to feel good about the fact that we don’t do any of the things Jesus asked us to do. Christian republicans don’t ask the government to comfort our conscience, we know it’s on every man and women to provide from what they have to those who need. It is no more Christian to vote for a government that will take from the privileged and give to the needy than it is to just not give to the needy.
2) In case you are wondering what the Bible says about socialism…. which is what Obama stands for….read Acts chapter 2 for a lovely description of it. “So those that accepted his message were baptized, and that day about 3000 people were added to them…..Now all the believers were together and had everything in common. So they sold their possessions and property and distributed the proceeds to all, as anyone had a need. And every day they devoted themselves to meeting…” Notice that the community in which the church was thriving numbered in the thousands, not the 340,000,000 range. Also notice that the burden was not on the rich in the church, but on everyone. Also notice that they met daily in devotion to God – which our government does not. Notice they were all believers. And be aware that it was also the first church to go broke and that Paul had to collect money from the gentiles to bring back to them and help. Socialism is beautiful – in small groups, with common faith in God, and a perfect society…. Please try and tell me that is where we live.
Webster on stealing: the act of a person who steals.
Webster on Steal: To take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force:
The Bible on stealing:
Exodus 20:15"You shall not steal.Exodus 20:14-16 (in Context) Exodus 20 (Whole Chapter)
Exodus 22:1[ Protection of Property ] "If a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it, he must pay back five head of cattle for the ox and four sheep for the sheep.Exodus 22:1-3 (in Context) Exodus 22 (Whole Chapter)
Leviticus 19:11" 'Do not steal. " 'Do not lie. " 'Do not deceive one another.Leviticus 19:10-12 (in Context) Leviticus 19 (Whole Chapter)
Deuteronomy 5:19"You shall not steal.Deuteronomy 5:18-20 (in Context) Deuteronomy 5 (Whole Chapter)
Mark 10:19You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.' "Mark 10:18-20 (in Context) Mark 10 (Whole Chapter)
Romans 2:21you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal?Romans 2:20-22 (in Context) Romans 2 (Whole Chapter)
Obama on stealing:
Word for word in Obama’s “Emergency Economic Plan” is “TAKE THE EXCESS PROFITS OF OIL COMPANIES…” It goes on to say how the monies will be spent – helping the people with the rising costs of energy in the form of $500 and $1000 checks.
Maybe there is a clarification in the Bible about stealing if it is for a good cause – like being able to drive to the store and buy your new iPhone and not have to pay $4.00 a gallon…I haven’t found it but it’s probably somewhere in the back…
Interesting fact – Gas companies profit on 1 gallon of gas: 7.5 cents/ gallon. Federal tax ( Not to mention state and local) on a gallon of gas: 18.5 cents/ gallon.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t like either candidate; I don’t like that fact that we have turned government into our provider, defender, moral determiner, judge, and salvation… those things are for God. But not liking either candidate does not absolve me from my duty to at least promote the candidate that is most like my beliefs. And one of them is much, much further away, on almost every issue.
Maybe you have been doing the same. I really don’t want to offend anyone with these questions but please help me understand how a Christian could support the following 3 items, regardless of your political views.
1. Obama voted against the following bill 3 times:
Public Law 107-207U.S. CodeTitle 1, Chapter 1: Rules of ConstructionSection 8.
''Person'', ''human being'', ''child'', and ''individual'' as including born-alive infant
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words ''person'', ''human being'', ''child'', and ''individual'', shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b) As used in this section, the term ''born alive'', with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being ''born alive'' as defined in this section.
In other words, if an abortion isn’t successful and a baby is born alive and even healthy, Obama did not feel that another doctor should be called in to then do what doctors do: Everything medically necessary to maintain human life. The baby was unwanted, for whatever reason, and should be terminated. Obama’s reasoning was that it chipped away at Roe vs. Wade and he wouldn’t do anything that chipped away at that. If anyone agrees with this, please help me understand.
2. He also voted for partial birth abortion every time he had the opportunity. One method of partial birth abortion is the "brain suction" or "D&X" method. These are done after 4 or 5 months. 80% of babies are normal. Most babies are viable.
This is like a breech delivery. The entire infant is delivered except the head. Scissors are jammed into the base of the skull. A tube is inserted into the skull, and the brain is sucked out. The now-dead infant is pulled out. Please help yourself to find illustrations of this procedure online- I don’t even feel comfortable posting them on my blog- but you cannot fully comprehend this procedure until you see it for yourself. Some links are:
http://www.nrlc.org/ABORTION/pba/diagram.html
http://www.priestsforlife.org/partialbirth.html
Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps.
The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.
The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.
The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole.
The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.
***If you are still not offended by this procedure, please see item 1 where if it fails and the baby is born alive, Obama would still vote against a doctor saving this:
Which 2 hours later looked like this:
3. I read a friend of a friend's blog, which shall go nameless.The blog was a very well written rationalization of how no candidate will line up in every way with our beliefs therefore if abortion is a lesser evil than say, greed, you should vote against greed. And I agree, but neither will any church service, pastor, family member or friend. So of course not every Christian will be a Republican. She also conveniently establishes her argument on the foundation of her “burning” which means if you disagree you are “judging” her. I see no reason why a person who votes for Obama will go to Hell any more than a person who votes for McCain will go to Heaven. So it’s a non point to the argument.
But she makes a huge mistake in her political philosophy (Even excluding the position Jesus might take on abortion) which is the core and fundamental difference between the parties. I actually think it a little arrogant that she believes she can be a bigger person than just a one issue voter and that all Christian Republicans are republicans because of just one issue. The difference is who’s responsible.
1) She said, “Jesus calls us to love and respect others and provide for those who cannot provide for themselves.” A great, accurate Biblical statement. However, Jesus never one time had a conversation with Caesar. He never one time appealed to the Romans to give tax money to the poor. He asked us to love and respect others. Paul asked us to care for the widows and orphans (James 1). He asked us to go out into the world, not the Feds. Jesus asks us for our lives, all of them. Voting for a person to govern the country based on the fact that he will determine who and how much we should give is a lazy excuse to feel good about the fact that we don’t do any of the things Jesus asked us to do. Christian republicans don’t ask the government to comfort our conscience, we know it’s on every man and women to provide from what they have to those who need. It is no more Christian to vote for a government that will take from the privileged and give to the needy than it is to just not give to the needy.
2) In case you are wondering what the Bible says about socialism…. which is what Obama stands for….read Acts chapter 2 for a lovely description of it. “So those that accepted his message were baptized, and that day about 3000 people were added to them…..Now all the believers were together and had everything in common. So they sold their possessions and property and distributed the proceeds to all, as anyone had a need. And every day they devoted themselves to meeting…” Notice that the community in which the church was thriving numbered in the thousands, not the 340,000,000 range. Also notice that the burden was not on the rich in the church, but on everyone. Also notice that they met daily in devotion to God – which our government does not. Notice they were all believers. And be aware that it was also the first church to go broke and that Paul had to collect money from the gentiles to bring back to them and help. Socialism is beautiful – in small groups, with common faith in God, and a perfect society…. Please try and tell me that is where we live.
Webster on stealing: the act of a person who steals.
Webster on Steal: To take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force:
The Bible on stealing:
Exodus 20:15"You shall not steal.Exodus 20:14-16 (in Context) Exodus 20 (Whole Chapter)
Exodus 22:1[ Protection of Property ] "If a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it, he must pay back five head of cattle for the ox and four sheep for the sheep.Exodus 22:1-3 (in Context) Exodus 22 (Whole Chapter)
Leviticus 19:11" 'Do not steal. " 'Do not lie. " 'Do not deceive one another.Leviticus 19:10-12 (in Context) Leviticus 19 (Whole Chapter)
Deuteronomy 5:19"You shall not steal.Deuteronomy 5:18-20 (in Context) Deuteronomy 5 (Whole Chapter)
Mark 10:19You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.' "Mark 10:18-20 (in Context) Mark 10 (Whole Chapter)
Romans 2:21you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal?Romans 2:20-22 (in Context) Romans 2 (Whole Chapter)
Obama on stealing:
Word for word in Obama’s “Emergency Economic Plan” is “TAKE THE EXCESS PROFITS OF OIL COMPANIES…” It goes on to say how the monies will be spent – helping the people with the rising costs of energy in the form of $500 and $1000 checks.
Maybe there is a clarification in the Bible about stealing if it is for a good cause – like being able to drive to the store and buy your new iPhone and not have to pay $4.00 a gallon…I haven’t found it but it’s probably somewhere in the back…
Interesting fact – Gas companies profit on 1 gallon of gas: 7.5 cents/ gallon. Federal tax ( Not to mention state and local) on a gallon of gas: 18.5 cents/ gallon.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t like either candidate; I don’t like that fact that we have turned government into our provider, defender, moral determiner, judge, and salvation… those things are for God. But not liking either candidate does not absolve me from my duty to at least promote the candidate that is most like my beliefs. And one of them is much, much further away, on almost every issue.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Going on Record
Post By: Travis
I just wanted to point out that the media and the left are in transition... notice the subtle transition to the phrase "climate change" from "global warming"...
Since there is no science to prove that man has a significant impact on global warming, and the fact that the earth has actually been cooling since 1998 is beginning to have a negative affect on their scare tactics.
My prediction is that the dems are already changing their course, in the subtlest of ways by using a more generic term, in fear that as the public gains knowledge about this so called "crisis" they learn that the whole thing is a hoax.
The new term will allow them to change tact, and claim that the coming ice age will be the fault of the oil companies, auto makers, and other large "evil" corporations. It will be of course, up to the oh so knowledgeable leftists to save us poor, helpless citizens, and to keep the poor kangaroos from freezing to death by stopping all the drilling operations in Australia.
I just wanted to point out that the media and the left are in transition... notice the subtle transition to the phrase "climate change" from "global warming"...
Since there is no science to prove that man has a significant impact on global warming, and the fact that the earth has actually been cooling since 1998 is beginning to have a negative affect on their scare tactics.
My prediction is that the dems are already changing their course, in the subtlest of ways by using a more generic term, in fear that as the public gains knowledge about this so called "crisis" they learn that the whole thing is a hoax.
The new term will allow them to change tact, and claim that the coming ice age will be the fault of the oil companies, auto makers, and other large "evil" corporations. It will be of course, up to the oh so knowledgeable leftists to save us poor, helpless citizens, and to keep the poor kangaroos from freezing to death by stopping all the drilling operations in Australia.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Barack 's Labyrinth
I've been trying for a while to figure out who Obama reminds me of... and it finally hit me today!
Just as charming, just as creepy, and just as untrustworthy!
(If you have not seen Pan's Labyrinth, it is a very interesting film.)
Of course... then there is:
Just as charming, just as creepy, and just as untrustworthy!
(If you have not seen Pan's Labyrinth, it is a very interesting film.)
Of course... then there is:
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Food Vs Fuel
Here's an article about what I have been saying for more than a year! Turning food into "alternative fuels" to help the "global warming crisis" is a BAD IDEA!
The fact is that biofuels are a waste, as they result in increased food prices, decreased food supplies (go figure that whole supply and demand thing works) and creates fuels that are inefficient and hard on your engine.
Yet to pacify the green trend, gas companies tout it as a great thing for you.
Avoid any fuels that claim to contain E85 or any type of ethanol. Shell gasolines all contain this, so drive on to the next station if you please.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
God and Rocks
Post By: Travis
Mark called me this morning with the age old question of "Can God make a rock so big that he can't lift it?" Although we had both heard this question many times, it is one in which it's hard to put an answer into words. It seems to be a valid question at first glance, and seems to be one of those questions that disproves the possibility of an all powerful creator because in either answer to the question you define a limit to a presumably limitless God.
Below is an article I found on the topic:
Gregory Koukl
Mark called me this morning with the age old question of "Can God make a rock so big that he can't lift it?" Although we had both heard this question many times, it is one in which it's hard to put an answer into words. It seems to be a valid question at first glance, and seems to be one of those questions that disproves the possibility of an all powerful creator because in either answer to the question you define a limit to a presumably limitless God.
Below is an article I found on the topic:
Gregory Koukl
This is known as a pseudo-question. It’s like asking, “Can God win an arm wrestling match against Himself?” or, “If God beat Himself up, who would win?” or, “Can God’s power defeat His own power?”
The question is nonsense because it treats God as if He were two instead of one. The phrase “stronger than” can only be used when two subjects are in view, for example, Bill is stronger than Bob, my left arm is stronger than my right arm, etc. Since God is only one, and since He has no parts, it makes no sense to ask if He is stronger than Himself. That’s why this is a pseudo-question. It proves nothing about any deficiency in God because the question itself is incoherent.
This pits one aspect of God’s ability against another--in this case, His creative ability against His ability to lift. The goal is to show that there are some things God can’t do, thus undermining the Christian concept of an omnipotent Creator. This illustration, however, miscasts the biblical notion of omnipotence, and is therefore guilty of the straw man fallacy.
Omnipotence doesn’t mean that God can do anything. The concept of omnipotence has to do with power, not ability per se. In fact, there are many things God can’t do. He can’t make square circles. He can’t create a morally free creature who couldn’t choose evil. He can’t instantly create a sixty-year-old man (not one that looks sixty, but one that is sixty). None of these, though, have to do with power. Instead, they are logically contradictory, and therefore contrary to God’s rational nature. The “Can God make a rock so big He can’t lift it?” challenge is no threat to Christian theism
I liked this answer, because it helps me wrap my mind around what I have always known to be a flawed question. The fact is that God does have limits, but those are defined by the very nature of reason and logic.
God, in the end, is not limitless, nor should he be. We all know that God cannot sin, so why doesn't that disprove his existence? Because sinning is defined as going against the nature of God, and therefore impossible to do by God himself.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
What are Atheists So Afraid Of?
This post by: Travis
Fear is the only word I can come up with. After reading an article like this one, in which a man is trying to use the courts to not allow his teenage son to attend a Catholic high school. The kid wants to go there, his mom wants him to go there, but the dad doesn't want him to go because the dad is an Atheist.
The most prevalent articles you find on Atheists making the news all have that one element in common. Fear. They are afraid to let their kids be exposed to the idea of God. They are afraid of having leaders in this country that believe in God, they are offended by the very idea that we believe something they don't.
Some part of me tells me that they fear the idea that their kids will start to believe if they are exposed to the idea. So what's so wrong with that? Are they afraid that their kids will change? That the child they raised will become some sort of zealot? Or is it perhaps that they are afraid their kids will find something that they don't have?
It hurts my heart to see people living with this kind of hatred and fear of belief. Even more so than those who just choose not to believe. It hurts because in the back of my mind I am always wondering what we, as Christians, did to offend. We are hardly blameless in this. It may have been someone in the person's past, or even in past generations of the family, but this kind of fervor only comes from something you are passionate about, and the ONLY way I can see being passionate about preventing people from believing in something is if that something has wronged you.
I know that there could be other reasons out there... but all I want to do is find a way of communicating faith in a new way so that people loose the stereotypes of bigotry, hate, hypocrisy and start seeing Christians as a people filled with love, and hope. Something that starts with us as individuals...
Where do we begin? How do we start healing wounds that Christianity has inflicted on people for so long?
Fear is the only word I can come up with. After reading an article like this one, in which a man is trying to use the courts to not allow his teenage son to attend a Catholic high school. The kid wants to go there, his mom wants him to go there, but the dad doesn't want him to go because the dad is an Atheist.
The most prevalent articles you find on Atheists making the news all have that one element in common. Fear. They are afraid to let their kids be exposed to the idea of God. They are afraid of having leaders in this country that believe in God, they are offended by the very idea that we believe something they don't.
Some part of me tells me that they fear the idea that their kids will start to believe if they are exposed to the idea. So what's so wrong with that? Are they afraid that their kids will change? That the child they raised will become some sort of zealot? Or is it perhaps that they are afraid their kids will find something that they don't have?
It hurts my heart to see people living with this kind of hatred and fear of belief. Even more so than those who just choose not to believe. It hurts because in the back of my mind I am always wondering what we, as Christians, did to offend. We are hardly blameless in this. It may have been someone in the person's past, or even in past generations of the family, but this kind of fervor only comes from something you are passionate about, and the ONLY way I can see being passionate about preventing people from believing in something is if that something has wronged you.
I know that there could be other reasons out there... but all I want to do is find a way of communicating faith in a new way so that people loose the stereotypes of bigotry, hate, hypocrisy and start seeing Christians as a people filled with love, and hope. Something that starts with us as individuals...
Where do we begin? How do we start healing wounds that Christianity has inflicted on people for so long?
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Symantics
Correct lil bro.
I believe they require counselors to be available pre and post op., not asking my brothers and sisters to perform abortions.... just love those having them.
Loved the idea of an adoption booth outside of the clinic! Can we start a movement?
- "That is why a cold, self righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to Hell than a prostitute. But of course, it is better to be neither." - His friends call him Jack
I believe they require counselors to be available pre and post op., not asking my brothers and sisters to perform abortions.... just love those having them.
Loved the idea of an adoption booth outside of the clinic! Can we start a movement?
- "That is why a cold, self righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to Hell than a prostitute. But of course, it is better to be neither." - His friends call him Jack
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
On My Homeless Guy Analogy
Post by: Travis
How do you presume to know that he needed food more than a cigarette at that particular time? I loved your illustration, but you forgot one thing.... The moral man, and presumably the Christian as well should have made your same decision. He feeds the homeless person and feels good, using after tax dollars. The man in the suit has already handed him your pre tax dollars and therefore we have a fat, smoking, unemployed ward of the state who will cost you many, many creamy delicious Marble Slab ice cream cups in the future with un payable medical expenses and hospital stays.
Well I agree that I cannot presume to KNOW what he needs more, but I can presume to know what I am willing to support. Cigarettes are not a charity I support, just as I would not donate to my local Al Quida recruiting office.
How do you presume to know that he needed food more than a cigarette at that particular time? I loved your illustration, but you forgot one thing.... The moral man, and presumably the Christian as well should have made your same decision. He feeds the homeless person and feels good, using after tax dollars. The man in the suit has already handed him your pre tax dollars and therefore we have a fat, smoking, unemployed ward of the state who will cost you many, many creamy delicious Marble Slab ice cream cups in the future with un payable medical expenses and hospital stays.
Well I agree that I cannot presume to KNOW what he needs more, but I can presume to know what I am willing to support. Cigarettes are not a charity I support, just as I would not donate to my local Al Quida recruiting office.
On the Subject of Planned Parenthood
Post By: Travis
I would have to agree with Mark on the death penalty and the ineffectiveness of the current prison system. For those who make the argument that prison is worse than it is made out to be may I just say: "Been there, done that".
For those of you that do NOT know, I was indeed arrested at one point... on Easter Sunday no less, for expired registration. So, I can say that my 12 hours in jail was worse than I had imagined it would be, and I can only imagine the despair I would have felt had I thought that the 12 hours would be 12 years, I can also say that, like any phase or situation in life, people adapt, and get used to being in jail.
I was locked up in a county holding cell, buy I have also toured a state prison, and I will tell you that while the holding cell was bare, boring and bland, the state prison had TV's in EVERY cell. They had cable too.
This is Huntsville state prison too, not some club fed kinda joint. The guy I was there to interview told me quite the story about the time he fed a guy feet first through a wood chipper. Feet first, of course, so he had time to talk.
I digress... I will, however take issue with one thing said by my esteemed brother which I think is more of a symantics thing, but I will throw it out for clarification. You said that we should have Christians working in Planned Parenthood and Abortion clinics to infiltrate them with positive messages, alternatives, and in order to extend love and kindness to girls who are finding themselves in a tremendously heart breaking situation.
The only issue I have is that, while Jesus may be in the Planned Parenthood counseling the girls and offering them love and support, I doubt very much that he would be working in the abortion clinic. Images of Christ with a vacuum hose don't really sit all that well with me. :)
So the trouble is that, for those who are not influenced by the Christian presence, and decide that abortion is their "Get Out Of Jail Free" card (which BOTH of the girls I know who had one would argue against it being any kind of freedom) what do the Christians do then? How do they justify being a part of that facility when it does come to that point?
So perhaps the answer lies somewhere in between. Instead of protesting the planned parenthood facilities, perhaps we should be holding adoption rallies outside of them. Putting up booths with information on adoption, having hopeful adoptive parents there to meet the girls, showing them love and an option, and not showing hatred and intolerance.
My 2 cents on the matter.
I would have to agree with Mark on the death penalty and the ineffectiveness of the current prison system. For those who make the argument that prison is worse than it is made out to be may I just say: "Been there, done that".
For those of you that do NOT know, I was indeed arrested at one point... on Easter Sunday no less, for expired registration. So, I can say that my 12 hours in jail was worse than I had imagined it would be, and I can only imagine the despair I would have felt had I thought that the 12 hours would be 12 years, I can also say that, like any phase or situation in life, people adapt, and get used to being in jail.
I was locked up in a county holding cell, buy I have also toured a state prison, and I will tell you that while the holding cell was bare, boring and bland, the state prison had TV's in EVERY cell. They had cable too.
This is Huntsville state prison too, not some club fed kinda joint. The guy I was there to interview told me quite the story about the time he fed a guy feet first through a wood chipper. Feet first, of course, so he had time to talk.
I digress... I will, however take issue with one thing said by my esteemed brother which I think is more of a symantics thing, but I will throw it out for clarification. You said that we should have Christians working in Planned Parenthood and Abortion clinics to infiltrate them with positive messages, alternatives, and in order to extend love and kindness to girls who are finding themselves in a tremendously heart breaking situation.
The only issue I have is that, while Jesus may be in the Planned Parenthood counseling the girls and offering them love and support, I doubt very much that he would be working in the abortion clinic. Images of Christ with a vacuum hose don't really sit all that well with me. :)
So the trouble is that, for those who are not influenced by the Christian presence, and decide that abortion is their "Get Out Of Jail Free" card (which BOTH of the girls I know who had one would argue against it being any kind of freedom) what do the Christians do then? How do they justify being a part of that facility when it does come to that point?
So perhaps the answer lies somewhere in between. Instead of protesting the planned parenthood facilities, perhaps we should be holding adoption rallies outside of them. Putting up booths with information on adoption, having hopeful adoptive parents there to meet the girls, showing them love and an option, and not showing hatred and intolerance.
My 2 cents on the matter.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Reply to comments from Caleb & Audria
Caleb & Audria said...
think Christians should be against the death penalty - Although I tend to agree with you, there are some case where I feel Gen 9:6 makes sense! Really though, I think our prison ministries have a chance to touch everybody... even those on death row.
and I think they should be working at Planned Parenthood and abortion clinics instead of protesting outside of them.- I disagree. I would like to hear why you think Christians should be working at a place that slaughters babies?
Thanks for the response!
1) The only New Testament scenario where Jesus is asked to confirm the death penalty is John chapter 8, and He challenged the motives of the accusers instead. Don't mistake that comment for a weak on crime or consequences attitude. In fact, cable TV, the Playboy channel, weight rooms, and cigarettes do not "Cruel and unusual" make. I'd have them busting rocks, cleaning roads, farming the prison grounds and getting educated.
2) I thought that might generate some discussion. I really think we should ask ourselves the only question that matters - Where would Jesus be? It's hard to feel loved walking through a crowd chanting "hoar" or "baby killer". But it would be easy to feel loved by someone counseling, and encouraging you to see the big picture of your actions. Promoting adoption without judgement but understanding. The people on the inside of the planned parenthood organization are usually the last ones to make that woman feel understood, in fact the last ones to make her feel forgiven - that her choice is okay. Imagine the impact of a Christian infiltration of Planned Parenthood! Imagine the change of hearts and minds if those on the inside truly promoted adoption over abortion. Planned Parenthood's motto is "Every child a wanted child." Imagine if every scared teenager or lonely single in trouble knew that every child is a wanted child! While even being inside a building that promotes condoms to abstinence for 12 year olds and killing to adoption would make most Christians, let's say a little uncomfortable, most God fearing, well meaning, practicing Jews 2000 years ago would have felt the same way at a leper party.
think Christians should be against the death penalty - Although I tend to agree with you, there are some case where I feel Gen 9:6 makes sense! Really though, I think our prison ministries have a chance to touch everybody... even those on death row.
and I think they should be working at Planned Parenthood and abortion clinics instead of protesting outside of them.- I disagree. I would like to hear why you think Christians should be working at a place that slaughters babies?
Thanks for the response!
1) The only New Testament scenario where Jesus is asked to confirm the death penalty is John chapter 8, and He challenged the motives of the accusers instead. Don't mistake that comment for a weak on crime or consequences attitude. In fact, cable TV, the Playboy channel, weight rooms, and cigarettes do not "Cruel and unusual" make. I'd have them busting rocks, cleaning roads, farming the prison grounds and getting educated.
2) I thought that might generate some discussion. I really think we should ask ourselves the only question that matters - Where would Jesus be? It's hard to feel loved walking through a crowd chanting "hoar" or "baby killer". But it would be easy to feel loved by someone counseling, and encouraging you to see the big picture of your actions. Promoting adoption without judgement but understanding. The people on the inside of the planned parenthood organization are usually the last ones to make that woman feel understood, in fact the last ones to make her feel forgiven - that her choice is okay. Imagine the impact of a Christian infiltration of Planned Parenthood! Imagine the change of hearts and minds if those on the inside truly promoted adoption over abortion. Planned Parenthood's motto is "Every child a wanted child." Imagine if every scared teenager or lonely single in trouble knew that every child is a wanted child! While even being inside a building that promotes condoms to abstinence for 12 year olds and killing to adoption would make most Christians, let's say a little uncomfortable, most God fearing, well meaning, practicing Jews 2000 years ago would have felt the same way at a leper party.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Response to Jesus - Blue or red
This post by Mark:
Good start. You said yourself it was long winded and you'll find no argument from me. Since you seem, in your own mind, to have solved all of the world's confusion on the issue I almost have nothing left to say.... But I'll say a few things anyway.
For the initial response to your first post, here are my politics.
I am a socialist, at home.
I am a democrat, at church.
I am independent, locally.
I am a republican, stateside.
I am a libertarian, federally.
I am conservative, in foreign policy.
And I am an anarchist, at the United Nations.
So first, while I agree with the vast majority of your monologue, I'd like to take issue with several:
1) "How do we defend our Republican political ideals as Christians."
I don't - based on the above description of my politics. In fact, I'd take issue with many Republican ideals being defended as Christian. To take a couple - I think Christians should be against the death penalty and I think they should be working at Planned Parenthood and abortion clinics instead of protesting outside of them.
2) "Let me just say now that I DO NOT believe that EITHER party is out to destroy America."
You are just scared of the word destroy. To destroy means "to put an end to". The United States was created to be a capitalistic free market, governed by states and the rights given to them by the people who live there. The democrats are trying to destroy America.
3) "3. I did, because in my scenario he got fed."
How do you presume to know that he needed food more than a cigarette at that particular time? I loved your illustration, but you forgot one thing.... The moral man, and presumably the Christian as well should have made your same decision. He feeds the homeless person and feels good, using after tax dollars. The man in the suit has already handed him your pre tax dollars and therefore we have a fat, smoking, unemployed ward of the state who will cost you many, many creamy delicious Marble Slab ice cream cups in the future with un payable medical expenses and hospital stays.
The inter connectivity that ties all things moral, spiritual, human, economic, and political together will keep posts interesting, enlightening, and long.... The lack of connectivity that is my fingers to the keyboard as I hunt and peck painfully along will require some courtesy on your part to keep each post as succinct as possible, or if long, at least only musing through one topic at a time.
My choice for you and my proposal for our next posts - you decide and I will accept the other:
Jesus - red or red?
Jesus - blue or blue?
Love you bro, and in the timeless words of Socrates, "I drank what?"
Good start. You said yourself it was long winded and you'll find no argument from me. Since you seem, in your own mind, to have solved all of the world's confusion on the issue I almost have nothing left to say.... But I'll say a few things anyway.
For the initial response to your first post, here are my politics.
I am a socialist, at home.
I am a democrat, at church.
I am independent, locally.
I am a republican, stateside.
I am a libertarian, federally.
I am conservative, in foreign policy.
And I am an anarchist, at the United Nations.
So first, while I agree with the vast majority of your monologue, I'd like to take issue with several:
1) "How do we defend our Republican political ideals as Christians."
I don't - based on the above description of my politics. In fact, I'd take issue with many Republican ideals being defended as Christian. To take a couple - I think Christians should be against the death penalty and I think they should be working at Planned Parenthood and abortion clinics instead of protesting outside of them.
2) "Let me just say now that I DO NOT believe that EITHER party is out to destroy America."
You are just scared of the word destroy. To destroy means "to put an end to". The United States was created to be a capitalistic free market, governed by states and the rights given to them by the people who live there. The democrats are trying to destroy America.
3) "3. I did, because in my scenario he got fed."
How do you presume to know that he needed food more than a cigarette at that particular time? I loved your illustration, but you forgot one thing.... The moral man, and presumably the Christian as well should have made your same decision. He feeds the homeless person and feels good, using after tax dollars. The man in the suit has already handed him your pre tax dollars and therefore we have a fat, smoking, unemployed ward of the state who will cost you many, many creamy delicious Marble Slab ice cream cups in the future with un payable medical expenses and hospital stays.
The inter connectivity that ties all things moral, spiritual, human, economic, and political together will keep posts interesting, enlightening, and long.... The lack of connectivity that is my fingers to the keyboard as I hunt and peck painfully along will require some courtesy on your part to keep each post as succinct as possible, or if long, at least only musing through one topic at a time.
My choice for you and my proposal for our next posts - you decide and I will accept the other:
Jesus - red or red?
Jesus - blue or blue?
Love you bro, and in the timeless words of Socrates, "I drank what?"
Friday, March 28, 2008
Jesus... Blue or Red?
This post by: Travis
So, the whole idea behind this blog is to allow two brothers, namely me and my older brother Mark, to share our thoughts on some of the more in depth religious, philosophical and political musings that arise in our twisted little minds.
Please, if you read these, check your ego at the door. These are discussions meant to voice our opinions, and believe it or not, opinions cannot be WRONG. They can only be different than yours.
But I would ask that you approach everything written here with an open mind, and an open heart. If you approach everything with a heart and mind that are willing to learn, willing to change even, only one of two things can happen, you WILL change your mind, or you WONT change your mind, and you will benefit from EITHER. Getting heated, or holding onto presumptions and beliefs for the sake of the beliefs themselves will simply leave you adrift in an unchanging sea called ignorance.
We welcome all challengers to what we say here, as long as you approach us with respect, friendship and love, which is what we will do in return. Yes, the comments section is not long enough for detailed rebuttals, but if you feel convicted about something and want to contact us about it let us know. We may even post your response for all to read. (Not just those that we agree with, but all who bring significant ideas to the table.)
So, what to start off with... well I have just finished a book that Mark gave me for Christmas (sorry that I am just now getting to it, but baby books and the like had my attention diverted) called "Blue Like Jazz", and while it is a brilliantly written book, with some incredible insight into the Christian Faith from someone well outside of what you would call a "typical" Christian, it has raised a slew of questions in my own mind about how I view things. What is MY "Christian" perspective on things.
So, to jump into the deep end, and get all three themes covered, my question that I pose now is: How do we defend our Republican political ideals as Christians.
This may seem like a silly question to many who would immediately react by saying "Aren't republican and Christian ideals the same? Why would you feel the need to defend them?"
Well, really I see two issues here.
1. Republican's do not have a monopoly on spirituality
2. Often times it is the negative emotional reaction to the "Christian Right" that shuts down an otherwise intellectual conversation.
I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said "Jesus was a Democrat"... I disagree with this statement as a whole, being that I see Jesus as above political affiliations. I see him as a teacher, an example, a savior, and one who challenges us on the heart level, not the political.
But I got the meaning behind the sticker. What the author (in my humble opinion) was trying to say was that Jesus' ideas of caring for the sick, the impoverished, the tired, the weak, the scorned is what the democrats are trying to do through their social and economic programs.
How can we deny this? After all, the very core of the democratic view on politics is designed around the idea of helping those less fortunate, of creating a community in which we all are taken care of... isn't it? Whereas the republicans are just pro big corporations, polluting, global warming and anti poor, anti gay and anti-fun. (well except the fun of shooting things).
Well here's where I think that our current political system fails us. You see, I think that there are actually two major categories of things that people must separate their ideas into.
1. The emotional/ social side of politics
(the one on which the Liberals will chant "let me live my own life")
2. The functional side of politics
(The one on which Conservatives will chant "let me live my own life")
These things are not mutually exclusive, but it is my hope that I will explain these in such a way that you will understand WHY I personally have chosen to follow the Republican party.
My core belief lies in number 2. I think it would be ludacris to try to debate social and emotional issues. Unfortunately that is all we seem to get from the media, and from politicians themselves. They know what sells, emotion. Get people emotionally involved and of course they are going to support you.
No, I think the only logical way to approach politics is through the functional nature of each party, because this is where the biggest differential lies. The democrats use social issues to drive their agenda forward, they approach every issue from the emotional side which is where republicans get the reputation of being cold hearted and calloused.
Let me just say now that I DO NOT believe that EITHER party is out to destroy America. I truly believe that most everyone in this world is driven by a sense of community, a sense of moral responsibility. While we may have different visions of what that looks like, I think we all want better lives for ourselves and those around us.
The problem is that the democratic system of putting their agenda in motion is simply wrong. Their idea is one of forced charity, forced environmentalism, forced compassion... getting the picture here. You see, it doesn't matter what your stance is on social issues, I think everyone can agree that you cannot FORCE your social views on someone else. What you get is resentment, disrespect, and bitterness.
I may have a discussion with you about abortion, or about prayer in schools. I may even express my views in an attempt to sway your opinion toward mine... and if you do, then you do it of your own volition, and we are both happy. If you don't then we agree to disagree and we are both happy. But the moment I come to you and TELL you how to feel about something, is the moment you will shut down, rebel, and resent me for it.
Let me try another illustration to make my point a little more clear. You are walking down the street... it's a beautiful day really... blue skies.... sun shining. You just got done with lunch, and have some spare change in your pocket, and are thinking that some ice cream sounds really good.
On your way to Marble Slab you pass a homeless person on the street. They are digging in the trash can for some food, and they look terribly hungry. There is a McDonald's right there, and you have just enough cash to get a Happy Meal, or one of those Double Chocolate cones with Snickers rolled in it... mmmm.
You weigh the conviction on your heart, and you truly feel like you can do without the ice cream. You walk into McDonald's and buy a Happy Meal. You walk outside, step up to the homeless man and hand him the food. He smiles a toothless grin at you and thanks you for your kindness.
NOW Let's go back...
On your way to Marble Slab you pass a homeless person on the street. They are digging in the trash can for some food, and they look terribly hungry. There is a McDonald's right there, and you have just enough cash to get a Happy Meal, or one of those Double Chocolate cones with Snickers rolled in it... mmmm.
A man in a dark suit with dark sunglasses hops out from behind the dumpster. He flashes a shiny badge at you and identifies himself as a government agent. He then reaches into your pocket grabs your money, walks over, takes a dollar for himself and hands the rest directly to the homeless guy.
He then walks back to you to thank you for your good deed, while over his shoulder you can see the homeless guy sauntering into a convenience store and buying a pack of cigarettes.
This story is in no way meant to say that all bums are going to waste money that you give them, but let's dissect the meaning here through a little self examining pop-quiz:
1. How did you feel when you handed the homeless guy a meal?
2. How did you feel when the agent did it for you?
3. Who did a better job of satisfying the homeless guys needs?
My answers (in case you are curious)
1. Good, happy, humbled and blessed.
2. Robbed, of both my money and my joy
3. I did, because in my scenario he got fed.
Now, some might argue that it was the homeless guys right to choose cigarettes over food... and in that statement you are absolutely right... but isn't it MY right to decide whether I supply him with money for cigarettes?
Others may argue, you're being too cliche, not all homeless guys are going to spend money on booze and stogies and not food... to which I say yes, but that is hardly the point. My counter would simply be, well if they had a history or WISE monetary decisions would they be homeless?
My point, in the end is that we are all better at charity on the individual level. There is no need for forced redistribution of wealth, it should come as a result of conviction on the heart, not government enforced mandates. And if there is not enough charity going around, isn't that simply a sign of a broken and fallen world.
Really, I find it sad that there is a need for the democrat party. It means that we, as individuals are not doing our job in loving and caring for others in our community. So much so, that people are starting to feel like we need to be forced to do it.
So that is why I am a republican. Or, one of the core reasons. Social issues completely set aside, I want a government that allows me to choose right or wrong, charity or selfishness, community or isolation for myself...
The republicans are not perfect, and I do not agree with everything they stand for. It is that socialism, communism and democratic ideals are just that... ideals. They are not practical, and they have been shown lacking again and again by history.
You want to change the world, start with yourself, start with your heart, and reach out to others in your community. But you cannot hate those that do not follow any more than you can hate those that don't dress like you or talk like you or like your favorite music.
We all have our faults, and in my humble opinion most of the democrats I know are looking for some form of salvation, of satisfaction, a way of shedding a little of their own guilt by standing on a soapbox that preaches equality and charity and hope... when all it delivers is a guy in a suit who robs you and doesn't do any good in the end anyway.
So I have only addressed a small portion of the discussion here, but as you can see, I tend to get a little long winded... so Mark, I am looking forward to your response here, be it continuing on with the original question, addressing some of my thoughts here, or even starting your own tangent.
So, the whole idea behind this blog is to allow two brothers, namely me and my older brother Mark, to share our thoughts on some of the more in depth religious, philosophical and political musings that arise in our twisted little minds.
Please, if you read these, check your ego at the door. These are discussions meant to voice our opinions, and believe it or not, opinions cannot be WRONG. They can only be different than yours.
But I would ask that you approach everything written here with an open mind, and an open heart. If you approach everything with a heart and mind that are willing to learn, willing to change even, only one of two things can happen, you WILL change your mind, or you WONT change your mind, and you will benefit from EITHER. Getting heated, or holding onto presumptions and beliefs for the sake of the beliefs themselves will simply leave you adrift in an unchanging sea called ignorance.
We welcome all challengers to what we say here, as long as you approach us with respect, friendship and love, which is what we will do in return. Yes, the comments section is not long enough for detailed rebuttals, but if you feel convicted about something and want to contact us about it let us know. We may even post your response for all to read. (Not just those that we agree with, but all who bring significant ideas to the table.)
So, what to start off with... well I have just finished a book that Mark gave me for Christmas (sorry that I am just now getting to it, but baby books and the like had my attention diverted) called "Blue Like Jazz", and while it is a brilliantly written book, with some incredible insight into the Christian Faith from someone well outside of what you would call a "typical" Christian, it has raised a slew of questions in my own mind about how I view things. What is MY "Christian" perspective on things.
So, to jump into the deep end, and get all three themes covered, my question that I pose now is: How do we defend our Republican political ideals as Christians.
This may seem like a silly question to many who would immediately react by saying "Aren't republican and Christian ideals the same? Why would you feel the need to defend them?"
Well, really I see two issues here.
1. Republican's do not have a monopoly on spirituality
2. Often times it is the negative emotional reaction to the "Christian Right" that shuts down an otherwise intellectual conversation.
I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said "Jesus was a Democrat"... I disagree with this statement as a whole, being that I see Jesus as above political affiliations. I see him as a teacher, an example, a savior, and one who challenges us on the heart level, not the political.
But I got the meaning behind the sticker. What the author (in my humble opinion) was trying to say was that Jesus' ideas of caring for the sick, the impoverished, the tired, the weak, the scorned is what the democrats are trying to do through their social and economic programs.
How can we deny this? After all, the very core of the democratic view on politics is designed around the idea of helping those less fortunate, of creating a community in which we all are taken care of... isn't it? Whereas the republicans are just pro big corporations, polluting, global warming and anti poor, anti gay and anti-fun. (well except the fun of shooting things).
Well here's where I think that our current political system fails us. You see, I think that there are actually two major categories of things that people must separate their ideas into.
1. The emotional/ social side of politics
(the one on which the Liberals will chant "let me live my own life")
2. The functional side of politics
(The one on which Conservatives will chant "let me live my own life")
These things are not mutually exclusive, but it is my hope that I will explain these in such a way that you will understand WHY I personally have chosen to follow the Republican party.
My core belief lies in number 2. I think it would be ludacris to try to debate social and emotional issues. Unfortunately that is all we seem to get from the media, and from politicians themselves. They know what sells, emotion. Get people emotionally involved and of course they are going to support you.
No, I think the only logical way to approach politics is through the functional nature of each party, because this is where the biggest differential lies. The democrats use social issues to drive their agenda forward, they approach every issue from the emotional side which is where republicans get the reputation of being cold hearted and calloused.
Let me just say now that I DO NOT believe that EITHER party is out to destroy America. I truly believe that most everyone in this world is driven by a sense of community, a sense of moral responsibility. While we may have different visions of what that looks like, I think we all want better lives for ourselves and those around us.
The problem is that the democratic system of putting their agenda in motion is simply wrong. Their idea is one of forced charity, forced environmentalism, forced compassion... getting the picture here. You see, it doesn't matter what your stance is on social issues, I think everyone can agree that you cannot FORCE your social views on someone else. What you get is resentment, disrespect, and bitterness.
I may have a discussion with you about abortion, or about prayer in schools. I may even express my views in an attempt to sway your opinion toward mine... and if you do, then you do it of your own volition, and we are both happy. If you don't then we agree to disagree and we are both happy. But the moment I come to you and TELL you how to feel about something, is the moment you will shut down, rebel, and resent me for it.
Let me try another illustration to make my point a little more clear. You are walking down the street... it's a beautiful day really... blue skies.... sun shining. You just got done with lunch, and have some spare change in your pocket, and are thinking that some ice cream sounds really good.
On your way to Marble Slab you pass a homeless person on the street. They are digging in the trash can for some food, and they look terribly hungry. There is a McDonald's right there, and you have just enough cash to get a Happy Meal, or one of those Double Chocolate cones with Snickers rolled in it... mmmm.
You weigh the conviction on your heart, and you truly feel like you can do without the ice cream. You walk into McDonald's and buy a Happy Meal. You walk outside, step up to the homeless man and hand him the food. He smiles a toothless grin at you and thanks you for your kindness.
NOW Let's go back...
On your way to Marble Slab you pass a homeless person on the street. They are digging in the trash can for some food, and they look terribly hungry. There is a McDonald's right there, and you have just enough cash to get a Happy Meal, or one of those Double Chocolate cones with Snickers rolled in it... mmmm.
A man in a dark suit with dark sunglasses hops out from behind the dumpster. He flashes a shiny badge at you and identifies himself as a government agent. He then reaches into your pocket grabs your money, walks over, takes a dollar for himself and hands the rest directly to the homeless guy.
He then walks back to you to thank you for your good deed, while over his shoulder you can see the homeless guy sauntering into a convenience store and buying a pack of cigarettes.
This story is in no way meant to say that all bums are going to waste money that you give them, but let's dissect the meaning here through a little self examining pop-quiz:
1. How did you feel when you handed the homeless guy a meal?
2. How did you feel when the agent did it for you?
3. Who did a better job of satisfying the homeless guys needs?
My answers (in case you are curious)
1. Good, happy, humbled and blessed.
2. Robbed, of both my money and my joy
3. I did, because in my scenario he got fed.
Now, some might argue that it was the homeless guys right to choose cigarettes over food... and in that statement you are absolutely right... but isn't it MY right to decide whether I supply him with money for cigarettes?
Others may argue, you're being too cliche, not all homeless guys are going to spend money on booze and stogies and not food... to which I say yes, but that is hardly the point. My counter would simply be, well if they had a history or WISE monetary decisions would they be homeless?
My point, in the end is that we are all better at charity on the individual level. There is no need for forced redistribution of wealth, it should come as a result of conviction on the heart, not government enforced mandates. And if there is not enough charity going around, isn't that simply a sign of a broken and fallen world.
Really, I find it sad that there is a need for the democrat party. It means that we, as individuals are not doing our job in loving and caring for others in our community. So much so, that people are starting to feel like we need to be forced to do it.
So that is why I am a republican. Or, one of the core reasons. Social issues completely set aside, I want a government that allows me to choose right or wrong, charity or selfishness, community or isolation for myself...
The republicans are not perfect, and I do not agree with everything they stand for. It is that socialism, communism and democratic ideals are just that... ideals. They are not practical, and they have been shown lacking again and again by history.
You want to change the world, start with yourself, start with your heart, and reach out to others in your community. But you cannot hate those that do not follow any more than you can hate those that don't dress like you or talk like you or like your favorite music.
We all have our faults, and in my humble opinion most of the democrats I know are looking for some form of salvation, of satisfaction, a way of shedding a little of their own guilt by standing on a soapbox that preaches equality and charity and hope... when all it delivers is a guy in a suit who robs you and doesn't do any good in the end anyway.
So I have only addressed a small portion of the discussion here, but as you can see, I tend to get a little long winded... so Mark, I am looking forward to your response here, be it continuing on with the original question, addressing some of my thoughts here, or even starting your own tangent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)