Reactions

Trump is doing two things that many on the left should support.  

He’s pulling troops out of Syria and signing a crime bill that will adjust sentencing for non violent offenders.  

I’m guessing that very few will be able to put aside their hatred of the man to honesty evaluate the actions.  

Can we know things?

I regularly hear people question our ability to "know' something, and see demands for "proof" of whatever is being discussed.   The ultimate questions being raised are really about how we "know" things and is it really possible to "know" things.   This is a small excerpt from a good answer to the questions of "knowing". 

"Third, being less than 100% certain doesn’t mean we can’t truly know. We can have

highly plausible or probable knowledge, even if it’s not 100%

certain. We can know confidently and truly, even if not absolutely or exhaustively.

The problem with global skeptics is they have set the standard for knowledge way too high, which ironically leads to the very skepticism they are engaging in!  There is no compelling reason to embrace the skeptic’s dubious assumptions"

http://www.paulcopan.com/articles/pdf/How_do_you_know_you%27re_not_wrong.pdf

Poor Jesus

This time of year, we hear many folx who use the birth narrative of Jesus as a means to advance a political agenda relating to the poor and homeless.  Specifically, the claim is that Joseph and Mary  were forced into the stable because they were "homeless".

The problem with this narrative is that it isn't consistent with the story.

In the story, Joseph and Mary were forced to leave their home in Nazareth and travel to Bethlehem due to a census.  The reason for the census was to imposed additional taxes on the people who lived in territory captured by Rome.  One could reasonably say that the "tax and spend" policies of the emperor and his subordinate government officials were the only reason why Joseph and his family were in Bethlehem.   (That and prophecy)

The reality of Jewish custom is that Joseph either had, or was in the process of building a home for his family in Nazareth, when a tax hungry government forced him to visit Bethlehem temporarily. 

The situation in Bethlehem wasn't that they were homeless, it was that the forced census (to tax people) had caused a temporary shortage of temporary lodging.  Similar to all the hotels in a town being full during a large event.

Finally, was Jesus "poor"?   Great question.  The simple answer is that we don't know.  It seems safe to say that his family wasn't "rich", but beyond that we really have nothing concrete on which to base any dogmatic claims.   We know that Joseph was a builder, but beyond that, not much. 

I don't deny that it makes a nice story, but I'm not sure the story squares with what we know.

Just in case people don’t actually read the post, I’m specifically referring to the birth narrative and the   condition of Jesus family at that point.  Clearly He laid aside riches and power unimaginable in the incarnation.  Just as clearly, during the period of His active ministry He had virtually no earthly possessions.  Those things are clear from the text.  It’s the part of His life where the text is  silent and fold want to impose an agenda that I’m speaking of.

Question

I'm wondering if anyone can come up with any circumstance where it would be appropriate for an 11 year old girl to dance at a nightclub full of heterosexual men and have them throw dollar bills at her?

Crisis

Both our local TV and newspaper have run stories over the last couple of days about a shortage of police officers, the newspaper headline called it a crisis.  

In the last couple of years, we’ve had a precinct house under siege for an extended period of time, complete with Molotov cocktails being lobbed over the fence, we’ve had large chunks of concrete dropped on cops from bridges, and a large percentage of the population who isn’t shy about referring to the PD as “racist”.    How can we forget the “fry em like bacon”

Given that reality, what would prompt anyone to seriously consider becoming a cop?   I’m sure there will be some folx who want to fill some diversity slots, but I can’t imagine any rational person signing up for what our local police have dealt with.  

Good luck filling those slots.

Untitled

“The older I get, the more I'm enamored with the fact that in the Christian message, the story of Bethlehem–leading to Calvary and to the empty tomb–is the only one that gives to us not only the answers, but even helps us justify our questions.”

Ravi Zachariahs

“the promise of love & grace in our lives is this: our worst day isn’t bad enough, and our best day isn’t good enough. we’re invited because we’re loved, not because we earned it.” 

Bob Goff

“Loving people means caring without an 
agenda. As soon as we have an agenda, it’s not love anymore.” 

Bob Goff 

“A moral standard must remain the same or it is not a moral standard”

G.K. Chesterton

“Jesus never promised to eliminate all of the chaos from our lives; He said He'd bring meaning to it.”

Bob Goff

What a crazy idea.

“Find someone you think is wrong, someone you disagree with, someone who isn’t like you at all, and decide to love that person the way you want Jesus to love you.”

What if this was our response to those on the other side of the political aisle?    What if we loved like Jesus, sacrificially, instead of swearing like drunken sailors?    

I can’t promise I’ll do this, I’ll certainly fall short, but it seems like an ideal to strive for.  

I can’t remember

Very often we’ll hear people who have left their Christian faith say something like, “I’ve been hurt by the church.”.   I believe I understand some of the pain that would lead someone to say that, but I disagree.

The Church doesn’t hurt us.   Broken, sinful, imperfect humans in the church can and do hurt us.  Sometimes grievously.  

I had occasion to think about this yesterday as a wound I thought was healed up, got opened yesterday along with the pain, came anger and bitterness.

The hurt and anger I feel is real and even somewhat justified, but I need to not blame the church, and I need to work on how I respond and forgiveness.

It sucks, but it’s where I am right now.

Movie Review, sort of.

I saw Bohemian Rhapsody last night and really enjoyed it.  Queen is a band that I casually listened to earlier in life, but have grown to appreciate more as I've gotten older. 

What struck me the most was watching this guy who had "everything", loving family, loving wife, talent, friends, success, literally all the things society says make us successful and happy.   Yet, he was so lonely and sad.  Watching him try to fill that hole with sex, drugs, alcohol, control, "friends" (really hangers on), while ignoring and mistreating those who cared about him really saddened me.

I honestly can't imagine the level of loneliness that would drive someone into such self destructive behavior, yet I know that one of my kids faces similar struggles, and it just breaks my heart to think about how difficult it is.

The last few years have been pretty crappy in my life, but I am constantly thankful for my family, my friends, my co workers, and my faith.  I'm especially thankful for the miracles I've seen and for seeing God show up in tangible ways.   I'm thankful that I don't struggle with the kind of loneliness and sadness that Freddie Mercury suffered, or the depression and anxiety that my son suffers from, yet it it tears me up to watch the destruction that those things bring to others.

I just need to keep praying that God will comfort those people who are lonely, sad, depressed, and anxious, and that I'll be sensitive enough to say and do the right things when I encounter people like that in my life.

Back to the movie.  I was surprised at how emotionally I reacted to seeing Freddie Mercury humble himself, mend his relationships with family, friends, and band mates in the aftermath of being diagnosed with AIDS.  While it's a shame that it sometimes takes something tragic to remind us of what's important, but I appreciate the restoration that they experienced.

I'm probably over analyzing this movie, but so what.  It's my blog and if I want to get overly sentimental, I  think I can.

Dan

After all the “Russian troll”, “bot”, “fake news” hullabaloo you’ve thrown up over the last few months, and your alleged doubts that I’m a “real person”, I had the following revelation.  The first specific mention of you on my blog, was in July of 2009.   I’m sure that wasn’t the first time we “talked”, so it’s safe to say that we’ve spent the last decade communicating via multiple blogs as well as via email.    At no time during that decade did you ever so much as hint that I wasn’t a “real person”.   When you offered condolences at my father’s sudden death you certainly appeared to be sincerely responding to a real person’s loss and pain.  When you’ve offered to pray for me, you appeared to be responding to real situations in the life of s real person.   A real person who you had an ongoing relationship with (not face to face, but a real relationship nonetheless).

So now when you say that you think I’m a “Russian troll” or any of the other attempts to dehumanize me after 10 years, I say it must be one of two things.

1.   It’s simply a tactic to dehumanize your opponent and to give you an excuse to delete comments that challenged you (while lying about the content of the deleted comments), and to dodge and avoid when it was convenient.

Or

2.  You are one of the most incredibly gullible, stupid people on the face of the earth if you got taken in for a decade.

Or

2a.   I’m the most amazing Russian troll ever (starting years before “Russian troll” was even a thing) and I led you by your gullible little nose for a decade.

Whatever the truth is, if you think that anyone believes that you honestly entertained the “Russian troll” notion seriously, your just lying to yourself.

I suspect that you’re thrilled with all the attention on you, and getting to “make me” accede to your silly demands.   I truly believe you are a real person with some really unhealthy needs for control and attention.   I hope that the perverse satisfaction you must be getting is worth it.

Finally, none of this would even be a particularly big deal if you hadn’t spent the majority of the decade we’ve known each other being so vociferous against lies, “slander”, and various other affronts to your perceived integrity.   As it so often does, it comes back to you applying the same standards to yourself as you do to others.

Thoughts after a long day.

I’ve been thinking a lot as I’ve watched people react to things over the past few days.  From the liberals who feel the need to trash Bush 41, to the conservatives who’ve trashed Lauren Daigle , to the ongoing parade of people spewing vile threats at D Loesch, to so much of social media.    What I’ve noticed is how many of those spewing vitriol claim to be Christian.    Some probably even think that Jesus would act like they do and say the things that they say.   I ask, “Really?”

I saw someone  who identifies as a progressive christian refer to Donald Trump as a “damned piece of s###”, in the context of “loving our enemies”.   I believe that when this person sees Trump,they literally see a “piece of s###”.    But I think that when Jesus sees Trump (even with all of his many faults, failures, and sins), the Jesus sees someone made in the very image of God who has intrinsic worth and value.   I’m pretty sure Jesus wouldn’t lead with “piece of s###”.

I’ve heard people say things like Jesus said some harsh things to the Pharisees, but most of those were descriptive, not demeaning.  “Blind guides and whitewashed tombs” we’re describing their leadership failures and their hypocrisy.    Even Jesus rampage through the temple courts wasn’t an attack on the people as much as their actions.   It was also a clear claim of divine authority.   Ultimately the problem with the folx who say “Well, if Jesus did it, it must be okay for me.” miss a couple of important points.   One, they don’t have the authority or sinless life that Jesus had.  Two, they ignore how Jesus actually treated people who were “ enemies”.    Tax collectors, Roman military officers, Pharisees, prostitutes, even Pilate, were treated with love, gentleness and respect.   Sure, Jesus didypull any punches, certainly called sin for what it was, but did it with enough love that the centurion that killed Him came away changed.    Jesus left people changed, and he didn’t start with “you’re a piece of s###”.  

If I want an example of loving your enemies, “Father forgive them, they don’t k is what they’re doing.”  seems a lot more Christlike than you “piece of s###”.

I don’t think any one of the people I’ve seen take the “POS” approach to loving their enemies, has any standing at all to call someone created in the very image of God a piece of excrement.

I get that we disagree, I get that it gets heated, but if you’re going to claim the name of Christ, why not act more like him when confronting your enemies on social media.

In closing, I’m sure I’m not innocent of this sort of thing, I try, but sometimes I fail.   Am I as bad as some, probably not, but I don’t think being slightly less hateful than the other guy is a major accomplishment.   I also don’t think I get points for not writing down what my mind thinks I should.

Love God, love other people just seems so much more worth pursuing than “XYZ is a damned piece of s###”

Ouch

This is what a progressive thinks of the DFL candidates for 2020.    

If the economy continues strong, Trump will be reelected. The Democrats (my party) have been in chaos since the 2016 election and have no coherent message except Trump hatred. Despite the vast pack of potential candidates, no one yet seems to have the edge. I had high hopes for Kamala Harris, but she missed a huge opportunity to play a moderating, statesmanlike role and has already imprinted an image of herself as a ruthless inquisitor that will make it hard for her to pull voters across party lines.

Screechy Elizabeth Warren has never had a snowball’s chance in hell to appeal beyond upper-middle-class professionals of her glossy stripe. Kirsten Gillibrand is a wobbly mediocrity. Cory Booker has all the gravitas of a cork. Andrew Cuomo is a yapping puppy with a long, muddy bullyboy tail. Both Bernie Sanders (for whom I voted in the 2016 primaries) and Joe Biden (who would have won the election had Obama not cut him off at the knees) are way too old and creaky.

I’d be shocked to see it be successful, but hopefully there will be an actual conservative from the GOP who can take Trump down in the primary.

Fortunately, up here in the People’s Republic, it doesn’t matter what the DFL runs, they’ll vote like sheep for the party.  

You don’t actually have to have read the Bible to spout theological wisdom

“The virgin birth story is about an all-knowing, all-powerful deity impregnating a human teen. There is no definition of consent that would include that scenario. Happy Holidays”

You just have to be a progressive,sex obsessed, psychology professor, with no idea what your talking about.  

Well said

“AMERICAN

An identity based not on gender,race,ethnicity or religion. But on the powerful truth that all people are created equal with a God given right to life,liberty & the pursuit of happiness.”

Who would have thought

 Who would have thought, that monomaniacal, irrational, obsessive, political hatred would drive someone who claims to be a Christian and to follow the way of Jesus Christ to the point where they would deny simple common courtesy to a fellow believer?  Who would have thought that it would be unreasonable to ask for an apology after it’s been demonstrated that someone has been intentionally, and repeatedly telling lies about another believer?  Who would’ve thought, a simple request to respect the privacy of one’s personal information, and not to share it with any third parties, would be so controversial.     Open till today, I certainly wouldn’t have, but I guess we’ll see what happens when one’s sense of respect, grace, honesty, and honor get sacrificed on the altar of political hatred.

Despite all of this, I decided to reach out and once again accede to the demands.   A look at history tell me this is likely a mistake, but I feel like someone needs to be an adult.  

I guess we’ll see if an apology is forthcoming, and what the next excuse to delete me is.

 Apparently, I’ve gotten my answer. The comment I left telling him that I had given into his demand, a comment left after I reached out to him in the manner he demanded, was deleted.  

Racist?

Can someone explain how the announcer on the Dan LeBatard show with the exaggerated, fake sounding, stereotypical “Mexican” accent isn’t racist?

My Team

I had to watch a situation unfold with the football team I’ve followed for years this past week and I’ve gone through a bunch of different phases as I’ve followed the news.

First,  surprise that someone who seemed like a pretty good guy, could have engaged in the behavior we saw on the video.

Two, wondering how Hunt could be that stupid.

Three, shock that the Chiefs moved quickly and decisively to do the right thing and release Hunt. Combined with the offer to work with Hunt to get the help he needs.

Four, hope that this wouldn’t ruin a great season for a bunch of other people, realization that the season should be secondary.

But, I saw a really interesting take today that really made me wonder.  

If feminism is really true, that there are no differences between men and women.  If gender is exclusively a “social construct”.   If men and women are to be treated equally in all things.   Why is this the exception?   Had a dude done what has been reported to Hunt, no one (except those who hold to a strict no excuses pacifism), no one would have batted an eye.

In a world where gender is a choice, where biological males physically dominate women’s sporting events and are celebrated for it, why is this the one exception?  

I was raised in a patriarchal society, and was told over and over again that it was completely beyond the pale to hit women.   That women and men were different.   But now I’m told that was all wrong, except in certain limited circumstances, which (coincidentally) happen to favor women.    Is it different if it’s a dude “transitioning” to a chick?

Personally I’ll stick to “you don’t hit girls”, and let the feminists, the trans’s, and the rest fight it out.

Oh, I’ll keep pulling for the Chiefs and contending that they handled this situation as well as they could have.

An exclusive gospel

I regularly see people expound a gospel that is directed to “the poor”.   I further see the term “the poor” defined in a way that includes only material wealth.   Now, given the reality of Jedus ministry as a whole, the entirety of the OT, and what we know of the first century Church, it’s absurd to suggest that salvation is only for “the poor”.  Further, given the lack of programs to eliminate poverty on a broad scale and Jesus’ own world about “the poor” always being “with us”, it seems both lazy and shoddy interpretation to take several texts out of context as a pretext to advocate secular government policy regarding poverty and immigration.  

The indisputable fact is that there is no way to state with 100% certainty that these prooftexts refer only to material poverty.   There is further no rational way to conclude that Jesus was spreading a gospel that excluded people based on such a transitory measure.  

The very fact that people are making these sorts of claims from the US, using an internet connected computer or smart phone means that those making the claims are excluding themselves from the gospel.      The fact that these arguments are usually made by people who emphatically deny the presence of rules in scripture, and who automatically dismiss any attempt except their own to proceed vide a biblical basis for things, can just be filed under evidence of embracing a double standard.

Finally, the fact that these claims are virtually always made in the context of reasons to make sweeping changes in government policy, seems to indicate the desire for some degree of progressive christian theocracy.  

At the rsik of sounding Grinchlike...

I want to point out two things that increasingly annoy me about the Christmas season.

1.  The plethora of really bad, unnecessary, cheesy, "Christmas" music that is foisted on un in virtually evey public space and across big swaths of the radio dial.  

Don't get me wrong, I just had an enjoyable evening at the MN Symphony last night, and I grew up waiting with joyous anticipation for the day my parents brought out the Christmas music LPs, so it's not Christmas music in general.  It's the artists who throw together a 'Christmas" album to fulfill a contractual obligation or as a cynical way to get their fans to buy another record.  Recently, I've been taken aback by people who sing the lyrics of the religious Christmas carols, yet who's lives and words demonstrate that the lyrics they sing don't mean anything to them.   (The last is a bit of a pet peeve of mine and probably a little to much of a "grumpy old man" thing)

2.  The breathless rush to fold, spindle, and mutilate the nativity story so that it gets crammed into whatever the current progressive political narrative is.   I have absolutely no doubt that I will hear how Joseph, Mary, and Jesus were "homeless" refugees when they were looking for lodging in Bethlehem.   Or that they were illegal immigrants when they fled from Herod's persecution to Egypt. 

Look, the nativity story is a beautiful, amazing example of God expressing His love for humanity by sending the perfect, blameless Lamb.  Instead, it's being made into a prooftext in a tawdry attempt at political gain.

Flattering, sweet, creepy, disgusting

I’ve posted about this before, but I’m not sure which of the above most accurately describes my feelings about a blog writer who is clearly obsessed with me (and Art).   Any suggestions about how I should feel having a blog where at least 2/3 of the posts are about me (until they are deleted to hide the evidence)?    I guess evidence might help in case I’m accused of lying, but why in the name of all that’s holy would I make this up?

Ya know)

It’s strange that all the folx who were adamant that every business must provide any service demanded of said business, are silent when Twitter suspends the accounts of conservatives with no warning and no explanation.  

Interesting, not really.    The double standard is so common that it’s sumply expected.

We’re not all that.

“Jesus never had a problem with people who knew their shortcomings; He didn’t tolerate people who faked it. Once we get real with where we actually are and our desperate need for Him, He’s got a person He can do something with.”

I think this is more true than ever in our current climate.   Where people insist that humanity is intrinsically good (born pure, sinless, and perfect), where culture and social media decide what’s right and wrong.   

Maybe there’s something to simply, humbly, admitting that we’re sinful, broken people who desperately need a savior.    Maybe it’s ok to be real and transparent about our failings and shortcomings.    

I know that the more I have someone or a group of people that know all my shortcomings, the more free I am to focus on God.   

Stuff

Two things.

I’ve heard a lot of complaints about how gerrymandering benefits the republicans, yet the same people have no problem believing that Orange County somehow magically turned 100% blue.

If you were confronted with 2/3 of your friends who intensely believe something to be true, even though there was absolutely zero evidence that demonstrated the truth of their belief, what would you do?

?

So revoking Acosta’s WH pass because he wasn’t going to surrender the microphone is interfering with his “freedom of speech” and quashing “freedom of the press”, but a violent mob of dantifa thugs  going after Carlson’s family isn’t.  

I get that one is government and the other is a pack of wild leftist thugs, but it’s clear that the thugs want to silence Carlson, while the WH doesn’t want to silence Acosta as much as to deny him the press room stage.

Sometimes Bob Goff just nails it

“If you want a report card on your faith or your life see how you are treating the people you disagree with the most.” 

A strange new world

I’ve never been foolish enough to believe that what happens on the internet is real life, but I do feel like I’ve cultivated some relationships online that I wouldn’t have had any other way.   People who I’d certainly try to connect with if I’m ever near them.

One of those people is Dan.   There are many things I disagree with Dan about and have for years and years.   But I honestly believe that I would enjoy the opportunity to sit down over beverages or with guitars with him and hang out.   Just like I do with other people I disagree with.

Yet somehow after more years of commenting on each other’s blogs, vast numbers of emails, prayers for each other, and sympathy in times of hurt, that all means nothing.     It doesn’t even get me the privilege of an opportunity to “prove” that I’m a real human being.   It certainly doesn’t exempt me from lies being told about me or attacks on my character.  

But that’s ok.   Jesus calls me to love others no matter how they treat me, and I’m going to try to do just that.

It’s still early

It’s still early, but it’s not too soon to wonder what sort of excuses will be offered for the lack of a blue wave.

I’m sure there will be many.

But I’m pretty sure that none of them will involve poor strategy or offensive behavior on the part of the DFL.

A little Charlie Daniels for y’all

“I have prayed and I have voted

That is the limit of my ability to effect this election.

God’s will be done.”

Contradictions

For quite some time, we’ve heard people who espouse a certain political philosophy say things like the following.

Vote for women because they are women and we don’t have enough women in positions of power.
Vote for African-Americans because they are African-American and we don’t have enough African-Americans in positions of power.
Vote for Asians because they are Asians and because we don’t have enough Asians in positions of power.
Vote for immigrants because they are immigrants and we don’t have enough immigrants.
Vote for gay people because we don’t have enough gay people in positions of power.


But all of those things get thrown out the window the minute anyone representing any of those categories decides to run with the wrong political party affiliation.     Now the message is, in order to stamp out racism, boat against black, Asian, and Hispanic conservatives. In order to stamp out sexism, vote against women conservatives.

I’m beginning to think that the goal has never been to advance the interests of the various ethnic and gender groups, but to use members of those groups to advance a political agenda.

 How about this radical idea, vote for people who share your values, who have integrity, who have good character, and who want what’s best for all Americans.  Instead of mindlessly voting because of the letter that comes after their name on the ballot.

Unbiased

Back when I thought that I’d spend my life in the media, they hammered us with the need to be unbiased and objective.   I guess that’s not the case any more.

“In a phone call to @JohnJamesMI's campaign, Brenda Battel, a reporter for a Michigan newspaper, thought she hung up the phone then says: "Man, if he beats her (@stabenow)… Jesus! F*cking John James. That would SUCK!"”

Of course it’s nit racist to believe that the POC beating the white person would “SUCK”.

More wisdom about voting

I am a Christian person, so I think of the Gospel in precisely these terms. The world gives us a million false and contradictory stories about the nature of reality, and each of us (for our own reasons) believes a few of them. (Nobody could believe all of them). The Gospel comes along and says, “Forget about all those other stories. Here’s the story you’re actually living in.” And in the truest story, you don’t have to be afraid, or proud, or self-indulgent, or self-protective. You don’t have to be right. You can say “Oh, what a fool I’ve been.” Then, for the first time, you can stop being such a fool. You don’t have to be the boss. You don’t have to be a victim. You don’t have to jealously guard whatever power you have managed to consolidate. You don’t have to find your sense of self in your race or your gender or your social class or your political leanings. You don’t have to be the hero of the story. You don’t even have to be the main character.

But if the best stories awaken you to the larger, truer story in which you find yourself, there are other stories that shrink your world. These stories convince you that you need to be afraid, that you are a victim, that if you don’t hold tightly to your power or your rights (or, alternatively, if you don’t scrap for more power and more rights), you are doomed, along with everybody you love, and the “other” will triumph over you. These stories try to convince you that you are surrounded by enemies. The villains in these stories are so one-dimensional, the us-and-them dynamics so oversimplified and stereotypical that you would never tolerate them in a work of fiction; you’d throw the book across the room. And yet somehow we let these melodramas shape our sense of what kind of world we live in.

When I look around our political landscape, I feel a little nostalgic for an era when Orwell’s “long words and exhausted idioms” could have seemed like a major threat to democracy (if, indeed, such an era ever existed). Much more serious are the threats posed by very specific, very concrete stories that lie about who we are and how we fit into the world—stories that lie about our fellow human beings, most of whom are just doing the best they can to get along in a world that can be pretty hard to get along in.

Today is election day in the United States. I don’t know what your options are where you live. Some districts have better options than others. But whatever you choose, I hope you don’t choose it because some politician has stirred up your fear and outrage, then offered himself up as the solution to your fear and outrage. We’ve got to start telling better stories—not for the sake of wishful thinking, but because the better stories are true.

You live in a better story than the ones the world is telling you. Take courage.

Voting

I’ll add excerpts throughout the day, as well as some thoughts by others, but I’m going to start with this John Wesley quote from a piece by Scott Sauls.

“For people who will vote, I urge them to vote for those they judge most worthy, and to speak no evil against the person they voted against, and to take care that their spirits are not sharpened against people who voted on the other side.”

“So then, as we in the United States anticipate the election of another new slate of leaders, perhaps we can take a step back and remember a few things.

First, the shoulders of a president and a house and a senate are fare too small to carry a government. Remember that the government is already resting on the shoulders of the Prince of peace. His kingdom is already here, of the increase of His government there will be no end.

Second, the kingdom of God is above this world, and is not of this world. God plays by a different set of rules. His ways are often contrary to ours—and always higher than ours. Remember how little Jesus and the apostles ranted against and panicked over the secular, anti-religious, power-thirsty, and blood-thirsty Caesars of their day. Not once that I can recall. Can you? When face to face with Pilate the governor, who had the power to crucify or set him free, Jesus said, “You would have no power unless it had been given to you from above.” About Herod, the most powerful leader in the land, Jesus called him a fox. This was not a term of endearment or flattery. Rather, it seemed more like a flippant dismissal, even as he was on his way to the cross.

And to us, Jesus never says stand up for your rights. Instead, and into a hostile, anti-religious political climate, he says things like “Blessed are the persecuted” and “Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar.”

And to God what belongs to God.

Third, and to Jesus’ point that all power held by all earthly rulers is given by God alone—The American public will vote this week as it does because God, in the mystery of His providence, has already cast the deciding vote.

Fourth, the heart of every king and ruler (and house member and senator) is in the hands of God.

Fifth, believing people need to be praying for, honoring, speaking well of, and submitting to their leaders. Romans 13, written to Christians living under the heavy, anti-religious, violent fist of the Roman Caesar, says that submitting to government (except when it violates conscience to do so) is a moral imperative. And so is restraining the tongue when we are tempted to curse or speak ill of this leader or that leader.

Sixth, let’s remember that, with very few if any exceptions, Christianity has advanced and flourished most when the state was against Christianity, and it has languished and suffered most when the state was for Christianity.”

“So then, if you are devastated or irate over the outcome of this week’s election, relax. We only need, and already have, one Messiah, and He will not lose this election.

And if you are ecstatic about an election outcome, relax. Take inventory. We only need, and already have, one Messiah, and He will not win this election.“

Could it be?

Could it be that all of the “mindlessly vote straight DFL, or we’ll verbally attack you,”, screeching is an admission that there is no actual positive reason to vote DFL?   I’ve seen a lot of political ads this season and virtually none of the DFL candidates are campaigning on anything that they claim they’ll accomplish.    It seems to me that campaigning on “The other guys are so bad you should hold your nose and vote for us.”, isn’t exactly “Ask not what you country...”, nor is “Morning in America” or a “Bright shining city on a hill”.   It’s simply pandering to hatred for “the other”.  If a few corrupt old white guys stay in office, and if a few minority women get trampled in the stampede, that’s just collateral damage.  

Is it possible, after being unable to put forth a candidate or a positive vision that was unable to beat the worst GOP candidate in modern political cal history, that doubling down on hatred and vitriol might not be a winning strategy?   That maybe only being against everything isn’t a compelling rallying cry?  Maybe demanding that people vote for your candidates “no matter what” isn’t the best option.   Maybe inentity politics writ large, doesn’t work.    Maybe demanding people’s votes, while excluding their voices won’t be as effective as y’all think.

I don’t know.  I know I’m going to vote on character first and party affection second and see how it plays out.

No matter what the results, I suspect the vitriol, name calling, hatred, division, and lies will be a tsunami of the blue wave peters out.

I just read

I just read some idiot seriously arguing that we should vote mindlessly for Democrats.    That’s right, ignore the credible accusations against Ellison, the fact that Menendez is a scumbag, the fact that racists and anti semites have a comfortable home in the Democratic Party, ignore Beto and his running away from the cone of a crime, ignore it all.    Ignore the Mia Love’s of the world, ignore everything that might be considered objective and blindly, mindlessly vote straight Democrat.  

Because they have conservatives best interests at heart.

As I’ve thought about this, I’ve realized that this attitude is even more insidious than it first appeared.  

The Democrat party certainly isn’t interested in me as a fully functioning member of the party, and with allowing me full voice regarding issues that are important to me.   It’s clear that
 I’m not welcome there unless I’m a mindless, mechanical, automaton, who simply votes the way they want me to.   Unfortunately, I’m also feeling less at home in the GOP either.  

Ultimately, no matter how this works out, I’m committed to not simply voting mindlessly, or mechanically, but to trying to be informed and to vote according to my principles.

Inconsistent much

"We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them."

So, the way to stop demonizing people is to engage in broad brush demonization.   

Credit/Blame

I can hear the Trump haters now.  Blaming Trump for the recent decline in the stock markets.    I have absolutely no problem blaming Trump, as long as you are prepared to give him credit for the significant increases that have happened since he’s been elected.    

Post-truth

ADJECTIVE

• Relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.

  
  

  
  

  In a world where this is a dictionary definition of an actual term, how can anyone actually complain when politicians don’t tell the truth?   
  
  

Interesting bit of Eurocentric neocolonialism

“It’s quite interesting that the European bishops with nearly empty churches and dwindling vocations say “change this, change that” while the African bishops with full churches and exploding vocations say “don’t be afraid to teach the truth””

Bad

Under no circumstances is it in any way acceptable to send or place explosives or poison or any other substance that would cause harm, at the home (or in the mailbox of) anyone you disagree with about anything.  

I learned something

Apparently “immigrant” is now a race.  

What kind of racist would say this?

“We simply cannot allow people to pour into the U.S., undetected, undocumented, unchecked and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, lawfully to become immigrants in this country”

What to do?

A man claims Corey Booker sexually assaulted him.  At this point we have absolutely nothing concrete to go on and clearly Booker is innocent until proven guilty.

The question before us is, “Do we apply the same standard to Bookers accuser that we apply to Kavanaugh’s?”.

Or,  Does the fact that Booker’s accuser is a man mean that we automatically don’t believe him?

This illustrates the problem with the “Uncritically believe all women” narrative, it places more importance on the gender of the alleged victim, than on what actually happened.

Hopefully it’ll bring a little balance to the conversation.

Even if this proves to be false, the questions are still valid as a hypothetical.

It’s your truth

This is a phrase we hear more and more frequently in our culture.   “My truth”, or “your truth” are tossed around to justify all sorts of things.

If we live in a world of personal, individual truth, then are Trump, Warren, O’Rourke, etc actually lying?

Aren’t they just telling “their truth”?

Ronald

Ronald DiRisi, just one more example of the growing wave of right wing violence.

Stupid lies

It’s been suggested that candidates who tell “stupid lies” are unfit for public office.

Does telling lies about your own mother qualify as stupid?
Does telling lies that are easily demonstrated to be lies qualify as stupid?

Really....

If it’s really a “scary time” for men, it’s probably much more “scary” for conservative and/or Christian men than for liberal/non Christian men.

Silence

Christian Pakistani woman sentenced to death because she wouldn’t convert to Islam (precipitated because she drank from the “wrong” water cup.  Liberals who allegedly espouse “human rights” and tout Islam as the “religion of peace” remain totally silent.

Let’s put this in perspective, there is more uproar (and racism) triggered because Kanye soent time in the Oval Office, than for a woman sentenced to death for being a Christian.  More perspective, it’s ok when rappers with the same sort of lyrical genius and class as Kanye pal around with P-BO, but let Kanye stray off the liberal plantation and let the racism and charges of mental illness fly.  

I have noticed a few courageous leftists who have had the amazing fortitude to gently point out that Hillary was mildly incorrect in her recent comments about her husband engaging in sexual harassment.    It’s not as consistent as you’d like, but it’s a start and I applaud it.

Lying for truth

I once heard the following.

“Fighting for peace, is like having sex for virginity.”

Leaving aside the bad comparison, it’s interesting how folk who might have supported this sort of statement have adopted the very thing they protested against.

Now we see folx doing the following.

Lying to protest lies.
Slander to protest slander.
Hate and vitriol to protest hate and vitriol.
Violence to protest violence.
Support of obstruction to protest obstruction.
Racism to protest racism.

It’s sad to watch the “by any means necessary” crowd adopt the very tactics and actions they’ve been claiming they oppose, while offering ridiculous justifications for becoming exactly what they protest against.

Whether it’s in the Congress, mobs on the streets, those who hide behind the anonymity of social media, or bloggers who trade in inconsistency and falsehood, it’s an interesting case study of an entire political movement debasing themselves.

“Oh Lord, knower of all hearts, ruler of all governments, don’t let a good man be destroyed by lies, and don’t let a liar on the supreme court.“

While I agree with the sentiment, I’d venture to say that everyone who’s ever been a Supreme Court Justice is a liar.   

Prediction

I’m going to make some predictions.

1.  That there are enough Democrats who want to at least appear to be somewhat non partisan to allow this break/investigation to pass.
2.  That if the result of this investigation is anything less than the wholesale destruction of Kavanaugh’s character, that the left will refuse to accept the results.
3.  The GOP will never learn that the left will never be satisfied, even when they get what they ask for.

Do you believe

We now have is people who claim that “gender is fluid”, assigning binary characteristics to people based on their gender.

We now have people who encourage and excuse violence against police, attacking someone who got angry defending himself from claims he believes to be false.

We now have people who deny the very concept of objective truth, up in arms about people “lying”.

Belief

Someone named “Science Mike” posted the following on Twitter?

“I believe women.”

I wonder if he realizes that he just announced to the twitterverse that he places more confidence in someone’s gender, than in facts or truth. 

One wonders if a trans man (ie man who thinks he’s a woman) qualifies for that automatic uncritical belief.   

Contributions

So, if I contributed $30,000 to a political party and as a result received $500,000 in government subsidies for my (already profitable) business, would anyone have a problem with that?

You might be...

“If you're intolerant of people you think are intolerant, you're being intolerant. Intolerance of intolerance is still intolerance.”

Apparently

Apparently I’ve got some sort of internet stalker situation.   When I’m the topic of conversation in comments on multiple blogs, and the topic of multiple posts, I’m not sure if I should be flattered, disgusted, or creeped out.

When we say "I can't believe in a God who would ___", we're saying we don't really want a God beyond our comprehension.

The Op/Ed

Much has been made recently of the anonymous Op/Ed that appeared in the NYT, purportedly authored by someone in the current administration.   I’ve got a few thoughts, and will possibly add more later.

I’ll start with the obvious.   It’s anonymous, unsourced, unverified, piece of opinion.    By definition, we have no way to judge the veracity of the piece or the credibility of either the piece or the author.   Unlike a hard news story, which requires things like sources and facts, this is an opinion.   Yet it’s being treated as some sort of holy writ.

As a general rule, my respect for someone increases proportionally with the amount of risk they take or courage they show.   In this case the author is either scared that they’ll lose their job, or narcissistic enough to think that they have the power to fix the situation.   Neither option fills me with confidence.    In most situations, rational people give less credence to anonymous complaints.  

While I am sympathetic to the general premise that Trump may suffer from some sort or degree of mental illness or loss of capacity related to his age, one anonymous opinion piece is not justification to invoke the 25th amendment.   At this point deposing a president based on one person’s anonymous opinion seems more like some banana republic coup than anything else.

I have to note the hypocrisy (for lack of a better term) of those who use this as a cudgel against Trump, while ignoring the clearly expressed fact that the writer wants to further many of his policies. Policies with which these folx disagree.  

Again, I’ve said for quite some time that Trump is amoral and that this is one of the reasons why I couldn’t support or vote for him.  However, in a society with no objective standards of morality, by what standard does someone (with no objective moral standard) judge amorality to be objectively bad?    Darwinian theory is amoral.   Utilitarian philosophy is amoral.    Once again, I’m struck by a society which denies objective truth and objective morality, being critical of Trump for violating the standards they deny exist.

Gotta work, more later.

Cyberspace

The more time I spend on social media and at various blogs, the more convinced I am that way to many folx just use those platforms to parade their monomania to the world.

And the world encourages them to do so.

I just saw..,

I just saw a Christian musician post about how much she lived Queer Eye.

Doesn’t presenting gay men as some sort of fashion gurus reinforce negative stereotypes about gay men?

Oops

Sounds like significant amounts of Hillary’s  emails ended up in the hands of the Chinese.  Don’t worry, there’s no story here.

Fruits of the spirit

 Scripture tells us that if God‘s Spirit lives in us, that we will manifest certain characteristics because of that fact. These are referred to as the fruits of the spirit. They are:   Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness,gentleness, respect, and self-control. Way too frequently Christians today ignore or demean these things or sacrifing them on the altar of self.

Love gets twisted in to license
Joy gets demeaned into merely feeling “happy”
Peace is submerged either in infighting or the epidemic of depression and anxiety that is growing
Patience is lost in a culture of immediate self gratification
Kindness is reserved for those on “our side” or those who can befefit us
Gentleness only applies to those who agree with you
Respect is more and more conditional
Self control is simply ridiculed and dismissed as unrealistic


Basically we’ve entered a time when way to many who claim to be Christian, say “Fxxx” all these things.    It’s all about what I think is best for me, not what’s best for others or for the Body of Christ.

The great thing about these, is how counterintuitive and countercultureal they are.   When the culture says, it’s OK to attack those with whom you disagree, and the fruits of the spirit indicate otherwise. Just like “Love your enemies” runs counter to what our society tells us.   There is not a list of people, or groups of people, that these things don’t apply to. There Aren’t any exceptions, or excuses.

 The only reason that any of us fail to demonstrate the fruits of the spirit is that we decide we know better. We decide that we don’t have to be gentle to those people, because those people aren’t gentle to us or to others.  Or we think that we don’t have to exercise self-control because we live in an age of instant gratification and anything that makes us wait must be bad. It’s our natural ,sinful desire to assert that we know better than God.

Inclusion

It’s always kind of amusing when people who is political philosophy is centered around the virtues like inclusion and tolerance all of us sudden rush to embrace exclusion and intolerance.

“We reject...”

“We reject your Notions of virtue.”

This is a bold, yet problematic claim.

It’s boldness comes in presuming to speak for some unknown “we”, and presuming that simply announcing what “we” reject carries any weight in the world of objective reality.

It’s problematic in the following ways.

1.  The writer is presuming that he knows specifically what “Notions of virtue” he is rejecting, when no specific “Notions of virtue” have been enumerated for the mystery “we” to reject.

2.  It’s unckear if the entire “Notion” of actual virtues existing is being rejected, or if point #1 is operative.

3.  The “Notion” of virtues extends back as far as Ancient Greece, it seems strange that “we” appear willing to throw the baby out with the bath water in this instance.

What’s strange is that the only specific virtue under discussion can best be described as “I You as young men behave in a gentlemanly fashion (respect, honor, value women because they have value), then women might react positively towards you.”

On the one hand that could be viewed in a cynical, transactional, pragmatic manner (If you do X, then Y), and perceived as a way to manipulate.   Or one could argue that it’s a restatement of the virtually universal “Treat others as you wish to be treated”.

In either case, why anyone would reject highly valuing,honoring, and respecting women because of their intrinsic value as humans?

Ancient Greece founded their ethical system in 4 virtues.

Prudence
Justice
Temperance
Courage

Later The Church added

Faith
Hope
Love

If these are the “Notions of virtue” you “reject”, what a depressing and nihilistic world you inhabit.

Francis

I know a lot of people who are great admirers of Pope Francis, especially his lean towards the left on various social issues.   But we’re now hearing that Francis knowingly and intentionally covered up for and maintained someone in a position of power in the RCC who was heavily involved in the homosexual sexual abuse scandal.    If these accusations are true, and the source seems credible, then how can those who jump on the bandwagon with Francis’ social justice pronouncements not immidiately separate themselves from him.  Don’t Francis and those like him bear a high degree of responsibility for the decades of homosexual sexual abuse in the RCC?   Don’t those who support him bear some of that responsibility as well?

Irony

The irony of one anonymous troll, hiding behind a pseudonym, and an empty blog profile (whose admitted that he hides his identity) refusing  to answer questions from someone who posts as anonymous on a blog, is stunning.

The sense of humor deficit that is deleting my attempts to point this irony out is equally amusing.

Responsibility

This new leftist concept of responsibility is strange and a bit self serving.

Dozens of people killed or injured in Chicago and the response is that the people of Indiana are responsible.

People who advocate treating women with respect and honor are somehow equated with rapists.

People who have violated US immigration law, and commit murder in the US aren’t representative of  the broader population of people who have chosen to violate immigration laws, but the 97% of gun owners who have never committed a crime with a gun are somehow responsible for the 3% who do.

My antecedents were mostly relative latecomers to the US, except the significant part of my antecedents who were Cherokee, yet somehow I’m branded as a racist and bear some degree of responsibility for slavery.   Although the native Americans were societies that practiced slavery.

I, and others, didn’t support or vote for Trump yet are somehow responsible for him winning the election.  

Chicago has a significant problem with violence, we’ve been told that cites like Minneapolis, Baltimore, St Louis, etc have a problem with systemic racism, yet the political party that has run the system in those cities for decades somehow is absolved of responsibility for what they’ve overseen.

I have no problem being responsible for my actions, I even accept that I bear some degree of responsibility for my families actions, also for those I vote for (unlike those on the left).   But this concept that people are responsible for things they’ve had no part in, or that they haven’t done is more than a little strange.  

Trump is a bad, bad man

At the risk of repeating myself, Donald Trump is a person of low character and because of his character failings I chose not to support him in the 2016 election, and won't in 2020 either.

He is clearly someone for whom honesty and transparency are foreign concepts.   He ethics are dependent solely on his perception of what's best for him at any given moment.  His repeated unfaithfulness to his wives, as well as his multiple divorces, are reason enough not to support him.  

I could go on and list in great detail, and with great vitriol each and every failure of character Trump has.  I could ascribe those character failings to him being "evil" or "depraved" or debauched" or any number of things.

But, for me, the fact that he holds his marriage vows in such low esteem tells me enough about his lack of character and morals that I have no real need to expound further.

Has he told more lies that anyone, ever in the history of American politics?  I have no idea, nor do the people who make those sorts of claims.  Has Trump done things that I have agreed with, sure he has.  But I almost always find things that presidents I didn't support have done that I have agreed with.

Were his comments about forcing himself on women crude, vile, and inexcusable? Of course, yet we still have statues and venerate Harvey Milk who did much worse things that Trump talked about.

Unfortunately the problem ins't so much that Trump is a person severely lacking in character, that's a given.  It's the fact that those who hate him, don't hold those on their own side to a remotely similar standard.  

Of course, as people who profess a belief in Christ, shouldn't our posture toward Trump (and others) be one of working, praying, and hoping for him to repent?  For him to acknowledge his failures and to respond to the saving grace of Jesus? 

Finally, do I need, want, or hope to impose my views on others? No, I'm not responsible for others.  Do I hope that we have better choices in 2020 than in 2016?  Yes I do.   Do I feel a compulsion to be disagreeable, or to lie about those I disagree with?  No I don't. 

Convicted

Paul Manafort was convicted today on numerous charges of election fraud, collusion with the Russians, and various other tamperings with various elections.  Thank goodness.

It seems that Cohen has implicated Trump in using campaign funds for illegal payoffs.   If there’s evidence, let the impeachment begin.    But, until the evidence comes out let’s remember,   Cohen’s claims don’t make Trump guilty, and why would someone with access to literally billions of dollars use campaign funds for payoffs?

A little unwell

I saw a post on Twitter today that suggested that Trump has some sort of mental illness, and that it is getting worse.   Now, I have no standing to address the validity of this claim, but some of the things he says make me wonder.  

But, what I wonder, is what the response would be from those who hate him if this theory is true.   If, in reality Trump is mentally ill, then wouldn’t that mean that he’s not evil?   Wouldn’t that mean that empathy and concern are more appropriate than hatred and vitriol?   Wouldn’t that mean that he should be dealt with under the 25th amendment rather than through impeachment?  Wouldn’t that mean that treatment rather than punishment would be appropriate?   Most of all would those who spew hatred be able or willing to admit that they were wrong?

Clearly this would be an unprecedented situation and would require an unprecedented response.  But, I suspect that concern, compassion, and empathy would be in short supply.

White supremacist...

White supremacist, lifetime NRA member, Trump supporter, establishes a compound in New Mexico to train children to commit school shootings and the mainstream media and liberal social media goes crazy.


Oh, sorry.   That isn’t right.   He’s a Muslim and the liberal media/leftist social media types are silent.  Maybe because they’re so busy covering the plethora on rockets that the apartheid loving Israelis are living into palestine.  

Oh, no.  That’s wrong too.

But Trump!!!!

The numbers of dead and wounded continue to rise in Chicago.  The (peaceful, tolerant, nonviolent) left continues to both encourage and engage in violence against those they disagree with, the media, and the police.   A high ranking official on the DFL is credibly accused of domestic violence.

Yet the silence continues. 

If only someone with all the answers would spend less time trying to ascribe thoughts, motives, and various “isms” to others and present a detailed, defined plan that would solve problems...

Yet the silence continues.    As does the support for Kieth Ellison.   It’s not enough that this idiot is riding his race and religion to various posts of prominence, it’s that his sycophants refuse to hold the accusations against his to the same level of acceptance as they do for those they hate.

Liberal black candidate makes racist comments about an Asian candidate, yet silence from the leftists  on blogs and social media continues.

It’s interesting that a blog post about the silence from leftists when folks on their side of things engage in behavior they deplore in those they hate doesn’t generate on topic comments.

The silence continues.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg makes an apparently racist comment, and the silence continues.

I've noticed that the alleged "answer" to solve the violence problem is to blame other people.   In order to stop violence in Chicago, we need to impose our will on the people of Indiana.   We need to spend more federal education dollars. or whatever.

I guess trying to teach people the simple concept that violence isn't always the best response and that people should be responsible for their own behavior is just too difficult.

Logical fallacies

A few years ago when “gay marriage” was on the ballot here, a famous nightclub put up a billboard that parroted the “You can’t control who you love” party line. Around the same time, a blogger asserted that “marriage equity for all” was his goal.     Yet, when pressed, its clear that these folks on the political left don’t really mean what they say.   They always have exceptions for “all”.   Yet, the same arguments used for “gay marriage” also work for any number of other loving relationships.

At the time, folks on the political right were suggesting that “gay marriage” was only the first step towards normalization of other sexual attractions.  While those on the left said “Foul, slippery slope logical fallacy”.

Yet, as we see pedophilia being spoken of in academic settings as just one more “sexual preference”, the wholesale denial of biology as it relates to gender, and leftist political parties in Europe, and the UN, working to protect child marriage, one wonders when the slippery slope moves from fallacy to reality.

We see vociferous criticism of child marriage or slavery when our 21st century mores are retroactively applied to Olt Testament stories, yet silence about those things happening in the present.  

I suspect that some of the silence is related to the popular leftist narratives regarding certain cultures and the all around wonderful nature of multiculturalism without questions.

Like many things, it just makes you wonder.

I've failed.

When I left for vacation last week, my intention was to avoid commenting or interacting with anything said on any of the blogs I follow.  Primarily because I was unaware that I would have as much internet access as I do.

However, there were two comments made in the verbal srcum that is the recent thread at Dan's that I couldn't resist.  I'm doing this here for a couple of reasons.  Mostly because adding another voice to a long and meandering thread didn't seem helpful, also because having more internet than I thought I'd have doesn't translate into having the same coverage I'd have at home.

If you want the context, go to Dan's.

"Can you at least understand how a person of good faith and great love for the Bible might reach that conclusion?"

Yes, I can understand how that could, happen.

The counter question is.  Dan, can you understand how a person of good faith and great love for the Bible could reach a conclusion other than the one you have?   Or put another way.  Are you willing to grant those who disagree with you the same level of understanding and courtesy you ask from them?

  "I'm just noting the reality that God is not an intervener God's own Self."

To this is simply say bullshit.

I've got a 22 year old son who wouldn't be out riding an ATV up the side of a 14,000 foot mountain with his mother, if "God wasn't an intervener".

So, with all respect, bullshit.

“You came responding, but not answering the claim, and did so in a rude and non-humble manner.”

“See the difference? A bit of humility will take you a long way in life, sir.”

It’s always amusing when someone points out their own flaws in others.  




Note:

Feo, I know your obsessed with commenting here without having done what you've been asked to do (detailed, specific plan with definitions of terms),  that restriction still stands.   

Hiram

Hiram,

I want to apologize to you.  Apparently I had my blogger settings at their default positions, which only allows people with blogger accounts to comment.  This was inadvertent, and I apologize.  

The reason I started this blog was because I was discriminated against for not having a blogger account by a so called supporter of inclusiveness and tolerance.   I didn’t intend to have this be that place.

But I’ve changed that.  I’m open to everyone.  

Welcome.

Just another random quote.

“What a mess pride makes when it creeps into our Bible reading. Arrogance in reading mutes an author before he starts talking. It is rude to do it to human writers, and fatal to do it to God.”

Would that this was our prayer

Father, we call Thee Father because we love Thee. We are glad to be called Thy children, and to dedicate our lives to the service that extends through willing hearts and hands to the betterment of all mankind [humankind]. We send a cry of Thanksgiving for people of all races, creeds, classes, and colors the world over, and pray that through the instrumentality of our lives the spirit of peace, joy, fellowship, and brotherhood [personhood] shall circle the world. We know that this world is filled with discordant notes, but help us, Father, to so unite our efforts that we may all join in one harmonious symphony for peace and brotherhood [personhood], justice, and equality of opportunity for all men [people]. The tasks performed today with forgiveness for all our errors, we dedicate, dear Lord, to Thee. Grant us strength and courage and faith and humility sufficient for the tasks assigned to us. 

---

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

LEAVE A REPLY.

RSS Feed

Misdemeanors

I’ve seen multiple people argue that crossing the border (once) without going through the process is a misdemeanor, and that it’s not a crime.  

Yet, when it comes to the actions of those we disagree with politically, all of a solution Deb conviction for a misdemeanor makes one a “criminal”

“ I will, however, cite an article about how he was convicted of placing a GPS tracer on his wife's car (a misdemeanor, but creepy-sounding, at the very least) and note that here is another instance of the GOP running a criminal””

A misdemeanor is either a crime, or it’s not, please pick one standard and stick with it.

What would it look like?

Jesus tells us to “Bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.”.

If we actually tried to live this out, what would blogging and social media look like?

I’ll admit that blessing certain folk isn’t my first reaction, but what if it was?

I’m not going to argue with him.

“The truth is that there is no black race-and there is no white race.   So the idea of “racial reconciliation” is a false idea.  It implies that there is more than one race. This is absolutely false.  God created only one race-the human race.”

Curious

If a city government engages in the the same types of racist behavior over a long period of time, isn't there a point where you might think that electing members of the same political party over and over again would be a bad idea?  Or, that it might be reasonable to assign some level of responsibility or blame tho the political party that has been in power for decades?

An opinion

“Chick-fil-A: Serves ANYONE who walks through their doors.

Red Hen: Refuses service to people associated with Trump.

That’s the difference between a Christian Conservative business and a Liberal business.”

A random tweet from earlier.  

Agreement

I think it'll make sense for me to just point out which of Dan's points I agree with, for two reasons.
1.  It'll save time
2.  It begins with common ground.

So, without further ado, here we go.



"2. I would still have check points and background checks as we do now, ...

3. Engage in public/private/ONG partnerships that will provide safe havens in countries where a high degree of danger exists.

4. Implement a targeted effort to improve living conditions in countries with high numbers of people who want to immigrate.

5. Implement a more accurate/faster screening system.

6. Eliminate quotas based on country of origin.

7. Work with other countries to facilitate spreading out immigration. As a very large and extremely wealthy nation, our fair share would be larger than smaller nations with fewer resources. Of course.

8. Base immigration policy on evaluation of individual situations.

9. Establish a four pronged system to effectively deal with different types of immigrants. 1. Highly skilled immigrants, 2. Refugees, 3. Lower skilled immigrants, 4. Criminals/terrorists. If there were any priorities given, it would be to those fleeing violence/starvation."


All of the above, as edited, I agree with.  If anyone in congress put forth a bill with the points listed above I would support it.

What I would add.

A.  I would add more places outside of the US where the screening (or pre screening) can be done early.  My hope would be that the screening could be done while the immigrants are in transit to expedite either entry or repatriation.

B.  Expand the number of entry points, the number of screeners, and  adequate areas where immigrants can stay while going through the screening process.  Especially expand the number of spaces suitable for families.

C.  Rethink the use of foreign aid money away from government to government aid and toward government to private or ONG aid.

D.  Given the ability of the US military to transport, feed, house, provide medical care and other basic services to large numbers of people find innovative ways to involve the military in the processing and care of immigrants.



The question before us now, is how Dan will react to this.   Will he agree that the two lists above would be something that the two of us could agree to compromise on and agree that something like the above would be a a policy that we both could support (if it was actually proposed as a bill), or will he decide that he can't compromise at all.

My hope would be that he could find a spirit of compromise.

Either way, I'll look at the rest of his list another time.

Dan's immigration plan.

 After a bit of prodding and respectful pressure, Dan came up with a list of specific policy proposals that he believes would help to improve the immigration situation in the US.  I'm posting his comment in it's entirety to maintain the context that he wrote it in.  I'm also posting it here, and will be responding here, because I would rather not be subject to the restrictions on commenters that Dan often implements.   I will deal with each point or points in a separate post, to allow for some focus on the specific point and to make it easier to keep track of.

Finally, while I realize that the nature of a discussion is that  it will wander away from strictly sticking to the original topic and don't want to stifle that natural tendency to drift, I reserve the right to delete, edit, or relocate comments comments that go too far astray.   Personal attacks, foul language, and general vitriol will be grounds for adjusting comments.


 ------------------------------Dan's Post----------------------------------

SOME OF WHAT I WOULD SPECIFICALLY PROPOSE FOR HANDLING IMMIGRATION AND FOREIGN POLICY CONCERNS...

1. End the criminalization of Immigration, especially and specifically for those seeking safety/a better life.

2. I would still have check points and background checks as we do now, but it would NOT be a crime if you ended up across the border without the proper documentation. I would not take children from their families if they were found across the border without documentation. It would be a paperwork problem, and you would be required to get your paperwork in order, but NOT a crime, because it isn't a crime, morally speaking. Criminalizing seeking safety IS a crime.

3. Engage in public/private/ONG partnerships that will provide safe havens in countries where a high degree of danger exists. 3a. FUND THE STATE DEPARTMENT sufficiently, this can be done by ending the huge investments in the Defense Department, as many military leaders request be done. This is done recognizing that more nations being stable and safe reduce the need for military responses.
3b. Make financial reparations for all the poorer nations that we have exploited or caused damage to. We should begin, for instance, by paying our war crimes debt to Nicaragua, but it would extend far beyond that.

4. Implement a targeted effort to improve living conditions in countries with high numbers of people who want to immigrate.

5. Implement a more accurate/faster screening system.

6. Eliminate quotas based on country of origin.

7. Work with other countries to facilitate spreading out immigration. As a very large and extremely wealthy nation, our fair share would be larger than smaller nations with fewer resources. Of course.

8. Base immigration policy on evaluation of individual situations. IF someone reports fleeing danger/starvation, take that claim seriously, because turning away someone in such circumstances would be criminal.

9. Establish a four pronged system to effectively deal with different types of immigrants. 1. Highly skilled immigrants, 2. Refugees, 3. Lower skilled immigrants, 4. Criminals/terrorists. If there were any priorities given, it would be to those fleeing violence/starvation.

10. Since we would have decriminalized immigration, Sanctuary cities would probably disappear... but to the degree that any cities were still providing sanctuary for whatever reason, Good on them, may their tribe increase. Providing sanctuary IS the business of government when it's properly working, as well as the business of individuals, churches and other civic groups.

11. Anyone who lies about their status, age, or any material fact that would give them an advantage to immigrate, will be permanently blocked from access to the US... would be a policy that would go away because it is presumptuous and probably racist. Anyone who lies about their application BECAUSE they wish to cause harm would be held accountable, as all people who wish to cause harm are held accountable. Lying about one's age or other points for reasons of escaping violence is a reasonable thing to do. Nonetheless, it will be discouraged and we'll let people know that the old way of criminalizing immigration is done away with.

With criminalized immigration and the demonization and racist tropes espoused by the current administration go away, it will become apparent that the old sheriff is gone and a new, more reasonable and adult and moral day has come.