Veggie-tari-N-ism

I've recently decided to become a vegetarian. I wrote this list to explains my reasons. It sounds nerdy, but hopefully it articulates my reasoning well...


Reasons for Vegetarianism:

1. Ethical-The way animals are horrendously [mis]treated, as well as the terrible conditions they are subjected to, is unethical. (Too put it nicely.)

2. Moral-The mistreatment of animals, as well as the sheer number of animals eaten, which forces them to be treated as commodities, devalues animals and is immoral.

3. Environmental- The meat industry is the biggest contributor to global warming. Even if you don't accept man-caused global warming (that's another discussion), there is no arguing that factory farming has lead to significant and extensive environmental degradation and pollution.

4. World Food Supply- As the world's population expands and the growth rate accelerates, and more developing countries can afford meat-intensive diets (like China and India, for instance), diets that include eating meat are simply unsustainable, and will lead to an increase in food shortages and global poverty.

5. Ecological Destruction- Besides the negative ecological impact of factory farms, aquaculture is destroying thousands of species of fish, mollusks, and algae, as well as causing significant destruction to the world's coastal and oceanic ecosystems.

6. Concerns over Food Safety
a. Concerns over many of the possibly harmful chemical substances, growth hormones, pesticides, antivirals, and preservatives used in meat production and storage.
b. Concerns over the presence of dangerous bacteria (especially enterobacteria, such as ecoli and salmonella), in meat, as well as the high possibly of the creation, mutation, and spread of such viruses as Swine Flu, Avian Flu, and other strains of influenza, prion-produced illnesses and diseases such as Mad Cow Disease, and other bacteria produced and foodborne illnesses.
c. Concerns over antibiotics used in animals, and the possibly of resulting reduced consumer immunity.

7. Worker Danger-
a. The majority of workers in the meat industry (i.e. factory farms and slaughterhouses) work in extremely poor and dangerous conditions, which numerous human rights organizations have designated as human rights violations.
b. Numerous mental health organizations have documented concerns over the psychological impact of contemporary factory farming and slaughterhouse methods on workers.


8. The Destruction of Family Farming- The growth of factory farming and the increased consolidation in the meat industry has forced a great number of "family farmers" out of business and has negatively transformed the meat industry.

9. Health- There are many studies that have concluded that well-planned vegetarians diets can actually be more healthy than diets which include meat consumption.

10. God's Ideal- From a religious perspective, I believe God's ideal, per Genesis (specifically Genesis 2:29-30 and Genesis 9:2), as well as many other verses throughout the Bible (such as Isaiah 11:6 and 65:25 most prominently), is for animals to not be predators, or preyed upon and killed for food.

11. From a merely personal standpoint, I find it difficult to reconcile eating animals with my belief in the Consistent Life Ethic. (In fact, some include vegetarianism in the Consistent Life Ethic, which is why a large segment of the estimated 400 to 600 million vegetarians worldwide is comprised of Buddhists, Hindus, and Quakers who subscribe to this type of belief system.)

Reasons against Vegetarianism:

1. Eating meat is more socially accepted.

2. From a functionality standpoint, a carnivorous diet is unquestionably easier, despite what some vegetarians may say. (Though maintaining a vegetarian diet is becoming easier everyday.)

3. Meat is rather tasty. (Depending on which kind of meat you're eating.)


I don't agree with a good amount of the philosophy and methodology of the more "liberal" stream of the animal rights movement, which is largely based on deep ecology theory and/or ecofeminism, both of which I have significant disagreements with. I'm not attempting to answer the question, or even ask the question, "Has eating meat always been wrong, or is it always wrong?" I have no good answer for that question. However, I do believe that in the context of the way meat is currently raised and slaughtered (i.e. factory farming, as stated)), as well as viewed in the context of the current poverty and environmental crises we face, the number of reasons to NOT eat meat far, far, far outweigh the number of reasons TO eat meat. , which is hopefully demonstrated through my list.

Things I Love About Fall

Deliciously good things about the autumn season:

The changing color of leaves (of course).
Hot Chocolate (or hot cocoa if you prefer).
Football season.
Halloween, ghost stories, tales of all things haunted, and everything that comes with it!
A hot car on a cold morning.
Hot Apple Cider. (Or the even tastier carmel apple cider at Winans, made courtesy of the fine baristas there.)
The Baseball playoffs.
Bonfires.
Warm cookies.
The nearing of the holiday season.
Any good new fall movie or tv show.
The chilly feel in the air.
The start of the basketball season.
Long nature walks that you have to bundle up for.
A good book on a cold day.

A Few Thoughts during Channel Surfing

I'm a habitual channel surfer, and last week when I was flipping through channels I stumbled upon Rachael Maddow on her MSNBC show complaining about the protesters of Obama's healthcare reform plans, and Glenn Beck, invoking the word "Nazi" in the argument. I agreed that the word has no place in American political discourse. However, I have seen very few protesters using the term. It's the media who emphasizes the one or two people with Nazi signs at these protests and talks about them. Do you ever notice that they also talk about the few angry people at the town hall meetings, instead of most who are calm and respectful? (Of course that wouldn't be much of a story.) Furthermore, this is a blatant, and very annoying, case of hypocrisy. For eight years, people called George W. Bush Hitler, a war criminal (if GWB is a war criminal, then comparatively so are the majority of U.S. presidents), and every other nasty name possible. Yet it's not until now Maddow and so many Democrats are calling for civility.

Maddow specifically singled out Glenn Beck for labeling Obama a Nazi. But the couple of times I've seen Beck lately and seen him talk about health care reform, he's explicitly said the health care reform, as well as Obama, are not Nazi-like. (I still don't understand how Nazism has anything to do with the health care reform plans Obama and the Democrats have.)

After I watched that segment, Maddow talked about how nutty Glenn Beck is. She discussed his recent show which he talked about the FEMA concentration camps that many believe the government has set up to imprison citizens and illegal aliens. The discussion made it sound like Beck believes that these camps exist and that the government is ready to use them. Except that Beck stated over and over on his show that the idea was idiotic and it was crazy to believe that there are these camps.

Then she had a Sarah Palin quote read with an annoying voiceover, clearly meant to demean Palin. That's how to promote civility and rational discussion, to mocking someone and acting as if they're stupid? Like many people I've seen lately, they talk a good game about not being hateful or dishonest, but then they do the exact same thing they claim they're trying to stop.

I like Maddow, and she seems like a she's probably be a cool person to hang out with, but I wish she'd be unbiased for once and get her facts straight. There is no difference in the games Democrats and Republicans play. Both play nasty. Instead of only telling half of the story, let's call it how it is.

After I watched that for a couple minutes, I flipped down to the next channel. Sean Hannity's Show; Hannity, was on. The former Miss California, Carrie Prejean, who caused such a stir in the spring, was on, talking about her views on health care reform. Are Republicans really that desperate? Have they really stooped that low? I don't have a big problem with Prejean. She seems like a nice person and I respect her. (Though I think it could be questioned whether she, as a Christian, should have been in a beauty show and gotten breast implants to get ahead.) She handled herself well for everything she went through. But what authority does Ms. California have to talk about health care reform? And why would her opinions interest me?

Speaking of Glenn Beck, I hear a lot of people make fun of him and paint him to be some idiot, because he does some crazy stuff and cries a lot. I disagree with him often and think he's repetitive, just like most radio and talk show hosts; I'm no homer. He's definitely over-the-top, which is sometimes annoying, sometimes a little weird, but usually a entertaining. He's not an idiot; he went to Yale. His life's been filled with tragedy. What person, who's a recovering alcoholic and heroine addict, who has a daughter with cerebral palsy, and had a mother and brother commit suicide, another brother have a fatal heart attack, would not be a little crazy and overly emotional? Most people in his situation would probably be dead. At least he tries to bring some humor and fun to dull political topics. Yet it's alright for Democrats who disagree with him to make fun of him and act like he's stupid. It's good for promoting civility in political debate and surely good for the country.

I saw Tom DeLay, the former House Majority Leader, was recently announced as one of the participants for next's season's Dancing With the Stars. (To show you that I don't follow the show, I don't know anyone who's supposed to be on the year in the upcoming season, and I couldn't name the winner of any of the previous seasons.) Delay was ousted from office for allegations of bribery, and I'm wondering who he bribed here. It seems very strange that he would be on the show. I don't know why anybody would be interested in having him on there. He's not exactly a hot celebrity, or paparazzi material, and he's not very well-liked by a large segment of the population. Strange.

After a minute, I proceeded to flip on down to the Reds game, where they were losing what must have been their 500th consecutive game. ...I soon settled in on the Discovery Channel.

Places I'd Like to Visit

One thing I love is visiting new places and seeing new things. I've traveled to the majority of the states in the United States, but I've traveled outside the country only once. And sadly that was only right across the border into Canada for a look at Niagara Falls for a few hours. There many places I'd like to visit, but here's a top ten. Like David Letterman's Top Ten list, without the laughs. This is in no particular order.

United Kingdom (especially Scotland)
Brazil
Australia
Greece
Spain
Egypt
South Africa
France
Italy
New Zealand

Germany, Portugal, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, India, Jamaica, and Belize would be next on the list.

Jordan would be nice to visit just because I like the name.

I've rediscovered my interest in blogging...more posts coming soon. (With lower prices and better quality!)

If I Wasn't Going into Education...

I was thinking about it, and If I weren't going to be a teacher, these are the careers I would really seriously think consider. Maybe someday.

Filmmaker
Artist (painter)
Musician
Art Historian
Pastor
Marine Biologist
Cultural Sociologist
Chef
Comedian (if only I was funny enough)

My two cents on the swimming pool controversy

I see there is some huge controversy in Philly that's been all over the news because a private pool was allowing a daycare group to use their pool once a week, but after one visit the daycare group was told they wouldn't be able to return and had their money refunded. The issue here is that the daycare group is primarily black and now they (along with a few other civil rights leaders are crying racism. The pool says the issue is safety. Apparently, they only have three to four lifeguards working their two pools, one which is a 110, 000 gallon pool and a smaller pool. This daycare group has approximately fifty-five students, many more than the pool thought they were bringing. The group thinks it's racism because they heard one customer (no adult heard the comment, a child actually reported it) at the pool say "something about there being alot of black kids at the pool that day".

LIke so many of these cases, it sounds like more paranoia about race. Because I've managed several pools before, I do have some background knowledge. A 110,000 galloon pool is pretty good-sized, but with fifty-five students PLUS all of the other customers, that would be an extremely crowded pool. And, of course, the more crowded the pool is the more dangerous it is. A 110,000 pool with so many customers would be very difficult to monitor with such a small staff. The daycare group argued that they had eight staff members on hand as well, but unless they have water safety and rescue training (and of course CPR, First Aid, AED, and oxygen administration training and certifications) they wouldn't be very helpful. The group might think if they bring a few extra hands it's just like them bringing their own lifeguards, but they are entirely wrong. This doesn't even mention the extra discipline problems the staff would have to deal with.

Arlen Specter, the Senator from Pennsylvania, sent a letter to the club urging them to invite the group back saying "racism has no place in the country". I'm sure he was caught up in the hysteria, but he should have been a leader and checked out the facts first.

It seems completely plausible, and likely, that it was unsafe for the club. It makes sense they would apologize and refund the group. Two other daycare groups, which were primarily white, were also told they would not be able to come back. The group might complain, but I wonder how they would react if a kid would have drowned. They probably would have found a way to make that racial too. What I found really sad is that there were kids interviewed on the tv crying because they had been told by the leaders of the daycare center that they were kicked out because the people at the club were racist and didn't like them because they were black. No doubt there is still racism in this country, but it is very, very sad when people look through blind eyes, looking at everything as a racial issue. It's sad when people want to blame race for their problems, instead of taking responsibility or taking a second to understand the situation. It's easy, and lazy, to simply have a problem and say it's a race issue and just say the other person is racist. But it's very damaging and until people stop thinking that way, and more importantly, stop teaching their children to think that way, we will never have a society with healthy race relations.

On Mark Sanford

I haven't had the time or the urge to write much lately, but it may be coming back...

I was very disappointed last week when South Carolina governor Mark Sanford admitted he's had an lengthy affair with an Argentinian woman. (Or maybe it's Argentine woman?) I was hoping Sanford would run for President in 2012. I liked his libertarian positions on social issues, opposition to preemptive war and wasteful spending (even bringing in live pigs into the South Carolina legislature to protest pork barrel spending). But what I really liked was his emphasis on educational reform as governor, even refusing to send his kids to private school because he thought it would be hypocritical. Education has too often been relegated to back of the line lately in politics, but Sanford really seemed to have a passion for it. He also refused to run for congress again because he promised to only serve two terms. I thought he might actually be a politician with some integrity.

I wish more politicians would do more things like bringing in lives pigs as a protest. Things would be so much more exciting that way.

I wonder how long it will be until his mistress gets a huge book contract.

A Few Bands I'd Really Like to See Live

Depeche Mode
Muse
U2
The White Stripes
Coldplay
Radiohead
the Smashing Pumpkins (though I've seen them already)


It's not a band, but I'd love to see Sufjan Stevens live.

Flags in Church?

It is not uncommon at American churches to see an American flag. Sometimes the flag is flying out front. Sometimes its in the building. Sometimes the flag is even placed in the sanctuary, giving the appearance that it may somehow be part of the liturgy. This could be symbolic of the confused relationship of politics and faith in much of the Church.

In many ways, the Church has wrapped the Bible in the flag. (figuratively) It has molded the Christian faith into a sort of American faith. In one of my recent blogs, I discussed the idea that the United States is a "Christian nation". America isn't Christian. The ideals of America aren't God's ideals. Yet many try to fuse the two together. In this blog, I'm asking, is it appropriate for churches to display flags?

I have heard it said that many Christians have made the Bible the fourth member of the Trinity (because of the extreme emphasis on biblical inerrancy and infallibility, neither of which I believe in). I do agree that many Christians engage in Biblioatry (the nerdy way of saying many Christians worship the Bible). I also believe that many Christians have made the American flag the fifth member of the Trinity. The flag represents not only America, but democracy and capitalism. Many Christians treat America as God and democracy/capitalism as the savior of the world. When I listen to some Christians, it seems as though the words "free markets" have become a holy mantra.

Growing up in America has blinded Christians. Americans have been pounded over and over with the merits of capitalism, democracy, and the American way of life. This has happened so much that they bring this into their faith. An example is the healthcare. In polling, many conservative Christians say they believe healthcare is not a right, but a privilege. I don't see how any logical person could say that. But moreso, I don't know anyone who has read the Bible and says they're a Christian could say that. This shows how blind some Christians have become. Are some Christians really more concerned about keeping their money rather than making sure everyone has access to healthcare? That is not only outrageous, its anti-biblical. Another example is illegal immigration. The majority of illegal immigrants come to the United States to escape poverty. Illegal immigration is a bad thing (Though legal immigration is a very good thing; blog about that soon). But what's the focus of many conservative Christians? Stopping illegal immigration. It isn't the terrible, impoverished lives the people of Mexico are leading. They are so concerned about their own security and peace of mind that they are too busy to sympathize with the illegal immigrants as people are or understand the roots of the problem and what's causing it. It is their own lives, not the illegal immigrants, they are concerned about. The bible doesn't talk much about defending one's country, but it does talk over and over about helping the poor, lost, and exiled.

In its worst form, this nationalism has been transformed into racism. In the past, this racism has been against blacks or Native Americans. Now it has been transferred to Hispanics and Arabs. Many fervently promote jobs staying in America (especially factory jobs), as if Americans own the jobs or have some sort of right to them. What logic is there to this argument besides racism or nationalism? Many times when I've heard Christians promoting the War on Terror (even saying its God's will) there have been anti-Arab overtones. Jingoism is based in racism and nationalism. This is just one instance. Even with some good intentions Christians have often promoted racism. (Examples being Manifest Destiny, the enslavement of natives by conquistadors, the enslavements of blacks, or the destruction of Native American society, or the Crusades.)


Historically, every time church and state haven't been separated, it hasn't turned out well. Usually it leads to opression and death for many people. Politicians can easily use exploit religion for political goals, getting naive citizens to go along with them. (See rise of the Nazi party in Christian Germany). NO matter how great America may be, it is important to maintain a distinct separation of church and state.

As I've said America isn't perfect. Democracy isn't perfect. Because politicians are elected, it often leads to corruption and bribery. Often elected officials don't truly represent their citizens. Capitalism isn't perfect. Too often it's abused and leads to a few becoming wealthy and most being exploited. I'm not saying America is evil, democracy is evil, or capitalism is evil. They aren't. There is no perfect country or perfect political or economic system. Many Christians need to stop worshipping a certain country or political or economic system. They need to realize that no political system, no economic system, and no country can save the world. Only God can.

For this reason, I don't think flags should be displayed in church. I would prefer a globe, to remind churchgoers that God wants to change the world. Not through a country or an economic system or a political system, but through Jesus. To remind churchgoers that God cares about everyone in every country. I don't think its appropriate to sing patriotic songs in church. Most Americans have been raised with an ethnocentric worldview, but one of the most important points of Jesus' message is to transform that into a Godly worldview.

My Greatest Hits

I've been blogging for about eight months now. Sometimes I give my thoughts on not-so-serious subjects like movies, sports, books, etc. However, it also provides a me a forum to discuss more serious topics. Because I blog about both the serious and non-serious, I figured it was about time to create a list of blogs that are more serious so anyone interested in my more formal, academic offerings can see a list if they are interested in reviewing any. Blogging sure beats writing those letters to the newspaper that had to be contained to 200 words...

The End of Christian America?
Pro-life?
Sociology
Homosexuality and Christianity
Tolerance and Love
How the World Runs
Malcolm X
Arguing With Atheists
The Silent Epidemic
Dying American Dream
Why Jeremiah Wright Offended Me So Much
Insulting Politics
Whose Jobs?
What I Would do If I Were President
What Would Jesus Say?
What Would Reagan Do?

The End of Christian America?

For their edition during the Easter Holy Week, Newsweek ran a cover story entitled "The End of Christian America"., which, concluded that American is still a Christian nation, just not as strongly or as uniformly as it once was. Of course, many Americans assert that the United States is a Christian nation. Many foreigners, as well, view the United States as a Christian country. In fact, sixty-two percent of Americans still believe the United States it is. However, the United States sadly, is not, never has, and probably never will be a Christian nation.

Many conservative Christians assert that America was founded as a Christian nation. This is patently false. Christianity was important both socially and politically in early America, particularily in the Northeast. However, almost all of the founding fathers (and their wives) were deists. Some (most notably Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson) had some very nasty things to say about organized Christianity and actively fought against the fusion of polity and religion. Jefferson edited the Declaration of Independence to take out Christian language. Even the founders who were more orthodox in their views (such as John Jay, the first Supreme Court Chief Justice) practiced a Calvinist brand of Christianity that is very different from most forms practiced today.

More importantly than how the country was founded is how it has functioned. For the first several decades of its existence the United States' economy was powered by the enslavement of an entire race of people. (Especially after Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin.) The United States government gained millions of acres of land by violently stealing it from Native Americans (While murdering and displacing thousands in the process.) The Cherokee "Trail of Tears" alone resulted in the starvation and death of over 4,000 Native Americans. The "peculiar institution" (aka slavery), as well as the active policy of the United States government toward Native Americans sharply contrasted with Christian morals.

America has also often used aggression and violence, using its military as a weapon of destruction. Sherman's March to the Sea is one easy example. The U.S. also employed scorched earth tactics against Native Americans, and in the Philippine-American War, the Spanish-American War, and the Vietnam War. The United States also built concentration camps during the Philippine-American War, where the form of torture known as "water cure" was popular. (Water cure is when one is forced to drink great amounts of water, or another liquid such as urine, until the stomach nearly bursts and/or the person vomits, several times, often resulting in death. Teddy Roosevelt acknowledged its widespread use during the war.) The Civil War certainly doesn't seem like a very Christian way to solve a dispute. America has used violence and sacrificed the lives of many to satisfy imperialistic goals. (See the Mexican-American War, the Philippine-American War, The Spanish-American war, and any of the quasi-wars between the U.S. government and Native Americans.) America certainly has often exploited its military power. More recently, the scandal at Abu Ghraib, Guantanomo Bay, and waterboarding have been less than Christian.

Discrimination has also been a hallmark of American culture. America is still trying to reconcile its past treatment of blacks. Segregation and disenfranchisement is well documented and needn't be discussed. Other more acute forms of discrimination, such as the placement of Japanese-Americans in internment camps after Pearl Harbor or the Chinese Exclusion Act are less talked about, but occurred.

American culture certainly isn't Christian. There are many examples of un-Christian behavior. America's lack of engagement in several genocides. It's indifference towards poverty. The abortion of forty-five million babies since 1973. The culture of extreme materialism/consumerism. The pollution and destruction of the environment. The high divorce and infidelity rates. The obesity epidemic. (I believe obesity is a "sin" for several reasons) America's high rate of debt. Even the popularization of rap music, which generally espouses a worldview that is the polar opposite of Christianity.

America has never been a Christian nation. There never was a "Christian America". American has done many, many, many, MANY positive, good things. It is generous. The government doesn't actively try to hurt or exploit its people. The United State has often promoted peace and freedom. It does often try to help the underpriveliged in its own country and around the world. The very fact that it is there it debates and considers issues such as waterboarding or torture means it is not evil. I have emphasized the negative things, the dark moments, in American history and culture to illustrate its failure to live up to Christian ideals. Christianity and Judeo-Christian values have played a very important and special role in America. As a Christian, I think this is a good thing. America is changing religiously, in both positive and negative ways. I believe Christians leaders should focus not so much on how many Christians there are in America, but instead how those who are Christian display the message of Jesus.

Notes:

For more information on the religion(s) of the founding fathers, I would recommend Faiths of the Founding Fathers.

Most of the founding fathers were deists (or at least leaned toward deism) because they studied at our had connections to the College of William and Mary.

(For those interested, and I'm sure someone will be, Jon Stewart graduated from William and Mary in 1984.)

Along with most of the founding fathers, many historians believe that Abraham Lincoln was also a deist.

While a few historians still debate it, most do consider George Washington a deist.

Random Thoughts

-A couple of months ago I wrote a blog about the homosexual right movement. (Titled Tolerance and Love) Though I am generally supportive of gay rights, I am distraught by the extreme maliciousness and hate possessed by and employed by the movement. It seems to be growing more and more vicious. A perfect example is the reaction to Miss California's answer in the Miss USA pageant (I just found out it was the Miss USA Pageant and not the Miss America Pageant, and I still don't understand why there are two pageants). When prompted she, of course, said that she believes marriage should be between a man and a woman. (It should also be noted that she mentioned that she is happy to live in a country with diversity of opinion and different views on the matter and also said she didn't want to offend anyone.) The next day on his blog, the judge who asked her, Perez Hilton (who apparently is gay), called her a "dumb bitch". Scanning through sites I saw her called much worse. Again, I like how so many gay-rights activitists talk about respect, equality, and tolerance, but show absolutely none. Many in the movement also actively protested what they saw as a "theocracy" run by the Bush administration, but their rhetoric sounds much more like the propaganda that comes from a theocracy. I don't understand how one side (pro traditional marriage) can understand the concept of diversity and tolerance, but the other can't. It saddens me that today political correctness is more powerful than respect and tolerance. It frightens me that this is a controversy. Though I'm not sure if I agree with her, I am very proud of Miss California for standing up for her beliefs. I took a great amount of courage.

-I had heard about the famous (or maybe infamous) blogger Perez Hilton for a couple of years, but never seen him or read anything he had written. It looks like I'm not missing much.

-I've seen many Christians call Perez Hilton "trash" or "an idiot", etc. That is exactly the polar opposite of what Jesus said to do. The non-Christian thing to do to to react to hate with hate. The Christ-like thing to do is to react to hate with love, and pray for him.

-Since having lots bumperstickers probably means your very set in your beliefs and feel very strongly about them, I would be interested in a survey to see what percent of people with a multiple bumperstickers are politically independent. I thought about that today when I saw a guy with about ten on his car. I guess one or two isn't good enough.

-Alot of people are upset about it, but I agree with President Obama's handling of the encounter with Hugo Chavez over the weekend.

-This again is NBC's "Green Week". The other day while watching the channel, I was again lectured about what I can do to stop global warming. It's seems like everytime I watch NBC they have they have some green-related special programming or theme. This is ironic for two reasons. First, NBC (actually NBC Universal) is owned by General Electric. GE has a terrible environmental record, with large scale air and water pollution. Secondly, General Electric actively does business with the oppressive and violent Iranian government. Do they care more about the environment than human rights and the murders of thousands of Iranians?

Sad

I have to write something on this...

On late Wednesday night as I was reading something, snacking, and generally wasting my time, I had the tv on for some background noise. I glanced up every couple minutes. I happened to catch the highlights of the A's-Angles baseball game. Nick Adenahart, the Angles top young prospect, had pitched six scoreless innings in his first start of the season (and the fourth major league game he'd ever pitched in). A little while after I woke up on Thursday, as I turned on the channels and flipped through the channels, I stopped on ESPN. I was shocked to see that same pitcher I had seen a few hours before had been killed in a car accident. What made it even more astonishing was that he was probably killed right about the time I had seen the highlights of the game.

It was very eery to watch the postgame interview of him. He talked about how excited he was and how he finally felt like a major leaguer. How he had always dreamed about pitching in the major leagues and after so much work he finally fulfilled his dreams. I couldn't help but be dumbfounded by the fact that he was dead only an hour or two after the interview.

There are few situations that I could imagine that could be more sad. It's horrible to see how excited he was about his first start and then realize it will be his last. To think about the long career he would have had and think that he won't get that chance. Or to think he's just 22. He was just starting his life. It is breathtaking how much potential for great things there were and that in the span of a couple hours, from when he pitched to when he was killed, all that could be forever snatched from him. It's amazing to me to think that all that could change while I was sleeping.

I don't know why, this story just seems to get to me more than most do. Perhaps its because he was killed by a drunk driver who ran a red light. (Adenhard's two passegners were also killed.) To me it is just stunning that with one simple act, or one simple decision, how so many things can change and so many people be affected. Or that just a few hours before this pitcher had everything, had everything to look forward to, that all that could be gone so fast.

It's not surprising to me that the drunk driver had a prior drunk driving arrest and had only received a suspended license. Like usual, police don't really care about a drunk driver until they actually hurt someone. Makes complete sense to me...

The most unjust part to me seems that while the driver selfishly killed three others, he was not hurt himself.

I know there were many, many other people who had their lives cut short like this just today. And everyday. I don't know why, this just really made me think.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

The Fun Don't Stop

There's a new controversy for the Obama administration! The latest controversy is that he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia. The White House denies it though, and says it was only a "double handshake", though he clearly did bow. Some think it means the U.S. is bowing down or selling out to Muslims (because it looks like we are being subservient), some are upset because he bowed down to the leader of a country that oppresses women, and some are upset because he didn't bow to the Queen. I myself don't have an opinion. It's interesting to hear the scuttlebutt about it.

I see the country's first transgender mayor (from the beautiful state of Oregon) wants a reality show. Interesting, but not at all surprising.


The title is an allusion to that old Pringles slogan "Once You Pop, the Fun Don't Stop", which always offended me as a child because of its poor grammar and went against everything my teachers were telling me.

In my next blog I will address the new Newsweek cover story that America is no longer a Christian nation.

Obama's Overseas Trip/G20 Summit

Warning: I'm feeling very cynical...

I didn't really follow much of the "important" stuff happening at the summit. Not like I think the G20 countries are really doing anything that is actually helping the world economy. Most other people didn't seem to be following the serious things either, all the trivial things were much more exciting.

-Interesting Obama gave an iPod to the Queen. Really, an iPod? Couldn't they get something better, like some wine from California or some genuine Vermont Maple Syrup? I couldn't help but wonder about the content. It was filled with some of his speeches. Seems a tad arrogant to me. Not quite as arrogant as the what the royal family gave to them: signed portraits of themselves. (Maybe I should think of give someone a signed portrait of myself for a birthday gift; that would be a pretty funny.) They're probably not really that arrogant, but it does come across that way. I guess there was some music on there too, some of the Queen's favorite music. Oh, I can just imagine her headbanging to some music. Taking a jog and listening to something good. Maybe some Lil Wayne or Eminem. And perhaps a little T-Pain. Ha, the queen and an iPod. Wow, there's tons of potential for comedy there.

-I enjoyed the whole fiasco where Michelle Obama hugged the Queen. I'm glad they weren't offended. It was just a sign of "spontaneous mutual appreciation and affection", as the statement the Queen released said. Wow. That's a surprise, I didn't think that was the usual function of a hug. I'm so glad they cleared it up for me; I was pretty uneasy about the situation. I'm just glad the First Lady didn't have to release a statement like the Pope did years ago, "forcibly denying there was any physical contact". Thank goodness the pope understood how big of a deal it was. I mean, apparently the Queen is God or something. Nobody else is good enough to touch her.

-The whole royality thing seems kinda silly to me. Well, I suppose it's a nice tradition. It does make for alot of entertainment. It is a remnant and reminder of a more corrupt, authoritarian past though.

-I do think it would be pretty neat to meet the Queen. I wonder what she's really like. She should have a reality TV show. Maybe she could go to rehab for something. That would be hilarious. Or she could have a Bachelorette series.

-Thank goodness for the entertainment news programs. Of course I could hear all about the "hug" controversy everywhere else, since it was the top story on most "legitimate" news outlets. But I was able to see plenty on Obama's sneeze during one of his speeches, which they dubbed so affectionately "the sneeze heard 'round the world". I was also able to hear plenty about the fashion battle between Mrs. Obama and France's first lady, former model Carla Bruni. Apparently the French first lady stayed home because she was intimidated by Mrs. Obama and didn't know if she could win the fashion battle. (They said people prefer Ms. Obama brightly-colored outfits to Mrs. Bruni's more drab outfits right now.)

-Speaking of the news media, I wish they could pretend like they weren't in the tank for Obama. Surveying the London newspapers, and what from I saw on TV, you'd think he was Jesus or something. (The best headline I saw from the prominent Lodon periodicals was "Going Gaga for Obama".) I liked the title of CNN's special program: Obama's European Tour and the New World Promise. I'm still wondering what that promise is. I enjoyed watching a few minutes of the show. Basically a tribute to Obama, full of scenes from the trip, some of his inspirational words, repeated pictures of adoring fans, all set to music. (It was various popular rock songs, which was fitting since he's a rockstar.) Boy, I'd hate to see the coverage MSNBC had...

-I saw Obama gave a townhall meeting somewhere in Europe. Seems a little strange, but I suppose since people don't like the U.S. too much right now and all the G20 leaders are blaming the U.S. for the breakdown of the financial markets it's probably good he's trying to go and garner some support for America. It still seems a little bit like everybody's still in campaign mode. Though Republicans don't seem to be doing much of anything right now except for fighting over who is really the head of the party.

I'll turn off my cynicism now.

Baseball!

In honor of Opening Day, a few of my baseball-related thoughts:

Burning Questions for the Reds:

Will Willy Taveras and Jerry Hairiston get on base consistently enough for the big boppers?

Will Votto, Phillips, Bruce, and Encarnacion improve their average with runners on base and provide enough power to cut down the scoring gap with the Cubs?

Will young arms like Volquez, Cueto, and Bailey be solid for the whole year?

Will Harang and Arroyo return to form?

Will there be enough depth if there are again injury problems?

Sleeper Teams:

White Sox
Royals
Mariners
Braves
Reds
Giants

Most Interesting Team to Watch This Year: Yankees

Craziest Name: Jarrod Saltalmacchia

Best Managers: Tony LaRussa, Bobby Cox

Bold Prediction: Diamondbacks over the Dodgers in the NL West (okay, it's not that bold; I made it last season too)

Best Divisional Race: Mets vs. Phillies in NL East

Once again, it looks like my Rangers will score a ton of runs (wouldn't be surprised to see them break a thousand, which I guess is only half a ton), but it will all be futile as they again have one of the weakest pitching staffs in baseball.

Question: Is the new Yankee Stadium worth $1.5 million? Is is nicer than Safeco, AT&T, or Coors Field?

Pro-Life?

I could have titled this blog "Abortion", but "Pro-Life" sounds much better, though the names are somewhat of a misnomer themselves. (It would be false to say that most who consider themselves pro-choice are not pro-life.)

I am conflicted on the issue of abortion. I have always considered myself pro-life, but I have frequently questioned whether I should be pro-choice, especially the last couple of years, because I am liberal on most social issues and I think the freedom of choice is very important. I don't AT ALL like the government interfering with people's personal lives.


While part of me values choice, I believe legalizing abortion can breed irresponsibility, because now girls/women/men can do what they want and simply have an abortion if they have an unwanted pregnancy. And I believe this extends beyond just sexual promiscuity. If sex and pregnancy are trivialized, then so is everything else. If one risky behavior is legitimized, than people are more likely to participate in other risky activities because it can create an overall attitude where one develops a convoluted view of responsibility and consequences.

Another thing that is wrong about abortion besides the fact that is it is simply wrong because it kills a human/potential human (which both my faith and logic tell me is wrong) is what the aborted could offer the world. Since Roe v. Wade in 1973, there have been forty-five million fetuses aborted in the U.S. Worldwide, there are somewhere between thirty-five and forty-six million abortions every year. Out of all these potential babies, what great things could they have done? There could have been the next great president, the next great scientist, a doctor that could find a cure for cancer, a great religious leader, great musicians, etc.

A part of the pro-choice argument that is often formulated is that babies born to mothers who didn't want them would be set up for a bad life, likely living in poverty with mothers who didn't want them. While this is a legitimate point, that should be considered, there have been lots and lots of individuals that have grown up in these conditions and have done great things.


Compounding matters is the question of whether abortion should be legal for rape victims or in the case where it is necessary to save the life of the mother. I do believe abortion should be legal in the second case. However, this situation is overblown. In reality abortion is almost never needed/used to save the life of a mother. I have no clear opinion on abortion rights for rape victims. On one hand, I don't think a baby should be penalized because their mother was raped. Obviously, the baby didn't choose to be conceived in a rape, so why should it be punished and killed for that? On the other hand, however, is the rights of the mother. The mother didn't choose to become pregnant and have a child. So why should they be forced to?

It is hard, or would be, for me to say I am pro-choice. I believe abortion is wrong, and it is very, very hard to me to support the freedom of one to do something that is wrong. Other "crimes", such as drug use, prostitution, etc, are victimless. The choice affects a consenting adult (or adults), but doesn't hurt someone else. Abortion, I believe, does hurt someone/something. I find the argument of choice a little bit difficult and an argument that is hard to find logic in. Most people who are pro-choice do believe abortion is wrong. Most wouldn't have an abortion themselves. The question, then, is why wouldn't they have one? The answer is likely because it is wrong. If one believes something is wrong, then why should someone else be allowed to do it? The logical answer is that they shouldn't. Yet, part of me feels that someone should have the right to do what they want, because it is a personal decision and I do strongly value freedom and the right of people to choice. The question could become, is the right of one to choose or the right to life of the fetus/baby more important? Of course, in that case, I value the right to life more. I, simply put, find the argument impossible.

Something else that leads me not to be pro-choice is the affect it has on women. Studies show that as many as 93% of women who get abortions regret them. The vast majority develop psychological problems. Women who have abortions are also nine times as likely to kill themselves.

On the flip side, however, something that would draw me to become pro-choice are the other affects abortion can have on women. Such as the consequences of abortions done illegally, or "back alley abortions". Abortions done illegally are often done by those who aren't medically qualified and are therefore more dangerous. Worldwide, more than 67,000 women die annually from illegal abortions. If women are going to get abortions anyway then why not legalize it so at least they can be done safely? This leads to the most important question: If abortion is illegal, does it really deter women from having abortions?

Does the legality of abortion really affect the number of abortions? The answer is probably not. Worldwide, the abortion rate among countries in which abortion is legal and not legal are about the same. That is the thing that really makes me think about being pro-choice. I simply believe there are more important things in determining the abortion rate than whether or not it is legal.


What I think should be done:


1. The adoption and foster care systems should be strengthened and improved. The foster care system should be simplified. Foster care parents should be provided more reimbursement and better training, since there is an incredible lack of foster parents. Of course, there are many other problems, but this is the most important in regards to abortion. (As a side note, nearly half of foster care children become homeless once they turn 18, and the majority also develop mental illnesses.) Improving the adoption system is even more important. Adoption should also be made easier and there should be more financial incentives to potential adoptive parents to promote adoption.

2. Sex Ed. A very important part of the abortion debate is sexual education. With better sex ed, we could prevent this situation entirely. We could prevent unwanted pregnancies before there ever has to be the decision whether or not to have an abortion. I don't agree with President Bush's support and promotion of abstinence-only sex education. I do think abstinence should be the basis of sexual education. It only makes sense. No matter what your religious beliefs, abstinence is the best and only sure way to prevent unwanted pregnancies. However, I think it is very unrealistic to believe that this is adequate. Many kids aren't going to be abstinent. So, it is crucial that they have the information they need to have safe sex and prevent unwanted pregnancies and STDs.

3. More incentives to keep a baby. This goes directly to the problem of abortion rights for rape victims. First, we should offer better psychological counseling and support to women so they can deal with their rape and their pregnancy. Secondly, we should offer more education about having children to mothers so they are encouraged and prepared to have a child. (Both the psychological and educational support should be provided to the mother after birth as well.) Finally, more financial incentives should be offered. Many of these mothers who have unexpected pregnancies can't afford a baby. So it is important that we provide them financial support so they can maintain a good quality of life and properly care for their baby. This includes not only money for things such as food, housing, etc, be money for childcare, so the mothers are able to place their child a a nursery or daycare to continue their schooling and continue their work. Of course this is a slippery slope. This could be easily taken advantage of. Women could get pregnant just to get money. This could not only cost the government billions and billions, it could expand the welfare system, and create overpopulation. So it is imperative that there is the proper oversight. And there would have to be firmly decided upon parameters for who qualifies for these services. For instance, perhaps it may be that only rape victims and any minor could receive these services, but anyone over eighteen would have to become enrolled in a workfare program to qualify (which would cost them less than an abortion).


I don't know if there is more complex of an issue than abortion. There are so many factors. I may be one of the few people that doesn't have a clear belief whether or not abortion should be legal. I believe strongly, however, that the government can do more prevent abortions.

I also believe that it is imperative that people from both sides work together to cut down abortions. I know to many the question of the legality of abortion is huge. But it shouldn't be a roadblock for progress on the abortion front. Most people want abortions to be limited. Most want them to be rare. The stumbling block is the second word:legal. Most pro-choice people want abortions to be rare and legal. Most pro-lifers want abortion to be rare, but illegal. I would prefer if we focused on the importance of first word. Of course, it is highly unlikely that most people will ever work together to lower the abortion rate. People can't look past the titles of "pro-choice and "pro-life".

Notes:

If abortion is made illegal again, I believe that it should be doctors and abortion clinics, not mothers, who are charged with crimes. If one thinks abortion should be illegal, that would be the best way to stop abortion. The mothers would have already endured enough pain. It would be best to simply close all abortion providers.

While I may not be strong in may stance on the legality of abortion, I am very strong in the belief that late-term and intact dilation and extraction (aka partial-birth abortions) should not be legal. They are hideously barbaric.

If many people who say they are pro-life are, they should show it. They should do more than just believe abortion should be illegal. They should volunteer at a women's center, or even become a foster or adoptive parent.

I think being pro-life is much more than being anti-abortion, which I think many miss. I think issues such as poverty and AIDS are more important. They kill more people than abortion and kill people that are already born. Pro-life supports all kinds of life. Young and old. I will hopefully at some point post a blog expounding on what being pro-life really means.

Personality

I took a personality test and again I came up with the same result...I'm an INFP (aka "healer" or "idealist"). I don't know why I'm interested in taking personality tests since I always get the same thing. If anyone is interested in the description of an INFP, you can read either:

http://www.personalitypage.com/INFP.html

or

http://www.keirsey.com/handler.aspx?s=keirsey&f=fourtemps&tab=3&c=healer


Both links should also provide profiles of all of the other personality types...

I find it interesting that even though INFPs are only between 1 and 4.5% of the population, they are very overrepresented in the arts. Also intriguing is that they tend to be drawn to unconventional ideas and things.

The best thing I see about INFPs is that they can "find the good in almost anything or anyone". The worst thing is that they sometimes aren't logical or develop high standards sometimes difficult for themselves or others to fulfill.

Spring

Spring officially starts soon and summer is just around the corner. I made a short blog of things I like about Christmas, so here are a few of the things I like about Spring:

-warm, sunny days

-colorful flowers

-trees with leaves

-Spring Break

-baseball!

-going barefoot

-driving with the windows down

-crops being planted

-nature walks and hiking

-visiting fun places

-Easter

-short rain showers

-the smell of freshly cut grass

Yes, I'm enjoying the little things...

Sociology

I would like to study cultural or historical sociology formally sometime.  A few topics that interest me:

-The development of popular culture in societies

-How religion progresses generationally (how it is passed down from generation to generation)

*Socioeconomic Determinism in general

-Development of classes and class identity

-entertainment/how leisure time is spent

-educational system

*Social Institutions in general, such as education, religion, family, and economy

-taboos

-appearance in different societies, such as hair and clothing

-convergence of cultures and assimilation

-myths and folklore, especially non-western

-treatment of the mentally ill and prisoners in society

-subcultures and countercultures

-social norms and mores

-third world economic systems

-development and evolution of cultural revolutions/upheavals

-architecture and art as a reflection of social attitudes and values

One subject I am particularly interested in is Post WWII/1950s culture, especially in the United States.  I am especially intrigued by the baby boom and suburban life and how it lead to the counterculture movements in the 1960s and changes in religion, the arts, social values, and change in gender, racial, and sexual relations.  

Arguing With Atheists

I've come to believe that arguing over the existence of a deity is fairly fruitless.  Many atheists have a bitterness against religion that even losing an argument would never let them overcome their doubts.  Agnostics are often more interesting to debate with, partially because I agree with some of what they have to say (I was an agnostic for a short while) and because their argument is often logical and not so categorical.

I think an intelligent person could make a good argument on either side of the existence of God discussion.  Minds are rarely ever changed, because I don't think God can be contained or understood to an argument.  The very nature of such a deity makes their existence a complex concept to comprehend.  All issues surrounding epistemology and metaphysics are difficult and nearly (if not definitely) impossible to prove.  It often boils down not to who has the better argument, but who is smarter or the more skillful debater.

I don't think we can look to logic to find God.  Not that a belief in Him (or Her) is illogical.  But as I stated, the attributes of God make Him/Her impossible to totally understand.  He could never be understood through an argument.  I believe to understand God and to believe in the existence of God, you must experience God.  You can argue with someone, but you can't make anyone have this experience.  They must discover it themself.  

Homosexuality and Christianity

Obviously this is a very heated topic, and I certainly don't mean to offend anyone.  With that said...

It is my conviction that homosexuality is wrong.  I think it is a perversion of God's original blueprint for sexual experience.  There are complex theories about its morality, but to me it is a conviction of the heart.  I think there is biblical support for the belief that it is a sin, but I value feeling and leading more.  Obviously one's view on the matter is a deeply held conviction. I will certainly not beat someone up over their view of the issue.  I simply believe that anatomically and psychologically a man and a man and a woman and a woman isn't natural.

I don't support the notion that LGBT people choose their sexuality.  This flies in the face of any common sense.  Why would someone choose this path when it will surely be more difficult and lead to persecution?  (Though I do think there are some people that are choosing to dabble in bisexuality because it is kind of a trendy thing to do right now.)  It is beliefs like these that give Christians the label of being dumb.

Even though homosexuality is a sin (again, this is my view) I don't believe it is a mortal sin (as opposed to a lesser "venial sin") as some Christians seem to think.  I think homosexuality is an exploitation of the body.  So is obesity.  Yet millions of Christians are obese and they don't talk about that.  Gluttony and homosexuality  are condemned in the same verse, but they don't mention that.  Divorce is a sin.  War is a sin.  Materialism is a sin.  Exploitation of the environment and resources is a sin.  Failure to help the poor and the homeless is a sin.  Yet Christians seem to have no problem actively supporting these things.  In my opinion, these sins are worse than homosexuality. These issues were the crux of Jesus' message.  These were the issues Jesus focused on.

Instead of being known for our hate for the sin, let's be known for our love of the sinner. Nobody is perfect.  Everyone struggles with certain things.  The church would be a much better place if people started realizing this, instead of people acting like they have all the answers and do no wrong.  The church should be a place of humility and understanding.  (Humility is the absolute basis for the Christian life.)  Church should be the one place that a homosexual can feel welcome.  They should be respected and supported there.  Yet it isn't that place.  It is far too often a place of judgmental people and hate.  Jesus ministered with the poor, the oppressed, and the sinful.  He hung with the tax collector, adulterer, and the prostitute.  Scorn was reserved for hypocrtical religious leaders. I think it is our duty to say that homosexuality is wrong if we believe it.  But let's do it in a loving manner.  Let's help all the gays that are committing suicide and battling depression or drug addiction because they feel confused and rejected.  That should be what our focus is on.  

If Christianity has any chance to engage secular culture it must reaccess its priorities.  It also absolutely imperative that it be known for its LOVE, not its HATE.  When Christians demonstrate love they do tremendous things.  Some Christians finally seem to be getting this.

I've posted a related video under the comments section.  (A VERY good video.)

Quick Oscar Thoughts

-I would have been outraged if Sean Penn hadn't one Best Actor for his performance in Milk.

-I'm glad Kate Winslet won Best Actor. She had to win it. 

-Likewise, the soundtrack for Slumdog Millionaire was very deserving to win.  (And did)

-Though he wasn't nominated for anything, Ralph Fiennes proved again in The Reader that he is second-to-none in acting right now.

-Too bad Mickey Rourke couldn't win an award for Biggest Comeback for The Wrestler.

-This year's nominees for Best Picture, in totality, were not as good as last year's nominees.  

-I liked watching Man on a Wire far more than any other documentary.

Out of Touch

The other day while watching TV, I came upon a show discussing this year's Academy Awards. The show was talking about fashion at the Academy Awards.  They were discussing all of the hot outfits last year and the major fashion faux paus.  They discussed the greatest sin of all: two celebrities wearing the same outfit to the awards.  Oh no, how terrible!  (It's a major scandal that will be discussed on the entertainment shows for several days.)  They then had to talk about the diamonds, of course.  What necklaces were looking good this year, which ones should be tossed.  Sadly, the sales of high-priced diamonds (those over $2 million) are down this year.  I soon flipped the channel.

The next channel I discovered had a very different show.  This show was talking about the 1.3 billion people currently living without clean drinking water.  They discussed all of the complications this creates.  Sore throats, burning throats and eyes, stomaches and headaches. Usually in impoverished areas, with men working, women or children must make a dangerous trek, which often takes a complete day, to get clean water. That's if you want to call it clean water.  The water usually contains human and animal urine and feces.  Of course, often the women and children have to wait for hours or fight for what little clean water their is.

These are just the minor problems created by the situation.  There is often not enough water to feed livestock, and without lifestock the family often has no way to support itself.  And because the children must go get the water and do other chores, they aren't able to attend school.  If you are lucky enough to have a school in your area.  And of course, lastly, without water diseases are much more difficult to treat.  This would already be a major problem, but it is much greater because the contaminated water creates disease pandemics.

I'm so glad  that some people have time to obsess over who is wearing what.  I'm so glad that some people can afford to spend millions on a dress or diamond bracelet.  To be able to shop the hot designer and get advice on which piece of million dollar jewelry should be thrown out     I'm so glad that the night is focused on things like this.  Then kids know what's important. When they find out what is important maybe they can find a few dollars to donate to charity after they spend most of their cash on the popular, expensive clothes at the mall.   It's alright though, I just hope we don't have another episode like the Chris Brown-Rihanna one.  That is a much bigger scandal than how billions are dying an suffering because rich westerners exploit their  money and resources, like the millions of gallons of water everyday they simply waste.

The same day, I saw on television how President Obama and the country's governors are holding a dinner at the White House.  The dinner includes a lavish buffet dinner.  It also includes entertainment by  Earth, Wind, and Fire, Stevie Wonder, and Elton John, along with the Marine Corps Band. By all accounts, it's expected to be a night of grandeur and luxury.  Of course, it's not anything different from what Republicans have done.

Millions of Americans are losing their jobs, can't find work, can't afford health insurance, and can't afford to put themselves through school.  They are living pay check by paycheck.  And we have the president spending millions on a dinner?  What is it that politicians don't get? Why do politicians think they need these expensive parties?  Paid for, by the way, by the taxpayers right now who are struggling to get control of their finances.  Everyone is so upset about the excesses of corporate executives.  But for some reason this is okay.  I'm sure people don't mind throwing their hard-earned money at events like these.  Just look at the record-low approval ratings.  Call me crazy, but perhaps they could have just one of the entertainers.  Would that be so terrible?  I've been pretty pleased with the Obama administration.  I don't like the stimulus package and I don't know why Obama keeps talking down the economy -which clearly hurts both trading and banking- but besides that I've been happy with the things he's done.  (Though I haven't paid attention to every single detail)  But in this situation, this seems like anything but change we can believe in.

I don't mind money or all the things that come with it.  Not at all. Everybody would like to have those things.  But it is OUTRAGEOUS how out of touch some people are, especially some politicians and celebrities.  

What is Christianity?

I would like to challenge the prevailing attitude that Christianity is a belief system.  Instead, I would argue that Christianity is primarily a lifestyle.  This is not to devalue the beliefs that Christianity is founded on.  They are the foundation for this Christian lifestyle.  

These beliefs, for me, include: the presence of a loving and involved God (yet indescribable), who is the creator, the belief that Jesus provides the ONLY path to heal broken lives and a broken world, a belief that Jesus became the manifestation of God, a belief in service, a belief in the promotion of and the fight for justice, a belief in the ultimate triumph of justice, a belief in the power of love and forgiveness, a belief in the possibility of sanctification (becoming Godly) and justification (becoming pure) before God, a belief that all actions have consequences, positive or negative, a belief in free will and freedom, a belief that humans do fall short of the expectations of God, a belief that true salvation (or wholeness, which is the actual Biblical term) entails humility, peace, patience, and the rest of the fruits of the spirit, and a belief that every life, young and old, has innate worth which God expects us to care about.

These beliefs inform my lifestyle.  Contemporary Christianity, especially since the revival movements of the 19th century, has, I believe, constructed a flawed view of the message of Jesus.  It simply calls us to accept him, or believe in his lifestyle.  (And the goal of this is to escape an everlasting hell; I also disagree that this was the chief goal and result of Jesus' message.  I think it encompasses much more.)   According to most Protestants, we can be "saved" by simply making a decision for Christ.  I STRONGLY disagree.  I believe that we must accept not just him, but his lifestyle.  His purpose.  Simple belief doesn't change the world. Simple belief isn't hard.  Simple belief is not what God calls on us to have.  He calls us to have a lifestyle that "bears fruit".  As James 2:20 says, "faith without works is dead".

I find the belief that Jesus is our savior very ironic.  Ironic because of many people that believe it.  Since He is our savior, the question is "What is He saving us from?"  I would argue it is not just hell, but a life without purpose and true satisfaction.  People say that Jesus is "their savior".  They say they believe in Him.  Yet they live no different from anyone else.  They lie, they gossip, they cheat, they hate, they are materialistic.  What do they need a savior from if they enjoy the very life that Jesus preaches against?  Why do they say they "accept Him" if they don't accept his lifestyle and life purpose?  

Jesus death and resurrection is important.  It should not be understated or undervalued. However, I care more about the way He lived than died.  I don't care to fight over dense theology.  I don't like rigid moralism or strict beliefs.  I believe in respect for other religious traditions, not just inside Christianity, but outside.  I believe in a respectful dialogue.  I think other religions offer a great deal and can be used by God.  This is because I don't base everything on definitive beliefs.  I support inquiry.  While most Christians like to act like they know exactly what the Bible means or how exactly God works, they don't.  What is important is that we live out our values.  That we serve God with humility and try to understand and respect the lifestyle of others,  even if we may disagree.  I think it is wrong to be obsessive when it comes to theology.  Jesus will ask "Did you clothe the naked?  Did you feed the hungry and the thirsty, did you visit the prisoner, did you invite the stranger in?"  (Matthew 25:34-36).  God does not require us to answer multiple choice questions on theology correctly.  He requires us to "Love mercy, act justly, and walk humbly with Him"  (Micah 6:8)

These are not beliefs, they are actions.  

First Spouse

I think one of the most interesting jobs one could have would be First Lady.  (I guess it should be called First Spouse.)  I also believe it would be one of the most difficult jobs around.  That's if you want to call it a job.  I'm not sure if it is technically classified as such.  But there hasn't been a president of the United States since James Buchanan in the 1850s, so there has nearly always been someone who fills this role.  (He is likely the United States' only homosexual president as well.)  Overall, I think it must be one of strangest jobs there is.

There is, for one thing, no job description.  Everyone seems to have a little different idea of what exactly the role of the First Spouse should be.  And it is not just one thing you have to with.  People look at your dress, your demeanor, how involved you are with policy, and what you are involved with.  It is not just like people look at the job you're doing, they look at your entire life.

On top of all that, how hard would it be to be the wife or husband of the president?  They would have little free time to spend with you.  When they did have the time, they would probably be extremely tired or stressed.  Often you would be separated, sometimes on different continents. What if you disagree with your spouse's handling of a situation?  How do you go about telling them?  Or do you?  How do you act in public when dealing with that issue.  And what would 

it feel like if your spouse was the most powerful person in the world.  

This, of course, doesn't even mention kids.  How difficult would it be to raise kids in this environment?  Imagine your schedule.  Imagine the security.  How do you stay connected to them when you are so busy?  How do you manage to go to their school and events?  Imagine the press and all the people.  Think about how difficult it would be for you to help the kids with their fame and the attention.  Keep in mind this is going on with the whole country watching.

I think it would be especially hard if you were a male spouse.  The First Man.  First, let's be honest, it would be a little awkward having your wife be so much more famous and powerful. And you would get flack from both sides.  Men would likely make fun of you, while women would question your skills being a proper First Spouse because they would have the imagine of a First Lady in their mind.   I will be curious to see if Todd Palin ever writes a book about his experiences.

Despite all of these difficulties, I think I would still like to be in this position.  There would be so many interesting people to get to know and places to get to see.  So many unique experiences.  There is nothing else like it.  It is very intriguing to see how each person in the position handles it. 

Michael Phelps and the Media

It seems like the last few days you can't turn the TV on and not see or hear about Michael Phelps.  The Olympic record-setter is in hot water because he was caught on camera smoking weed and going to gentlemen's clubs.  Of course, there's been outrage because he is "America's hero" that everyone looks up to.  (Supposedly, that is.)

I don't know why everyone is so outraged.  How many people smoke weed and go to strip clubs?  Are those things really that big of a deal?   Of course, there is something to be said for the fact that he is a role model.  But if he admits his mistakes and changes, isn't that all the more powerful testament?  I believe the issue is the expectations placed on famous people. 

Imagine the pressure on such celebrities.  God blessed them with athletic abilities, not necessarily wisdom.  I think the media is to blame.  I think they are the outrage.  The problem is that they have made celebrities gods, that we idolize and follow their every move.  (At least millions of Americans.)  Americans have bought it, hook, line, and sinker.  

The media creates scandals.  Then they tear people down.  Any minor mistake is a huge ordeal. Instead of looking at people realistically as humans, with lives that are a little screwed up, they promote whatever their view of perfection is.  One minor mistake is huge drama.  A perfect example of this is drugs.  Especially drugs and presidential candidates.  If a presidential candidate used drugs in their past, it is a HUGE ordeal.  Is that really going to change anyone's vote?  Does anybody really believe Bill Clinton didn't inhale?  

Barack Obama used illegal drugs.  But I couldn't care less if a presidential candidate did.  In fact, it probably makes me more likely to vote for them, because they were involved in that lifestyle and had the wisdom to use their time for better things.

I hope this doesn't permanently change people's view of Michael Phelps.  He already conquered learning and behavioral problems.  Getting past this would make his story even more of an inspiration to kids.

Snowdays...What's it Like?

Today was a snowday for many people.  Many students around the world don't know what a snow day is like.  This got me thinking:

What is it like for the people that have never seen snow?  And the people that never will, in Africa for instance?

What is it like to not have a Super Bowl and everything that comes with it in your culture?  Or Christmas and Thanksgiving and all the tidings?

What is it really like for the three billion people that live on less than two dollars a day?  For the child born with AIDS?  For the refugee?  What is it really like for the woman in a Muslim country that is raped and can't recover her reputation?

What is it really like to grow up in a radical Muslim family?  Or a radical Christian family?  

What is it like for the orphan or the adopted kid?

What is it like to live alone and unloved?  To be homeless?

What does it feel like to get a life sentence?  What does it feel like after you've spent thirty years in prison?

What does it feel like to attain your life's goal?

What does the fear feel like for the soldier in his (or her) first gunfight on the battlefield? What is the feeling after a pilot drops their first bomb?

How is life as a president's child?  Or to know you're the most powerful man in the world?  To not have the right to vote every November?

Americans have a hard time identifying with others in other countries.  They have a difficult time putting themselves in another's shoes.  When everyone has such a different background and a different personality, it is easy to say why people don't get along.  But I believe that if people stopped and listened to each other for awhile alot of problems could be avoided.

Tolerance and Love

I'm not against the movement to improve the quality of life for those of the homosexual persuasion.  This movement encompasses many streams who are fighting for many different things.  The most easily definable things are homosexual marriage (and/or civil unions), laws that protect people from discrimination based on sexual orientation, church membership, and the right to adopt.  I am not necessarily against these things.  I'm a strong supporter of civil unions and am somewhat undecided about marriage.  (More on that in a blog soon.)  I strongly support the movement to help gays live a more equal life and hope a more comfortable environment is being created for them.  While one may disagree with the lifestyle, it is certain that they should not placed in an awkward position.  The high rate of mental problems and suicides of those in this community is a sad manifestation of the discrimination, whether it be overt or hard to see, that befalls these individuals.  

However, I am deeply distraught and disturbed by what I see as the radical stream of the homosexual rights movement.  The movement has become very aggressive and very angry. They have stormed into churches and made scenes.  They have, on several occasions, gone into churches, run up front, and thrown literally thousands of sexually explicit pages of material in the air (to be cleaned up by those at the church) and run out.  They have made a circus, literally, dressing up as animals and clowns to disturb others, out of communion at a few churches. Recently, an elderly woman kneeling and praying by a church during a discussion for those with concerns about same-sex marriage was hit and had a crucifix knocked out of her hands.  They are taking kindergarteners to same-sex weddings for school field trips.  They are insidiously angry at those who don't agree with them.  

When Rick Warren was chosen by Barack Obama to give the invocation at his inauguration, there was a culmination of this anger.  He's been compared to a Nazi, a KKK member, been called "evil", "hateful and ignorant", "gluttonous", "homophobic", and many have criticized his supposed "bigotry".  There was a large demonstration in Washington against him the day of the inauguration, as well as many others across the country.  A website, called "dumprickwarren.com" was also created.  

I like Rick Warren a great deal.  I certainly disagree with a good amount of his theology, but the way he has transformed the Evangelical community, to be not just relevant, but to be a force for social justice, should be greatly admired.  He should be thanked and honored for his work on AIDS, abstinence education, third-world education and literacy, the climate, and poverty.

It baffles me to no end why people would be upset with his choice for the invocation.  If he was the only speaker I could understand somewhat.  However, Gene Robinson, the first openly-gay man (or woman) to be ordained as an Episcopal bishop also offered a prayer during inauguration festivities.  The Gay Mans' Choir also performed.  

Rick Warren is NOT a bigot.  He is NOT homophobic.  He is CERTAINLY NOT hateful.  I have never heard him say anything hateful about gays, nor anything slanderous.  What I have heard him say is that we should love gays and support them.  In fact, when Bishop Robinson, who has been extremely controversial and divisive in his comments, was invited, Warren applauded the decision to invite Robinson.  

It doesn't make sense to get so excited over Rick Warren.  He is one of the best-selling authors in the world and stands as a sort of bridge between liberals and conservatives, both religiously and politically.  There is no doubt he is one of the most influential men in America.  He is also clearly an affable, jolly fellow.   Barack Obama choose him because he is popular and because he wants to represent everyone as president.  So why would it make people so upset?

The radical gay community is so naive, confused, and arrogant that it now sees anyone who disagrees with them as bigoted and homophobic.  Aren't gays trying to spread tolerance and love?  Or do they just want whatever helps them the most?  By the standard definition of the word they, the radical homosexual rights movement, is filled with bigotry.  They are certainly hateful.  They are the ones who are truly being intolerant and unloving.  They are the hypocrites.  They know nothing of true evil and true hatred.  Their struggle is not the same of blacks in the 60s.      

What they don't seem to understand is that you're not going to change the minds of religious people.  A belief that homosexuality is a sin is not just an opinion, it is a sacred belief.  It is something that, according to those who do believe it is a sin, God doesn't like.  One's belief about homosexuality is a deeply personal conviction.  Nobody is going to be able to change someone's mind that believes homosexuality is wrong on religious grounds.  And, in fact, it is wrong to make them forget about it.  In fact, it is just plain dumb to criticize someone's belief when you don't understand their faith.  How can you criticize somebody who is trying to do what their faith tells them?

What can a Christian who believes homosexual relations are wrong do?  They can love the gay. They can pray for them.  They can be friendly and not judgmental while still believing it is wrong.  What more could a gay person ask for from a person who believes their lifestyle is wrong?  It is certainly more tolerant and better than their reaction.  But the radical gay movement doesn't see this.  Tom Hanks recently said that those who supported the California ban on same-sex marriages (Proposition 8) in California are "un-American".  Thankful, he apologized.  What is un-American, is when people deem anyone who disagrees with them hateful and evil.

Fulfilled?

Yesterday was Martin Luther King, jr, day.  Over forty-five years ago, he delivered his famous "I have a Dream" speech.  The question I have heard tossed around, and have thought about, is whether his dream has been fulfilled.

I believe MLK jr's dream hasn't been fulfilled.  

We have taken HUGE steps to attain his dream.  Segregation no longer exists, at least legal segregation.  That, of course, means everything.  They don't have to use separate facilities, they can go to white hospitals, schools, eateries, etc.   Blacks are now going to college and pursuing careers they want.  Now a black man is going to be the president of the United States.  We have come So, so, So far to a place where blacks can live equally.

However, the dream is not fulfilled.  Though it may sound strange, this election is proof that the dream has not been fulfilled.  MLK jr's dream was to have people judge on the content of someone's character, not their skin color.  To translate this into political terms, this mean voting on issues not race.  However, this election was partially decided because people voted for Obama because of his race.  The mere fact that his race was an issue shows this has not been fulfilled.  In a society that is truly harmonious racially, this would not even be talked about.  

There is still a higher level of drug use among blacks.  Still much lower income levels.  Out of wedlock births and divorce rates among blacks are substantially higher.  The imprisonment/incarceration rate of blacks is still higher.  Finally, almost fifty-five years after the Brown vs. Board of education, the academic achievement gap between blacks and other races remains largely unchanged, and black, urban schools are largely failing.

It is another discussion why the dream hasn't been fulfilled.  I believe a large part of it is because blacks have not taken responsibility.  they have largely not taken hold of what they've been given.  Honestly, I believe this is the biggest problem.  In some ways, the government has not fulfilled its duty either and has ignored the problems.  In some ways, whites have not gone far enough to create an equal environment.  But the fact is, the dream hasn't been lived.  The color of people's skin is still noteworthy and noticeable.  People of other races can still feel out of place at times.  It is important, however, to focus on the great progress that has been made, so we can look at the potential of the future.

NOTE: I refer to black people as that, not African-American.  I believe that term, and defining people primarily by their regional ancestry is a product and manifestation of race problems and I believe it furthers the problem.  It shouldn't be noted what region people are from. People are Americans, and they all come from different places.

Excited about Obama?

Millions of conservatives are scared silly of Barack Obama and his policies.  They are offshoring bank accounts, setting up medical services outside the U.S., and purchasing guns at an increased rate. (So at least gun retailers have a little business in this economy.)  While it may be inappropriate to call me a conservative, (I haven't found anything to call myself and don't really care to, but it would probably be best to call myself a "liberal conservative",  as the term goes) the fact is that I did vote for John McCain.  I disagree with many tenets of Barack Obama's governmental philosophy, most basically his opinion on the role of government.  There are, however, many notable things I do agree with him with, while disagreeing with John McCain. (And there are even more disagreements I have with Bush administration policy than I do with McCain.)  But as I see the events of inauguration week unfold, I ask myself, should I excited for this?

One of the things that scared me the most about Obama's election was that one party would have control of the government.  The level of control the Democrats have will be unprecedented in recent history.  It is not the fact that it is the Democrats who will hold the power, but the fact that any party will.  I believe power corrupts, and I believe that both parties abuse their power.  I think it is better when there are two parties in Washington that both have legitimate power.  I believe in the importance of checks and balances.  During the campaign, I was distraught because Obama was preaching bipartisanship while his record showed virtually none.  That fact could really not be debated, but his words could magically make people believe. So, his record coupled with a Democratic Congress and likely Supreme Court, didn't make me feel too secure.  Not to mention his oft-talked about actions that seemed arrogant.  (Like his presidential seal and stage set at his DNC speech.)

However, Obama has THOROUGHLY IMPRESSED me with his humility and his pragmatism during his transition.  I have been stunned In his choices for his cabinet, to what he has said, to the polices he wants to work toward.  He has even started disagreeing with Nancy Pelosi before he is in office, which is a positive development.  I now have faith, which I don't think is blind faith, that Obama will be more in his policies and will be more moderate.  

I would like to think that Obama will lead to a new era of politics.  To a fresh start.  Not a messianic era where everything will be solved, as some would like to think.  But a fresh start for a tired and troubled country.  Politics is cyclical.  In the U.S., there have been easy to recognize periods like the Era of Good Feelings, the Gilded Age, and the era of laizze-faire Republicans in the early 20th century.  In the words of Obama, I'm not naive enough to think one election will change everything.  Racial politics will still be there, though hopefully to lesser extent.  I hope his presidency means a lessening of the power of racial politics.  I am also not naive enough to think one election will totally change people from their uncivil political discourse.  I don't think that is possible.  I believe race problems, and to a much larger extent corrosive political discussion, are human nature.  Seemingly, anyone with a brain could realize that our left vs. right, them vs. us politics, with our hateful talk and mindless, ignorant thinking is immature, stupid, wrong, and very unproductive.  Apparently, though, most Americans don't have a brain because they haven't learned this lesson.  And I don't think they ever fully will.  I wish people would transform the language these use to talk about politics and thoughts on "the other side", but that is unlikely they will give up the grip of this type of politics  So, even though I think there will always be unkind political debate, I do hope this election changes the tone a little bit.

Also, I am happy the inauguration is finally here after what has seemed like years since the election.

Lastly, of course, is the fact that he is a black man (or half black) being elected.  (Of course historically he would have been considered just "black" because he has one drop of black blood in him.)  I am ELATED, THRILLED, ECSTATIC that a black man is being sworn in as president.  I can't even put into words what this means.  

So, today, I am excited that Barack Obama is being sworn in.  I would have loved for it to be John McCain.  I would have liked for it to be Hilary Clinton.  I've always thought she would make a very fine president.  However, I am tempted to almost say that I could would rather have Obama than anyone else being elected.  To me, right now, I am almost more concerned that there is a change than the specific policies.  In some ways, right now I almost have a philosophy of realpolitik in regards to some policies.  I think to get this country running again, we need a total different direction, a shock.  Because it is not really how the government will operate, but the people response.  Economically, this is the big determinant.  So, today, I can really say I am excited about Barack Obama's inauguration and can enjoy it.  

Favorite Sports Teams

I've never organized my favorite sports teams by sport.  So here goes, listed in order:

College Football 

OHIO STATE

Hawa'ii

Colorado State

Clemson

Oregon 

Baseball

CINCINNATI REDS

Texas Rangers

Boston Red Sox

NFL

GREEN BAY PACKERS

Cleveland Browns

Arizona Cardinals

San Diego Chargers

College Basketball

OHIO STATE

UD

Pepperdine

Hawa'ii

Arizona

Wright State

NBA

I don't really have a favorite NBA team, because I'm not as active a fan, but I've always kind of liked the Cleveland Cavaliers, Orlando Magic, and Phoenix Suns.

NHL

I'm not really an NHL fan, but I've always kind of rooted for the Detroit Red Wings casually if I'm paying attention.

I'd be interested in anybody else's favorite teams as well.

 

How the World Runs

Last week, I saw a girl (or young woman I guess) who was carrying a purse with several buttons. Most were aimed at Republicans and Christians.  One said "Stop using Jesus as an excuse for being a narrow-minded asshole."  Another read, "Yeah, that's right Jim Bob, I'm a lesbian.  Now get back in your trailer".  Obviously, both of these were painting Republicans and Christians (or the noisy Evangelicals) as narrow-minded and dumb.  Now, both of these things can be true.  But they are overstated and Evangelicals are also given a bad name.  They are not the terrible people they are made out to be.  Possibly misguided -depending on your opinion- but not evil.  The larger point, however, is what this shows about most people.  

By the way, this girl is training to be a teacher.  Sad that someone so biased and obviously uneducated about Christians will have the access to young minds and the ability to shape them. Of course, many teachers are biased.  Sadly, they often express their bias(es) in the classroom.

The larger point though is how this girl is dealing with what she feels is oppression and stupidity.  What does she do when she thinks people hate her?  She hates them back.  Sadly, this is typical.  It's easy to hate people that hate you.  We're not taught differently.  Of course hate doesn't foster any growth, it just makes the problem worse and hurts the person who hates.

Of course, this is not Jesus' message.  He has a message of love, forgiveness, and reconciliation. He demonstrated this both during His life and on the cross.  Sadly, it's a message few understand or practice, because it's so easy to hate.  Even many of his followers don't understand.  On September 11th, terrorists hated Americans.  So what did they do?  They went and killed Americans.  After the attacks, Americans were outraged.  Which was appropriate. What did you hear?  Hate.  Hate for arabs and Muslims.  Distortions of Islam.  What else did you hear?  A called to avenge these killings through war.  

The terrorists used hate and killing.  What did American Christians want to fight back with? Hate and killing. (Some of the heaviest and strongest calls for war and support for war came from American Evangelicals.)  They stood for a recipe that will lead to years and generations more of hate and killing.  Shame on them for not accepting the message of Jesus.  Matthew 5:9: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called God's children."

Sadly, this is how the world runs.  As I've shown, even Christians use hate.  Obviously, there is alot of love in the world.  But we usually only love who we want to.  Who is easy to love.  And our hate always seems to be stronger than our love.  Few attempts at peacemaking or attempts by aid groups are successful, because only a small amount of people love their enemies, as Jesus said to do.  Not only in such global affairs, but in our personal lives.  And few problems receive lasting solutions.  Because the world runs on hate.

(NOTE: I will discuss the issue of Christian/Jew-Muslim relations in a blog soon.)

I've posted a short, related video under comments.