You realize, politically, there really is no such thing as a "moderate" or an "independent." You know that, right?
I realize that's going to ruffle some feathers, but it's true, nonetheless.
Oh sure, there are those who are frustrated with aspects of their chosen political party. Indeed, I couldn't be more frustrated with the Republican Establishment right now, who have gotten a little too comfy in their government careers here lately.
But the concept of a "moderate," or an "independent," only exists within the confines of liberalism or conservatism. While we don't have the time or space here to go into the specifics of what defines each of those ideals, what we can say is that we all fall into one of those two camps. Each of us, deep inside, aligns ourself with one side or the other.
To be sure, there are those among us who agree or disagree with various tenets that cross the line of a particular platform. In fact, it would probably be more accurate to say that very few of us agree 100% with every party line that gets drawn.
But that's not the same thing as being a "moderate" or "independent."
Those ideals are born out of the idea of not wishing to be labeled. An "independent" is nothing more than a Liberal who doesn't want to be labeled a Liberal.
You see, Liberals are really the only ones who don't like the term "liberals." That's why they created alternative terms like "progressives" and "independents."
Every time I've ever had a discussion with someone that involved classifying someone as liberal, almost without fail I've had someone who jumped in offended because they didn't like being "labeled."
But I've yet to hear anyone who identifies as being conservative ever be upset by being "labeled" a Conservative. In fact, I don't think I've ever heard anyone -- outside of professed Liberals -- who's been called a Conservative be offended by it, even if they didn't think they were one.
It's precisely why, every election cycle, one hears stories about how the Conservatives are going to be able to sway the "moderates" and the "independents" to vote for them. One never hears liberals needing to get the "independent" vote. It's presumed in most political circles that Independents are going to vote Democrat by default unless they can somehow be swayed to vote Republican.
That's because they are by default liberal. And more precisely, Liberals who don't like being called Liberals.
Moderates and Independents are not necessarily the same thing, although those who identify with either rarely know the actual difference between the two.
As I've mentioned, an Independent is a Liberal who doesn't "like" being labeled a Liberal. A Moderate, on the other hand, is an Independent who is "afraid" of being called a Conservative. Simple, yeah?
The bottom line is, Conservatives are virtually without fail proud of being conservative, and have never "needed" Moderates or Independents to win an election. In fact, if our last two Presidential elections have taught us anything, it's that the more "moderate" our Republican candidate is, the worse he get's beat. John McCain and Mitt Romney have been two of the most "moderate" candidates we've ever run, and they got their butts handed to 'em both times.
The last "ultra" conservative we ran won his two elections in landslides, and if we'd run one again, I think the results would be the same. There are a lot of Conservatives out there who are aching for their candidate to be proud to be conservative again.
It wouldn't matter what the Liberals or Moderates or Independents do.
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
Friday, September 11, 2015
The Hard Part of 9/11
It's easy to say we remember... that's the easy part.
It's easy to post some meme or picture on Facebook or some other social media site each anniversary. You can Google "9/11" and come up with literally hundreds of pictures from that day. Or even easier, just "share" somebody else's post or picture.
It's easy to ask yourself, "Where were you that day?" Or, "What were you doing when it all happened?" There's even a very popular song that asks those questions.
Yes indeed. That's the easy part.
The hard part is far more complicated, but so much more vital.
The question today, 14 years later, should be, "What are you doing to help make sure things like this never happen again?"
Some of us had small children when this happened, who are now all grown up. We talked with them. We tried to explain there are bad people in the world. People who hate us, and who hate everything we stand for. Yes, even people who hate God. And they hate us so much that they are willing to kill thousands of innocent people just to get their point across.
But what about you? What about those who have had children after those attacks? Have you had that same conversation with them? Have you taught them that it is important to stand up for what they believe in, and that sometimes there will be people who might want to kill them for those beliefs?
And what about our emergency responders? The people who would rather die than walk away and leave someone in danger? Do you support them now? Have you thanked a policeman, or hugged a firefighter? Or are you one of those who are spreading the idiocy that they're actually the enemy, out to get us at every turn, just waiting for some innocent victim to shoot? Just like the venom that is being spewed by our very own President now? Are you that person? Or do you really "remember?"
Speaking of our President, do you realize that in some ways, we all have George W. Bush to thank? He took the fight to them, you know. Yes, those people who every year on this date we claim we want to hold responsible... President Bush actually did that. Are you one of those people now who blame him for "two, unnecessary" wars, even as you post something on Facebook asking us to "never forget?"
Are you one of them?
Do you remember that during Bush's remaining years as President, while we took the fight to those who knocked down those towers, not another innocent American life was lost on our soil? There were no gruesome videos released almost daily of some beheading of an innocent hostage. Do you know that all those barbarians we see on TV today were all off hiding in a hole somewhere fearing for their lives because they knew the American Military was looking for them?
Are you someone who cried for a terrorist because we had to get tough with them in our interrogations, or cried because they were "mistreated" in one of our prisons? Did you cry for them when you posted your picture of the Pentagon this morning?
And how do you vote? Have you voted for leaders who truly do remember, and who want to once and for all defeat the thugs who killed 3000 people on 9/11, or have you voted for leaders who claim the whole thing was our own fault? That it's our fault those thugs don't like us and that its better to run away and leave the barbarians to their barbarian ways, rather than to stand up to them and fight them? Do you vote for leaders who believe it's better to try to negotiate and appease these people?
Is that how you've shown your children that you "remember?" Is that what you've taught your kids?
You see, posting a pic on Facebook on this date every year imploring us all to "never forget" is pointless if you've forgotten. Our world is vastly different today than it was prior to September 11, 2001, and isn't George Bush's fault. And everything you do that enables any of our leaders to somehow appease these murderous monsters, everything you do that somehow portrays us as the bad guys, betrays any attempt you make to "always remember," and worse, dishonors those innocent people and hundreds of heroes who died on 9/11.
Every time you blame a policeman for doing his job, every time you vote for a leader who doesn't absolutely promise to take the fight to the bad guys, every time you try to strip those around you of their right to stand up for their belief in God, every time you tell a citizen he doesn't have a right to pick up a gun and defend himself, you are in turn supporting the kind of people who attacked us on 9/11.
So please, if it makes you feel better to post a picture on social media on this date every year, if you feel more patriotic when you post a picture of a flag and an eagle flying around the twin towers, then great, I'm happy for you. But if you really want to do something that matters, something that shows you "never forget" and will "always remember," then do something really meaningful: Support your police force. Vote for a candidate who will stand up for America, instead of tearing it down. Teach your kids about a true, loving God, and teach them to stand up for Him even in the face of adversity. THAT'S how you "never forget." THAT'S how you honor those 3000 people who gave their lives on 9/11.
Because if you don't do it soon, our next "9/11" will be right around the corner.
It's easy to post some meme or picture on Facebook or some other social media site each anniversary. You can Google "9/11" and come up with literally hundreds of pictures from that day. Or even easier, just "share" somebody else's post or picture.
It's easy to ask yourself, "Where were you that day?" Or, "What were you doing when it all happened?" There's even a very popular song that asks those questions.
Yes indeed. That's the easy part.
The hard part is far more complicated, but so much more vital.
The question today, 14 years later, should be, "What are you doing to help make sure things like this never happen again?"
Some of us had small children when this happened, who are now all grown up. We talked with them. We tried to explain there are bad people in the world. People who hate us, and who hate everything we stand for. Yes, even people who hate God. And they hate us so much that they are willing to kill thousands of innocent people just to get their point across.
But what about you? What about those who have had children after those attacks? Have you had that same conversation with them? Have you taught them that it is important to stand up for what they believe in, and that sometimes there will be people who might want to kill them for those beliefs?
And what about our emergency responders? The people who would rather die than walk away and leave someone in danger? Do you support them now? Have you thanked a policeman, or hugged a firefighter? Or are you one of those who are spreading the idiocy that they're actually the enemy, out to get us at every turn, just waiting for some innocent victim to shoot? Just like the venom that is being spewed by our very own President now? Are you that person? Or do you really "remember?"
Speaking of our President, do you realize that in some ways, we all have George W. Bush to thank? He took the fight to them, you know. Yes, those people who every year on this date we claim we want to hold responsible... President Bush actually did that. Are you one of those people now who blame him for "two, unnecessary" wars, even as you post something on Facebook asking us to "never forget?"
Are you one of them?
Do you remember that during Bush's remaining years as President, while we took the fight to those who knocked down those towers, not another innocent American life was lost on our soil? There were no gruesome videos released almost daily of some beheading of an innocent hostage. Do you know that all those barbarians we see on TV today were all off hiding in a hole somewhere fearing for their lives because they knew the American Military was looking for them?
Are you someone who cried for a terrorist because we had to get tough with them in our interrogations, or cried because they were "mistreated" in one of our prisons? Did you cry for them when you posted your picture of the Pentagon this morning?
And how do you vote? Have you voted for leaders who truly do remember, and who want to once and for all defeat the thugs who killed 3000 people on 9/11, or have you voted for leaders who claim the whole thing was our own fault? That it's our fault those thugs don't like us and that its better to run away and leave the barbarians to their barbarian ways, rather than to stand up to them and fight them? Do you vote for leaders who believe it's better to try to negotiate and appease these people?
Is that how you've shown your children that you "remember?" Is that what you've taught your kids?
You see, posting a pic on Facebook on this date every year imploring us all to "never forget" is pointless if you've forgotten. Our world is vastly different today than it was prior to September 11, 2001, and isn't George Bush's fault. And everything you do that enables any of our leaders to somehow appease these murderous monsters, everything you do that somehow portrays us as the bad guys, betrays any attempt you make to "always remember," and worse, dishonors those innocent people and hundreds of heroes who died on 9/11.
Every time you blame a policeman for doing his job, every time you vote for a leader who doesn't absolutely promise to take the fight to the bad guys, every time you try to strip those around you of their right to stand up for their belief in God, every time you tell a citizen he doesn't have a right to pick up a gun and defend himself, you are in turn supporting the kind of people who attacked us on 9/11.
So please, if it makes you feel better to post a picture on social media on this date every year, if you feel more patriotic when you post a picture of a flag and an eagle flying around the twin towers, then great, I'm happy for you. But if you really want to do something that matters, something that shows you "never forget" and will "always remember," then do something really meaningful: Support your police force. Vote for a candidate who will stand up for America, instead of tearing it down. Teach your kids about a true, loving God, and teach them to stand up for Him even in the face of adversity. THAT'S how you "never forget." THAT'S how you honor those 3000 people who gave their lives on 9/11.
Because if you don't do it soon, our next "9/11" will be right around the corner.
Tuesday, August 4, 2015
The Round Hotel
My favorite hotel in the entire world sits near the bank of the Ohio River in Covington, Kentucky. It’s a round hotel that’s had five or six different names since I first stayed there in 1984. I’ve stayed there what seems like 100 times since then, although the real number is probably far less than that.
If you’ve ever been in Cincinnati, and paid attention, you’ve seen it. Heck, you may have even stayed there yourself. If you have, and you’ve stayed on the side of the hotel that overlooks the river and the Cincinnati skyline, then you may know why I love it so much.
What’s so special about this hotel, you might ask? I mean, there’s thousands of other hotels out there that are probably nicer, swankier, priced better, I don’t know. The Covington that sits below is nothing to shout about. There’s a couple other hotels I see, a Waffle House, Wendy’s, Frisches, and a Lexus dealership. There’s two Speedway gas stations, literally right next door to each other.
But I have to admit, for a Reds fan like me, the view is spectacular. And a city lit up at night is always a pretty cool sight. But it’s not the hotel, or the view, really. It’s so much more than that. It’s the memories.
I fell in love for the first time at this hotel. That very first stay way back in 1984, I had a picture of a little freckled-faced girl I’d just fell for in my pocket. I took it out and just stared at it for hours as I sat out on the balcony for the first time. I had no way of knowing then that it would never work out, but I fell anyway. And the memory has never left me.
Over the years, countless times I’ve literally taken the mattress off a roll away bed and slept on it out on the balcony, (more than ten stories up, with nothing but the railing between me and a plunge to the ground) with the roar of the traffic from the nearby interstate as my lullaby, and the wail of a fire truck as my morning alarm clock.
Many has been the time I’ve sat out on that balcony and smoked a cigar with a friend, or chatted until the wee hours of the morning, or watched a storm rage around us, with the balcony above as our only umbrella. Or just sat and stared and let the view and noise take me away.
Many times (notice the plural, again) has a wiffle ball and bat been employed as entertainment in the room, with the goal of hitting the ball out through the open balcony door to see how far it would travel in the parking lot below. On the river side, the goal, of course, was to clear the pool on the first floor. Some shot, that. This was with adults, you know, like me.
Me and most my family watched the demolition of Riverfront Stadium from the top of that hotel. The day they announced the date of the demolition, I booked two rooms in that hotel for the perfect view. I have it on video of you want to watch it.
There are names: yes, there are lots of names. Friends, family, partners in crime. Scott Moore, Paul Shupe, Danny Bradley, Scott & Ted Johnson, Kevin Uhls, Bryce Mansfield, Tammy Cooper, Tony Wilson, and so many more. All who have ventured to join me on a Reds excursion, this hotel serving our overnight stay.
I’ve stayed here when the Reds weren’t even in town. A great place for a few days getaway. The other side of the hotel offers a view of Old Town Covington. The Mainstrasse as it is known, for it’s German heritage, complete with the Clock Tower that shows the story of the Pied Piper every hour during the day.
I’ve stayed in every type of room they offer: double, king, the suites with the hot tub! I’ve dined in the revolving restaurant above, the one that offers a 360 degree view of Cincy and Covington. And I’ve looked longingly at the hotel from the windows of other hotels in which I’ve stayed in Cincy over the years. Yes, I come to Cincinnati a lot.
But the best memories I have — oh, the best of all — are the ones with my family. My wife, and my two boys.
I’m sitting out on the 11th floor balcony as I write this, in the desk chair I’ve moved out here with my laptop on my lap. It’s 1:02 in the morning. The interstate is busy as ever, and the river is as calm as I’ve seen it in a long time. It’s an absolute beautiful night. We watched the Reds win tonight, and Great American Ball Park is still lit up with a faint glow across the river. In the room, directly in my line of sight, the absolute love of my life is asleep in the bed, still in her #19 Joey Votto t-shirt. This is rough livin’, let me tell ya.
My wife and my two sons have stayed here with me more times than I can remember. And for every memory I have with them, I’m sure there are a hundred I have forgotten. And for every memory here at this hotel, there are a hundred more associated with it around the city on one of our trips here.
In the early days, before the kids, it was our go-to vacation getaway spot. Often was the time Ginger and I would sneak away for a couple days, stay in the round hotel and watch a couple Reds games. When the boys arrived, things didn’t change. They just got packed along!
As the hotel is round, as I’ve noted, the hallway on every floor goes in a complete circle. Every time we’d leave our room, the boys would run one direction, and I the other, to see who would reach the elevator first.
I bet me and my kids have splashed more water out of that pool over the years than it actually holds. And if management knew about the pillow fights, the ball playing (yes, me and the boys hit wiffle balls out of the balcony doors too — not to mention off the walls of the room) and the jumping and wrestling on the beds, they’d probably kick us out for good.
And I can’t even tell you about the memories with my wife — those are just for me and her.
I miss my boys immensely tonight as I sit out here on the balcony by myself. But I’m also boundlessly grateful for this time together with my wife. I’m excited my kids are moving on with their lives, and so looking forward to the time I will now get to spend with my wife in the coming years, God willing.
But I miss those times of the past, and a little part of me hurts. What I wouldn’t give for one more swing of the wiffle bat, or for one more pillow fight, or one more wrestle on the bed with my boys.
Perhaps they’ll find a place to make memories of their own with their own friends and families someday. And Lord willing, there will come a day when my grandkids get to hit wiffle balls out the balcony door with me. I’m looking forward to that, and so much more.
And as for me and Ginger, well, there’s more memories to be had. (A few on this excursion, already!) Because that’s all I’ve really ever wanted to do, was to make memories with her. And I intend to continue to make it a priority. Soon, we’ll be moving to a place well south of here, and home. And there will be a beautiful ocean nearby, and we will make memories there watching sunrises and sunsets.
But there will always be a place and a time for a particular round hotel. And it will be as cherished to us in the future as it has been in our past.
P.S. Thanks, Bob, for setting this up for us. We needed this one.
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
Guest Blog: What I’ve Learned About High School in Three Years - By Cody Uhls
My son asked if he could write a piece and post it on my blog. He's my son. Could I say no? So, enjoy...
(Cody Uhls is my 17 year old son. He is finishing up his Junior year of High School at Covenant Christian High School in Indianapolis. He hopes to study law in college, has a beautiful girlfriend, and an absolutely stunning set of parents!)
What I’ve Learned About High School in Three Years...
Long, tiring, caffeine filled nights are not uncommon. Nights with six or more hours of sleep are not common. When teachers see times are hard, they tell you they’re sorry but they have to give you another hour of homework that night, piling onto the three hours you already have. What I’ve learned in three years of high school is it’s long, boring, and sometimes a big waste of time, but also full of the best experiences someone will ever have. High school, to some people, is the highlight of their entire life. Just not mine.
When I say high school is not the highlight of my life, I don’t mean it hasn’t been fun. It has. High school has been full of laughter and friends and emotional conversations. It has also been full of boring classes, long papers, and a ton of sleepless nights. In middle school, everyone wants to be in high school. Typically, in the first three years of high school, everyone just wants to be at the top of the food chain and be a senior. When you’re a senior, you just want to be in college. I’ve just wanted to be in college ever since I started high school. I always heard about the joys of college and the freedom you receive with your classes. Also, once you hit your junior year of high school, everyone starts asking if you know what you want to do or where you want to go to college. I always explain my plans for the future and my collegiate thoughts and plans as to what college I chose to attend and why (I am choosing to go to college in Florida and study Law, in case you were wondering).
On a softer note, I’ve learned teachers don’t get a ton of credit. It is hard to make tests and quizzes and grade all of them in a short amount of time. Kids are impatient. Some kids will come into school the day after the test and ask the teacher if he/she has graded the test yet. The answer 99% of the time will be no and they need to be patient and wait some time before the grading is actually finished. I’ve noticed how annoyed teachers get with those kids also. It's quite amusing at times. The Bible says not to judge and not to hate anyone, but it's hard not to judge impatient people; they’re annoying. Teachers get a lot thrown at them they don’t deserve. Most of them are really doing their best, but there is always one teacher who is really lazy and makes their “Teacher Assistant” do all of their grading and all of their work for them; I don’t have sympathy for those teachers. Those are the kind of teachers who give busy work and test over things nobody looked over. But overall, I have sympathy for teachers. They don’t deserve what people throw at them.
Some teachers are mean though. Some teachers have no sympathy for kids. Retakes are life-savers to students who don’t always get the best grades, but some teachers won’t give retakes no matter how much you beg. Sometimes kids are just having a bad day and they can’t think during the test. We all have “brain farts” every once in a while, but they still won’t give you sympathy. Also, no matter what, those teachers know every aspect of the subject; well, at least they think they do. We aren’t allowed to question them about anything or ask them about their teaching style because they are teachers and they are always right, of course. They treat you like you don’t know anything about the subject, but give you homework like you should already have a Master’s Degree in the subject. These are the kind of teachers that treat you like idiots but then say, “You should have learned this last year so I won’t go over it,” even though we have no idea what he/she is talking about. They are also the kind who are surprised with how poorly the class does on their tests because they don’t know how to teach.
Students are mean. Teachers have spent most of their lives and all of their time trying to teach a student something they are passionate about and all the students do is tell them how awful their class is and how much they can’t wait for the next break. English class is the worst for students. Reading classic literature for the quality reading doesn’t appeal to most kids. Students groan and complain about reading The Great Gatsby and The Catcher in the Rye, but if you spend time to actually read them, they are fantastic books. Most students wouldn’t know how good they are though because the grade is more important than the quality of the class. Students are mean to teachers. If the teacher moves them away from their friends, students throw tantrums like little kids. I don’t care whether I sit by my friends or not because I want to get the most out of the class, not out of my friends. Students don’t care about class, they care about what they are doing the upcoming weekend or what they did the previous weekend. No one cares about what J.D. Salinger means when Holden says, “What happens to the ducks during winter?” in The Catcher in the Rye.
Also, students are immature. Why do they scream in the hallways? No one cares if you haven’t seen your best friend since Friday; there’s no reason to be screaming to them and telling them how much you’ve missed them. They also scream during the passing period to their friends across the hall. I want to smack them, but I resist.
Three years may sound like a long time, but these three years have flown by. I will be a senior this fall and part of me thinks I am ready to be a senior then to move on to college. The idea of being on my own is a scary, fascinating, and heartbreaking idea. Scary because I don’t know what the future holds, fascinating because I get to start a new adventure, and heartbreaking because I have to let go of my youth. I think I am ready though. I wrote this to give whomever may read this a glimpse into the life of a teenager at school. Hopefully this was a little humorous and enjoyable. School isn’t always awful, but I took a very cynical stance on it. Maybe if you enjoy reading this I can write another about the joys of high school some time soon. But until next time, thanks.
When I say high school is not the highlight of my life, I don’t mean it hasn’t been fun. It has. High school has been full of laughter and friends and emotional conversations. It has also been full of boring classes, long papers, and a ton of sleepless nights. In middle school, everyone wants to be in high school. Typically, in the first three years of high school, everyone just wants to be at the top of the food chain and be a senior. When you’re a senior, you just want to be in college. I’ve just wanted to be in college ever since I started high school. I always heard about the joys of college and the freedom you receive with your classes. Also, once you hit your junior year of high school, everyone starts asking if you know what you want to do or where you want to go to college. I always explain my plans for the future and my collegiate thoughts and plans as to what college I chose to attend and why (I am choosing to go to college in Florida and study Law, in case you were wondering).
On a softer note, I’ve learned teachers don’t get a ton of credit. It is hard to make tests and quizzes and grade all of them in a short amount of time. Kids are impatient. Some kids will come into school the day after the test and ask the teacher if he/she has graded the test yet. The answer 99% of the time will be no and they need to be patient and wait some time before the grading is actually finished. I’ve noticed how annoyed teachers get with those kids also. It's quite amusing at times. The Bible says not to judge and not to hate anyone, but it's hard not to judge impatient people; they’re annoying. Teachers get a lot thrown at them they don’t deserve. Most of them are really doing their best, but there is always one teacher who is really lazy and makes their “Teacher Assistant” do all of their grading and all of their work for them; I don’t have sympathy for those teachers. Those are the kind of teachers who give busy work and test over things nobody looked over. But overall, I have sympathy for teachers. They don’t deserve what people throw at them.
Some teachers are mean though. Some teachers have no sympathy for kids. Retakes are life-savers to students who don’t always get the best grades, but some teachers won’t give retakes no matter how much you beg. Sometimes kids are just having a bad day and they can’t think during the test. We all have “brain farts” every once in a while, but they still won’t give you sympathy. Also, no matter what, those teachers know every aspect of the subject; well, at least they think they do. We aren’t allowed to question them about anything or ask them about their teaching style because they are teachers and they are always right, of course. They treat you like you don’t know anything about the subject, but give you homework like you should already have a Master’s Degree in the subject. These are the kind of teachers that treat you like idiots but then say, “You should have learned this last year so I won’t go over it,” even though we have no idea what he/she is talking about. They are also the kind who are surprised with how poorly the class does on their tests because they don’t know how to teach.
Students are mean. Teachers have spent most of their lives and all of their time trying to teach a student something they are passionate about and all the students do is tell them how awful their class is and how much they can’t wait for the next break. English class is the worst for students. Reading classic literature for the quality reading doesn’t appeal to most kids. Students groan and complain about reading The Great Gatsby and The Catcher in the Rye, but if you spend time to actually read them, they are fantastic books. Most students wouldn’t know how good they are though because the grade is more important than the quality of the class. Students are mean to teachers. If the teacher moves them away from their friends, students throw tantrums like little kids. I don’t care whether I sit by my friends or not because I want to get the most out of the class, not out of my friends. Students don’t care about class, they care about what they are doing the upcoming weekend or what they did the previous weekend. No one cares about what J.D. Salinger means when Holden says, “What happens to the ducks during winter?” in The Catcher in the Rye.
Also, students are immature. Why do they scream in the hallways? No one cares if you haven’t seen your best friend since Friday; there’s no reason to be screaming to them and telling them how much you’ve missed them. They also scream during the passing period to their friends across the hall. I want to smack them, but I resist.
Three years may sound like a long time, but these three years have flown by. I will be a senior this fall and part of me thinks I am ready to be a senior then to move on to college. The idea of being on my own is a scary, fascinating, and heartbreaking idea. Scary because I don’t know what the future holds, fascinating because I get to start a new adventure, and heartbreaking because I have to let go of my youth. I think I am ready though. I wrote this to give whomever may read this a glimpse into the life of a teenager at school. Hopefully this was a little humorous and enjoyable. School isn’t always awful, but I took a very cynical stance on it. Maybe if you enjoy reading this I can write another about the joys of high school some time soon. But until next time, thanks.
Monday, April 27, 2015
Gay Apocalypse?
Awhile back, a friend of mine were discussing the issue of homosexuality as it relates to the Bible. He asked me my thoughts on a passage in the Gospel of Luke, specifically, Luke 17:34-35. I admitted that it was not a passage I was familiar with, at least in terms of the gay issue, and I promised I would research it and give him my thoughts. After a few weeks of study, that response is below.
I encourage you, first, to read this article. It was an article my friend sent me regarding the issue. It's interesting, to say the least. Later, in my response, there is a link to another article, one of many I found refuting the claims of the first article. Specifically, it breaks down the terms in the passage regarding the original Greek texts. I encourage you to read that article too.
Anyway, here is my response....
I encourage you, first, to read this article. It was an article my friend sent me regarding the issue. It's interesting, to say the least. Later, in my response, there is a link to another article, one of many I found refuting the claims of the first article. Specifically, it breaks down the terms in the passage regarding the original Greek texts. I encourage you to read that article too.
Anyway, here is my response....
I didn’t want you to think that I forgot about your request that I check into the passage of Luke where you assert homosexuality is mentioned. I’ve researched it, and here’s what I’ve found. This is lengthy, but I hope you’ll take the time to read through it.
First, I wondered why I’d never heard of this passage before. I’ve read through the gospels many times, and one would think that with my study of homosexuality as it pertains to Scripture, I would surely have noticed this passage. But I hadn’t.
The reason, it turns out, is simple… I’ve never read through the Gospels using the King James Version. I’ve always used, primarily, either the NIV or the NASB versions. It is only the KJV, as translated in English, that gives the idea of homosexuality in this verse. Here are the three different versions.
KJV: 34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. 35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
NIV: 34 I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. 35 Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.” (Verse 36 is omitted in some versions.)
NASB: 34 I tell you, on that night there will be two in one bed; one will be taken and the other will be left. 35 There will be two women grinding at the same place; one will be taken and the other will be left. 36 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other will be left.”
As you can see, there are subtle, yet distinct differences in the versions. So to get a clearer understanding, you have to dig a little deeper. Before I get to the original greek writings, let’s look at a couple other things.
The idea of context, as noted in the link you gave me, is important, but I think you have to look at it in a broader sense (which has been one of my arguments against those who claim I just “cherry pick” the verses I want to follow.) It is not only vital to understand the context of the entire chapter or passage containing a particular verse, it is also vital to understand the entire context of the Bible as a whole.
The Bible isn’t just a book of laws, or a good book of principles to live by. It is also a comprehensive history book. The Bible is an account of God’s creation, from start to finish. It shows the history of every way he’s interacted His people since the beginning of time, and how He moved within each culture, and everything He did preparing us for the saving grace of Jesus and beyond. It’s filled with many great twists and turns over time but has a central theme throughout. When one reads the book from start to finish, and views it as a whole piece, one will begin to understand that it is not contradictory of itself. But it is also definitely true that by showing the history of mankind, we see that over time, cultures change, values change, and certain rules and regulations change. But it is important to remember that those changes always came from God and/or Jesus. The basic rules and precepts we live by were never just changed by some random guy. It was always Jesus who said something like, “I know our forefathers told you this… but now I tell you this…” Or something of that nature.
Laws enacted by various governments throughout time have changed, but the basic rules and precepts given by God usually did not.
Which is important to understand and remember when we look at things like, say, the stoning of an adulteress in Deuteronomy. That was a law that was handed down for a particular purpose, with particular reasons, for a particular culture at a particular place in time. When Jesus later pardons an adulteress centuries later, it’s not a contradictory action, but rather Jesus fulfilling centuries of prophecy that showed ancient rules and regulations were no longer needed in light of Jesus’ own saving grace. His pardon can by no means be misconstrued as an endorsement of adultery, (He didn’t all of the sudden make adultery legal, as it were) but rather shows that such drastic punishment is no longer needed as we can find forgiveness and grace and salvation in Jesus. (As an aside, it is also important to note that even as Jesus pardoned the young adulteress and shamed her accusers, He tells her to go and, “Sin no more.” — an admonition He would make of almost everyone he pardoned or healed.)
This is why the argument that claims that if I still believe homosexuality is a sin, then I must still believe that we should stone adulterers, or own slaves, or wear purple, or any other such nonsense is just that: nonsense. Those precepts were put in place for a particular time and place and purpose. Moreover, it presumes, in some way that doesn’t exist, that God or Jesus came along somewhere and somehow began condoning homosexuality, and that simple is not the case.
From start to finish, nowhere in the Bible is homosexuality condoned. NEVER is it spoken of in a good light. Not once. Not ever. Moreover, when it IS mentioned, it is almost always mentioned in the context of a myriad of other sins, among them murder and thievery. That’s an awful slippery slope when trying to justify it as something with which God is OK.
Which brings us back to the passage you sent. Contextually speaking, we must remember that the Gospels are, more or less, the same account of events as seen through the eyes of four different men. Which means that often, an event that is listed in one Gospel can also be found in another Gospel. That is true of this account.
The same conversation is mentioned in Matthew 24:40-42. For our purposes, I’ll just list the NIV version:
40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left. 42 "Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come.
Again, here, the subtle, yet distinct differences. To read this, no one can see any hint of homosexuality. The “context” here, as it were, as well as in the Luke passage is not one of homosexuality, but rather the idea of the suddenness of Jesus’ return at the rapture. Moreover, the idea that none of us will know the actual time and date of His return.
Both passages mention the story of Noah, and the sudden destruction of the flood, and the idea that most people were totally unprepared for it. Only Luke mentions the destruction of Sodom, but the context, again, is not homosexuality, rather the suddenness of the destruction of the city. One can even picture the imagery of Lot’s wife being instantly turned into a pillar of salt for her disobedience.
So we’re left to look at things logically. What makes more sense? That Luke is relating a passage about homosexuality that is totally and 100% contradictory to every other passage about homosexuality in the Bible, a book that nowhere else contradicts itself? Or rather, that Luke and Matthew are both relating a story about the impending suddenness of Jesus’ return, a concept that is in no way contradictory to solid Biblical doctrine? You’re a logical man: Which is easier to believe?
Finally, to break down the actual Greek translation of the Luke passage, I’ll in turn give you a link to an article (one of many, I might add) I found that totally refutes the assertions made in the article you gave me. I’ll let you read it yourself. There’s no need for me to try to rehash it when this article breaks it down pretty well.
In the end, it’s important to remember that lots of good people aren’t going to Heaven. That’s not my judgment, that’s simple, Biblical fact. The story of the Sheep and the Goats in the Bible (Matthew 25:31-46) is proof of that. I know you know a lot of good gay people. I do to. But the truth is that I know tons of “good people,” gay AND straight, who are not Biblical believers. In my interpretation of the Bible, there is ONE way to Heaven, and that’s through Jesus. And if we are followers of Jesus, I believe we have to follow the Bible, and all it contains.
I’m not perfect, and I’m a sinner. But I have saving grace through Jesus. I ask forgiveness, and I repent of my sin, and it is that repentance that is distinctive. To say I’m a sinner just the same as any homosexual is true. But because of my repentance, and my desire to TURN AWAY from those sins the best I can, and try to “sin no more,” and that it is in my heart to live right and not continue in sin is what separates me from someone who is not willing to turn away from their sin.
I know this can lead to a whole other discussion about homosexuality as a choice, or it’s biological origins, or whether a gay man can be “delivered” or “cured,” etc. But we’ll leave that to another day.
Monday, April 13, 2015
Would I DJ the Wedding?
So, somewhere through the whole passing, and then virtual rescinding, of Indiana's Religious Freedom bill, someone asked me if I would actually DJ a wedding for a gay couple if asked.
The answer, just to get to the point, is yes, I would.
You see, the problem isn't whether or not I agree with a Christian business owner's decision to deny service to someone on the basis of their religious beliefs, but rather, whether or not I believe the Christian business owner has the RIGHT to deny said services.
And on that note, I absolutely think the Christian business owner -- or any other business owner, for that matter -- has that right.
I do not believe in discrimination, but I do believe business owners reserve the right to give or deny services to others based on their religious beliefs. I ESPECIALLY don't believe the government should have the right to force a business owner to serve individuals against their beliefs.
The bigger picture is that I believe a business owner has the right to operate his or her business however he or she so chooses. It's their money on the line. It's their reputation on the line. It's their business. They should be allowed to do whatever they want, even if it's wrong. I don't support discrimination, but should a business owner choose to do so, as a famous comedian once said, "They have the right to be stupid and wrong!"
As for me, there's several reasons I would serve a gay wedding reception.
First, at the end of the day, it's just a job. It's work. Jesus was a carpenter, and the Apostle Paul was a tent maker. There's no indication in the Bible that either of them ever denied service to anyone who wasn't a Christian. We can't say for sure, but I don't think, given what we know of their personalities, that they would turn away any opportunity to make a living.
Second, my performing a gay wedding reception is akin to Jesus sitting with the tax collectors. Jesus, while steadfastly holding to Biblical principles, did not shy away from fraternizing with those who didn't share his same beliefs. There are many examples in the Bible of Jesus meeting with and fellowshipping with others who weren't following God. Most often, He did so in an effort to minister to them, and at other times, He did it as an example to others around Him. In either case, He didn't hide himself away in a box so as to never mingle with those who didn't believe in Him.
Third, as His first miracle, Jesus himself changed water into wine at wedding just to keep the party going. He was actually somewhat annoyed at the request, if you read the account in John, Chapter 2. But He did it anyway. Why? Well, according to the account, it wasn't so people could just get more drunk. Rather, it was to show His power, and, again, if you read the account, there seems to be some motivation in it to make the groom look good. Regardless, I think it's reasonable to assume that not everyone at the wedding were believers (although I can't say that with all certainty.) But it's clear there was some big drinking going on at the wedding, and even in those days, over-drinking was somewhat frowned upon, so we can reasonably assume that not all the guests were strict Jesus-followers. At the very least, it was Jesus just doing whatever He could to help out. At the most, it was a miraculous show of Jesus's power.
Fourth -- and this is, in my opinion, the most important point -- if I were to deny DJing for a gay wedding, then I would need to deny the same to any non-Christian couple that comes my way. This is where the idea of "picking and choosing" Scriptures comes into play. As I've tried to explain on many occasions, I do not see homosexuality as some sort of "super-sin," or some unforgivable sin that is different from all other sin.
No, homosexuality, in my opinion and interpretation of the Bible, is a sin like all others: Repentable and forgivable. It's not different from any other sin, no worse and no better. If I were to deny service to a gay couple because I believe their lifestyle to be sinful, then I have to deny service to anyone who doesn't follow Jesus, no matter what sin I think they harbor. If I'm going to build a wall, I have to build it with bricks.
Otherwise, I'm a hypocrite.
Now, please don't allow this to devolve into a discussion about judging. I've already covered that in a previous post, and besides, that's not the issue here. In this case, I've already made up my mind as to whether I believe their lifestyle conflicts with my beliefs. The question, then, becomes whether or not I should go ahead and perform the service.
I do not believe we, as Christians, are called to shun anyone, even if they aren't believers. We are indeed called to love our neighbors, and I believe there's great value in showing love, compassion and acceptance to others.
However, I do believe there are lines that shouldn't be crossed. The Bible clearly states that we, as Christians, have to be "in" the world, but that we shouldn't be "of" the world.
I have left parties early, and refused to play others altogether, where underage drinking was allowed and/or prevalent. Underage drinking is not only dangerous, but against the law, and being a party to it is potentially damaging to me and my business, my being equally liable for the delinquency were the party to be raided by the police. So I've walked out on them, and it is now my policy to refuse any party where I know underage drinking will take place. For that matter -- though I don't have another concrete example of this happening -- I would refuse to play for any gathering where I was aware beforehand of any illegal activity taking place.
Believe me when I tell you I've played for lots of parties that didn't necessarily jive with my religious beliefs. While not illegal, I've witnessed some pretty sketchy activity at shows I've performed. Be thankful I spare you the details.
I have no problem with a church, or a minister, denying to perform the wedding of a gay couple. I've seen ministers refuse to perform a wedding for a wide range of reasons, not the least of which was the couple was gay. And I have no problem with it. And yes, without boring you with the details here (maybe another blog?) I do think there's a difference between a minister who refuses to marry a gay couple, and my refusing to perform at their reception.
And still I believe it would be my RIGHT to refuse the service, just as it would be the right of others to boycott my business if they don't agree with my stance.
In the absence of that right, what's to stop non-Christians from forcing Chick-Fil-A from opening on Sundays, since their reason for being closed is their religious belief of not working on Sundays?
What's to stop churches from being forced to allow non-believers into their membership? What's to stop a Jewish deli from being forced to serve a bacon sandwich? What's to stop Christian book stores from being forced to sell pornography? You may think that's extreme, but if you can provide an adequate difference between those scenarios and a bakery being forced to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, I'm all ears.
At the end of the day, I would DJ the reception. Heck, I might even sing at the wedding, if asked, which probably would never happen. I would do so because I would think it would be the right thing to do, and a good way to show God' love.
I can tell you this though, if I felt differently, I wouldn't simply refuse the service and tell the news about it. But you can bet your booties I'd already be booked that day!
The answer, just to get to the point, is yes, I would.
You see, the problem isn't whether or not I agree with a Christian business owner's decision to deny service to someone on the basis of their religious beliefs, but rather, whether or not I believe the Christian business owner has the RIGHT to deny said services.
And on that note, I absolutely think the Christian business owner -- or any other business owner, for that matter -- has that right.
I do not believe in discrimination, but I do believe business owners reserve the right to give or deny services to others based on their religious beliefs. I ESPECIALLY don't believe the government should have the right to force a business owner to serve individuals against their beliefs.
The bigger picture is that I believe a business owner has the right to operate his or her business however he or she so chooses. It's their money on the line. It's their reputation on the line. It's their business. They should be allowed to do whatever they want, even if it's wrong. I don't support discrimination, but should a business owner choose to do so, as a famous comedian once said, "They have the right to be stupid and wrong!"
As for me, there's several reasons I would serve a gay wedding reception.
First, at the end of the day, it's just a job. It's work. Jesus was a carpenter, and the Apostle Paul was a tent maker. There's no indication in the Bible that either of them ever denied service to anyone who wasn't a Christian. We can't say for sure, but I don't think, given what we know of their personalities, that they would turn away any opportunity to make a living.
Second, my performing a gay wedding reception is akin to Jesus sitting with the tax collectors. Jesus, while steadfastly holding to Biblical principles, did not shy away from fraternizing with those who didn't share his same beliefs. There are many examples in the Bible of Jesus meeting with and fellowshipping with others who weren't following God. Most often, He did so in an effort to minister to them, and at other times, He did it as an example to others around Him. In either case, He didn't hide himself away in a box so as to never mingle with those who didn't believe in Him.
Third, as His first miracle, Jesus himself changed water into wine at wedding just to keep the party going. He was actually somewhat annoyed at the request, if you read the account in John, Chapter 2. But He did it anyway. Why? Well, according to the account, it wasn't so people could just get more drunk. Rather, it was to show His power, and, again, if you read the account, there seems to be some motivation in it to make the groom look good. Regardless, I think it's reasonable to assume that not everyone at the wedding were believers (although I can't say that with all certainty.) But it's clear there was some big drinking going on at the wedding, and even in those days, over-drinking was somewhat frowned upon, so we can reasonably assume that not all the guests were strict Jesus-followers. At the very least, it was Jesus just doing whatever He could to help out. At the most, it was a miraculous show of Jesus's power.
Fourth -- and this is, in my opinion, the most important point -- if I were to deny DJing for a gay wedding, then I would need to deny the same to any non-Christian couple that comes my way. This is where the idea of "picking and choosing" Scriptures comes into play. As I've tried to explain on many occasions, I do not see homosexuality as some sort of "super-sin," or some unforgivable sin that is different from all other sin.
No, homosexuality, in my opinion and interpretation of the Bible, is a sin like all others: Repentable and forgivable. It's not different from any other sin, no worse and no better. If I were to deny service to a gay couple because I believe their lifestyle to be sinful, then I have to deny service to anyone who doesn't follow Jesus, no matter what sin I think they harbor. If I'm going to build a wall, I have to build it with bricks.
Otherwise, I'm a hypocrite.
Now, please don't allow this to devolve into a discussion about judging. I've already covered that in a previous post, and besides, that's not the issue here. In this case, I've already made up my mind as to whether I believe their lifestyle conflicts with my beliefs. The question, then, becomes whether or not I should go ahead and perform the service.
I do not believe we, as Christians, are called to shun anyone, even if they aren't believers. We are indeed called to love our neighbors, and I believe there's great value in showing love, compassion and acceptance to others.
However, I do believe there are lines that shouldn't be crossed. The Bible clearly states that we, as Christians, have to be "in" the world, but that we shouldn't be "of" the world.
I have left parties early, and refused to play others altogether, where underage drinking was allowed and/or prevalent. Underage drinking is not only dangerous, but against the law, and being a party to it is potentially damaging to me and my business, my being equally liable for the delinquency were the party to be raided by the police. So I've walked out on them, and it is now my policy to refuse any party where I know underage drinking will take place. For that matter -- though I don't have another concrete example of this happening -- I would refuse to play for any gathering where I was aware beforehand of any illegal activity taking place.
Believe me when I tell you I've played for lots of parties that didn't necessarily jive with my religious beliefs. While not illegal, I've witnessed some pretty sketchy activity at shows I've performed. Be thankful I spare you the details.
I have no problem with a church, or a minister, denying to perform the wedding of a gay couple. I've seen ministers refuse to perform a wedding for a wide range of reasons, not the least of which was the couple was gay. And I have no problem with it. And yes, without boring you with the details here (maybe another blog?) I do think there's a difference between a minister who refuses to marry a gay couple, and my refusing to perform at their reception.
And still I believe it would be my RIGHT to refuse the service, just as it would be the right of others to boycott my business if they don't agree with my stance.
In the absence of that right, what's to stop non-Christians from forcing Chick-Fil-A from opening on Sundays, since their reason for being closed is their religious belief of not working on Sundays?
What's to stop churches from being forced to allow non-believers into their membership? What's to stop a Jewish deli from being forced to serve a bacon sandwich? What's to stop Christian book stores from being forced to sell pornography? You may think that's extreme, but if you can provide an adequate difference between those scenarios and a bakery being forced to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, I'm all ears.
At the end of the day, I would DJ the reception. Heck, I might even sing at the wedding, if asked, which probably would never happen. I would do so because I would think it would be the right thing to do, and a good way to show God' love.
I can tell you this though, if I felt differently, I wouldn't simply refuse the service and tell the news about it. But you can bet your booties I'd already be booked that day!
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
The Religious Freedom Bill
As you know, Indiana is about to pass the Religious Freedom bill, a law that is designed to allow business owners the right to deny service to someone based on their religious beliefs.
The bill, as you also know, has caused quite a stir amongst the masses, with most people falling along three main reactions:
1) Totally agree with it. It's about time.
2) Totally disagree with it. Christians are a bunch of bigots and haters and phobes.
3) Agree with it in principal, but think it's bad press for Christians. Aren't we supposed to just love and accept everybody?
That's about it. You might find you fall somewhere in between those lines, but in general, that has been the response.
So, I'd like to weigh in.
Problem #1 is this: It is sad, in my opinion, that the need for this law even exists. One would think religious freedom would be covered under the 1st Amendment, and that would be enough. Sadly, in today's world, and certainly in the eyes of our government and judicial systems, it is not.
Religious freedoms -- particularly those of Christians -- are being trampled daily. Take a stand for Jesus in public, and the ridicule comes from all sides. Take a stand for Jesus in your business, and you face a lawsuit.
Problem #2 is this: This bill -- in the eyes of the non-believing public -- does indeed make Christians look bad. It makes us look like hate-mongers who want shun everybody who doesn't think like we do. It's not true, of course, but the media is never going to tell you that.
A good friend of mine wrote these comments on my FB wall: "Do you think the PR created by this kerfuffle is reflecting well or poorly on Christians and Christianity? How's our light shining right now? How are outside businesses regarding Indiana and the passing of this bill? Does the passing of the bill and it's "protections" that is claims to offer make it all worth it?"
Those are good questions to ask, and valid concerns for the Christian community. And I'll admit, I don't have great answers for them, except to say that the reality is that Christians rarely get good PR for anything in the media, even when they do something good, which is far more often than not. In the end, we have to take a stand for what we believe is right, and hope we get it right.
Problem #3 is this: This bill does indeed open the door to some potentially damaging behavior. There are some fringe nuts out there who will abuse this law. But there are a few things to remember... There are ALWAYS people who abuse certain laws, no matter what they are. Laws that are already in place are being abused by those who simply choose not to conform to civilized society. Non-discrimination laws get abused everyday.
Also, we must remember that this law doesn't just affect Christians. It affects ALL religions. So why people have chosen to single out Christianity as it relates to this law is beyond me. Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and Christians all alike are protected under this bill.
Problem #4 is this: Please explain to me how this bill is any different from "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service."? What if a poor, black, gay man who can't afford shirts and shoes wants a hamburger?
Problem #5 is this: None of the opponents of this bill are shedding a tear for the bakery owner that lost their business and has had their lives ruined because they refused to make a cake for a gay couple. In a town where there's probably 20 bakeries, that couple singled out this Christian owner, and ruined their lives. Nobody is crying for the countless other Christian owners in this country who are right now facing the same perils, not because they are discriminating, but because they took a stand for Jesus. There's a term -- it's called "reverse-discrimination" -- and it happens daily to Christians in this country. This bill doesn't condone discrimination, but it does indeed provide protection to those owners who have a valid religious concern from being unduly and unfairly prosecuted for taking a religious stance. Was it wrong for that Christian baker to refuse that cake? Perhaps. Should they be punished? Perhaps? Do they deserve to lose their business, face millions in fines, and have their livelihood taken away? Absolutely not!
Problem #6 is this: The perceived discrimination many claim this bill will cause is just that: Perceived! Made-Up, Potential, Possible, etc. It's not real, at least not in the terms in which it has been portrayed the media and the bill's opponents. It's not happening, and to any great degree, it's not going to happen. 99.9% of the people who opposed this bill will NEVER suffer any ill effects from this bill. Why I know this is Problem #7.
Problem #7 is this: The media and the bill's opponents are totally ignoring the massive good and humanitarian help that is initiated, operated and supported by Christians in this world on a daily basis! It is estimated by studies I've seen that the vast majority of the civic charities in this country are either run by, or at least have their roots in, some sort of Christian outreach.
Name me one food bank you know of that isn't run by some sort of Christian organization. Name me one suicide prevention organization that isn't Christian backed. Virtually every civic organization, outreach program and needy supply charity out there are Christian-based, Christian-run, or their membership is chocked full of Christians!
Worldwide missions programs are run by Christians! Islam isn't reaching out the the hungry and deprived of the world. They're not building free hospitals in Zimbabwe, or even in the ghetto suburbs of Chicago! Only Christians are doing that. Indeed, most hospitals in this country have some sort of Christian base behind them.
Muslims aren't running suicide-prevention hotlines. Buddhists aren't helping young women with unplanned pregnancies. Pagans aren't out there on the streets trying to feed the homeless!
The Red-Cross, Salvation Army, United Way, Boys & Girls Clubs, Kiwanis, and thousands of other charities across the globe -- all started and/or run by Christians!
So it pains me to hear so many people rise up and claim that the first thing Christians are going to do under this law is start discriminating against others. It pains me to hear that Christians are not "loving" and "accepting" of others. It pains me to hear that people think this bill will cause Christians to turn their backs on people in need. Because history has shown, and continues to show, that for real Christians, the exact opposite is true.
No, it isn't happening, it isn't going to happen, and I believe the attempts to block this bill have little to do with protecting people's rights, and more to do with attempts to force others to further capitulate to a liberal agenda. I've said it before: Disagreement is not only disallowed, but outright support and accommodation is demanded. And if those demands aren't met, you face judicial punishment in the form of any number of lawsuits.
Just as I believe that my right to own a gun trumps any attempts to outlaw that right under the perception that I might one day choose to act unlawfully with it, I also believe religious freedom, and the rights of business owners to run their businesses as they please, trumps any "perceived" persecution or discrimination.
We have a moral obligation, I believe, as citizens to help protect the rights of others. And that includes the basic instinct to make sure others are not discriminated against unduly, for unjust reasons. But we also cannot trample on the basic rights of others because of the "possibility" that someone might act unlawfully.
Moreover, while it is incumbent upon us Christians to show God's love and the redemptive grace of Jesus to everyone we can, we must also do so while taking a stand for the convictions on which we base our faith. If we violate those convictions, and the truth of the Bible, just to accommodate someone's feelings or whims (or their money!), then how can we ever expect anyone to take our faith in Jesus seriously? Is our faith only valid as long as it doesn't offend the next guy?
The bill, of course, may die a financial death. Money, unfortunately, usually trumps everything else, and if the people and representatives of Indiana see that this will cost them money, that may do it in. And you can bet on this: the bill, if implemented properly, will most assuredly hurt those who abuse it. It won't take long for word to get around about those who are snubbing customers out of pure bigotry. Those who DO abuse the law will pay a steep price for doing so.
In the end, this law will meet the fate of the voters, because that is how it was birthed. There is a reason our Generally Assembly in Indiana is vastly majority Republican. That's because they were voted in that way by the people of Indiana. And there was no chicanery here regarding this bill. This is a bill that their constituents wanted and supported, and was passed legally. If what I've heard on the news is true -- that the vast majority of Indiana residents oppose this -- then I suppose they will vote differently for their representatives next time, and eventually this law will see its demise.
As for me, I will protect and stand for my religious beliefs -- and my religious freedom -- at all costs.
The bill, as you also know, has caused quite a stir amongst the masses, with most people falling along three main reactions:
1) Totally agree with it. It's about time.
2) Totally disagree with it. Christians are a bunch of bigots and haters and phobes.
3) Agree with it in principal, but think it's bad press for Christians. Aren't we supposed to just love and accept everybody?
That's about it. You might find you fall somewhere in between those lines, but in general, that has been the response.
So, I'd like to weigh in.
Problem #1 is this: It is sad, in my opinion, that the need for this law even exists. One would think religious freedom would be covered under the 1st Amendment, and that would be enough. Sadly, in today's world, and certainly in the eyes of our government and judicial systems, it is not.
Religious freedoms -- particularly those of Christians -- are being trampled daily. Take a stand for Jesus in public, and the ridicule comes from all sides. Take a stand for Jesus in your business, and you face a lawsuit.
Problem #2 is this: This bill -- in the eyes of the non-believing public -- does indeed make Christians look bad. It makes us look like hate-mongers who want shun everybody who doesn't think like we do. It's not true, of course, but the media is never going to tell you that.
A good friend of mine wrote these comments on my FB wall: "Do you think the PR created by this kerfuffle is reflecting well or poorly on Christians and Christianity? How's our light shining right now? How are outside businesses regarding Indiana and the passing of this bill? Does the passing of the bill and it's "protections" that is claims to offer make it all worth it?"
Those are good questions to ask, and valid concerns for the Christian community. And I'll admit, I don't have great answers for them, except to say that the reality is that Christians rarely get good PR for anything in the media, even when they do something good, which is far more often than not. In the end, we have to take a stand for what we believe is right, and hope we get it right.
Problem #3 is this: This bill does indeed open the door to some potentially damaging behavior. There are some fringe nuts out there who will abuse this law. But there are a few things to remember... There are ALWAYS people who abuse certain laws, no matter what they are. Laws that are already in place are being abused by those who simply choose not to conform to civilized society. Non-discrimination laws get abused everyday.
Also, we must remember that this law doesn't just affect Christians. It affects ALL religions. So why people have chosen to single out Christianity as it relates to this law is beyond me. Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and Christians all alike are protected under this bill.
Problem #4 is this: Please explain to me how this bill is any different from "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service."? What if a poor, black, gay man who can't afford shirts and shoes wants a hamburger?
Problem #5 is this: None of the opponents of this bill are shedding a tear for the bakery owner that lost their business and has had their lives ruined because they refused to make a cake for a gay couple. In a town where there's probably 20 bakeries, that couple singled out this Christian owner, and ruined their lives. Nobody is crying for the countless other Christian owners in this country who are right now facing the same perils, not because they are discriminating, but because they took a stand for Jesus. There's a term -- it's called "reverse-discrimination" -- and it happens daily to Christians in this country. This bill doesn't condone discrimination, but it does indeed provide protection to those owners who have a valid religious concern from being unduly and unfairly prosecuted for taking a religious stance. Was it wrong for that Christian baker to refuse that cake? Perhaps. Should they be punished? Perhaps? Do they deserve to lose their business, face millions in fines, and have their livelihood taken away? Absolutely not!
Problem #6 is this: The perceived discrimination many claim this bill will cause is just that: Perceived! Made-Up, Potential, Possible, etc. It's not real, at least not in the terms in which it has been portrayed the media and the bill's opponents. It's not happening, and to any great degree, it's not going to happen. 99.9% of the people who opposed this bill will NEVER suffer any ill effects from this bill. Why I know this is Problem #7.
Problem #7 is this: The media and the bill's opponents are totally ignoring the massive good and humanitarian help that is initiated, operated and supported by Christians in this world on a daily basis! It is estimated by studies I've seen that the vast majority of the civic charities in this country are either run by, or at least have their roots in, some sort of Christian outreach.
Name me one food bank you know of that isn't run by some sort of Christian organization. Name me one suicide prevention organization that isn't Christian backed. Virtually every civic organization, outreach program and needy supply charity out there are Christian-based, Christian-run, or their membership is chocked full of Christians!
Worldwide missions programs are run by Christians! Islam isn't reaching out the the hungry and deprived of the world. They're not building free hospitals in Zimbabwe, or even in the ghetto suburbs of Chicago! Only Christians are doing that. Indeed, most hospitals in this country have some sort of Christian base behind them.
Muslims aren't running suicide-prevention hotlines. Buddhists aren't helping young women with unplanned pregnancies. Pagans aren't out there on the streets trying to feed the homeless!
The Red-Cross, Salvation Army, United Way, Boys & Girls Clubs, Kiwanis, and thousands of other charities across the globe -- all started and/or run by Christians!
So it pains me to hear so many people rise up and claim that the first thing Christians are going to do under this law is start discriminating against others. It pains me to hear that Christians are not "loving" and "accepting" of others. It pains me to hear that people think this bill will cause Christians to turn their backs on people in need. Because history has shown, and continues to show, that for real Christians, the exact opposite is true.
No, it isn't happening, it isn't going to happen, and I believe the attempts to block this bill have little to do with protecting people's rights, and more to do with attempts to force others to further capitulate to a liberal agenda. I've said it before: Disagreement is not only disallowed, but outright support and accommodation is demanded. And if those demands aren't met, you face judicial punishment in the form of any number of lawsuits.
Just as I believe that my right to own a gun trumps any attempts to outlaw that right under the perception that I might one day choose to act unlawfully with it, I also believe religious freedom, and the rights of business owners to run their businesses as they please, trumps any "perceived" persecution or discrimination.
We have a moral obligation, I believe, as citizens to help protect the rights of others. And that includes the basic instinct to make sure others are not discriminated against unduly, for unjust reasons. But we also cannot trample on the basic rights of others because of the "possibility" that someone might act unlawfully.
Moreover, while it is incumbent upon us Christians to show God's love and the redemptive grace of Jesus to everyone we can, we must also do so while taking a stand for the convictions on which we base our faith. If we violate those convictions, and the truth of the Bible, just to accommodate someone's feelings or whims (or their money!), then how can we ever expect anyone to take our faith in Jesus seriously? Is our faith only valid as long as it doesn't offend the next guy?
The bill, of course, may die a financial death. Money, unfortunately, usually trumps everything else, and if the people and representatives of Indiana see that this will cost them money, that may do it in. And you can bet on this: the bill, if implemented properly, will most assuredly hurt those who abuse it. It won't take long for word to get around about those who are snubbing customers out of pure bigotry. Those who DO abuse the law will pay a steep price for doing so.
In the end, this law will meet the fate of the voters, because that is how it was birthed. There is a reason our Generally Assembly in Indiana is vastly majority Republican. That's because they were voted in that way by the people of Indiana. And there was no chicanery here regarding this bill. This is a bill that their constituents wanted and supported, and was passed legally. If what I've heard on the news is true -- that the vast majority of Indiana residents oppose this -- then I suppose they will vote differently for their representatives next time, and eventually this law will see its demise.
As for me, I will protect and stand for my religious beliefs -- and my religious freedom -- at all costs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)