tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-47161741174685761992024-03-12T22:33:30.795-07:00Meaning MakingTo Make Meaning - that is what we are here for.CJ Dateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09472151062672810541noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4716174117468576199.post-15483522066182480272011-11-14T16:27:00.000-08:002011-11-14T16:27:54.355-08:00Protest and Consume<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:OfficeDocumentSettings> <o:AllowPNG/> </o:OfficeDocumentSettings> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves>false</w:TrackMoves> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing> <w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing> <w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery> <w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> <w:DontAutofitConstrainedTables/> <w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/> </w:Compatibility> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="276"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--> <!--[if gte mso 10]> <style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
</style> <![endif]--> <!--StartFragment--> <br />
<div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times CE';">This poem was written as a response to the Occupy Movements all around the world. Specifically, it was prompted by a video I saw in which two girls are denied the ability to close their accounts with Bank of America because they could not be "consumers and protesters simultaneously."</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times CE';"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times CE';">The video can be found <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK0O30aFT7g" target="_blank">here</a></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Protest and Consume</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">You say I can’t protest and consume at the same time<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Well then please don’t produce <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">and politicize simultaneously<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">You erroneously walk the same line.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Your policies and decisions that shape the fallacies of elections<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">don’t reflect the protection I am supposed to have <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">over votes cast and counted honestly.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Promise me, if you say I can’t protest while I shop, then stop<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">using your corporate weight to throw bars around our fates.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">We want upward movement, upward with the movement.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Our third world countries wonder where all those shoes went?<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">they just had em there, sewed them with their own hands,<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">shipped out of the sweat shop they’re on the feet of an American grand-standing <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">his Jordans through hallways for his friends….<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">And we wonder why corporate greed never ends…<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Who wrote those Christmas bonus checks <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">that make me sick when I hear the numbers?<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Who is out there handing you money <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">while the poor get poorer and the rich get number?<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Or more numb.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To be grammatically correct.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">But who cares about correctness when you’re talking about this mess that infects the shopping malls and consumer culture’s restlessness.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">I heard the other day that families in the Congo live on piles of trash.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Not trash exactly, but computers that have crashed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The old hollow frames of monitors and processors, <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">they strip the gold from motherboards to eek out a living, <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">while we just go on buying without giving a rats ass for the shitty life they lead.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">And how does oppression just continue? <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">When it seems so many people want to tell you <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">how angry they are about it; sometimes they even want to shout it at occupy protests all around the world that <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">“WE ARE the 99 percent.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And we represent <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">the change that we want to see made <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">at the highest levels of the corporate leadership game.”<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Who pays those CEO’s at the top? I know I don’t. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">My salary’s too low to fit on their totem pole.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Who could possibly be giving them all that money?<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">It’s actually not funny.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Especially when the answer is as clear as cash.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">WE write the checks that make us vomit at the flat screen television sets. <br />
WE pay the Wall Street workers that don’t work and make us so upset.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">We dole it out one dollar at time with our Coca Cola cans and our Starbucks frappes.<br />
The politicizing goes both directions <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">in these financially charged elections.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Each dollar we spend is a vote cast for status quo <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">and things will never go any differently<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>until we require of each other <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">to vote wisely with each dollar.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The richest 1 percent; they don’t have all the money.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">They have the 99 wrapped around their finger.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">They line us up and tell us lies about the popularity <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">that will linger around us like an cloud <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">if we only buy their products then we will be proud.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">to live in a country with freedom of choice, <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">where they can feed us with noise, <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">enough advertising to drown out the truth <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">that we should be emphasizing:<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The money only trickles up because that is the way you and I spend it.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">And as we have spent it so we have chosen to send it <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">right into the hands of those that we blame.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br />
Greed it seems has a new name.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Look into the mirror and it couldn’t be more clear,<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">that you and I might protest for change, <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times CE"; font-size: 20.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">but the way we spend our money says we want things to stay the same.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><!--EndFragment-->CJ Dateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09472151062672810541noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4716174117468576199.post-22512076972792307442011-03-10T17:29:00.000-08:002011-03-10T17:29:23.126-08:00Rob Bell and the New McCarthyism<!--StartFragment--> <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhP5tNC8Gg48cqYfhuRtQESgyzyPs8VYmXAc-MkV2eiMbL5qGxY9YrCCNhiv58IYGcbv5IJ7tpmLNHhU6GvkyhnUk1zPPGYpq99Fl_6RFwB1YGXgqdpIgaqSAeUWt-K8_oc0eC507fwe9li/s1600/eschatology-kids.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="237" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhP5tNC8Gg48cqYfhuRtQESgyzyPs8VYmXAc-MkV2eiMbL5qGxY9YrCCNhiv58IYGcbv5IJ7tpmLNHhU6GvkyhnUk1zPPGYpq99Fl_6RFwB1YGXgqdpIgaqSAeUWt-K8_oc0eC507fwe9li/s320/eschatology-kids.png" width="320" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.economist.com/node/18332766">Recent headlines</a> have indicated worldviews clashing in our nation’s capital (well, all headlines pretty much indicate clashing worldviews, but I am speaking about some specific declarations). If you have not heard, Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, has brought some issues before our representatives. He is concerned about Islam; specifically, its increasingly radical nature in America. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">While this discussion is certainly merited based upon the possibility of a so-called “home-grown” threat from radical American Muslims, King has come under some criticism for singling out the Muslim community. The political Left has labeled it “New McCarthyism” and a “witch-hunt.” Fears abound that it may cause a spread of Islamopobia amongst citizens, possibly resulting in violence to Muslims themselves.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">While the Muslim community faces these recent events, the Christian community is discussing the release of Pastor Rob Bell’s new book, <u>Love Wins; A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived</u>. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Rob Bell has also <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/us/05bell.html?_r=1">faced criticism for his book</a>, but this coming from the Religious Right. In his book, Bell discusses Christian eschatological issues as they should apply to non-believers, and apparently, opens the doors of redemption a bit too wide for most Christians’ comfort.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">While seemingly unrelated, it seems to me that American Christians can see the thread here between the political and religious existence of these two stories. We are faced with an interesting question: How do we approach the “religious other,” especially when their political rights are not so “other”?</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Bell’s more universalistic perspective softens attitudes between different religions. Something about the stance of “Hey, you’re ok with my God and Savior, spend eternity with us,” presented to another faith disarms conflict and also encourages cooperation.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Likewise, (and I have not data for this) it seems like it might be just a teeny bit easier to disrespect, ignore, or even discriminate against other religious groups if you think, “Well, they just haven’t got a ticket into paradise. They’re not ok with my God.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Maybe Bell’s book scares some Christians not because it creates a breakdown in doctrine, but that his perspective might require a more wholesome embrace to those non-believers this side of eternity.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">And maybe King’s political crusade scares some Liberals not because it represents a breakdown in equality and justice, but more because it begs the real issue of a needed investigation into dangers in our society.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">In the end, it may seem we must declare that we should work to give respect and dignity to those within our political arena, regardless of religious beliefs. We must also declare that no matter what eternal judgments I may have about a certain ideology or religious belief, those perspectives can be no excuse to treat others badly in this life. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Who really knows if Muslims will join Christians in eternity? Or if Christians will join Muslims? Or if Americans will join Palestinians? Regardless of what we believe our holy texts tell us about these eschatological questions, the answers should not shape how we treat our fellow man. Eternity or not, Muslim or Christian, American or Somalian, a living human deserves love and respect within or without our religious and political borders.</div><!--EndFragment-->CJ Dateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09472151062672810541noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4716174117468576199.post-4945623777074711532010-11-29T10:28:00.000-08:002010-11-29T10:28:54.283-08:00WikiLeaks for Conscience<!--StartFragment--> <br />
<div class="MsoNormal">Every news source in America has been reporting recently on the emergence of government documents on <a href="http://www.wikileaks.org/">WikiLeaks</a>, a whistle-blowing site compiling classified documents from the Afgan and Iraqi wars.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This weeks post on WikiLeaks represents the largest single “leak” of foreign affairs documents in the history of the modern world.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The documents cover topics ranging from simple correspondence between foreign affairs officials to personal insults on the capability and habits of world leaders.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Most news sources have deemed the release an “embarrassment” to the foreign executives of the United States government.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Government officials claim that it is a disgrace to media and completely unhelpful. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Other leaders, like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, claim the leak is a purposeful propaganda release by the United States government itself.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">One thing is for sure: most people aren’t happy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But does our happiness (or lack thereof) about an event tell us anything about the helpfulness of said event?</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">It is clear that the leaks have caused headaches for world leaders and newspeople alike.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Just looking at the amount of time and energy our own government officials have put into trying to minimize the damage will tell anyone that the leak has caused unproductive activity in those offices.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">And those offices are lashing back.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They are upholding the perspective that the leak of such documents puts American soldiers, international civilians and even diplomatic staff in danger.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">But maybe in our despair over embarrassment and leak of sensitive information, a lesson can be learned.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We remember old adages like; “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all.” And the fact that at any given time, somewhere, someone is listening.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">It might do us all well to remember that no matter our position in life, community, or government, our words are powerful.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They affect our relationships and experiences in major ways.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, some of the embarrassed diplomatic officials work everyday in the realm of international communication where they are aware that what they say and how they act could have powerful repercussions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Maybe it is time that we are reminded of that; maybe it is time that we become more conscious of our messages, no matter who we think may or may not be listening.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">For me, (and I hope for many others) this WikiLeak will serve as a wake-up call; not as a call to crack down on cyber-legislation, nor as a call to strengthen our cyber-security.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Rather, let this event be a call for all of us to keep track of what we are saying about those around us.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As we sift through the muck and pick-up the pieces of this detonated international relations bomb that is WikiLeaks, let’s make sure that what we are saying is helpful.</div><!--EndFragment-->CJ Dateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09472151062672810541noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4716174117468576199.post-80345726916668654972010-09-24T11:01:00.000-07:002010-09-24T11:01:20.926-07:00Texas School Board Proposes Textbook Ban<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Lucida Grande'; font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br />
</span></span></span></span><br />
<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11402606">Texas State school board proposes a ban on "pro-Islamic" and "anti-Christian" textbooks</a>. If you read the story, you will find that they feel too much of the book is spent on Muslim heritage, and not enough on Christian heritage.<br />
<br />
In fact, the author of the proposal, Mr. Randy Rives, says that Muslim conquest is sugar-coated while the Crusades are painted brutally in some texts.<br />
<br />
Seriously? Are we really going to act like two year olds? Pointing the finger saying "Well, Johnny was the one who threw the cat out the window!" While Johnny says, "Bobby came up with the whole idea!"<br />
<br />
Why don't we just admit that religions have been used for terrible violent things on both sides and not get into keeping score.<br />
<br />
Also, these are books read by American students. Part of the reason they DON'T NEED equal time spent discussing Christian history is that there are 3 churches right down the street from where they read the textbook. We have accessibility to Christian culture, we don't necessarily have it to Muslim culture.<br />
<br />
Next thing you know, we will have a ban on math books that spend too much time discussing Arab based Algebra and not enough time talking about Western Anglo-Saxon Calculus.CJ Dateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09472151062672810541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4716174117468576199.post-30360120484530762162010-09-01T07:29:00.000-07:002010-09-02T11:45:44.977-07:00A New Humanity: What Science and Religion Can Tell Us About Community<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Lucida Grande'; font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px;"> </span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Lucida Grande'; font-size: small;"></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Lucida Grande'; font-size: small;"><div class="MsoNormal">A <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/322/5898/58">recent study into the lives and attitudes of theists and atheists</a> conducted by Ara Norenzayan and Azim Shariff found that the social attribute of “niceness” might be caused by the feeling of being watched.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">For theists, this comes from the idea that God might be with us every step of the way, and therefore, what you do matters because He has seen it and may be judgmental or affirming. For atheists, the “niceness” falls out the window, because they don’t have that “angel on my shoulder” feeling.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">However, <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2203614/pagenum/all">an analysis of the study that I found on Slate</a> poses a different hypothesis. By investigating the “niceness” of developed secular nations, Paul Bloom comes to the conclusion that “niceness” doesn’t come from the feeling of being watched by an omnipotent being, but rather from the reality of community around us.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Theists then are happier and more amicable simply because they feel they are part of a larger community. Atheists frequently feel detached from meaningful social circles and could therefore be more upset and volatile. It is not then, belief in God that makes you a “good person” but rather being in community.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Certainly, these ideas are caricatures. We can all think of atheists who are fun-loving, great people and we can all name some miserable theists. But, as it turns out there could be a trend here. Miserable theists could for some reason not feel welcomed in their faith communities. And happy-go-lucky atheists could be a part of a strong friend-group, which serves them as a communal resource.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">My perspective of this study tells me one thing for certain. If Christians want to be an integral part of society and begin affecting change in the lives of those around them, we must simply open our hearts.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">I know that most churches have an open door policy. Most churches will physically allow someone new off the street into their service. They will let them sit in the pew and they will let them drink the coffee. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">But is that the standard of a welcoming policy? An unlocked door, a pew to sit in and some coffee?</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Of course it is not, and I know of some church communities who set the bar much higher. They ARE openly welcoming to a new member of the congregate.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">But, I know of some churches that are not. I know of parishioners who hate it when new people come and take their pew accidentally. I know of parishioners who are comfortable with the community they have and are not interested in bringing new people into the fold.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">I think it would be good for our society to feel more welcomed in church communities. This means stop judging, this means calm your preaching, and this means above all else, start loving.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">People who come to church for the first time don’t need to have a break-down-cry-run-to-the-altar-confess-all-sins- experience. We shouldn’t aim for that. We should aim for a Christ-like embrace that doesn’t point out their sins or expect their conversion. We should give them COMMUNITY.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Paul writes in Ephesians, “Christ is our peace, in his flesh he has made both groups (Jew and Gentile, slave and master, pagan and Christian, theist and atheist) into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us. He has abolished the law (seen as setting apart the Jews from the rest of the world) with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in the place of two, thus making peace.” (2:14-15)</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">This might sound blasphemous, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/universal_reconciliation">(many Christians have held this idea before)</a> but I say take the welcoming action even a step further and redefine our theology. The ultimate dividing line that exists in American Christianity today is the “heaven and hell” narrative. “Where are you going to go when you die?” “Are you saved?” “Have you asked Christ to come into your life?” </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">We need to abolish this narrative. The redemption through Christ answers all of the questions for anyone. The answer is that Christ is going to “gather up all things to him, things in heaven and things on earth.” (Ephesians 1:10) I am talking about the pinnacle of welcoming one into the fold: the reality of universal redemption. What I mean is, believe him or not, Christ redeems you. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Universal redemption is the only metaphysical and theological finality that makes sense in the scheme of community. It is the only one that can bring fulfillment of the new humanity. It is how Christ makes peace.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">And not only peace, but a happier population. A more amicable one, because people can rest easy knowing that they are a part of the “in-crowd”. Atheists and theists alike can set aside their days of being heavy-laden with worry and loneliness. Because of Christ’s redemption, we are part of the whole. It is the job of Christians to communicate that reality to people. We don’t need to spread the message of how Christ sets us apart; we need to spread the message of how Christ brings us together. It will transform our society.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div></span>CJ Dateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09472151062672810541noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4716174117468576199.post-90889244569774647742010-08-31T17:39:00.000-07:002010-08-31T17:44:01.106-07:00Obama from the Oval Office: August 31, 2010<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguS4cBlUWASW0yLJOXpiiYtWFBhPSHy-fJ3-mUbcC9b7KRVxa-QCOFJaT0idUZqWv9DixAp45tHyaig5PoVvc2pHNgbGvjDNqFRHWiWmPaCOQVdW6c8kk8cF80m8mGYPsqRq-PrkfF1wPS/s1600/Oval.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguS4cBlUWASW0yLJOXpiiYtWFBhPSHy-fJ3-mUbcC9b7KRVxa-QCOFJaT0idUZqWv9DixAp45tHyaig5PoVvc2pHNgbGvjDNqFRHWiWmPaCOQVdW6c8kk8cF80m8mGYPsqRq-PrkfF1wPS/s320/Oval.jpg" /></a></div>Obama just finished his address from the Oval Office moments ago. There are a few things that stood out to me as I sat and listened to his speech.<br />
<br />
First, Obama wanted to make very clear his follow-through of things he promised in the past. The whole address was framed in the context of; "I said I would do it, and here it is." From referring to Bush declaring war from the same desk, to the story of Americans coming home, Obama wanted to spell out in no faint terms that he has made good on his promise of the 2008 election.<br />
<br />
Second, Obama tactfully and preemptively dealt with Conservative or Republican backlash with his emphasis on the soldiers' narratives and accomplishments. Most proponents of the conservative political perspective follow a "Bring the troops home" with the accusation of "you don't support them." Obama wanted to make clear that he simultaneously supports the troops and their efforts while also ending their hardship in Iraq. He wanted to hold two seemingly opposed perspectives in his hand at the same time. The "Support our Troops" messaging with the "Bring the Troops Home" messaging were effectively melded in his words. In this way, Obama steals the wind from the sails of opponents as they might have criticized his lack of appreciation for the uniformed duties. Now, they cannot.<br />
<br />
Third, the phrase of the speech that most stood out to me; "War is the darkest creation of humanity." Really? Can Obama really get away with saying this after claiming that we need to be on the offensive in Afghanistan. My response to President Obama would be this: If war is the darkest creation of humanity, then why do we spend so much money on it? Why do we support it so?<br />
<br />
All in all, the President did a good job of gracefully ending the violent military presence in Iraq. Now, repeat soon with Afghanistan.CJ Dateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09472151062672810541noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4716174117468576199.post-34290052885417755992010-08-31T05:10:00.000-07:002010-08-31T05:27:41.138-07:00Gun Control, Rights vs. Safety<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhs9aaK-8fSQ5dFSygpLGlfptcM7KSCXdBD3aQ9nI0PZdvU9VwjcEHxWSYm5cC7nM658IM00IDqZaxP_c1kQSmBk9MIpcfJ7yXUssHpNbUhyP-WP3E_LWstu80r-yEsCJXO087Lqutc-pa/s1600/moregunsthanpeople.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 249px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhs9aaK-8fSQ5dFSygpLGlfptcM7KSCXdBD3aQ9nI0PZdvU9VwjcEHxWSYm5cC7nM658IM00IDqZaxP_c1kQSmBk9MIpcfJ7yXUssHpNbUhyP-WP3E_LWstu80r-yEsCJXO087Lqutc-pa/s320/moregunsthanpeople.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5511549476917509362" /></a><br />It seems that in the history of our country, some debates have never gotten old. To be honest, some debates will probably never get old, but they do cycle in and out of style. One of the debates that is back in style right now is the 2nd Amendment; “the right to bear arms.”<br /> <br />One thing about this debate that makes it so tenacious is the strong arguments on both sides. <br /><br />The “right to own a gun side” has the Bill of Rights at its back, word for word supporting the very thing they want to maintain. Any opponent would have a difficult time with this because, let’s face it, you would have to amend the amendments, and that is not so easy. Also, many proponents of this perspective believe the world would be safer if everyone had a gun. The logic is: if everyone had a gun, no one would risk shooting anyone else.<br /><br />The “gun control” side has the social, personal and emotional backing of all the violent crimes that happen in America. These people say, “look, guns would be okay, but the track record is we suck at using them responsibly, so we have to take them away.” This side argues: if no one had a gun, no one would be able to shoot anyone else.<br /><br />Obviously, each side would have responses to the arguments I just gave as their examples, but in my opinion, these are the foundational assumptions of each perspective.<br /><br />The interesting thing about these arguments is that under close inspection we see that each side actually wants the same end; namely, to keep people safe, they just have different ideas about how it should be achieved. Despite the differences, there is room for opponents to come together on this issue.<br /><br />The inherent goal of each side is SAFETY. They both believe their plan of action, followed unwaveringly to the end, would lead to safety for all citizens. <br /><br />What I say to the “right to own a gun side” is this. <br /><br />If you want to keep your right to own and shoot your gun, then you must become the most ferocious advocate of responsible gun ownership. You must encourage people who own guns to use them responsibly and educate them in how to do it. You must encourage legislation that requires safety courses and training in how to use a gun. You must be the most dedicated voice to create a new perspective of guns, that they are not weapons, but rather tools and must never be used against another human being. If you spend your energy doing this, rather than clinging tightly to your right to own a gun, then you will eliminate the debate and gun control legislation will be a thing of the past. If everyone were using guns responsibly, no one would be bothering to control them.<br /><br />What I say to the gun control side is this.<br /><br />You must also seek to teach people to responsibly utilize their freedoms before you take those freedoms away. Until you have restlessly walked our country teaching people about the usefulness and power of firearms and also encouraged them to be responsible about their gun ownership, then you cannot wrench them from the hands of their owners. If you spend your energy doing this, rather than working to pass legislation to take guns away, you will eliminate the debate and gun control legislation will be a thing of the past. When everyone is using guns responsibly, then no one will need to fight to control them.<br /><br />I realize that people will argue that we are past this point and that this cause would be a lost one. But no cause is lost when people come together to achieve it. And before I would seek to discipline or hinder, I would seek to empower and educate. No person is past the point of being taught how to use a gun responsibly. <br /><br />If both sides of the debate pool their resources to make this happen, I firmly believe that we would see a world where guns are owned and responsibly used. <br /><br />No one would have to give up their rights; no one would have to give up their safety.CJ Dateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09472151062672810541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4716174117468576199.post-347502231905343162010-08-15T07:48:00.000-07:002010-08-15T07:53:32.945-07:00Oppression: Some ThoughtsA few days ago, I read on the BBC that a white South African man was lynched for killing a black man. The scene in the news video was madness; a large mob of black South Africans celebrating, and an equally angry mob of white South Africans crying for revenge. Before the death of the white man, the roles had been reversed: the whites were celebrating and the blacks were crying for revenge. Apparently, the black man who was killed was a prominent leader in South African equality rights. I don’t know the details, but it was clear that the white man who killed him had racial motivations. The black man who was killed was not your Nelson Mandela nonviolence-type of leader. He was more like Malcom X; “any means necessary.” Evidently, his past had been marred by racial violence towards white South Africans. <br /><br />This story got me to thinking: Where does oppression end and reconciliation begin? From my consideration, it seems that moving from oppression to equality takes a HUGE amount of trust and forgiveness. That may seem obvious, but I believe that it starts with the oppressed.<br /><br />At first glance, it may seem that oppression ends with the oppressor. The tyrannical power that is holding their boot to the neck of another people group must simply let up and change their ways! However, this is not so. Before the boot of tyranny will be lifted, the oppressor needs to be convinced that the oppressed is ready to forgive and will not seek revenge. This is a difficult task by any evaluation. The hurdles you face are few, but gigantic. First, it is not a simple task to get oppressed people to agree to forgiveness. Who wants to forgive when they have had a boot on their neck for so many years? Second, it is no simple task to get oppressors to believe that they will be forgiven. What boot-pressing superiority is going to believe in forgiveness towards them?<br /><br />The larger problem on top of all this is what oppressor is going to give up the position of superiority without the threat of some kind of punishment? The truth is, not many. However, IF the oppressors ever do decide to lift the oppression and work for equality, the only way they WILL follow through is if they know there is no threat of revenge from the oppressed. When they feel safe in loosening their grip, then they will be in a good position to do so.<br /><br />In the South African example, Nelson Mandela was able to convince many black people to forgive and many white people to feel safe in that forgiveness. And it lasted for a while. However, now on the BBC you see an interview with a black South African woman saying, “he (the white man who killed the black man who was then killed by a mob) deserved what he got.” Well, of course he deserved it. And now the white people are yelling that the mob deserves to be killed for their actions. And next the black people will be yelling that the white people deserve…. Anyway, it goes on and on. <br /><br />The key to redemption is not giving what is deserved. The key to redemption is giving what isn’t deserved. The Christ story is all about this. Mercy on those who deserve it least. Forgiveness for those who shouldn’t be given it. Grace for those who are not gracious themselves. It sounds crazy and radical, because it is. If we want to see violence and oppression end, we must embrace forgiveness and toss aside our retaliation. If you feel wronged by someone and cry out for justice, it will come from you giving to others what they don’t deserve; forgiveness, mercy, and grace. It certainly is not easy, but we must do this if we want to see a world of redemption instead of a world of oppression.CJ Dateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09472151062672810541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4716174117468576199.post-79838305405376258382010-05-15T10:44:00.000-07:002010-05-15T10:48:20.151-07:00"Response-Ability" in the Gulf<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1xWTu81k1cXnxD0iSUrnqujPyO-MU25Jv4IdhA1wKMON2yi8yJlTQsL32mF05wOKclxVMx3I46cblShRDLyEdz89gHwqPn-n1z6rXGyZkIcBC8sr3vRY_T2fNjLS2_N_VFaNYSy7Lm-tW/s1600/spill-3-col-cmyk.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 229px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1xWTu81k1cXnxD0iSUrnqujPyO-MU25Jv4IdhA1wKMON2yi8yJlTQsL32mF05wOKclxVMx3I46cblShRDLyEdz89gHwqPn-n1z6rXGyZkIcBC8sr3vRY_T2fNjLS2_N_VFaNYSy7Lm-tW/s320/spill-3-col-cmyk.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5471555087579874322" /></a><br />I am sure I am not the first to use this “response-ability” play-on-words, nor will I be the last. In light of the current situation in the Gulf of Mexico, it seems fitting.<br /><br />President Obama spoke just days ago about the current oil spill in the Gulf and his disdain for the “spectacle” that occurred in Congress. He was referring to BP pointing the finger at the owner of the oilrig, and the oilrig owners pointing the finger at the drill manufacturer, etc. Obama called for a new amount of responsibility to be taken by the parties who are to blame for the on-going plume of oil into the water.<br /><br />Now, BP and others are responding. British Petroleum is on their second attempt to block up the spill. First, they tried the large concrete container. Now, they are to lower a mile-long pipe to stop up the leak. Every news program in America doubts the success of this second attempt, and now news is flying around about the leak being much worse than was originally predicted.<br /><br />How could this happen? How have there been so many days of oil spewing into that water? Well, to be honest, this “blame game” played by the companies, agencies and politicians affected our collective “ability to respond,” our “response–ability.” People spent too long passing the buck, now everyone is stuck with a situation that appears more and more bleak. The painful part is, we all know that it could have been contained more quickly, avoided, or even prevented, if someone had just changed his or her actions. But who?<br /><br />To speak of responsibility once more, if the topic has not been touched on enough, who IS really responsible for this mess? I will tell you honestly, without the blame-game: I am. And you are also. We ALL are responsible for this. It makes us feel better to say that BP made the mistake, and maybe they did, but let us not forget the integral reality of this situation. We told them to run an oil pipe through the Gulf. We told them to drill in the oceans. We told them to do whatever they need to do to get us gasoline and to get it to us cheap. <br /><br />By driving our cars, by packaging our food in plastics, by flying in airplanes, by any piece of our lifestyle, we required BP and every other oil company to do what they do. We sit and watch the evening news and shake our heads and say “Those bastards at BP. Who the hell said they could run a pipe through there?” You did. And I did. <br /><br />Once we take responsibility for this oil spill ourselves, we can move on from here. We can evaluate the situation and maybe say to each other; “You know, this wasn’t worth it. We need to act differently so this doesn’t happen again.” As long as we point the finger at politicians, or agencies, or companies like BP, things like this will continue to happen. But, if we choose to take responsibility for this ourselves, we will change our actions and create a new reality; one where our “response-ability” consists of prevention, good decisions, and ultimately, self-awareness. If you ask me, that would be the best kind to have.CJ Dateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09472151062672810541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4716174117468576199.post-53828326867125371292010-04-14T14:14:00.000-07:002010-04-14T14:19:37.096-07:00The Hunger and The Thirst for Righteousness<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpyqYaARZTeApKoSO3CIRnoNnTMO1hifx2HtYaTBNLFmugIxKlFRF96AVCFxaX0T_ZHGRK9Z7UvBjm-4UZO2yW2WwibU9jVd1l1bMjgf9FYzbaJvM3bV5Ms7HidMuGuKL9Q9Bd_yK4QzKX/s1600/Communion+Bread.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 199px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpyqYaARZTeApKoSO3CIRnoNnTMO1hifx2HtYaTBNLFmugIxKlFRF96AVCFxaX0T_ZHGRK9Z7UvBjm-4UZO2yW2WwibU9jVd1l1bMjgf9FYzbaJvM3bV5Ms7HidMuGuKL9Q9Bd_yK4QzKX/s320/Communion+Bread.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5460105895428222466" /></a><br />In the most famous “sermon” in Christian history, Jesus says;<br /><br />“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled” (Matthew 5:6).<br /><br />Most would recognize this as a section from the Beatitudes, or the introduction of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, as we have labeled in our Bibles. I have always been intrigued by the Beatitudes and as a result have spent time contemplating them. It seems to me that this specific verse, about the mysterious “hunger or thirst for righteousness,” says much more than may have originally been thought.<br /><br />Traditionally, at least in my experience, churches and pastors have taught that Jesus is telling of a promise God makes to us. The promise consists of not cause and effect, but rather of an assuredness in our attitude. The idea is that God is saying “Rest assured in your hunger or thirst for righteousness, because I am promising you that eventually it will come. At some point in time, I will restore creation and all humans by bringing you my righteousness. Your thirst will be quenched at that time; your hunger will then be satisfied.” The underlying tone of this message is to be patient. Be patient in hunger or thirsting, because God will fulfill it at some predetermined time that is unbeknownst to humanity.<br /><br />This understanding I find lacking. Jesus is not giving a “pie in the sky” promise about some time in the future when our hunger and thirst shall be met by God’s fulfillment. He is talking cause and effect here; he is talking about the hunger creating the fulfillment.<br /><br />Think about this: If one hungers for cake, or thirsts for soda, they may say things like, “I would do anything for cake right now” or “I want a soda so bad.” Already, this desire has manifested itself in their speech. They have acknowledged the reality of their desire. Soon, if the resources are available, their actions will fall in line with their words and they will ACT in a certain way to attain their goals. If they want cake bad enough, and the ingredients are in the house, they will take time from their day and they will make it. If a soda machine is available, they will take time and money and sacrifice them in the interest of fulfilling that desire for themselves. The truth of reality is that if the hunger or thirst is great enough, it will cause us to CREATE the fulfillment of them.<br /><br />It might be argued that clearly there are people in the world hungry and thirsty for things that they don’t receive. Indeed, many people are dying of hunger or thirst today because the resources are NOT available to them. From this devastating truth, we can realize more of the meaning from Christ’s words: the resources for achieving righteousness are always available to us. If they were not, Christ would be lying in his statement. <br /><br />If this is the case then, Jesus is not giving a promise, but rather a prediction. He is making a cause and effect statement that would be as simple as me saying, “If I am hungry enough for bread, and there is bread available, I will make sacrifices and change my actions to satisfy this hunger.” Jesus is saying that if we are hungry and thirsty for righteousness, we will change our actions in order to see it fulfilled.<br /><br />This is akin to Jesus’ strange statement, “ask and you shall receive, seek and you will find, knock and the door shall be opened unto you. For everyone who asks, receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.” (Matthew 7:7-8) Jesus is not promising arbitrary fulfillment of desires. He is promising that if we want something bad enough, we will do what is necessary to get it. Better yet, if what we are hungry or thirsty for is righteousness, we have all the resources we need for fulfillment, within us and around us. Do we hunger and thirst enough?<br />Are we willing to change our actions in order to create the Kingdom of God?CJ Dateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09472151062672810541noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4716174117468576199.post-70535271659037802962010-04-03T11:17:00.000-07:002010-04-03T11:21:13.121-07:00The TEA Party Express<meta equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CADMINI%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng/> <o:pixelsperinch>72</o:PixelsPerInch> <o:targetscreensize>1024x768</o:TargetScreenSize> </o:OfficeDocumentSettings> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:hyphenationzone>21</w:HyphenationZone> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:donotoptimizeforbrowser/> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" latentstylecount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Cambria; mso-font-alt:"Palatino Linotype"; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:Cambria; mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:EN-US; mso-fareast-language:EN-US;} @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; mso-header-margin:36.0pt; mso-footer-margin:36.0pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Tabla normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Being in Ecuador right now, I have not kept up on world events as much as I should have simply because of a lack of resources.<span style=""> </span>I don’t have a television here, I don’t use the Internet that often, and all the periodicals are in Spanish (which I am not fluent in.)</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">
<br /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">However, I recently had the delightful experience of watching the BBC World News Report.<span style=""> </span>I heard things about the British Airways strike, massacres in the D R Congo by the Lord’s Resistance Army, and of course United States healthcare.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">
<br /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">It seems that like any other new reform, people are either thrilled or disgusted.<span style=""> </span>On the BBC, they choose to show some of the disgusted population, attending a rally with keynote speaker Sarah Palin.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">
<br /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">This rally was put on by a Republican organization called Tea Party Express.<span style=""> </span>I am sure that the historical connection offered them some rhetorical leverage, but in reality the situation surrounding the Boston Tea Party and this healthcare reform are profoundly different.<span style=""> </span>During the Boston Tea Party, angered citizens were boycotting the tea that had been imported from England.<span style=""> </span>This was a nonviolent way to put economic pressure on the tea trade between England and its colony in the New World.<span style=""> </span>The main concern of the Boston protesters though was one of taxation without representation.<span style=""> </span>Without representatives from the colonies serving in the Parliament of England, they had no say on what they were paying taxes for.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">
<br /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">In this present day “Tea Party”, with Sarah Palin leading the charge, the sentiment might be similar.<span style=""> </span>If I am a Republican opposed to this healthcare, it is probably because I <i style="">feel</i> unrepresented in Congress and therefore that I am paying taxes to something that I not only disagree with, but have no say in.<span style=""> </span>I am not sure this is the case though.<span style=""> </span>It seems that the major idea discussed at this rally was not taxation without representation, but simply too much tax.<span style=""> </span>Republicans might feel under-represented, but that is because they are, and no Republican politician is going to bring that up because they know that it is the nature of Congress right now.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">
<br /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">So, if it is boiled down to the bottom of the issue, the problem is not enough representation, it is simply a disagreement of where the taxes should be going.<span style=""> </span>One man at this rally donned a sign that read “Taxed Enough Already.”<span style=""> </span>In addition to enjoying his clever acronym, I agree with him.<span style=""> </span>We are taxed enough already.<span style=""> </span>No citizens want to see taxes go up.<span style=""> </span>If we don’t want to see a raise in taxes though, we must communicate more than that to our government.<span style=""> </span>Representatives already know that voters don’t like raised taxes.<span style=""> </span>What they seem to be ignorant of is what we WANT to pay taxes for.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">
<br /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">I don’t know what the man with the “Taxed Enough Already” sign really values other than his own money.<span style=""> </span>He doesn’t want taxes to go up.<span style=""> </span>It is true that we could cut this healthcare reform and decrease government spending in the healthcare area.<span style=""> </span>But we are only directing our focus there because it is the most recent legislation.<span style=""> </span>The Republican Party as a bloc is against raised taxes for healthcare, but sees no issue with funding the military.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">
<br /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">So, what if we cut spending in other areas? What if we cut funding for our overseas military excursions?<span style=""> </span>What if we cut back on nuclear arms and military bases?<span style=""> </span>Every time an American soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan pulls the trigger and kills a Muslim, it costs our taxpayers money.<span style=""> </span>We are paying to kill people.<span style=""> </span>We are paying for helicopters, missiles, bombs, grenades, airplanes, tanks and guns.<span style=""> </span>The worst part is, once a bullet is fired, its value has been spent.<span style=""> </span>Once a tank is destroyed, another one must be built.<span style=""> </span>If the tools of warfare do their job, they are rarely reusable.<span style=""> </span>We certainly are taxed enough, and it is invested poorly.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">
<br /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Basically I see a choice.<span style=""> </span>We can say “Taxed Enough Already,” and decide not to accept the addition of taxes, or we can <i style="">redirect</i> the taxes we are already paying.<span style=""> </span>Can we tell our representatives not only that we want to cut government spending, but also that we want to cut it in specific areas?<span style=""> </span>Can we invest our money in hospital beds, medical equipment and hiring nurses and doctors rather than investing it in bullets, bombs, and soldiers?
<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">
<br /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span lang="EN-US">Can our taxes be directed towards preserving life rather than ending it?</span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal">
<br /><b style=""><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Thanks, Republicans for showing us the reality of the situation.<span style=""> </span>Taxes are too high.<span style=""> </span>Now together let’s decide where to cut.<span style=""> </span>Healthcare or warfare?<span style=""> </span>Would we still be opposed to healthcare reform if it didn’t cost so much?<span style=""> </span>Because if the answer is ‘no,’ I have a deal.<span style=""> </span>Let’s remove the immense costs of war, and the medical cost won’t seem so daunting.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> CJ Dateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09472151062672810541noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4716174117468576199.post-83478922216134504462010-03-31T12:55:00.001-07:002010-03-31T12:57:52.435-07:00The Gospel vs. The Constitution<!--StartFragment--> <p class="MsoNormal">The following is my response to Roger Misso's latest article in the Wayuga newspaper. Misso writes a column called "The New Prosperity."</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> In response to Mr. Misso’s piece “Among These,” I must argue that the United States is neither a “Christian nation” nor is it founded on “Christian principles.”</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> First, it must be asked, what is a “Christian nation?”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> Is it a country that declares Christianity its national religion? A reading of our Constitution will indicate that Americans have no national religion.</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> Is it a population of Christians living in the same geographical region?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If this is the case we must concede that America is not a Christian nation, but rather one of variegated religious traditions.</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> Is a Christian nation one that is founded upon the principles discussed in the Bible?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>With a close look at Christ’s teachings we must say that gospel scripture cannot be the foundation for a country.</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> There is no such thing as a Christian nation, because a nation consists of a military, laws, and judges.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Christ’s vision for the world was one of love, forgiveness, and peace.</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> Our nation has a military and police force.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>One provides protection from external foes and the other is intended to provide protection from internal nuisances.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Christ teaches that we cannot retaliate to evil.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The gospel says “resist not evil” and “if anyone strikes you on the right cheek turn your other also.” (Matthew 5:39, Luke 6:29) The United States military could not take these guidelines seriously and survive as it is.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It would mean unilaterally dismantling the executive branch of the government, as its whole purpose is to resist “evil.”</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> Our nation has laws and punishments for those laws.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Christ teaches only the law of love and gives only the verdict of forgiveness.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Always, Christ urges us to forgive, even to “seventy times seven.” (Matthew 18:22)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The United States justice system could not exist on these guidelines and survive as it is.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It would mean the disintegration of our courts and laws.</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> I agree with Mr. Misso and Jefferson that we are “endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.” However, once a system is formulated to preserve those rights, the teachings of Christ are abandoned.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The system of enforcement for rights becomes the culprit of encroachment on them.</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> If the gospel is taken seriously, it is apparent that its ideas are to be followed by individuals, and not by governments or policies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The result won’t be a system; it won’t have a military or police force; it won’t be a codified set of laws; it absolutely will not be a nation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It will be “action and truth.” (1 John 3:18)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Of what use is a military if every citizen really was to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>and “be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.” (Luke 6:36) Of what use is a judge if forgiveness is always the answer to evils?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Of what use is defining rights if each person was taking seriously “do to others as you would have them do to you?” (Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31)</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> It may be going too far to say that anarchy is the only feasible option that Christ may have supported (though there are many who do; Leo Tolstoy and Jacques Ellul among them) but it is not a stretch to say that the United States is not a Christian nation, nor is any other nation in this world today.</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> Taking the teaching of Christ seriously will not transform voting decisions or political perspectives.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It will transform an individual’s entire way of life; and call to question the assumptions on which elections and debates are based.</o:p></p> <!--EndFragment-->CJ Dateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09472151062672810541noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4716174117468576199.post-45839474144396720352010-03-22T13:02:00.000-07:002010-03-22T13:06:57.305-07:00In God We Trust?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEieJeGLgCgV6quBQDIcWEmbczl1qxCfuXOqpL91qEM9kVySEXjZW817WA5rDvmypima8-cY9tOUkeOTEcmgCrZiZurMUzdKG2OtotNLsrO_f7uTyGNbIWzJqX9cAnRZp_mjCuur1Xpw-Dyy/s1600-h/dollar.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 135px; height: 135px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEieJeGLgCgV6quBQDIcWEmbczl1qxCfuXOqpL91qEM9kVySEXjZW817WA5rDvmypima8-cY9tOUkeOTEcmgCrZiZurMUzdKG2OtotNLsrO_f7uTyGNbIWzJqX9cAnRZp_mjCuur1Xpw-Dyy/s320/dollar.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5451552091868932914" /></a><br /><!--StartFragment--> <p class="MsoNormal">Recently, I received a chain email begging the American population for help.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It was written in urgent tones and affirmed me that in this issue, I could indeed make a difference.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In a world of so many social, political, and spiritual problems, I read on in hopeful anticipation of how I could “make a difference.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Ready and poised to take action in a direction that promised results and change, I curiously considered what this ill could be that I had the power to solve.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>AIDS?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Cancer?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Poverty?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>World Hunger?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Suspenseful lists in blog posts?</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> The email was trying to convince people to “refuse to accept” new coins that the United States government has issued.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The major problem with these coins was that they lacked the words “In God We Trust.”</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> Although I don’t recall if the email was rooted in a Christian organization, it represents a large movement in American Christianity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Most Americans are familiar with the “In God We Trust” debate and those issues that run parallel to it, ie; Ten Commandments in courthouses, prayer in classrooms, “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Christianity has effectively convinced its populations that defending these areas of tradition and others are an essential Christian duty.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>There are fear-mongering preachers who teach that the abolishment of “In God We Trust” from American forms of money would lead to the demise of the United States as we know it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Because we are a God-fearing nation, and we demonstrate that fact proudly to the world on every piece of legal tender, we are in His omnipotent favor and can enjoy the fruits of His providence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But beware! To turn from God by neglecting to print His name on your money is certain destruction!</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> But what really should the Christian stance on this topic be, if any?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In this issue, has a Christian duty become a civil duty or vice-versa?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>What does scripture say?</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> It is generally admitted by Christians that money is the second-most discussed topic by Christ in the gospels.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Jesus had a lot to say about your relationships, and not much less to say about your pocketbook.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>And what does he say?</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> Well, one day Jesus and his disciples are discussing the matters of the world and the kingdom of heaven, and a Pharisee asks him about taxes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Of course, the Pharisee knows that Jesus is a threat to the Roman Empire and if he can catch Jesus saying explicitly: “Don’t pay your taxes because they fund that evil empire of Rome!” then the Jewish teachers and the Roman government can be rid of the nuisance that is the Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>So the Pharisee pipes up:</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">“Jesus, what about taxes? Should we pay them?”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Jesus, (as he so frequently does) responds to a question with a question; </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">“Do you have a coin?”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Certainly the Pharisee does, and hands it to the Rabbi as the Jewish and Roman crowd anxiously awaits the response.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Jesus takes a look at the coin and says to the Pharisee, </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">“See how it says ‘In God We Trust’ right here in little letters?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>That means that it is your Christian (or Jewish) duty to pay your taxes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Based on the printing on the coin, you can clearly see that the Roman Empire is godly, as it recognizes God on every piece of legal tender…”</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> Wait a second…. I thought I remember that story reading differently!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Oh yeah, that is not how it went at all!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In Mark 12:17, after Jesus does indeed ask the Pharisee what is on the coin and it is established that the head of Caesar is branded in the piece, Jesus says,</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> Well, of course, back in Jesus’ time, this answer would work just fine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>And now it would work just fine too, except that the government of our empire has slyly printed God’s name onto the coins next to Caesar’s (or Washington’s) head.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Now the Christian populace is confused: “render to God, wait… No, Caesar! Wait, no… God!” To alleviate this confusion, those who have their hands in the pot of political interests and their words in the sanctuary of American churches have taught us that by rendering to the government our taxes, we are also effectively rendering to God what is God’s.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If the government recognizes the authority of God, then by some hierarchal law of association, what belongs to the government is also Gods.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Also, conveniently, our money is now of greater spiritual power! What joy it is to tithe and donate money that has the name of God printed in the side!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Certainly God will use this coin more favorably than any other in circulation, because He sees that it bears His name! And certainly, He will look with disdain and disgust on coins that don’t have His name; in fact, He will devalue them!</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> Jesus is rolling over in his resurrection.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The head of Caesar (or Washington) is still clearly there! Do not confuse “In God We Trust” with whom this money REALLY belongs to.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It is a clever ploy by men who understand Christianity well enough to manipulate it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Of course, no one is so explicit in their talk of this issue, but read between the lines and cut through the pulpit rhetoric; these trends are there.</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> I urge you, pay your taxes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But don’t do it as some Christian duty.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Do it because you recognize that money that you own is a chunk of metal with the empire’s name on it, and in the end the value that it has is created and defined by them, not God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>To God it is worthless.</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> I urge you, rejoice in the removal of “In God We Trust” for it will be the repealing of a lie.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>And if “In God We Trust” continues to remain on the coins, ask your political leaders, fellow citizens and yourself to think of whom we trust when they build weapons of mass destruction.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Is it God?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Or are we trusting in our technological superiority?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Whom do we trust as we send soldiers off to Afghanistan to “defend our freedom?”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Is it God or are we trusting in our military might?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Whom do we trust when we allocate money for economic bailouts?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Is it God or are we trusting in the financial leverage we have created for ourselves?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Whom do we trust when we open savings accounts, retirement plans and life insurance policies?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Whom do we trust when we buy lock boxes for our money?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Whom do we trust when we use money as if it were the ultimate power itself?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Is it God?</o:p></p> <!--EndFragment-->CJ Dateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09472151062672810541noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4716174117468576199.post-8049785111043646872009-11-22T12:18:00.000-08:002009-11-22T13:01:43.080-08:002012: A Warning<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEEMAN6X8ukwcMM3MU4eAv_4q-7DLPoXhYRDaO4IReOLEml_uUKDU7HV0XiqVxHpPdpoEwvxgc1rgKyTqU26usX5CdI89C5NK3llUO_AdXPCqE8-CXvK4XHqI06i6JVxCWzMvjiv5eaE98/s1600/End+Times+Kennys+slide+show.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 264px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEEMAN6X8ukwcMM3MU4eAv_4q-7DLPoXhYRDaO4IReOLEml_uUKDU7HV0XiqVxHpPdpoEwvxgc1rgKyTqU26usX5CdI89C5NK3llUO_AdXPCqE8-CXvK4XHqI06i6JVxCWzMvjiv5eaE98/s320/End+Times+Kennys+slide+show.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5407036037128101890" /></a><br />I recently went to see the new movie "2012," and I was impressed by the special effects, and even the interesting story line. It was similar to other "end-of-the-world" films but this one possessed an intriguing quality that others lacked: the realness of a specific date that has people talking.<div><br /></div><div>Of course, most of us are familiar with the Mayan calendar and its ending date of 2012. I am not educated in all the details of the calendar and its implications, but it certainly has started a conversation. Now, people are reading deeper into Nostradamus, the teachings of religious books, and anything having to do with astronomical or mystical import. I have even heard of one case where a biblical scholar, Dr. Wayne Stanton, is developing a numerical code of reading the teaching of Christ, and finding that Jesus was warning us of world-ending events in 2012.</div><div><br /></div><div>What is going on here? Has there ever been a time in history when humans have entertained the idea of the end of their species with such specificity or degree?</div><div><br /></div><div>As a younger person, I used to read Christ's words in Matthew 24 about how not to believe the false prophets, and that "no one knows the day or hour," and that the Son of Man would come as a thief in the night. I thought the only sure way to obviate any eschatological encounters with the Son of Man would be to wake every morning and say out loud, "Today, Christ will come again." If no one knows the day or hour, how could you say that on the day? You couldn't, and therefore would save yourself from the "end times"</div><div><br /></div><div>But when does this talk cross the line from amusing predictions to certain expectation? The shades are gray, but the more we discuss this date, the more it is cemented in our minds and even as I type this, I am adding to the visibility of 2012.</div><div><br /></div><div>The problem with this cementation is a psycho-social one. We will wake up on January 1st, 2012, and continue on with our lives as usual. But, in these years preceding the date, we will have time to effectively "talk up" 2012, and make it into a year of novelty, standing apart from others. If this talk is successful (in a certain sense) then our days of 2012 will be lived with our minds harboring background thoughts, like shadows of crumbling buildings; "what if this is THE year of THE end?"</div><div><br /></div><div>My fear is that this question will lead us into expectation, expectation will lead us to more proclamation, proclamation will breed more expectation. If this cycle occurs, then the phobia/reverence/fascination with 2012 will drive people to take matters into their own hands. I hate to say it, but proclamation and expectation leave room for failure and disappointment. If the fear of failure and disappointment outweighs the fear of our own species death, then we have a dire situation on our hands. A dire situation of our own creation.</div><div><br /></div><div>To use the words of Bill Maher, "The only thing worse than prophesy is self-fulfilling prophesy." If 2012 was not the end, all this talk may make it be.</div><div><br /></div><div>If you like to think of 2012 and to flirt with the tantalizing idea that it may indeed be the end of our species, then do it. But do it cautiously. Make sure that as you provoke the idea it doesn't provoke you back to do something rash.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>CJ Dateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09472151062672810541noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4716174117468576199.post-51162412206371158332009-11-01T17:53:00.000-08:002009-11-01T18:10:30.610-08:00Jon Stewart Analyzes FOX News<div><object width="512" height="296"><param name="movie" value="http://www.hulu.com/embed/SkBY9W4L1JNwxHcydzVdWw/25/691/i194"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.hulu.com/embed/SkBY9W4L1JNwxHcydzVdWw/25/691/i194" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="512" height="296"></embed></object></div><div><br /></div><div>Long video, but sooooo worth it if you want to laugh....</div>CJ Dateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09472151062672810541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4716174117468576199.post-45751266062979267302009-10-30T14:01:00.000-07:002009-10-30T14:21:44.485-07:00Wal-Mart: All Your Needs from Cradle to Grave?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTxyker5FHIx254XsOJhxcZZPmr2VzbWFpCqEyQM0WDz38GD3jSPV0AbgOLKT-AmbXsZyV9qnBwn7wy9KYDnGJqIbDpLYkZOv9OB3x83Hft-fNWPU6K8Bk3Yt1vrDyqwSlyqLis6uyLoXo/s1600-h/wal-mart-image.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 319px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTxyker5FHIx254XsOJhxcZZPmr2VzbWFpCqEyQM0WDz38GD3jSPV0AbgOLKT-AmbXsZyV9qnBwn7wy9KYDnGJqIbDpLYkZOv9OB3x83Hft-fNWPU6K8Bk3Yt1vrDyqwSlyqLis6uyLoXo/s320/wal-mart-image.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5398506278628123874" /></a><br />Wal-Mart has released the news of its stores now being outfitted with coffins. Just when you thought there was no more local businesses they could drive out of town, they "bury" the funeral competition.<div><br /></div><div>This undertaking (pun intended) aims to be a marketing research strategy for Wal-Mart, to find out what the customer demand would be on cheap coffins. As you can see on the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8333198.stm">BBC</a>, these coffins run under the model names "Mom Remembered" or "Dad Remembered."</div><div><br /></div><div>The most interesting thing about this news is the last few paragraphs of the article. When interviewing a "real-live human undertaker" he submits that Wal-Marts business will fail in this arena because people value the "human contact" when it comes to planning and executing (pun not intended) their funeral services.</div><div><br /></div><div>Now, did the jeweler say the same thing about "human contact" when it came to picking out engagement rings? Because Wal-Mart renders those services quite successfully. Did the local "Cribs N' More" baby store owner brush aside Wal-Mart when it began selling strollers and pacifiers due to lack of "human contact?"</div><div><br /></div><div>Maybe both of these things happened. Maybe at some point we believed it was impossible for Wal-Mart to sell shoes or underwear or plumbing parts because as a large department store they lacked "human contact." The truth is, they cornered many markets, and a lack of human interaction has not seemed to slow them down.</div><div><br /></div><div>The truth is, most people aren't looking for the human element as much as they used to. It is sad to see, but in a culture where most things are available for purchase online, we obviously don't value the face behind the counter the way we used to. (Sidenote: How long do you think we will have virtual "shopping carts" on webstores that we must "proceed to checkout." One day, a child might see that and say "Mommy, what is a shopping cart?")</div><div><br /></div><div>Wal-Mart has set the standard now for marketing and convenience. I certainly do hope that Pat Lynch is right, that we won't outsource something as sacred to our culture as burial to corporate convenience. But the cynical side of me is skeptical (as it should be).</div><div><br /></div><div>Wal-Mart, our souls are easier to win this side of the grave. Please let us rest in peace, and not by providing a low-cost coffin.</div><div><br /></div><div>I hope I can be cremated before they are selling urns. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>CJ Dateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09472151062672810541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4716174117468576199.post-4278687316525964702009-10-21T07:33:00.000-07:002009-10-21T08:04:21.109-07:00The Psychology of Nigeria and Darfur’s Incentive Plans<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">The Obama Administration unveiled a </span></span><a href="http://www.rferl.org/content/Obama_Modifies_US_Darfur_Policy_To_Include_Incentives_/1856140.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">new plan</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> yesterday to deal with the genocide in Darfur. While there are no specifics yet, it seems that Hillary Clinton and others are taking an official stand on this issue with the new policy.</span></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">From descriptions, it looks similar to the incentive system used in Nigeria, where the Nigerian government has pledged to give rebels a </span></span><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8315312.stm"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">10% cut of oil cash</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> in return for them to stop sabotaging pipelines and attacking government buildings and personnel. </span></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Obama’s critics are saying exactly what I would say, namely, are we really going to </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">pay </span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">people to stop fighting? The current administration has said that Bush’s policies were flawed in that they only included sanctions. So here is the conundrum. Do you make a bad situation worse by instituted sanctions, or do you affirm the actions of violence and revolution by instituting incentives? Cutting people off from the world doesn’t disarm these conflicts, but providing incentives is saying, “if you fight for long enough and hard enough, we will pay you to stop.” It is appeasement at it worst, because we are setting the standard to affirm violent conflict as a means to get what you want. Neither sanctions nor incentives will work.</span></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">But they seem like they would, right? According to the psychological laws of conditioning, positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement, the plans of Bush and Obama would both work, just from different perspectives.</span></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">The problem is, conditioning doesn’t address attitude. It only addresses action. These sanctions and incentives are responses to undesired action, and they leave the attitude of the movement to continue to fester. </span></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Think of your most heated political argument. Maybe it was with a friend or a loved one, or maybe a total stranger. Here in America, we have some drastically opposing attitudes and many people who are not afraid to voice those perspectives. This is a wonderful thing. But imagine that political argument you had, that, in your opinion was quite fervent, and ask yourself what it would take for you to decide to buy a gun and kill the person who disagreed with you. This is the intensity of these conflicts in Darfur and Nigeria. Now imagine what it would take to diffuse that attitude. This is no small task, and it is not achieved by incentives or sanctions.</span></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">The science of psychology has another principle I should bring up. There is a theory called </span></span><a href="http://tip.psychology.org/festinge.html"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Cognitive Dissonance Theory</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> posed by a man named Leon Festinger. On the surface, this theory is very simple: If you believe something that conflicts internally with another belief, you obviate this dissonance by either (1) reducing the importance of the conflicting beliefs, (2) adopting a new belief that outweighs and diffuses the conflict or (3) by modifying the conflicting beliefs not only in degree but in form.</span></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">If I am willing to wage war, and even kill an individual for a belief, I may have created a dissonance in this situation between two beliefs. Let’s say I believe X as a political perspective, but I also believe it is wrong to kill. I have a cognitive dissonance, and I only have a few options of how to deal with it (according to the theory)</span></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">I can either:</span></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Under possibility (1) of the theory,</span></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">-decrease my belief in X, and face the guilt that I killed someone (guilt being cognitively uncomfortable but not dissonant)</span></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">-decrease my belief that killing someone is wrong (this will probably lead to more violence)</span></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Under possibility (2) of the theory,</span></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">-adopt a new belief that killing is permitted in regards to X (this will lead to more killing)</span></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Under possibility (3) of the theory,</span></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">-change my understanding of the murder to say that I killed not for X, but for something else</span></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">-change my understanding of X to say that murder is permissible (similar to adopting a new belief)</span></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Of course, the human mind and emotions are more complex than what I just described, but according to Festinger, one of the above options will inevitably occur in order to dispel the dissonance. (by the way, this psychological theory helps me to understand “thou shalt not kill,” and the non-violence of Christ, but that is another entry...)</span></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">It is sad to see that most of these options are noxious, and maybe even more dangerous than the original murder itself. My point is, throwing money at an intense psychological, pathological and sociological problem will not do anything to make these motives and options any different.</span></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">In the midst of this criticism, I am at a loss for what should be done in these situations. There may not be any better options, but I hope there is.</span></span></span></p>CJ Dateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09472151062672810541noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4716174117468576199.post-83164777216970723952009-10-20T06:48:00.000-07:002009-10-21T08:06:20.796-07:00PEACE?<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">In a conversation recently with some friends, we were discussing peace, and whether it is an attainable goal. One friend of mine said two things of interest.</span></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">“Men have been trying forever to create peace. There are always those who will destroy and undermine the efforts of making a peaceful world. For these reasons, I see no incentive for supporting peace efforts. They are a lost cause.”</span></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Two things immediately struck me about this statement, and maybe you feel the same as I do. Read on.</span></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">First, “there are always those who will destroy and undermine,” does not seem to me to be a feasible excuse for not attempting to create peace. What follows is a narrative about Bob Marley of which I have heard, but not found any written evidence for. Nonetheless, it voices the opposite perspective to my friend seamlessly.</span></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Singer/songwriter and reggae genius </span></span><a href="http://web.bobmarley.com/index.jsp"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Bob Marley</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> was the target of an assassination during his career. He was shot, but the bullet missed any crucial organs. At the hospital, he asked for release because he had a concert the next day. The doctors released him from the hospital against their better judgment, and Marley went on to perform in the concert the next day. After the performance, he was asked by an interviewer why he left the hospital and chose to risk his health and perform. He responded with something to the effect of “The men fighting to make this world destructive are not taking a day off, and so neither can I.”</span></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">This is my point. People struggling to create a chaotic world are invigorated and energized by the possibility of those doing good, as it offers a new target of sabotage. Why can’t the reciprocal relationship be true? Can the presence of evil in the world energize peace-makers rather than enervate or discourage them?</span></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Second, “men have been trying forever to create peace.” Really? Trying? Are we trying to create peace as courageously as we try to solidify our careers? Are we trying to encourage reconciliation as vigorously as we try to catch television and movie premiers? Do we demand peace as often and as strongly as we demand cell phone service, web access, satellite reception, and amenities for ourselves? The answer is clearly “no.” We receive successfully what we demand. It is not harder work to create peace than it is to create a blog. It is just refocused work. If we did indeed demand peace as intensely as we can demand these other things, it may have been attained right now.</span></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Even if I am wrong, the fact that it has been demanded in the past does not make it a null point of interest today. People have always demanded new technology and better economic standing for all of history, the fact that we haven’t perfected it does not discourage anyone in pursuit.</span></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"></span><br /></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Think today: Do I demand peace and reconciliation as intensely as I demand other things? </span></span></span></p>CJ Dateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09472151062672810541noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4716174117468576199.post-73427078202044162692009-10-19T08:17:00.000-07:002009-10-21T08:06:45.360-07:00The Matrix and The Bible<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">You might not be aware, but </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">The Matrix</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> trilogy by Andy and Larry Wachowski is teeming with Biblical symbols and parallels. To read about it view </span></span><a href="http://action-films-thrillers.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_matrix_and_the_bible"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">this article</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">.</span></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Watch </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">The Matrix</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> films again with this perspective. Try to look past the guns and kung-fu, and see the deeper meaning.</span></span></div>CJ Dateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09472151062672810541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4716174117468576199.post-62990719398681240172009-10-19T08:13:00.000-07:002009-10-21T08:07:03.440-07:00Article on "Where The Wild Things Are"<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">I have published a new article on Suite 101 reviewing and analyzing Spike Jonze's new film, </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Where The Wild Things Are</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">. If you are interested in the film, </span></span><a href="http://film-dramas-based-on-books.suite101.com/article.cfm/analysis_and_review_where_the_wild_things_are"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">read my article</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">.</span></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Enjoy!<br /></span></span><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div></div>CJ Dateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09472151062672810541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4716174117468576199.post-50743005386678160602009-10-19T07:21:00.000-07:002009-10-21T08:03:37.966-07:00The Political Blindness of Christianity<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">A few days ago, I was engaged in a conversation with some Conservative Christians (whom I appreciate and respect mind you), and they were voicing their opinions on health-care, Obama's administration, and the current State of the Union.</span></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">The dialogue was amicable, even delightful, as we exchanged perspectives and ideas. I happen to have a more liberal stance than this couple did, but nonetheless we journeyed into the subjects with mutual friendliness.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">Although I continue to respect these individuals, the woman said something that struck me. It was something to the effect of; "the reason I appreciate George W. Bush so much more than Obama is not because of his policies or actions, but because he never missed an opportunity to acknowledge God and the Lord's authority over his presidency and this country." This woman was also upset by Obama's impassivity in addressing the National Day of Prayer, and then she went on to site that Muslims prayed together outside of Congress recently.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">Stop there. At the time, I thought to myself "Is George W. Bush a good international symbol for the Christian faith?" The obvious answer I arrived at was "no." However, after contemplating this statement in the following few days, I realized it stands for a much larger and more profound sentiment than she intended. Namely, this:</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">When did it become a necessity or even a comfort to have a national leader affirm a Christian belief? This is the epitome of the minimization of the Christian message and action. We have arrived at a place where Christian duty and narrative is enhanced by a political leader supporting it, and this is wrong. Christians DO NOT need the bolstering efforts of a political leader, and when we believe that we do, we have sold ourselves out to a lesser and weaker road; one where our Christian duty becomes nothing more than a specific voting record or arguing for a political perspective because it is "more Christian." In this position, we can rest assured that the political parties have successfully co-opted our narrative, and used it for their own ends.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">We have been blinded into believing that Obama's endorsement or ignorance of the National Day of Prayer somehow affects our spiritual lives, when in reality the power of prayer rests in none of these external forces. Indeed, if the potency of prayer depended upon such things, then it would not be a spiritual force of any importance.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:georgia;">I believe that Christians should act politically and should stand up for what they believe, whether it is a campaign, a certain political leader, or a specific public policy. However, do not make the mistake in thinking that you support these things BECAUSE of your Christian faith. Do not make the mistake that picketing against certain legislation qualifies as Christian action. These things are as lame as writing your thoughts on a blog. Remember that Christ holds us to higher standard of action, one of compassion, forgiveness and social providence. No one is clothed by George W. Bush never missing the opportunity to say "God Bless America." No one is fed by Obama disregarding the National Day of Prayer. The actions of the Body of Christ don't happen at those levels, they happen at the level in which you and I live. Do not confuse these to a degree in which you are paralyzed and blinded by your political perspective, missing the larger action and purpose of Christ.</span></span></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>CJ Dateshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09472151062672810541noreply@blogger.com2