The Redhunter

February 4, 2012

Reverend Obama and the Gospel of Taxes

It's apparently ok to mix religion and politics if you're a liberal trying to jack up taxes for your favorite social programs. From the Powerline Blog:

Render Unto Barry
by Scott Johnson
February 3, 2012

President Obama advertised some big endorsements for his tax-the-rich more policies and class warfare reelection strategy yesterday. In a speech at the National Prayer Breakfast -- text here, video below -- Obama made the case that Jesus, Muhammad, Moses and Plato (?!) are all on board with him, although that may be understating the matter:

[W]hen I talk about shared responsibility, it's because I genuinely believe that in a time when many folks are struggling, at a time when we have enormous deficits, it's hard for me to ask seniors on a fixed income, or young people with student loans, or middle-class families who can barely pay the bills to shoulder the burden alone. I think to myself, if I'm willing to give something up as somebody who's been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that's going to make economic sense.

But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus's teaching that "for unto whom much is given, much shall be required." It mirrors the Islamic belief that those who've been blessed have an obligation to use those blessings to help others, or the Jewish doctrine of moderation and consideration for others.

Reverend Obama not only offers up the endorsement of Jesus for his economic policies, he also presents himself as standing in the shoes of Jesus, requiring much from those to whom much is given.

I don't recognize the teachings of traditional Judaism in the heart of Obama's teaching. Compare Maimonides' "eight degrees of charity." As for Obama's invocation of Jesus, when Obama demands that "the rich" pay their "fair share" -- the text implicitly underlying yesterday's sermon -- Obama is closer to Caesar than to God.

Good grief. Couple of points here.

The verse the president cited is from Luke 12:48, and rather than quote the the entire book I suggest readers follow the link (or whip out your bible) and read it for themselves. What it essentially means is that you should not be stingy with what you have, but that you should give generously. This includes time, talent, and money. It also means to the church as well as the poor.

But the Bible also makes clear that it's all to be voluntary (and yes I've read the entire Bible front to back). Indeed, that's the point. Giving, like Faith, must be voluntary to be meaningful. A forced conversion to any religion is no faith at all, and forced contributions to a government or any other entity defeats the entire purpose of what God is trying to achieve. He wants you to believe in Him and give generously of your time, talent, and money, but He also gives you the free will to make the decision for yourself.

It's all summed up in Matthew 6: 1-4 (NIV):

"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

So while we are commanded to be generous, we must also not brag about it.

Posted by Tom at 5:09 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 24, 2010

Mission to Guatemala

Guatemala is a country behind a wall. Every house, every family, every community, every business, exists behind a stark concrete brick wall. This holds true in the cities, towns, and countryside. Those who can afford it put coils of razor wire on top. Others affix shards of broken bottles and pieces of glass, the sharp angles stuck up in menacing fashion. Most walls are some 7 to 15 feet high. All property save large plots of farmland is enclosed. Mostly the walls are painted an off-white.

Most doors to these are a simple piece of corrugated sheet metal attached by some sort of hinge system. Those with money install steel gates of the sort you see anywhere, and hire a guard to operate it. If it's a business of any size as often as not there will be one or two guards nervously fingering a pistol-grip shotgun.

Driving down the street of a Guatemalan town or village is to drive down a tunnel. Did I say the streets are narrow with only the smallest of sidewalks on each side?

All windows have bars on them. Not just in the cities and towns, but all of them everywhere.

Inside the compound may be up to a dozen families. The poor, who make up the vast majority of this country live in concrete block or reed houses. Sometimes the houses are separate buildings, but often just a maze of rooms and courtyards.

Some doors are kept open during the day, a family member setting out a box or two of fruit to sell. Others set up "mini-marts" inside a (very) small room that opens onto the street. Superstores are rare.

Cooking is done over a wood fire inside the reed or concrete block house, which usually has a dirt floor. The smoke makes it almost unbearable to be inside while this is happening, but they seem not to notice.

Maps indicate the country is forested or woodlands. Not. Most of it has been cut down to fuel cooking fires or provide land for farming.

The country is a giant trash dump. Miles and miles of trash by the side of the road. Look over a fence and you'll see a lot more. The byproduct of our advanced manufacturing produce is a lack of biodegradable packaging, the result of which is in full view everywhere in this country.

Stray dogs are everywhere. Many were fearful of humans.

Pet lovers are advised to steel themselves or not visit such places. Inside the compounds we visited were dogs and puppies, cats and kittens, parrots and other birds as pets. All were in dreadful condition. All so terribly sad.

Most people seem to keep chickens. All were scrawny. One family kept a rabbit, which was large and healthy. It was kept in netting in the lower branches of a small tree. Carrot and other vegetable scraps lined the ground below it.

Almost half the population is Mayan Indian. Traditional dress is the norm among the women, especially in the poorer villages. It's amazing how much they can balance on their head.

The poverty is numbing. Not pockets of it as in the United States, but miles and miles of the most abject conditions.

The smell of vehicle exhaust is everywhere, no matter how far into the countryside one goes. Many vehicles spout a visible black smoke. The rest don't seem to have anything in the way of pollution controls, something that becomes obvious if you find yourself near an exhaust pipe.

The drivers are nuts. Pedestrians run every which a direction. People walk everywhere, and think nothing of cutting across the busiest highways. The death toll must horrifying.

American school buses get a second life in Guatemala. Brightly painted for identification (most Guatemalans can't read), they are run by independent operators who provide the "public" transportation system for the country. They're everywhere. And the drivers are crazy.

Paradoxes abound. One day we went to visit a Mayan friend from the last year's mission in one of these compounds in which a family lived in typically appalling conditions. Only the wife was home. "Where is Ferdinand?", we asked. "On the mountain working his field," we were told. She pointed off into the distance, and after a bit we could make out a spec on the side of what must have been a 45 degree slope. "I'll get him" she said, and whipped out her cell phone.

In among a typically ugly and poverty-stricken town was an artificial-tree cellular tower. I was stunned. It was like perfume on body odor, like a flower in sewer. Who could think that such a thing would make any difference? Was it the result of some misguided grant from a well-meaning Western company? Was it in the yard of a politically-connected crony? Or just the result of an incompetent government so unfortunately typical of these counties?

A bad photo of the tower. If you're sure what type of cell tower I'm talking about, go here.

Welcome to the Third World.

Don't get me wrong; I roughly knew what I would encounter, and I've seen what I thought was serious poverty on mission trips around the east coast of the U.S. I wasn't so much shocked as numbed from seeing so much of it.

More, I am fully aware that Guatemala a few steps up from the worst our planet has to offer. We're not anywhere near African refugee camp here. As measured by GDP per capita the International Monetary Fund ranks Guatemala 108 out of 180 nations, the World Bank 100 out of 170, and the CIA World Factbook 110 out of 191 (see link for explanations).

Details, Details

Ten of us went from Cornerstone Chapel church in Leesburg, Virginia. We were in partnership with the missionary team of Forrest and Carol Kendall of Servants 4 Him

The Kendalls live in Antigua in a compound where the houses are up to Western standards. Antigua, a town of some 34,000 people at about 4,900 feet, is in the central highlands of Guatemala and is surrounded by three volcanoes, most of which are active. This sight greeted me one morning:

This marks my fifth mission trip, and ninth foreign country. Other mission trips were to Cumberland MD, Marion VA, Camden NY, and Scotland. On the first three we rebuilt houses, and in Scotland we taught a Vacation Bible School class. The first three were with a church in Vienna VA and Scotland with Cornerstone Chapel. The Foreign countries I've been to are (not in order of visitation) Canada, the UK (two trips; Scotland and a separate trip to London), Ireland, France, Belgium, Russia, Greece, Israel, and now Guatemala.

In addition to this blog, you can read the posts at the Cornerstone Chapel blog for additional perspectives. I wrote the one for day two, the one about our dental clinic and visit to Fernando's house.

Our primary work project was to build and rebuild some houses in a compound where the Lopez family lived, some 12 adults and 10 children total. The entire area was maybe a quarter acre at most, and held some four small houses. Two were all concrete block, one half block with a (rotted)wooden upper-half, and the fourth made of reeds. the roofs on all was corregated steel.

We brought with us many items that we donated/gave and used in our various projects. Basically we used our two checked luggage bags to bring team materials, and relied on our carry-on for all personal items. Some of the team materials were

- Hundreds of used children's shoes and clothing
- Hundreds of toothbrushes and toothpaste
- Fun and games materials for the kids; coloring books, crayons, soccer balls, etc

Yup, we maxed out the weight limit on each bag.

Ten of us came from a church in Loudoun County, split evenly between men and women. We worked with a husband-and-wife missionary team permanently stationed in Antigua, Guatemala. The compound was in a small village inhabited by Mayan Indians maybe an hours drive from their house.

Our schedule was as follows

Thursday - travel
Friday - visit to Santiago Atitlan, a remote Mayan village
Saturday - dental clinic
Sunday - church in Guatemala city and free afternoon
Monday through Thursday - work in the Lopez family compound in a small village near Antigua
Friday - travel

The missionaries host teams from around the United States on a regular basis. The work projects are kind of an ongoing thing, so what one team starts another finishes. We did not finish all of the work in the Lopez family compound, for example, leaving some of it for the next team. More on this below

More on this later, but missionary work is a combination of spreading the gospel and doing good works. Essentially we show our faith through works. Missionaries do works to lead people to Jesus. The families in this compound were Christians, the result of efforts by the missionaries in the previous months.

The Gift

As I was laying concrete block one day one of the Mayan men, tapped me on the shoulder. "Follow me," he indicated through sign language.

He took me over to his house, which was a reed hut measuring maybe 20 by 8 feet. The roof was corrugated steel, held on by nothing more than gravity and a few bricks on top. The door was at one corner of the rectangular structure.

The reed hut is the structure to the right, and the door is swung open

Immediately to my left as I entered was a concrete sink, where two children played in water of dubious quality. In another corner a wood fire smoldered, over which the family was cooking their lunch of tortillas. Towards the back was some bedding, all on a dirt floor. The wife was sitting, and was holding one of her four children in a sling around her neck. Another child sat nearby, and the youngest, maybe a year or so old, sat by the woman's feet, eating, or rather sucking on, a mango. They indicated I should sit, which i did.

I went back and took these photos after the event

The odor wasn't exactly overwhelming, but it wasn't where you'd want to be. I shouldn't have to say that these we're folks who've never seen, much less taken, a bath or shower. And I'm not too proud to admit that at that moment I was glad I'd made sure I was current on my vaccinations before I left the states, and gotten a few extra of the sort you only need while in a third world country besides.

It was your basic Third World hell.

The ability to learn a foreign language has never been one of my skills, and even though I've memorized a few phrases my Spanish is pretty bad. Nevertheless, we introduced each other, and as always I used the Spanish "Tomas" as my given name. The Mayan adults were Jorge and his wife Candida, children Sara, Elsa, Jessie, Presley, and Isirisa (spellings unsure). The man's brother (I think), Valeniano, was also there.

We went through some hand signals and some pidgin Spanish and one of the men brought out two small fans. He pointed to a bundle of reeds in the corner, and to the fans, and indicated they had made them. A few of the kids took them, fanned me, and they communicated that they were there gift to me for helping rebuild their community.

Despite the circumstances I was quite touched by the gesture.

Understand that I may as well have been part of an "away team" from the Starship Enterprise to these people. Although we had tried to communicate it as best we could, they had no conception of what the United States was or really where I had come from. They'd never been more than a few miles from their place of birth, and had maybe a few years of schooling. Most were illiterate. Their universe consisted of their valley, a few mountains beside them, and a nearby town or two. For all they knew this was the entire planet.

So on the one hand I was just part of a team of strangers who showed up every morning for a few days who helped rebuild their compound. They didn't really understand that I live in riches beyond their conception. Surely from my clothes and tools they knew we lived better, though from what I was told few if any of them had seen the inside of a modern home. So although I saw it as a dirt-poor family with nothing to give take the time and effort to make something that they could give as a token of appreciation to someone far richer, they no doubt didn't see the contrast as starkly as I did.

Nevertheless, they did think they had to give us something as a token. All of us on the mission team got these fans.

The fans back home

Now, all this said, it's quite possible that there was another motive behind the gift. We were not scheduled to rebuild the reed house that week, and I did hear word that Jorge (or one of them) had asked us to do so. So the gift could have been a sort of bribe or incentive to see if they could get us to do their house also. They didn't say anything to me about this at the time, but then again my understanding of what they were saying was spotty. Call me cynical, but I discuss the issue of Westerners being "taken in" in more detail below.

In the end I prefer to think that the gift was just that; a gift. I certainly hope it was, and that's how I'm going to remember it. After all, I'm not a newspaper reporter, writing a Ph.D. dissertation, or trying to justify a grant from some organization.

Theme Verse

Philippians 2:1-18

1If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, 2then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. 3Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. 4Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.

5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death--
even death on a cross!
9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
Shining as Stars
12Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed--not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence--continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.

14Do everything without complaining or arguing, 15so that you may become blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a crooked and depraved generation, in which you shine like stars in the universe 16as you hold out[c] the word of life--in order that I may boast on the day of Christ that I did not run or labor for nothing. 17But even if I am being poured out like a drink offering on the sacrifice and service coming from your faith, I am glad and rejoice with all of you. 18So you too should be glad and rejoice with me.

v 1-4 is what do to
v 5 is how to do it
v 6-11 is as clear a statement of Christ Jesus as you'll find anywhere in the Bible.
v 12-18 is how to serve; "your attitude should be ____"

Did our team always meet the standard? Of course not. Do I? Don't be silly. Do all Christians? You know the answer to that.

But we try.

Not the Noble Savage

Don't think I have illusions about the Mayans. They have their petty squabbles and jealousies just as anyone else. One of the men who lived in the compound where we were working asked some of us on the team for various personal items several times. We told one of our missionaries, and she said that yes, he had a problem about this sort of thing and she'd have to speak with him about it.

I'm also fully aware that history is littered with the carcasses of Western intellectuals who have made fools of themselves by being utterly taken in by their hosts during a short visit to a foreign country.

"I have been over into the future, and it works"

Lincoln Steffens, 1921, after a visit to the Soviet Union

Paul Hollander wrote an entire book on this phenomenon; Political Pilgrims: Western Intellectuals in Search of the Good Society . It's the story of Western intellectuals who traveled to communist countries, and came back and said they had found paradise. Two things contributed to this result: One, they let their preconceived notions determine their conclusions, and Two, their hosts went all out to pull the wool over their eyes. Of course our trip to Guatemala was different, but the lessons are still worth keeping in mind.

I try and remind myself of Hollander's book whenever I visit a foreign country. If nothing else, you need to keep in mind that by definition you're going to get a limited perspective from a short visit.

So I'll stick to a few quick observations. The Mayans are a short people, and not a woman I saw was more than 5 feet tall, with most being a lot shorter than that. They're an attractive people. I saw a few that seemed almost half-Korean, which made me look twice. Like other Indians, they came across on the land bridge from Asia after the last Ice Age, so my off-the-cuff theory is that it's a gene popping up every now and then.

There's not a lot of desire for upward mobility, we were told. It's as if they have a sort of "slave mentality," one that dates back to the days of true Spanish persecution. They're cultured to believe that they just can't get ahead, so there's no reason to try.

Don't Drink the Water

We've all heard the adage: "Don't drink the water in Mexico or you'll get Montezuma's Revenge!" And it's true, if you drink the water in any Third World country you'll be sorry.

What usually goes along with this advice is something to the effect that "the locals have built up a resistance to the bacteria so they're unaffected."

This second part is most certainly not true. The truth is that they're sick their entire lives. Ok, they do have some resistance so it's not quite so bad for them as it is from us, but they have diarrhea from the day they're born until when they die. That's the part they're used to.

One of the projects our missionaries do is install water filters. It's a sand filtration system, which long story short traps the troublesome bacteria and viruses and makes the water safe. The missionaries drink the water from them, though I didn't have a chance to.

When they drink clean water, and their bowels function normally, they think they're sick. They have to be informed that's the way it normally works.

The Hairy Beast

On Friday the 16th we visited a remote Mayan village called Santiago Atitlan. The town is on the edge of a lake called Lago de Atitlán, and is only accessible by boat ride from the town of Santiago Atitlan. The lake is situated between two volcanoes, and is at 5,105 feet (1,556 m). It was a several hour drive to Santiago Atitlan, and maybe an hour boat ride to our destination.

Once their, our interpreter hired a small pickup, and 10 of us piled in the back, standing up and hanging onto a system of bars they'd installed as handholds, and off we went.

We came to the courtyard where there was a church surrounded by some of their homes. We were in the poorest part of the village.

A few dozen kids aged maybe 2-8 came up and we played with them a bit. Then it was inside the church for some fun and games.

This would be me, surrounded by a dozen children.

Apparently the kids only spoke a Mayan dialect, because while Christie, one of our Guatemalan friends, led the events in Spanish, a Mayan girl of maybe 12 translated everything she said into another tongue.

During a lul in the activities, one of the children looked at my arm, and put his hand out and ran it over my arm feeling the hair. Another child did likewise, then another. Realizing what was up, I lifted my pants leg to my knee, revealing what was to them more body hair then they've ever seen. A dozen children said "Ohhhhhh" all at once, and several hands went forth to feel what was to them the leg of a hairy beast.

A View to a Drilling

The next day we set up a dental clinic in Santiago Zamora, which was within a half hour drive of Antigua. It was truly one of the most amazing experiences of my life. I've been on several mission trips, and to several foreign countries, and each one has been unique. Each time God has decided He wanted to show me something special, and to use me in a special way to fulfill His plan. As I should well have expected, today was no different.

The plan was that our team would have fun and games with the kids as Duck-Duck-Goose! while they and the adults waited their turn for the dentist. We taught them songs and games about Jesus, color in pictures with crayons, and do a variety of all the sorts of arts and crafts that we do in the states for Sunday School.

Other team members taught the children how to brush their teeth, and then we distributed the toothbrushes and tubes of toothpaste that we'd brought from the states.

Meanwhile, inside one of the school rooms we'd set up a dental shop. And we had one amazing dentist.

Dennis was his name, so of course he was "Dennis the dentist" for the rest of the day. A Guatemalan, his regular practice is at the church were is father is pastor. He brought his whole family, and two of his kids acted as dental helpers. The daughter, the eldest, held the tools required for that operation on a tray, while the son prepared the novocaine shots and handed other instruments as required. Meanwhile, his wife took over operations outside, choreographing the games and other activities. Each one, husband, and wife, were masterful at their respective ministries.

One of our number from Loudoun was a professional dental assistant, so she would help the dentist just as happens in a regular office. She sat right beside the operating table the entire time, handling suction and all those things that the dental assistant does back home.

Then, just as we got ready to start, a little problem crept up. The light that Dennis was going to wear on his head wouldn't work. The schoolroom was somewhat dark, and without a direct light there was no way he could see into the his patent's mouth well enough to work. We fiddled with it for a bit, changing batteries and such, and several of us guys all had a whack at it (stop laughing ladies, you know we all like to fix stuff). But try as we might we couldn't make it work.

Finally, I went outside to ask our team members if they by chance had a flashlight on then, and lo and behold Tim had one! It was just perfect, an LED with a sharp beam.

Thing is, Dennis couldn't wear Tim's flashlight on his head. So yours truly held that flashlight for about 8-10 operations until a new headlight could be brought in.

Patient after patient filed in, and Dennis drilled, filled, and extracted. And I got to watch the whole thing from about two feet away.

Dennis' wife leading the activities outside:

What it's Really All About

In the end, though, it's not about good works per se. Oh yes, we're there to help people, to make their lives a little better, don't get me wrong. And indeed we show our love for Jesus through the works that we do. It's just that there's that thing called eternity that is just ever so slightly more important.

So while all this dentistry was going on, and the children and adults were learning outside, God was at work all around us.

You see, it wasn't us doing that work. It wasn't through our foresight, abilities, or organizational skills that made it all happen. It was the Holy Spirit at work in that room that made those things happen.

Which leads to our next story

There but for the Grace of God go I

Rich and poor have this in common: The LORD is the Maker of them all.

Proverbs 22:2

As the work at the clinic wore down, several of us took a walk to visit a Christian family in the town. There we met Fernando and his family.

Let's just tell it like it is: Fernando and his family live in what we would consider appalling conditions. A few small shacks in a courtyard of maybe a 1/4 acre, a dirt yard, no furniture except what passed for a bed, and a bunch of scrawny chickens in a pen.

Fernando is the man on the far right

Fernando was uneducated but obviously smart. He worked with us at the main job site (more on that below) and he had construction skills. It was impossible to tell his age but he was physically strong. Born in another time or place he could have been a vice president of sales or... a dentist himself.

And it could have been you or me in that house of his instead.

For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it.

1 Timothy 6: 7

The people we met today may not have a single thing on this earth that you or I would consider treasure, but they have treasures in heaven that would be the envy of King Solomon himself. Can I say likewise for myself? It is a question we should all ponder.

Latinos, Ladinios, and Gringos

We say "Hispanic" here in the states, but they don't use that term in Guatemala. The term for (relatively) pure Spanish folks is "Latinio." For those who are of mixed Spanish and Mayan heritage, it's "Ladino."

And much to my surprise "Gringo" is not a derogatory term, but just an every day description for Caucasians. We therefore had much fun calling ourselves "gringos" in various situations.

Barry the Builder

One of the men on the team, Barry, was a professional builder by trade, so he and Fernando ran the show. The other guys and myself had office jobs of of no practical value so we basically did as we were told all week. I learned how to build various rebar cages, pour footings, and do brickwork.

Monday through Thursday we built and rebuild the houses on the Lopez family compound. As mentioned above, it wasn't necessary for us to complete all of the projects, as the next team from the states would do that. From the Cornerstone Chapel blog

We had planned on rebuilding two kitchens, that grew to three. We had planned to replace a toilet, "bano", not only are we replacing one toilet, we are adding two more, complete with bathrooms (not as we know them), and added a shower. Today (day 6) we connected the kitchen sink "pilla" of one home to the community drainage system. Until now, it has had no connection at all, but ran right out onto the ground. We are also giving them a toilet, their first.

and

Get the sisters house finished and under roof (done), 2. Frame out the two new kitchens on top of the blocks we had laid so the Lopez family could have "open air" kitchens on their new stoves (done), 3. Pour concrete slabs around the plumbing completed yesterday for another toilet, shower, and pilla (done). Even though we are leaving with much yet to completed, the transformation of the Lopez families property is amazing. It is such a vast improvement and Fernando and other laborers Servants 4 Him will hire will complete the project after we are gone.

In addition, the women on the team led the painting efforts, sewed and hung curtains, organized and facilitated the shoe and clothing distribution program, and purchasing and distributing other gifts.

Here are a few construction photos

Digging the foundations

They wanted their houses painted pink on the outside and lime green on the inside, so we obliged. It certainly livened things up

Fernando laying a foundation

One of the rebuilt houses. Now it just needs to be painted and curtains hung. It has a single electrical bulb and two outlets.

So that they didn't have to cook over an open fire, here is one of their new stoves, purchased by people who donate money to Servants4Him.

The People

I'm writing this after jason left his comments below, and it made me think I needed a specific section on just this topic. Basically, I echo all of his comments about the people of developing, or third world, nations.

The men of our team drove to work each day with about four or more of us in the back of a pickup. The sight of several 'gringos' sitting in the back of a pickup on their way to/from what was obviously manual labor got many looks as it was no doubt quite an unusual sight, but when we smiled waved to the people they all smiled and waved back.

The fact is that once you got out of Guatemala City almost all of the people we met did seem happy (big cities do something to people, I'm convinced). All of the Mayans I met were gentle, kind, and happy. They had the smiles and dignity that jason noticed in the parts of the world he visited (see his travelblog, Alexa and Jason's World Travels).

The families we helped neither wanted to be charity cases nor were embarrassed that we had come to help them and do things that they could not themselves. In my mission/work trips to parts of the U.S. we did encounter both attitudes, and frankly it was both disturbing and annoying. It was a pleasure to experience a completely different attitude this time.

From the Cornerstone Chapel blog

The entire week, our team never thought of themselves as special or as the rescuers for this poor Mayan family. Nor, did the Lopez family heap superfluous praise on our team. Instead, both our team and the Lopez family articulated that all that took place was from God and for His glory. We had come out of obedience and love and they received all that we did with thanksgiving in their hearts for God's provision. God was truly glorified!

Both the men and women of the Lopez family did what they could to help us. The men mixed the concrete and mortar and did so quickly and efficiently as soon as we told them we needed more. They helped carry bricks and other supplies as needed. The women kept the children away from areas where we were working (safety as much as anything) and they were quick to help in other ways by picking up a stray tool or such as required.

We shared our lunch with them every day.

Again, their attitude was neither that of dependency (the "gimme gimme gimme" that we see in the West), nor were they embarrassed that they could not build or afford new homes themselves. They took it all in course as just the way things were. How utterly refreshing.

Another interesting thing to note was that when they went out of their compounds the Mayan women tended to dress very nicely. This may seem a disconnect; living in abject poverty yet taking the time to put on one's good clothes and jewelry when going out, but it's really not. Look at photos of street scenes in the United States from 100 years ago and you'll notice that most or many men have on a suit and the women a dress. Today, most of us have on very casual clothes no matter what our income. In my life I've seen office attire go from tie required to business casual to every-day dress in some officers. We're much wealthier in the modern United States, yet we dress like slobs.

The explanation is simple; we all want to have some dignity and dressing relatively nice is an efficient way to do it if you don't have any money and live in bad circumstances.

The Shoes! The Shoes!

As stated above, we brought with us many things to donate both to the Lopez family and the other projects our missionaries were working on.

Before the trip team members gathered used children's shoes from friends, and toothbrushes and toothpaste donated by local businesses and hotels. We were truly blessed that so many good people and businesses gave so much!

We outfitted the Lopez family with new shoes and clothing, and here are some photos of the distribution.

Did We Do Any Good?

The poverty is so widespread, pervasive, and overwhelming that I partially feel like what I did was so minor as to be insignificant. Even all of the many projects Servants 4 Him do is insignificant in the big scheme of things.

Some people, though, do have better lives, and have a shot at a better future. We can't save the world but we can help a little part of it.

But as mentioned before we weren't there to simply build houses.

Temporary Goodbyes: That Little Thing Called Eternity

On Thursday we gathered our tools and finished our projects. It was time to say goodbye. For now.

We distributed photos of ourselves and them that we'd taken during the week. We'd also brought pictures of our families from home that we gave the Lopez'. We even had them laminated so they would last.

The women on our team stared some songs, but before long the Lopez ladies took over and led us in Spanish

I really do need a new camera, one that will do better in low light.

Although I didn't know the words to the songs, it was evident by the way they pointed upwards a few times what they were about. The emotions grew heavy as we/they sang more. Hugs and kisses went all around before we finally had to leave.

I do truly believe that I will see those members of the Lopez family again in heaven one day. I believe I'll see my own family members, and indeed pets, again one day, and it's thoughts like those that keep me going.

This isn't a religion blog, so I won't hammer this point too hard. You either believe this or you don't, but I hold the Christian belief that it's faith in Jesus that gets you into heaven. Works are fine and good, but in the end it's eternity that counts.

Links and More

All of my photos can be found on my Photobucket site.

Posted by Tom at 9:00 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

April 14, 2010

Off to Guatemala!

I'll be on a mission trip with my church until the 23rd. We'll be in Mayan Indian villages in Guatemala. We'll be working with our local missionaries, building water filter systems, stoves, working at a dental clinic, and of course bring the word of God to the people there. I'll post a full report with photos on the 24th. Until then, have at my other posts, as you've got free reign until I return.

Saturday April 24

I'm back! I'll have a post up by 9pm EDT today.

Posted by Tom at 10:00 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

March 13, 2010

The Manhattan Declaration: A Christian Call to Arms

A Facebook post the other day on The Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience by a friend of mine reminded me that I'd wanted to blog about it for several months but just never got around to it.

An explanation, from the website:

Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family. It was in this tradition that a group of prominent Christian clergy, ministry leaders, and scholars released the Manhattan Declaration on November 20, 2009 at a press conference in Washington, DC. The 4,700-word declaration speaks in defense of the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and religious liberty. It issues a clarion call to Christians to adhere firmly to their convictions in these three areas.

It will be easy for some to dismiss this out of hand as a propaganda piece of the far right, aimed at denying the civil liberties of gays, atheists, agnostics, and others. To those who would, bear with me for awhile.

The progressive view of history is that we are always moving forward, or at least should be, and are always improving our lot. All or most programs enacted in the past hundred and fifty years have improved society and everything is thus getting better. Jeff Bergner, writing in The Weekly Standard, calls this "The Narrative:"

The Narrative is the official story about America. It is a story composed by the political left, which entered American public life with the progressive movement in the early 20th century and was elaborated in the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s and '40s.

The story runs like this. America was founded on the ideal of equality, though that ideal at first was barely put into practice. The story of America is one of progress toward the fulfillment of the ideal of equality. The end of slavery and the achievement of women's suffrage are landmarks in this story. All fair enough. So is--less plausibly--the federal income tax, originally established to fund the government but later used to redistribute wealth and tax advantages among Americans. Then came the many programs of direct payments to individuals, the so-called entitlements, beginning with Social Security and extending to Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, aid to dependent children, farm subsidies, and myriad others. And today the health care reform bill before Congress takes its place in America's advance toward equality. Each and every policy that aims to level distinctions between Americans has found its place within The Narrative.

As Bergner says, surely many things labeled as reforms have improved out lot. The end of slavery, universal suffrage, and the civil rights revolution stand out. I've have had conversations with many older conservative women who have no hesitation in telling stories of how they could not get jobs despite having advanced degrees in areas like law and business. Again, all fair enough.

But we're not getting better as a society everywhere, and in some areas are moving backwards. I'm not going to run through the numbers, but I think we should be pretty clear that things like the divorce rate and single parenthood are at all time highs. We're forever hearing that political discussion is meaner and worse than ever. The Playboy culture is upon us, and what you see in the Victoria's Secret window is unimaginable even a generation ago. Who can say that the Bratz series of dolls are really good role-models for girls? The sexualization of our children accelerates in a whole series of areas, from dress to books to what you see on TV shows and in the movies.

I am not arguing for a return to some "golden era" for there never was one. Go back fifty years and all you are doing is trading one sin for another, lack of civil rights for more modesty in dress, for example. No, what I am doing is rejecting the progressive view of The Narrative and the idea that such things as LBJ's Great Society programs were an unmitigated good. So that yes, I am happy that some of the social restrictions of the bad old days are gone, but am unhappy that it has led to the "hook up culture."

The Authors of The Declaration

Robert George Professor, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University

Timothy George
Professor, Beeson Divinity School, Samford University

Chuck Colson
Founder, the Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview (Lansdowne, VA)

A quick look at list of religious leaders who have signed makes me think it's pretty ecumenical, though I'm no expert.

What is The Declaration All About?

From the summary page

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are

(1) the sanctity of human life,
(2) the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife, and
(3) the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from
powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their
defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are
brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this
commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the
crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Sanctity of Life

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Genesis 1:27

I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. John 10:10

The authors here are not only concerned with abortion, but with euthanasia, research using human embryos, so-called "therapeutic cloning," as well as international issues such as "ethnic cleansing," neglect of children, the exploitation of workers, the sexual trafficking of girls, and other issues.

Pope John Paul II described abortion as "the culture of death," but the term also applies to those who casually dismiss those who are concerned about human embryo research and "therapeutic cloning" as religious nuts. It is the casual acceptance of these trends, or the rationalization of them, that disturbs the authors.

The chief objection to this "culture of death is that it promotes "the belief that lives that are imperfect, immature or inconvenient are discardable." It all started with abortion, and now continues into other areas. How long before we leganize euthanasia as they have done in The Netherlands? How can this possibly be good?

Critics often call conservatives hypocrites for failing to oppose the death penalty, to which I say "I'll trade you abortion for the death penalty." Given that there are 1.37 million abortions a year and approximately 52 executions, this is a trade I'll gladly make.

Dignity of Marriage

The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man." For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. Genesis 2:23-24

This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. Ephesians 5:32-33

If a man can marry another man, and a woman another woman, why can't a man marry 600 other men?

Once you remove traditional and/or religious guidelines, then marriage and all other social institutions become subject to the whims of politicians and judges, who will respond to whatever pressure group screams the loudest.

The problem goes well beyond "gay marriage." As the authors point out, "perhaps the most telling--and alarming--indicator is the out-of-wedlock birth rate. Less than fifty years ago, it was under 5 percent. Today it is over 40 percent." Most social pathologies, among them poverty, delinquency, drug abuse, crime, and incarceration, can be directly tied to single parenthood.

Just because the straight population, Christian or not, can't keep it's act together is no reason to compound the problem. The authors point out that "the impulse to redefine marriage in order to recognize same-sex and multiple partner relationships is a symptom, rather than the cause, of the erosion of the marriage culture." Too many today are morally confused, lacking clear guidelines, and do not understand the reasons and societal benefits of traditional marriage.

The idea that we could allow same-sex marriage and everyone else would continue on their merry way is not tenable. The proponents of same-sex marriage want nothing less than to force its acceptance in society. They want it taught as perfectly normal in our schools and to eliminate discussion of the subject in the marketplace of ideas, and indeed to end the tax-exempt status of any church who dares object to the new regime.

Religious Liberty

The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners. Isaiah 61:1

Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's. Matthew 22:21

At first glance this may not seem to be a problem, as there is no Roe v Church seeking to overturn the First Amendment. But we see a weakening of religious liberty in other, less obvious, ways taking place.

There is a movement afoot to end conscience clauses for medical personnel in hospitals where abortions are performed. Some even want to force pro-life hospitals to perform abortions or lose their funding and/or licenses. Ditto for same-sex marriage; institutions and businesses will be forced to accept such "marriages" or face punitive legal action.

The Biblical admonition to respect and obey those in authority can be found in Hebrews 13:17, among other places:

Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.

So indeed we are generally prohibited from subverting our government (assuming it is not Nazi or communist or some such, then it gets more complicated).

But you don't have to go far to find stories justifying civil disobedience in the Bible either. There are many, but the story of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in Daniel 3 comes to mind. They refused to pray to the golden image built by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar, and were thrown into the fiery furnace as a result. They, of course, were saved by God, but the point is that one may refuse to obey wrong laws as long as one is willing to pay the price.

Did I Sign It?

Of course I signed it. No the document does not discuss every injustice in the United States. The wider one casts that net, however, the more disagreement you'll generate. Best to keep it short and simple.

So I agree with the principles of the document, and think it a worthy basis for action and belief.

Posted by Tom at 8:00 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

March 11, 2010

Book Review - Whose Ethics? Whose Morals?

I listen to a lot of Christian radio, mostly music during the day and talk at night. Of course, I also listen to Laura, Rush, Dennis Miller, and others too. But I can't go a whole day without some time with God, and radio is part of His ministry.

Like any other genre, some Christian talk radio is good and some is bad. Spare me the fire and brimstone. Bring on insightful, intellectual, and intelligent commentary. Of the latter, Christian Research Institute Chairman Hank Hanegraaff is one of the best. I've listened to him long enough to know that he didn't earn the moniker "the bible answer man" by accident. Check your local radio listings for availability.

Hanegraaff has published a number of works, and one day I'll buy more of them. My time for reading being somewhat small, I decided to start with one of his smaller ones, Whose Ethics? Whose Morals? The Best of the Christian Research Journal. At 95 pages, it's not a long read.

The book is a collection of short essays; one by Hanegraaff, and 5 by other authors. My conclusion; there are a few good sections, but in general it was a letdown. Partially this is just me, because any reader of this blog knows that while I am pro-life, I don't spend much time on the subject. Ditto with other hot-button social issues such as cloning and stem cell research. If the details of these subjects interest you, you'll probably find the book more useful than I did.

In the first part of the book Hanegraaff poses a series of everyday moral questions, and addresses them from a Christian perspective. "What's the problem with pornography" and "What should Christians think about global warming" are two typical ones. You can guess his answer to the first, the second is a bit more complicated. Global warming, climate change, or whatever you want to call it, is a scientific issue which is on the surface removed from Christian thinking. However, there is more to it than that. God has called us to be good stewards of the earth, so we must pay attention to environmental matters. On the other, the environmental movement has a strong quasi-religious aspect to it, and we must avoid falling into this trap.

The best essay is "Dispelling False Notions of the First Amendment: The Falsity, Futility, and Folly of Separating Morality from the Law" by Michael Bauman. There are those who argue that "you can't legislate morality," which is usually a prelude to "keep religion out of government/the/law etc." Bauman presents a convincing case that all law is ultimately based on moral and ethical judgments.

For example, one can justify environmental laws on pragmatic grounds by saying that clean air or water benefits us all. But the simple idea that more people leading healthy lives is itself a moral judgment. Speed limits can be justified on pragmatic grounds by saying that they save lives and we benefit economically and that "cleaning up" wrecks is expensive. Again, the idea that saving lives is good and that cost is a factor is itself a moral judgment. It is therefore foolish to think that law can be made on a strictly pragmatic basis.

Right now we are in a stage whereby vice-type laws are being removed, and more and more moral prohibitions relaxed. A quick look at the supermarket magazines and the cover of Cosmopolitan, or the window of you local Victoria's Secret, makes the point. And that's before turning on the TV for the evening sitcoms. Even the most cursory look at all of the social indicators; divorce rate, single parenthood, etc show a downward trend in the past 40 years, and every serious study out there shows these conditions lead to poverty. The cause-and-effect / chicken-and-egg is complicated, but if "pragmatism" was the basis for our law we'd make divorce and single-parenthood illegal. Neither I nor Bauman are saying these things should be illegal, just pointing out that pragmatism isn't the basis for our legal system.

More, vice-laws have more effect than many people want to admit. Prohibition didn't stop drinking but even after it ended, alcohol consumption was considerably less than before it was enacted. Before prohibition the average American drank 3 gallons of alcohol per year. After it was lifted it was at 1 gallon for the next 10 years, and took 40 years to return to pre-prohibition levels.

Obviously not all sins can or should be legislated, and Bauman makes this explicitly clear.

I don't want to say there is a "worst" essay, but unless you're interested in reading about the ethics of abortion in excruciating detail, you'll find the two essays on abortion tedious. The authors take on seemingly every imaginable "pro-choice" argument, including many I'd never heard of before. They not only take you through the biology of conception and pregnancy step-by-step, but address the very issue of "what does it mean to be human?" I'll admit that in a way it is interesting and indeed important, but it's just not my personal hot-button topic.

Before too long, though, we as a society are going to have to face all the hard questions about "what it means to be human" that we can now see but are just over the horizon. The debate over embryonic v adult cell research is all the rage now, but other issues will be at the forefront soon. Before too many years human cloning will not only be possible but cheaper and easier. Even the Brave New World scenario whereby babies are "grown" test-tubesin baby-factories is not too far off as our technology advances. We'll have to answer the question; just because something is technically possible, do we want to do it? Should these things be legal, illegal, or regulated? These questions are not my cup of tea, but in the end I'll be affected by them as much as anyone.

Posted by Tom at 7:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 8, 2010

Invented Outrage Over Brit Hume's Tiger Woods & Christianity Remark

I'm a bit late in posting on this subject, but I do try and have a life outside blogging.

Here's the remark by Brit Hume that's driving some people nuts:

Transcript of Hume's "offending" remark:

Whether he can recover as a person depends on "his faith. He's said to be a Buddhist. I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So my message to Tiger would be, "Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world."

I'm not surprised that some are "outraged!" but that doesn't make their "outrage" any more justifiable (google around for examples). Hume simply said what most Christians think. Mirror image it and he said what anyone of any religion thinks.

As I heard Hume point out on the Laura Ingraham show earlier this week, suppose he had suggested that Woods adopt practices of Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, or transcendental meditation? Do you think the left would have reacted in the same way? Of course not.

Brit Hume is not a public official, so what's the big deal? If it was a mayor speaking while chairing the local town council meeting, ok, I get it. But this was not that.

Further, he was not acting as a news anchor, and he didn't say it in the middle of a news broadcast. He retired from that role a few years ago. He was there are a commentator.

Basically, a Christian went on TV and said that Christianity is the best religion. Muslims think theirs is the best religion, and so on. That Hume said this on a news show rather than a religious channel makes no difference to me.

Here is the issue, there are militant anti-Christians who cannot stand to even hear anything that challenges their beliefs. They've gone beyond preventing government from promoting a particular religion to demanding that it be totally absent from the public sphere.

Sister Toldjah says it best (and I owe much else in this post to her as well):

There are those who don't believe in Jesus but who also don't have any issues with a public discussion about Christianity because they understand that many of the tenets of the tradition Christian faith are parallel in nature to what used to be standard, widely held general beliefs about what the basics of right and wrong, good and bad - regardless of faith. Not only that, but they recognize that there is nothing wrong in believing in a calling bigger than ourselves. Those people I can respect. The people I have very little respect for are

1) non-believers who scream in outrage at the first criticism of Islam but who are the first ones in line to throw mud at Christians - and who are the first ones to falsely claim that Christians can be "just as bad - or worse" than the "tiny minority" of extremist Islamists who live in the world),

2) so-called "believers" who believe that the discussion of faith and religion should be limited to the church and the privacy of your home (did someone tell Jesus this?), and

3) "believers" who twist the word of God into something that it is not in order to justify their political beliefs ("Jesus was a liberal!").

As usual, any time anyone utters the word "Christian" and "faith" in the same sentence - especially when it's involved in a discussion where it's being compared in what some would see in a negative way to another belief system, the left treats it as though someone has kicked a kitten, pushed an elderly lady in front of a transit bus, and/or burned the Constitution. It's "outrageous," it's "worthy of contempt," it has "no place in the public debate," it's "demeaning to other faiths," etc etc. Yet, they have no problems themselves routinely condemning and smearing the Christian faith. In fact, if the left had their way, it wouldn't just be government officials who were Christians who had to be politically correct when referring to different religions; commentators who favored Christianity over other religions would have to, too.

Ditto that, Sister.

In the end, though, we can't say we weren't warned:

2 Timothy 3:12 In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted

Luke 21:12
But before all this, they will lay hands on you and persecute you. They will deliver you to synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors, and all on account of my name.

John 15:20
Remember the words I spoke to you: 'No servant is greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also.

2 Timothy 3:12
In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,

Hebrews 10:32-33
Remember those earlier days after you had received the light, when you stood your ground in a great contest in the face of suffering. 33Sometimes you were publicly exposed to insult and persecution; at other times you stood side by side with those who were so treated.

...and many more.

Posted by Tom at 9:15 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

October 19, 2009

The Demographics of Islam and the West

This is a short must-watch video

The demographic numbers are spot on as near as I can tell. More Muslims are a problem because by and large they are not assimilating and adopting Western ideas. My only problem with the video is at the end when the solution presented is that we should try and convert them to Christianity. As a Christian I want everyone to accept Christ, but as a practical matter it's not going to happen.

Posted by Tom at 9:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 20, 2009

Obama Plays the Religion Card on Healthcare

Seeing his cherished healthcare bill going down the drain, President Obama has gotten desperate:

President Barack Obama on Wednesday tried to retake the upper ground in this month's healthcare debate by casting reform as a "moral conviction" in a conference call with religious leaders. "The one thing that you all share is a moral conviction," Obama said. "This debate over healthcare goes to the heart of who we are as American people... This is part of an ethical and moral obligation that we look out for one another.

"In the wealthiest nation on Earth, we are neglecting to live out that call," the president said.

Obama asked religious leaders to help him "spread the truth" about reform, and also took the opportunity to push back against critics...

More than 30 religious groups have banded together to support the Democratic-led reform efforts, including the progressive group Catholics United, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the National Baptist Convention U.S.A., the National Council of Churches in Christ and the United Church of Christ. The group sponsored Wednesday's call and describes itself on its Web site as "an effort from the faith community to make clear to Congress that quality, affordable health care for every American family is a moral priority for millions of people of faith."

Can you imaging the outcry if George W. Bush had done this?

What's ironic is that it's the liberals who always accuse the conservatives of mixing politics with religion, or of using religion to advance their political agenda. But during the last campaign it wasn't the GOP injecting religion into politics. It was the Democrats.

Consider these two events:

1) In June of 2007 John Edwards, Barak Obama, and Hillary Clinton participated in discussion on an Presidential Forum on Faith, Values and Poverty. The event was hosted by the Sojourners, and was broadcast on CNN (transcript here).

2) Then, in April, then-Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton participated in a "Compassion Forum" at Messiah College in Grantham Pennsylania. Messiah College is a private Christian institution. CNN broadcast the event.

As I said at the time, I was glad to see the Democrats get religion. I think it only common sense that your religious convictions will influence your public policy.

But using religion as your philosophical basis for public policy is different than using organized religion to promote a cause, or from using it to beat up your political opponents, which is what Obama is doing

Victor Davis Hanson has it about right:

There is something creepy about the sudden invocation of Christian morality by the president to galvanize support for his state-run health care plan, as if his opponents are suddenly to be seen as somehow selfish or even un-Christian. This is an unfortunate, counter-productive tactic for at least four reasons:

1) The moral argument comes at the eleventh hour, rather than the first, of public debate, as if it is a desperate fall-back position intended to shame opponents who happen to think that massive state intervention will make health care worse rather than better;

2) Ironically, the religious trope would argue against the entrance of the state that would relieve citizens of their own moral responsibilities to help out family and friends in times of illness. It is no accident that secularism, agnosticism, and atheism are strongest in socialist Europe, where the government has relieved citizens of traditional moral responsibilities emphasized by religion;

3) This contrived use of religiosity (e.g., "There are some folks out there who are frankly bearing false witness.") has a Reverend Wright flavor of mixing politics and religion in cynical fashion to bolster Obama's fides as an authentic moral figure. And isn't the use of religion as a political tool precisely what Obama and others have objected to in the Christian Right?;

4) Rather than demonize opponents as callous and disingenuous, all the president has to do to refute their supposed scare tactics is to explicitly assure the public that abortion receives no state funds in his program, that illegal aliens are not included in his proposed new blanket coverage, and that autonomous government panels will not withhold federal health-care coverage, in the case of the elderly, on the basis of perceived cost-benefit considerations.

I think we are seeing a sort of presidential meltdown. As Obama's polls free-fall, and threaten wider political damage, it causes him a certain novel exasperation that for the first time in his life soaring hope-and-change rhetoric for some strange reason no longer substitutes for a detailed, logical, and honest agenda. The problem right now is not with un-Christian opponents, but dozens of congressional Democrats who simply do not wish to run on state-run medical care (as well as higher taxes, larger deficits, cap-and-trade, etc.), and no longer sense the president's popularity trumps the unpopularity of his agenda and gives them cover with the voters.

Posted by Tom at 9:30 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

April 11, 2009

Easter Sunday

For the past few years, my church rents a huge tent for our Easter service. There was too much rain today for good pictures, and I'll be busy to blog tomorrow. These photos are from a three years ago, but no matter:

I'm sure the service at Cornerstone Chapel tomorrow will be inspiring, with the music and Pastor Gary Hamrick at their best. It is good, however, to preview the message so as to be in the right frame of mind.

Let's quote from Luke this year

On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, "Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.' " Then they remembered his words.

When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles. But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense. Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened.

There it is. What of it?

Let's go to Matthew 16:13-15

When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"

They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"

Now then, dear reader, who do you say he is?

In the next verse, Peter answers correctly:

Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

I made my decision many years ago to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior. You never know which hour will be your last. Decide now, before it's too late.

Posted by Tom at 10:30 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

March 9, 2009

Obama's Unlimited Stem Cell Research - No Ethics Allowed

Today the Obama Administration reversed President Bush's ban on certain types of stem cell research. It was done by executive order, and you can download it here.

The key in my first sentence is "certain types." If you don't know why, don't worry, for many in the media don't appear to know either.

The issue is that there are two types of stem cells, embryonic and adult. Too many people on the left talk about "stem cells" as if that's all there was to it.

I'll give you my bottom line up front; I think that embryonic stem cells, like embryos in the womb, are individual, separate, human beings and as such should be protected by law. As I oppose abortion, I oppose creating and killing embryonic stem cells. As you'll find out below, I'm sure about embryos in the womb, but not 100% on the embryonic stem cells.

My reasoning is simple; killing a life to save a life is immoral. I think that in fact this is a point we can all agree on. If you believe that embryonic stem cells, like embryos in the womb, are not individual, separate, human beings, fine. But lets avoid irrational statements and name calling while discussing the issue.

Here is a summary of the dispute, taken from Wikipedia. Yes I know, it's not always a good source, but this article is not flagged as "the neutrality of this article is disputed" so what we get is I think is probably pretty accurate:

There exists a widespread controversy over human embryonic stem cell research that emanates from the techniques used in the creation and usage of stem cells. Human embryonic stem cell research is controversial because, with the present state of technology, starting a stem cell line requires the destruction of a human embryo and/or therapeutic cloning. However, recently, it has been shown in principle that adult stem cell lines can be manipulated to generate embryonic-like stem cell lines using a single-cell biopsy similar to that used in preimplantation genetic diagnosis that may allow stem cell creation without embryonic destruction.[34] It is not the entire field of stem cell research, but the specific field of human embryonic stem cell research that is at the centre of an ethical debate.

Opponents of the research argue that embryonic stem cell technologies are a slippery slope to reproductive cloning and can fundamentally devalue human life. Those in the pro-life movement argue that a human embryo is a human life and is therefore entitled to protection.

Contrarily, supporters of embryonic stem cell research argue that such research should be pursued because the resultant treatments could have significant medical potential. It is also noted that excess embryos created for in vitro fertilization could be donated with consent and used for the research.

The ensuing debate has prompted authorities around the world to seek regulatory frameworks and highlighted the fact that stem cell research represents a social and ethical challenge.

Read on and you quickly find that the entire issue is horribly complicated. As such, I'll be the first to tell you that I don't understand it all and take much of my position on this issue from people I trust, like these folks, who have investigated the matter in detail.

I think that serious people on both sides of the debate will admit that it's not a simple matter. Further, most I think will agree that we don't want to leave all decisions to scientists. At the very least, if they want our money for their research, not to mention their salaries, they must listen to our opinions.

Yes we all want to save lives. Yes, we on the right are in favor of research that results in cures for the dread diseases that we hope we never get. But please, those of us who object to embryonic stem cell research are not just a bunch of religious kooks, as too many on the left want to paint us. Religion can and does form our world view, including that of protecting the unborn. It is a sad day when this in and of it self is said to be invalid. I would simply comment that the left has no problem with religion when it's used to promote government spending on the poor, or when it's part of the antiwar movement (note that I don't have any problem when it's used that way also. I just disagree with the theology and reasoning).

We're told, insistently screamed at, that we must have unlimited stem cell research. It will save lives, they say.

Undoubtedly some cures will be found through such research. But there's the nagging suspicion, confirmed by the most elementary google search, that the promise has been wildly exaggerated. Another basic google search returns many articles stating that recent scientific advances render embryonic stem-cell research unnecessary. But increasingly facts don't matter, because we must have research. It all reminds one of Al Gore and his global warming adherents.

No doubt that just as with global warming, many proponents of unlimited stem cell research are sincere good people. In these matters I try to give the benefit of the doubt.

But there are many, especially although not exclusively in the pro-abortion, er, "pro-choice" movement, whose motives are... less than honest.

You see, it's only partially a scientific debate. At its heart, the stem cell debate is really part of the controversy over abortion. Where you come down it all depends on where you think life starts. Or whether you just want to go out, have sex with whomever you like, and not worry about the consequences.

It's all part of what Ramesh Ponnuru was talking about in The Party of Death. These are the people who are not just happy with abortion and all manner of scientific research and how-dare-you-bring--up-ethics, they're pushing us to accept things such as cloning and assisted suicide.

If such things do not at least give you pause, you need to start wondering about yourself. If you think that George W. Bush, or any serious person on the right is callous with regard to Afgani or Iraqi civilian deaths, you're not intellectually honest. If you think we haven't at least considered whether support for the death penalty might not contradict our pro-life position, you're poorly informed.

The notion that science must be unfettered from all moral and ethical concerns is seen in the Washington Post story on the matter, the headline of which is "Obama Aims to Shield Science From Politics." Sigh.

The Post uses the term "politics" because they want to disparage those of us who want restrictions. Despite its fairly bland denotative meaning as simply "The art or science of government or governing," the term has taken more a more sinister connotative meaning in everyday speech. The Post doesn't want you to think that there might be legitimate ethical concerns.

It is not, after all, "politics" or "political ideology" to believe that that embryonic stem cells, like embryos in the womb, are individual, separate, human beings and as such should be protected by law.

Further, let's consider that there is legitimate debate over the use of animals for scientific research. There is growing awareness, I think, that there should at least be some sort of restrictions. Certainly there is a large movement, mostly on the left, that supports much restriction if not outright bans on animal testing. I think it safe to say that these are usually the same people who on abortion call themselves "pro-choice" and who today celebrate Obama's decision.

However one comes down on animal testing, it is only the callous few who insist that "anything goes" in the name of saving human lives. To be sure, I value human lives more than animal, and if at least some testing is beneficial, so be it. But the point is that those who support restrictions do so because they understand that no, scientists cannot be allowed to do whatever they want unfettered by moral and ethical concerns.

Which brings us to President Obama and his executive order.

What's noticeable about it is its complete lack of acknowledgment that their might be an ethical debate. Download the executive order linked to above and read it yourself if you don't believe me. Obama sees not restrictions on science at all as valid.

At least when President Bush announced his policy he went on national television and explained it to the nation. He admitted it was a "complex and difficult issue," and one he had arrived at only through much study and reflection.

Obama shows no such concern. During the signing ceremony he remarked that

This Order is an important step in advancing the cause of science in America. But let's be clear: promoting science isn't just about providing resources - it is also about protecting free and open inquiry. It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient - especially when it's inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda - and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.

To Obama, any restrictions at all are "manipulation or coercion" and "ideology." This is amorality at it's worst. Apparently, as part of the new regimen; we are to serve science, not the other way around. It's the attitude of science uber alles, and those of us without the proper degree need to just shut up and listen to our betters. And keep the cash flowing.

During the campaign I tagged Obama as "the pro-abortion candidate" because of his extremism on the matter. Since becoming president, his policy decisions confirm what I wrote. People like him, who voted against the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act and then lied about why he did it, are callous with regard to all life. We saw it in his executive order, and I fear we'll see more.

Posted by Tom at 10:30 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

December 24, 2008

The Christmas Story

The relevant sections of Matthew 1 and 2, then Luke 2. Then a bit of commentary. All via Biblegateway.com, NIV translation:

Matthew 1

18This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. 19Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

20But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[c] because he will save his people from their sins."

22All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"[d]--which means, "God with us."

24When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Matthew 2

The Visit of the Magi
1After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi[e] from the east came to Jerusalem 2and asked, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east[f] and have come to worship him."

3When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. 4When he had called together all the people's chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Christ[g] was to be born. 5"In Bethlehem in Judea," they replied, "for this is what the prophet has written:

6" 'But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for out of you will come a ruler
who will be the shepherd of my people Israel.'[h]"

7Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. 8He sent them to Bethlehem and said, "Go and make a careful search for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him."

9After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen in the east[i] went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. 10When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. 11On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold and of incense and of myrrh. 12And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route.

The Escape to Egypt
13When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. "Get up," he said, "take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him." 14So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, 15where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son."[j]

16When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. 17Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled:

18"A voice is heard in Ramah,
weeping and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children
and refusing to be comforted,
because they are no more."[k]

The Return to Nazareth
19After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt 20and said, "Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child's life are dead."

21So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. 22But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, 23and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene."

Luke 2

The Birth of Jesus
1In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2(This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3And everyone went to his own town to register.

4So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

I took this photo of an ancient manger at the ruins of Tel Meggido while in Israel last summer. A "manger" is an animal feeding trough, not, as I always thought, a barn-type structure. The nativity scenes you see where Jesus is in a structure are pure guesswork.

The Shepherds and the Angels
8And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. 9An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. 10But the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. 11Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ[a] the Lord. 12This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger."

13Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,

14"Glory to God in the highest,
and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests."

15When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, "Let's go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about."

16So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby, who was lying in the manger. 17When they had seen him, they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, 18and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them. 19But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart. 20The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, which were just as they had been told.

And that's it. The actual part about the manger, the magi ("wise men") and Shepherds is always so much shorter than you imagine if all you've seen are the manger scenes in people's yards. You get the impression that there's a whole story about how they went to the inn, spoke with the manager, couldn't get space, had to go elsewhere... etc.

Further, the birth story is only in 2 of the 4 gospels. Mark and John ignore it completely, going straight to Jesus' baptism.

On the other hand, all four discuss His arrest, trial, crucifixion and resurrection extensively. Matthew devotes 3 chapters, Mark 3, Luke 3, and John 4. Each is also a lot longer than the sections of Matthew and Luke that describe His birth.

It's not any different in the rest of the New Testament. Neither Acts, the various letters by Paul, James, Peter, John and Jude, not John again in Revelation, give much attention to Christ's birth.

The reason is pretty simple; we are not saved by His birth but through His death on the cross. As such, the fact that He was born is more a means to an end than anything else. The important business came at the end of his life.

Theologically, then, one may say that Easter, not Christmas, should be the biggest and most important holiday on the Christian calendar. The reasons why Christmas has that honor are long and complicated, but I think have more to do with economics than theology. The story of the birth is also a lot cuter than that of a beaten man nailed or tied to a cross and left to die.

In any event, the history of the holiday is a lot less important than what it means. More to the point, matters of salvation and eternity are not things that should simply be remembered during holidays, or even just on Sunday mornings. Nor is Jesus just a teacher of morals and ethics. He was born of a virgin, and died on a cross for our sins. The least we can do is our best to honor him every minute of every day in all that we do.

Posted by Tom at 9:09 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

August 3, 2008

"Campaign is no place for religious bigotry"

Earlier this week I wrote a post in which I expressed disdain for some evangelical leaders who "warned" Sen. McCain against selecting Mitt Romney as his running mate, saying that their flocks will "abandon the Republican ticket on Election Day if that happens." The post garnered several comments from pro-Huckabee people taking me to task for my comments.

If they didn't like that one, they really won't like today's editorial from The Washington Times titled "Campaign is no place for religious bigotry":

He flip-flopped on abortion and same-sex marriage; he is now pro-life and opposes both same-sex marriage and civil unions. However, much of the white evangelical opposition to Mr. Romney is not based on principle. It is simply old-fashioned bigotry - a discomfort with Mr. Romney's Mormon faith. White evangelicals need to be reminded that this is America - a republic where neither religious convictions nor the lack thereof disqualifies a politician from office.

As Ralph Hallow, in collaboration with Don Lambro, reported in the July 29 editions of The Washington Times, white evangelicals prefer former Gov. of Arkansas Mike Huckabee as Mr. McCain's running mate. In a tight contest with Barack Obama, a white evangelical revolt might harm Mr. McCain's prospects. White evangelicals are the base of the Republican Party: 70 percent voted for the Republican Party in 2006. Also, President Bush won 68 percent of the white evangelical vote in 2000 and 78 percent in 2004, according to the Pew Research Center. Placing Mr. Romney on the ticket might lead to a drop of 7 percent to 10 percent of the white evangelical vote. It may also lead to a de-energized base. On the other hand, Mr. Romney would inspire fiscal conservatives to support Mr. McCain.

Rather than kowtowing to evangelical pressure, Mr. McCain should declare that he will not make a candidate's faith a factor in his deliberations. This will reinforce the Republican nominee's image as a man who marches to the beat of his own drum and is not a Party puppet. If Mr. McCain chooses Mr. Romney as his running mate, this will also help re-brand the Republican Party as one that can break down barriers.

White evangelicals need a history lesson. Protestants began to flee religious persecution in England in droves in the 16th and 17th centuries; they were especially victimized by the provision that there was a religious test in order to hold office. Evangelicals in America would do well to rise above the same kind of discrimination their ancestors were once victimized by.

Mr. Romney has a long record of serving America. If his service has been good enough for Massachusetts, why is it not good enough for white evangelicals across America? Also, in the battle to win more and more adherents to the social conservative causes they hold dear, it is in the interest of white evangelicals to recruit as many allies as possible - regardless of their religious convictions. Thus, these evangelicals would do well to be tolerant and work toward broadening the conservative base, rather than upholding barriers based on religious bigotry.

Exactly right. If you really can't take Mitt Romney because he changed his position on some issues, fine. But don't embarrass yourself by calling Mike Huckabee a conservative. He's not. The truth is that most evangelicals who support Huckabee are doing so because they want an evangelical Christian in or near the White House. And religion is not a reason to vote for, or against, anyone.

Posted by Tom at 8:00 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

July 29, 2008

Not Mike Huckabee

I found this story in today's Washington Times irritating

Prominent evangelical leaders are warning Sen. John McCain against picking former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney as his running mate, saying their troops will abandon the Republican ticket on Election Day if that happens.

They say Mr. Romney lacks trust on issues such as outlawing abortion and opposing same-sex marriage and because he is a Mormon. Opposition is particularly powerful among those who supported former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in the Republican presidential primaries earlier this year.

"McCain and Romney would be like oil and water," said evangelical novelist Tim LaHaye, who supported Mr. Huckabee. "We aren't against Mormonism, but Romney is not a thoroughgoing evangelical and his flip-flopping on issues is understandable in a liberal state like Massachusetts, but our people won't understand that."

The Rev. Rob McCoy, pastor of Calvary Chapel in Thousand Oaks, Calif., who speaks at evangelical events across the country, told The Washington Times, "I will vote for McCain unless he does one thing. You know what that is? If he puts Romney on the ticket as veep.

"It will alienate the entire evangelical community - 62 million self-professing evangelicals in this country, half of them registered to vote, are going to be deeply saddened," Mr. McCoy added.

Grrrr

The idea that these evangelicals would sabotoge the election by not voting for McCain is infuriating.

They can claim all they want that Mormonism is not an issue, but I think that it plays a role whether they want to admit it or not.

I'm not happy with Romney's recent conversion to the conservative side of the social issues either. But the real question in any "flip" is whether the conversion is real or whether it is done for political reasons. From what I've read Romney has offered genuine reasons for changing his mind that makes sense.

If people don't like Mitt Romney, fine. I like him and have never made any secret of it. Of all the Republican candidates he was the most reliably conservative on the most issues (once you got past the flips, anyway), and had experience to credibly claim he could put words to action. He's got more business and management experience than any of the other presidential candidates in either party.

There seems to be a segment who won't trust anyone who hasn't been a conservative their whole life. Kathryn Jean Lopez dealt with this pretty well, I think, over at The Corner earlier today:

Mitt Romney -- is an example of someone who came to the wisdom of conservatism through practical experience. He saw its reasonableness in the face of liberal overreach. We should want to embrace such conversions. We should want to encourage people to get Right.

Or we can fervently close the door to them and their contributions and fresh blood. What a good move for a movement that needs re-energization and recruits.

Maybe it's just me, but the Democrats never seem to undergo such angst when one of their own flips to a more liberal position. Al Gore was famously pro-life while a senator, and underwent miraculous conversion when he decided to run for his party's nomination. Joe Lieberman became more liberal when Gore selected him for the veep spot. But too many on the right almost seem not to want anyone to come round to our point of view.

But all this said we have to admit that there is a lot of opposition to Mitt ROmney. If you still want to not trust him because of his flips, fine. But to say you won't vote Republican if he's on the ticket is madness.

Frankly, it goes to show how narrow-minded some of these evangelicals really are.

Not that this trait is unique to them; far from it. The Democrats have their own problems with their own special interest groups, many of whom exhibit the same attitude on their own issues as do the evangelicals in this article.

How Meaningful is the Article?

Before we go too far we need to evaluate the article itself. I haven't studied the issue so only have the polls cited in the article to go on. I am not certain how much influence the evangelical leaders cited in this article really have.

My own church is affiliated with the Calvary Chapel cited in the article (rather than a traditional protestant denomination where all churches are part of the same organization, each church in the Calvary network is an independent entity). I listen to a few preachers on the radio such as Charles Stanley and Greg Laurie, and I like James Dobson, but while I enjoy their message of personal salvation there's no way I'm going to pay attention to what any of them say about whom I should vote for.

The question is, how many evangelicals will?

Some really do take the advice of leaders such as Rob McCoy. Evangelicals like Pat Robertson have more support than we upper-middle class suburbanites like to admit. In the end, though, I think that most will get over their inhibitions and vote for a McCain/Romney ticket.

I even have to wonder how many people who attend an evangelical church have even heard of the leaders cited in this article. I hadn't.

All this said, I'm not necessarily advocating Romney for the veep spot. He would bring a lot to the ticket, but I'm not sure if such a high-profile selection would gain McCain more than he'd lose. McCain desperately needs someone who can talk economics, but it may be safer to pick a relative unknown.

The Problem With Huckabee

The worst person McCain could pick is Mike Huckabee. For starters, Huckabee is or at least was a Babtist pastor, and I want to keep my pastors in the pulpit and out of politics.

The religion issue also makes him easy to attack. It'd be easy to paint him as a religious extremist.

McCain would lose far more votes by choosing Huckabee than he would gain. In order to win this election we need to solidify the conservative base but also to win the middle. Huckabee would lose the middle. Hillary supporters who might under the right circumstances support McCain will flee from a ticket that includes Huckabee.

Huckabee fails two legs of the three-legged conservative stool. He is right on the social issues, which is why the evangelicals love him. But he fails the other two; economics and foreign policy. The Cato Institute gave him a "D" for his fiscal policy while governor of Little Rock. From what I recall him saying during the primaries, his foreign policy would be closer to Carter than to Reagan.

Then there's the issue of his one-liners. Huckabee fancies himself a comedian, and is known for his clever quips. The problem with this is that all it takes is one inappropriate comment to land you in hot water, and Huckabee already has a few of those under his belt. A few more and Republicans would be in the embarrassing position of watching McCain disavow his own vice presidential selection.

So it's accurate to say I've taken a strong dislike to Mike Huckabee. That said, I'd vote for McCain if he chose him.

Conclusion

I doubt that McCain will select either Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney. While each would bring a particular strength to the ticket, each is controversial, and would alienate certain voters. The last thing McCain needs is that sort of controversy. I think he'll pick a relative no name who can talk economics and doesn't have a controversial background.

Posted by Tom at 8:45 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

May 11, 2008

Israel Trip 2008

We visited the Mount of Beatitudes, watched Israeli F-15s and 16s fly in formation over Jerusalem, contemplated Jesus agony in the Garden of Gethsemane, saw one place where David hid from Saul, went to an Independence Day concert, spoke with Israeli soldiers, swam in the Dead Sea, peered into Syria from an old Israeli fort on the Golan, and stuffed ourselves with all manner of delicacies morning, noon, and night. Oh, and the weather was perfect.

It was a fantastic trip. Nothing I write here can do justice to all that we saw and experienced, and I can only post a few of the photos. Speaking of which I took 461 photos in 7 days of touring, more than on any other trip. Thank heavens for digital photography.

I've uploaded all of my photos to photobucket, but unfortunately they're out of chronological order, and I can't figure out why. They run from #IM000539 to IM001000, so that's your clue as you scroll through. I'll try and fix it when I get time. Even if I can't fix the order, I will go through and label as many as I can.

This was a trip set up by my church, and was mainly a tour of the holy land, to see where the various events occurred in both Old and New Testaments. My pastor, who went with us, said that once you've been to the holy land you'll never read the bible the same way again. I can already see that he was right. I can't say that it made me stronger in my faith, as I'm pretty strong now, but there's nothing quite like seeing the landscape where it all took place.

We landed in Tel Aviv on Thursday May 1 after what seemed two never-ending flights, and spent our first night there. The next day we boarded the tour bus and headed north to Tiberius by the Sea of Galilee, stopping at several placed along the way. We spent three days in Tiberius, and then headed south to Jersusalem, skirting the border with Jordan. We then spend the last three days in and around Jerusalem.

We'll start with this; for almost 2,000 years the doubters said that Pontius Pilate was a myth, a legend invented by Christians. There being no records in the Roman archive referring to him, Christians could only defend themselves by referring to scripture. Then, in 1961, a block of limestone was uncovered in Caesarea that referred to him, and was dated to the 1st century A.D. Once again, the scriptures were confirmed. Known as the "Pilate Stone", the original is in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. Here's our Israeli tour guide, Ronnie Cohen, beside a facsimile of the stone at Caesarea, explaining its significance.

Here's Pastor Gary teaching from atop Mt Carmel

Our typical procedure when we arrived at a site was that Ronnie would first provide an overview, explaining the site's historical and religious significance and perhaps some geography. Then, Pastor Gary would lead us in a bible study. At Mt Carmel we studied 1 Kings 18, especially verses 16 - 45.

Long story short, Mt Carmel was where the prophet Elijah confronted the prophets of Baal, and challenged them to a contest, one that they failed miserably. The key is perhaps in verse 21

Elijah went before the people and said, "How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him." But the people said nothing

There's a point in life where you have to make a choice. You either follow the way of God or you choose the pleasures of the world. The prophets of Baal choose poorly.

Here's me in the small Catholic chapel built in 1939 atop the Mount of Beatitudes, the site of where Jesus gave his famous "Sermon on the Mount"

The event is recorded in Matthew 5-7, and probably in Luke 6:17-49 (there's some disagreement over whether they're the same or different sermons).

Either way, the basic message is that we as believers are commanded to live the uncommon life. We should live to a higher standard, to a higher degree.

At various times over the centuries, the Catholic Church has purchased the land in and around holy sites in Israel. The advantage is that this has prevented commercial developers from spoiling the sites. The downside is that the churches really have nothing per se to do with the significance of the site.

We stopped off at a spot alongside the Jordan River and Pastor Gary did a mass baptism. The river water was somewhat stagnant, I've been baptized as an adult already, and and all-in-all I'd rather not have done it, but I figured there was no point in going all that way to Israel and not participate in everything.

Baptism is not required for salvation, but, as with works, is evidence of faith.

North to the Golan Heights

The next day we headed north to the Golan Heights. We stopped at several places, but our ultimate destination was an Israeli fort that had been turned into a national park. The Golan is essentially a plateau that rises above Galilee to a maximum height of 1,700 feet. It is a strategic location that Israel captured in the 1967 Six Day War, and managed to retain during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. In my opinion they've have to be nuts to give it back to the government of Bashir Assad in return for a piece of paper promising peace.

Along the way we passed several Israeli Army bases. Here is a photo of some Merkava tanks that I took from the bus (as always, click on the photo to enlarge).

The fort was atop Mt Avital, just a few miles from the Syrian border. Our guide, Ronnie, had been stationed here as part of his tour in the Israeli Army, Here's the fort

And here's a view eastward from the fort. The farmland in the foreground is Israeli, and the treeline and beyond is Syria. Syrian military positions are hidden in the trees.

I had the same feeling here as I did while standing on the beaches of Normandy some years ago. These are places that if you're like me you've read about dozens of times, and seen innumerable History Channel programs about. In Normandy I could almost see the American troops make their way through the villages, tossing a hand grenade over a wall before going around it. Here I could almost feel the victory of 1967 and the desperation of Yom Kippur some six years later.

South to Jerusalem

After three days at Tiberius we packed up and headed south. If you don't stop the trip from Tiberius to Jerusalem is only a few hours, but we took a whole day to do it since we made several stops along the way; Mount Arbel, of no biblical significance but a great view of Galilee, Beit Shean (or "Beth Shan"), where among other things Saul and his son's bodies were hung from the city walls1 Samuel 31, Gideon's Spring, where the Israelites won a victory over the Midianites because they obeyed God (Judges 7), and had dinner in a tent at Genesis Land hosted by none other than "Abraham" himself. It was kind of hokey but in the end pretty neat and well worth doing.

As we drove south the land went from green to arid. As mentioned earlier, we drove on route 90, which runs just parallel to the Jordan River, which is the border. As such, most of the Israeli "settlements" and Palestinian territory was well to the west of us. We did see a few settlements, however. What was striking was the Israeli ability to turn the desert into productive farmland, something that the Arabs never did when it was all theirs.

Jerusalem

We spent two of the next three days in Jerusalem itself, and one day went to the Dead Sea area. We did so much in the city it's hard to know what to exclude from this brief overview, but no account would be complete without the Garden of Gethsemane, which is at the bottom of the Mount of Olives, just outside the Old City (Matthew 26:36-46, Mark 14: 32-41, Luke 22:39-46 and John 17, although Gethsemane is not directly mentioned in the latter two.

And here it is, the "Western Wall", or "Wailing Wall"; all that stands of Herod the Great's expansion of the second temple in 19 B.C.

The photo above was taken the evening we arrived in the city. The soldiers in the foreground are there for a rehearsal of their Memorial Day observances (more about which later). You can't see it in this photo, but just to the right are a lot more soldiers milling about.

The photo below was taken on Thursday May 8, the last day we were in Israel. As you can see, there was a multitude of people up at the wall. Anyone could go up to it; they don't check your religion. The only requirements were that men and women were segregated (the women's section is to the right beyond a small wall in the photo) and all men had to have some sort of head covering.

Despite the history and religious significance, one of the most moving and important stops was at a small shop called Shorashim Biblical Shop, owned and operated by Moshe and Dov Kempinski.

As we sat in a semi-circle in their shop, Moshe explained the unique mission he and his brother have set forth on: It's all about "bridge building". The fall of the Iron Curtain led to a fall of another curtain between Judaism and Christianity. Though they set up their shop 25 years ago, it has only been in the past 16 the Christians became interested in their store. We need to listen to each other, he stressed, and learn each other's language. God brought you to Jerusalem, he said. Sure, everyone has their own excuse for coming; to see the sights, where Jesus walked, to learn the history... all tricks God used to get you here. The fact is that why you think you're here is a trick played by God to get you here so that he could spend some time with you in His house. Of course, in the end, it's all about more than "god talk"; if you can't walk the walk don't talk the talk.

Because of the upcoming Israeli Remembrance Day (May 7. It's similar to our Memorial Day, but they're actually solemn about it) and Independence Day (May 8) observances, security was very tight, and soldiers were posted everywhere. I saw throughout the Old City, but also at toll booths and shopping centers. Geek that I am, I noticed that most carried the American M-4 carbine, some had the M16A2, but a few the Vietnam-era M16A1.

Here's a representative photo of the Old City. If I have it right, the large Menorah at right is a recreation by The Temple Institute of the original one in Solomon's temple (the First Temple, which lasted from 1000 B.C. to 586B.C. when it was destroyed by the Babylonian King Nebuchadrezzar).

On May 8 we were just outside Jersusalem on a hill looking over into Bethlehem when what came flying overhead but several formations of F-16s, F-15s, old A-4s (!) and even a KC-135 tanker escorted by more F-16s. It was quite a thrill!

There are two places where Christians believe Jesus may have been buried before rising on the third day. One is at Calvary (sometimes called "Golgotha"), and what is now the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The other is the Garden Tomb, the site of a tomb where he may have been buried (still having been crucified at Calvary). Of the two we only visited the latter.

Of course, no one really knows the location, so it may have been one of the above sites or neither. As our guide (an entertaining old gentleman) at the Garden Tomb stressed, it doesn't really matter.

The Dead Sea Area

While the Sea of Galilee is about 900ft below sea level, and Death Valley only 281ft below sea level, the Dead Sea is a whopping 1,378ft below sea level. At 30% salinity vs 3.5% for the ocean, it is the second saltiest body of water on earth, with only a lake a remote part of east Africa being saltier. The Dead Sea is also quite large, at 42mi x 11 mi, versus 13mi x 8mi for the Sea of Galilee. The Great Salt Lake in Utah is 75mi x 28mi, but has an average depth of only 14ft and maximum depth of 33ft, versus 394ft and 1,083ft respectively for the Dead Sea. In other words, it is darn huge and very salty. As its name implies, nothing can live in it.

Unfortunately I didn't get any photos of me or the other swimming in it, but it is incredibly bouyant. You can float no problem on either you back or your stomach without any effort. If you try and stand straight up (in deep water without your feet touching), your feet want to pop up as if they have floats on them. It was very weird and quite fun.

However, before going in there were a few soldiers stationed outside, and I overheard they both speaking fairly good English. I approached them, said I was a tourist from the U.S.A., said that I appreciated what they were doing, and that our fight in Iraq and Afghanistan against AQI and the Taliban was part of their fight against Hamas and Hezbollah; "they're all jihadists". They enthusiastically agreed and let me have my picture taken with them.

The mountaintop fort of Masada is not part of biblical history, but is such an important part of Jewish and Israelite history that no trip to Israel is complete without a visit. Overlooking the Dead Sea, it was the "last stand" of a Jewish group known as the Zealots after Rome destroyed the Second Temple in Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and ended the existence of Israel until modern times.

Long story short, the Zealots held out against a Roman seige for three years. Finally, when the Romans broke through and entered the fortress city, they found no one alive but two women and five children. Why were the rest all dead? The Roman seize machines hadn't killed that many.

The answer is that the Jews knew that rape, torture, and slavery awaited them if taken alive. But Jewish law forbade suicide.

They way they got around it was the each man killed his family, then the men killed each other, until they were down to twelve. These then drew lots, with the loser killing his fellows, and finally falling on his sword, so that only he violated the law.

The story of Masada is not part of the Talmud, and was largely forgotten by Jews until the 1920s. That we know of it at all is only due to the writings of Flavius Josephus, who accompanied the Romans during their seige.

Because of the situation of modern Israel, it is therefore natural that they look to Masada as Americans look at The Alamo; "never again". Indeed, all or some Israeli soldiers take their oath atop Masada and repeat the oath "Masada shall not fall again."

Masada today is a national park, with the easiest way to get up by cable car. Atop the mountain they've got all the usual markers just as you find at any park in the U.S. Our tour guide Ronnie did his excellent job. But then, during the tour, something different happened. Something special.

At exactly 11:00 a voice came through a speaker (in Hebrew, of course), followed by a one minute siren. This happened all throughout Israel, not just through loundspeakers, but on radio and television. The speaker asked for a minute of silence in observance of Israeli war dead.

It was their Memorial Day.

One of the places where David hid from King Saul was at the oasis of Ein Gedi (1 Samuel 23 - 24) Situated in a mountain crevice, it's just what you think of when you think of an "oasis"; a beautiful stream and waterfall surrounded by palm trees in the middle of the desert. The land surrounding the Dead Sea is a stark and harsh deseert; kind of like what you see in much the American southwest. Here's a representative scene

Then here's Ein Gedi

Pretty nice, huh? It doesn't take you long to figure out why David selected this place as a hideout.

We did much more in Israel than I can write about here. See the photobucket page for all photos, which I promise to label some day.

I've been fortunate to have been to a half a dozen or so European countries, and enjoyed every one. That said, most are only worth one visit. Before Israel, Greece is the only one I'd really like to go back to. Now Israel is on that list too.

Posted by Tom at 9:00 PM | Comments (11) | TrackBack

April 17, 2008

The Pope in America

Photo from Mike's America

Although I am am an evangelical Christian and not a Catholic, I have always found spiritual inspiration in the two popes that I have known in my lifetime. I remember when John Paul II made his first "world tour" in 1979, which included his dramatic first trip to Poland. Dubbed the "Pilgrim Pope", he visited some 117 countries during his papacy, traveling some 725,000 miles, and ministering to millions. Fluent or at least conversant in many languages, he usually required no interpreter.

JPII exhorted the faithful to "Be not afraid!" (Mt 14:27) three times during his sermon when first installed as Pope. While all Christians live (or should live) by that motto that we have nothing to fear as God is on our side, the Poles who were under the thumb of communism knew that it was also especially directed at them. Along with Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Helmut Kohl, he helped drive the nail in the coffin of that awful ideology.

JPII's legacy was his travels and ability to inspire millions. His successor, Benedict XVI ("B16"), will no doubt travel widely, but will never have the "rock star" status of the much younger JPII. I think that his legacies will be 1) to heal the church in the wake of the sex-abuse scandals that JPII sadly left untended, and 2) to challenge the rise of radical Islam with an intellectualism that few others can muster. As Joseph Ratzinger, he had been a professor of theology at both the University of Tübingen and the University of Regensburg in Germany. A dummy he's not.

It is not my purpose here to discuss all these things in any more detail than I already have. You can read the news for yourself as all the major outlets are giving the trip much coverage. Fox News has a whole page on the Papal visit, and the others do too I am sure. The Vatican also has a page dedicated to the trip, where they will publish all of his major statements and messages.

Fox News photo

Sadly, I am sure there are many, or at least some, protestants who will poo hoo the Pope. You don't have to go far in some churches to hear someone say that they are a "recovering catholic" or some such thing; and have such a declaration met with approval. I recently left a small bible study group when one of the members said that the Catholic church was a "cult". I had tried to make the case that although I didn't agree with the Catholics on enough that I was going to stay protestant, but they would have none of it.

Not that Catholics have never uttered anything derogatory towards protestants. I'm sure a lot gets said behind closed doors that is equal to what I hear sometimes at protestant churches.

The good news is that most all of this is in fact said behind closed doors. The day when it was acceptable for Christians to publicly denegrate each other is thankfully mostly over.

We in the faith community all know that there is some animosity between groups of Christians, which is an unfortunate aspect of all religion.

The bottom line though is that both (or all) sides need to knock it off. I really couldn't care less whether you're a member of church A or B as long as you're a believer. What we need to do is spend our time with the lost, trying to bring them into the fold. As such, we need to be the salt of the earth and light of the world, and bickering amongst ourselves will not further that goal. So if the Pope's visit brings one lost soul to Christ and that person chooses the Catholic church, then I say all the better.

Some believers have a narrow view of what is acceptable doctrine, and others a wider view. I am obviously in the latter group. Obviously doctrine does matter, and there is a certain divergence point where you cease to be a Christian. Where that is reasonable people can debate, but it is there. I just take a wider view.

But even when I find someone or some group "out of bounds", I operate by one simple rule; I never say something in private that I would not say in public. I forgot to ask, but I wonder if the man in my (former) small group who said that the Catholic church is a "cult" would say that in public. Somehow I doubt it.

Occasionally I have have negative things to say about some churches that have veered to the left in their political statements and actions. I criticized the PCUSA when the passed a resolution divesting their investments from Israel (which the reversed after a firestorm of criticism). Criticizing a church over political matters is different than theological quibbling I think, because when they "go political" then they open themselves up to more scrutiny. This goes for conservative as well as liberal churches.

Either way I'm not going to worry much about what others think. I'm not a Catholic and won't become one, but am cheered by the Pope's visit and believe that he will a good defender of the faith and of the West.

Posted by Tom at 8:47 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

April 14, 2008

Obama and Clinton at the Compassion Forum

Yesterday evening presidential candidates and Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton participated in a "Compassion Forum" at Messiah College in Grantham Pennsylania. Messiah College is a private Christian institution. CNN broadcast the event. Here's what amounts to a mission statement from the website

Now more than ever, Americans motivated by faith are bridging ideological divides to address domestic and international poverty, global AIDS, climate change, genocide in Darfur, and human rights and torture. The Compassion Forum will provide the opportunity for candidates to discuss how their faith and moral convictions bear on their positions on these important issues.

The Compassion Forum will be a unique and unprecedented event. Each candidate will participate in a separate substantive conversation. This will not be a debate. Questions will be posed by co-moderators Jon Meacham, editor of "Newsweek," and Campbell Brown, anchor of CNN's Election Center.

This is not the first time the Democrats have openly discussed religion in such a forum. Last June, Obama, Clinton, and Edwards participated in a "Presidential Forum on Faith, Values and Poverty" that was sponsored by the Sojourners, a very liberal Christian group. I thought that Clinton and Obama did well in that one, but didn't much care for what Edwards had to say.

Let's see how the Democrat candidates did this time.

But first, let's state the obvious:

If Republicans did this the left would scream that they were "pushing their religion" on the country, and that if elected they would declare a theocracy and (somehow) force everyone to be a Christian. Yet in this presidential season the Democrats have participated in not one but two faith-based forums, and I haven't heard boo about it. If you think that these forums are an aberration and that it is only the right that "mixes politics with religion", just do some basic research on churches and associations like the Sojourners, the World Council of Churches, National Council of Churches, Presbyterian Church USA, Episcopalian Church USA, The Unitarian Universalist Association, Christian Peacemaker Teams.... and there are many more.

As I said in my post on the Democrats first forum, I was glad to see that they are not afraid of talking about faith. This is good. What we now have to do is get people to recognize that yes Republicans can and should talk about it too, and no, doing so does not portend the coming of a theocracy.

Both the religious left and religions right think that faith should play a role in public life, and that it should influence what you think about matters of public policy, and thus how you vote. The left is primarily concerned with what they call "social justice", and the right social conservatism (I can't think of an equivalent term so if you have an honest suggestion please leave it in the comments). This is how it should be.

Ok now that I've said that let's move on to the forum. CNN has helpfully posted a transcript.

Read the whole thing, but the parts about abortion are the parts I found the most interesting

MEACHAM: Senator, do you believe personally that life begins at conception?

CLINTON: I believe that the potential for life begins at conception. I am a Methodist, as you know. My church has struggled with this issue. In fact, you can look at the Methodist Book of Discipline and see the contradiction and the challenge of trying to sort that very profound question out.

But for me, it is also not only about a potential life; it is about the other lives involved. And, therefore, I have concluded, after great, you know, concern and searching my own mind and heart over many years, that our task should be in this pluralistic, diverse life of ours in this nation that individuals must be entrusted to make this profound decision, because the alternative would be such an intrusion of government authority that it would be very difficult to sustain in our kind of open society.

And as some of you've heard me discuss before, I think abortion should remain legal, but it needs to be safe and rare.

And I have spent many years now, as a private citizen, as first lady, and now as senator, trying to make it rare, trying to create the conditions where women had other choices.

I have supported adoption, foster care. I helped to create the campaign against teenage pregnancy, which fulfilled our original goal 10 years ago of reducing teenage pregnancies by about a third.

And I am committed to doing that. And I guess I would just add from my own personal experience, I have been in countries that have taken very different views about this profoundly challenging question.

Some of you know, I went to China in 1995 and spoke out against the Chinese government's one child policy, which led to forced abortions and forced sterilization because I believed that we needed to bear witness against what was an intrusive, abusive, dehumanizing effort to dictate how women and men would proceed with respect to the children they wished to have....

On to the other senator

REV. SAMUEL RODRIGUEZ, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL HISPANIC LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE: Senator Obama, the vast majority of Americans believe that abortion is a decision to be made by a woman, her family and her doctors. However, the vast majority of Americans similarly believe that abortion is the taking of a human life.

The terms pro-choice and pro-life, do they encapsulate that reality in our 21st Century setting and can we find common ground?

OBAMA: I absolutely think we can find common ground. And it requires a couple of things. Number one, it requires us to acknowledge that there is a moral dimension to abortion, which I think that all too often those of us who are pro-choice have not talked about or tried to tamp down. I think that's a mistake because I think all of us understand that it is a wrenching choice for anybody to think about.

The second thing, once we acknowledge that, is to recognize that people of good will can exist on both sides. That nobody wishes to be placed in a circumstance where they are even confronted with the choice of abortion. How we determine what's right at that moment, I think, people of good will can differ.

And if we can acknowledge that much, then we can certainly agree on the fact that we should be doing everything we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies that might even lead somebody to consider having an abortion.

And we've actually made progress over the last several years in reducing teen pregnancies, for example. And what I have consistently talked about is to take a comprehensive approach where we focus on abstinence, where we are teaching the sacredness of sexuality to our children.

But we also recognize the importance of good medical care for women, that we're also recognizing the importance of age-appropriate education to reduce risks. I do believe that contraception has to be part of that education process.

And if we do those things, then I think that we can reduce abortions and I think we should make sure that adoption is an option for people out there....

MEACHAM: Senator, do you personally believe that life begins at conception? And if not, when does it begin?

OBAMA: This is something that I have not, I think, come to a firm resolution on. I think it's very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So I don't presume to know the answer to that question. What I know, as I've said before, is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we're having these debates.

Oh please.

Both of these Democrats talk in circles and split hairs. Obama's fine words can't hide his radical left voting record on the issue. Clinton is no better. Both claim to want to reduce the incidence of abortion but their records say just the opposite. To them it's all a matter of providing enough condoms and "eduction" and maybe the pesky right-wingers will go away. Their real audience is the abortionist crowd who doesn't want the slightest restriction on their activities. Judging from this forum, they got what they wanted.

Tuesday Update

Some commentary I was reading today over at The Weekly Standard brought up this exchange

MEACHAM: Senator, we've heard about HIV/AIDS. Many people here are concerned about Darfur and a number of other humanitarian issues. Why do you think it is that a loving God allows innocent people to suffer?

CLINTON: Well...

(LAUGHTER)

MEACHAM: And we just have 30 seconds.

CLINTON: Yes. You know, that is the subject of generations of commentary and debate. And I don't know. I can't wait to ask him. Because I have...

(LAUGHTER)

CLINTON: I have just pondered it endless endlessly.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: But I do want to just add that what that means to me is that in the face of suffering, there is no doubt in my mind that God calls us to respond. You know, that's part of what we are expected to do.

For whatever reason it exists, it's very existence is a call to action. Certainly in, you know, our...

There's no need to "ponder" the matter, Senator Clinton. The Bible is very clear on the subject, and it says that there are three reasons why God allows suffering:

1) The original sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden as told in Genesis 3

2) Heavenly events about which we know nothing about, as told in Job 1-2

3) Punishment for sin, much of the OT, but the book of Lamentations spells it out best

The catch is that we humans can never know which of the three applies to any given situation. Only a prophet can tell us such things, and there are no living prophets.

Posted by Tom at 9:00 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

June 11, 2007

The Democrats Get Religion

Last week Democrat candidates John Edwards, Barak Obama, and Hillary Clinton participated in discussion on an Presidential Forum on Faith, Values and Poverty. The event was hosted by the Sojourners, and was broadcast on CNN (transcript here).

First, about the Soujourners. Their mission statement on their website reads

Founded in 1971, our mission is to articulate the biblical call to social justice, inspiring hope and building a movement to transform individuals, communities, the church, and the world.

Their founder and leader is Jim Wallis. He is the author of numerous books and articles, many of which are on the Sojourners website. As you may suspect from the call to "social justice" in their mission statement, he adopts many or most of the standard positions of the religious left.

The Sojourners are members of United for Peace and Justice. Guess who else are members of UPJ? Code Pink, the Communist Party USA, and the Young Communist League. If you don't believe me go to the UPJ website and take a look for yourself. No I am not calling the Sojourners communists, but they obviously have no problem associating with them.

On To The Forum

Enough about the Sojourners. The forum was about faith, and the candidates were not shy; all of them took Christ as their savior.

Let's get a few things out of the way up front; far be it from me to question anyone's personal relationship with the almighty. If you say you take Christ as your saviour, that's good enough for me.

Second, I am happy that the Democrat candidates are discussion religion and their faith. I want to live in a country where members of both parties can openly discuss these matters. I don't want us to become like Europe, where most candidates distance themselves from any discussion about their personal beliefs. I also don't want us to become like Iran, but that's hardly something to worry about.

CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien let the forum, though other panelists asked questions also. Here are some of the more interesting exchanges, I thought. You'll want to read the whole thing.

John Edwards

O'BRIEN: Do you think homosexuals have the right to be married?

EDWARDS: No. Not personally. Now you're asking about me personally. But I think there's a difference between my belief system and what the responsibilities of the president of the United States are. It is the reason we have separation of church and state. And there are very good people, including some people that I'm very close to me, my daughter who is sitting in the front row here tonight, feels very differently about this issue. And I have huge respect for those who have a different view about this.

So I think we have to be very careful about ensuring that the president of the United States is not using his belief system and imposing that belief system on the rest of the country. So what that... O'BRIEN: But if it's...

EDWARDS: So what that -- I'm sorry. All I was going to say is I think what that means in this case is the substantive rights that go with partnerships, civil unions, for example, and all the subsequent rights that go with that, should be recognized in this country, at least in my judgment, should be recognized. And I think it is not the role of the federal government to tell either faith-based institutions, churches, synagogues, what they should or should not recognize. Nor should the federal government be telling states what they should recognize.

O'BRIEN: If you think something is morally wrong, though, you morally disagree with it, as president of the United States, don't you have a duty to go with your moral belief?

EDWARDS: No, I think that, first of all, my faith, my belief in Christ plays an enormous role in the way I view the world. But I think I also understand the distinction between my job as president of the United States, my responsibility to be respectful of and to embrace all faith beliefs in this country because we have many faith beliefs in America. And for that matter we have many faith beliefs in the world. And I think one of the problems that we've gotten into is some identification of the president of the United States with a particular faith belief as opposed to showing great respect for all faith beliefs.

The entire issue of faith and governance is complicated, and I'm not going to attempt a full discussion here. On the one hand there is no doubt that one does not and should not desire to put all concepts of morality into law. And no Christian that I know of wants to import Leviticus or Deuteronomy into the U.S. Code. That said, it does seem rather disturbing that Edwards would so quickly and definitively answer "no" to O'Brien's questions.

It's not that I'm advocating "imposing" all concepts of morality from the Bible into law, but isn't there some point at which we say "the Bible teaches that x and such is immoral to the point where it ought to be illegal"?

Now contrast what Edwards says above to this interview he gave to Beliefnet just this past March

BELIEFNET: What parts of American life do you think would most outrage Jesus?

EDWARDS; Our selfishness. Our resort to war when it's not necessary. I think that Jesus would be disappointed in our ignoring the plight of those around us who are suffering and our focus on our own selfish short-term needs. I think he would be appalled, actually.
...

BELIEFNET; Does your concern for the poor come mostly from your own background, or does it come from your faith?

EDWARDS; Both. It comes from both.

My own personal experience has been that I came from a very poor background when I was young. But, by the time I was in middle school/high school, we were solidly in the middle class. And now I've had everything you could ever have financially in this country. And so, I feel some responsibility myself to help and give back, to give that opportunity to lots of people who I don't think have it today. That's part of it. And it also comes from my faith. If you took every reference to taking care of the least of these out of the Bible, there would be a pretty skinny Bible. And I think I as a Christian, and we as a nation, have a moral responsibility to do something about this.

So in the case of gay marriage "there's a difference between my belief system and what the responsibilities of the president of the United States are" but his concern for the poor comes - partly - from his faith.

Maybe it's just me but I see a contradiction here. He uses religion to advocate some policy prescriptions but on others we have to keep our personal beliefes separate from governance.

Bty I'm well aware that some Republicans probably contradict themselves also. It just seems more obvious with Edwards.

Barak Obama

O'BRIEN: We'll start by tackling a big topic, God.

(LAUGHTER)

Do you think that God takes sides in a war? For example, in the war on terror, is God on the side of U.S. troops, would you say?

OBAMA: Well, you know, I always remember Abraham Lincoln, when, during the Civil War, he said, "We shouldn't be asking whose side God is on, but whether we're on his side." And I think that's the question that all of us have to ask ourselves during any battle that's taking place, whether it's political or military, is, are we following his dictates? Are we advancing the causes of justice and freedom? Are we our brother's keeper, our sister's keeper? And that's how I measure whether what we're doing is right.

O'BRIEN: The president talks a lot, as you know, about sort of good versus evil in war. Do you agree with that?

OBAMA:Well, I do think there's evil in the world. I think that, when planes crash into buildings and kill innocents, there's evil there. I think violence and cruelty, wherever it's perpetrated, expresses evil in the world. And I think that all of us have an obligation to speak to that and act against that forcefully.

I pretty good answer, I think. About what I would have said, in fact. Here's something else he said that I liked

OBAMA: And I have to -- I have to say that I'm very proud of the fact that we've seen some of my Republican colleagues informed by the evangelical movement embrace this notion of providing second chances. And they're to be applauded. This is an area where I think we can get past the left and right divide.

Hmmm. We shall see, but reading the rest of what he said during this forum he might not be an empty suit after all. He's a liberal and unashamed of it, and to be sure I disagree with him on a host of policy issues. But his answers in this forum made sense to me. And unlike Edwards or Clinton, he is a likeable fellow.

Hillary Clinton

O'BRIEN: You don't talk a lot about your faith, truly. I -- I know because I have Googled everything you have ever said, actually.

(LAUGHTER)

O'BRIEN: But I'm going to ask you a delicate question. Infidelity in your marriage was very public. And I have to imagine it was incredibly difficult to deal with. And I would like to know how your faith helped you get through it.

CLINTON: Well, I'm not sure I would have gotten through it without my faith.

And, you know, I take my faith very seriously and very personally. And I come from a tradition that is perhaps a little too suspicious of people who wear their faith on their sleeves, so, that a lot of the...

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: ... a lot of the talk about and advertising about faith doesn't come naturally to me. It is something that -- you know, I keep thinking of the Pharisees and all of Sunday school lessons and readings that I had as a child.

But I think your -- your faith guides you every day. Certainly, mine does. But, at those moments in time when you're tested, it -- it is absolutely essential that you be grounded in your faith.

For some people, being tested leads them to faith. For some people, being tested in cruel and tragic ways leads them away from faith. For me, because I have been tested in ways that are both publicly known and those that are not so well known or not known at all, my faith and the support of my extended faith family, people whom I knew who were literally praying for me in prayer chains, who were prayer warriors for me, and people whom I didn't know, who I would meet or get a letter from, sustained me through a very difficult time.

But I -- I am very grateful that I had a grounding in faith that gave me the courage and the strength to do what I thought was right, regardless of what the world thought. And that's all one can expect or hope for.

On a personal level she seemed the most open of the three. I can certainly imagine that life with Bill must have been taxing, and if faith got her through it then God bless her.

All in all, the forum revealed that Edwards is a dope (no surprise there). Obama gave substantive answers and made a lot of sense at times. Hillary revealed a personal side we haven't seen before.

Posted by Tom at 9:00 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

April 16, 2006

He is Risen!

The Resurrection

1After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

2There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

5The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you."

8So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. 10Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me."

The Guards' Report

11While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. 12When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, 13telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.' 14If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." 15So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.

The Great Commission

16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Indeed, He is Risen!

For Easter this year the church I attend decided to erect a huge tent in our parking lot and combine all three services into one so that everyone could attend one big service. Usually on Sunday we have three services.

We had great music and an even greater sermon. Pastor Gary was at his best, combining humor, theology, and personal stories into a message that no doubt moved the hearts and minds of everyone there. My hope is that some people who only attended because of a relative were saved this morning because they decided to commit themselves to Jesus Christ. That is, after all, the objective.

Pastor Gary talked about why some people don't believe in the resurrection. One is that the people who saw Christ resurrected were not exactly the upstanding citizens of their day. Among the disciples were 10 fishermen or farmers, a thief and a tax collector. Until quite recently in our history the witness of women was not considered equal to that of a man. In short, these were not reliable people.

But in reality the opposite is true. If you were going to make up a fantastic story, in order to get people to believe it you would use as witnesses people considered reliable by society; educators, administrators, clergy, doctors, military officers, lawyers. Ok, maybe not lawyers ;-) But you get the point. The truthfullness of the story of the resurrection is that common people witnessed it. Further, every last one of the disciples committed themselves to speading the word of Christ for the rest of their lives in the face of violent threats against them. Indeed, it is believed that every one of them came to a violent end at the hands of non-believers.

A second reason why some do not believe is that the claims of the witnesses were so uncommon, so fantastic. By this we do not just mean that he died and came back to life, but the promise of what it meant. John 3:16-18 says

16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

In other words, believe in Jesus Christ as your saviour and you have everlasting life. This is not a minor or offhand promise.

Lastly, some people just refuse to believe, or they believe in the wrong thing. Sorry, but being a good person is not enough to get you into heaven. You can show someone the Gospel and explain it's significance, but in the final analysis either they choose to believe or not.

The decision is up to each of us individually. I have chosen to believe.

Posted by Tom at 7:05 PM

March 25, 2006

Useful Idiots

I wasn't going to write about this but I just can't take it anymore. Normally I try to provide what I hope are unique peerspectives on issues, and don't repeat the story-of-the-day that everyone else is talking about.

But this issue with the rescue of the Christian Peacemaker Teams hostages in Iraq has set me off.

Just to lay my cards on the table, I am a Christian, I go to church every Sunday and participate occasionally in mission programs. Currently I attend a non-denominational somewhat evangelical church. I used to go to a Presbyterian church, but changed when I moved to a different town. Over the years my reading had led me to conclude that the national leadership of the Presbyterian Church USA was hopelessly left-wing and so it seemed as good a time as any to sever that relationship.

That said, I do not believe nor would never insinuate that in order to be a Christian you have to be conservative. Far from it. One can certainly be liberal or even left-wing and still be a good Christian.

Nor do I question any one's personal relationship with God.

But what I will do is question people's public actions. And the actions of the Christian Peacemaker Teams(CPT) has been nothing short of reprehensible.

The Story

Some four months ago three members of a group called Christian Peacemaker Teams were kidnapped in Iraq. The kidnapped men were Norman Kember, Jim Loney, and Harmeet Sooden. It is not entirely clear as to who the kidnappers are, but according to the BBC Mr Loney "described the kidnappers as a criminal gang, apparently motivated by money. The same story, however, tells of a split in the gang, with some motivated more by ideology.

In a daring raid this past Thursday, British, Canadian, and US troops rescued the three hostages. The raid was led by a British SAS unit, which is their equivalent of our Navy SEALs.

These same kidnappers had just two weeks ago murdered fellow CPT member Tom Fox. Mr Fox had been beaten before being murdered.

Ingrates

So you think they'd be grateful to their rescuers, and help in locating other hostages so that they might be rescued too, right?

Think again

The London Telegraph has the story

The three peace activists freed by an SAS-led coalition force after being held hostage in Iraq for four months refused to co-operate fully with an intelligence unit sent to debrief them, a security source claimed yesterday.

The claim has infuriated those searching for other hostages.

Neither the men nor the Canadian group that sent them to Iraq have thanked the people who saved them in any of their public statements.

But wait, it get's worse. Yesterday the CPT issued a statement which reads in part

Harmeet, Jim and Norman and Tom were in Iraq to learn of the struggles facing the people in that country. They went, motivated by a passion for justice and peace to live out a nonviolent alternative in a nation wracked by armed conflict. They knew that their only protection was in the power of the love of God and of their Iraqi and international co-workers. We believe that the illegal occupation of Iraq by Multinational Forces is the root cause of the insecurity which led to this kidnapping and so much pain and suffering in Iraq. The occupation must end.

The initial statement contained not a single word of thanks to their rescuers. This was noted by many people, who chastised them for it. Later that same day (Thursday March 23) they added this addendum

We have been so overwhelmed and overjoyed to have Jim, Harmeet and Norman freed, that we have not adequately thanked the people involved with freeing them, nor remembered those still in captivity. So we offer these paragraphs as the first of several addenda:

We are grateful to the soldiers who risked their lives to free Jim, Norman and Harmeet. As peacemakers who hold firm to our commitment to nonviolence, we are also deeply grateful that they fired no shots to free our colleagues. We are thankful to all the people who gave of themselves sacrificially to free Jim, Norman, Harmeet and Tom over the last four months, and those supporters who prayed and wept for our brothers in captivity, for their loved ones and for us, their co-workers.

We will continue to lift Jill Carroll up in our prayers for her safe return. In addition, we will continue to advocate for the human rights of Iraqi detainees and assert their right to due process in a just legal system.

So they just forgot, huh? If you believe that I've got a bridge for sale.

Contradictions

Richard Hernandez ("Wretchard") of The Belmont Club pointed to this ABC News story

Peggy Gish, a member of the Chicago-based group for which the former hostages worked in Baghdad, said the men were bound and their captors left the building "right before the intervention." ...

Gish said the captives were not always bound during their captivity and were allowed to exercise regularly. The kidnappers provided medication for Kember, who had an undisclosed health problem. She said the three appeared physically fit despite their long captivity. "We do not know of any specific maladies, any particular illnesses, as a result," she said. "Even Norman (Kember) seemed fairly strong for what he had gone through."

Gish said the captives never learned why they were kidnapped or who their captors were. "Our team has never received any direct communication with them," she said of the captors, adding that no ransom was demanded or paid.

Gish also said she did not know why Fox was killed. "He was the only American," Gish said. "I don't know if that's the reason."

He then asks some relevant questions

Why did James Loney characterize his captors as "criminals" or Norman Kemper call them "criminals rather than insurgents" whose "motive was believed to be money" if "the captives never learned why they were kidnapped or who their captors were"? Although the captives were "not always bound during their captivity and were allowed to exercise regularly" they never learned a thing about why Tom Fox was killed. Did they bother to ask? Why would Fox be singled out as "the only American" if the captors were criminals interested only in money? Or are they now not sure?

Who Are the Christian Peacemaker Teams?

From the CPT website, their mission statement

Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) offers an organized, nonviolent alternative to war and other forms of lethal inter-group conflict. CPT provides organizational support to persons committed to faith-based nonviolent alternatives in situations where lethal conflict is an immediate reality or is supported by public policy. CPT seeks to enlist the response of the whole church in conscientious objection to war, and in the development of nonviolent institutions, skills and training for intervention in conflict situations. CPT projects connect intimately with the spiritual lives of constituent congregations. Gifts of prayer, money and time from these churches undergird CPT’s peacemaking ministries

Sounds innocuous enough. Lefty and naive, but noting special.

But then there's a photo of some of their protesters confronting some Israeli soldiers with the caption

CPTers "get in the way" of Israeli soldiers preparing to open fire on peaceful Palestinian protesters.

And then, regarding "Palestine"

A continuing presence in the Hebron District (West Bank) since June 1995. Team members stand with Palestinians and Israeli peace groups engaged in nonviolent opposition to Israeli military occupation, collective punishment, settler harassment, home demolitions and land confiscation.

Regarding Iraq

A Baghdad-based presence since October 2002. Team members accompanied the Iraqi people through the U.S.-led 2003 war and continue during the post-war occupation to expose abusive acts by U.S. Armed Forces and support Iraqis committed to nonviolent resistance.

And also

The primary focus of the team for eighteen months following the invasion was documenting and focusing attention on the issue of detainee abuses and basic legal and human rights being denied them. Issues related to detainees remain but the current focus of the team has expanded to include efforts to end occupation and militarization of the country and to foster nonviolent and just alternatives for a free and independent Iraq.

Not one word about terrorism that I could find. Anywhere.

Just from reading the CPT site, one could be forgiven for believing that the Israeli and American armies had no enemies to fight at all. To the CPT, insurgents and terrorists simply do not exist.

If they want to say that they are Christian, that they accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, I'll believe them. Their members might well spend other time participating in evangelism or other activities that are not political and more in line with Christians ought to be doing.

But there is little that is Christian about the Christian Peacemaker Teams organization itself. One searches in vain for any scripture or religions teachings on their site. Indeed, in their FAQ section they go to great pains to point out that they are not a missionary organization. Indeed, their actions seem to be entirely political.

They do say that "participants in CPT are Christians", that they "engage in regular spiritual reflection" and that "public and private prayer is emphasized". But that's about it. Nowhere is there a theological justification for their pacifism. There are a very few mentions of Jesus, but as far as I can tell there are no references to scripture anywhere on their website.

As always, David Horowitz has the scoop on the CPT at his database of the left Discover The Network. Here's part of it

Clearly, the evidence demonstrates the vast gap between CPT's claims to work for peace "through non-violent means," and its biased political agenda. CPT's strident advocacy is part of the NGO-led divestment campaign designed to promote demonization and isolation of Israel in the framework of the on-going political conflict.

They call themselves "peacemakers", I call them Useful Idiots.

Update

The Iraqi government is furious

Iraq's embassy to Canada lashed out at the Christian Peacemaker Teams Friday, calling them "phony pacifists" and "dupes" after the anti-war group responded to the rescue of three of its kidnapped activists by condemning the U.S.-led military intervention in Iraq.

In a statement obtained by the National Post, the Iraqi embassy called CPT "willfully ignorant" and "outrageous," and accused the Chicago-based group of being on the side of anti-democratic forces in Iraq.

"The Christian Peacemaker Teams practises the kind of politics that automatically nominate them as dupes for jihadism and fascism," the embassy's statement said.

"The statement shows they even share the rhetoric of the jihadists, even if they do it out of naivete. Despite their claimed affinity for 'non-violence,' this is false.

"Politically, they are on the other side of this war. Christian Peacemaker Teams are objectively on the side of the fascists, Saddam Hussein's loyalists and al-Qaida in Iraq."

It is abundantly clear that Christian Peacemaker Teams are opposed to and, in effect, at war with Iraqi democrats, Americans, the British, and the rest of the multi-national Coalition."

They don't mince words, do they? Can't say I disagree.

Posted by Tom at 12:06 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

February 6, 2006

What Republican Theocracy?

This past Friday morning as I was driving to work I saw a pickup that had a sign on the back that said:

Stop The Republican Theocracy!

It was maybe a foot square, perhaps 18", and appeared to be one of those magnetically attached things.

I noticed he also had a personalized licence plate. It said:

NOGODGV

Oh how clever.

I'm not going to rant against the driver, or anyone who would put something like that on their car. It would be pointless and the driver (a man) was obviously in moonbatland, so why bother.

But I've seen this before, that Bush and the Republicans are trying to create a theocracy. And there's one think I've always wondered:

What in the world are they talking about?

"Bush lied!" I get. same with "Stop the illegal war!" the latest, "Bush ordered illegal domestic spying!" I may disagee, but I know what who make these charges are referring to.

But when I hear "Stop the Republican Theocracy!" I don't even know what they're talking about. Because from where I sit, we're moving farther and father away from a theocracy, not towards it.

Half of me says that because the charge that Bush is creating a theocracy is so kooky, I shouldn't even bother with this post. On the other hand, because I don't even know what they're talking about, I'm going to delve into it for a bit.

Defining our Terms

Before we can figure out what these people are talking about when they say they think that George Bush is moving us towards a theocracy, we need to figure out what one is.

Merriam-Webster defines it this way:

1 : government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided 2 : a state governed by a theocracy

Answers.com repeats 1 &2 above, and adds under the heading "Politics"

A nation or state in which the clergy exercise political power and in which religious law is dominant over civil law. Iran led by the Ayatollah Khomeini was a theocracy under the Islamic clergy. (See Islam.)

The noun theocracy has 2 meanings:

Meaning #1: a political unit governed by a deity (or by officials thought to be divinely guided)

Meaning #2: the belief in government by divine guidance

Meaning #1:
kinds of theocracy:

* church-state — a state ruled by religious authority

Meaning #2:
theocracy is a kind of:

* political orientation, ideology, political theory — an orientation that characterizes the thinking of a group or nation

Wikipedia weighs in:

The term theocracy is commonly used to describe a form of government in which a religion or faith plays the dominant role. Properly speaking, it refers to a form of government in which the organs of the religious sphere replace or dominate the organs of the political sphere. The word theocracy originates from the Greek words θεος (theos), “god” and κρατειν (kratein), “to rule”. The term means “rule by God”.

In the most common usage of the term theocracy, some civil rulers are leaders of the dominant religion (e.g., the Byzantine emperor as head of the Church); governmental policies are either identical with, or strongly influenced by, the principles of a religion (often the majority religion), and typically; the government claims to rule on behalf of God or a higher power, as specified by the local religion.

...
Theocracy and ecclesiocracy should be distinguished from governments that are influenced by religious concepts, or in which religious believers have positions of power gained by political means. An ecclesiocracy or theocracy is rule by the hierarchy of a specific church or sect, not simply a government influenced by religious concepts.

There's more, of course, but I think you get the point. And while people may wish to quibble over details, I think the definitions above are as good as any. So now that we know what a theocracy is, let's move on.

A Top-Down Imposition?

I think to myself, "What has George Bush done that might convince someone he's trying to create a theocracy?"

He's made it known he's a devout Christian, but that hardly fits in with the definitions above. Further, I see very few expressions of faith from his top advisors. Besides, both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton engaged in more "God-talk" than George Bush. Clinton had ministers to the White House to pray with him during the Monika Lewinski affair, and made a point to carry a large bible with him everytime he went to church. As for Carter, well, we know about him.

So if you're going to try and tell me that "God talk" is dangerous, a threat to our democracy, and a sign of coming theocracy, get prepared for me to laugh at you. And when I'm done laughing, I'll ask you why such talk coming from the left doesn't count.

How about government programs? Well, there are a few faith based programs. The White House has an Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, and the Department of Labor a Center for Faith-Based & Community Initiatives, which basically allows religious groups to bid on an equal footing with other groups for government contracts and grants. The services to be provided are for things like prisoner re-entry help programs, disaster relief, and the like. I hardly see where this is creating a theocracy.

The State of America

Let's take a look around our nation and see what we find.

I don't see a whole lot of evidence that religion exists in this country in the public square. No crosses or Ten Commandments allowed in government buildings or most business establishments. The ACLU is everywhere successful in having these items removed from all government offices and schools.

If you read any history textbook commonly in use in our public schools you'll find little evidence for religion in this country. You'd hardly guess at the important role it played in shaping the views and politics of many great Americans, from the founders to the present day. I remember back when I was a public school teacher (7th grade) and while the history book devoted almost three pages to Martin Luther King Jr, the only reference to his Christianity was a brief mention that he had been a member of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

I also read that our local Victoria's Secret store in Tyson's Corner Virginia has set up mannequins in highly sexually explicit poses. A few articles were written, a few religious leaders complained, but as usual no one does anything, as everyone knows a boycot would fizzle.

Television? The movies? I watch little of it these days, but have in the past, and I'm sure that what's on the networks during prime time hasn't changed much. The bottom line is that I don't see much evidence to suggest that Christians are trying to take over the country through propaganda being spread through the mass media.

I also see millions of Americans who go to church regularly, and I'm sure pray regularly also. Some are more involved in church affairs than others, but they all believe in God. Some are Republicans, some Democrats. Some are conservative and some liberal. Few, however, want to bring their religion to work in any overt fashion.

I also see people for whom religion and God are nonexistant in their lives. To some religion is invisible, and to others, like our pickup driver above, see it as a hostile force.

Bottom line is that I look around our country and see the militant secularists (or whatever we want to call them) as winning most of the battles. If there's a coming theocracy, it's pretty far underground.

The Clergy in Politics

One way, perhaps, to determine if we're headed towards theocracy is to see whether a high number of clergymen were entering politics with an aim to creating a government based on religion.

The Republicans have...no one. Pat Robertson ran for the GOP nomination in 1988 but didn't get very far. His 700 Club commands a large audience, to be sure, and I've no doubt that several Republcan Congressmen regard him as their friend and perhaps a political confidant.

But anyone who has observed the national political scene over the past 10 - 15 years, and who is not completely blinded by anti-Bush hatred, will have to admit that the religious right lost, not gained, influence. Robertson and Falwell are denounced regluarly by mainstream conservative pundits. Falwell may make an appearance at a GOP National Convention, but he is kept far from the podium.

And what of the Democrats? Well, we have the Rev Jesse Jackson and the Rev Al Sharpton, for starters. I also seem to recall more than a few black ministers who served in Congress, but I don't have time to research that right now. And, of course, the leadership of several mainstream protestant churches, such as the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians (PCUSA) are very left wing.

But I don't want to get into a pissing match over "who has more ministers". The point is that people of faith are found among conservatives and liberals, and a few participate in or comment on politics. This, too, hardly constitutes a theocracy. The bottom line is that there is a religious left, just as their is a religious right. Unfortuantely, the religious left doesn't get talked about enough. But having come from a Presbyterian background, I assure you it's alive and well.

Religion as a Source of Morality

One thing, I think, is that some people just don't like it when Christians say that they get their morality from the Bible. Note that I said "Christian", because it only seems to be applied in force to the dominant religion in this country. In the 2000 presidential election campaign, Joe Lieberman talked about God quite often, and didn't pay any price for it. If a Christian Republican had done that the left would have gone bonkers.

So the standard in this country seems to be this: if you're on the right, you can't say that the source of your morality and political beliefs is from the Bible. But if you're on the left you can say that you get your morality and political beliefs from the Bible, any other religious text, or from a secular source. I just don't see where liberals get upset when left-wing religious leaders issue political pronouncements, as the Presbyterian Church USA does quite often (and here).

So What Do they Mean?

Ok, I give up. Time for some reasearch, because for the life of me I don't see any evidence of a theocracy.

Byron York took this issue up in his 2005 book The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy.

Left-wing authors, York says, have been writing about this for years.

Recently, however, Mark Crispin York has recently become one of the most influential proponents of this view. His monologue/play, A Patriot Act(available on DVD), is apparently influential in far-left circles.

The short version of Miller's thesis seems to be that any reference to religion at all from a conservative (liberals get a free ride) is evidence of a coming theocracy. But don't believe me, go visit his website yourself. It's pretty kooky, in his latest post he claims that the Pentagon is trying to censor the Washington Post for the crime of writing a letter complaining about a recent political cartoon by Tom Toles. Yeah ok.

Otherwise, York says, there's the Chalcedon Foundation which is supposed to be at the center of the Republican theocratic movement. While even a brief visit to their site is enough to convince me that they are indeed theocrats, you'd have to be in moonbatland to think that they have any real influence in conservative circles.

There's also some group called the Ahmansan Foundation who is supposed to be influential, but ditto for them what I said about Chalcedon.

Hmmm. So far, no theocracy.

Let's try Google

Ok, let's play with Google for a bit and see what we can find. maybe we can find evidence of a coming Republican theocracy here. I'll look for organizations, not just individual bloggers.

Here's one: Source Watch. They have a page on "The Bush Theocracy" that bears an uncally resemblance to Wikipedia.

Their biggest piece of "evidence" seems to a quote from Alan M. Dershowitz:

"The very first act of the new Bush administration was to have a Protestant Evangelist minister officially dedicate the inauguration to Jesus Christ, whom he declared to be 'our savior.' Invoking 'the Father, the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ' and 'the Holy Spirit,' Billy Graham's son, the man selected by President George W. Bush to bless his presidency, excluded the tens of millions of Americans who are Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Shintoists, Unitarians, agnostics, and atheists from his blessing by his particularistic and parochial language.

"The plain message conveyed by the new administration is that George W. Bush's America is a Christian nation and that non-Christians are welcome into the tent so long as they agree to accept their status as a tolerated minority rather than as fully equal citizens. In effect, Bush is saying: 'This is our home, and in our home we pray to Jesus as our savior. If you want to be a guest in our home, you must accept the way we pray.'"

Apparently all those times Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter went to church while they were president didn't have the same effect.

Then there's "Theocracy Watch", another group of lovelies convinced that we are following Iran into religious hell.

Among other bits of evidence, Theocracy Watch tells us that "One way to measure the political strength of dominionists is to study voting patterns of members of Congress." According to them, a vote in favor of House bill HR 2123 is a vote in favor of theocracy. The bill itself states as its purpose that this "Amendment exempts religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies from certain nondiscrimination provisions of the bill." In other words, a church that applies for a DOL contract does not have to hire Muslims and Buddists. Normally, government contractors are subject to all manner of rules and regulations. Theocracy Watch, predictably, misrepresents the bill entirely.

Other than that there's all sorts of whack stuff out there. But I'm still no closer to an answer now than I was at the beginning. So when people say that Georeg W Bush and the Republicans are trying to creat a theocracy in the United States, what in the world are they talking about?

Posted by Tom at 8:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 1, 2005

The Kidnapped Activists

Four activists have been kidnapped in Iraq. Most news outlets have a story or two on this, mostly just describing them as "peace activists"

Which no doubt they believe themselves to be. And noone deserves to be kidnapped or worse. It's the old saw about if you walk down a dangerous street at night flashing a wad of money, and are robbed, you may be naive, but you don't "deserve it".

Further, our prayers should go out to them that they are speadily released.

Just who are the people who have been kidnapped?

Todays Washington Times caught my attention with this AP story:

Four Christian peace activists taken hostage in Iraq belong to a group that has spent more than 15 years walking into some of world's hottest war zones, usually armed only with notes explaining that they aren't there to convert anyone.

Ok, I thought, this is interesting. "arn't there to convert anyone" St Paul would have a few things to say about that.

The Chicago-based organization -- supported by several Protestant denominations that believe Christianity forbids all war and violence -- has sent activists into war zones, including Bosnia and Haiti, since the late 1980s. It has about 160 members around the world and about a dozen in Iraq.

The Bible is not a pacifist document, and most certainly does not "forbid all war and violence", as anyone who has actually read it knows. But ok, let's read on.

The group adamantly opposes the Iraq war, saying the kidnappings are "the result of the actions of the U.S. and U.K. government due to the illegal attack on Iraq and the continuing occupation and oppression of its people."

Despite its name, Christian Peacemaker Teams works in the name of peace, not religion, Miss Phillips said.

"We are very strict about this: We do not do any evangelism; we are not missionaries," she said. "Our interest is to bring an end to the violence and destruction of civilian life in Iraq."

Ok, that does it, I said to myself. I've been on a number of mission trips and know a bit about how these things work. I've also done research into left-wing Christian groups and know how they operate, also (yes I've looked into the religious right, and no I'm not a fan of Falwell or Robertson).

Let's find out exactly these folks are.

What better source to turn to that David Horowitz' excellent database on leftist groups, DiscoverTheNetwork.org? We are immediately rewarded with an article about the group, Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT). Here's what we discover:

* Anti-war NGO with a strong, pro-Palestinian militant, anti-Israel agenda

* Repeatedly condemns Israeli government policies, while making no
mention of the Palestinian terror campaign

* Maintains a seasonal presence along the Arizona/ Mexico border,
where it conducts what it describes as "a campaign to challenge
U.S. immigration policies that result in hundreds of migrant deaths
in the dessert every summer"

*Maintains a continuous presence in Iraq, protesting the U.S.-led
invasion and blaming America for inflicting great suffering on the
Iraqi people

And further

CPT publications also reflect a consistent pro-Palestinian agenda, in sharp contrast to the CPT mission statement related to nonviolent conflict resolution. One example is an article published by the Global Ministries, documenting the January 2003 CPT Ohio Conference. While repeatedly condemning Israeli government policies, there is no mention of the Palestinian terror campaign and the hundreds of murdered Israelis.

...

Clearly, the evidence demonstrates the vast gap between CPT's claims to work for peace "through non-violent means," and its biased political agenda. CPT's strident advocacy is part of the NGO-led divestment campaign designed to promote demonization and isolation of Israel in the framework of the on-going political conflict.

Just as I suspected.

Go ahead and visit CPT's website. It's about what you think expect, they look like the standard leftie "peace" group to me.

As Christians, we must hope and pray that their hostages will be speadily released unharmed. We can expose their political agenda while still wishing them nothing but good on a personal level.

Monday Evening Update

Silly me. James Robbins writing at NRO makes an excellent point that escaped me; kidnapping your allies is pretty stupid:

A sensible terrorist political warfare strategy tries to drive wedges into the enemy society by isolating the groups you will never be able to win over and appealing to as wide a base as possible. The Swords of Truth Brigades should not be threatening the CPT team; they should be holding a joint press conference to denounce the Coalition. The way they are behaving is comparable to the North Vietnamese shooting Jane Fonda with a firing squad instead of a camera in 1972. The terrorists really do not know who their friends are. They kidnap humanitarian workers. They target journalists. They bomb the U.N. Lenin must be spinning in his tomb.

Useful Idiots

Lenin may be spinning in his tomb because of the stupidity of the terrorists, but he's smiling because of the actions of the kidnapped. They are behaving like perfect useful idiots. Do they blame the terrorists? Of course not! From their website:

We are angry because what has happened to our teammates is the result of the actions of the U.S. and U.K. governments due to the illegal attack on Iraq and the continuing occupation and oppression of its people. Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) has worked for the rights of Iraqi prisoners who have been illegally detained and abused by the U.S. government. We were the first people to publicly denounce the torture of Iraqi people at the hands of U.S. forces, long before the western media admitted what was happening at Abu Ghraib.

You just can't make this stuff up.

Posted by Tom at 8:32 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 25, 2005

Scotland

It has taken me longer than expected to get back to blogging since my return from Scotland, mainly because other obligations have intervened. But I promised a report on the trip, so here goes. I'm going to get some photos up soon, if not tonight then this weekend.

I'm still working on getting photo's up on this blog. For now please go to my other blog sites, Warm 'n Fuzzy Conserva-Puppies or I love America for photos of the trip.

Earlier this month I went as part of a mission trip with my local church. The reason we went to Scotland is that western Europe is almost a post-Christian culture. Statistics show that less than 10% of the population attends church. Indeed, it is not going to far to say that there is almost a neo-pagan attitude towards religion.

Twenty-six of us went, split almost evenly between adults and high-school kids. We flew through Manchester, thankfully avoiding the labor strikes that plagued Heathrow.

We stayed in Motherwell, Scotland, city of some 320,000 that is itself in a post-industrial state (ok, I promise to stop using "post-" this and that). Great Britain became a great power partially because of its steel mills and ship building. Perhaps the last stand of the old industrial economy was in the 19890s when Margaret Thatcher went toe-to-toe with labor leader Andrew Scargill over the issue of closing unprofitable coal mills. Scargill's defeat signaled the last hurrah of the old-time economy. Today much of the UK's economy is based on high-tech enterprises, but the transition has not been so easy for many people.

I bring all this up not to provide an excuse, or even a reason, for the people there to have turned away from Christianity. It was simply to set the stage for the rest of the post.

Our destination in Motherwell was a small church called Calvary Christian Fellowship Motherwell.

We stayed at the church, sort of "camping out" on the floor, the people there having provided air mattresses for us. They also fed us well, the ladies of the church were quite dedicated in cooking us large dinners.

Here's a photo of Calvary Christian Fellowship Church

You'll also notice that the date on the picture is off by a year. oops.

Our Mission

On to the purpose of our trip. We performed two main functions while we were there: One, we taught a "Vacation Bible School" for elementary-school age kids, second, we engaged in what can be called "street evangelism".

Here we are at a local outdoor shopping center. As people came out of the stores we gave them flyers to the Vacation Bible School that we would be teaching and a concert that would be held at the church later that week. If they looked receptive, we engaged them in a discussion about Jesus.

Religion in Scotland

My purpose here is not to provide a complete history and analysis of the situation in Scotland. But anyone who has paid attention knows that as a whole we in the states are more religious than the people of western Europe. It's pretty well known, for example, that one reason that European elites look down on President Bush is that he is open about his faith.

If Wikopedia is to be believed, about 65% of the population claims church membership. The website Scottish Christian says that 11% of Scots attend church regularly, which is actually higher than the English, which come in at 7%.

The trend is consistent throughout western Europe, according to this story in USA Today, which quotes statistics provided by the World Christian Database, says that church attendance is less than 10% in France, The Netherlands, and Sweden.

By contrast, about 40% of Americans go to Church or Synagogue regularly, and well over 90% profess some belief in God.

The worst part is that the trend is strongly downhill in western Europe. While the US seems to be in another of our periodic religions "awakenings", fewer and fewer people are going to church in western Europe, this from another table in the USA Today article cited above.

The stereotype of the European who looks down at Americans who attend church is typified by this CBN story which quotes American author Richard Miniter telling of his experience living in Brussles:

Richard Miniter lives in Brussels and is a correspondent for The London Sunday Times. He said, "When, as an American in Europe, you tell Europeans that you go to church on Sunday, they look at you like a museum piece—something strange.

"

Impressions

I was immediately struck by how hard the people on the street looked in Motherwell. I would was a "what you lookin' at" attitude. I did not feel unsafe, it wast a general stare-straight-ahead-don't-you-bother-me thing. Not a friendly bunch.

One was also struck by the number of pubs in the area. While it is indeed a British thing to 'pop out for a quick pint' we were informed that the drinking in this area was more on the frankly American style of getting soused than the more reserved two-pints-and-go-home attitude that I encountered in Ireland when I visted that Island in the '90s.

The church building itself was kept secure with everything from bars on the windows, to doors that were always kept locked, to a gate and fence with sharpened tops surrounding much of the property. They had had problems with people trying to break in, and even a few late-night episodes of drunks pounding on the door(for whatever reason drunks do what they do).

Vacation Bible School

Think of VBS as kind of a five-day extended "Sunday school" and you'l get the picture. The whole thing was based on an "African Safari" theme, a sort of package you order from some company, which came complete with all the paraphahalia that you'd expect; posters, pictures, balloons for the walls, a few fake palm trees, and various activity books. The kids spent 3-4 hours with us each afternoon.

Calvary Motherwell holds these Vacation Bible Schools all summer long, with various American churches coming to help teach them. As luck would have it were were last, and our week was just before school starts again in Scotland. Attendance was less than earlier in the summer, as our 17 students were fewer than our 26 'teachers'. But no matter.

My job in the whole affair (other than helping as needed) was to take part in a little skit or play that we did. Every day we did one or two acts for the kids. The play was about forgiveness and I got to play the bad guy who eventually comes 'round in the end. It was more fun than I thought it would be. The set for the play was an African safari. Here we are

"Street Evangelism"

The VBS was two hours per day, so even with prep time we had lots of time left over.

One evening we all went to a spot near the local supermarket, took a few guitars (we were blessed with some very talented folks), sang Christian songs, and handed out flyers and literature. We spoke to whomever seemed interested in talking about Jesus.

On a few days we went around neighborhoods and handed out flyers advertising a concert that the church was holding. An American band from a California church performed at Calvary Motherwell the last Thursday that we were there.

Edinburgh Castle

One of the most interesting places we went was Edinburgh Castle. I'm a huge history buff and found it fascinating.

After the castle we took a walk through the wild side. It was the week of the Fringe Festival, "fringe" being just about what you think it means: whackos galore, dressed up in all sorts of costumes. Here's a bit of the tamer stuff

They took up maybe two blocks, and were made up of maybe four groups: One handing out playbills for their theater productions. From what I saw most of these plays were leftie affairs, "pushing the boundaries of taste" and all that. Second was some street theater. I didn't get close enough to hear any of it and just as well. Third was one group of certified American moombats, ranting against the war; "Bush only got 51% of the vote and that's not a mandate!" yeah ok. Last was just assorted weirdos running around in various costumes, some somewhat normal, some fairly vulgar.

So what did we do? With those handing out playbills we traded them for Christian tracts. I'm sure no one was converted but if nothing else it was amusing to see the look on their faces.

I took lots of photos. If I hadn't been with my group I'd have engaged the American moonbats in discussion. No point in arguing; I'd have tried to find out what groups they were affiliated with and all that.

After that we went to a nearby park and ate lunch. After that we broke out the guitar and sang a few songs. Anyone in a nearby group who made eye contat with us got a friendly visit. And the visits did turn out to be quite friendly; they asked the hard questions and we gave straight answers. Again, people don't convert on the spot, but you can plant seeds. Whether or when the seed grows is not up to us.

I don't do well in personal evangelism, so I let others in our group take the lead in the discussions. As much as I like to talk and argue politics and history, I find talking about faith very difficult. So it was a learning experience and fortunately I was with some very insprirational people.

The Teenagers

I don't have any kids of my own, and the neices and nephews are still in elementary school, so I don't get a lot of interaction with high school aged kids. Before this trip, I've been on three mission trips, all with another church, and in each of them we had about a 50-50 split between adults and high school kids.

The short version is that these trips absolutely renew my faith in young people, at least in the ones who are involved in churches. Our country is in good hands if they are the ones who take the reigns when we pass on.

Certainly the kids on this trip exceeded all expectations. They are much more willing to share their faith with total strangers, whereas I was often unsure and hesitant. They did a fantastic job with the Vacation Bible School. When you get disillusioned by stories of this or that in the press, my advice is to visit the youth groups at your local church.

Final Thoughts

I have been fortunate in my life to have had the opportunity to visit many places and to go on may trips. I've been to six countries in Europe, and across the U.S. from Washington DC to Los Angeles. I've traveled with friends, parents, and church groups.

Let's face it, traveling is a pain, especially overseas trips where flying east always causes me to loose a night's sleep (I can never sleep on a plane). And I am the worst; for some reason I never pack or gather things to bring until the last minute, then I spend the last two days running around frantically. When I leave the house I am plagued with the feeling that I forgot to bring something, or left some appliance on in the house. It's only when I'm actually on the plane (or far along on the road) to where it subsides.

But what is life if not without memories? My philosphy is to seize the moment when it comes, because most opportunities do not come twice.

With maybe one exception, these mission trips raise my spirits and renew my faith in God and in other people. There is no destination, only the journey.

Posted by Tom at 8:38 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 2, 2005

Off to Scotland!

I am off to Scotland on a 10 day mission trip, so wish me well and make a note to come back in about two weeks!

Cornerston Chapel, my local church in Leesburg VA, teamed up with Calvary Christian Fellowship Motherwell church, located in Motherwell, Scotland.

Twenty-six of us from Cornerstone Chapel are going, split about evenly between adults and high school kids. We'll be doing a variety of things; helping to teach a bible school for the local kids, engaging in "street evangelism" to try and bring some people to God, and just in general helping out. We've even got a few little skits planned for our street theater. There is a day set aside for sightseeing, so it is not all work and no play.

Of course I'll bring my camera, and if all goes well I'll post some photos when I get back (I promise to take time and learn how to do it).

I've never done anything quite like this, so I'll admit I'm a bit aprehensive. Sure, I've gone on other trips with other churches, but they were mainly work trips, where we rebuilt homes, sort of like what a Habitat for Humanity does. Keep me in your prayers if you don't mind. Of course, I'm sure God is laughing at me; "...do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself!" Matt 6:34

Posted by Tom at 10:55 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 1, 2005

Pope John Paul II - an Appreciation

He is perhaps the last of the giants of the twentieth century. His was an era of greatness, or at least of men and women who achieved great things. With his passing, which appears imminent, we will have lost someone who helped make the world a better place.

Who can not fail but to remember as he took the world by storm twenty-six years ago? We were shocked by the untimely death of his predicessor. When it was announced that Karol Wojtyla, a Pole, would be the next Pope... well, the audacity, the courage, of the Catholics to so directly challenge the Soviets took one's breath away.

Along with Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and to a lesser extent Helmut Kohl, he defined an era. We in the United States were coming out of the tragedy of Vietnam and the scandal of Watergate. Carter's "malaise" seemed in full swing. The Soviets were advancing around the globe. Moreover, spirituality was at a low, the radicalism of the '60s having taken their toll. The world was ready for a breath of fresh air.

John Paul II quickly set a new tone. He immediately set out to directly minister to his flock, traveling thousands of miles all over the globe. His message was that he so truely cared about people and their spiritual health. And the people reciprocated, coming to his appearances in droves. He took the world by storm in a manner that even the most popular rock stars could not hope to duplicate.

For several years now we've seen him old and frail, and one's memory stretches to recall how dynamic, how full of energy he was in those early days. He used to go skiing. He made it cool to be Catholic.

Even though I was and am not a Roman Catholic, and even though at the time I did not really know God, I could not help but to be impressed. His message rang true with anyone who was not totally lost.

Stalin once sneered "and how many divisions does the Pope have?" Tyrannies with huge armies and secret police will have their moments on earth. They will wreck their havoc, sometimes far and wide. But in the end it is moral authority that wins men's hearts. And no tyranny, no matter how many divisions it's generals command, could stand up to the moral authority of Pope John Paul II.

Between him, Reagan, Thatcher, and Kohl, they brought down the mightiest empire on earth. It was an age of giants, and we are forever in their debt.

If there were any failings in his papacy, it was that he did not adequately address the sex scandals that have plagued the church in the United States. Biographers will have to grapple with this and admonish him as they will. It would take a small mind indeed, however, to condemn him over this one issue. All great people have their moments when they fall down, and in this John Paul is no different. He is, after all, only human.

I mourn his his passing, as it appears imminent, but I celebrate his life.

Posted by Tom at 10:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 6, 2005

World Council of Churches Whackyness

Israpundit has a must-read interview with Professor Charles Merkley regarding the World Council of Churches decision to divest themselves of companies that do business with Israel. The WCC consists of 347 member denominations from around the world, including such mainstream churches as the Presbyterian Church (USA) and Here's how the WCC puts it in their press release:

The WCC governing body encouraged the Council's member churches "to give serious consideration to economic measures that are equitable, transparent and non-violent" as a new way to work for peace, by looking at ways to not participate economically in illegal activities related to the Israeli occupation. In that sense, the committee affirmed "economic pressure, appropriately and openly applied," as a "means of action".

As an example, the WCC governing body mentions the "process of phased, selective divestment from multinational corporations involved in the occupation" now being implemented by the Presbyterian Church (USA). "This action is commendable in both method and manner, [and] uses criteria rooted in faith."

In other words, it's the same old left-wing crap we've come to expect from them. They take the leftmost position on every issue. If you don't believe me read their press releases. I've blogged on the Presbyterians before, see here and here (I'm still officially a member of the Presbyterian Church (USA) but now go to another).

Professor Merkley offers several explanation as to why the WCC took this action, but thinks this one most likely:

The most sinister explanation – and I fear the most likely – is that the WCC is now panicking in face of the real prospect of a diplomatic solution of the Israel-Palestine dispute, which could result in the Palestinian side settling with the State of Israel. The WCC leadership has been drinking disinformation for decades from the well of the Middle East Council of Churches, and is committed to Israel’s illegitimacy. In its statement of February 21, the WCC implies that the real boundaries of Israel – the boundaries that now need to be re-negotiated, are not those of 1967 but those of 1948. WCC supports the unlimited right of return of “Palestinian refuges”, fully cognizant of the fact that if any substantial part of that multi-million population is canted back inside the 1948 boundaries, then the Jewish state will not be able to contain them. It is my considered belief, reached through careful study of dozens and dozens of WCC statements on this issue, that the WCC will not let up on Israel until it is no more.

Read the whole thing.

Posted by Tom at 8:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 22, 2004

An Inspiring Sermon

I don't usually comment on personal religious matters, but today I'm going to make a brief exception.

Yesterday at my church the sermon was delivered by Maj Gen David Hicks, Chief Chaplain of the United States Army. It would have been an honor at any time to have such an distinguished guest, but with the War on Terror in full swing it was truely special.

He spoke of his five trips to Iraq, and about how he went to see the troops in the field, those closest to battle. "Not all is bad as you see on TV," he reminded us, for "there are good things happening."

He also described how he had introduced President Bush at many occasions, and how he was truely a man of faith. The president is a "man of God for this hour" in our history, he told us.

His father had served in the Army during World War II. Because the Army was segregated, he served in an all-black combat unit. Nonetheless, he was always a huge patriot, and flew a large American flag on patriotic holidays.

When he joined the Army in 1958 he was regular infantry, stationed near the DMZ in South Korea. After about 10 years of service, God called him to the chaplaincy, just as the Lord called Samuel to service so long ago.

What is God challenging you to do today?

Posted by Tom at 10:09 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 25, 2004

The "Social Justice" Candidate

John Kerry now tells us that he is the "Social Justice" candidate;

Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry said a broad vision of social justice, including care for the poor and those without health insurance, is at the root of his religion and would guide his presidency.

He then went on to quote Matthew 25:40

The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me

This is in context of a series of lessons and parables that Jesus is telling to his disciples as they sat on the Mount of Olives. (Full text of Matthew 25 here for context)

Kerry then told the audience what this passage means to him;

"The ethical test of a good society is how it treats its most vulnerable members," he said, arguing that the government has an obligation to protect the environment, fight AIDS, reduce poverty and defeat terrorism."

Apparently, then, it is to him the justification for government spending. And that is fair enough, as far as it goes. I would not be one to argue that governments should not provide a "safety net" for it's disadvantaged citizens.

But let's think about this a bit more; what Kerry is saying here is that religion will guide his actions as president. What he is clearly saying here is that "because it is in the bible we have to make this public policy."

What comes to mind in a nanosecond is his position on abortion. Consider his answer to a question on this subject in the second debate;

GIBSON: Going to go to the final two questions now, and the first one will be for Senator Kerry. And this comes from Sarah Degenhart.

DEGENHART: Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person?

KERRY: I would say to that person exactly what I will say to you right now.

First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I'm a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today.

But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can't do that.

Whoa there, senator. Which is it?

Apparently it depends on which audience he is speaking to. Just last March, when speaking at a church in St Louis, he told is that

``The Scriptures say: `It is not enough, my brother, to say you have faith, when there are no deeds.' We look at what is happening in America today and we say: Where are the deeds?'' preached Kerry.

The contradictions just keep coming.

Posted by Tom at 10:09 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack