The Other Side of the Debate

The Other Side of the Debate


The gay marriage debate is seemingly endless, and has taken so much publicity, as it seems a tweet from the most minor of celebrities have to weigh in on it. It would seem that speaking for gay rights is a good career move as a sure way to receive publicity, as well as curry favor with casting powers in Hollywood.

The gay rights crowd, like other groups, have seemingly owned the issue so as to define it so that opposing points are discarded. The left that prides itself on tolerance and civility and is decidedly not when it comes to those that oppose their personal viewpoints. For instance, the term "homophobe" is very presumptuous. Let psychologists diagnose phobias. The Right has played defense too long in apologizing for its beliefs. True, there are many hatemongers who perform acts of violence and spiteful language against homosexuals. But many who oppose homosexuality do so out of legitimate moral and religious reasons, not hatred of any person.

The Evangelical right has been the scapegoat for crimes against gays and unfairly so. Matthew Shepperd, who was violently assaulted and murdered by thugs who were drinking and playing pool, acts not associated with Evangelical Christians. It seems some unscrupulous gay rights activists exploited his death so criticize conservative Christians speaking out against the gay lifestyle would be branded as accomplices in his death. If Christians are responsible for acts of violence against gays because they proclaim it as sinful, are Christians also responsible for murder when a man catches his wife with another man because they spoke against adultery too?

The reason I'm opposed to gay marriage is because it is not an act of privacy in the house. Marriage is a public institution; a endorsement by society that publicly recognizes the union. If homosexuality is another lifestyle, then organizations such as religious adoption agencies who have to provide services to gay couples, businesses would be forced to provide benefits to couples. One Christian who owns a well known dating service is now being forced tho include gays, despite his religious beliefs.

The venerable Boy Scouts of all institutions are under attack. They too have their right as a private organization to associate with who they choose. The Constitution is not just a document of inclusion, but one of individual protection. The Boy Scouts should not have to explain it policies as a private group as if they are accountable to the public. Any school that denies them the right to use their facillities should be considered as disguised blessing, as it could give the churches an opportunity to open their doors to them, and be in an environment of where the Gospel is proclaimed. It is a shame that an institution such as the Boy Scouts has to defend itself, and denied the opportunity to use a public facillity because the officials have the power to deny them due to differing beliefs.

Now politicians in Chicago and Boston are saying Chik Fil A franchises are not welcome in their cities, which is an incredible display of arrogance. Imagine a politician that believes he has the power to grant who can operate a business within the confines of his city just because they exercise their First amendment right sets a dangerous precedent. I'll even say it is un American, something I'm very reluctant to say. To be clear, Chik Fil A does not refuse service to gays. Instead, they contribute money and espouse their religious beliefs, like any other American citizen or institution is entitled to. What's next: denying a business a license because the owner stole the Mayor's girlfriend when they were in high school?

The Judeo-Christian system has traditionally rejected homosexuality as sin. The sacred texts were not written fifty years ago. They predate the Constitution. They were not created by taken by polls of believers. Many Christians oppose homosexuality because the Scriptures say so, not because they wrote the Scriptures. The many Christians who speak against gay marriage are not hatemongers or bigots. That is the language of intolerant liberals who feel they are empowered to define the issue exclusively. Those Christians labeled as intolerant are instead devout, genuine people of faith who love people, but speak against their actions they believe them to be wrong.

The Triumph of Marketing

Christian culture has adapted a new nomenclature to keep up with evolving times, or "being relevant." If a word offends or turns someone off, like any good marketer, we change the name. Just as selling used cars has now become selling "preowned cars,"the savvy church promoter has his own set of buzzwords.

For example: people don't worship in churches; they are now called centers (for that matter, they don't worship either, they have an experience. And Christianity is no longer a religion either: it's now "a relationship," often with an addendum "not about rules." (by the way, if Christianity has no rules, then it's alright to drink and gamble? Well, no, they say, that's not really what we mean). And if it's a relationship instead of a religion, does the First Amendment protection of freedom of religion still apply to Christians? According to the Encarta World English Dictionary, religion is defined as the following:

re·li·gion [ ri líjjən ]   

1. beliefs and worship: people's beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life
2. system: an institutionalized or personal system of beliefs and practices relating to the divine
3. personal beliefs or values: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by

Synonyms: faith, belief, creed, conviction.

This attitude extends to church design as well. What ever happened to steeples, bells, and stained glass. Modern churches look so homogeneous and  indistinguishable from YMCAs and malls. It's as if we are trying to hide who we are and our heritage. I know people are wary of churches for various reasons, but the attitudes of the worshipers are what counts. Churches are not called churches anymore in some circles; they're now centers, or given one word names, such as "\Mountain," "Ocean." Denominational churches want to hide their identity, too. In selecting a church, it's good to know if it is Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, or Unitarian. Although  you find out quick once you stepped inside, at least it saves time. And what does a nondenominational church stand for?

Dress is another factor. A very casual dress code has come about over the years that it has made the concept of "Sunday best" obsolete. Camouflage, shorts, tee shirts, and yes, ball caps (during the service no less, but more on that later). Women in dresses and white gloves? That's irrelevant. Today everybody dresses for two hours of comfort. Their is arguments whether Paul meant men should not wear coverings in church, or long hair. "Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head.... For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God."
(1 Cor. 11:4, 7). However, Paul argued that when in Rome do as the Romans do, too. It is not legalism to follow basic courtesy and manners. Nothing in the Bible states you must stand when you pledge allegiance to the flag, or holds a door open for a lady. I don't believe God wants to micromanage our lives. People who abide rules of common courtesy should not be considered pharisees. 

Sunday used to be a special day, when men dressed in suits, and women their dresses. People who call wearing fine clothes as stumbling blocks are the sometimes the same people who drive expensive SUVs to church, and not think how a poor family would feel when pulled up in the parking lot. Today, grown men dress like teenagers, and women dress like men, and listen to a man in a Hawaiian shirt on a stage. The magic of Sunday morning is now like a day at the mall.

Selective SIns

I have a pastor friend who got an admonition concerning a supposed violation of the Sabbath. It seems he helping cutting the church's lawn on Sundays, but there's more to the story. The person helping him was a neighbor of the church who was not a member. In fact, he felt he wasn't worthy since he was dealing with certain issues, and Sunday was the best time for him to cut the grass to help the church. My friend obviously wanted to help him, not just out of gratitude for giving of his labor and time for free, but to get a chance to minister to him.

However, word got around, and an elder chastised him in an email about working on the Sabbath. Although he is a pastor, and as a result, always working on the Sabbath, his sin was for appearance's sake. Never mind the neighbor is giving his time (would the people who objected step up and offer to mow the grass in his place?). It is also sad that his authority as spiritual head of the congregation is compromised by this kind of communication.

I believe Jesus answered the question posed by the Pharisees regarding the Sabbath, stating the Sabbath was for man, and not man for the Sabbath. It is ironic when we turn away people in need who volunteer their time because of the letter of the Law, and not its Spirit (including Holy one). As Matthew 12:9-13 states:
"9 And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue:
10 And, behold, there was a man which had [his] hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him.
11 And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift [it] out?
12 How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.
13 Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched [it] forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other."

It's strange how selective we are in dealing with sins. We condemn people for going into bars on the premise that weaker brethren might stumble. However, they have no problem serving rich foods full of empty calories and cholesterol inducing deserts around people susceptible to overindulging and heath issues at church dinners. Smoking and drinking is wrong because we are to treat our bodies as temples, but the gluttony of overeating and gossip is often ignored. I wonder if the same people who criticized my friend  for breaking the Sabbath are the same people who cause others to work on Sundays because of their love after church buffets at restaurants?

Confessions of a Pew Warmer

I've heard the term "pew warmer" as a derogatory way of calling people who do not participate in church functions. As someone who can be called that, let me offer my perspective on how to add more "pew warmers".

1. Overload on programs and events with auxiliary duties not related directly to evangelism. Sunday morning. Sunday nights. Wednesday nights. Cook offs. Missionary Tuesdays. Mowing. Nursery duty. Vacation Bible School. And don't forget Saturday morning prayer at 7am.

2. Forget that we don't live in a 1950's culture. A generation or two ago, we had the father work as the breadwinner, and the mother took care of the children. Today, people work more in a service economic sector that requires work at nights and weekends, what with the disappearance of manufacturing jobs. With single parent and dual income households, leisure and family time is at a minimum, and helping your kids with their homework takes precedent over washing dishes at Youth Pastor Appreciation Night.

3. Schedule corporate prayer time at an un Godly hour. I've heard of a couple scheduled at 7am, one by a pastor with no kids to take care of, and wondered why attendance was sluggish. Some people have other priorities, such as being at a job on time. If certain pastors had to punch time clocks, maybe they would appreciate this more (but the Pastor was already at his place of work, so no problem).

4. When people are unable to attend functions and services, use it as a velvet wedge of disapproval. It creates an us versus them: the saints that are present at every church function, and the heathen who only come to church at their convenience. After all, if the widower Jones can make Sunday evening service, it's just too bad that Mary with two kids ages five and three couldn't make it, but I guess she has other things to do besides attending church three times a week, bless her heart. But she is praying for her.

5. Treating visitors special while neglecting regular members. Visitors can be treated very special in churches, Songs sung to them, gifts, handshakes, and dinner invitations. How well do you treat a fellow member? Are they having a hard time? Are they feeling overwhelmed? It's hard to be in Church whenever the doors are open when you have family issues and work two jobs. People going through such issues when judged according to their attendance are eventually called former members. Wouldn't it almost be nice if you could not accept visitors because the church was too full with regular members.

6. Call people "pew warmers." Alienate more people with names and judgment and give them a reason to hate church and not come back.

A New View on Term Limits

Term limits for politicians came into vogue in 1994 with the advent of the "Contract for America," the political marketing plan of the Republicans to take over Congress. I was initially opposed to the idea, thinking it was a lazy way to circumvent citizen involment. After all, every politician is term limited, and must run for reelection when it expires. If voters think he is not doing an adequate job, they should mobilize to displace him come election time. The Republican wanted term limits, until they got elected, and found that staying in office was to their liking, and the term limits pledge quietly drifted away.

But another factor has come to sway my opinion on the matter: seniority. We are all supposed to be equal in the United States. However, in such bodies as the Congress, members with more seniority have more power than their less tenured colleagues. Although the Constitution gives Congress the right to set its own rules, I feel it violates the overall spirit of the Constitution. US Senators have been known to serve for decades, faithfully bringing home the pork because of the number of years served in the institution, not because of the actual need for the project. This in turn puts voters in an uncomfortable position: vote for the candidate with new ideas and energy (and loss of seniority and plum committee assignments), or vote for the multiple termed Senator whose only credentials are how much federal monies he veered to his state. It becomes  a self-perpetuating cycle of reelection and the ensuing pork, and candidates with something new to contribute are therefore shut out and left in the political periphery, and their talents going no further usually than city council and the private sector.

One reason I think we are in such a financial mess we are in is because pet projects ear marked for states and districts, and thereby ensuring reelection. Although many public works need tended to, there are some that are really just not needed for public (such as festivals) use and protection, and at the expense of worthy projects in districts not represented by poiticians with the necessary time in office. These projects are usually named with the incumbent's name attached to it, providing free campaign publicity and making a newcomer's bid that much harder.

Another reason some have against term limits is experience is necessary to properly perform governmental functions. While I don't underestimate the virtueof experience, experience can come from other venues, such as from other elective and appoined offices, working in nonprofit groups and charities, education, as well as critical thinking. Institutional memory is good, but long term staffers can provide that to, as well as advice from former members.

Recently, an incumbant who's been in office since the Carter administration was defeated, and essentially lived in Virginia, a couple thousand miles from the state he was supposed to represent. How involved was he with the daily lives and concerns of his constituants beyond town hall meeting? Another Senator passed away recently with five decades of service, and was known as a king of pork spending. The people who elected him might claim that term limits rob them of their ability to choose who they send to Washington. Perhaps so. But this was a United States Senator, not a state senator. The laws he advocated and wheedeled affected the entire country, not just his state. The money he earmarked were paid by taxpayers of the fifty states, not just his.

Whiule we want politicians to to be accountable to our needs, and it happens when they run for reelection because they want to keep the job, it can sometimes be detrimental as well. Take Medicare and Social Security. These programs are going broke, and the answer is to wait, or let other politicians worry about it when it comes to it, because by then they will be out of office anyway. Social Security is a program based on 1935 demographics and actuarial tables (18 workers to one retiree ratio, and life expectancy of 65 years of age). If Social Secuity will be bankrupt in thirty years, do you want to wait twenty eight years to fix it? Or, in other words in your own case, do you want to wait two years before retirement? With these programs cosidered the third rail of politics, don't wait for career politicians to fix them.

From Olde English to txt lol!!!!

There are some words and phrases that should be banned from the national lexicon and discussion. Today as our society is becoming more dumbed down, it is hard to believe that the Federalist Papers, considered by many hard to read due to the extensive vocabulary, was written to mainly New England farmers. Here are a few that should be eliminated. They are either flat out annoying, worn out, or just unoriginal. Maybe you say them and think they're funny or cool, but not so much when your a recipient of them. Remember, our language descended from Shakespeare. So let's start setting an example.


"That is sooo...." Actually, that phrase is soooo old and tiresome.

Using z instead of an s to end a word, i.e. bad boyz, skullz, and the like. It was cute in the eighties when heavy metal musicians did this, but middle aged men writing this way is over the top and trying to hard to look hip and young, just like wearing your baseball cap backwards is.

"Oookaaayyy...." Funny when Johnny Carson said it thirty five years ago, today its just grating.

"Hellooo?" Don't expect a response, because I'm ignoring you like a door to door salesman.

"D'ya think?" Yes, that's why I said it (how about thinking of a new response).

OMG! I think my bff and I need to slow down and write intelligibly lol. :) Text messages and emails have created so much  poor spelling and grammar, I fear we will create a generation that cannot communicate with one another effectively. I believe it is just sloppy and inconsiderate not to slow down a little to proofread your text to see if you are coming across as literate person, or a teen texting while driving.

Administrative assistant. Whatever happened good old secretary? Why do titles today have to be a mouthful and cumbersome. The same with flight attendant. Stewardess is better (and if a man, steward). I think its just political correctness, or an attempt to inflate one's status (remember sanitation engineer?). Brevity is usually always best, and easier to say.

Using initials or first syllable to describe a place or person. A-Rod? Did anyone call Joe DiMaggio JDM? Babe Ruth BRuth? Granted, I'm contradicting myself from the preceding sentence concerning brevity, but let's give the players some dignity by giving their proper names, especially if you're supposed to be a professional broadcaster. And "Cali,"as in California sounds like a girl's name instead of a state.

"Puhhhleeeezze!" Even more irritating in a print forum when someone includes it as a response. Puhhhleeeezze try start coming across as an intelligent person.

The Media has Become its Own Darling

In 1982, I recall a Time magazine article touting a new 24 hour network called Cable News Network. At the time, I thought it was a great concept. No longer would a viewer be tied to a 6:30 pm schedule; no more only 22 minutes of news; and no more sound bites of the most salacious nature to titillate the viewer. Now it would be for sound, in depth analysis of the events of the day for serious people who wanted to keep abreast of what was happening in our world.

Fast forward to 2010, and what do we have? A 24 hour news cycle with several  cable "news" networks, comprised of political partisans with little or no journalistic background: Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, talk show hosts; Lawrence O'Donnell, former Congressional staffer; and Keith Olbermann, former  sportscaster. But news networks are a business whose mission is create profits, and that is done by giving people what they want. Let's face it: the geopolitical considerations of transnational terrorism and economic indicators can be boring. People want to be entertained. When your programs are competing against "Two and a Half Men" and "Survivor," you better bring something more than an analysis of home mortgage sales. Circular coverage has become standard now: Fox criticizes media for its purported biased left wing coverage, and MSNBC criticizes Fox for its coverage of the media. Each network's core audience is entertained, ratings remain high, and you never have to worry about a slow news day when you can cover what the other guy says. However, when the people who are to bring you the news become the news, then it is something to be concerned about, if for no other reason than their self-indulgence.

Particularly frustrating is the media's fascination with itself in how they cover themselves. Want to know what Bill O'Reilley, Rush Limbaugh, or Glenn Beck are up to? Watch MSNBC where they regularly report what those commentators are saying that happens to offend them (which is often). This has been officially recognized as a feud between the two networks. Funny, I don't recall Walter Cronkite feuding with David Brinkley, or reporting what some talk radio host in Bismarck, North Dakota said on his show. Instead, all they reported on was the Cold War, nuclear freeze, and the economy. But MSNBC's target market are liberals, and skewering conservatives make for entertaining television. They have become a more serious version of Jon Stewart's Daily Show. It's disingenuous to complain Fox News is the media arm of the Republican Party by becoming the media arm of the Democratic Party by espousing its causes.

Another facet of media saturation is how media can feed on themselves and make situations worse. Don Imus made the comment of "nappy headed hos" on his show about a female college basketball team, and the constant onslaught of 24 hour coverage made the comments more exponentially embarrassing for the victims. The event reached its nadir when then New Jersey Jon Corzine (and subsequently injured on his way to the meeting in a car accident) was scheduled to mediate a meeting between the team and Don Imus because of the comment no doubt helped in part by the coverage. Another example was when an otherwise obscure Arkansas school board member made a homosexual slur on a Facebook page, and garnered lead coverage on Anderson Copper's CNN show. We are now on notice that any offhanded comment made or written about could be fodder for media scrutiny. Those zoning officials in Keokuk, Iowa better watch what they say from now on.

Today, no one who espouses a contrarian viewpoint is safe from media outlets who want to take a stand on their own issues, and create higher ratings as a result. The ironies of constant coverage is that it legitimizes offenders who otherwise would have no outlet, and may give them sympathy in some quarters and make them become a martyr for their cause.The other irony is that in a media universe of diverse viewpoints is that free expression is decreased. In an effort to be politically correct, and not incur the wrath of the media, (and subsequent boycott by sponsors and protests of interest groups), people are more apt to be less candid in expressing themselves and ideas, and more along the line of Orwellian group think. That would be worth covering.