Book on Amish - Excellent!

I am reading a great book - Plain Secrets, by Joe Mackall - about the Swartzentruber Amish in Ohio, the most conservative Amish branch, and so far it is fascinating. It is amazing that any of these groups that work so hard to stay in the past technologically can survive within the modern world. They do lose a lot of their children, but you'd think every kid would leave.

Here's some intersting pics and info on the group.










Don't know if this is true (didn't do a Snopes check) but it is a good story (provided by brother Terry).

Subject: Florida Court Sets Atheist Holy Day
In Florida , an atheist created a case against the upcoming Christmas and Hanukkah holy days. He hired an attorney to bring a discrimination case against Christians, Jews, and observances of their holy days. The argument was that it was unfair that atheists had no such recognized day.

The case was brought be fore a judge. After listening to the passionate presentation by the lawyer, the judge banged his gavel declaring, "Case dismissed".

The lawyer immediately stood objecting to the ruling saying, "Your Honor, how can you possibly dismiss this case? The Christians have Christmas, Easter, and others. The Jews have Hanukkah, Passover, and Yom Kippur, yet, my client and all other atheists have no such holidays."

The judge leaned forward in his chair saying, "But you do, counsel, your client is woefully ignorant." The lawyer said, "Your Honor, we are unaware of any special observance or holiday for atheists." The judge said, "The calendar says April 1st is 'April Fool's Day'. Psalm 14:1 states, 'The fool says in his heart, there is no God.' Thus, it is the opinion of this court, that if your client says there is no God, then he is a fool. Therefore, April 1st is his day. Court is adjourned."

Bamboozled again ?

Bailout reports - it's not looking good.
Reports are now coming out re the effectiveness of the bailout payments and the necessity for them - in retrospect. Is it too late to take it back?

The Christmas Wars

This is happening in Wash. State. There were complaints and lawsuits about Christmas trees and other symbols so they had to let Freedom From Religion Foundation put up a sign. It was stolen but recovered. They would have been better off keeping all that stuff off public property in the first place! Oh, well. Maybe next year.

Being Spiritual in Nature

This guy's got the same opinion I do in finding spirituality in nature.
And he is an excellent writer and photographer of the great outdoors!
After reading this link, check out his and his wife's travel blog. Really well done.

Obama Definitely Born in Hawaii

You may recall that some folks tryiig to mess up Obama's campaign claimed he was not a "natural born citizen" of the US either because he was a) actually born in Kenya, not Hawaii, or b) had a non-citizen father. He is clearly a citizen because his mother was, and any claims he was born anywhere but HI have been disproved. It was a giant waste of court time to have to go thru this. OTOH, the same claims were made by the same nut cases about McCain as he was born in Panama which they said was not "in the US" altho it was under US control at the time, so he wasn't a "natural born" citizen altho he was a citizen.

Quotes from 2 different sources (papers)
"But Hawaii Health Department Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino and the state's registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, say they have determined there's no doubt Obama was born in Hawaii."

"And speaking of births, Hawaii Insider just has to mention that the Supreme Court ruling involving Obama's Hawaii birth certificate comes as no surprise, not simply because local officials have authenticated it, or because his birth notice was printed in a Honolulu newspaper. It's mainly because if there's one thing Hawaii knows better than anyone else, it's who's from there (and who's not). Try to fake that, and you'll end up in hotter water than anything the blogosphere could cook up."

And there is more here.

There was also a claim that Obama had dual citizenship, the other being Kenyan. He did. However, it was lost when he turned 21.

His father was a citizen of the British colony Kenya and then Kenya in 1963 when it became independent. As a citizen of the UKC who was born in Kenya, Obama's father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UKC status at birth and given that Obama's father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), it follows that Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship after 1963. So The Rocky Mountain News story was at least partially correct.

But the paper failed to note that the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya's Constitution specifies that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.


Word is that Obama is likely to take his family to Kauai, HI, for Christmas vacation - one last burst of freedom before he has to take on all our problems.

Jesus Competes with Barbie

Jesus action figures being sold at Walmart. Video.

Can we sue Bush later ?

If Bush doesn't pardon himself on the way out (which is legal, BTW), here is a way to pursue him legally. Maybe . . .

The Bible and Gay Marriage

A Newsweek article - again contributed by Kathy in AL. Worth reading.

Background on Blagojevich

As always, I wondered what religion this apparent crook belonged to which led me to this biographical info.


‘Hot Rod’ Blagojevich not so hot in eyes of Orthodox community
by Kate Shellnutt, Windy Citizen

The tiny Serbian-American population once celebrated Rod Blagojevich's hard-to-pronounce name in the headlines. He was a first-generation son of Serbian immigrants, moving up in politics and remaining loyal to his roots by serving onn a mission to free American hostages in Yugoslavia during the Balkan Wars.

Today, though, Serbian Americans--and even more broadly, members of the Eastern Orthodox church--aren't pleased to see the non-stop news reports about the country's only Serbian Orthodox governor.

No local orthodox priests or church leaders from the Midwest diocese have spoken out against Blagojevich's corruption charges yet, but out in the blog-o-sphere there's some indication that members of the Orthodox community--just 0.6 percent of Americans according to Pew Forum statistics--are ashamed to see one of their own making negative news headlines nationwide.

I read comments such as "hey, at least the report didn't say that Blagojevich is Orthodox!" and "It's a real shame that dirt bags like this one associate themselves with the Serbian Orthodox church! What a joke!!!"Rod Blagojevich (D-Ill.)

Brief Bio: From Congressional Quarterly, 2005

Born: Dec. 10, 1956, Chicago, Ill.
Education: Northwestern U., B.A. 1979; Pepperdine U., J.D. 1983.
Occupation: Lawyer.
Family: Wife, Patricia.
Religion: Eastern Orthodox.
Political Career: Ill. House, 1993-97.
Capitol Office: 501 Cannon Bldg. 20515; 225-5209.

Blagojevich reclaimed for the Democrats a district that for 36 years was the province of Dan Rostenkowski, the former powerhouse chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

Rosty, as he was known, was indicted on 17 counts, including the misuse of personal and congressional funds, extortion of gifts and cash, and obstruction of justice.

His ethical problems paved the way for one of 1994's most shocking upsets: the election of Republican Michael Patrick Flanagan.

But Flanagan turned out to be a one-term wonder. He was a loyal soldier of the House Republican revolution, voting, for example, 100 percent of the time for the planks in the House GOP's "Contract With America." All the while, he was squarely in the sights of the Democrats, who had targeted him for defeat.

Their nominee, state Rep. Blagojevich, was well-connected to the Chicago Democratic organization, which, though not as powerful as it was under the late Mayor Richard Daley, still makes its presence felt on occasion.

It did in this race, thanks to Blagojevich's father-in-law, city Alderman Richard Mell, one of the last strong ward leaders in Chicago; and Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, son of the legendary mayor and one of Mell's close friends.

With the backing of the party organization, Blagojevich defeated two opponents in the primary: fellow state Rep. Nancy Kaszak, who ran as a political outsider and had the backing of EMILY's List, a fundraising group for women Democratic candidates; and Ray Romero, a lawyer and former business executive.

Blagojevich then turned his attention to Flanagan. Following the national playbook of House Democratic challengers, Blagojevich portrayed himself as a moderate and his opponent as an extremist.

He cited Republican-sponsored cuts in the projected growth of Medicare, the federal health insurance program for the elderly, and Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance program for the poor and disabled.

Flanagan, who had moved away from the Republican Party line in the second session of the 104th Congress, contended that he served as Chicago's link to the House GOP majority. He pointed to the federal funding Congress authorized during the 104th Congress for erosion projects along Lake Michigan.

Flanagan concentrated on constituent service and held many town meetings. He contended that his conservative voting record was in line with the views of the 5th District's residents, who supported President Ronald Reagan in 1984 and Vice President George Bush in 1988.

Blagojevich, a former Golden Gloves boxer who served as an assistant state attorney before winning election to the state legislature, made crime a center-piece of his legislative career and his congressional campaign.

In Springfield, he pushed legislation revoking gun permits for people convicted of stalking or domestic violence and supported efforts to require violent criminals to spend more of their sentences behind bars.

As a congressman, he said, he will work on legislation to provide assistance to cities, such as Chicago, that are fighting crime and gang violence. He has called for prohibiting people under age 21 from possessing handguns, making it a felony offense to threaten someone who refuses to join a gang, and requiring people convicted of defacing public property with graffiti to perform community service.

In Washington, Blagojevich ran into some early trouble. During freshman orientation, he headed over to what he thought was the Longworth House Office Building. It turned out to be the Library of Congress.

Then he failed in his effort to land on the Appropriations or the Judiciary committees, winding up instead with seats on the Government Reform and Oversight and the National Security committees.

He then went on to become governor. His whole bio.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Blagojevich

Catholics and Mormons Partners

It's a conspiracy!

It wasn't just the Mormons support and money that caused CA Prop 8 to pass (prohibiting same sex marriage). Apparently the SF Catholic Archbishop (who used to be the bishop of Salt Lake City) invited the Mormons and others to join the battle to get it passed. As far a marriage goes, the major religions and their leaders are against anything other than a man and a woman being married. No surprise there.
I think same sex marriage will come to be, but there is a ways to go yet. The younger generation needs to outnumber the older generation.

Outsider in the South

Original "clickable" magazine article.


Life as a heathen in the Bible Belt
By Kim Hildenbrand

“Have you found a church family yet?”
I’d never been asked this question before in my
life, but since moving to the South four years ago,
I’ve heard it dozens of times.
At first I didn’t understand. Had I found a
church? A family? Huh? And why did the
questioner care if and where I went to church?
Four years later, I now understand the question.
But it never fails to rattle me.
You see, I don’t go to church. I’m not religious.
I certainly have nothing against religion, and I’m
happy for people who are happy being religious.
But I myself am not.
People have asked me why, and the answer
is simply, I don’t know. I just didn’t grow up going
to church. It never struck me as unusual because
I didn’t live in a particularly religious area. In fact,
only a couple of my childhood friends went to
church. My lack of religion just wasn’t an issue.
That was then.
Though living in Alabama has been an amazing
experience, I am well aware that I’m an outsider.
I don’t have a Southern accent, and sometimes I
have a bit of trouble understanding the really thick
ones. I don’t go for Southern food much, except
the occasional fried okra. And — here it comes — I
don’t watch football. Not even college football; not
even Alabama vs. Auburn.
But perhaps what makes me most different is
the fact that I don’t attend church. For one thing,
my lack of religion seems to startle and unnerve
people. When a new acquaintance asks, “Have you
found a church family?,” I steel myself. And then I
say, “We don’t go to church.” I used to chirp, “Not
yet! We’re new here.” But even I have to admit that
four years is not new anymore, and I don’t want to
lie. I say no, and I try to change the subject, but the
awkwardness is still palpable.
When I first moved here, I wondered why
people assumed that everyone goes to church. I
tend to harbor few assumptions about people in
general. For instance, I wouldn’t ask a stranger,
“Where do your children go to school?” without
knowing whether she has children. To me, the
assumption that everyone does anything — goes to
church, has children — was just plain strange. Now I
understand that it is a fair assumption, and a mainly
accurate assumption.
Happily, most of the wonderful people I’ve met
in Alabama have been kind to me even after
knowing I’m not religious. Once a woman said
to me, “Do you know that you’re going to hell?” I
didn’t dignify that with a response, but I thought
about it for a long time. And I concluded that she
had to be wrong.
Because, the thing is, I am a good person. A
real-life goodie-two-shoes, in fact. I’ve never tried
drugs before — never even smoked pot. I’ve never
stolen anything. I rescue injured animals. I donate
money to good causes. I’m devoted to my family.
I’m the kind of person people phone at 2 a.m. when
their car breaks down and they need a ride. I’ll
admit it — I’m actually pretty geeky, straight as an
arrow, considering my idea of a rockin’ evening is a
bubble bath and a good book.
But, ironically, in my years here I have met
various people (some of whom happen to be
church devotees) who do steal, do drugs and lie.
I’ve seen them spank their children — hard — and
say terrible things to them. I suppose they feel God
will forgive them, like religion is some sort of moral
Get Out of Jail Free card. But logically, if God is
that forgiving, I would guess God will forgive me
for not being religious.
But those experiences are few and far between,
and above all, I’m glad that the people around me
have something in their lives that makes them as
happy as their church families do. Something so
positive and good. And aside from being told I
was headed for hell, my other gripes are relatively
minor.
I don’t like it when people tell me that God has
a plan for me, because I have a plan for me, too. It
actually makes me a bit nervous when people make
questionable decisions and assume all will turn out
because of God’s plan.
I don’t like it when people ask for prayers and
get offended when I say, “You’re in my thoughts.”
I don’t like being told — often via strange e-mail
forwards — that many things I consider healthy and
positive are sins. Gay relationships. Masturbation.
Birth control. I simply don’t understand, as I’m all
for tolerance.
Frankly, I want people to tolerate me.
Recently during a casual gathering, one of the
women said, “I find now I don’t even like to be
around people who aren’t Christians anymore. I
wouldn’t want one as a friend.” The others agreed
fervently.
Cue Kim. Exit stage left. But I didn’t want to
hurt anyone’s feelings, so I sat quietly with my
hands in my lap, a frozen smile on my face and
tried to nod at the appropriate times.
I know most church-going people probably
think I’m missing something. Something so huge
it can’t be put into words. And as an open-minded
person, I can say that I understand why they feel
that way, and that maybe they’re right.
But for now, I find what I’m looking for, what I
need out of life, in the little things: My daughter’s
smile. My husband’s arm around me. My dogs’
warm bodies curled against me. A beautiful
painting by my grandmother, happy faces at a
family reunion, a breathtaking sunset. And the
knowledge that I’m a good person, a moral person,
a person who tries so hard not to hurt others.
That’s enough for me. I wish it were enough for
everyone else.

“I didn’t know I had a quarrel with him.”
~ Henry Thoreau in answer to the question,
“Have you made your peace with God?"


Thanks to Kathy in AL for sending this essay.

Sex in church

Here's a challenge for you - if you're a good Christian have sex seven days in a row (caveat - only if you are married to the one you are having sex with . . . ). That's what pastor Ed encouraged his 20,000 member congregation to do. It's not just for Catholics any more.

We can only hope the rest of the religious world opens up about sex a bit more.

Harper's Mag blurbs

I like Harper's, and this month on line there are a lot of interesting blurbs, too may to cut and paste. And you might be interested in something I am not. So check it out.

My Friend Richard

bunch of short Richard Dawkins interviews & discussions.

As most of you know who read this, I think he is a wonderful scientist and spokesman for the non-religious among us. Hope you find it interesting and enjoyable.

So. CAL fundamentalism

November 21, 2008

Atheism Only Lasts a Few Days in Rancho Cucamonga

A billboard in Rancho Cucamonga asking viewers to "imagine no religion" was taken down this week after residents and the city complained about its message. The Freedom From Religion Foundation advertisement was first installed last week causing local conversation and complaints. The pressure quickly built up and the General Outdoor sign company took it down.

The foundation's co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor was not so happy, as expressed in a statement they sent out: "Are religionists so thin-skinned they must squelch free debate? One small freethought billboard in the immense state of California is such a threat to insecure religious egos that it must be censored? With local freethinkers' help, the Freedom From Religion Foundation would love to plaster the valley with our message. Let's fight back!"

This copied from here.

Catholic Convert on Abortion

Thoughtful post about how a woman came to an anti-abortion position after going from atheism to Catholicism. It is an interesting blog to roam through.

What about the women ?

This forwarded by Kathy from Alabama. Ann Lamott is a CA based writer and excellent speaker.


The rights of the born
By Anne Lamott
February 10, 2006
EVERYTHING WAS going swimmingly on the panel. The subject was politics and faith, and I was on stage with two clergymen with progressive spiritual leanings, and a moderator who is liberal and Catholic. We were having a discussion with the audience of 1,300 people in Washington about many of the social justice topics on which we agree – the immorality of the federal budget, the wrongness of the president’s war in Iraq. Then an older man came to the mike and raised the issue of abortion, and everyone just lost his or her mind.

Or, at any rate, I did.

Maybe it was the way in which the man couched the question, which was about how we should reconcile our progressive stances on peace and justice with the “murder of a million babies every year in America.” The man who asked the question was soft-spoken, neatly and casually dressed.

First Richard, a Franciscan priest, answered that this is indeed a painful issue but that it is not the only “pro-life” issue that progressives – even Catholics – should concern themselves with during elections. There are also the matters of capital punishment and the war in Iraq, and of HIV. Then Jim, an evangelical, spoke about the need to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and the need to diffuse abortion as a political issue, by welcoming pro-choice and pro-life supporters to the discussion, with equal respect for their positions. He spoke gently about how “morally ambiguous” the issue is.

I sat there simmering, like a samovar; nice Jesusy me. The moderator turned to me and asked quietly if I would like to respond. I did: I wanted to respond by pushing over our table.

Instead, I shook my head. I love and respect the Franciscan and the evangelical, and agree with them 90-plus percent of the time. So I did not say anything, at first.

Then, when I was asked to answer the next question, I paused, and returned to the topic of abortion. There was a loud buzzing in my head, the voice of reason that says, “You have the right to remain silent,” but the voice of my conscience was insistent. I wanted to express calmly, eloquently, that pro-choice people understand that there are two lives involved in an abortion – one born (the pregnant woman) and one not (the fetus) – but that the born person must be allowed to decide what is right.

Also, I wanted to wave a gun around, to show what a real murder looks like. This tipped me off that I should hold my tongue, until further notice. And I tried.

But then I announced that I needed to speak out on behalf of the many women present in the crowd, including myself, who had had abortions, and the women whose daughters might need one in the not-too-distant future – people who must know that teenage girls will have abortions, whether in clinics or dirty backrooms. Women whose lives had been righted and redeemed by Roe vs. Wade. My answer was met with some applause but mostly a shocked silence.

Pall is a good word. And it did not feel good to be the cause of that pall. I knew what I was supposed to have said, as a progressive Christian: that it’s all very complicated and painful, and that Jim was right in saying that the abortion rate in America is way too high for a caring and compassionate society.

But I did the only thing I could think to do: plunge on, and tell my truth. I said that this is the most intimate decision a woman makes, and she makes it all alone, in her deepest heart of hearts, sometimes with the man by whom she is pregnant, with her dearest friends or with her doctor – but without the personal opinion of say, Tom DeLay or Karl Rove.

I said I could not believe that men committed to equality and civil rights were still challenging the basic rights of women. I thought about all the photo-ops at which President Bush had signed legislation limiting abortion rights, surrounded by 10 or so white, self-righteous married men, who have forced God knows how many girlfriends into doing God knows what. I thought of the time Bush appeared on stage with children born from frozen embryos, children he calls “snowflake babies,” and of the embryos themselves, which he calls the youngest and most vulnerable Americans.

And somehow, as I was answering, I got louder and maybe even more emphatic than I actually felt, and said it was not a morally ambiguous issue for me at all. I said that fetuses are not babies yet; that there was actually a real difference between pro-abortion people, like me, and Klaus Barbie.

Then I said that a woman’s right to choose was nobody else’s goddamn business. This got their attention.

A cloud of misery fell over the room, and the stage. Finally, Jim said something unifying enough for us to proceed – that liberals must not treat people with opposing opinions on abortion with contempt and exclusion, partly because it’s tough material, and partly because it is so critical that we win these next big elections.

It was not until the reception that I finally realized part of the problem – no one had told me that the crowd was made up largely of Catholics.

I had flown in at dawn on a red-eye, and, in my exhaustion, had somehow missed this one tiny bit of information. I was mortified: I had to eat my body weight in chocolate just to calm myself.

But then I asked myself: Would I, should I, have given a calmer answer? Wouldn’t it have been more useful and harder to dismiss me if I had sounded more reasonable, less – what is the word – spewy?

Maybe I could have presented my position in a less strident, divisive manner. But the questioner’s use of the words “murder” and “babies” had put me on the defensive. Plus I am so confused about why we are still having to argue with patriarchal sentimentality about teeny weenie so-called babies – some microscopic, some no bigger than the sea monkeys we used to send away for – when real, live, already born women, many of them desperately poor, get such short shrift from the current administration.

Most women like me would much rather use our time and energy fighting to make the world safe and just and fair for the children we do have, and do love – and for the children of New Orleans and the children of Darfur. I am old and tired and menopausal and would mostly like to be left alone: I have had my abortions, and I have had a child.

But as a Christian and a feminist, the most important message I can carry and fight for is the sacredness of each human life, and reproductive rights for all women is a crucial part of that: It is a moral necessity that we not be forced to bring children into the world for whom we cannot be responsible and adoring and present. We must not inflict life on children who will be resented; we must not inflict unwanted children on society.

During the reception, an old woman came up to me, and said, “If you hadn’t spoken out, I would have spit,” and then she raised her fist in the power salute. We huddled together for awhile, and ate M&Ms to give us strength. It was a kind of communion, for those of us who still believe that civil rights and equality and even common sense will somehow be sovereign, some day.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Another article found by Kathy in Alabama.


22nd child abandoned at Neb. hospital under law
Published: 10/28/08, 10:25 PM EDT
OMAHA, Neb. (AP) - A 15-year-old girl was abandoned by her father Tuesday night
at an Omaha hospital, bringing to 22 the number of children left under the
state's unique safe-haven law since it took effect in July.
The girl left Tuesday at Omaha's Immanuel Medical Center is a state resident,
said Children and Family Services division director Todd Landry in a statement.
State officials declined to answer questions about the case until Wednesday,
when more information could be gathered.
On Monday evening, a 15-year-old girl from Nebraska was left at Creighton
University Medical Center. She has been placed in a residential shelter while
authorities continue to investigate her case, Landry said.

Nebraska's safe-haven law, which took effect in July, is the only one in the
country that lets caregivers leave children as old as 18 at a state-licensed
hospital without fear of prosecution. The youngest child abandoned so far was
only a year old; 12 of the 22 were teenagers. Three children were from other
states, including Iowa, Michigan and Georgia.
Lancaster County officials said Tuesday that the boy from Georgia will be turned
over to a child protective worker in Cobb County, Ga., to return to his home
state and to attend a court hearing Wednesday. The boy will remain in Georgia
custody at least until a judge decides who should take care of him.
Nebraska's law was intended to protect infants, but it did not define "child" in
its wording. Most state lawmakers have agreed to amend the law when the
Legislature reconvenes in January so that it applies only to infants up to 3
days old.

Interesting articles

Obama the intellectual - altho he hid it well as a candidate.

monk vs. monk (Thanks to Dakota Bill)

Should pro-lifers worry about Obama?

[Dakota Bill gave me this to post. Thanks, Bill!]

I don't know the person who wrote this, since it came to me in a group email. It was written in response to a post-election email from an unhappy pro-lifer regarding the election of Barack Obama. The letter, obviously written by a Catholic, does as good a job as I have seen in exploding the myth of pro-life as just an abortion issue.

Dakota Bill

Here's the letter:

-----------------------------

Let me just say that I am sure this e-mail was sent to my wife, but as my name is also on this account, I opened and read it. Here are my thoughts: We have elected a man from one of the first states(Illinois) to put a moratorium on the death penalty (a pro-life issue). I believe George W Bush presided over more than 130 executions while Governor of Texas...9 who were
later proven to be innocent of their "crimes."

Barak Obama is anti-war, a pro- life issue . Nearly 4200 U.S. troops and countless Iraqis have died in a war that both the current president and vp have stated, has nothing to do with 9-11. John McCain wished to continue that war.

President-elect Obama is for econmic policies that will help poor women...if those women see financial hope, and programs that can help them, perhaps they will choose not to terminate a pregnancy.

There are certainly a lot of issues that we, as Catholics, can disagree with President-elect Barak Obama, but there are many ideals we share. Please do not be so busy lamenting the results of the election, that you miss opportunities ahead to work with the new administration and do God's work.

There are many great opportunities with Big Brothers and Sisters, Foster Care, or adoption that are available to those of you who wish to make unwanted children the focus of your Pro-life faith.

Also,when you are doing your pro- Life prayers, I encourage you to include those on death row, children tossed into foster care and those who face the cruel reality of war.

After those prayers, please stand up, look to the sky and LISTEN....Perhaps with the election of Barak Obama...God is trying to tell you something.

Mark Griffin

Republicans going to move out of the country?

My brother, a McCain supporter, says (and I post it on his behalf):



It could happen – but I don’t think that Canada is a better choice. They already have a socialist government!

I’m thinking that I should sell our house and everything that is not needed, and move to an eastern Caribbean island. If Obama and his congressional cronies want to take America down the road to socialism, it will be with my sincere resistance, or my absence! Many democrats promised that they would leave the country if Bush was elected…They LIED! Of course, they have been doing that for years. Too bad – we would have been a lot better off if they HAD GONE!

If Obama, Pelosi, and Reed, get their way and do everything that they have said they will do…those of you who voted for them will be equally affected by their actions and laws! I hope that you enjoy what you asked for, and voted for! I’m still convinced that I WON’T!

So… It’s Too Late…Obama (and our “responsible media” {non-biased of course} Ha Ha !) has convinced the mind numb masses to elect him president. This is sent your way to make sure that you know what you voted for…you may want to take some more time to research the candidates next time!

Also – has anyone bothered to remind you that the tax cuts put in place by the Bush administration (all of us have appreciated them) will automatically disappear in 2010!? I can guarantee that the congress and the senate (democratically controlled) will not be voting to make them permanent! They think that HIGHER TAXES are the way to repair and grow our economic system. Welcome to Socialism! That IS what it IS, no matter what spin the media tries to use!

If you voted for this group of “Anti-American” Marxist / Socialist people – You WILL feel the pain as much as the Conservative Republican people who didn’t!

GOOD LUCK!!!!!!!! You’re going to need it!


My response:

This is way too much doom and gloom. All this socialist stuff is way over the top. The most socialist thing we have done lately is to get the gov't involved in private banking (altho it is hopefully only temporary) after letting them run amok.

As to taxes, we can't predict what will happen - it takes 2 houses of congress to make those changes and they are far from a rubber stamp for any president's program. Even w/ a majority the Dems have been known to splinter. There is no use worrying about it until bills are written - then send your comments. Also, I suspect that everyone you personally know will NOT have a tax increase, and will likely have a decrease of some sort. Most of us aren't paling around w/ the over $250K income crowd.

It is true that every election people threaten to leave the country if their candidate isn't elected. They are free to go, but most don't. Somehow we survive the bad politicians, too. Witness the last 8 yrs. The 49% of us that didn't vote for Bush in '04 still can't believe he got re-elected - but you had your chance to rejoice then. Too bad Bush didn't put whatever mandate he thought he had then to better use.

So, I am tremendously optimistic. We now have a smart guy, elected by a wide margin (widest in decades), who really does have a mandate - especially electorally. He has good advisers and will start turning this ship around and repairing our reputation internationally. It'll take time. We need to be patient. It is not magic and no one will get all they hope for, or at least not quickly.

Think Positive! Give the new guy a chance!

Encourage adoption - Excellent idea

Uncle Tom’s idea to make adoption easier and cheaper is a great way to give pregnant women another option. There are many kind of adoption, private, international, domestic, open adoption, thru a gov’t agency, from foster care, etc.

The adoption option already exists, of course, but right now the costs are pretty high - $5 – 40,000. Not encouraging for the wanna be parents. Also, there should be good counseling for the woman so she will 1) want to carry the baby to term (if she didn’t get an early abortion or doesn’t want one) and 2) be willing to give it up after birth. More money required either from the gov’t, an agency, or the adoptive parents.

It seems that there are lots of couples that want a child and are willing, but all the ones I know that adopted were definitely upper middle class and spend considerable sums to do it. It seems to be less expensive to become a foster parent and then adopt someone you have been a foster parent to. But that’s a long process, too. Not to mention going overseas to adopt – that just shows how hard it must be here if you have to leave the country to find a child.

So, streamline the process, reduce the costs, provide affordable counseling for all parties, and hopefully more kids will get into good homes quicker, and more pregnancies will result in adoptions rather than abortions.

Excellent, Tom. Any way we can encourage that through our efforts?

Abortion compromise?

A family member and I were discussing abortion, and this is what I came up with.  He, even being anti-abortion, thinks it is a reasonable middle point.  Most Christians will not agree.

I certainly am as concerned about abortions as you are. It is unfortunate there have to be any, but so long as there is limited sex education in the schools (and at home) there will be young pregnant girls. And there will be pregnant women who don’t want any more kids. And the rare rape case. And those who are economically unable to support a kid (or more kids).

Sex education should be at home, but all too often it isn’t, so it is  needed in the schools. If parents or schools don’t teach birth control (at the appropriate age) those youngsters raging hormones will overcome “just say no”, as you know!

Then there is the issue of when is a pregnancy a life that should be protected? Here is where the differences are problematic. I know the Christian perspective is when the sperm hits the egg – that’s a human. Some of the most aggressive pro-choice folks say abortion is OK anytime before the woman is dilated 10 cm. Neither position seems to make sense.

But there is a fuzzy middle ground (isn’t there always?).

Most scientists would say it is not a human life at conception, or even at the early stages of growth as an embryo. The courts say when it is “viable” to live outside the womb maybe it is a human life, but Drs. can always justify abortion to “save the mother”. Viability, of course, keeps getting earlier and earlier as medical procedures get better. I don’t know how early a preemie can be kept alive and has a chance at a healthy life, but I think it is now somewhere around 6 mo. of development.

I, being a devotee of science, certainly think an early abortion, morning after pill, etc., is OK. (Did you know that a fertilized egg takes about 4-5 days to implant in the wall of the uterus? And that something like ½ never implant and are just flushed out even after a certain number of cell divisions? Therefore, is God / nature the biggest abortionist according to the Christian definition of when life begins?) And abortion is fine with me during the early months when it is a tiny ball of cells, or even a fetus, that has no chance of survival outside the womb. It may sound callous, but to me that is just a group of cells no bigger than a wart or a boil – not human life worthy of being preserved.

So maybe a compromise can be made, and has been tried, where an early abortion is OK (of course, you have to define “early”) and after a certain point it is not OK except to save the mother. Then encourage birth control for all, start early for teens who are going to have sex anyway, make birth control easy, cheap, and not stigmatized, so the number of pregnancies is way reduced. As a back up encourage pregnant teens / women to come in early to get a preg test, find out the genetics of the fetus if they are concerned about some genetic abnormality, and if an abortion is what they choose, do it very early.

As we all know, some women will still be in denial about their pregnancy. Some will get late abortions illegally even if outlawed. Or go to Mexico. Or do it themselves at home. Great risk but the desperate will break the law whatever it is.

So, should I be king?

Going Public - new policy

This blog started as a private family blog for my / our family to discuss politics and religion. It started out quite lively but got less and less active until it became dormant. I guess we all stated our positions, mostly as expected, then realized that no one was going to convince anyone to change their mind, so it kind of fizzled.

However, I thought it worth a shot to make it public and see who else chimes in. I have taken out all names and references out of past posts that might disclose people’s identities, but have left the folks who signed up to write with that ability still intact. Now members of the public can read and comment, but cannot write original posts. If a comment is good, I can re-post it for all to see. Let’s see how that works out. I may be the only poster but maybe some public comments will liven things up. We’ll see.

To visitors, feel free to look at old posts and comment. Or just leave your opinions on the current stuff.

The Morning After

Well, folks. Everybody should be more or less happy, now. We’ve got a good prez in the White House, we presume, and we’ve got a congress that ought to be able to work with him and his programs, and vice versa.

Will it mean an immediate end to the war? Not likely.

Will the economy recover in a few months? No.

Can he undo all the evil that George is leaving behind? Probably not.

But he is a very smart guy with a liberal bent (not really a radical socialist) who the world respects and who might actually BE a “uniter” this time around. If he picks good people as advisors and staff, this really could be one for the history books. He will be challenged, we may have another terror attack, but he is even-tempered enough and smart enough to figure out a response that will not cripple us or piss off half the world’s population. He will likely focus on domestic recovery for everyone, not just the bankers.

So now all the pundits can speculate on what will really be done. That’ll keep their jobs for a while, but we have to wait and see after the inauguration what really happens. In the meantime, let’s hope that GW doesn’t undo too many more environmental regulations, commit to further Iraq entanglements, or issue too many pardons to his henchmen (and himself) as he leaves office.

At least we won’t have a 4 yr. extension of Bush policy. Thank you Sarah Palin! You couldn’t have shown up at a better time.

Evolution vs. Intelligent Design - no need to believe

Just read a 2005 Neil DeGrasse Tyson essay that is worth looking at if you haven't seen it before. He is now even better known that he was then since he is hosting a regular PBS TV show on science.

I am constantly amazed how the folks I meet who don't like evolution know so little about it. The science is so far ahead of their criticisms - they have no idea. I have tried to get a couple of my family members to at least open their minds enough to read some articles by science writers showing how it is the basis of all biology, has a clear history of being able to explain a lot about life, is confirmed and made stronger every day by new discoveries, has only a few minute "gaps", etc., but they just don't even open the article. It might shake their faith or something.

Just like you don't have to believe in gravity for it to work (it is a theory, too), it just "is", you don't have to believe in evolution, either. It just is, and will continue whether we believe in it or not.

Christian Voter's Analysis

(From Jon, posted by Michael.)

Hello all, I wrote this to Tom. It is about politics and how we are to integrate faith into politics. Here are some of my thoughts. Read it and let me know what you think. Some thoughts are still a bit fluid, so please give some feed back to my thoughts.

You also said this in your email that caught my attention... :)

"Yes the next president is important but are the current candidates going to 'change' things or shall I stop holding my breath and make the changes myself in my own little circle of influence?"

I will first share with you my view on politics however. There is no Christian Party... and no Christian Candidate... (A really good book about this topic is titled 'Gods Politics'... written by Jim Wallis). As Christians we are salt and light in this world. God has given us the spirit of discernment that only He can give. As such, we are to stand for all truth, and justice. Not just particular issues. So, as such we need to be a voice of truth into both parties.... not a foundation for the Republican Party. We need to critique and encourage both sides towards views that support our pursuit of the kingdom of God. A literal translation of Romans 14:17 says “The kingdom of God is Justice, Shalom, and Joy in the spirit” Matthew 6:33 tells us that we should seek this (The Kingdom of God) above all else. Do I believe that ‘pro-life’ is a Christian position, yes! However, we must also fight for the rights of the orphan, widow, and the downtrodden. (Shalom is a Hebrew blessing of peace and well being in all areas of life… which would then impact our personal finances, safety, education, health care. NIV translates justice to righteousness (they are the same word in Greek) and shalom to peace…. This renders a very weak translation of Paul). But as Christians we are to seek first Justice, Shalom, and Joy in the spirit. I apply this to my politics.

A side note: We also must be willing to ask ourselves hard questions that may not have a neat answer.

Example: Is it possible for the rights of the widow and our pro-life stance to conflict? What if she gets raped? What if it was incest? These are hard questions we must not brush aside. Both ‘pro-life’ and the defense of the orphan and widow are very biblical.

It pains me to think how most evangelicals have become a monolithic voting block. Example: Mike Huckabee is strongly supported by 'evangelicals' because he is all about 'defending marriage' and is 'pro-life'. However, he fails to defend marriage with his economic policies… Republicans are typically about big business... and usually our city centers do worse under their administrations. One of the biggest stresses in marriage can be money and financial stress.... but why do republicans politicians miss this point? They miss is because they are not Christian, they are a conservative political party…. Who also aimed at pursuing financial gain and power at others expense. Republicans say that families are a building block to society, yes! They have that part right, but lets empower families in oppression and poverty to succeed and stay together through health care reform, education reform, criminal justice reform.... don't just tell them to stay married; but give them tools to do so. (James 2 I believe talks much about the connection between faith and works.... which I think sits here)

Also republicans claim to be pro-life. But do not value ALL OF HUMAN LIFE. If you are pro-life you are pro education. You value the forgotten children of society who are subject to a broken school system. (You don’t cut public funding for education such as Bush of Tim Palenty…both of whom claim to be pro-life) If you are pro-life you want better health care for all Americans.... not just for those who can afford it. (Yet most evangelicals and Republicans are against health care reform) If you are pro-life, you will encourage economic development in our city centers (such as north Minneapolis) so that the 'underground economy' will start to shrink and good living wage jobs can flourish. Claiming to be pro-life is a huge statement! How can republicans claim be pro-life and pro-family and yet support immigration policies that would surely break up families and send children back to countries where they may starve or be killed in war? How can you be pro-life and support war? Do not wars kills people? ( I realize this is a complex issue, but if we are going to claim that label, we must wrestle with these questions)

Democrats, you claim to value life.... which is why you are for education, health care, against the war etc.... yet do you value the life of the unborn child? Do you value the spiritual life that Jesus Christ freely gives to people if we would only accept his love?

Democrats, you hate homophobia.... as should Christians.... You support an inclusive society.... where people are loved for who they are.... as should Christians. Democrats are so close to the wonderful and beautiful concept that Christians know as Grace. God loving us for whom we are now... however Democrats are missing the most important part.... Jesus Christ Our God and our Father loves us for who we are now. Accepting people for who they are is not the end but the means to realizing grace… realizing that we are loved for who we are, not what we do.

The Love of God is the force that changes people, not judgment, condemnation, and legislation.

Democrats and liberals claim to accept people without judgment…(we the church need very much to work on this)… but fail to bring people to a place where they encounter God and see themselves for who they are. Being accepted as I am does not bring about complete healing, but rather is the place where we are able to come to God as we are. (Another good book about this topic is the “Ragamuffin Gospel” written by Brennin Manning) On the contrary, conservative evangelicals (who are all too often synonymous with republicans) tend to judge people and tell them they will be loved and accepted when they change their life style. The love of God is the under girding power that changes people, that is changing me.... not the carrot in front of them used for motivation to change. Love from God, and his people must come first.

But I could talk about that for ages, to your point specifically on the 2008 campaign. Philosophically, I believe the two candidates to be very different, though they do share many views on the war, health care, employment, immigration etc. I am backing Obama because I believe him to be a uniting figure… not one of polarization. Ms. Clinton is toward the view that the republicans need to be fought.... that the democrats must win a majority in the house and rule the over the republicans. I do not see that as any real change. Just the same old politics.... she is just a lot more liberal than Bush. That is not change Ms Clinton.

Obama on the other hand is about bringing together what he calls a 'working majority in congress'; those who are willing to find solutions and to leave strong party lines behind. He also has a broader support base of independents and republicans than Ms. Clinton, which is why I believe his rhetoric has the ability to become reality.

Secondly, you stated at the beginning that you are wondering whether you should hope for change from the top down (from an elected official) or if you should just use your sphere of influence ( a grass roots movement… bottom up if you will) Obama is a grass roots movement. He has stated many times that change starts with people like me and you. His Philosophy of change, is that it happens from the bottom up. This is similar to the lineage of MLK, Gandhi, Malcolm X, and Nelson Mandela. Power of elected officials should come from the people, thus the phrase “a government from the people, by the people. for the people….” My point is this. It is not an EITHER OR issue, but rather a BOTH AND issue. Obama leading our country will make a difference, at least when compared to the other candidates, however change happens from the bottom up. We always need to strive to affect our sphere of influence! J

Ms. Clinton disagrees with Obama in that she believes that change happens from the top down. That is why she got in trouble when talking about Dr. MLK that, in terms of civil rights, “it took a president to get it done”. She was speaking of president LBJ and the civil rights legislation of the late 1960’s. What she failed to realize was all of the people that elected LBJ who supported such measures were part of a grass roots movement in civil rights. Politicians will rarely knowingly do something that will hurt her or his political well being. LBJ signed those documents because it was good for him and his political legacy. Again, this is a BOTH AND issue. The President of the United States is an enormously important figure, but also of great significance are those on the ground working for change.

Those are my opinions are the moment. Some of the thoughts are not completely thought through so please critique away! J

And so I leave with an all too quoted verse from Paul out of Romans 12. It has been so powerful in my life. "Let us not be conformed to the ways of this world (this country, this culture, this political system, this struggle to be in power), but may we be transformed (both individually and collectively) to the image of his son, and to be a collective reflection of his Body, His church here on earth."

My Vote is Decided - if you care...

OK, family.
I am getting more involved in research now that Feb. 5 is not that far away.
And the more I look, the more I like Obama. (No surprise to Terry I bet...)
I liked Kucinich and Gravel better, but they're out and never had a chance anyway.
I also liked Edwards, but he's now gone, too.
I will support Hillary if she get nominated, but she is just too "establishment", too old school, and too easy a target for the Repubs.

So, check the sites below if you'd like more info.
It's not just how he looks or how well he speaks, it is more about who he is, where he came from and how that influenced him, how smart he is, what his positions are, and what he has actually done in the past - like help the poor.

I know, I know, I know, he's not perfect. But find one who is? At least he is competent, fresh, and has a lot less baggage than others I have problems with. If we want change, he is the best candidate available.

http://www.barackobamaismyhomeboy.com/biography
Biography

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
campaign home page

http://johnharmstrong.typepad.com/john_h_armstrong_/2007/04/trinity_united_.html
A Chicago local.

How should I vote?

Hey, guys.
I have to vote on Feb. 5. (I think MN does too)
I, of course, am a left coast liberal so need to decide between Hillary and Barack (altho I still liked Kucinich best).
Any advice?
Who could beat the Repub nominee?
Who would the Repubs like to run against (presumably the easiest to beat)?

Who are you leaning towards?
Why?
Who do you miss who already dropped out or hasn't got a prayer?

Just wondering. After all, this does cover politics.

I'll post my decision in a couple days.

Noah's Arc - Fact or Fiction?

Here I am, at it again. Questioning the literalness of the bible.

I have alway thought that there is no way that the story of the flood and the arc can be literal. I guess it could be a "miracle" - outside the bounds of science and natural law - in the eyes of bible believers. But there is not enough water in the world, enough space in the arc, etc., in light of what we know today, for it to be literal.

Noah’s arc religious view –

Secular / historic view (and religious)

40 days of rain and 150 days on the water is a long time!

More on Christmas

Well.... I listened to the interview Michael has posted on the real story of Christmas and must comment. The big difference in the man being interviewed and me is he is speaking of the birth of Jesus as being a parable instead of an actual event. Jesus was born of THE God ( not a god) and is promised starting in Genisis. Marcus (the man interviewed) makes Jesus common. He compared him to other famous men in history. He is God made Man -- still God. He is not common. The gospel of Matthew was written mainly to a Jewish audience and thru geneology and content through out presents Jesus as Messiah King. He gives all the past kings in the geneology to show his legal right to be the King of the Jews. This could only be possible through the line of David to his legal father, Joseph. Luke is written mainly to the gentiles and presents Jesus as son of man and goes back to Adam to show his humanity. He is presented through Mary to again show his humanity. The gospel of Mark has no geneology because his purpose was to present Jesus as servent. John starts with "in the beginning..." to show Jesus Divinity. All together they are complete.

Christmas is about Jesus, our promised savior being born as fortold in the old testament. It is not a story, but about a real event. If it were not real, we would be without a savior to pay for our sin and make it possible to spend eternity in heaven. He came to be our required perfect sacrifice. There is no need to explain any deeper meaning than this. We needed a savior to pay for the penalty of any sin so we could be in the presence of Almighty God on judgement day.

No on has to celebrate Christmas. Jesus was born in Bethlehem to Mary and Joseph after being conceived by the Holy Spirit of God Almighty. He was promised and came not as the Jews expected in the form of an earthly powerful King, but rather a baby in a manger. He grew like any other child, but without sin (because he was God). At the appointed time, He started his time of teaching and preparation for ultimately living as "Christians". He gave his life on the cross, shedding his blood as sacrifice for my sin and all the sins of the world. We no longer need to work our way to being on Gods good side. We need to trust His way and accept His payment and follow him as we make our way through this life here on earth. It is done.... it is finished! Accept it, spend time in prayer and worship with Him and study His word for truth and direction. That is the way to eternity in heaven. My reservation is in and confirmed.

I find no need to re--create the wheel, if you will. The bible is the hand book for living. It is the word of God. It is the good news to all the people. I find it freeing to know I am forgiven for all my sin and know I have a place in eternity with God when life here is over. I am a follower of my savior Jesus Christ. If I could get to heaven on my own good works, He would not have had to come and die on my behalf. There is one way to heaven and it is only through Jesus Christ. Is his birth a myth? I am basing my eternity on it being a fact.

Basically, I definitely have to respectifully disagree with the interview. Jesus was born of the one and only true God, and so much more than a parable. And that, makes all the difference.

God Bless you all!!

Elections and Religion

Hi, all.
These are links to items that I have built up over the last couple weeks and you are the unfortunates that I am going to “dump” them on.

Here’s today’s humorous look at the Iowa results.

This is very prescient re Huckabee and the Iowa election.

This is now a little old election-wise, but quite on point as to religion in government.

And this, Mary, is another bible scholar discussing the historicity of Christmas, and the “non-literalness” and inconsistencies of the bible. You probably won’t agree with this “new” viewpoint. Just click “play” at the top of the page and this part of the show is about 40 min. long.

As always, just food for thought and discussion.