tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-46932361274588253742024-03-05T19:06:13.334-08:00The Center-Left FieldAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04034639542195789648noreply@blogger.comBlogger110125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4693236127458825374.post-26002723243762394282015-12-24T22:31:00.001-08:002015-12-24T22:47:30.441-08:00Can you be Gay and Christian?<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; line-height: 15.456px; margin-bottom: 6px;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Now before I begin, I want to make a note about sex. Sexuality issues are deeply important as they are part of the human condition. Despite what people feel sex is or what it's role in one's life should be...it's an important topic to discuss in the context of religion, sexuality, and spirituality. </span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; line-height: 15.456px; margin-bottom: 6px;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi466K1nhVz8CT9KY7RrU4RCtgYk3MA-XsWoKapwrKWpw3W0dDKswDL12iYV9usygEWXLfjHhgz2XhmiA673YQj8l6ybqMrLuI913HhEbf3aumIlYS7O90yb7fjYRvNPQp8bfeJZjnXBuI/s1600/Lovethyneighbor.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></a><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; line-height: 15.456px; margin-bottom: 6px;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 15.456px;">Christianity is about three things:</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; line-height: 15.456px; margin-bottom: 6px;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 15.456px;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; line-height: 15.456px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Love your neighbor as yourself.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; line-height: 15.456px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; line-height: 15.456px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Do all things with a servants heart.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; line-height: 15.456px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; line-height: 15.456px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And in all things, motive is as important as the action.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; line-height: 15.456px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; line-height: 15.456px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And more generalized, to be as Christ, in that you acquire qualities and behaviors associated with Christ, hence the word Christ-ian. One who is like Christ.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; line-height: 15.456px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; line-height: 15.456px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So what does this all mean? Love your neighbor as yourself speaks for itself...basically, don't be a dick to others if you don't want them to be a dick back to you...pretty easy peasy reasoning there. (excuse the blunt language, but seriously, it speaks for itself).</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; line-height: 15.456px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; line-height: 15.456px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi466K1nhVz8CT9KY7RrU4RCtgYk3MA-XsWoKapwrKWpw3W0dDKswDL12iYV9usygEWXLfjHhgz2XhmiA673YQj8l6ybqMrLuI913HhEbf3aumIlYS7O90yb7fjYRvNPQp8bfeJZjnXBuI/s1600/Lovethyneighbor.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi466K1nhVz8CT9KY7RrU4RCtgYk3MA-XsWoKapwrKWpw3W0dDKswDL12iYV9usygEWXLfjHhgz2XhmiA673YQj8l6ybqMrLuI913HhEbf3aumIlYS7O90yb7fjYRvNPQp8bfeJZjnXBuI/s320/Lovethyneighbor.jpg" width="207" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The second thing is to be humble in your accomplishments, your charity, your piety, and your interactions with others. This embeds in your heart that whatever action you engage in, it should be for the right reason. If you do an action or act and brag about it, it shows you did it for yourself and not for others. Examples of when this was said: When you pray, do it in private. When you give, give anonymously, when you are generous, do so with a humble heart.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; line-height: 15.456px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; line-height: 15.456px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEWrOTlJPl6ZOzsfvQ5E6rudsaNliTdOfDjvjlPq1KcYfEYLLCQRwx-GDjtbuov2PMBaR7vZV2i5C033tKSlOK0GJ38LxnU6-FssI9UQZf7E8mOVxKgJzMm5JwHAL-nktZyg8Li0Dumjg/s1600/Passion.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="133" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEWrOTlJPl6ZOzsfvQ5E6rudsaNliTdOfDjvjlPq1KcYfEYLLCQRwx-GDjtbuov2PMBaR7vZV2i5C033tKSlOK0GJ38LxnU6-FssI9UQZf7E8mOVxKgJzMm5JwHAL-nktZyg8Li0Dumjg/s200/Passion.jpg" width="200" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEWrOTlJPl6ZOzsfvQ5E6rudsaNliTdOfDjvjlPq1KcYfEYLLCQRwx-GDjtbuov2PMBaR7vZV2i5C033tKSlOK0GJ38LxnU6-FssI9UQZf7E8mOVxKgJzMm5JwHAL-nktZyg8Li0Dumjg/s1600/Passion.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></a><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Thirdly, motive is as important as action. When you act in our world, you should act for the purpose of the greater good of man, and not the greater good of you. Sometimes this is hard to do, no question there. And to bring a point that is so relevant to our lives: Sex. Sex is something that is vilified as dirty, w</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">rong, immoral, etc. And I wholly reject this line of reasoning because sex is a mutual act between two consenting people. When I engage with someone intimately, I want a connection, I want to pleasure them and give them a sense of serenity and peace and love and preciousness that I would hope would be given to me as well. And I'll be honest, it doesn't always work out that way. But perhaps one thing we should all ask ourselves when we have sex...is are we valuing our partner as a human being? Are we doing unto them emotionally and physically as we would have them do unto us? In our hearts are we using them for gratification, or are we growing close to each other as human beings? It's a question to ask ourselves every time we make love to another person, whether hetero or homosexual. It doesn't really matter which.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; line-height: 15.456px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; line-height: 15.456px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Now, don't misread me, you are welcome to have sexual encounters in any way that suits you, but for the Christian, these questions bear consideration as the primary purpose of the Christian is service, tolerance, and charity...and in all our activities are we engaging every aspect of our lives with that lens over our eyes.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; display: inline; line-height: 15.456px; margin-top: 6px;">
</div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
</span><br />
<div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; display: inline; line-height: 15.456px; margin-top: 6px;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglxNUEA52dScEng3OLeO_Br8LJXJ7bUan6ltgYgTprp5rpmwHbZXbsSIPc8q90-gb7L9vq55CbpZN3rF0NxR9lhGwbdRvCUdB6KFC1IgpK11mJtbjZrY_UAuCMswwdlX-o6hckfooaGFU/s1600/RickWarren.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglxNUEA52dScEng3OLeO_Br8LJXJ7bUan6ltgYgTprp5rpmwHbZXbsSIPc8q90-gb7L9vq55CbpZN3rF0NxR9lhGwbdRvCUdB6KFC1IgpK11mJtbjZrY_UAuCMswwdlX-o6hckfooaGFU/s200/RickWarren.jpg" width="200" /></a><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Now, there are MANY aspects of Christianity that would disagree with my point of view profusely, and as one who grew up in a very evangelical fundamentalist home who has since rejected emphatically that view of the world and that view of Christianity, I will say that what is important to me is to read the words of Jesus as dictated in the Gospels (usually in red), reject what is unreasonable or outdated, and embrace the values expressed that enrich you as a human being. The stuff about the end times or the rapture poodoo....is nonsense and really should just discarded as unimportant really. The here and now is important. Based on my life-long study of scripture, and my personal experiences, and my comprehension of the spirit of the faith...these are the values I have determined are most important to me. So, when evaluating this question, it really comes down to you deciding what works for you. But the key element that is 100% most important is allowing people to do as they want to do, to not harass them, to not hate them or condemn them, to not judge them, and most definitely to NOT harm them in any form. If your religion calls on you to harm others...whether that be psychologically, physically, emotionally or spiritually...then your religion is garbage.</span><br />
<div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; display: inline; line-height: 15.456px; margin-top: 6px;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; display: inline; line-height: 15.456px; margin-top: 6px;">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Tell me in the comments if you agree or disagree with me. Haters will be deleted, Zealots will be blocked, and bigots will be scowled at profusely. Be respectful in your comments. </span></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04034639542195789648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4693236127458825374.post-31198806736960087662015-02-16T15:05:00.001-08:002015-02-16T15:05:24.337-08:00The Spirit Moved Me Today, and here's how...A Reckoning approaches for all to see. Those who assert my voice will be brought down. Those who obey my commandments will be lifted up. The lies of the enemy will be cast down under my feet. Who are those who will fall? Those who use my name to justify evil are not of me, but of the enemy. Those who would engage in unjust acts, those who perpetuate greed and selfishness, those who claim my voice to treat others of unequal worth. Those who hoard their wealth at the expense of those in need. Those who call for violence and death do not speak with my voice, but the voice of fear and hatred. Woe to them all, woe to them, for their days are numbered.<br />
<br />
Yea to those who embrace their neighbor, who provide food for their table, who bless and are generous to those in pain. Blessed are those who love their kinsman and the foreigner the same. Yea to those who grant mercy to those indebted to them, who cast aside the chains of servitude and embrace cooperation and peace. Blessed are those who speak with wisdom and truth, who examine themselves with truthful eyes and soft hearts. Blessed are those who teach others in these ways, for your reward and blessings are great and lasting.<br />
<br />
Woe to you who cheapen life with quick thrills and snake oils. Woe to you who deceive many to gain wealth, for it shall be fleeting and brief. Blessed is the person who exchanges fairly with just weights and measures for their days shall be long and their profits unending.<br />
Woe to he or she that torments for pleasure, for you are dark and unclean. Woe to you who would destroy a person with words, for you are wicked and detestable. Blessed is the person who embraces all, who speaks love and encouragement, who seeks to join with others in peaceful coexistence. For your life is full of joy and fulfillment.<br />
<br />
Blessed are those who rule with wisdom and courage, who embrace the counsel of many around them, who consider carefully and with patience...for their rein shall be lasting and memorable, prosperous and legend. Woe to the ruler who makes shady deals, misusing the riches of the kingdom for greedy and nefarious ends, for they are as a rot in the trunk of a tree: insidious, slow, and painful.<br />
<br />
Be truthful in all aspects of yourself, embrace your nature and be honest with all. For I crafted you to be an individual person, that that individuality may make a mark on your world. That you may bless others with your eyes and ears and talents. That your depth as a living being may bring joy and light to others.<br />
Do not listen to those who teach death and disaster, for they are as conn-man seeking to draw you in and steal from your soul. Do not embrace the teachings of hatred and intolerance, for they are not of me. Do not embrace the throne draped with symbols as me, for it is idolatry. Do not embrace the rhetoric that would teach you to loathe another, for I did not loathe you, but thought of you every moment up to the time I gave up my spirit.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04034639542195789648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4693236127458825374.post-44849131048371903282014-09-22T14:47:00.000-07:002014-09-22T14:47:01.907-07:00Are We Truly Righteous?<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
Are we as
a nation still a righteous one? Are we the stalwart defender we purport
ourselves to be? Do we continue to be a fair and just nation? I wish I had a
better answer for you, but in all honesty...when I look out into the world, I
look at the actions of my countrymen, I look at the policy of our government,
of the population even, it's hard for me to say yes. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
Why?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
Because, we are too eager to employ the gun and less eager
to employ speech. Often, in history, nations destroy themselves from perpetual
war. To enable the continuance of war, you must be at war with a
principle, an ideal, or a concept. Principles, ideals, and concepts have
no flesh to rend, no body to destroy, and no way to snuff it from existence.
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
The ideal of the USA, is that everyone is equal, everyone
is treated fairly, and everyone has his or her day in court with a fair jury
and a fair judge to prosecute or exonerate guilt or innocence. In our
fair and just nation, everyone who works never goes hungry, never is homeless,
and never is without the necessities and maybe even a few fruits of life.
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
What prompted this line of thinking? Ender's Game.
The story is quite moving and disturbing at the same time. On the
one hand, we're fighting for survival. On the other hand, we're fighting
to end all wars, and on another hand we're willing to go to extremes to end the
future conflicts we don't see. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What was great about
Ender’s Game? It explores questions of
instinct and survival. While we may
believe we’ve evolved to states where we don’t kill indiscriminately for our
personal self-worth…we do. We just do it
in more organized manners. Instead of a
stone axe and wooden spear, we create armies of organized drones to destroy the
life we’ve told them are our enemy. If
we as a species truly have evolved, then evolution is a sham. True evolution is adapting to our growth as
human beings, and integrating each other into each other’s systems of
subsistence, culture, and learning to live together. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Middle East are cultures
so alien to the western world as a whole, that we’re content to believe
anything and anyone who has an opinion about their atrocities. Well guess what…we’re no angels
ourselves. How many civilians have we killed? How many did we hold for 10+ years without explanation
or charges or trial just because the military says they saw them fighting? How many mouths of our own people did we rob
to go and kill someone? How many secret
agencies exist that consume resources strictly for the purposes of killing
subvertly? We don’t know, because we’ve
allowed this madness to continue for far too long. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Our nation is a
disease right now. We’re provocative,
violent, bigoted, and self-righteous. We’re
a nation of hypocrites who say one thing and do another. We have, as a nation, no interest in pursuing
peaceful coexistence because we’re so blinded by ethnocentrism that we can’t
seem to cooperate with anyone who isn’t like us, who doesn’t look like us, or
who doesn’t behave like us. We have
allowed deeply destructive elements to dominate our society. Greed, power, envy, domination, and control
have taken root and corrupted our national fabric. It is deeply disgusting to me, that we think
we have the moral fiber to tell other nations how to behave. The population, the government, and our
religious leaders all have failed to highlight how hypocritical our country is
in relation to the rest of the world. We
are NOT a righteous nation by any imagination.
People worship money like the Hebrews did with the Golden Calf. People think they are so entitled to
independence and liberty that they would sooner sacrifice their neighbor to a
burning inferno just because they think they have the moral license to do
so. We invoke names like Jesus,
Mohammed, The Buddha, and other great philosophical icons who truly were
evolved individuals. Individuals like
these and many others who have emulated them have taught tolerance, peace, and justice
to the world at large. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What can we do to
avert these continued atrocities and begin reforming our cultural
identity? We must STOP. Stop shooting stop destroying, stop bombing,
and stop imposing ourselves on the world.
War perpetuates more war. It is a
malignant disease which spreads across the world, permeating all borders,
infecting all humans, and leaving nothing but death and waste in its wake. It is the born son of fear and ignorance, the
birther of loss and despair. It is akin to pestilence and disease. It knows no end except to destroy all who
engage in it while also collaterally killing any around it. A famous line from a great movie “The only
way to win the game is to not play.” The
film this line came from is called “War Games” from the early to mid-80s
starring Matthew Broderick. It’s a movie
about the dangers of arms races, nuclear build up, the ethics and morals of
engaging in mass global war and what it seeks to leave behind in its wake. There are no winners in war, only losers, and
only death as the game tries over and over to win Global Thermonuclear War by
trying each round as a different player.
The result is the same…no winner.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Let us also consider
the morals and ethics of war. There are
no winners in war, only victors, but even victors are losers just like the
defeated enemy is. The victors’ loss is
the life, the equipment, and the resources spent to maintain the conflict. The loss of life is not a win, but a tragedy for
the world. The defeated’s loss is the
loss of life, the loss of resources, and the loss of equipment, not to mention
the loss of influence, and potentially the loss of rights. It’s not which side lost or won, it is which
side lost more than the other.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Further the morals
and ethics of war, what kind of war did we engage in? Did we defend our homes from invasion? Are we taking pre-emptive action against a potentially
hostile state or entity? Are we actively
invading another nation to create a buffer zone? Are we actively invading a nation for our own
benefit? Wars are judged on their moral
and ethical justifications when looked in hindsight. We should not judge past wars on their
morality or immorality, because I believe all wars are immoral…but we should at
least judge them based on the fruits that emerge from them and let that
determine whether a war was at least just or not. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Don’t misunderstand
me, I understand that sometimes we must go to war. I 100% believe that a war is just if you are
defending your home from an invading force.
And wars that are conducted where we minimalize loss of life and follow
rules that value human beings. But what
we fail to do is to consider all diplomacy before we go in guns blazing. We fail to calculate the human cost to us and
to them before we go in with rockets red glaring into supposed hostile
targets. Over and over again we fail to
learn our lessons about history. No
nation should engage in war without giving honest and critical debate about the
cost. The human cost is the most
important cost. With each war in each
generation, we create a new generation of veterans. A new generation of those who must suffer the
memory, trauma and loss every night, every waking moment, every quiet
reflective thought that goes through their mind isn’t not on some aspect of
their war experience. There isn’t a
soldier who I haven’t talked to that’s been to war that doesn’t have some
horrific story about their injury, the memory of a fellow soldier, the death of
one of their enemies, and finally the hardships they now are branded with for
the rest of their lives to deal with.
That is so much more a cost than the money. Money is replaceable. Human life is not. At what point do we end the violence, do we
end the conflict, do we stop making weapons and start making science and art
and literature? What point do we end this pointless and empty conflict over
ideology and religion and culture. Where
does it end? And that question’s answer
to me, makes me cry…cause I feel currently, that answer is unattainable. <o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04034639542195789648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4693236127458825374.post-31014526257626430952014-06-29T11:49:00.001-07:002014-06-29T11:49:45.433-07:00Prosperity Doctrine Fuels Cultural Subjugation<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">The Prosperity Doctrine </span></div>
<br />
What is it? It is the belief that by giving the church money that your material wealth will increase as a direct result. But also, let me take it a step further. The prosperity doctrine in several forms other than this form have been used to assert cultural superiority on the basis of cultural or societal success. Let me give you a few examples: Firstly let us examine the Native American Boarding Schools. The boarding schools weren't just easy places to send Native children, but were a place where culture and language were driven out of children in the name of White-American superiority as late as the 1960s. Children were seized from reservations and placed in these schools where their cultural identity was literally beaten out of them. The justification for such measures stemmed from the belief that Native cultures were savage cultures and uncivilized. That Anglo-white culture was superior because it was a "Christian" culture. Further to how it relates to the Prosperity doctrine would be statements like "God has blessed the US, therefore our society should be Christian because of the blessings bestowed upon it." Or other statements like "White people have proven to be God's chosen, look at the wealth and power we've amassed." Or other assertions like the one's above. The assertion of property does not give rise to the belief that it makes other cultures inferior, less deserving of respect and love and compassion, or even more so, that other religions are inferior to Christianity. The false belief that Christianity is superior to any other religion is despicable in every way to me. It's the same thing as saying that a White person or a Black person or an Asian-descended person are of any lesser value than any other skin-toned person (Race is not the appropriate term to describe skin color).<br />
<br />
A variation of the Prosperity Doctrine was used to justify the subjugation of Black Slavery in the Americas. The belief that our civilization was superior and that blacks would live better as slaves beneath us was often cited as justified reasoning to own a slave. That blacks were poor living in hovels and dirt-floored huts in Africa means that they were not following God and should be saved from themselves. The viewpoint that someone who is suffering economically must mean that they do not follow the teachings of Jesus is a deeply horrible falsehood. The belief that someone is suffering financially simply means they are suffering financially and has no relation to their belief or non-belief in Jesus. There is a difference between someone who say has a gambling problem and has thrust himself into insurmountable debt because of it, and someone who just got landed with three kids and no job through no fault of his or her own after a nasty divorce. Blacks were also subjected to this cultural genocide that was observed in Native American boarding schools. Many masters sought to raise God-fearing slaves, and prohibited expressions of their original culture...not that it really stopped it, but it actually ended up being something even better as the two cultures blended to form a unique culture in of itself. And mind you, this also happened with Native Americans' contact with White civilization as well and numerous others that we came in contact with such as Hawa'ii, India, Africa, and the South and North American peoples. Culture was adopted from the cultures we contacted and the best parts of it were incorporated into them. The Cherokee culture so very much identified with the tenants of Christianity that much of the ideology was viewed as extremely compatible and even adopted...even though the aftermath of such contact were atrocities like "The Trail of Tears" and a despicable president (Andrew Jackson) that is personally responsible for the genocide of 4000 Cherokee personally. <br />
<br />
In Europe, prosperity was used to justify the Serf system and to exalt kings and lords over the common folk. The divine right of kings and the divine assertment of lordship over people is often justified by wealth. "Wealth means God favors you" is often a fallacious and even dangerous doctrine for one to assert. Even a rudimentary shows that Christ himself had a worrisome view of the wealthy and seldom had anything to say about them that could be mistaken as favorable. "It is far easier for a rich man to fit through the eye of a needle than for him to get into Heaven" is often a good one to remember. Jesus basically saying in a nutshell that the love of money is so strong that it either is the man's Lord, or The Lord is. They can't serve both. "Give all your money away to the poor and serve me" was also popular. "The love of money is the root of all evil" is definitely anti-greed and anti-prosperity doctrine. James' condemnation of favoritism to one person above another...though the subtext to me definitely reads like specifically referring to the wealthy and well-connected.<br />
<br />
The Prosperity Doctrine in many ways and in it's various forms has been used to justify religious and cultural subjugation, and genocide for generations in our past. I cannot comprehend how any person claiming to live by the principles set by the Christ-Jesus can engage in such despicable and inhuman treatment. And I cannot believe for one second that God loves any one person less just because of their skin tone or sexuality or other religion. If we are called to be servants of all mankind and we are called to be compassionate, loving, and generous, then I find no ethical, moral, or even legal justification for subjugating and killing off any culture or religion or ethnicity in the name of "religious superiority" asserting "We're prosperous, therefore we're the best of God's people." If we are truly the best of God's people, then let us humble ourselves before others, and be the servants of those less fortunate. The prosperity doctrine is poison, toxic, and not in line with Christ-like Values. It should be discarded as a doctrine, and the fundamentals of Christian thinking and action should prevail.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04034639542195789648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4693236127458825374.post-54305758919552026272014-06-06T12:46:00.003-07:002014-06-06T12:46:40.802-07:00Bigotry Has no Place in a Christian's Heart<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">One of the most trying issues of our time is that of Homosexuality and Marriage and the Family. Who decides what is what? What rationale is justified in regulating these various facets of society? And ultimately, how should a Christian feel about such things?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Let's talk about a few of the talking points in this debate.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Marriage</span><br />
<br />
Marriage is an institution that has persisted in one form or another for millennia. That fact is not in question by anybody. What is in question...is how that institution has progressed through the years. Is marriage truly and only between a man and a woman. Well most conservative-minded folks believe yes. Why? Most of the time the answer stems from a response to the degree of "Because God/Nature/whatever created us that way.<br />
<br />
Fallacy: Marriage has been between a man and a woman for over 6,000 years.<br />
<br />
Fact: Marriage has been many things to many cultures over the last 6,000 years. Even Judeo-Christian traditions going back that far question this viewpoint. Marriage has been used to join households increasing the available resources usable to each, polygamy has been practiced for just as long, meaning that it was not only between man and woman, but man and women as well. Marriage has been used in political alliances, such as the marriage of Louis XIV, King of France to Queen Maria Theresa of Spain for the purposes of securing peace between the two warring nations.<br />
<br />
Fact: Native American cultures throughout North American celebrated unions of two men and women together. They are called "Two-Spirits" people. The term also has been studied by Anthropologists which led them to conclude that perhaps some Native American communities had up to four genders. The unions of these individuals were widely celebrated among these tribes and likely predate 6,000 years as asserted by anti-equal marriage advocates.<br />
<br />
Fact: Same sex unions were celebrated in Rome, Greece, and in many parts of Mesopotamia until the Roman Catholic Church squashed such expressions and unions in the 300s A.C.E.<br />
<br />
Conclusion: Marriage traditions vary per civilization, culture, and religion. To assert it's that hetero-marriage is the only valid marriage is wrong and academically dishonest. It's also ethnocentric to believe that one cultural tradition is superior to another on the merits that it's your tradition.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Family</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
What constitutes family in our culture has often been motivated by the view of marriage. Marriage between a man and woman, who then produce children is the idyllic marriage. This viewpoint has been perpetuated by the political right who believe it is their sacred duty to protect what, in their eyes, is viewed as "God's Plan" for society. <br />
<br />
Concession: I will concede that children should always have two parents. It is the most ideal circumstance for a child. It provides a safe environment and the security of two adults in the household to attend to the every day tasks of the home and to provide varying types of nurturing and rearing to the children in the household.<br />
<br />
Fallacy: The the ideal home is one with One Mother and One Father.<br />
<br />
Fact: No scientific evidence of any kind has concluded that a home with One Father and One Mother is the most ideal one. The latest study done by Boston University in 2013 which examined gay-parent households concluded that those households function JUST as well as hetero-households. Other studies attempting to assert that hetero-only households are the best households have been soundly rejected by various academic associations across the country.<br />
<br />
Fact: The ideal family image that has been part of our society since the 50s has long been perpetuated by government, business, and religious organizations. The growth of the suburbs created this image of mom, dad, children, a dog, two cars, and white picket fence. This image of the family was enshrined as the "American Family"...or as it's often referred to as The Nuclear Family. By no means though is this family structure exclusive in Christianity or any other religion. It is not upheld as the perfect "godly" family by any ounce of scripture. <br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Homosexuality</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
Homosexuality as a societal structure has only been out int he main stream in US Culture for a short time by comparison. Europe, Japan, Canada and Mexico have all embraced LGBT persons as fully functional members of their societies and go to great lengths to protect their legal rights.<br />
<br />
Fallacy: Homosexuals are not natural in their impulses or feelings.<br />
<br />
Fact: Actually, that's not true. Homosexuality CAN be observed in nature to an alarmingly huge degree. If homosexuality is not natural, then why do we observe it in over 3000 species on Earth?<br />
<br />
Fact: Physiological and unique physically observable psychological differences have been seen in the human brain which differentiates homosexual from heterosexual, such as certain neuron configurations as observed in a study conducted by a Dr. Simon Levay discovered differences between heterosexual neurological configurations and homosexual configurations (<i>Sex and the Brain, Discover Magazine, March 1994</i>).<br />
<br />
Fact: Sexual orientation develops during pregnancy. According to a study published by the Best Practice and Research Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism in Sept 2007, the process of the selection of gender identity (that is, the sex a person thinks he or she is psychologically) is developed in the womb concurrently but independently of the physical sex characteristics, such as the penis and testes or the vagina and the ovaries. This occurs when physical characteristics do not align with the psychological characteristics.<br />
<br />
Fact: Geneticists such as Simon Levay and several others who do research into genetic disposition of gay men and lesbian women found genetic markers and genes which contribute to the disposition of one's attractions to another of the same sex or both sexes. <br />
<br />
In conclusion, marriage and family are subjects to be decided by culture ultimately. It is not for religion or law or anything else to decide what is socially acceptable or not. It is for society to decide that. Our laws prevent harm from befalling people as a result of culture. They protect the minority from the majority and the rights therein. Whether you believe homosexuality is "morally" right or not only affects one person: you. If you think it's wrong, then you're entitled to your opinion. But when your opinion causes harm to others by violating their legal rights...then your opinion has moved into public policy matters. And from here-on, LGBT citizens are going to fight for what is legally theirs by right of virtue, humanity, and law. If you don't like it...that's kinda too bad. Let's move on from this debate, accept each other as equals, and treat each other as though we are all of equal value and worth.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04034639542195789648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4693236127458825374.post-74143311537871588992014-05-12T12:30:00.003-07:002014-05-12T12:30:32.158-07:00Voting Rights: A Case for Party-List Voting Instead of Candidates.<span style="font-size: large;">In many countries, elections are not conducted in the same manner as they are in the United States. Actually when looking at other nations' electoral systems, The States are actually a black sheep. Most nations have some form of parliamentary system. Canada does, most of Europe does, Russia does, Australia does, New Zealand even does. But what does this mean for the United States exactly?</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">There are several types of ways to elect candidates in parliamentary systems. One is by direct election of representatives like we do here...and like many other electoral systems do. Then, there are other ways like party voting. Party voting basically means that you elect "the party" to govern. The party then keeps a list of candidates to represent each "riding" or district. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">For example, say Washington decides it wants to do party-voting. Washington would place all political parties meeting the criteria be placed on the ballot, on the ballot, your elections for the State's congressional delegation. On your ballot, you would see something like this:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">For Congress, do you prefer Republican or Democrat?</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">You would check either of those as your choice. Your party then would have a list, a candidate for each district. After tallying all the votes, the number of representatives sent to Washington would be proportional. So if it's 70% to 30%, Democrats to Republicans, and Washington has 10 congressional districts (it has 11, but for math's sake)...then we would send 7 Democrats and 3 Republicans based on a State-wide vote. Its a system that does away with the concept of gerrymandering because the drawn districts are no longer relevant to the electoral process other than to round up 700,000 people and declare "this is a district, drawn for logistical purposes and nothing more."</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">So now the next question...what about primary elections? Instead of sending out a state-sponsored election ballot for election day, your party would send out ballots to vote for the list if people it believes best represents the party's views. The first round of singling out candidates for consideration would be to have the party's convention affirm a list of about 20 potential candidates. Then after receiving a majority from the party caucus, those candidates would move to a kind of General Primary election, where those voters decide which 10 of those 20 chosen will move on to the general election list. A list might look like this:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Please number from 1 to 20 which candidates you would like to see represent you in the House of Representatives</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Candidate A _____</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Candidate B _____</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Candidate C _____</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">and so forth til all 20 names are numbered 1-20.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Then at the general election, You vote Republican or Democrat, and the top names on those party's lists are sent to WA DC to serve as our representatives. No gerrymandering, no disenfranchised voters, no voter fraud. Every vote matters, every vote counts, and every voice has a voice. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">It's a system that would entirely do away with the idea of gerrymandering, and ensure that voices in Congress are representative of the will of the voters. It's a completely non-partisan way. It also gives potential for 3rd party candidates to gain office without the hassle of needing 5% of the vote to be put on the ballot, because every political party would be permitted to be represented on the ballot. All they would be required to do is to attain enough votes in the general election to win a seat...which currently is about 700,000 votes.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
Gabriel Givens<br />
therightcenter@gmail.com<br />
@gdgivens for Twitter<br />
facebook.com/gabrielgivens<br />
http://centerleftfield.blogspot.com<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04034639542195789648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4693236127458825374.post-79400719207026792382014-05-08T21:41:00.002-07:002014-05-08T21:41:51.648-07:00A New Challenge Being Made to the Affordable Care Act<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6IpLBfVjM6muT5quI2_oRU1uXJFaXX2onvSntxEOekxYhtFYwFRb9t3o5h-UGoE5Gvtr7BWqPN0b6mFLNEeIqIYMXBSFAcjhAxeTzK3-668XdIu4vmFCWEacqGOwFb2UJ0mDRua3e_HA/s1600/GetCovered.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6IpLBfVjM6muT5quI2_oRU1uXJFaXX2onvSntxEOekxYhtFYwFRb9t3o5h-UGoE5Gvtr7BWqPN0b6mFLNEeIqIYMXBSFAcjhAxeTzK3-668XdIu4vmFCWEacqGOwFb2UJ0mDRua3e_HA/s1600/GetCovered.png" height="200" width="200" /></a>In a stunning, yet extremely technical loophole may have been found to completely derail the revenue portions of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. In December 2013, a complaint was filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation, a right-leaning legal foundation, that charges that the ACA originated in the wrong house of Congress...which, if justices agree with the argument, could render parts or even the entire law invalidated. <br />
<br />
In their complaint, they assert (truthfully) that the ACA was passed first by the Senate, then by the House, which according to the strict reading of the Constitution is not permitted. Article One, section 7 states <i>"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills." </i>This means that Congress went in the wrong order when passing, at very least, the tax provisions of the Affordable Care Act including, the tax provision which requires citizens to pay a penalty tax for failing to buy health insurance as mandated by the law. <br />
<br />
The Pacific Legal Foundation is one of the many front groups for Charles and David Koch and is funded by a great deal of corporate donations. Exxon Mobile has coughed up $110,000 for the organization since 1998. It is one of the many interconnected legal organizations that swing the right-wing club in the name of "freedom". They litigate a large array of issues against government including environmental regulations, affirmative action mandates, tax policy, and so on and so forth. <br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFe-wnuJLkdlSGn5fSvWkD-zwvRcwMEqgCE6yDLzsfSd6DxH6Y-QiVQc69DbQighFgJZMhJsYHc0Fh3bASlgkMHsOWJiPcaDXWDajbKJUQ51O53dh6T_wNP2GDC3qC90h0ZK-OOZRpoWg/s1600/PacLegFou.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFe-wnuJLkdlSGn5fSvWkD-zwvRcwMEqgCE6yDLzsfSd6DxH6Y-QiVQc69DbQighFgJZMhJsYHc0Fh3bASlgkMHsOWJiPcaDXWDajbKJUQ51O53dh6T_wNP2GDC3qC90h0ZK-OOZRpoWg/s1600/PacLegFou.jpg" /></a><br />
This latest attack on the Affordable Care Act threatens to undo billions of dollars in public investment and threatens the very hope of affordable healthcare in this country. We can only hope that the Supreme Court puts the people first as this law looks like it could be, once again, on the edge of a cliff.<br />
<br />
The case is Sissel v. United States Department of Health and Human Services<br />
http://www.pacificlegal.org/cases/Sissel-3-1374<br />
<br />
By Gabriel Givens<br />
The Center-Left Field<br />
therightcenter@gmail.com<br />
http://www.facebook.com/gabrielgivens<br />
http://twitter.com/gdgivens<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04034639542195789648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4693236127458825374.post-61693037582992870862014-04-21T16:33:00.002-07:002014-04-21T16:33:27.674-07:00Evangelical Christianity's Idol: The Family<span style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.63636302947998px; line-height: 17.563634872436523px;">Billy Graham:<i> If you turn away from your <insert random sin or whatever>, then God will love you. </i></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.63636302947998px; line-height: 17.563634872436523px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.63636302947998px; line-height: 17.563634872436523px;">Excuse me Pastor, but according to the Bible, God's love is unconditional. Furthermore, what right do you have to blanket all of gay parents calling them unsuitable. Your views are based in large part due to your ignorance and close-mindedness. You worship "the family" like an idol and repeatedly try to elevate it above that of the person. "If it serves the family, who cares who else it hurts, they're not people, right? Evangelicals constantly uphold the family as a force that is greater than everything else in society. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.63636302947998px; line-height: 17.563634872436523px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.63636302947998px; line-height: 17.563634872436523px;">The so-called nuclear family is one that has been given it's own special status by virtue of it being someone's idea of what is ideal. On and on and on we see that evidence claiming to vindicate that point of view is not only wrong, but harmful, and disingenuous to all other family units in this country. The typical "mom, dad, 2.5 kids, 1 dog, 1 cat" stereotype is a product of the 50s and 60s, where marketing pushed the perfect family image as the urban sprawl created the suburbs. It was a way of marketing that living outside the city promised this perfect life. Hollywood perpetuated this image further with shows like Lassie, Leave it to Beaver, and other such shows which gave us the quintessential perfect family ideal to the extreme. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.63636302947998px; line-height: 17.563634872436523px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.63636302947998px; line-height: 17.563634872436523px;">There's no question in my mind that some of their facts are not in dispute. Two men and two women cannot "naturally" reproduce without a female sex cell to join with. That's a biological fact for our Genus/species, Homo Sapiens. But why is "natural" reproduction the only acceptable form of reproduction? If two lesbians want to get sperm from a bank...how is that any less valid as reproduction than a man and woman having sex? Or if two men want to have a child by surrogacy...again why or how is that less valid than natural reproduction? Because it's not any less valid. The family unit is most definitely important. It truly is the foundation of society upon which we stand. But what is not the foundation of society is the nuclear family. The idolized family. The artificially perfect family. ALL families, regardless of their form are valid families. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.63636302947998px; line-height: 17.563634872436523px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.63636302947998px; line-height: 17.563634872436523px;">The perfect marketed family does not exist. It's an idealized dream in a fantasy land. In real-land where we live, a family is what you decide a family is. If me and my (would be) boyfriend decide to get married, adopt, and raise children...then this is our family. He is my husband, and my children are my children. We are a cohesive unit under a roof. We support each other, protect each other, love each other, and enrich the lives of each other with our love and devotion. We are no less a family than the straight family across the street, or the single-parent family to the west of me, or the blended family from two different marriages to the right of me, or the mixed-race family to the left-corner of me. Or even the foster-family at the end of the block or the couple with no children at all. A family, is a family, is a family. To determine otherwise is passing judgment on others, to condemn them for the qualities that makes them them. It's unacceptable and it's intolerable to do. The sooner we embrace all families, the sooner our society can focus on what's actually important: the future.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.63636302947998px; line-height: 17.563634872436523px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.63636302947998px; line-height: 17.563634872436523px;"><br /></span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04034639542195789648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4693236127458825374.post-63770270670794085462014-04-15T19:28:00.001-07:002014-05-09T11:44:21.457-07:00The Sharp, Windy, Wobbly Turn to the Left (revised)<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">I'm often asked by people who knew me before I became a bleeding-heart Liberal why I now, as my mother puts it, follow the dark side? Well, there are many answers to that question. But first, let me tell you about how I used to think before 2012.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEtFKuIBQExFCpghm9_wUwDk6M0lowFnp8JoxrEPS3JpnwwB4UafbYcrj-JCWK_2-Uh83le70XtaAOC8OrPng1JT8gSnF3UfQ6LrR10jI5SKukwqPF202MXVpypj7ujhMnUekTEGILT1o/s1600/bleedingheart2.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEtFKuIBQExFCpghm9_wUwDk6M0lowFnp8JoxrEPS3JpnwwB4UafbYcrj-JCWK_2-Uh83le70XtaAOC8OrPng1JT8gSnF3UfQ6LrR10jI5SKukwqPF202MXVpypj7ujhMnUekTEGILT1o/s1600/bleedingheart2.gif" height="150" width="320" /></span></a><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">I was a fledgling academic. I studied, I worked, I passed my classes most of the time, and I debated fervently with Liberals who could engage me in an academic fight. Once it started getting name-cally, that was the end of my discussion with people. At that point, an argument has reached critical mass and only explodes after that point. I was a firm believer, which also was motivated by my evangelical upbringing in-part, that you got what you deserved because you likely did something wrong in the past to bring about a poor future for yourself, and it wasn't the government's job to help you clean up your personal mess. Now, to be clear, that doesn't necessarily mean I was against government assistance to people who "truly" needed it. People like the disabled and the elderly who clearly are unable to work in any fashion or with very limited capacities did indeed deserve government assistance to maintain a reasonable standard of living.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFTFlvrVRbGpZiswGMACzvGdLoEsyxxxq0GJsLlVFAo-cjXHhpWXTmSl5QHBYmegquWmz7emBIS_f1vt7VhQam1v2ImQbqBVxTemzfJFcx7nrluANdW83mOmFa3ZlT4yV7y7N0zTLCThc/s1600/CCoftheweek.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFTFlvrVRbGpZiswGMACzvGdLoEsyxxxq0GJsLlVFAo-cjXHhpWXTmSl5QHBYmegquWmz7emBIS_f1vt7VhQam1v2ImQbqBVxTemzfJFcx7nrluANdW83mOmFa3ZlT4yV7y7N0zTLCThc/s1600/CCoftheweek.jpg" height="238" width="320" /></span></a><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">There were, however, people I felt who were literally leeching off the public teet and felt that was immoral because as someone who does work for what he has everyone should work to have anything. I argued against public institutions for everything. Healthcare especially was one that I argued against for most of the years that I was Republican. I believed that any attempt to socialize the system would result in it's collapse...especially after looking at Canada's health system and seeing the upward trend of health care spending. I felt that while socialized health care was a noble idea, it was unattainable in our country because of how the current system was structured. I also felt that if such a system were to be implemented, it would need to be radically altered from the current system to a controlled system, which I also didn't favor. I felt that the more eggs we put into the government basket, the higher risk we are at severely damaging society if we ever collapsed as a nation. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">In 2004, I worked with the Nez Perce County Republicans to help elect Nez Perce Republican candidates. It was definitely a good experience for me in the day. I did sign-waving, volunteered for a Fair booth, and all sorts of other civic activities during the summer run-up to the election. I remember counting how many middle fingers I was given one day and it was about 15 or so. I attached Bush/Cheney signs to as many as three other candidates signs. It's a technique known as coat-tailing. You use a popular national candidate to tie your local candidates name to someone a voter recognizes as popular. It helps with voter turnout and encourages voters to vote along party lines. in 2010, I also worked very briefly with Washington State Republicans for the "Elect Dino Rossi" campaign in Olympia. I was less hard core Republican at this point, however, while doing cold calling to homes, I was greatly disturbed by remarks from Republican candidates across the state. They were constantly telling us to not remind people to vote if they were not a Rossi Voter. And while perhaps this make sense if you're looking to win...I was reasoning in my mind..."This is so wrong, not wanting people to vote." It just bothered me to no end. I mean, I'm all for winning, but I want to win fair. And if the will of the people does not swing my way, then so be it, I lost, and I can learn from my loss to maybe win when I challenge again. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzGGhS5b3_v9jHGSozHp3I6L8akcZ3-ltOizCCE3D74mSCklMhoVKuLZbjdFnBhDgv6f0wDxe19YRg0yqe_XxrQG5hocx6c_nbpRsGgk4ovCRQhWDUEXnUDNybIXA82bJskIuRbjrZCVs/s1600/your-vote-your-voice.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzGGhS5b3_v9jHGSozHp3I6L8akcZ3-ltOizCCE3D74mSCklMhoVKuLZbjdFnBhDgv6f0wDxe19YRg0yqe_XxrQG5hocx6c_nbpRsGgk4ovCRQhWDUEXnUDNybIXA82bJskIuRbjrZCVs/s1600/your-vote-your-voice.jpg" height="250" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">I also reasoned that if one's cause was truly just and right, then they would have no need to cheat in order to win. If I have to cheat to win, then I'm not winning, I'm defrauding. Does that sound naive? Perhaps...though it's never naive to cling to good, old-fashioned morals when trying to attain to higher office. I found out on that day that Republicans have on interest in everyone voting. Just the people they want to win. I reason it like this: If you're working in a phone bank, and you are a party that supports the people's civil liberties, then you would want everyone to vote. Every time I phoned a Democrat during my time in that office, I wanted to to tell them, "I apologize for the call, please vote November 4th (or whatever the date for that year was)." I cared that they didn't want to vote for our candidate, but I still overwhelmingly wanted them to vote regardless. Civil participation in the political process was, is, and will always be a paramount priority for me. If someone doesn't want you to vote, it's because they fear your voice and will. And a righteous candidate or party should never fear your voice if they have nothing to hide from you.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">For economics, I believed, as many Republicans do, that wealth flows from the top down. While I understand the reasoning and it seems to make sense in some re</span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">spect that flow of wealth only depended on the benevolence of business. At the time, this to me seemed reasonable. You play by the rules, work hard, do your job, and do it well, and you earn rewards and promotions. It also meant that you moved up the ladder, gained influence, and your word carried more weight. The system is deeply dependent on powerful people being generous to those beneath them. </span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">It was also a valu</span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">e that I connected with because I was taught, as a brought-up evangelical, that you reap what you sew, but that also people in power have an obligation to be just and generous and pay those who work what they're owed.</span><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkV2WLls5AtazhjcHWxwCjzqBCgaazTkKyFblU2GuDQ4x-0tkM2LoFgBdKcKXl66bwlUyAjQeS74M1fG0JUWPiuwIzpVfEr76NuEfgf52NlVkmyWrvBSYnmwbLIQlMNJ0U50PEWxYomZo/s1600/TrickledownEcon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkV2WLls5AtazhjcHWxwCjzqBCgaazTkKyFblU2GuDQ4x-0tkM2LoFgBdKcKXl66bwlUyAjQeS74M1fG0JUWPiuwIzpVfEr76NuEfgf52NlVkmyWrvBSYnmwbLIQlMNJ0U50PEWxYomZo/s1600/TrickledownEcon.jpg" height="320" width="232" /></a><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">When regarding taxes, I was more moderate. I hated greed, even as a Republican because I felt that greed was one of those things that ruined, what would be, a reasonably well-working economic system. I defined greed as the unreasonable or irrational need to accumulate wealth at any cost, including risking injury to others or by way of immoral or unethical means of acquisition. While I never agreed (and still don't even as a Democrat) agree with using the IRS as a wealth redistribution medium, I understood that tax policy can be used to motivate behavior such as preventing certain immoral practices. As a Republican, I had written a tax structure which punished greed by taxing those gains. Dissuading greed was a means for that wealth to flow down to those generating that wealth. But for the greedy, it's never enough. It's a disease like alcoholism or drug abuse or sexual addiction. It's the thrill of seeing your influence and power increase exponentially or even geometrically without any end that is so exciting. I understood that excitement. But I reasoned that truly just and fair wealthy people would never pay unjust wages to employees, even when the market forces that press down on wages warrant it. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoTfaVlKGoq3bOEYXuPHY0UbjO4bBtHxXZdllWgDD32qeTRNrAUQ3DTs23z2Ye8AEzNwwyplFVEvvHG0Qy6F8I52P-3SYIdJOF_kfIdL4nn7i-MNTUp1lNrQKm1x_MyLnWTxiCjq8cyBQ/s1600/WAGE-color-3-col-1024x852-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoTfaVlKGoq3bOEYXuPHY0UbjO4bBtHxXZdllWgDD32qeTRNrAUQ3DTs23z2Ye8AEzNwwyplFVEvvHG0Qy6F8I52P-3SYIdJOF_kfIdL4nn7i-MNTUp1lNrQKm1x_MyLnWTxiCjq8cyBQ/s1600/WAGE-color-3-col-1024x852-1.jpg" height="332" width="400" /></span></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">While I conceded that the wealthy worked for what they had, I also understood that many people start getting hurt when wages are stifled and ability for advancement is blocked. Also as someone who did indeed work for a living, that wages should reflect more than just productivity, but should reflect loyalty and seniority as well. I seldom saw these reflected in wage offers. When for example I went to work as a delivery driver at a Pizza Hut in Moscow, ID. I was appalled that I was to be paid $5.15/hr for delivering pizza and only $0.50 per delivery which didn't even pay for the gas being used. I had at least two years experience, and knew every job in that Pizza Hut from my previous Pizza Huts that I had worked at. And while it wasn't a glamorous job, I felt that my experience warranted more than $5.15/hr. Or a Walmart I worked at where pay USED to reflect past experience, but doesn't any more. Walmart used to take all your previous experience, total it up on a chart, and that is how much more per hour you would earn starting, then still you would get at least a small raise after 90 days. For the m</span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ost profitable company in the world, that's now gone away. It's standardized based on what the company wants to pay and doesn't leave any room for wage growth at all. For two generations, wages were based on four different factors: Unionization, demand, quality and seniority. The wages today are not nearly as competitive because unionization has been squashed. Too many times as a Republican did I defend the anti-labor policies believing genuinely that those that had much would help those who had little. There was little evidence of such actual provision then, and there is certainly a lack of it now more so than before. Faith in those who had an abundance, who were trusted with much...seldom give to those who have little. Whether that's starting a plant in a small town to employ that town, or declining cheap labor abroad to provide a living for our citizens here. The axiom that we've all heard constantly rings in my head and it was just as asinine as it is now..."It's just business." That is a lazy and empty statement...which to me, demonstrates the lack of heart for others beneath you. Again, a view that my evangelical principles taught me fervently: compassion and charity.</span><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbPahUyDPqu3ygLQULbJDXJ6hyFNe3fWwobP2qSuzOOqCDSGMn-aGKKrBD1EeMkcKsHDQBVDKUHatL_8sIoMEndSdCN1nrOev6eMZoEzHLeNp0_pJccvQIyrQZIBBqG4sloE6Lb3_Hrfs/s1600/good-evangelical.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span></a><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">For personal issues, obviously I ignored a huge part of myself when it came to Marriage equality and gay rights. I was in deep denial about it for a long time...and in many ways it injured me and others as a result. Often, I think back to high school and ask myself..."should I have just been more bold and said "Yes, I'm gay, get over it." and just carry on like nothing's different?" To me for a long time, gay marriage was a form of special right or privilege. I endorsed the idea of "separate but equal", calling civil unions an institution that was entirely equal to marriage in every legal respect. However, at the time, even as someone who is Gay himself, failed to recognize that there was indeed a social stigmata that came with being "civilly unioned" vs. "Married". As I listened to arguments on both sides of this specific issue with great interest...my viewpoint steadily shifted towards the vi</span><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbPahUyDPqu3ygLQULbJDXJ6hyFNe3fWwobP2qSuzOOqCDSGMn-aGKKrBD1EeMkcKsHDQBVDKUHatL_8sIoMEndSdCN1nrOev6eMZoEzHLeNp0_pJccvQIyrQZIBBqG4sloE6Lb3_Hrfs/s1600/good-evangelical.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbPahUyDPqu3ygLQULbJDXJ6hyFNe3fWwobP2qSuzOOqCDSGMn-aGKKrBD1EeMkcKsHDQBVDKUHatL_8sIoMEndSdCN1nrOev6eMZoEzHLeNp0_pJccvQIyrQZIBBqG4sloE6Lb3_Hrfs/s1600/good-evangelical.jpg" height="152" width="200" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjfev0BtNXTP39ivR6BnqXiZ2pOlVVjRmWNL98vlzxYsj0dbLJeeAzl3Q_VChW4KUd68s_H0m20aCWxbR4Gjmf3JJ61ZB5_8N-A982XSe2x5wTUmdGTXm6xlg0FDFiJZ6W8ZtKT4XQuAg/s1600/gay-the-elves-of-middle-earth-33382671-504-450.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjfev0BtNXTP39ivR6BnqXiZ2pOlVVjRmWNL98vlzxYsj0dbLJeeAzl3Q_VChW4KUd68s_H0m20aCWxbR4Gjmf3JJ61ZB5_8N-A982XSe2x5wTUmdGTXm6xlg0FDFiJZ6W8ZtKT4XQuAg/s1600/gay-the-elves-of-middle-earth-33382671-504-450.jpg" height="178" width="200" /></span></a><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">ew that all the arguments against equal marriage were indeed religious based. And that if I endorse the idea of Church and State being separate as institutions, then religious arguments are insufficient to deny such rights to LGBT couples. While I was ready to concede that point, the peacemaker in me wante</span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">d to try to find middle ground which both sides might consent to. But again, my interactions with conservatives on this issue always resulted in the same arguments against it. Arguments like "It's against natural law" or "It's a perversion of God's plan" or the classic "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" and so on and so forth. No argument could be presented to me that was scientific or justified which would warrant codifying a prohibition for two people to engage in a legal contract. I remember during my time at Evergreen getting into a border-line shouting match about the position with another classmate of mine who was herself a lesbian. We were both very passionate about our viewpoints and so finally we had to take a step back and relax. I pondered more about the issue, and realized "wait, marriage is a religious term, and this wouldn't have happened had the government upheld properly the separation of Church and State's institutions.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgb8Lj37dGWgfYimANxWXuK5Pt1MFwGHRxqlxJ2PSPowI5KEG2Ht4RppUVlBd-M0tCHSZWc7BP2vfIP4yKyi_JgbToyOl0lCBiQDI0rXDBNtm5F85Wg7_aUk8qkQf1eYQ9G6-Obn80gRVw/s1600/abortionreligion.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgb8Lj37dGWgfYimANxWXuK5Pt1MFwGHRxqlxJ2PSPowI5KEG2Ht4RppUVlBd-M0tCHSZWc7BP2vfIP4yKyi_JgbToyOl0lCBiQDI0rXDBNtm5F85Wg7_aUk8qkQf1eYQ9G6-Obn80gRVw/s1600/abortionreligion.jpg" /></span></a><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Or how about abortion where my genuine concern was indeed for the unborn child. I wasn't unsympathetic to mothers who had unwanted pregnancies...but I was also of the mind that you don't have a right to discard your responsibility by getting an abortion. My opinions about this issue used to be particularly harsh and unsympathetic. It was easy to blend my personal religious attitudes about abortion with my political views on the subject. The easy way of reconciling the issue is to just dig your feet in the ground and go "A life is a life and it's not yours to end." This "principled" stand is usually the one that I see in most pro-life contenders. Even as a Republican though, my views started shifting towards a more libertarian viewpoint that...the moral issues asi</span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">de, a mother has a right to end a pregnancy if she wants to because it's her body which is usually the standard for most Libertarian-minded people. If there is a moral issue to be settled, let her settle it with her god, her doctor, her family, and herself. The government has no right to legislate what grows in a person's body. As I've articulated before in previous blog posts and comments, I personally wouldn't have an abortion if I could have a child, but that doesn't mean I'm ready to use the law to force women to have children they don't want or didn't intend to have. I would not entertain the government imprisoning and forcing a woman to complete her pregnancy. Such a practice would be inhuman and deeply demeaning to women everywhere. Nothing in my moral compass allows me to endorse laws that force women to do anything, let alone reproduce. Again before I was pro-choice, I reasoned that "God intends every child to exist, and therefore I find it immoral to interfere with that divine incarnation that is reproduction.</span><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBIlc_Xyaf1dCTZOHgIJFM5vSog5JIkxOuynDY8EUXSkCwcn7tpEO-uhi1eMp-FF0g6yqpx6q1jIottzvYGFPaHEMwyef-GFpF9ycDYWiXwSoSWvQ6yN42kGldYFdePPEIBeFGtIWWkxo/s1600/abortion-image.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; display: inline !important; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"></span></a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBIlc_Xyaf1dCTZOHgIJFM5vSog5JIkxOuynDY8EUXSkCwcn7tpEO-uhi1eMp-FF0g6yqpx6q1jIottzvYGFPaHEMwyef-GFpF9ycDYWiXwSoSWvQ6yN42kGldYFdePPEIBeFGtIWWkxo/s1600/abortion-image.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBIlc_Xyaf1dCTZOHgIJFM5vSog5JIkxOuynDY8EUXSkCwcn7tpEO-uhi1eMp-FF0g6yqpx6q1jIottzvYGFPaHEMwyef-GFpF9ycDYWiXwSoSWvQ6yN42kGldYFdePPEIBeFGtIWWkxo/s1600/abortion-image.gif" height="200" width="200" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">If that baby was conceived, that baby is meant to be...and to do anything else except in rape or incest is deeply morally objectionable." The problem with this point of view is that it results in a status where women are being held hostage by the state in their own bodies, and subjected to unfair levels of legal scrutiny. The abortion issue is one that many of us understand is NOT a black and white issue...as much as conservatives would prefer it to be. After all, black and white issues are much easier to justify because they don't require deeper thinking and reasoning skills. I would always hope, however, when I was a conservative that, that the pro-life groups would start housing and pregnancy centers that empowered women with tools and skills and assistance to carry healthy and wanted pregnancies. However I seldom hear of such facilities being opened by pro-life groups. Most of the propaganda from pro-life groups were that of broad condemnation of individual choice. Some even going so far as to state that a woman's place is literally a barefooted, silent baby incubator. As someone who was raised evangelical, I strongly objected to such rhetoric. And I equally objected to rhetoric that tried to marginalize the responsibilities that men have to the abortion issue as well. It takes two people to tango. In an ideal world...women seeking abortions would consult with their partner and mutually decide what's best for them on an equal basis. However, in our world...things are far from equal. Usually it's women being pressured by their husbands to keep children or pro-lifers engaging in deeply deceptive and harmful pseudo-science to justify their erroneous positions about the procedure. I'm all for life and life is indeed precious. And I do agree with Vice President Joe Biden where he states:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/nUF3oEmBxZw?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">"<i>My religion defines who I am. And I've been a practicing Catholic my whole life. And it has particularly informed my social doctrine. Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who can't take care of themselves, people who need help. With regard to abortion, I accept my church's position that life begins at conception. That's the church's judgment. I accept it in my personal life. But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews and--I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the congressman. I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that women can't control their body. It's a decision between them and their doctor, in my view. And the Supreme Court--I'm not going to interfere with that." ~Senator Joe Biden, Vice Presidential Debate 2012</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><i><br /></i>
In conclusion, I wish to rehash the basics of what you read above. Most of my conservative positions I held before "turning to the darkside" were based on my Evangelical upbringing. But as I learned more about the world around me, and read the scriptures and absorbed the words that Jesus spoke...I came to the conclusion that the beliefs that I had as an evangelical conservative did not honor the rights of the individual...as Jesus taught. The right to participate in a faith must be one of personal decision. A forced faith is not faith, but tyranny. A coerced decision is not a decision, but manipulation. The viewpoints of evangelicals and conservatives do not foster an economy or society of peaceful coexistence in any form. It only seeks to promote divisiveness, discrimination, and dark-age conditions. The positions that conservatives hold do not hold up to scrutiny or science. They cannot be observed in the modern world as factual. They worship the god of greed, the god of selfishness, and the god of male chauvinism. The extol the virtues of ethnocentrism and personify the state as an entity to maintain cultural purity. None of these values are compatible with American ideals. </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQ-YE2_wpOGOW-Xt92vc-mZBOYUNemptaF3wSbZNIc40l5hOEG36_yFXDFagAAM4x8Lv-wJjvpXI8In1KlvNyPw4bcw9CWJ5MfucSTIf2UOwiG1f5909bD-_oVByoEsSIgDL0OpN6BZis/s1600/writersblock.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQ-YE2_wpOGOW-Xt92vc-mZBOYUNemptaF3wSbZNIc40l5hOEG36_yFXDFagAAM4x8Lv-wJjvpXI8In1KlvNyPw4bcw9CWJ5MfucSTIf2UOwiG1f5909bD-_oVByoEsSIgDL0OpN6BZis/s1600/writersblock.jpg" height="240" width="320" /></span></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">God does not judge this nation by stepping on a town or blowing over a city. He does not splash the waves of the ocean into coastal communities or set ablaze towns because two men love each other, or because the unfortunate woman got pregnant from her rapist. My decisions to turn to Left-Liberalism are based on the ideas that man is capable of great things...and that the New Testament gives us the freedom to explore those ideas. The Jesus of the New Testament never coerced anyone to follow him. He never forced, he never blackmailed, he never condemned anyone for believing different than him. He didn't judge others for their alleged social wrongs or improprieties. He loved...and he showed us examples of that love. Every person in society has the right to choose his or her path. He or she has the right to worship who they choose. Every person has the right to culture, language, faith, and mostly to dignity. Every person has the right to choose who and what they want to be, and others are born with an insatiable desire to love and be loved. Every person has the right to the opportunity to advance, grow, and develop as they choose. To work their passions and their jobs free from discrimination, threats, intimidation, and deserves to be rewarded for their hard work, loyalty, and moral character. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">I'm not a Christian, I'm just a human who loves Jesus, and what he taught everyone else one of many ways to make the world a better place for all.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-4dxNw-dxRvM%2FU03fL8YQYPI%2FAAAAAAAAALM%2F90kywgVinj0%2Fs1600%2FTrickledownEcon.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkV2WLls5AtazhjcHWxwCjzqBCgaazTkKyFblU2GuDQ4x-0tkM2LoFgBdKcKXl66bwlUyAjQeS74M1fG0JUWPiuwIzpVfEr76NuEfgf52NlVkmyWrvBSYnmwbLIQlMNJ0U50PEWxYomZo/s1600/TrickledownEcon.jpg" --><!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-wM79_8EcNTw%2FU03fvDcduII%2FAAAAAAAAALU%2FFNiBAuUnSHc%2Fs1600%2Fgood-evangelical.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbPahUyDPqu3ygLQULbJDXJ6hyFNe3fWwobP2qSuzOOqCDSGMn-aGKKrBD1EeMkcKsHDQBVDKUHatL_8sIoMEndSdCN1nrOev6eMZoEzHLeNp0_pJccvQIyrQZIBBqG4sloE6Lb3_Hrfs/s1600/good-evangelical.jpg" --><!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-oitgWij0epQ%2FU03k17fP31I%2FAAAAAAAAAL8%2Fb5mPDbPRJhY%2Fs1600%2Fabortion-image.gif&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBIlc_Xyaf1dCTZOHgIJFM5vSog5JIkxOuynDY8EUXSkCwcn7tpEO-uhi1eMp-FF0g6yqpx6q1jIottzvYGFPaHEMwyef-GFpF9ycDYWiXwSoSWvQ6yN42kGldYFdePPEIBeFGtIWWkxo/s1600/abortion-image.gif" -->Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04034639542195789648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4693236127458825374.post-23170429414889028762014-04-04T21:01:00.004-07:002014-04-05T09:49:39.681-07:00All My Hopes, My Geeky-Nerdy Hopes<span style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 19.31999969482422px;">What does it mean to me to be a geek? A nerd? An intellectual? It means many things to me. It means that I love science. It means that I love what-ifs about existential things. I love imagination, discovery, diversity and unity. I love events of which expand the scope of human understanding. I love what such discovery brings to others: hope. Why do I call myself geeky...because I'm not afraid to broaden my horizons and explore new possibilities. To ask questions, get answers. I'm not afraid to make mistakes, though I do fear their consequences sometimes. It means I respect the cost of discovery.</span><br />
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/HnDtvZXYHgE?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe><br />
But why being a Geek, Nerd, and Intellectual is even more important to me...is because I dream of a unified world. A world where we set aside our petty differences, and unite under one set of values. Where integrity, progress, and tolerance are our most important global values. Where diplomacy reins and war is despised. Where the though of violence and destruction nauseate us all. Where our only limits for human discovery are our self-imposed limits.<br />
<br />
I see a future where man is indeed a noble creature. Where our imagination drives our progress, invention, and benevolence. Where no human is condemned for who he or she is, where...dare I say...no alien is condemned for who they are. I am proud to be a geek, nerd, and intellectual. I'm proud to share my hopes for the future with you all. As a geek, I have a special and unique view of the world around us, and it is by geeks' voices, actions, and innovations that our world turns, grows, develops, and eventually matures into the utopia I think we all hope it to become.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04034639542195789648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4693236127458825374.post-76273309635491465042014-03-25T15:04:00.001-07:002014-03-25T15:04:45.192-07:00The Rise of Corporate Fascism<span style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.399999618530273px; line-height: 15.455999374389648px;">I am very deeply concerned by the events of today in the Supreme Court. I am genuinely worried that corporations will be further anthropormorphized. I cannot see how within the depths of any form of rational level of reason that a person as educated as a court justice can justify the view that a corporation is a person, and endow it with human characteristics. While it is true a person can pour his heart and soul into a business and make it something great...I refuse and fund</span><span class="text_exposed_show" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; display: inline; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.399999618530273px; line-height: 15.455999374389648px;">amentally believe it to be dangerous to state that a man-made institution of people who work as cogs constitutes a person. I am very genuinely concerned as well about what this means for everyone. Would a "christian" company object to laws protecting LGBT persons, or paying women a fair wage, or that women can even talk back to men. How about the right of persons to engage in fornicating activities and using that as justification for terminating their employment? Shall we allow businesses to install cameras in our homes to inspect them at all times. To ensure that their employees are living a "christian" life? While these remarks may sound inflammatory and perhaps even hyperbolic...I believe this could lead us down a very dangerous road for the future.</span><br />
<span class="text_exposed_show" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; display: inline; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.399999618530273px; line-height: 15.455999374389648px;"><br /></span>
<span class="text_exposed_show" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; display: inline; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.399999618530273px; line-height: 15.455999374389648px;">Corporations are not people, friends. They are machines. The people who work for them are people. Their kids are people and their families are people...but a business is not a person. A business cannot worship God. A business cannot, without human actions perform acts of kindness. A business cannot do unto others unless the person at the head of such a company does said kindness. This fixation with worshiping corporations as something that is greater than a person disturbs me deeply. Steadily, big business is establishing frameworks that will elevate business above that of the human being. Business welfare will rule the day, while human welfare will fall by the wayside, regarded as unproductive and irrelevant. We will be truly enslaved to the whims and emotions of people wielding vastly huge amounts of power...and that scares the crap out of me beyond any measure. I can fire my congressmen or senator or president or governor and so forth...but I can't fire a big business corporation if it wields such vast amounts of influence that he becomes untouchable. This is exactly what I fear is happening now. That we as a nation have started down a path to corporate dominance in this country. A dominance that will lead to corporate fascism of the most heinous degree. Where my boss and his boss will dominate my behavior, my lifestyle, and with enough power could subjugate me and exclude me from society as an outcast or an "untouchable". Where women are discarded as substandard, where minorities are regarded with disgust and disdain because they won't conform to a system that is thrust upon them. </span><br />
<span class="text_exposed_show" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; display: inline; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.399999618530273px; line-height: 15.455999374389648px;"><br /></span>
<span class="text_exposed_show" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; display: inline; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14.399999618530273px; line-height: 15.455999374389648px;">Call me paranoid if you want...but this scenario is far more likely to happen than the government swinging in on their Apaches to steal your guns or whatever nonsense you want to imagine. </span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04034639542195789648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4693236127458825374.post-3199967468736556382014-03-20T10:14:00.002-07:002014-03-20T10:14:30.911-07:00About Fred Phelps DeathRegarding the Fred Phelps issue. I know that MANY who he hurt want to drag his corpse, lynch it from a tree and set it on fire. But not me. I want to approach his death with a sense of forgiveness. Its true he hurt millions of people with his vitreous and toxic sludge of a mouth. Me included as a gay man myself. But I want to extend the olive branch and make the proposition that if his daughter did indeed kick him out for "softening his tone" towards the LGBT community, then...should we consider that perhaps his heart was starting to soften a tad? Should we not use this opportunity to show that even the most hateful people can change their hearts? Is it rational that I want to show the least bit of consideration to him and perhaps forgive him of his trespasses against me? That if he is before God being judged or whatever, that I'd appear as an advocate for him saying "His heart was changing, consider that in favor of him?" I don't know, I might be off my rocker, but I'd like to think that I could forgive such person. That my grace is sufficient for even him. The "good riddance" attitude towards him, I feel, is not constructive towards repairing the hateful divide between reactionaries that hate us with all their hearts, and us who probably despise such reactionaries just as much. <br />
<br />
I don't know...<br />
<br />
Am I off base? Am I behaving irrationally? Do you think I'm just plain wrong? Tell me your view, and why.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04034639542195789648noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4693236127458825374.post-52790975205040510192014-03-06T11:06:00.000-08:002014-03-06T11:07:40.982-08:00Dalai Lama Opens Senate Session With Prayer<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Since the beginning of the Senate and the House of Representatives, the sessions of both houses have opened with a prayer. Not your typical church prayer, but an varying degree of different denominations and faiths have opened the session with a non-specific religious prayer. Today (3/6/2014), the Senate of the United States opened the session with his holiness, The Dalai Lama opened the senate with a prayer of his own. Watch the prayer by clicking on this link.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVXhyvgXf-E&feature=youtu.be" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Dalai Lama Opens Senate With Prayer</span></a><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22.652000427246094px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 22.652000427246094px;">"With our thoughts, we make our world," said the Dalai Lama, dressed in gold and red robes. "Our mind is central and precedes our deeds. Speak or act with a pure mind and happiness will follow you like a shadow that never leaves."</span><span style="line-height: 22.652000427246094px;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 22.652000427246094px;">"as long as space remains and as long as sentient beings remain, until then may I, too, remain and help dispel the misery of the world."</span><br /><br /><span style="line-height: 22.652000427246094px;">The Dalai Lama is the leader of Tibetan Buddhists who fled China amid the Communist uprising in 1959 and has since resided in India in exile. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 22.652000427246094px;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 22.652000427246094px;">Naturally many who are less tolerant of other religious took reservation with a non-christian leader opening the Senate with a prayer of goodwill. But instead of focusing on the remarks of a few people on the outer fringe, let's talk about the prayer itself and why it's so moving a a spoken oration. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 22.652000427246094px;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 22.652000427246094px;">There is no mention in New Testament Scripture about being intolerant to other faith's prayers of goodwill. Often times, we as Christians will pray for anyone for whatever reason our heart leads us to do. And as such, we should accept and be blessed by other faiths' prayers to us. I can think of no finer forum for the Dalai Lama's words than the Seat of US Government. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 22.652000427246094px;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 22.652000427246094px;">"<i>With our thoughts we make our world</i>." This statement is nothing new in Christian belief. It's by our actions that we shape the world around us, and we can use those actions to make our world better or worse.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 22.652000427246094px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; line-height: 22.652000427246094px;"><i>"Our mind is central and precedes our deeds." </i>We always hope to think and consider counsel before we take actions. Many scripture references in the Bible have often elevated careful consideration before taking action, such as Proverbs 15:22 "</span><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic;">Plans fail for lack of counsel,</span><span class="indent-1-breaks" style="background-color: white; font-size: 0.42em; font-style: italic; line-height: 0;"> </span><span class="text Prov-15-22" style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px; position: relative;"><i>but with many advisers<span class="crossreference" style="font-size: 0.65em; font-size: 0.65em; font-weight: bold; vertical-align: top;" value="(<a href="#cen-NIV-16830B" title="See cross-reference B">B</a>)"></span> they succeed."</i> or Proverbs 11:14 "</span><span style="font-style: italic;">For lack of guidance a nation falls,</span><i> but victory is won through many advisers.</i>" We are asked to consider what we do before we do it. That careful planning will bring a positive outcome. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 22.652000427246094px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 22.652000427246094px;">"</span><i style="line-height: 22.652000427246094px;">Speak or act with a pure mind and happiness will follow you like a shadow that never leaves</i><span style="line-height: 22.652000427246094px;">." People who walk in righteousness, who respect their fellow man as human beings, who do unto others as you would have them do unto you, who love their neighbors and execute their offices with reverence and the prominence of the first servant philosophy serve only to serve, and their service is the greatest satisfaction for true public servants. (Matt 7:12, Mark 12:31, Matt 22:36-40)</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 22.652000427246094px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="line-height: 22.652000427246094px;">"</span></span><span style="line-height: 22.652000427246094px;"><i>as long as space remains and as long as sentient beings remain, until then may I, too, remain and help dispel the misery of the world.</i>" This statement by his Holiness is the most interesting to me. As long as we have the capacity of free will, the ability to act and change the world around us, we are charged with bringing peace and love to the world. I find no indifference with this statement, as this is the primary charge of being a Christian. Going unto the world bringing the grace, forgiveness, compassion, charity, and generosity that encompasses being a Christian. And it's not just Christianity that this is tied to. Many world religions both minor and major mostly preach and teach a similar position. Do unto others is not an exclusively Christian teaching It just got the most press. (See Matt 7:12, Mark 16:15, 1 Thess 4:7)</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 22.652000427246094px;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 22.652000427246094px;">Conclusions: Christianity as a whole has no cause to condemn such a beautiful piece of oration. There is nothing objectionable or controversial that was said by his Holiness, nor was there anything said that indicates praise of another deity. (not that such a thing would matter to me.) Our goal when we interact with other faiths should be to find our common grounds, and collude together how we can move the world to a better place using our shared beliefs and shared goals. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 22.652000427246094px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 22.652000427246094px;"><br /></span></span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04034639542195789648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4693236127458825374.post-43817413292502325572014-01-23T08:59:00.001-08:002014-01-23T08:59:18.196-08:00Models of Public Healthcare: An OverviewAre you working class but working a job without insurance? Or perhaps you're barely getting by and have no real spare money for much these days. Do you avoid the doctor cause of the cost of the office visit plus the cost of the lost pay from work? There are simpler and more efficient solutions out there in the world about how we deliver healthcare services to our citizens. So, how would a national single-payer system established in the United States look? <br />
<br />
Let's examine a few models for single payer healthcare that we already see in this country. Let's start with Medicare/Medicaid. Both programs do the same thing but for different demographics. If we created a system like Medicare...but for all, the system would create a single base policy that all states would adopt as their state-managed policy. States then would choose whether to leave that policy intact or to add to it at their expense. In Medicare, each state manages it's own program, uses it's own employees to enroll people in the program, pay the bills incurred by that state's program participants, and so forth. It's mandated and paid by the Federal Government, managed by the State government. Such a relationship would easily work for our nation, because the infrastructure is already in place. <br />
<br />
Another model for care that the US could employ would be complete nationalization of all healthcare resources like that of the VA Healthcare System or the UK National Health Service. These services are truly a pure socialist system. In these systems, the primary care providers, ER doctors, surgeons, specialists, and other professionals are "state" employees (State meaning publicly paid federal employees). In the UK, most hospitals and doctors are public employees which are paid salaries by the state and who centrally manage appointments, doctors, the master policy of the program...the works. Private healthcare doesn't exist for the most part in these kinds of systems. The VA system is modeled on the UK system, and for the most part works very well. The quality of care is great and the attention to the patient's need is paramount. The focus of the UK and VA healthcare systems is enabling access to all equally with a relatively strong amount of triage being taken into account as well. Such a system is very effective in the UK and works very well. The only complaint about such systems are they tend to be a tad backlogged for generic appointments and can result in long queue times. However, for people who are ill, it's a nice benefit to be able to walk into a doctor's office and be seen when you're ill without any worry about cost to yourself.<br />
<br />
Finally, another model which would likely be the model we use could be the Canadian Single Payer model. This model is essentially each state having it's own healthcare program with a baseline program that the Federal Government creates to make it Universal. In this arrangement, each state would be responsible for funding and managing it's own health program with transfer payments from the Federal Government to assist...likely based on a "per head" formula. Some states can compete for which offers the best care by providing access to additional kinds of care like dental or vision services. Such care would likely be paid for by either a consumption tax or a flat-rate percentage excise tax that all citizens pay equally. Each state would be responsible for determining what funding model to use to pay for their services whether income-based or consumption-based.<br />
<br />
All these models are not out of reach for our nation. Each has a strong history of success and the persistence to provide healthcare for all our citizens. The Single Payer question has been one about human rights. Is healthcare a profit-based service or an inalienable right as a member of a nation? I, personally, believe it's a right for all citizens. And that the quality of life is paramount to the right to offer for-profit service in this regard, but I also want to be clear...that I believe every person's labor is worth the effort and education and demand that is due, and that no person should be required to "give" their labor away for free. Individuals who work in such systems get paid, and paid quite well. Doctors in nations like Canada and England enjoy a posh salary, no worry about malpractice insurance, and the opportunity to help those in need without worrying about insurance companies. Ultimately, the fabric of our society is what will determine the answer tot his question for the next two generations.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04034639542195789648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4693236127458825374.post-89444515496566624712014-01-10T10:55:00.000-08:002014-01-10T10:55:09.977-08:00Democrats Are the People's Party, Republicans are the Corporatists Party<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="text_exposed_show" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; display: inline; line-height: 13.6px;"><span style="background: white; color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">I
agree with the premise that everyone has the inalienable right to be
successful, to start a business, to earn money so long as it doesn't hurt
others, to compete in a competitive market, and to strive for efficiency and
advancement using economics as a means of doing so. Republicans have no
interest in creating a legal framework which allows you as business or
individual to challenge corporate power. We see this example where large
corporations are now allowed to require you to sign away your rights to enter
into a class-action lawsuit against a company...one of the greatest mechanisms
that consumers had to fight corporate abuse. Or the abuses by natural or
publicly regulated monopolies or privatized public institutions like prisons.
Then there's the free trade agreements with various poor nations which allow
corporations to send jobs for substandard labor costs at the expense of our own
labor force. The Trans Pacific Partnership which would give corporate giants
enormous power to override local democracies decisions about food and product
regulation. Too much power is being given to corporations at the expense of the
citizen and the worker. If you want a competitive society and a world where
everyone's opportunity to be successful is tallied by the amount of hard work
they put into a goal, then you want to vote for Democrats. Democrats have been
fighting for social justice, for policies that create a fair and competitive
business environment, and a system of justice that is fair and equitable. A
system where corporations don't buy politicians. Where we have a congress that
cares that they have a 9% approval rating instead of ignoring it like this
congress has. Where people are put first before profits, and where abusers of
their power are brought to justice and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
law regardless of the cost. Vote for Democrats when you vote this next midterm
election and embrace a political party that cares about the little guy as much
as the big guy equally. Vote for Democrats if you want a party that puts
pragmatism ahead of ideology, and Vote for Democrats if you want a government
that doesn't try to shove narrow-minded values down your throat by the way of
legislation. Vote Democrat.</span><o:p></o:p><span style="color: black; font-family: Times New Roman;">
</span></span> </span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04034639542195789648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4693236127458825374.post-67833813658950434902014-01-09T14:05:00.001-08:002014-01-09T14:05:16.394-08:00Income Taxes: The Hedge Against Extreme Poverty and WealthFor many decades, the income tax has been used by many governments across the world to maintain a balance in the levels of income allocation among it's citizens. After World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt instituted what was regarded as a progressive income tax system which levied very high taxes on what the government considers high levels of income. The idea of the income tax was to ensure that the government would have sufficient money to invest in society as a whole while also ensuring that individuals did not gain huge amounts of influence as to topple the system of government which is by and for the people. In the 1950s, the top marginal tax rate peaked at 91%, but we also steady, continuous economic growth which persisted mostly above 3% for over 40 years. It wasn't until the early 1980s that such growth started to wane and unstable levels of growth and contraction became the new norm. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.people-press.org/2013/09/12/five-years-after-market-crash-u-s-economy-seen-as-no-more-secure/1-7/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="Five Years After Crash, Doubts about U.S. Economic System" class="attachment-large" src="http://www.people-press.org/files/2013/09/1.png" height="482" width="290" /></a>With the flattening of the income tax and the loopholes that have been injected into it, the wealthy now pay rates as low as zero, as high as only 35% at most. Also consider, that with the redefinition of certain types of incomes making the tax rate for personal incomes significantly lower than the current 35% threshold which was created during the Bush Administration. Capital Gains, investments, and interest are taxed at a meager 15% meaning that the wealthy don't pay what they otherwise would pay. This income type is the exception rather than the rule. Only the top 1% gain their income by this manner, meaning that no working class person will see tax rates this low ever. And while the wealthy may pay more monetarily...proportionally they pay significantly less. The results have caused a severe concentration of wealth at the top and for the first time in 50 years, the middle class is shrinking quickly. Wages, disposable income, savings, and investments of the middle class have been wiped out entirely, leaving the next three generations in a position of having to figure out how they will retire when they hit 60 years old. It also puts them in a position of trying to figure how to provide for a college education for their children, to buy a house, to start a family, and leaving an entire generation of citizens with no means of secure self-sufficiency for the foreseeable future. A public opinion study done by the Pew Research Center shows that Americans are still very unsure about their job security and worry about whether they'll be employed the next month or not. Such insecurity has weakened the bargaining power of the American Worker, and has also resulted in a down-ward pressure on wages across most unskilled to moderate-skill industries. The downward pressure of incomes has also resulted in the middle class being dropped out of tax brackets that they would have been in had their incomes continued to grow at a steady rate. The free trade agreements, deregulation, and overall decreases in wages have also all resulted in many American households no longer paying taxes. During the Reagan Administration, the argument about broadening the tax base was made as a justification for lowering taxes. That reduction resulted in the wealthy exerting an undue amount of influence in congress, touting proposals that work to undermine the political influence of the middle class and the poor. <br /><br />So what's the solution to all this grim news? The solution is to return us to policies and legal frameworks which protected the middle class of the Post-War era. The pro-union, populist, and pro-worker agenda which brought about the greatest expansion in US History, and created a middle class that had never existed in the history of our nation. The wealthy weren't super wealthy and the poor weren't super poor. Everyone was pretty flat with minor differences in income levels. That balance made sure that the populace was involved in politics. The higher rates alongside with pro-wage tax deductions for businesses keep money circulating throughout the economy, maintaining a purchase-powerhouse of a middle class, and a friendly investment environment.<br />
<br />
Fight the good fight.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04034639542195789648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4693236127458825374.post-69094735657592156622013-11-06T18:57:00.001-08:002013-11-27T09:32:41.954-08:00The Bible and Politics<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; color: #333333; font-family: "Times","serif";">As always, these
blog posts begin as Facebook Status updates where I get on a roll and rant:</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Times, serif;">Many have asked me how I can hold my views about social, economic, and
political issues and still be "Christian". Ok, it's a fair question.
I'm pro-choice, pro-LGBT rights, a low-grade feminist, I believe in equal
rights, the social safety net, that justice should be just and fair, that wages
should be fair, and that people who try deserve another chance to succeed. But
I also believe in working hard, doing your best, and believing that one's
effort is rewarded by abundance. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Times","serif";">
<br />
<span style="background: white;">So what does that mean for my beliefs? It says
that I'm capable of having political views that aren't weighed by the views of
a few narrow-minded people who read The Bible like stereo instructions. Who
interpret the words of a 66-book cannon which was complied by a group of
Catholic Monks in 367 A.C.E. That I'm capable of reading The Bible in the
context and times and cultures for which it was written, and that I'm scholarly
enough to understand the difference betwee<span class="textexposedshow">n Jesus'
spoken words (The Red Letters), and the words spoken by people who were
observing events through the lens of their time and culture or people (The Old
Testament) or people writing post-Jesus commentary related to the events and
circumstances in which life placed them (The Letters and Epistles). It means I
understand that Biblical literalism is one of the most heinous lies of this
generation ever observed to this date. And, I understand that the only document
purported to be written directly by God is the 10 Commandments (See Exodus),
and the only thing that is says is Worship God by these rules, and Don't be
dicks to each other (excuse the harsh language, but it's to make a sharp and
pointy point.) </span><br />
<br />
<span class="textexposedshow">And finally what it means is that Christians
everywhere need to wake up and cast off these jerks, these false
"prophets" who claim to have God's ear. Who claim to speak as though
they're the Pope, or Jesus himself. Who steal your money to enrich themselves,
and fill your mind with dogmatic falsehoods. Who pit you against the very poor people
as lazy or sinful or corrupt or faggots. Guess what fellow “believers”…THOSE
ARE WHO YOU SERVE! YOU SERVE THE UNDERPRIVILEGED! The call of The Great
Commission is to go unto all the world baptizing those in the name of The
Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. Not to conquer in Jesus' Name, not to
berate, or oppress or judge or condemn or to steal, kill, and destroy. And most definitely not to force compliance of a warped version of Christianity that is
fraudulent, cruel, and oppressive.</span><br />
<br />
<span class="textexposedshow">Christianity is not a club, it's not a mace or a
morning star or a broad sword. It's a scroll, it's a vision, it's a purpose,
and most greatly, it's a message of hope for all mankind. Your only job is to live
that hope, and be there for when someone asks you about it. Nothing more,
nothing less. Live and let live, but help others live better too by following
Jesus’ example; through his demonstrations of love, compassion, hope, and
justice. If you can't do that, then you're not a Christian that I recognize.</span></span></span><o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04034639542195789648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4693236127458825374.post-57686642486292418592013-10-17T16:07:00.002-07:002013-10-18T14:33:28.740-07:00Liberal Christianity and Public Benefit SystemsAn interesting debate seems to have been brought by those identifying as "Liberal Christians" and "Evangelical Christians." Does the government have a role to play in caring for the sick, poor, and parentless? <br />
<br />
It's an interesting theological question. The Bible contains no real context exclusivity on this topic. State-level socialism didn't really exist in Greece or in Rome. Any hunger that was addressed was done by those who had surplus or by those who ran religious institutions. It does not exclusively say nor does it explicitly prohibit or dictate the means in which charity must be delivered. Programs like SNAP, TANF, Medicaid, and other assorted public programs provide massive real-world benefits to those that would otherwise end up on the streets, starving, stealing, and hurting others to survive. This is my professional quote of this segment:<br />
<br />
"When one believes they cannot meet their basic needs within the confinements of their society, and by the rules it establishes regarding the procurement of those resources and needs, then that individual will seek those needs outside the system imposed upon them."<br />
<br />
So, we as humans, being hierarchical beings, establish systems of order to work in. We create mechanisms of efficiency to create a stable flow of order and productivity. It is the very foundation of human civilization. We establish food delivery systems to provide for the whole of society. We create aqueducts to deliver fresh water to plants and animals in a farm setting. We build dams to generate electricity. We create systems of social order to create a society where humans can bring grievances and questions of justice against one another without violence, but under the rule of law. We build corporations to deliver goods and services to a vast consumer public. We build all these structures and systems of order to create efficiency and establish regularity. <br />
<br />
Regularity is the key to creating a stable and sturdy ladder with which one climbs from the bottom to the top. In areas where there are no profits to be made, government can establish that regularity and stability to ensure that those who are building or rebuilding their lives can work themselves to a state of self-sufficiency and become tax-paying, productive members of society. <br />
<br />
Now, in regards to the Biblical case for Food Stamps, TANF, and other similar programs: <br />
<br />
Christ, as part of his ministry routinely spoke about individual generosity. He spoke often about the mandate that if you can give something of yourself, then you are giving to me. That blessings come to those who give selflessly, anonymously, and privately, and without motive for any return or reward. Give simply to give, and no other reason. And I believe that philosophy 100%. If/when I do give, I give anonymously...just as I do with prayer...anonymously. <br />
<br />
But, let is also consider this: We've established the religious mandate to care for the poor, sick, and parentless. But what about government? Why should it have a role? What justifies it? How about Romans 13? Paul spoke in Romans 13 that if you are due to pay taxes, pay taxes, if Tribute, then tribute...if respect, then respect. That leaders are established by God to do the Lord's work, and deliver justice to all. That the leaders of government are held to account to be arbiters of justice to all people. And that, yes, you should even fear your government (in the righteous respect context, not the Area 51 government taking my guns context). <br />
<br />
I first want to dismiss a position that is often expressed. That position is this: that state-imposed charity robs people of the blessings that come from charity. This myth is often expressed to oppose state-run social services with the belief that there is a material loss caused by "The State" taxing it's citizens and redistributing it to those in need. I would argue that those who are truly charitable will give as their heart leads them to give. If you are justifying not giving just because the government taxes you...then I'd say you should re-examine your motives behind it. Giving shouldn't be something you do only when you have excesses. It should occur naturally from your relationship with Jesus. As the spirit works in your life, you will feel the need and desire to give strictly for the reason of wanting to give. The argument that social programs rob people of that opportunity is totally off the rails and is an excuse to argue against a systematically functional public policy that establishes people in workable and sustainable patterns of survival. You as an individual are more than empowered and able to give to your local food bank, homeless shelter, or charity. If you're blaming food stamps for your lack of generosity, then you're just plain not generous period.<br />
<br />
Religious liberals, like myself argue that having a solely religious justification for public policy is not enough. That there must exist in any government policy a real world, measurable, scientific reason for any said policy to exist. Religious liberals would dismiss the assertion that "<b>God told me to do this or to sign that</b>" in regards any government policy. When any politician of any faith agrees or disagrees to a policy, that politician must have a rational and material reason that can be argued and debated in order for that position to be viewed as a valid position. Simply to hedge on faith serves no purpose and is fundamentally poor governance. <br />
<br />
It is not wrong is to have religious conviction that reinforces your political views, but with that influence, you must have real, present, physical, provable evidence to demonstrate the issue can be argued with more than just religion. For example, if conservatives argue that food stamps are state-imposed charity...there's no arguing with that fact. It's true. Currently, there are more politicians who say "We believe that those without the means to buy food should be given a grant to buy food at tax payers' expense." Now, if I were to stand up and say..."Jesus tells me to feed those who don't have food using tax payers money." That in of itself is not a rational argument to justify a state program. But if I say "My faith teaches me to feed those who hunger...but here's what this study, and this study, and this study say about what feeding those who can't buy food does to improve society..." I have introduced real, tangible scientific evidence to support my beliefs, and therein, we've created a rationale that penetrates all lines of division or conflict. Simply stating, "My faith tells me to do it" while offering no tangible, real-world evidence to support your belief politically is not sufficient reasoning to support the position. <br />
<br />
It is not Leftist-Christian theocracy to feed those who cannot be fed. Such a viewpoint is shared among multiple faiths and belief systems across the globe. Islam (who actually did institutionalize this view), Judaism, Hinduism, many numerous Native American belief systems and cultural systems, as well as regional and tribal faiths teach the same thing. If you feel compelled to give, then give. Do as Christ commanded and give anonymously, give in secret, and give simply to give. But what you cannot avoid as a citizen of a state-level society is copping out of your obligations to your society. <br />
<br />
The Biblical rationale for public assistance isn't really present either direction. Such systems of subsistence didn't exist in the single-digits A.C.E. of the Roman Empire. But what is justifiable scripturely is what Paul teaches in Romans 13. To obey the laws imposed upon you, to respect your leaders, pay your taxes, and give respect when due. He's talking about being a rational member of society, and that through your obedience, that your example of Christ-like love and life may spread to others. Now let's be clear, governance and public policy depend on one being able to argue facts. If you can argue with evidence taht Food Stamps is more harmful than good, then do what you feel is right. However, to simply rip it away after people have been dependent on a system for years, crafting their finances and living circumstances around that system...then you as a legislator have a responsibility to ensure that you don't hurt anyone as you pull the rug out from under them. If you're going to remove a system of provision, then you have to replace it with something else to keep them from being harmed. <br />
<br />
While you may not agree with your tax dollars feeding the hungry, it is not leftist theocracy that dictates the view. It's the view that solving hunger solves crime, solves drug abuse, solves childhood chronic illness, and systematically and measurably benefits the lives of millions of Americans across the country, and the world even. Solving hunger in a systematic, regular, consistent manner, such as through the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), you are assisting in solving the problems that cause larger more systematic problems if left unsolved or unsatisfied. There is the measurable, rational, systematic reason that we provide SNAP to the public. You never know if you will be in that position, and you as a person who doesn't need it rests assured that a hungry and poor person won't try to rob you for your money so he can feed himself. And while that does happen occasionally...just imagine if 50 million people were thrust into that position. Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04034639542195789648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4693236127458825374.post-89757682471900609142013-10-15T08:19:00.000-07:002013-10-15T08:19:01.927-07:00Secularism is not Anti-Religious<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">Secularists do not desire to drive religion from the public sphere. A society's expression of faith is one that defines the fabric of that society. How our society treats those who are spiritual in any form defines the people of that society. </span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">But also consider this: it is important that while individuals are free to express their faith, it's also important that your faith no dictate your decisions in public policy. Using faith to justify public policy exclusively is harmful to society, and blurs the veil that separates church and state. The church and state argument derives from Thomas Jefferson's belief that there should be a wall between the government and the churches. He saw the corruption that existed in the UK where the Church of England is a public church, funded by tax payers. The government and church both engaged in highly questionable political and religious interactions, trading power and money for offices of worship and spiritual guidance. </span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">Consider also the 500s through the 1700s, where for 1200 years, the Catholic Church actively interfered or in some cases even outright ruled nations using faith to instill fear, suppress the spread of education, and demanding full and unquestioned fealty, or face persecution by the Church. It was a dark age in Europe where science was dismissed and condemned, and questions glared at with disgust. The only people who benefited from that system was the Church, and it was the state that suffered at the hand of the Church. </span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">So when I say I favor the separation of Church and State, I base that view on the history of interactions between church and politics. It's important that we understand that the separation of Church means keeping the judgments of churches out of governance, but not your expression of faith from guiding you as an individual. Christianity extols the values of ethical conduct, righteous administration, and servant-based leadership. It begs people to fight injustice, to expose the dark areas, and to bring judgment to those who commit wrongs.</span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04034639542195789648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4693236127458825374.post-662384560143890802013-10-11T10:58:00.002-07:002013-10-11T10:58:30.884-07:00Coming Out on Many Fronts - The Mini-Memoir of Me<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrBF3qbnJ_ghHXr5K3WoIMe8DqQjGMRzJUq-J1SbJ551syZlu3R_j_U9WjtntQY0sYjqoV2A20t_8UXWxJN3wGZTETYJ43X66PRDsv20y3MfcVXHtMnax9Qk6Qg9upxytnyxG2069bZUM/s1600/Reparative-Therapy-Violence-224x300.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrBF3qbnJ_ghHXr5K3WoIMe8DqQjGMRzJUq-J1SbJ551syZlu3R_j_U9WjtntQY0sYjqoV2A20t_8UXWxJN3wGZTETYJ43X66PRDsv20y3MfcVXHtMnax9Qk6Qg9upxytnyxG2069bZUM/s1600/Reparative-Therapy-Violence-224x300.jpg" /></a>I don't know if you'll share this but, I thought I'd make a stab at it anyway. When I was very young, I was not sure why I was drawn to men. I didn't understand it, I was confused about it, and honestly, women never did anything for me in any form. When I was a teenager I tried to pretend I was attracted to women, had a girlfriend in High School and in College. <br />
<br />
I came from a rather conservative and fundamentalist background, accepting the words they taught up to a point. I was anti-gay, anti-gay marriage, anti-gay anything for a long time because I was told that’s how things were supposed to be if you wanted to be a “good Christian man”, even though I myself knew to some degree what I was. I even got to chatting with a few guys online, deluding myself that I was just looking for friends, when, in fact, I was looking for a boyfriend, but didn't quite realize it. I kept this facade up for a long time.<br />
<br />
But alas, it was so not meant to be. What did it for me was me and her were at a restaurant eating a late dinner. One of the cooks came up to me and we chatted it up for about 45 minutes. I felt real bad afterword cause she was left there in a dumbfounded silence as I engaged this guy (who was very attractive) in a rather intense conversation about theater and food. Sadly he wasn't gay, but the experience opened my eyes quite a lot. I had felt infinitely more comfortable talking to him and engaging him in discussions than I did with her. And it wasn't because I didn't<br />
care about her, but because the connection wasn’t there. <br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpqeWne_Ij9VnlOkcoMi27pByQQobodxYmqXSKm4uV8QGd9SS9E-Rv0J-EUzJrAf6kB9nr-F23awztEm87zNtWMtwJIgB2zd-GSAlYIIrxozqBSuRGvtMKQ9RjuL2jNVzwU7V-MBgrYbU/s1600/TNGCaption147c.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="236" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpqeWne_Ij9VnlOkcoMi27pByQQobodxYmqXSKm4uV8QGd9SS9E-Rv0J-EUzJrAf6kB9nr-F23awztEm87zNtWMtwJIgB2zd-GSAlYIIrxozqBSuRGvtMKQ9RjuL2jNVzwU7V-MBgrYbU/s320/TNGCaption147c.jpg" width="320" /></a>Also during my 2nd year at LCSC in Lewiston, ID…I had resided in a house where about 30 people lived. It was an old convent turned into a dormitory with kitchen and common area. Most the people were nice and quite reasonable to be around. I had a roommate who was a unique character to say the least but, he was good at brightening my spirits with invitations to come drink and the occasional driving him for his weekend imprisonment for a few slaps on the hand things he did. A few other friends lived there as well. But one day when I was walking back from class, it was about October or November, and I had left my window cracked to let air in. I had noticed something that wasn’t on my seat last time I drove. I remember it quite vividly. Something designed to embarrass you or expose you before you’re ready or intimidate you never really goes away. Someone had decided it would be funny to drop gay porn into my car. And brightly as in front of God and everyone, had been a gay porn DVD. Never in my life had I felt more dread and intimidation than that moment, knowing someone had decided to behave so insensitively. Now I know this doesn’t compare to others’ experiences, but, this was truly something I could never forget. I grabbed the DVD and quickly deposited it into the dumpster outside the dorm, and brushed it off like it was nothing. I continued on my way as I normally do, but now with a twinge of dread in the back of my mind. I asked myself questions like “Is this the start of something? Is it going to get worse?” Thankfully it didn’t…but it easily could have.<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDbvhRYY-4k1HK04RFvTQRqf9mGyRK5SRBOSvwbO2NXFQaH1Dj3lSWHp84irzbAfjKzrz_X1ahkK8SPN0avr9OIuS5qk12i2fw3uV_DxLG5zugUKzFAekHI0hRf3zj_nbrFfMDw8dvwnQ/s1600/courage_21x16_1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="245" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDbvhRYY-4k1HK04RFvTQRqf9mGyRK5SRBOSvwbO2NXFQaH1Dj3lSWHp84irzbAfjKzrz_X1ahkK8SPN0avr9OIuS5qk12i2fw3uV_DxLG5zugUKzFAekHI0hRf3zj_nbrFfMDw8dvwnQ/s320/courage_21x16_1.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace;">Courage: 90% of resistance is cautionary. <br />~Shigeo Shingo</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
After that, I slowly worked up the courage to start coming out to people. My friend, Barbara was the first <br />
one I came out to, telling her I was Bi, partially cause I was still confused, but knew enough that I liked men, but still wasn't sure if women were off the table. Then finally about a year after that, I and a guy met onlin<br />
e. We decided to drive 8 hours to meet each other. Oh we felt such a chemistry with each other, our chats were passionate, we loved each other’s pictures, and so, we decided to meet in the middle. After finally meeting in our Motel, it literally was love at first sight. We spent two amazing days together talking and cuddling and truly expressing our feelings to each other. When we parted, I felt like he took a part of me with him, and him with me. For a few days after that, every time I touched my arm, it felt like he was touching me, like the way we caressed in bed together. We carried on with each other from a distance for eight months until we finally broke it off. Neither of us could get away to see each other, and he was still closeted. It broke my heart for a while…but I gathered my strength and moved on. We still talk on occasion, but, I’m not expecting us to try again anytime soon. <br />
<br />
The next chapter of my adult life started in 2009, when I entered Evergreen to finish my Bachelor’s degree. The Evergreen State College is renowned with having one of the most active and vibrant college gay and lesbian groups in the nation. As a centerpiece of social justice, I was drawn to the discussions about social justice. Even bombarded with messages about full equal rights for LGBT Couples, I still sharply questioned the position, trying to be one of those (in my mind) people who take the road of least resistance and wanted to build a bridge between the two opposing viewpoints. Looking back on the position, I can see now why I was so wrong in its viewpoint. Though I don’t feel I was wrong for trying to find common ground. <br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqD208H5zbZDgn76qu9EMxf6CGaIYcdvINm6mq6Ks5lB1qbK3NWXZDnuQvN5TYlhgUdqZyAB7iffcSXXvVDve8DMUrpK76weSpNIpBJPp9P7RczYlHyzhhTEyxjfNI5E16cK576YEWuag/s1600/Colleges+Evergreen+State+College.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="229" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqD208H5zbZDgn76qu9EMxf6CGaIYcdvINm6mq6Ks5lB1qbK3NWXZDnuQvN5TYlhgUdqZyAB7iffcSXXvVDve8DMUrpK76weSpNIpBJPp9P7RczYlHyzhhTEyxjfNI5E16cK576YEWuag/s320/Colleges+Evergreen+State+College.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Evergreen actually took this picture and made it a postcard</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
After I graduated in 2011, I <br />
was politically active for the Republican Party, believing 100% in the views that given the freedom, the market will provide and everyone will have everything. I voted fervently for most of the Republican candidates on the ticket in 2010 (trust me, I STRONGLY regret it to this day), and continued to try to build bridges of common view. I argued fervently that government isn’t evil, but it should back off, and just let things work that can work, and control things it should control. With the recent tea-publican menace worming its way into the party, such views were not accepted easily.<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsEpNWzdOeY1p5Nekyoo40PsxRZkW8QT4xISqkTERUJnSrqS0Fljeuuax4Oet8vfCmJUSzmBQBJY8EkrfP5JCtSXFH8cfz7-4ERVmjSdHRsYMMRyJwkFAZE2MHEgbVAI5l72B7N1GZ_AI/s1600/GreedMORE.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="170" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsEpNWzdOeY1p5Nekyoo40PsxRZkW8QT4xISqkTERUJnSrqS0Fljeuuax4Oet8vfCmJUSzmBQBJY8EkrfP5JCtSXFH8cfz7-4ERVmjSdHRsYMMRyJwkFAZE2MHEgbVAI5l72B7N1GZ_AI/s200/GreedMORE.png" width="200" /></a><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAvyuXdA3c0xxdUbLzSNhukkBXTQ8juvbo0Xyy8Eb7X4w8I26Uddr6NW3Hni30N7SXgwlxi9eNvIZfDLS8fD9i2-nOxM3-ErxO0eU2W7x5SX9rSc48H2WhvscdzxTJAkn-27YHYCn2hjM/s1600/RomneyRyan.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAvyuXdA3c0xxdUbLzSNhukkBXTQ8juvbo0Xyy8Eb7X4w8I26Uddr6NW3Hni30N7SXgwlxi9eNvIZfDLS8fD9i2-nOxM3-ErxO0eU2W7x5SX9rSc48H2WhvscdzxTJAkn-27YHYCn2hjM/s200/RomneyRyan.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
So finally, 2012 comes around, and I’m proudly wearing my Romney sticker on my car, and hanging on the words of both candidates passionately, absorbing their talking points, each of them…and what finally was the straw that broke the Camel’s back…”You didn’t build that….” Taken out of context over and over and over again, into utter absurdity. At this point, I am totally disillusioned as to why I’m even supporting this party any more. I took a hard long look at myself in the mirror and started inventorying my views. I compared them aggressively against the party platforms of both parties. Now I know my history. I know what kind of damage church and state together can cause. I know what kind of damage unregulated greed can cause, and I know from my Bible, that government is NOT evil but an arm of justice (See Romans 13 for a detailed scripture reference). I was also pro-choice even before this as a Republican, because I believed that each circumstance bears a different level of morality…and it is not the place of the state to hold women prisoners in their own bodies by legislatively stripping women of this right to choose to reproduce…despite my personal views on abortion. So finally, I started reading more. End This Depression NOW! – By Paul Krugman, as well as his other books: The Conscience of a Liberal and A Return to Depression Economics. I tore through all three books hanging on his every word…and it suddenly occurred to me, that I am a 100% Democrat. If this was so on economics, and mostly on social issues, then, it would make sense. <br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJufYtDy6ypDYy0zMqAuZ19HSWgToiFa9KE9rjLsjpMzpmhi_zJObp8Izwaq7FPSsrrgKQ8cUfl6wWJU8dOwVUNzVwgmeC2ULgEqG1h1r6Aq8cCpeUsJtT3lmD7aHIMOJGj5tqJhRB6LI/s1600/TheNewYorkerBertErnie.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; display: inline !important; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJufYtDy6ypDYy0zMqAuZ19HSWgToiFa9KE9rjLsjpMzpmhi_zJObp8Izwaq7FPSsrrgKQ8cUfl6wWJU8dOwVUNzVwgmeC2ULgEqG1h1r6Aq8cCpeUsJtT3lmD7aHIMOJGj5tqJhRB6LI/s320/TheNewYorkerBertErnie.jpg" width="233" /></a>In addition to coming out to my parents as gay, I also came out<br />
to them as a 100% Dark Blue Liberal...which I think actually was harder for them to understand than me coming out as gay. Looking back on my life, my experiences, my interactions with others, and finally, my faith…I understand more than ever why equality is important to me. To me, coming out was the way that I could be truly an individual. An individual with pride about who and what I am. Throughout the last few years, I have continuously buried myself in history, in culture, and in science as best as I can understand it, to better understand what it means to be Gay. To break it down to the simplest of explanations: Being Gay is nature’s way of creating uniqueness in an otherwise homogeneous world. Instead of women, I love men. And by love men, I mean I desire their companionship, their presence, their passion, their touch, their shoulder, their voice, their eyes, and finally, their unconditional Love. Not “Love Because” or “Love IF”, but “Love PERIOD.” Love without limit, reason, purpose, or condition. The kind of love that would thrust me into a gunshot or throw myself on top of him. The kind of love that Jesus gives us every day: “Love Period.”<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04034639542195789648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4693236127458825374.post-80507298902185783592013-10-03T10:13:00.001-07:002013-10-03T10:14:50.872-07:00The Speaker of the House Philosophy<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDdAosLNLus-jqTrRMyxHLoYYWk431Kilm4qFF1WGKaNgyL2JCOerZz2FlnhJbRPD3BXwNA9QjpfsVuFh6HiVitf2ihmye7SJr_1uCHabs9vH_EUY0aJidjYI2aN8zrbbqiqY2MuiuuP8/s1600/SpeakerUKParliament.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDdAosLNLus-jqTrRMyxHLoYYWk431Kilm4qFF1WGKaNgyL2JCOerZz2FlnhJbRPD3BXwNA9QjpfsVuFh6HiVitf2ihmye7SJr_1uCHabs9vH_EUY0aJidjYI2aN8zrbbqiqY2MuiuuP8/s1600/SpeakerUKParliament.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: xx-small;">The Right-Honorable John Bercow</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: xx-small;">Speaker of the British Parliament, Elected 2009</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: xx-small;">No Party Affiliation</span></div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Speaker
Boehner has worked himself into quite a pickle.
On one side, he has right-wing extremists who threaten his speakership
if he concedes to Democratic demands to pass a clean Continuing Resolution…while
on the other hand he’s facing a very angry electorate who will ultimately dump
him like a bad habit if he doesn't pass a clean C.R.. So what ever should he do?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNjD-x32lWUD2rRZ7Nn6E2g3TD2FX2Q1yaVvBWEyanfDIriBu-QAzKLwiXBVYv9jyREL3KkMg19aD3jMbsAKVte5K_ouTlRWlLXqTCo6_YWC6bHilsk4jjuzJ6U63TngSxUEoEVP3n6tE/s1600/SpeakerParliament33676-atl_0.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNjD-x32lWUD2rRZ7Nn6E2g3TD2FX2Q1yaVvBWEyanfDIriBu-QAzKLwiXBVYv9jyREL3KkMg19aD3jMbsAKVte5K_ouTlRWlLXqTCo6_YWC6bHilsk4jjuzJ6U63TngSxUEoEVP3n6tE/s1600/SpeakerParliament33676-atl_0.jpg" width="153" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: right;">
<div style="text-align: right;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: xx-small;">The Right-Honorable Sir Arthur Guinness</span></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: xx-small;">Speaker of the House, New Zealand, 1911</span></div>
</div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Well,
before I answer that question, let’s look at what a speaker SHOULD be as
compared to the speaker we have now. The
Speaker of the House is the 3<sup>rd</sup> most powerful man in the US
Government. He’s 3<sup>rd</sup> in line
for the presidency, he’s autocratic leader of the entire Lower House of
Congress, and he pretty much has the power to do whatever he wants in regards
to the House business. When looking at
other types of speakers of the house in other systems of government, the
speaker often elected by the entire body of legislators. The Speaker of the United Kingdom Parliament
is often one who is regarded as fair and entirely equitable, having no party
affiliation or loyalty during his time in as the speaker. He mediates disputes and maintains the house
rules and delegates which members can speak at which time. He’s also a non-voting member of parliament
and does not vote except in cases of a tie.
And in even in that circumstance, the rules of voting while the speaker
are very strict as to maintain a non-partisan status. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQ-639wj7G-C3XC_LfwVmZPVsJfcXnsVdBUpJPMLYBZASYd0wAbcAt3xNi4JFRd4D97dUJMnAPb5spUNBs43UQvu0Zh85C8YpiENZkauFqwyHxQ_ROj-1dtRShoYVmBvDZIP3mu883UgI/s1600/john_boehner_gavel.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="133" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQ-639wj7G-C3XC_LfwVmZPVsJfcXnsVdBUpJPMLYBZASYd0wAbcAt3xNi4JFRd4D97dUJMnAPb5spUNBs43UQvu0Zh85C8YpiENZkauFqwyHxQ_ROj-1dtRShoYVmBvDZIP3mu883UgI/s1600/john_boehner_gavel.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: xx-small;">John Boehner, </span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: xx-small;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: xx-small;">Speaker of the House</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: xx-small;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
Republican, Elected Jan 2011</div>
</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The
role of the speaker, in my view, is to serve as a servant of the houses
factions. He should be one who organizes
the agenda proportionally, allowing all members to vote on whatever piece of
legislation either side wishes to present.
Now, I’m not saying that there should not be any order to it…but I do
believe that the issues discussed in the House should be representative of the
house’s membership. So if Democrats
control 55% of the membership and Republicans 45%...then 55% of the issues discussed
in the House should be from Democrats, and 45% from Republicans. A fair, proportional, equitable division of
the issues presented. The speaker’s role
in this regard is to make sure that the rules of order are followed, that the
time to speak be divided evenly and fairly, and that the parties behave
themselves in a civil manner. Further,
the speaker should never be a partisan in any way when an issue affecting
national issues occur. The Speaker’s
role is to ensure that the rules of the House are enforced and not to
selectively enforce them or give special preference to his or her own
party. <o:p></o:p></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4-uPzw18F4YW_AV8nhrGVXz_H3Eojs5MyHjp8YZ23EFA-r8oHKw0Moi8QvnxdL-9cz_z4ZowFK4qL_FOJX1mfFWAogHr-BFY8ZAbu00T9phn3-j-rt4lhSt5VLLdcayn-dMpGfihH2nA/s1600/nancy-pelosi-gavel.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="140" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4-uPzw18F4YW_AV8nhrGVXz_H3Eojs5MyHjp8YZ23EFA-r8oHKw0Moi8QvnxdL-9cz_z4ZowFK4qL_FOJX1mfFWAogHr-BFY8ZAbu00T9phn3-j-rt4lhSt5VLLdcayn-dMpGfihH2nA/s1600/nancy-pelosi-gavel.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: right;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: xx-small;">Nancy Pelosi, </span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: xx-small;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: xx-small;">Former Speaker of the House, Democrat</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: xx-small;">
<div style="text-align: right;">
Elected 2009</div>
</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Some
changes that I would like to see in the House in regards to a speaker is a
2/3rds majority vote for the job. That a
simple majority is insufficient to elect a speaker that is truly viewed as
non-partisan. A non-partisan speaker is
essential to the functioning of the chamber and ensures a fair and equitable
exchange of dialogue between the parties.
It also would ensure that the speaker maintains a good relationship with
all parties and divides the work proportionally. Finally, a vote of no-confidence which can be
initiated by a petition signed by 1/3 of the chamber’s members. This would also keep the speaker’s
non-partisan status enforced and would ensure that the speaker appeals to ALL
members of the chamber to maintain fairness and equality to all parties and
members.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Thanks for your time, and please follow me: </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Twitter: <a href="https://twitter.com/GDGivens">@gdgivens</a>, </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Facebook as well: <a href="http://facebook.com/GabeGivens">http://facebook.com/GabeGivens</a> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">and <a href="http://facebook.com/TheLiberalPragmatist">http://facebook.com/TheLiberalPragmatist</a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04034639542195789648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4693236127458825374.post-71835114044295402202013-09-22T11:55:00.001-07:002013-09-22T12:10:20.656-07:00God: Sometimes a Flood is Just a Flood<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Colorado had one of the worst periods of flooding in over 1000 years according to climatologists and the oral histories of various native peoples who lived in that area before we "moved" in. Immediately after that event had concluded, but before the water even had time to recede, neo-conservatives jumped to the air waves blaming gays and abortion and "The Liberal Agenda" for provoking "God's Wrath". This has the intent of inciting anger against liberals. Furthermore, it's designed to deceive others into thinking and voting a particular way.</span><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgswopSd40lmxjczHn-VUFIOr8t77N52zHqRRtKBziBo9GnVkwZYzAR7b1n_kbsW44SJga4GWA4VSXKwTl5Kv5d0UkSXRPFD9WtDKzKcMFNvDAdzMHQlQMrTcHbfdrgLbdTHCwhx8hZUZ0/s1600/ColoradoFlooding.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgswopSd40lmxjczHn-VUFIOr8t77N52zHqRRtKBziBo9GnVkwZYzAR7b1n_kbsW44SJga4GWA4VSXKwTl5Kv5d0UkSXRPFD9WtDKzKcMFNvDAdzMHQlQMrTcHbfdrgLbdTHCwhx8hZUZ0/s1600/ColoradoFlooding.jpg" height="180" width="320" /></a><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">One of the biggest lies going around right now in Christian Circles is that God punishes the whole for the actions of a few. If we are to reason that God is a just god, and that God is the greatest of judges, and that we reasonably can say that judges' roles are to be arbiters of justice...then explain to me the logic of this: I'm going to smite the whole nation because a few people do this, or a few people do that. How is that justice? How is that judgment? How is that fair? God is the god of fair, the god of just, the god of equality and reason, God is the god of rational thinking. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The 1720s, 1820s, and 1920s taught us one thing: That Christianity is about that personal relationship with Jesus, that that relationship is the centerfold of the Christian Faith, and that you literally make your own bed with whatever behaviors you engage in or do or whatever. The hell you live in is the one you create for yourself through your choices. So again, I believe 100% that God does not punish the nation because of the actions of a few. I believe it to be greatly contrary to the spirit and purpose of Christianity, as well as a viscous lie to instill fear in others. And as we know, God does not instill in us a spirit of fear. </span><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjL6dmjD3Rk-Q8aj_BRVbc6MtcN_T7cUN0afGRj1KuBrDs6osUX4yR1HPrQN-Z3DHRdM8o4IQUCbbfsRLSvWcQhuTzhLVKcdZ3UGorpkn5LoUgjeNIQ370hPR44oMOvlABtJZanZwAxB-8/s1600/gods-wrath.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjL6dmjD3Rk-Q8aj_BRVbc6MtcN_T7cUN0afGRj1KuBrDs6osUX4yR1HPrQN-Z3DHRdM8o4IQUCbbfsRLSvWcQhuTzhLVKcdZ3UGorpkn5LoUgjeNIQ370hPR44oMOvlABtJZanZwAxB-8/s1600/gods-wrath.jpg" height="320" width="265" /></a><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">So is it reasonable to say that the premise of God punishing our nation for whatever is a lie of the enemy to deceive and to instill fear in others? Could it be that it is used as a manipulation tactic to get neo-conservatives elected? And is it reasonable to say that such inflammatory rhetoric accomplishes nothing except to manipulate those that are less informed, less grounded, and less secure about life into voting and thinking a certain way? Yes, it is. God does not punish us. We do a pretty good job of that on our own. He (Jesus) waits there patiently for us to return TO him ready to start over. He doesn't pound us into the pavement til we say "Mercy, you win, I give up."</span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04034639542195789648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4693236127458825374.post-77965394600070066392013-09-20T11:20:00.001-07:002013-09-20T11:20:30.205-07:00The Sabbath: A Different PerspectiveI remember the first time I visited a Seventh-day Adventist Church. I strongly recommend one if you ever feel the desire to understand what Seventh-day Adventists believe. Though in the most basic of senses, Seventh-day Adventists believe in the same core values as any other Christian denomination. That Christ is the Savior, and that by his blood, the sacrifice of the Old Law as required in the Covenant with God as detailed in the Old Testament, was fulfilled permanently. And that Christ, on the third day of his death, rose and ascended to Heaven as the Son of God, but also God as described by the concept of the Holy Trinity. <br />
<br />
One of the most significant beliefs of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church is that of "The Sabbath." For those who are unaware, the Sabbath is the 7th day of the week, usually accepted as Saturday, where it is believed that God has commanded us to rest and take a day off. On such a day, it is argued that man should do no work and that nobody with the Israelites should do any work either. No the livestock or the animals or immigrants or guests or anybody. Take a day off to remember God and his wonders, provision, and gifts that He has given us. For a more detailed description of The Sabbath from a Biblical perspective, see Genesis 2:2-3, and Exodus 20:8-11. <br />
<br />
But let me throw a little reason into the mix. From a practical, real-world perspective, having a day off is a healthy and necessary thing to maintain a healthy body. Most work cycles in our society are built around the two-day rest, five-day work cycle. To maintain a good healthy body, the body must rest from strenuous labor from time to time to heal from the strain undertaken from any kind of work, whether physical or mental. It gives the mind and body time to relax, to refresh, and for the mind, time to enjoy the pleasures of life, whatever those may be. So, when we look at scripture, and we see a great deal of emphasis being put on observing the Sabbath...what that tells me is that having a day off was very important. It also stands to reason that the Sabbath important enough to be codified with a death penalty for anyone violating it during the times of The Exodus. It was also important enough for Jesus to speak about during his ministry as accounted and detailed in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. <br />
<br />
In the times of "The Exodus" as well as later up through even the 1800s I'd argue, the standard of living was low for many people. Some civilizations had attained a level of advancement where there was a great deal of leisure time, and others required massive amounts of labor hours to keep things even at a subsistence level. Would it stand to reason that in the times of the Old Testament, as well as the New Testament, that God, and Jesus both would set aside a day for people to take a break? And not just people, but land, animals, labor, and of course anyone. Did you know, that Exodus commanded the Israelites to leave their land fallow once every 7 years. On the 7th year of a planting season, they were demanded to keep the land free from planting, and let it lie fallow. The scientific reason for this is so that the land could replenish it's natural nourishment. A real world and relatively recent example of this going wrong is the Dust Bowl of the early 1900s, where the farm lands of the Midwest were depleted of any usable value due to over use and over-planting. It resulted in a period of history where many farmers lost their farms and many people starved due to food shortages. <br />
<br />
I personally believe that all people should have a day off. There is no question in my mind that that is a necessary and proper part of being a healthy human being. But also, do I believe the Sabbath is required as part of a Christian Walk? I am of the viewpoint that, in the Character of Christs' teachings, and in line with the consistency of walking by faith simply to walk by faith and no other reason, no. I do not believe that "The Sabbath" as defined by Judaism or by Seventh-day Adventists or any other denomination of Abrahamic Faiths is a necessary mechanism to reap the rewards of walking the path of Christianity. I do believe that its a couple of things though:<br />
<br />
1) I believe it is a necessary biological need to have a day off. I believe that the emphasis was placed so heavily on the Sabbath was to instill with urgency that human beings cannot sustain in the long term, they're physical health, if they work continuously. A day off functions as both biological rest and as personal self-reflection or spiritual renewal. There's a reason why such Sabbath regulations in Exodus also included animals, aliens, strangers, travelers and/or other guests/non-believers. It was to ensure that you didn't make others who were traveling among the Hebrews weren't forced to work when everyone else had the day off. It was strict, and it was reasonable given the time. "Honor the Sabbath and Keep it Holy" is a very a-typical demand as opposed to the rest of the 10 commandments. Was it truly a mandated day off for all time in all generations? Or was it a command that could be more loosely observed given the way life treats you. Or is it purely pragmatic to ensure people get a day off from everything? That's the mystery.<br />
<br />
2) I believe that as a believer in Christ or any other variation of Judeo-Christian beliefs, Judaism, Islam, and the like, that having a day of worship is a VERY good idea. That such a day should be observed for the purposes of refreshing yourself spiritually and mentally, as well as interacting with those in your faith community collectively. It also is a launching ground for civic action and services for the poor and needy. And I believe that worship, whether on a Saturday, Sunday, Wednesday, or Monday or whatever day you choose to congregate with other believers are equally important. I don't see Jesus judging one because they chose to worship on Sunday rather than Saturday, or Wednesday, or whatever day. Because, I argue in Christianity, it's the motives of the heart that matter most, not the dogmatic ritual of a thing.<br />
<br />
Overall though, you must follow your heart on this issue. If you believe the Sabbath is the literal Sabbath, then by all means, honor your conscience and observe the Sabbath as your faith and personal convictions require you to do so. I personally don't think I give a lot of credit to the strict observance to the Saturday-Sabbath. But I do believe in taking a day to rest, and taking a day to reflect on creation, on God, on the nature of the universe and to just flex those existential intelligence muscles.<br />
<br />
Tell me what you think. I encourage good dialogue.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04034639542195789648noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4693236127458825374.post-91978250925356400802013-08-23T10:05:00.004-07:002013-08-23T10:05:42.898-07:00Fundamentalists Live In FearSo, here's a revelation that I want to share:<br />
<br />
Conservative and fundamentalist Christians live in fear. And here's why.<br />
<br />
1. They believe that the actions of a few bring punishment on the whole.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPJZIgfR6fG6cmzMaj1phEW4DnXvIBxrkwIeBAQiJX2H5-40LySOMgg0gIVL8wT5O-WW5zxF05XHR73DA_PCQW3oLbHLSpIAxB0IAJRh_-Mi6RP7O3i5j5RRqYTsANXvxknj9dCa-Sgtw/s1600/SpiritofFear.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="186" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPJZIgfR6fG6cmzMaj1phEW4DnXvIBxrkwIeBAQiJX2H5-40LySOMgg0gIVL8wT5O-WW5zxF05XHR73DA_PCQW3oLbHLSpIAxB0IAJRh_-Mi6RP7O3i5j5RRqYTsANXvxknj9dCa-Sgtw/s320/SpiritofFear.jpg" width="320" /></a>2. They believe that the force of law must be used to purify and unify the population to avoid God's wrath.<br />
<br />
3. They believe in using Christianity as a Criminal code, using the verse of Paul and Simon and Peter and even Jesus to write criminal statutes because of their fear.<br />
<br />
4. They believe that religion is sufficient to explain the natural workings of the world, and that all other perspectives are invalid because Man's understanding of nature isn't perfect...yet some how their understanding of the divine will of God is perfect for some reason.<br />
<br />
5. They believe in the ultimate supremacy of Christianity and that all other cultures, viewpoints, and religions are apostasies and must be trampled out to protect the "moral integrity" of society.<br />
<br />
It's true that the Bible has stories in it, particularly in the Old Testament where actions of the one or the few has caused God to turn his back on his people. However, we do not live in the Old Testament under the law of the Old Testament God. He formed a new Covenant with us, that we listen to his teachings, walk in faith, and serve man as Christ served man during his ministry.<br />
<br />
Christ never called for nor did he ever hint at Christianity being institutionalized. Christianity was to be a private walk between you and your savior, acting on the convictions of your heart, and displaying his love and glory in your every day life and your normal, regular interactions.<br />
<br />
Christ never called for "eye for an eye" manner of thinking. He sought fair and equitable justice for people who did wrong, and he called for mercy, compassion, and mitigation. God being a just judge, I believe, will truly be the "one-on-one" judge taking every single thought, motive, and reason into account in the end just as an earthly judge would.<br />
<br />
Christ's whole centerpiece of ministry was to serve. To go into the masses with your gifts and be a quiet, responsible, just, kind, giving servant to man. Such acts express Christ's love to everyone.<br />
<br />
You more fundamentalist Christians out there, you live in fear, you walk in fear, and you work in fear because you fear that if you're not perfect, God will smite you, smite the nation, and smite the people. And I tell you that it is a lie. God is not an authoritarian, Christ is not his henchman here to club you for being you.<br />
<br />
Your walk of fear has caused you to delude yourselves into subjugating millions of people across the world, making gays, lesbians, bisexual, and transgendered persons live in fear for their lives, believing that your only desire in life is to persecute them, rob them of their civil liberties, and suppress who they are as people, who they were naturally crafted to be.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhY_6sqArkZo4SxHn8Z-AdQ5TbDqSbUTP0TAgiNIeZE5OyItBZGzprNFN0LpNjfNPQ0qB52v6jUgRjdJHuSm1XCQ37xGI7ofug1W8q-bpLdMgBlvDdh-brQZODReJvxtZwfRwzi3f-Ag5Q/s1600/LionFear.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="241" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhY_6sqArkZo4SxHn8Z-AdQ5TbDqSbUTP0TAgiNIeZE5OyItBZGzprNFN0LpNjfNPQ0qB52v6jUgRjdJHuSm1XCQ37xGI7ofug1W8q-bpLdMgBlvDdh-brQZODReJvxtZwfRwzi3f-Ag5Q/s320/LionFear.jpg" width="320" /></a>You seek to suppress women by some outdated notion that women are less than men, due to an obscure event in GENESIS which you believe God said women are subservient to men. Christ broke that norm when he told men to cherish, love, and protect their women just as Christ loves, and cherishes the Church. Women are not to serve you, you and women are to serve each other as equals, partners, companions in all ventures, journeys, pains, and hurts.<br />
<br />
1st Peter 3:1-7<br />
<br />
<i>1 Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. 4 Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. 5 For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, 6 like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.</i><br />
<br />
7 Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.<br />
<br />
So, yes I write to criticize and oppose fundamentalism, because in of itself it is wrong in all ways. It takes 1/2 a passage, message, and purpose, and writes its own 2nd half. Tolerance, respect, love, compassion, empathy, and mercy are qualities that NO Christian should ever be without if they expect to truly serve the will of Christ, which is to serve.<br />
<br />
1st Timothy 1:1-18<br />
<br />
<i>1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, in keeping with the promise of life that is in Christ Jesus,</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>2 To Timothy, my dear son:</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>3 I thank God, whom I serve, as my ancestors did, with a clear conscience, as night and day I constantly remember you in my prayers. 4 Recalling your tears, I long to see you, so that I may be filled with joy. 5 I am reminded of your sincere faith, which first lived in your grandmother Lois and in your mother Eunice and, I am persuaded, now lives in you also.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>6 For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands. 7 For the Spirit God gave us does not make us timid, but gives us power, love and self-discipline. 8 So do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord or of me his prisoner. Rather, join with me in suffering for the gospel, by the power of God. 9 He has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, 10 but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. 11 And of this gospel I was appointed a herald and an apostle and a teacher. 12 That is why I am suffering as I am. Yet this is no cause for shame, because I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him until that day.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>13 What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. 14 Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>15 You know that everyone in the province of Asia has deserted me, including Phygelus and Hermogenes.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>16 May the Lord show mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, because he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains. 17 On the contrary, when he was in Rome, he searched hard for me until he found me. 18 May the Lord grant that he will find mercy from the Lord on that day! You know very well in how many ways he helped me in Ephesus.</i>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04034639542195789648noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4693236127458825374.post-64771631441034066502013-08-07T12:44:00.002-07:002013-08-07T12:44:16.646-07:00Republicans Going the Way of the DinosaurIf Republicans hope to salvage what's left of their credibility and legitimacy, then the members of the party are going to have to take bold steps. Often times Republicans these days are characterized by their very loud red-neck cousins who have about as much good sense as a long-tailed cat who lives in a store full of rocking chairs. However, I know for a fact that there are well-meaining truly educated Republicans out there who see their party crashing and burning around them. These middle-of-the-road Republicans, or also called moderates, are the only hope for restoring the Republicans to a state where they can effectively govern and debate with Democrats. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg953liuzuH3S0QAH0pZcGRFsyqkv6_btg8Y41PqdYaLsmPTNQ2C21W5X1Dm-B0qP6wIcJc_0BmQyIydbv09c3JxE7684Wpx3yrjl_9jNb9_GF0CD7RJazX6Qhxh7nmYmMu3NZ5gL9es2U/s1600/HouseChangeBalance.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg953liuzuH3S0QAH0pZcGRFsyqkv6_btg8Y41PqdYaLsmPTNQ2C21W5X1Dm-B0qP6wIcJc_0BmQyIydbv09c3JxE7684Wpx3yrjl_9jNb9_GF0CD7RJazX6Qhxh7nmYmMu3NZ5gL9es2U/s320/HouseChangeBalance.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Right now, we see a party that is literally embroiled in their own mini-culture war. There are wings of the party who teeter on economic Libertarian Fascists who value their idealism more than governing. Rand Paul, self-proclaimed Libertarian who labels himself a Republican repeatedly pushes and advocates for policy that would eliminate taxation, regulation, and public support of vital industries and ventures such as education and unemployment. Then there's This wing of the party would dismantle every single arm of the government, leaving us at the mercy of huge corporations to have their way with the public like a dog having it's way with it's stuffed animal chew toy. <br />
<br />
There are a couple of far-fetched solutions that might bring some sanity back to the House. If the Democratic House Caucus could court 18 Moderate Republicans who are thoroughly disgusted with the Tea Party Caucus, provide them some incentives to caucus with Democrats, then Democrats could shift the balance of power into the hands of Democrats. This would allow a majority of the desperately needed legislation to pass with some bipartisan support. The speakership would be reopened to election in the House, and house committees would be reshuffled to reflect the new coalition majority with some Republicans being given chairmanships, as well as some moderate legislation being pushed to the floor for a vote. This House could salvage the extremely frayed and destroyed image of the House and restore it to the institution it should be. One that passes laws, pays the bills, and moves the legislative process forward.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04034639542195789648noreply@blogger.com0