I went to see Ben Stein's movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed [Web site], this afternoon. It was well-constructed, and his interviews were well-done, showing respect for the evolutionists he interviewed and asking the hard questions of the intelligent design representatives he interviewed.
You should see this movie.
The movie is not about Creationism. The movie is not about the theory of intelligent design. The movie is about academic freedom.
Students are being oppressed in this country by those who would deny our God-given right to ask questions (partially guaranteed by the First Amendment in the redress of grievances clause). It is not whose idea is right or wrong or valid or invalid. It is that we have the right to ask questions. It should be self-evident that God has given us the right to ask questions about anything and everything. It is most profitable to us if we ask questions in humility and in the search for truth, but we can ask any question.
Except in the classroom. In the classroom, the Right of Inquiry is being denied.
That is why this movie is important. We need to be aware that the Right of Inquiry is being denied, and we need to demand that institutions and governmental bodies respect our rights of inquiry and discourse. We need to demand that theories be taught in the context of discourse and rigorous criticism.
I do not believe Creationism should be taught in a classroom funded by taxpayers. I do not believe that Intelligent Design Theory should be taught as the only theory of the origin of life. I do not believe that Neo-Darwinian Evolution Theory should be taught as the only theory of the origin of life. I believe that these theories should both (or in concert with other theories) be honestly discussed as theories put forth by their respective authors, honestly criticized in a discourse of examination and inquiry, and honestly set to rest at the end of the unit or class as exactly what they were at its beginning: theories. And let the students decide for themselves what theory they feel has the best basis in fact, evidence, logic, and their own personal worldview. Anything less is a disservice to science and to the students of our educational institutions. To teach one theory and only one theory in a classroom is to preach a dogma, not to teach an informative course in science or anything else that falls under the heading of education.
Any theory that cannot exist in an environment of discourse, criticism, and inquiry is not a serious theory. In the words of Charles Spurgeon, "Truth is a strong tower and never requires to be buttressed with error."

This evening, there was at OWC's Arts Center a lecture by Nancy Pearcey on the cultural implications of the evolution theory. This was part of the reason I chose to watch the movie today. The newspaper indicated that the movie was the subject of the lecture. It was called "Beyond Expelled"
One of the interesting things she pointed out is that roughly 80% of this country believes that an intelligent designer (either through guided evolution or through direct creation) was involved in the origin of the forms of life we see in the world today. Only 10-20% believe evolution without any supernatural force is the source of today's diverse world of life. And then she said something I thought was noteworthy:
"The public schools have a responsibility to respect the public."
Now, if 80% of the nation believes there was a designer involved, why do the school systems teach as though it were uncontested a theory of naturalistic forces without the input of a designer?

Something that occurred to me while she was speaking was the realization that the environmentalist who fights to protect the planet from polluter-humans and the amoral business that pours toxic sludge into the rivers both take their worldview from the same place. Darwinism is the belief behind both the personification of the environment, or less extremely, the dignity of the environment, that the environmental movement holds central and the contextual erasure of the exploitative business or social pragmatist. They both rely on this idea of man as an evolved animal who has no higher spiritual calling than to either fulfill his animalistic passions or to protect nature as an example of all that is pure and natural.
Neither the environmentalist nor the unscrupulous corporate raider has respect for both human freedom and dignity and for stewardship of the earthly realm. In fact, I would suggest that only a worldview based on the Bible (an economic model of Biblical capitalism, which relies on both stewardship and individual self-determination) can respect both humanity and natural stewardship.
In other words: If there is no creator, if we came from non-living matter purely by chance or natural laws, but either way without a creator, then we have no responsibility to each other as humans with dignity, nor do we have anyone to be responsible to in the question of whether to practice good stewardship of the land, because without a creator, we have no one to be stewards for... and since I have already said that without a creator there can be no responsibility to each other, there is likewise no responsibility to hold the land in stewardship for our descendants. This is the logical consequence of a worldview wherein people came from evolutionary processes alone.

By the way, she also mentioned in passing the practice in many schools of telling children that all ideas have equal validity. This is a precept of postmodernist philosophy. I immediately thought of this comic: Hard Onions: Marketplace of Ideas
So, go see the movie, and check out the writings of Nancy Pearcey.

Edited to add:
Freedom of Inquiry means being able to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
There is a false dichotomy between science and religion. I believe honest scientific exploration in search of the truth will always lead to a deeper understanding of the truth of God's word.
Freedom of Inquiry means encouraging questions and seeking of the truth.
Students have the right to know that what they are being taught is accurate. How can they discover that if they can't ask questions about the validity, truth, and accuracy of what is being put forth?
"The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." --Albert Einstein

Had a thought a few weeks ago and wrote it down. Just found the paper on which I wrote it:
Liberals are people whose good intentions didn't understand the point of "Harrison Bergeron".

Politics is a touchy subject with some people. And with many, it is the realm of emotion rather than reason.
With some politicians throwing around words like hope, change, and future without giving any clarification for what they mean by these words, I thought it would be a good idea to examine the possibilities and the mindsets that I've observed in recent months.
I think it fitting to begin with the future. Politicians love the future. After all, if all your promises are about the future, you don't have to actually do anything about them, because the future is always yet to be. The future is nebulous, unclear, and unpredictable. This is appropriate, because political promises tend to be the same things. I don't trust people who talk about the future in vague terms. If you want to talk about the future, put it in firm language so I know what you really mean to do.
Hope is a wonderful thing, but we need to have real hope, not throwaway hope. We need the kind of hope that is mentioned in Jeremiah 29:11, where God says His plans will give us a future with hope, that is, something real to look forward to. We need to avoid making political decisions based on throwaway hope, like when we look at the dark clouds and say, "I hope it doesn't rain." When we say that, we don't expect it to stay dry, and we don't really mind if that throwaway hope is not fulfilled. It's not real hope, and we don't care much whether it comes to pass. In fact, we expect that it will not be realized. This is a terrible way to make important decisions, because we have more at stake than whether we will have our picnic cut short by a rain that does us no more harm than making us wet.
No matter what anyone says, humans don't like change. We often feel there is no guarantee that the change will be for the better. Except when a politician talks about it. This is a good time to be wary. Pin people down. "What changes are you suggesting?" After all, someone who promises change can fulfill that promise by locking every person into an isolation cell. It's change, but do you support it? Change for the sake of change is not good. Changes need to happen as a logical solution to a problem. If the change is not adequately considered, it may do more harm than good. And question assumptions about what needs to change and why. It may be that someone has a vested interest in a change that hurts other people.
Of course, the most disturbing thing I've seen lately is not with the politicians themselves but with the voters. Many voters have been getting excited about candidates who say they will give them things ... things that are not really in their legitimate power to give ... things the Constitution doesn't grant the federal government power to enact.
Be careful, voters.
The road to totalitarian dictatorship is reached often through the side street of 'bread and circuses'. Be wary of anyone who promises to give you things that are not rightly yours. Government is supposed to protect your ability to use your gifts and talents and efforts to make a good life for yourself with what God has provided. Government is not supposed to give to some at the expense of others. It is supposed to protect and give equally to all (roads, etc.).
"In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, 'Make us your slaves, but feed us.'" --Dosteovsky's Grand Inquisitor
"The mob is traitor to the people." —Victor Hugo

I got strong applause for this where I posted it originally (forum), so I thought I ought to preserve it here for posterior.

In reply to:
"I think I can also serve God better when I am in a relationship because I wouldn't be so distracted. Let's face it, most of us who are single and have a strong desire to be married are quite distracted by this desire."

I said:
I agree, and I don't think that this is (adds qualifier before people jump on him) necessarily and indication that a single person doesn't have a heart devoted to God, isn't looking at God, isn't trusting God to provide a mate, isn't content as Paul says we all should be in whatever our situation is.
I believe God gives us heart desires, things we want and can't simply decide not to want. (I used to talk about a certain video game I wanted so bad I could smell it, and how that was a desire I could simply shrug my shoulders and change my mind about wanting; not a heart desire) And since these desires of the heart are from God, they are not sinful, so I'd like people to stop telling singles that they are. When a heart desire is about doing mission work, we refer to it as a calling, but if that heart desire is to build a healthy family with God at the center and hope for the blessing of children, we don't. Very often, people don't consider there to be any possible connection between "I want to go overseas and improve community healthcare" and "I want to be a good spouse and parent, but I'm single right now".
Let me be clear: Not everyone who wants to get married has a heart desire for it, so I'm not simply excusing every want. I'm saying it is foolish for anyone do dismiss out of hand any movement in the direction of seeking a spouse.

I was listening to Jane Eyre tonight on my way home, and I was struck by something Mr. Rochester said of her: "Know, that in the course of your future life you will often find yourself elected the involuntary confidant of your acquaintances' secrets: people will instinctively find out, as I have done, that it is not your forte to tell of yourself, but to listen while others talk of themselves;"
What do you think of it?

Worrying is worthless.
I spent the whole year worrying, and nothing I worried about happened. It's not even as though there were things I worried about and because of the forethought was able to prevent. The things I worried about didn't happen. And God took care of me. I'm sure there are many things I'm not even aware of that could have happened that God prevented.
But going back to the things I worried about that didn't happen, I can say this. All the worrying has done in this year is rob me of joy and sleep and make me feel older.
I should not worry. Jesus said, "Take therefore no thought for tomorrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." Therefore, that is, since God watches over the grass of the field and the birds of the air, and since we are worth much more than these things, Jesus is saying, don't borrow troubles from tomorrow. You'll have to cross the bridge when you come to it, and there's enough bad stuff in today for today. The bad thing about borrowing trouble from tomorrow is that tomorrow will forget you borrowed from it and pay you what the day demands even though you got an advance, so by worrying ahead of time, we must face our worries again if they do come to pass. And if they don't come to pass, we've worked ourselves into a tizzie for nothing at all.
Don't worry. God loves you, and God takes care of his children.

I was extra tired last night, so I did what I sometimes do when extra tired. I didn't read on where I was but flipped over to the psalms or the proverbs. Last night, it was proverbs. In Chapter 13, I ran into a very familiar verse: "Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life." (v12)
Now, I'd always thought of this verse, when I tried to apply it to my life, in relation to my future wife. But I was thinking last night that it could relate to my writing.
Certainly, my heart has been sick, for fear looms up on me, especially death without having done much for the Kingdom. I had been thinking of hope deferred in the search for my wife, but what of my writing? Has not that been deferred? Have I not delayed in bringing its publication to pass? And is not that a means of furthering the Kingdom? Is this delayed hope the cause of my heart-sickness?
I do not know, but I think it right I should focus my energies on these four goals now and forward; 1, to publish my first novel, 2, to help churches put forward a sincere, professional, and elegant face, 3, to get out among people to increase my exposure to potential mates, and 4, to finish my degree. But above all, to follow God's will. For I am chasing a tree of life.
Verse 19 says desire accomplished is sweet to the soul. I would taste that sweetness continually in seeking God's will and blessing others. Let it be so, O Lord. Let it be so.

Here are some notable parts of my journal of the trip to Poland:
  "I've been thinking a lot about single-field missionaries, those lovely people who visit a place and fall in love with it and its people and go back year after year to the same place. I've never really been one of those. I've been a lot of places. This thinking seems to be leading somewhere for me.
  I also reflected that I do have a fierce love of the people in Poland. One of the things I have often prayed in recent weeks is that our team do no harm to the people in Poland, to the reputation of our church or Pastor Kris' parish in Poland, to the relationships between Poland and its Methodist churches and the UMVIM churches in the States. I am at enmity with harm."
  "While I was looking through my devotional book, I ran across a note I'd written on an entry. I had prayed that God would bring me to live out my love of the English language by teaching it OR guide me in a different direction. And I just laughed. How often do we ask God to do this or that, I reflected, and God answers with AND instead of OR? After all, here I am in Poland teaching English, AND God has led me in a different direction, Journalism or something else in Communications."
  "I'm having stronger wonderings about where God is calling me.
  I think that I'm being called to a ministry of drawing people out into the mission field. Obviously, my going many places is not going to make a huge difference, but if I can get many people to go many places for God's mission in the world, that will make a huge difference."
  "Late in the evening, I found myself rattling around and thinking about a calling to draw others into missions. Missions is important, and more important is doing missions the right way."
  We got back on Monday. On Wednesday, there was a meal and presentation by the Peru team, which had left and returned shortly before the Poland team went over. It was interesting to me to see how the light of missions was in the eyes of the team members. That excitement was good for me to see, but I didn't put it there.
  I think that's the first thing God wants me to realize about getting others involved in missions: I can't do it.
  See, I've been trying for years to get my church more involved in missions. But it was another missionary from our church who got this Peru team started. And it was that trip, not mine, that gave them that excitement for God's work.
  The second thing I think God wants me to understand is that it's okay that I can't do this.
  My job is to do what He's called me to do. The results are up to God, so the results are not my responsibility. My responsibility is to do the task God gives me to the best of my ability.
  This idea is a bit freeing, because I don't have the slightest idea about what to do first or next. But it's also scary, because I can't cling to my inability to decide the outcomes for myself, lest I should lose sight of the importance of doing the task God has given me.
  I think my first step, then, is to sit down and make notes about all the things I know about missions. I expect this will take a humblingly short amount of time.
  I wish you well. May God richly bless you.

Someone was on the radio the other day talking about how she settled for her mate instead of chasing a fairy-tale marriage, and she went on and on about how that was okay.
But I got to thinking about my own search for a lifelong mate, and I wondered if my expectations are too high.
I do ask a lot, but as I thought about the things I'm seeking in my wife and the reasons I'm seeking those attributes, I realized that my expectations are not that high.( Read more... )
I have high standards for a wife because marriage is not for the faint of heart.

A while ago, one of my friends posted one of those comment statistics things, and she mentioned that some people didn't like them and made mean comments when she posted one.
I think there's nothing wrong with passing on some statistics now and then, so long as there is no clear message of disappointment in those who don't comment as often as others or tying of comments to levels of friendship.
I also think that anyone who has a problem with such an entry is free to simply skip over it. It's most likely posted in a spirit of fun and lighthearted competition.
Some mention has also been made of the quality of comments one generally receives on such entries, with some people making meaningless comments to increase their standings. I think that if a journal owner wants to avoid this type of comment, it is as simple as disabling comments on that entry. Other users, having to go to different entries to increase their comments, will be more likely to leave a comment about that other entry, in my opinion.
The idea that people care inordinately about how many comments particular individuals give them is, I think, not an accurate one. I think very few people care too much who does or does not comment. However, I think the discussion itself highlights something.
Everyone likes to get comments on their entries. The exceptions to this rule are those who disable the message board feature on their LiveJournals, but I think even those people do like to hear back that their entries meant something to someone.
For those of us who enable comments by default, we do like to hear that an entry was insightful, or that it made someone laugh, or that others are praying for a need we expressed. Everyone likes to have others reach out and make a friendly connection to share in a feeling or agree with an idea or come at that idea from a different direction. We all like making meaningful connections with other people. None of us is a self-sufficient island on the sea of humanity. We are all boats, wandering in loneliness upon the vast emptiness or traveling in a convoy with other boats. Wherever we are going, the journey is more pleasant if others are going the same way by choice.
I think everyone likes discovering that they are noticed. Many people feel invisible.

"...people will forget. They'll forget there was ever a time when they didn't enjoy peace and prosperity and safety. They'll forget that calamity can befall anyone at any time.... They'll forget that they'll face times when swift action, not debate, is needed. They'll forget that they owe that peace and freedom, not to some government bureaucrat, but to men and women of action, acting on their own behalf, asking permission of noone, apologizing to noone." -- Quentyn in Tales of the Questor by Ralph Hayes, Jr.
Today is Memorial day. It is a day to remember those who have fallen in combat around the world. It is a day to remember those who have given "the last full measure of devotion" to their country and their fellow citizens. But I think we also need to remember why they died.
They did not die simply to guarantee your God-given rights to Life, Liberty, and Property, among others. It was not simply for you that they fought and died and still fight and die. So often, we treat dying for Liberty as something out of vogue, something that was once needed but no longer is.
I think we need to remember not only the soldiers, sailors, and airmen who die on foreign soil, but also the police and firefighters who give their lives protecting the lives and rights and property of their fellow man here at home. I think we need to remember the military personnel stationed on friendly soil who protect our lives and rights.
But more importantly, I think we need to remember why those who fight and die for us are there. We talk sometimes as though war is something we can finish and be done with, as though the need for warriors will soon be at an end, and that the world can go on in peace from then until the end of time. We even pray for peace, not knowing what peace really means. The peace we seek should be peace between man and God, for that is the only way to have lasting peace between man and man.
Our warriors fight, and we struggle, because of human nature. As long as there are people on this earth, until God removes our sinful natures, there will be wars and there will be a need for warriors. As long as there are people who think they can get ahead by pushing others down, there will be a need for someone to stand up and say to those people, "You shall not trample on the neck of my fellow man." And there will need to be men and women who "more than self their country loved, and mercy more than life."
The alternative to fighting for the rights of mankind is to let tyrants grab whatever they want, hurt whomever they will, and tread on the necks of innocent men, women, and children.
And as we remember that it is our own grasping natures that cause wars, and as we remember those who have died fighting that grasping nature in themselves and others, we need to continue that fight. We need to continue to resist the tendency to want to grab what we can with no concern for others, and we need to work harder to live as we ought, esteeming others more than ourselves.
Remember those who have died.
Remember what they were fighting to preserve and assure and guarantee.
Remember why the fight is necessary.
And continue the fight for what is right.

There is a great misuse, in our society, of questioning.
( We are told... )

I finished Return of the Native Saturday night.
I didn't really like the book, but that wasn't because it was poorly written. The writing was good, and there were some interesting points revealed in the work. But I didn't like the book.
It was rather a depressing story, though I guess I should have known that from the blurb. But it used the techniques of a romantic comedy. Ninety percent of the problems faced by the characters came from not talking to each other. If the people in the book had just sat down and talked honestly for ten minutes, the ending would not have been as sad.
I'm glad to have finished that book. Now I can go to somethig more cheerful, like Tolstoy. :)

Some of the insightful things in this Thomas Hardy book:
"A man should be only partially before his time: to be completely to the vanward in aspirations is fatal to fame."
"There are instances of persons who, without clear ideas of the things they criticize, have yet had clear ideas of the relations of those things."

You asked: Bush is a divider, not a uniter. Agree or disagree?
I disagree. I think President Bush is trying to pull people together, people who hate each other, people who would rather kill each other than compromise their fanatical beliefs, people who've drawn territories for themselves and resent any attempts by their counterparts in the other ideological camp to enter those boundaries.
I'm speaking, of course, of Congress.
On top of that, he has a problem in Iraq.
But all kidding aside, this question brings up another that is, at once, similar and totally unrelated.
( Cut for length )

You asked: Is the morality of the Old Testament outdated?
No.

( Did you want more of an answer? (cut for excessive length) )

You asked: What's wrong with communism? It's just another idea about how to live.

Equality of state always involves taking from those who work hardest or fastest for the benefit of those who work slowest or are laziest. There is no other way to keep everyone equal in their standard of living, because people have varied skills in production and varied work ethics. Besides which, people will resent equality that is forced upon them.
One need only look around at today's business and civil service world to notice that productivity is in the vast majority of cases directly proportional to the connection between productivity and pay.
A car dealership salesperson's pay is entirely dependent on productivity, and you rarely, if ever, see a car salesman lounging in his office playing solitaire (Car dealerships frequently pay sales staff straight commission or some system that amounts to straight commission or less).
On the other hand, in businesses where salary is fixed for most employees, you frequently see employees goofing off in their offices and around the water cooler.
A connection between reward and productivity serves as the only reliable motivator of production. Without an incentive to work harder, most people won't. And without any added loss of necessities when work is not done, most people will only do the amount of work they feel like doing, which is usually little or none.
These are the main direct problems with the communistic philosophy of from each according to ability-to each according to need. There are other, more brutal problems, but those stem from the same source. Brutality is often employed as a replacement for incentive. It is very inefficient as a motivator.

I thought I would piece together some paragraphs I've been toying with in a somewhat coordinated thesis on how Christians should behave in politics. This is my frail attempt.

--- Witnesses ---
Jesus called us to be witnesses to what we've seen and heard. We are not called to be defense attorneys, and we're certainly not called to be God's thugs. Where force is needed, God has the winds and the seas and the many nations of the world, should He desire their efforts.
We should always and everywhere live lives that witness to the love and power of God.
Christian political groups are making me want to vomit on their shoes. Light has no fellowship with darkness, and the ends do not justify any means expedient. Christian political groups should exhort politicians to do what is right, but they should not use underhanded tactics or call people names in doing so. They should pray for God's will to be done much more than press politicians to make promises and make pro-life appointments.
Yes, God takes life very seriously and hates seeing life treated with no respect... but Christians who enter the public sphere should work not to make a Christian State but to make an equitable State in which Christians and non-Christians have equal freedom to pursue their own religious beliefs as they believe is best. Faith is between each person and the Lord of all Creation, not between citizens and the government. You can't force people to believe, but you can drive them away by twisting their arms.
Politicians who are Christians should live their faith in their work by speaking against and voting against things they believe are unrighteous, but they also need to respect the Constitution and the rule of law, as Paul commanded in Romans 13. The Constitution is the framework within which USA's political system moves, and if they have a problem with that, they need to work to change it; not to subvert it unlawfully.

--- Unity and Division ---
All men and women are siblings. We are all descended from Adam and Eve. We are all descended from Noah. Let us treat one another with filial devotion. Let us stop treating our siblings as enemies.
We must not mistreat the unbelieving representatives of our fellow Americans. We should exhort them to do right, but we should never treat disagreement with us as damnable.

--- Pray for Good ---
Don't pray for evil things to happen, even to the wicked. Pray they come to Jesus, that they change their minds about how they vote, and if they refuse to listen, pray that they are removed from office and replaced with better leaders. But don't pray that they die or get hurt, and don't rejoice in their suffering.
They are your own flesh and blood. And you were once as lost as they. Have compassion for them as Jesus had compassion for you.

--- Vote for ---
Vote. Vote for the candidate on the ballot whom you think is the best person for the job. If your person isn't on the ballot, try to get him or her onto the ballot.
Don't vote for someone's opponent. Vote for someone. And don't scheme and choose by likelihoods. Don't worry about who has a chance against whom. Vote honestly for the person you think is the most honest, the most trustworthy, the most ideal candidate.
We in this country are pathetically devoted to being on the winning side. Pick your own winner, and let everyone else do the same, and see what we actually choose. That's the whole point behind voting. If you're not voting for the choice you think is best, you're wasting your vote.
Vote your conscience.

--- Christian Nation ---
The USA was founded on Christian principles. We are greatly concerned with rights, with freedom, and with what is best for the nation.
But I do not dream of a Christian State. For I would hate to be governed by a State that told me I was worshipping God incorrectly. That is for me to discern with God's guidance and God's grace. It is not for any man to tell me.
I wish our representatives were more concerned with doing righteousness, but it is not for the State to mandate good works. It is for the State to protect my life and my rights, along with every other citizen's, from the womb to the grave.
I desire to be zealous for God. I do not desire to be a Zealot. The Zealots sought to incite the people of Judea into rioting, and they used brutal and shady tactics. Some of the Christian political action groups are like Zealots, and I think they should examine their hearts and either switch to God's methods of reaching people, or else find a different line of work than representing God's values, because they make poor representatives of our faith.

--- Make Love, Not War ---
We have in our culture a false dichotomy between war and love. What good is love if it stands by and lets its beloved be trampled and oppressed? Yet, our society often says, "You see a need for war at times? You must be a warmonger who seeks to fight for the purposes you think are best." Or on the other end, "If you love your fellow man, you will shun war at all costs, because war is hell and inflicts great suffering on humanity."
The way an individual stands up against oppression is to show compassion for all life and pray to God for relief for those oppressed. Nations do not have emoitions or compassion or love. Nations either do something about oppressors, or they don't. And if they do, they must either try to persuade oppressors to stop, or else they must cause the oppressor to cease by the use of force.
And I'm tired of hearing people whine and cry that we should end the war. We can't end the war........
If there's anything the Twentieth Century should have taught us, it's that the War to End All Wars doesn't exist on the political stage. We fought two of them, and we're still fighting wars. We need to understand that world peace is an unrealistic idea. The Bible says there will be wars and rumors of wars during the period leading up to the end of the world. And "Peace on earth, goodwill toward men" refers not to political peace but to a peace treaty between mankind and the King of all creation, God. We forget that our sins put us at enmity with God, and that they are in a sense acts of war against His kingdom. Jesus came to bring peace between you and God, not to eradicate the sword. He said, "I am not come to bring peace, but the sword." Jesus came as a peace treaty. And making peace with God puts you at odds with those who choose not to make peace with God, the same way a country views countries that make peace with its enemy. The best way to get close to peace with your fellow man is for both of you to be at peace with God. There will always be fighting until the Lord comes back in final victory to vanquish all evil and set us all who support Him at peace with one another.
So, the idea that we can just sit in our own little sandbox and have our military train one weekend a month and one week a year and never go anywhere to fight is a stupid one. We have a military because we need it. We need it because there are enemies we have to face. And we have to face those enemies in one of two place, sometimes both: Over there or over here. And from where I sit, we're doing a damn fine job of it. I support our military. I don't think the armed forces are a political card to play. They're dedicated men and women who deserve our respect and our support. Yes, fighting is unpleasant. Yes, war is hellish. Yes, it's very sad when even one of our soldiers dies. But they do not die in vain. They keep your life safe so you'll continue to have the protection of your right to speak your mind, even if you only open your mouth to criticize them.

--- Save the Planet ---
I believe that all people, but particularly Christians, should be good stewards of the world. We should generate as little waste as possible, we should avoid setting fire to the wilderness, we should not take more resources from the land than we need to accomplish our goals of building and reaching and living peacefully with our neighbors.
However, that does not mean that animals or Terra itself is above humanity. The world that is exists for God, and God designed it for the sustaining, teaching, and enjoyment of humankind.
I think we need to be careful and sensible about the laws we pass in our attempts to keep the foolish from being bad stewards. It is better to teach children to be good stewards than to pass laws to try to keep adults in line, for we often mar legitimate rights in the attempt. Exemplary of this are fuel efficiency standards that apply to all vehicles regardless of function.
I think a meaningful impact on fuel emissions can be achieved in a reasonable way, by simply getting an ordinance passed banning the driving of SUVs inside your city. It can even be a local thing, so you only have to convince the decision makers in your city or county. This would make the 'drive-the-SUV-to-the-corner-coffee-shop' thing illegal without hindering the folks whose lives and jobs actually depend on four-wheel drive power (people who live or work in actual wilderness where there are unpaved hills and stuff that need climbing).
And it's not like the banning of SUVs in the city would be expensive to implement. You put up signs by the limit markers that say "No SUVs beyond this point", and you enjoy the revenue of writing tickets for people who insist on driving their land cruisers in the crowded streets of downtown. But we're not serious about this, so all we do is whine about fuel efficiency standards and try to rope the entire country into something that will only benefit the large cities while hurting the rural citizens. And very little gets done when you ask people to accept measures that hurt them for no apparent reason.

--- Congress Shall Make No Law ---
Many people seem to have this fear that committed Christians, if they attain office, will seek throughout their entire term to enact blue laws and force prayer meetings in public schools. I believe that is not the way of Christ in politics. For myself, I would be no happier than they under a Christian theocracy.
Such a government, attempting to force people to believe, would drive people away from the Lord and make my job of witnessing much harder. It is not how Christ would act in this nation, either. Certainly, when Christ returns to claim His kingdom, He will be ruling over a benign monarchy, but if Jesus were running for office in the USA, I believe He would not attempt to make unconstitutional laws.
When Jesus walked in Galilee and Judea, He subjected Himself to the laws of the land, with the unavoidable exception of admitting that He was God. He paid the taxes, He didn't tell other people not to pay legitimate taxes, and He avoided the crowds whenever they were on the verge of trying to crown Him. And Jesus never forced anyone to do something. He said what He said and did what He did, and He left the reactions to those things up to the individuals.
Our constitution says this country will not have a state-sponsored church. I believe that if Jesus were a senator, a congressman, or the president, Hes would support laws that defend the free will of the individual, defend the rights of individuals to tell others about their faith and practice their religions openly, provide for a framework in which people could give freely to charitable ventures of their choosing, denounce any law that discriminated against one region or ancestry or gender or economic status.
In short, if Jesus held public office, I believe He would uphold the constitution and make sure He supported sensible and equitable laws and opposed inequitable and unsensible laws.
And that's what I think any politician who wants to follow "What Would Jesus Do?" should do.
And this goes beyond laws relating to religion. I think public officials whould strive also to think through the laws they consider and do all they can to make sure these laws do what they're intended to do.
Our nation has far too many crime bills that don't in any way prevent crime, software and movie piracy legislation that does nothing to curb piracy, and technology laws that are written by people so untechnically inclined that they do nothing to prevent technology crimes. And a law that's not doing what it should do is undoubtedly doing something it shouldn't do.
Bad laws tend to limit legitimate behaviors in violation of the rights of citizens. While not strictly a law, copy protection schemes are a perfect example of this. Copy protection does not, has never, and never will prevent piracy. Copy protection only limits the legitimate use by paying customers of products they paid to use legitimately.
"You do not examine legislation in light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered." --Lyndon B. Johnson

--- Beware of Compliant Candidates ---
Anyone who always says what you want to hear is lying to you at least some of the time.
Don't demand that candidates agree with you one everything, and don't vote on single issues. Look at the whole picture, ask questions, and decide based on all the information. Want a committed Christian in office? Don't believe the guy who started going to church just as his campaign was starting. Want a guy who supports your industry? Look at what he's said and done about it before. Want a candidate who'll be honest with you? Demand honesty, not agreement.
The sooner we stop asking candidates to lie to us (by telling them that their agreement with us on one thing will determine our vote, by rewarding those who lie to us, etc.), the sooner we'll have honest candidates who will tell us where they stand and let the vote happen as it happens instead of trying to lie to enough people to deceive their way to a victory.
The Bible says the wounds of a friend are faithful, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.

I reckon I've babbled long enough about politics. I'm not sure if anyone cares what I think about this, but there it is, for what it's worth. God bless you. Vote!

This was such a great quote, I had to steal it from tufelkinder:

Always set high value on spontaneous kindness. He whose inclination prompts him to cultivate your friendship of his own accord will love you more than one whom you have been at pains to attach to you.
— Samuel Johnson

I was watching Joan of Arcadia (episode: "Romancing the Joan") on DVD, and I was struck by something Little Girl God said: "Romance serves a purpose. It's a meditative state. It puts logic to sleep so that people can come together. Otherwise you guys probably wouldn't risk it."

What do you think of this statement?

I recently took part in a discussion on the theme of "Talking 'God' in Politics". Here are some of the questions that were suggested by the facilitator. I thought it fitting that I offer my responses to them.


Does the First Amendment mean that God should be banned from the public arena?
( Read more... )

Should values and morals be part of the political discourse?
( Read more... )

Why do many become defensive and alarmed with use of religious and moral language in political discourse?
( Read more... )

Do religious people have a monopoly on moral talk? Is religion the only root of moral reflection? Is there a place for a moral secular humanist position?
( Read more... )

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois says: "Democracy demands religious Americans translate their concerns into universal values rather than religion-specific values ... and that secularists make room for faith and morality."

Senator Obama is mistaken. Democracy demands only that those who have the most agreement behind them get their way. What demands that religious people speak in universal values and that secularists allow religion to be practiced freely is republic, which holds the rule of law and the rights of all above the caprices of the individual and the mob. Democracy can be the oft-cited 49 sheep and 51 wolves deciding to have lamb for dinner; no demand for the rights or sentiments of the minority is at all implied.


What about extremists?
( Read more... )

What about separation of Church and State?
( Read more... )

2008 Democratic Nat'l Convention Agenda

7:00P...Opening flag burning.

7:15P...Pledge of allegiance to U.N.

7:30P...Ted Kennedy proposes a preliminary toast…

7:30P-8:00P...Nonreligious prayer and worship led by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

8:00P....Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.

8:05P....Ceremonial tree hugging.

8:15P-8:30P...Gay wedding with Barney Frank presiding.

8:30P....Ted Kennedy proposes a toast, demonstrates beer bong.

8:35P...Free Saddam Rally organized by Cindy Sheehan and Susan Sarandon.

8:45P...Speech on "The Calibre of American Troops In Iraq" by Slapstick Comic Senator John Kerry.

9:00P...Keynote speech on "The Proper Etiquette for Surrender" by French President Jacques Chirac.

9:15P...Ted Kennedy proposes a toast, demonstrates “Body Shots” using Tequila, lime and salt.

9:20P...Collection to benefit Osama Bin Laden kidney transplant fund.

9:30P...Unveiling of plan to free freedom fighters from Guantanamo Bay by Sean Penn.

9:40P....A short talk by William Jefferson Clinton on "Why I Dislike the Military."

9:45P...Ted Kennedy proposes a toast. Leads delegates in the “Chicken Dance”

9:50P...Dan Rather given the "Truth in Broadcasting" award, presented by Michael Moore.

9:55P...Ted Kennedy proposes a toast, shows delegates how to make fart noises using armpits.

10:00P....Expose on "How George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld Brought Down the World Trade Center Towers" by Howard Dean.

10:30P...Nomination of Hillary Rodham Clinton by Mahmud Ahmadinejad.

11:00P...Ted Kennedy proposes a toast, leads delegates in the Macarena.

11:05P...Al Gore explains how he really invented the internet.

11:15P...A short talk on "Our Troops are War Criminals" by Senator John Kerry.

11:30P...Coronation of Mrs. Rodham Clinton.

12:00A...Ted Kennedy proposes a toast, leads Conga line around the auditorium.

12:05A...Bill asks Ted to drive Hillary home.