[NOT] Six Perspectives

A Surprising Message of Reconciliation

noreply@blogger.com (Jason Buchanan) — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 06:14:00 +0000

Social opposition creates interesting allies, no? As a result of this current outrage over Syrian refugees, there is a very interesting and rare opportunity for two opposing segments of Christianity to approach reconciliation.

First, there is a very prominent component of mainly "conservative" Christians who view human life as beginning with "conception". For this reason, they vehemently oppose abortion and take drastic actions to advocate against it. At the very core, these Christians believe that abortion is destroying the life of a person who cannot protect themselves. They see unborn babies as an "oppressed" people group.

Second, there is a very prominent component of mainly "liberal" Christians who desperately try to align themselves with Jesus' words, "For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in...". At the very core, these Christians believe that refusing foreigners - especially refugees, is a denial of Christ Himself and a refusal of the gospel that sets free the captives and proclaims freedom to the oppressed. These Christians see refugees as an "oppressed" people group.

Then, a third very small, surprised group - who typically opposed abortion, but find themselves wanting the USA to accept Syrian refugees. They are standing together with those who oppositely support abortion but also support accepting refugees. Very weird feeling, isn't it?

Very rare though it is, we have an opportunity for two typically opposing groups within Christendom to see things eye-to-eye...and subsequently to show love and respect for each other when the next abortion debate ensues. I'm sure that you - the reader - are experiencing many discussion threads where you are seeing people on the side of the oppressed refugees who typically support abortionists. Or oppositely, you are seeing those who typically disagree with abortion, but are now bravely disagreeing with the religious-right in their stand against denial of Syrian refugees. Oh how this must create some cognitive dissonance?! "How can I fundamentally disagree with them over abortion, but agree so wholeheartedly with them over refugees?"

Remember this when you next discuss the topic of abortion. Or when you next discuss homosexuality. Or women's rights. Or transgendered discrimination. Or homelessness. Or any other topic that addresses an issue that would typically cause us to HATE one another. Remember to think of your brother or sister in Christ with LOVE and COMPASSION. And expect that those with whom you disagree are genuinely trying to live by faith, hope and love.

And at the same time, please pray for those who have hatred in their hearts for the muslim terrorists (sometimes carelessly called, "love the sinner, hate the sin"); while also harboring hatred in their hearts for those who support abortion; and also grasping firmly to their practical hatred for homosexuals (and on and on). Christians who define themselves primarily by the opposition of those with whom they disagree are very near to the plank-missing, speck-noticing group to whom Jesus said, "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean."

And Most importantly, we should all remember that God loves *even* those who harbor hatred in their hearts. Which, sadly, has included me at times these last few days. Romans 5:8 says this, "God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

Fadiddle, Fadaddle, Fadoo!

noreply@blogger.com (Jason Buchanan) — Sun, 17 May 2015 18:28:00 +0000

Traditions are important.

They help us make sense of our community and the role we play - likely, the role we’ve been given. My brother and I had a juvenile game we would play in the car which became a tradition over time. The game didn’t have a name, but we used the words, “Fadiddle”, “Fadaddle” and “Fadoo!” to count the number of cars we saw at night with only one headlight.

The first car with a failed headlight represented “Fadiddle”, and the first person to see such a car would say the word aloud, kiss their hand and then touch the ceiling. There was always a great debate over the validity of the claim. If multiple people had witnessed the same single headlight in the darkness, discussion would ensue over the likelihood of it being a motorcycle or even the reflection of our own headlights on the cemetery headstones. But typically the “Fadiddle” claimant would assure us that the vehicle which had just passed, of course, was missing a headlight. So without much argument, the road trip would return to a peaceable endeavor with one person closer to the inevitable “punchline”.

Maybe a few days later, similar behavior followed for the second vehicle with only one headlight. The emphasis wasn’t so much on it being a second vehicle without a headlight, though. The same car could be witnessed multiple times in the same day, even. As long as someone else was in the car with you and the previous “trip” had sufficiently ended, then the same vehicle missing a headlight was a legitimate claim. To be clear, on a long trip, passing the same vehicle didn’t count. Even if you stopped for fuel and then re-encountered that same vehicle later on the road, it didn’t count. But, for instance, if on the way into town you passed a slow moving vehicle with a single, lonely headlight - and then on the return trip home that same desperate vehicle was still struggling along, you would have providentially earned both a “Fadiddle” and a “Fadaddle”. [We were young, so the game was self-centered…it was focused on us seeing the vehicle, not the actual existence of three unique one-headlight vehicles.]

We grew up in a small town, so there was often a dry spell after “Fadaddle”. Weeks could pass where we would entirely forget the score. And sometimes we would be in a vehicle with another person who wasn’t aware of the game - or the score. It was the responsibility of each game-player to advise the other players, in a friendly manner, “Hey, I got a Fadiddle the other day in the car with Drew…” so that there would be no surprises when the next missing headlight proffered a “Fadaddle” (#2, if you are counting).

Roads are longer in the country, with grassy fields lining both sides and small wooden, single-lane bridges not being uncommon obstacles. The nights are death quiet with stars clearly visible above the tree-line of the forest, especially on moonless nights. We forget ourselves on these long and winding roads. But after a long summer of mission trips and church camps, the third headlight-impaired vehicle finally comes dimly into view at the end of a dirt road. You see, this third vehicle not only represents “Fadoo”, but also the opportunity to punch your brother.

We were getting older, though, driving ourselves those days. And, alas, there is no one else in the car to appreciate the jubilation of the exclamation “FADOO!” It didn’t count. This bitter taste lingers in the back of your mouth. Shaking your head, a solemn promise is made, “I will find another…” The next few weeks are consumed by scouting the roads and parking lots, looking for parked vehicles with obviously broken headlights, even desperately considering busting out someone’s headlight just to end the game… Toilsome though it may be, a promise was made. And everyone else is searching for the last missing headlight, too. “I’m not alone”, you keep thinking to yourself.

The game is exhausting. Even short night-time trips require dedicated attention. But no other cars are on this winding road tonight. We are slowing down, approaching the stop at the four-way decision-point ahead of us. I’m looking both ways in the passenger seat, desperately looking for the hope of a far-off single headlight. And then it happens. From the driver seat, my brother’s arm, like a flash, swipes across my forehead with such force that I’m pushed back into the headrest from my bird-like perch on the front of the seat. I’m offended. I’m hurt. I’m surprised. But moreover, I’m indignant. There were no vehicles - and more importantly, none missing a headlight. There was no kissing of the hand, no one screamed “FADOO!”

“WHY DID YOU PUNCH ME IN THE FACE!?”, I asked with wounded pride.

My brother calmly answered, “The sign said ‘STOP AHEAD.”

We played a game that was supposed to be a fun, passing of the time. But we built rules and requirements around it. We argued about what counted and what didn’t. We spent years searching for the one-headlight vehicles that would qualify. And then one day, the entire game changed.

In a much less juvenile sense, Jesus also changed the game. But we keep trying to make up rules and play the old one.

How Important is Style in Worship?

noreply@blogger.com (Jason Buchanan) — Sat, 25 Apr 2015 02:13:00 +0000

For those who know me personally, there is no surprise. I’m a worship leader for my church but also, by vocation, a risk manager. And recently, I’ve been considering how common the subject of “style” in our worship services has become in church conversations. Though the Worship Wars have ended for the most part, each church still wrestles uniquely with how now to worship together as a congregation…regardless of who won the war.

And just like the aftermath of a real war, when peace is achieved it comes with a cost. The victors typically gain the most while paying a bitter price. In the same way, the vanquished often lose a great deal more but agree to peace so as to avoid total devastation. Nonetheless, as a result of peace, both the victors and the vanquished must attempt to live together from that point forward.

Having begun leading worship in early 2000, I was oblivious to much of the “battle” that had occurred within churches regarding worship styles. I remember reading about and learning about the large-scale disagreements over worship, but everywhere I went as a bi-vocational worship leader – I was sought after without argument. For me, this implies that I was brought onboard at a church after the battle was over. Luckily for me...I had somehow avoided the battle-field.

Now, after volunteering and working in churches for the past fifteen years, I’ve experienced enough dissatisfaction from congregants over my style of leading music to know that living under the rule of peace isn’t without struggles. And after some of my recent circumstances and conversations, I wanted to understand why this was (is) so important. Why have we fought over the style of music in church worship services? And so naturally, as a risk manager, I opened a spreadsheet and started thinking about the numbers. There must be a practical explanation for why the style of worship is so important...right? Imagine the next few paragraphs as a conversation between you and me…

For simplicity, let us evaluate worship in its two primary components: content and style. Described in another way, the “what, why, when and who” are the content. And the “how” is the style. Without much trouble, if each of these five descriptors represents a piece of the pie, then the style of our worship only contributes 20% to the total experience of worship. I find that pies make things easier to understand, don’t you?

OK, if we stopped here then it would make sense for at least 20% of our conversations about worship to be centered on the style (the “how”). And though small, 20% does represent a meaningful amount of consideration. But I was still unsettled…

Let’s think about the style of music in worship from the context of our lives. Our congregational “worship services” typically last about an hour. And most churches are only singing or worshipping through music for around thirty minutes. That means we are really only talking about thirty minutes of the week (let’s face it, most people don’t go to morning and evening services). This amount of time in congregational worship represents a minuscule 0.5% of most people’s waking hours for the week. Notice the position of the decimal…this is a really small amount.

Then, if you consider the importance of style in worship being 20%, times the 0.5% of waking hours for most people…the result is less than one tenth of one percent (0.08928571428571430% for anyone whose actually performing the calculations with me).

What does this figure represent? If we were talking dollars and cents, it wouldn’t even constitute a penny. It wouldn’t even represent one-tenth of a penny. That’s pretty small, no? I think I’m satisfied now. When we consider our spiritual act of worship, an extremely minuscule amount should be dedicated to the consideration of style. I, personally, needed this perspective.

As a worship leader, I honestly think that what I’m doing for thirty minutes on Sunday morning is having too much value placed upon it…it is over-valued and overly relied-upon (if not also overly criticized). If each person was living a fully satisfied life of worship, then our satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) with the musical style employed on Sunday morning would be a very small component in the overall worship equation.

Please don’t mistake my introspective point as disdain for the role of worship leaders. The point I’m making is that the style of worship is relatively unimportant. The content of worship, on the converse, is vitally important – both toward the effectiveness of the congregational worship service and toward the pursuit of being a worshipper of God in all aspects of life. The value I find in being a worship leader is not that I get to establish the style of music played on Sunday mornings, but that I get to challenge congregants “in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God – this is your true and proper worship.” (Romans 12:1)

On the Kingdom of God and How Homosexuals and the Divorced Will Be First In Line if They Love the Lord.

noreply@blogger.com (Jason Buchanan) — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 02:27:00 +0000

My good friend Matthew said it correctly – that forgiveness is available for those who repent. More specifically, I believe repentance means that I’ve turned away from my sin. The following question becomes obvious, “Can a person be repentant – truly having a contrite heart and a broken spirit – without subsequently changing their behavior?” And if I’m not repentant, then can I be part of the Kingdom of God?

My invitation to the Kingdom of God is the result of unmerited grace. It is undeserved. I’ve done nothing to earn this gift from God. In this respect, salvation and forgiveness aren’t exactly the same. If there were *actions* required for salvation, then we would no longer be saved by grace through faith – but by our works – and we’d hear lots of boasting about this, for sure.

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them. Ephesians 2:8-10 (NASB)

We typically speak of repentance in reference to our single sinful acts – each trespass requires a contrite request for forgiveness…and if you missed one sin in your list of requests for forgiveness (or simply forgot about one), then oops…off to Hell you go. But Jesus didn’t teach us to pray like that. He said, “…And forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” This is a very general prayer for forgiveness, indicating a constant *attitude* of repentance and an equal willingness to forgive others.

In this context, can I have a constant attitude of repentance while I remain in the state of sinfulness? Considering that we remain in the flesh – and will inevitably sin, I expect that this tension will always remain. Paul says the same about his own struggles with sin:

For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.

I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. Romans 7:15-8:4 (NASB)

This is an amazing gift we’ve been given. How beautiful, that even in my sinfulness, Christ Jesus came and set me free from the Law, which was my condemnation. Some people might not even be able to comprehend how amazing is the gift of Christ. And with that, some people might not even believe that such a gift exists. Certainly I have to DO SOMETHING after I’ve been invited into the Kingdom of God, right?!?! I’ve got to live right and pray and tell others about God and go do mission work and really DO STUFF, right? By our own actions, the only thing we can earn is death. Its simple…by our own works – even our good works, we abide with the Law and cannot be set free.

...Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses. Therefore take heed, so that the thing spoken of in the Prophets may not come upon you: ‘Behold, you scoffers, and marvel, and perish; For I am accomplishing a work in your days, A work which you will never believe, though someone should describe it to you.’ Acts 13:37-41 (NASB)

I love the last part of that grouping of verses…in that the only WORK that matters is the one being done by God. There is no contradiction on this topic in the Bible – we cannot be made righteous, entering the Kingdom of God by our own good works or by our abstinence from sin. There is a wonderful story in Luke where Jesus forgives the sins of a woman, simply because she loved him so much:

“A moneylender had two debtors: one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. When they were unable to repay, he graciously forgave them both. So which of them will love him more?” Simon answered and said, “I suppose the one whom he forgave more.” And He said to him, “You have judged correctly.” Turning toward the woman, He said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave Me no water for My feet, but she has wet My feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave Me no kiss; but she, since the time I came in, has not ceased to kiss My feet. You did not anoint My head with oil, but she anointed My feet with perfume. For this reason I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little.” Then He said to her, “Your sins have been forgiven.” Those who were reclining at the table with Him began to say to themselves, “Who is this man who even forgives sins?” And He said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.” Luke 7:41-48

This woman wasn’t forgiven because she asked for forgiveness…and she didn’t repent of her MANY sins. She isn’t recorded confessing those sins publicly. The focus of this verse is clearly that people – people who are unable to obtain forgiveness on their own, LOVE Jesus because He has already forgiven them of their MANY SINS.

I find it valuable that He specifies that the woman had many sins. And in this regard, she loved Him all the more because her debt was very large. We become a stumbling block when we make repentance a prerequisite of obtaining Jesus’ love. This is important, though…because when we do seek forgiveness, the Bible says it is assured. And repentance is a part of the ongoing process of sanctification, but certainly not a prerequisite to salvation - but, in fact, it is the result. We repent because "His word" is in us.

If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us. 1 John 1:8-10 (NASB)

Salvation is a free gift available to ALL who believe. Luckily for me, that includes homosexuals and the divorced/remarried, among others…

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 3:16-18 (NASB)

I looked up the word, “whoever” in this passage using my Strong’s dictionary. This is a pretty all-encompassing word.

Let’s not try to exclude anyone from this good news. And then let the work of the Holy Spirit take root in all of us, sparking us all to repentance.

Conservative Christians Ignore the Cultural Context of the Bible Regarding Women - Part One

noreply@blogger.com (Jason Buchanan) — Tue, 10 Mar 2015 03:37:00 +0000

What are the consequences of reading the Bible with knowledge of the historical context in which it was written? Our challenge as modern-day Christians is to read and pray through the words of the Bible with an understanding that we are not the first-hearers of these words. How does the recognition of second-hearing change how we apply the Word of God to our lives? Admittedly, the Gospel doesn’t transform into a different document when we understand it’s historical context. Paul’s letters to the early churches don’t morph into a “bible-code” or hidden meaning when we know more about Jewish cultural norms.

There is no hidden meaning necessary to understand the love of God and the sacrifice of Jesus for our salvation. And Jesus is pretty straightforward with His words and actions, telling us that love is the most important of all the commandments. In John 13:34-35, Jesus says,

“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

Even when the religious leaders were trying to trap him, Jesus was clear in his response,

“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. ’ This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘ You shall love your neighbor as yourself. ’ On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:37-40).

Paul agrees on the importance of love when he testifies,

“For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.” (1 Corinthians 13:12-13)

If love is so important, then we must remain with love while we search the scriptures. If we pursue knowledge in these matters without the banner of love, then our result is just a “clanging cymbal”.

We must guard ourselves against dismissing important instructions through a strict reliance on love…loving the Lord with everything; loving our neighbor as I would love myself. When we read the Bible with knowledge of it’s historical context we will be able to distinguish between those instructions given with contextually-specific reasons and those instructions in the Bible which were intended to live beyond culture and momentary context. Always remember love.

How will we know which verses were intended for a specific audience, though? How will we prevent ourselves from dismissing instructions that were intended to remain for all time - applying even in the ages to follow? How will we refrain from dismissing everything in the future that doesn’t align with the culture of first-century Judaism?

My fear is that Christians in our hesitancy over these same questions have refrained from accepting the impact of the Bible’s historical context on the application of scripture. If we understand the historical context of the Bible, then we must interpret the written words accordingly. There is a personal responsibility laid upon us with this requirement. If the New Testament must be interpreted through the lens of first-century Jewish culture, then failing to do so means we’ve failed to understand those passages requiring such contextual explanation.

For example, in Matthew 13, Jesus tells a parable of the “Sower and the Seeds”. If the reader is not familiar with farming or the concept of seeds and different types of soil, then the meaning of the passage isn’t fully comprehendible. Likewise, instructions given from Paul to the early church aren’t fully understood without context. His instructions regarding women are primarily founded in the patriarchal society of the first-century. So when he tells women to “be silent in the church” and to cover their heads - we cannot understand the “why” without also understanding the context of a woman’s role in Jewish society.

Regarding women, the entirety of the Bible was written during a time of history when men were rulers and authorities over women - as dictated by the weight of Jewish culture and tradition. Particularly, women were viewed as property and used in the process of transferring inheritance (think arranged marriages). During the first century, women were reviled as lesser creations. In Luke 18:11, we see a Pharisee praying these words:

‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.’

This prayer is similar to a common Jewish prayer - common even to this day:

“Blessed are you, Hashem, King of the Universe, for not having made me a Gentile. Blessed are you, Hashem, King of the Universe, for not having made me a slave. Blessed are you, Hashem, King of the Universe, for not having made me a woman.”

There are countless passages in the Bible where women are treated as an inferior creation. The most detestable is in Judges 19, where some of the inhabitants of the Jewish city of Gibeah are demanding to have sexual relations with a man who has sought refuge for the night, but the owner of the house at which he is staying offers his virgin daughter and the traveler’s concubine to them instead…both of whom the detestable men of the city rape all night long. Upon the traveler’s return home, he cuts his concubine into twelve pieces and scatters her across Israel. The acts of the men of Gibeah are looked on with disdain, for sure. But the attitude of the man in Judges 19 is common an example of how Jewish men viewed women as dispensable.

Now, let's re-read the passages of the New Testament regarding women with this in mind. Paul’s instructions to the early church regarding women were obviously situated in the cultural context of female inferiority. In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul clearly says,

“The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.”

Have we accepted part of this teaching but rejected other parts selectively? Certainly. There are obviously historical cultural implications which allow modern readers to exist in churches where women are allowed to speak aloud. We do not follow the tradition of first-century Judaism being described by Paul in this passage. In 1 Timothy 2:9, Paul instructs women again:

“Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.”

Of course we want all people to dress modestly, but according to this instruction, women cannot have braided hair or wear gold or pearls. We obviously recognize that there is historical cultural context here…as most women in our churches wear expensive clothing (compared to 99% of the world) and even wear jewelry. We do not follow the tradition of first century Judaism being described by Paul in this passage. Nonetheless, later in the same chapter of 1 Timothy 2 (verse 12), Paul gives instructions that we like to keep to this day:

“But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.”

While we understand the instructions in verse nine are subject to historical cultural context, we miss that point in verse twelve. But then again, in verse fifteen, we are somehow able to understand the application of culture when Paul says:

“But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self- restraint.”

It seems as though we apply our understanding of cultural context as it suits us - not as a universal concept. Again in 1 Timothy 3:12, we go back to a literal reading of the instruction - instead of recognizing the cultural implications. In this verse, Paul says:

“Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households.”

Remember, in first century Jewish culture, women would not be seen as viable options for leadership. But is that same cultural prohibition still in place today? Certainly not! Yet we still force instructions given within a specific historical and cultural context to apply to our modern churches. Even worse, we have gone further in the legalistic practices of our modern churches toward the exclusion of women.

Citing 1 Timothy 2:12, we prevent women from having authority over men. For this reason - in many churches only men can be ushers; only men can serve communion; only men can pray during services. But do these activities imply or require authority? Certainly not! But we limit the involvement of women in the same first-century Jewish-sense, even though our modern society fosters equal rights.

In the following chapters of this series, I will review the context of other passages in the New Testament where we have errantly limited the role of women based on a selective application of historical, cultural context. Jesus definitely didn’t consider women inferior creatures, so the second chapter of this series will address how Jesus’ words counterbalance the cultural constraints of his disciples and the apostle Paul. The final chapter will address the consequences of accepting such a view of the Bible’s cultural context. I have prayerfully considered these passages and am cautiously prepared to accept these consequences - both practical and personal.

The Law of Baptism - Part Four (Conclusion)

noreply@blogger.com (Jason Buchanan) — Thu, 08 Jan 2015 08:00:00 +0000

FOREWORD:

I was recently given for consideration a challenging article on the topic of baptism written by Lacy Crowell. Lacy graduated from Bear Valley Bible Institute and is clearly guided with humble and pure intent by Church of Christ doctrine. I encourage you to read her article carefully and prayerfully before continuing with my response to her article.

http://comefillyourcup.com/2013/09/09/what-about-baptism/

After you’ve read her article – please come back to this document and share with me in the process of evaluating such a theology of salvation through baptism – what I will call the “law of Baptism”. My article is not intended as an argument with Mrs. Crowell and is more reflective of my own personal study and evaluation of the passages being used by ambassadors of the “Church of Christ” in their attempt to exclude other Christians from salvation who have not been baptized – or baptized properly.

I’ve divided this response into four parts – because so much scripture is involved.

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

PART FOUR (CONCLUSION):

If we are attempting to establish and follow the rules and requirements of baptism – what I have consistently called the “law of Baptism”, then these are the requirements we must follow:

From all of the referenced passages, in addition to being baptized, to be saved we must also:

Receive the Spirit through the laying on of hands.
Literally re-enact Christ’s death, burial and resurrection.
Be circumcised.
Hear words spoken in our own native tongue
Sell our possessions and give to those in need.
Make a pledge of a clear conscience toward God
Be fully immersed in the water.

This is an interesting list of requirements. I don’t dislike all of them. And honestly, I totally understand everyone of these things – after all, they are directly from the Bible.

Now let me reference some of my own favorite scripture on this topic:

When speaking to Nicodemus on this topic, Jesus emphasizes the birth of the Spirit, thus the importance of receiving the Holy Spirit – not just of being baptized. And as we’ve seen in various prior references, the Spirit didn’t come as a result of baptism – often happening before the baptism occurred.

“Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” (John 3:5-8 NIV)

Then, when the rich young ruler asked Jesus about this topic, we have an entirely different response – sell all of your possessions and give to the poor. Jesus says nothing of baptism being necessary to inherit eternal life. Why aren’t we all living under this requirement for salvation??

As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.’ ” “Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.” Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. (Mark 10:17-22 NIV)

Finally, Romans 10 is a pretty direct statement about faith being the only necessary requirement for salvation.

“The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (Romans 10:8-13 NIV)

This passage clearly states that salvation comes to those who call upon the name of the Lord.

How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? (Romans 10:14 NIV)

Paul doesn’t go on to say, “and how will they be saved if they aren’t baptized?” For he has already quoted Joel saying this simple statement – “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Let’s not add anymore requirements to salvation – “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9 NIV)”

The Law of Baptism - Part Three

noreply@blogger.com (Jason Buchanan) — Wed, 07 Jan 2015 08:00:00 +0000

FOREWORD:

http://comefillyourcup.com/2013/09/09/what-about-baptism/

I’ve divided this response into four parts – because so much scripture is involved.

Part One

Part Two

PART THREE:

There are a number of scripture references made by Crowell at this point – these references are surely made to solidify her point that baptism is necessary for salvation. But in all of these examples given, baptism occurs after the message of the good news is received and “belief” is assured. Because these scriptures are not specifically discussed by Crowell, I will also not specifically address how they do not support the necessity of baptism for salvation (though they obviously reflect that baptism is important). That being said, there is one passage in particular referenced by Crowell which I find very interesting – Acts 10:48. Here is the passage she references – with some context:

“While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days. (Acts 10:44-48 NIV)”

In this passage, the people are clearly baptized – but the chronology of events is important if we want to establish a “law of Baptism”:

The Holy Spirit came on those who heard the message Peter was preaching.
The circumcised believers were surprised because Gentiles were given the Holy Spirit without circumcision.
Peter stated that nothing could prevent them from being baptized – as they had already received the Holy Spirit.
The people were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

It is obvious that the Holy Spirit was given without the need for baptism. And clearly, the baptism happened after these people received the Holy Spirit. Even more, the believers originally expected that circumcision was necessary for salvation…much like Crowell considers that baptism is necessary for salvation. This irony shouldn’t be dismissed.

The next passage presented in the defense baptism as necessary for salvation is 1 Peter 3:21. In this context, Crowell goes so far as to ask and answer a rhetorical question subsequent to this verse, “What does this passage say saves us? Baptism.” Here is the passage with some context:

“For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (1 Peter 3:18-21 NIV)”

What a cool passage? Christ’s death and resurrection was proclaimed to the people who were destroyed in the flood of Noah. Amazingly, the water that destroyed so many sinful people – those not saved in the ark – is symbolized in the baptism that now saves us. And there it is – baptism “saves” us. But what is the last statement in verse 21?

“…It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3:21b)”

So is it baptism that saves us? Baptism saves us…by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. So which of these things is the critical ingredient for salvation? Is the importance of baptism equal to the resurrection of Jesus Christ? Surely not!

Even more, Peter clearly states that baptism isn’t significant because of the literal “removal of dirt” but because of a “pledge of a clear conscience toward God”. There it is – according to this passage, the singular act in baptism that “saves” us is the “pledge of a clear conscience toward God.”

If we are trying to establish a “law of Baptism”, then we must make a pledge of a clear conscience toward God. As Peter states, the water is symbolic – even clearly stating that the washing off of the “dirt” isn’t what gives salvation. It is the pledge made through the resurrection of Jesus Christ that saves us. Not the water…and not even the re-enactment we complete in baptism of Jesus death, burial and resurrection…

Next, Ephesians 4 is referenced so as to illustrate how those people not saved according to the “law of Baptism” are excluded from Christ. Crowell states accordingly, “If someone has been baptized, but not in the way and for the reasons described in Scripture, they have not experienced the one baptism and are not yet in Christ.” Here is the passage Crowell uses to exclude those who haven’t yet met the requirements of the law:

“As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. (Ephesians 4:1-6 NIV)”

What is the purpose of this passage? The context and content of the passage is clearly on how we are to be humble and gentle, patient – bearing with each other in love. Furthermore, the passage tells us to make “every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.”

The context of the statement “one Lord, one faith, one baptism…” was written to the church at Ephesus so as to help unify them – not so as to give the church at Ephesus ammunition on how to exclude others in the faith who didn’t receive salvation according to the “law of Baptism”.

Here is the crux of the point – Crowell seeks to divide and exclude members from the body of Christ using a passage that was intended to unite and create peace among the fellowship. This mis-application of the passage is the result of reading into the text a bias toward the singular importance of baptism for salvation.

Finally, in the last two paragraphs of the article there is a general discussion on the transliteration of the Greek word from which we derive the word, “Baptize”. Crowell correctly states that this word means “to immerse”, but subsequently uses the Ephesians 4 passage to state that anyone who doesn’t get “immersed” hasn’t followed the “law of Baptism” and has therefore not experienced true baptism and is ultimately not in Christ.

The Law of Baptism - Part Two

noreply@blogger.com (Jason Buchanan) — Tue, 06 Jan 2015 16:00:00 +0000

FOREWORD:

http://comefillyourcup.com/2013/09/09/what-about-baptism/

I’ve divided this response into four parts – because so much scripture is involved.

Part one was posted yesterday - I've provided it here, for anyone who hasn't yet read it.

PART TWO:

The author’s next scripture reference is the baptism described in Romans 6 as “a literal re-enactment of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ”.

I am very humbled by this passage – so will approach it with an extra measure of carefulness. Here is a summary of what Paul says in Romans 6 – the chronology of events is less important, but I’ve kept my notes in order, nonetheless. Also, because the first verse of chapter 6 refers to what was previously just stated, I’ve included the last few verses of chapter 5 in my summary.

Grace through righteousness brings eternal life through Jesus. From this passage alone, we see the formula: Grace + Righteousness + Jesus = Eternal Life
Sinning more doesn’t increase the grace applied to us because righteousness is also part of the equation.
Paul reminds us of baptism in two components – death and resurrection.
We are united with Christ in this baptism…so that in his death, our sinful life dies. And because we are united with Christ, we also are resurrected as he was.
Paul says those “who were baptized” were also “buried” and “raised from the dead”. He then states that we were “crucified with him [Jesus]” so that the old self has died and we are now free from sin.
Paul reminds us that Christ has conquered death – conquering it for all of us.
For this reason we should live as if we are dead to sin and alive in Christ.
If we are dead to sin, we should stop submitting ourselves to it.
We are no longer to live as slaves to sin because we are no longer under the law – but under grace.
That said, we are slaves to the “one you [we] obey”. Obey sin and die or obey righteousness and live.
Paul expects that we have obedience “from your heart the pattern of teaching” of Jesus Christ.
Paul admits that he is making an analogy using the terms of slavery.
We should be ashamed of the acts we committed while we were slaves to sin.
Those acts resulted in our death.
But – praise the Lord – we’ve been set free from that sin and can now receive the benefit of being slaves to God – holiness, which leads to eternal life.
The formula is restated in last two verses:
In verse 22 we have this concept – being slave to sin results in death. But being slave to righteousness leads to eternal life.
And in verse 23 we have this concept – God’s gift (grace) is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Again, Paul is not specifically giving instructions on the importance of baptism in this chapter. He speaks purposefully about baptism in verses 3 & 4 – using our baptism in Christ as a poignant method of illustrating how we are unified with him in death and resurrection. But the purpose of that statement is not to emphasize the importance of baptism – but to illustrate the overarching themes of God’s grace, our newfound allegiance to righteousness and the result which is eternal life.

Now, if we were seeking to establish a “law of Baptism”, then we must consider some additional concepts. First, as Crowell states, baptism “is a literal re-enactment…” So we must properly follow the steps so as to get this right. And if we are to literally re-enact Christ’s death, burial and resurrection – then should we not all actually be crucified, buried and physically resurrected so as to receive salvation? Literal means literal.

Next, Crowell clarifies that through baptism we “contact the blood of Christ”. OK…so we aren’t literally crucified, etc. But there does appear to be some symbolism being used here. If not, then to "come into contact with the blood of Christ" would imply that the baptismal water literally turns to blood?!? Honestly, every literal explanation of this is really weird.

Paul’s baptism – along with all of those people on record being baptized in the name of Jesus – were not literally crucified, buried and resurrected. Jesus was. Therefore, the concept of baptism is loaded with analogies…and Paul mentions it in Chapter 6 of Romans so as to bring our minds back to how we are unified with Christ. He is not mentioning baptism here so as to draw a literal example of how it works… If he was, then we should all literally be crucified, buried and resurrected so as to receive salvation. Even more, if Paul was trying to communicate to us about the “law of Baptism” in Romans 6, then the other themes in the chapter about God’s gift of grace, the pattern of our hearts toward righteousness and eternal life through Jesus Christ would be necessarily minimized and in their place, the importance of baptism would be obvious.

In Romans 6, should we focus on the details of the baptismal analogy Paul used to describe the grace and gift of God – or should we focus on the gift itself? If we make a law of Baptism from this passage, then we will certainly miss out on being “slaves to righteousness leading to holiness” – which then leads to eternal life through Jesus Christ.

The next passage referenced is a very brief mention of Colossians 2:12 to support the idea of a literal baptism being necessary for salvation. Here is Colossians 2:11-12 for just a bit more context:

“In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. (Colossians 2:11-12 NIV)”

Because of the time we devoted to the Romans 6 reference, I will address this passage very briefly…

Is the circumcision being referenced in verse 11 also to be a literal re-enactment? Certainly not. This verse is an analogy of how Christ removes the sin of our flesh. If we accept that Christ does this without the need of our actual re-enactment of the event of circumcision, then why would we – in the very next verse – attempt to make a literal application for the necessity of baptism to accomplish the purpose of receiving salvation? There is no justification to interpret two sister-passages differently.

Nonetheless, if we are attempting to use Colossians 2:12 to establish a “law of Baptism”, then the literal act of baptism must also be preceded with the literal act of circumcision. Have fun with that. You can't take one verse literally and not the other. And while this is pretty rough for men (no pun intended), I feel even worse for women - who, no matter how hard they try, because circumcision is impossible...salvation just doesn't apply to them according to this passage. Unless we see the figurative language being used here, circumcision and baptism are both literally required for salvation.

Next, we have Acts 2. This is a beautiful example of the power of the Holy Spirit. Crowell references this chapter as an example of how baptism is the conduit for all conversions in the New Testament (along with a slew of other verse citations). Focusing primarily on Acts 2, she states, “In fact, every time we see a conversion in the New Testament, it is through baptism…”

First, read all of Acts 2. As I first stated, this chapter is an example of the power of the Holy Spirit – not intended a lesson on the importance of baptism. Peter didn’t spend an afternoon trying to convince people that baptism was how they’d be saved. Instead, he laid out – in each person’s own natural language – how their experience at pentecost was a fulfillment of the prophet Joel’s words (from Joel 2:28-32). Interestingly, the final words of Joel, quoted by Peter, are this:

‘And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’ (Acts 2:21 NIV)

These words don’t say anything about the necessity of baptism.

Further in Acts 2, Peter assures the Jewish listeners that “God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.” (Acts 2:36 NIV). In response to this sermon, they were “cut to the heart”. So Peter tells them “…Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38 NIV)

And finally, this is the single verse referenced by Crowell to indicate that baptism is necessary for salvation:

“Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. (Acts 2:41 NIV)”

This is important – Crowell improperly paraphrased verse 41. Here is the statement quoted from her article:

“Verse 41 tells us that GOD added those who were baptized that day to the church.” [italics mine]

Read the verse again more slowly – and without bias.

“Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. (Acts 2:41 NIV)” [emphasis mine]

To focus on the word baptism and therefore exclude the phrase “accepted his message” unduly places importance on one concept in the place of the other. And because Peter wasn’t trying to preach a sermon about baptism – the whole idea of focusing singularly on that verse from this chapter to claim the necessity of baptism misses the point of Peter’s testimony about Jesus and the foreknowledge of God throughout history.

But if we wanted to establish a “law of Baptism” from this chapter, then we should also require re-enactment of all the other circumstances of that particular event. Here, everyone heard the words spoken in their own native tongue. Also, later in verse 45 of the same chapter, everyone was selling their possessions and giving to anyone who had need. We cannot create a law from that chapter regarding Baptism if we are unwilling to also create a law from that same chapter regarding the hearing of the word in our own language, the selling of our possessions and giving to the poor.

At this point, if we want to make baptism "required", then there are lots of other works we must do so as to be properly saved. And very quickly, the Law of Baptism starts to sound a lot like a new way to be saved by "the Law".

The Law of Baptism - Part One

noreply@blogger.com (Jason Buchanan) — Tue, 06 Jan 2015 02:17:00 +0000

FOREWORD:

http://comefillyourcup.com/2013/09/09/what-about-baptism/

I’ve divided this response into four parts – because so much scripture is involved.

PART ONE:

The first passage referenced by Crowell on the topic of baptism is Acts 9, where we have the story of Saul on the road to Damascus. He is blinded by a light from Heaven, encounters Jesus on the road and then remains blind for three days.

What is the purpose of this passage? While baptism occurs in the passage, it is a single word from a single sentence. And if we aren’t trying to read into the text a meaning based on our existing biases, then the passage is most obviously about how God chose Saul for the purpose of proclaiming his “…name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel.” (Acts 9:15, NIV)

The purpose of this passage is NOT to establish a “law of Baptism” nor was it to lay out the rules for the order of operations for receiving salvation. But if we wanted to make a rule based on the events of this passage, there are several things that happened chronologically and need to be repeated so as to fulfill such a law:

First, Saul was blinded by an earthly encounter with Jesus.
Then it is recorded that Ananias placed his hands on Saul and that Ananias spoke Jesus’ message to Saul.
After these events, Saul regained his sight.
Next, Saul was baptized.
Finally, after he was baptized, Saul ate and regained his strength.

We know that Ananias was sent to Saul so that he would “see again and be filled with the Holy Spirt.” (Acts 9:17, NIV). Regrettably, for the purposes of establishing a “law of Baptism”, we aren’t given the chronology of when Saul received the Holy Spirit in this passage. Did Saul receive the Holy Spirit after Ananias placed his hands on him and spoke the message to him? That is apparently what caused Saul to regain his sight… Or was the Holy Spirit given to Saul after baptism? Or was there something special about eating after baptism? These things are written down…so they are obviously worth having been recorded.

In the end, Paul does get baptized – so it is surely important – but we cannot state from the description of the events in this passage that baptism was the action that “saved” Saul.

Next in Crowell’s article on Baptism, Matthew 7 is referenced as evidence that many will be denied salvation – even though they claimed to believe in Jesus. Nonetheless, it is important to take the entire chapter in context. Here is a summary of the chapter’s events in chronological order (but please also read it for yourself):

Jesus tells the people that they will be judged by the same measure they use to judge others.
Jesus calls out hypocrites who point out the faults of others without first dealing with their own sins.
Jesus states that God will give generously to those who ask from Him.
Jesus summarizes the Law and the Prophets by this phrase, “…do to others what you would have them do to you…”
Jesus warns against taking the easy path…and states clearly that the way to life is only discovered by a few (“the narrow gate”).
Jesus warns that false prophets will come, but says that we will be able to discern between true and false prophets by their fruits.
Jesus further states that many will say “Lord, Lord” even performing signs and miracles “in his name”, but Jesus will tell them on that day, “…I never knew you…” (Matthew 7:23, NIV)
Of those who say, “Lord, Lord”, only those who do the will of the Father will enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 7:21, NIV).
The chapter ends with Jesus urging people to to put his words into practice. Warning that those who do not put his words into practice will be washed away like a house built on sand – while those who do put his words into practice will stand firm during the storm.
Finally, people were amazed at his words.

This chapter has nothing to do with baptism, but the author of the article references the chapter to support the concept that many who expect to be saved will – in fact – be denied by Jesus. In the context of her article, at least some of those people who expect to be saved will be denied by Jesus because their baptism was incorrect or non-existent.

But in the immediate context of this verse, Jesus is speaking about false prophets. Giving us instructions on how to discern between the good and the bad through their fruits – not through their baptism. And then he states that “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” (Mathew 7:21, NIV). This statement would most naturally be referring to those false prophets whose fruits weren’t aligned with the Father in heaven.

Nonetheless, the only stated requirement for entering the kingdom of heaven – as clearly described by this passage – is to “do the will of the Father”. In this regard, baptism isn’t even mentioned.

The next scripture referenced in Crowell's article is Acts 22:16, which according to the Crowll “defines calling on the name of the Lord as being done through the act of baptism, not through saying a prayer.”

But Paul isn’t giving specific instructions about baptism instructions in this passage. In the context of Acts 22, Paul is recounting this very same experience on the road to Damascus when at the end of his story, he states that Ananias told him, “And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’ (Acts 22:16 NIV) [emphasis mine].

In the same sense that Paul is not speaking here so as to give instructions on baptism, this is also clearly not intended to be a formal definition of the phrase “calling on the name of the Lord” as Mrs. Crowell indicates. Paul did not precede his testimony with, “Here is how and why you should call upon the name of the Lord through baptism…” Interestingly, the addition of the phrase, “calling on his name” does tell us the type of baptism Paul received. And to the primary and the secondary readers, this qualifier tells us that Paul was baptized in Jesus’ name. There are other places in the New Testament where the “name” used in baptism is called into question.

And while Mrs. Crowell doesn’t reference this next passage, I have investigated Acts 19 because of the similarity of “calling on the name of the Lord” used in Acts 22.. In Acts 19, Paul encountered some men who were alreaady baptized but had not received the Holy Spirit. After a quick conversation, he recognized that they were baptized in John’s name and didn’t even know about the Holy Spirit – which is given by Jesus. Here’s how the events go down:

"So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?” “John’s baptism,” they replied. Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." (Acts 19:3-5 NIV)

And there it is – “He [John] told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” (v. 4) And still, quite obviously, baptism happens immediately after belief. The two seem to go together.

The most intriguing part of this story is the very next verse:

“When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.” (Acts 19:6 NIV)

Here is the summarized chronology of events from this story in the first part of Acts 19:

Paul asked the disciples if they had received the Holy Spirit “when they believed” (v. 2)
Here it is important to note that Paul asks these men expectantly – expecting that when they believed, they should also have received the Holy Spirit.
They answered “No” because they didn’t even know about the Spirit.
Paul explains to them the difference between the baptism of John and the baptism of Jesus. Afterward, they are immediately baptized IN JESUS’ NAME (not BY Jesus).
Finally, Paul lays hands upon them and they receive the Holy Spirit, speak in tongues and then prophecy.

If we are trying to establish a “law of Baptism”, then things just got more complicated. In this passage, the Holy Spirit isn’t received through baptism – but through the laying on of hands.

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

This is part one of a four-part response to the use of scripture and conclusions in the article "What About Baptism?" written by Lacy Crowell. Her original article can be found here: http://comefillyourcup.com/2013/09/09/what-about-baptism/

Six Perspectives...No More

noreply@blogger.com (Jason Buchanan) — Wed, 26 Mar 2014 19:55:00 +0000

While Six Perspectives is no more, please consider reading my personal blog:

Writers Gonna Write

In all of my past efforts with blogging, I've only attempted community oriented blogs...ones where I am writing with a group of other writers. This will be my first attempt at a solo blog - please wish me luck.

Maybe, someday, I will resurrect Six Perspectives. But for now, I expect that social media has taken the place of online communal discourse. Sadly, I personally believe social media allows us to share our ideas without consequence or discussion. And without real online community, people can spew vitriol without being held responsible for the inappropriateness of their words.

Writing thoughts within a cohesive, responsible framework forces a person to think. And with this thoughtfulness, we are forced to consider if the words make sense. And if the words make sense, do they inspire action? Further we should ask our selves, "Is the action worth taking?" "Will I change something about myself today?" "Or will you change something about yourself today?"

I believe that words - in the context of engaging discussion - have the power to change us all. But social media is the equivalent of a protestor's painted sign or a street corner preacher screaming loudly for all to hear - and with no one to discuss. John Mayer wrote a song called "Belief", with lyrics that I believe now apply to how we use social media:

Is there anyone who ever remembers changing their mind from the paint on a sign? Is there anyone who really recalls ever breaking record off for something someone yelled real loud one time? Oh, everyone believes...in how they think it ought to be. Oh, everyone believes...and they're not going easily.

Should mentally competent, terminally ill patients be able to end their lives?

noreply@blogger.com (Jason Buchanan) — Tue, 04 Feb 2014 05:39:00 +0000

#1 A Declaration in Favor of the Value of a Life

This is one of those laws that seems so laughable, if it weren't so sad. We don't want people to commit suicide, so we outlaw it? Because people won't end their own lives if we threaten them with legal punishment? This is a pointless rule.

I don't want anyone to commit suicide, for any reason. I think suicide is the ultimate abandonment of those who love you, even if it's just days short of a natural death. And no matter how passionately I feel that no one should ever ever commit suicide, it will never be my right to make that decision for another person.

The natural extension of this question is, "if I am allowed to choose suicide, shouldn't I be able to require my health care provider to assist me in carrying out this personal decision?" And I think this would be a really dangerous line to cross.

While a law against suicide is silly and unenforceable, I can imagine why it exists. Because if it's acceptable for me to decide that life is hopeless, and that I should end it, then why wouldn't it be ok for my spouse or my friend to help me? And if ending a hopeless life by suicide is ok, then why isn't it ok for my doctor to decide that my life isn't worth living when my health comes to a certain level of hopelessness?

Maybe the law against suicide is a declaration in favor of the value of a life. A legislative stand that says, "each life is important, and no one, not even the person in possession of that life, should have the right to end it prematurely." Maybe i like that law after all.

Submitted by Beth Rogers.

#2 We Are All Terminally ill!

We are all terminally ill! I am going to plead that we should not allow patients to decide or be allowed to end their lives.

The first reason is society’s inability to determine a set of concrete guidelines for who would be considered terminally ill. We all know that as soon as this “Pandora’s box” is opened, it would only continue to be challenged and pushed further and further.

The second reason is this would be a devastating step in the wrong direction for the valuing of human life. Let’s assume that we begin to allow terminally ill patients this option. Ten years later, insurance companies might just begin to cover the fees associated with that “procedure”. (They would definitely do this because think of the money they would save….yet it would be considered a new “service” or “option”) Ten more years pass and insurance companies would begin to offer policies that were cheaper if you had a “terminally ill” clause that meant they didn’t have to cover health-care for “terminally-ill” cases. It would seem like a great idea, because you could save so much money, until you are the one deemed “terminally-ill”. Don’t think that’s true...try getting a transplant if you’re obese.

The third reason is simply, we cannot play God. I do agree with choosing not to take “drastic” measures because that is the essence of leaving a situation in God’s hands, however; willingly ending one’s life is the essence of taking things out of God’s hands.

Submitted by Paul Buchanan.

#3 Everyone Else Should Honor And Respect That Choice

Yes.

Whether or not a person continues to live is nobody else's choice but their own. I'd go farther and say that terminal illness shouldn't be a constraining factor. If a person decides that they are done living, then everyone else should honor and respect that choice.

To me, this is a basic human right. It is so obvious that marshaling arguments for it is actually more difficult because it is hard to predict what kind of complaints could be made. Of course, I'll do my best.

Q: What about all the loved ones this person will hurt by ending their life?

A: Those that truly love this person will stand by them and respect their choices. If that choice is to withdraw from life, then so be it. Those who wish to override the choice are not displaying love. They are displaying fear and selfishness. Now, I am NOT saying that loved ones shouldn't try to convince the person to change their mind. We do that for each other all the time when we don't agree about important decisions. By all means, make the case that sticking around is a better choice. But remember who gets to make that choice, when all is said and done.

Q: What kind of example will this set for kids?

A: Actually, I think that it might have a positive impact in areas like teen suicide. If we actually embraced the idea, sat down and talked frankly about it, explored the implications and understood the impacts... Perhaps a little reality would take the romance out of it. Also, our culture would adapt. There would be a transitional period, but eventually, we'd use such opportunities to explain death to those children who had reached an age where they were ready to understand it.

Q: Doesn't God say it is a sin?

A: I am not sure. I haven't talked with God today. I think the real issue here is that some beliefs count it as a sin. But since when is it okay to enforce our beliefs on someone who clearly does not share them? I don't think this is a valid argument. If a person has decided on suicide, then they have obviously dealt with any spiritual issues they might have had with it, and those issues WE might have with it are irrelevant.

I can see no compelling reason to forbid suicide, especially for those who are mentally competent and terminally ill.

Submitted by Matthew Rohr.

#4 I'll Reserve Judgment For Someone Who Makes That Choice

It's really sad when terminally ill people linger on in severe pain and suffering. I'd really like to say I thought it would be alright for them to choose to end their own life, but I do not. I'll not quote any scripture. There are several applicable, but my mind is made up that God does not want us to end our own life. While I do not think suicide is an unforgivable sin, as some Christians do, I do not think life should be ended by anyone but God.

Some might suggest that that would preclude capital punishment, but that issue was covered in the Old Testament. Also in war lives are taken, and I do not consider that murder either. My understanding is that the command “Thou shalt not kill” would have been more accurately translated “Thou shalt do no murder.” Murder would denote the taking of an innocent life, as in abortion.

I have no problem with life support being removed, since that is an artificial means to prolong life. When it comes to removing a feeding tube, that gets sticky. I'll not judge that. I certainly do have sympathy for situations where someone begs to die to end the pain, but I cannot give my permission for euthanasia. I'll reserve judgment for someone who makes that choice, but if asked what God would want, I'll have to say I don't approve of allowing someone to end their own life.

Submitted by David Parker.

#5 The Taking Of A Life is Murder

I just want to go on the record here and say that this was/is difficult for me to sort out. On the one hand, who am I to tell someone who is suffering unspeakable pain with absolutely no quality of life remaining that they don't have the right to end their suffering?

On the other hand, medical miracles happen everyday. What if someone unnecessarily ends his or her life when there is still some hope? And where do we draw the line? To me, the taking of a life is murder. May seem like a simplistic viewpoint, but there you have it. So to begin with, we allow these terminally ill people to end their loves because their quality of life is bad. Then we allow people to voluntarily end their lives because they're lonely or unhappy. Their quality of life may seem just as bad to them. So now we are allowing people with a poor quality of life to make the decision to end it all.

What's next? Allowing people to kill other people because they're bad or because they negatively affect quality of life? Where does it end? Where is the ethical line?

Submitted by Lauri Lenox

#6 There Really Isn't Anymore Hope

If you believe in the right for every human to be able to make his or her own decisions, then you should believe in this option as well.

If mentally competent, that patient has the ability to comprehend the situation and decide to choose an end result that is not only best for their own well being, but also the well being of those around: family, friends, etc. I believe there are times when the pain and suffering of an ill patient is more difficult to handle than the lingering anticipation for the day goodbye is said to the world and their family. It is at that point that someone may call it quits. We can not fault the family members who want to hang on a little longer or the doctor that may have a few more tricks up his sleeve. They are human and respectively they are afraid of loss and afraid of failure.

If there are no other options, then why not have the ability to choose this option? When a hurting loved one passes, we always hear the same self-comforting reasoning from the family members, "They are in a better place now, they are no longer in pain." If dying is what makes this peace a reality and everyone wants this peace, then let dying be the reality. Otherwise, the patient's reality is pain, and everyone else is stuck in a fantasy because they refuse to accept the inevitable.

While I believe the choice should be an option for a mentally competent patient, I hope that if they do make the decision to end their life, it is because they want to and not because they have to. I hope they don't choose to end their life because of the financial cost or because any other options are unaffordable or too burdensome for the family. I guess what I am saying is that I hope that the only time a patient has to make such a decision is because there really isn't anymore hope for their condition.

Submitted by Damian Trudell.

Should We Decriminalize Prostitution?

noreply@blogger.com (Jason Buchanan) — Tue, 21 Jan 2014 17:10:00 +0000

#1 Our Religious Rights End Where the Freedoms of Others Begin

Yes, prostitution should be decriminalized. But that is not enough. It must be well regulated, organized, and taxed.

We have slowly begun to understand that not everyone shares the same moral standards, and that it is not ethical to force our moral standards on someone else simply because it is our moral standard and we believe that it was handed to us by some higher power. Most people believe that their moral standards are approved by or generated by a higher power. Those that don't most likely don't recognize any higher power at all.

Our religious rights end where the freedoms of others begin.

In addition, keeping it criminalized has not eradicated prostitution. It has made it more dangerous, less healthy, and more likely to lead people into other forms of crime. In decriminalizing it, we must go further. We must regulate it - ensure the health of those who would work in that industry. We must organize it - put power in the hands of the labor in the form of unions. We must tax it - there will be costs, and the money to pay those costs should be generated from within the industry as much as possible, seeing as a majority of people (at least in the short term) will not approve of it.

Submitted by Matthew Rohr.

#2 Prostitution Threatens to Cheapen the Experience of Human Sexuality

In a practical sense, moral laws are established so as to discourage actions that would harm the character of individuals or the community. In particular, prostitution threatens to cheapen the experience of human sexuality by making intercourse more available and more frequent than is common (think economics…”dumping” product on a market decreases the price and the value). Shared sexuality is a core component of our lives, so it has been historically justifiable to protect it and make it sacred.

Though the U.S. constitution does not, our state and local laws have made human sexuality sacred by reserving it for specific circumstances. For example, we do not consider it acceptable for people to have public intercourse. We also encourage young women and men to refrain from having intercourse until reaching the age of consent. Further, we prohibit intercourse between adults and children, humans and animals and a myriad of other things that we commonly find morally deviant. In essence, our laws regarding human sexuality represent what is commonly acceptable as being “legal” and oppositely represent what is uncommon as being “criminal” (e.g. “deviant behavior”). Even though it has never been uncommon in the United States, prostitution has always been commonly unacceptable and is banned in 49 states for this reason.

Interestingly, two consenting adults having sex before marriage was once uncommon and therefore labeled deviant behavior under the law. Also, two consenting adults having sex with people other than their spouses was once uncommon and considered deviant behavior under the law. And finally, for a breathe of current air, two consenting adults of the same gender having sex together was once considered uncommon and deviant behavior under the law. It should be obvious that what is common behavior has the tendency of changing over time. And as a result of changes in behavior over time, deviance from the standard of what is commonly acceptable should not be labeled criminal behavior. But if we no longer have at least some standards based on our common morality, we should also expect eventually to commonly dissolve sanctity from our shared human sexuality.

Submitted by Jason Buchanan.

#3 The Constitution of the United States Protects the Right of the Individual to Make Horrible Personal Decisions

We live in a nation defined by a constitution which was written to ensure each individual the freedom to make their own decisions. And that freedom should be impeded only when it damages the rights of others to make their own decisions. And no matter how strongly I feel about the profession of prostitution, I believe that the constitution of the United States protects the right of the individual to make horrible personal decisions.

I think it is very important that those of us who so strongly believe in the importance of American freedom of religion, remember that freedom is for everyone. We do not have the right to legislate the interactions of two consenting adults, based on our religious beliefs, no matter how firmly held.

Aside from religious reasons, the only reason I can think of for a law against prostitution is the hope of protecting men or women from being victimized or trapped in a life of sexual abuse by strangers. And I simply cannot see how making a person a criminal for being a participant in a less than optimal way of life, benefits anyone, least of all the prostitute. It is a policy that is counterproductive to allowing these people to find a way out.

Submitted by Beth Rogers.

#4 Seems Like a Win-Win

The only real victims of prostitution as it stands are the women themselves. The world's oldest profession lends itself to violence, degradation and abuse. But let's just say for a moment that it didn't have to. Let's say that it was legalized. Let's go a step further. Say it was even taxed by the government. If there were houses run by madams, where the women were tested and received regular medical care and kept safe, this would solve a myriad of problems. It would get the women off the streets, prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, reduce the violence and abuse that is rampant among this type of profession, all the while making money for the government. Seems like a win-win.

Submitted by Lauri Lennox.

#5 Last Time I Checked The McGriddle Was Still Legal

Absolutely. The only two things being accomplished by the criminalization of prostitution is, 1) further driving a sinister black market for the exploitation of women and girls, and 2) further victimizing these women and girls at the hands of the criminal justice system. I've represented COUNTLESS women (and men) who have been charged with prostitution or its offspring (e.g., "failure to register" as a sex offender and "crime against nature"). Guess how many men I've represented for patronizing these individuals? NONE. If we as a society have decided we morally want this to be a behavior subject to criminal penalties, then why is this the case?

There is a serious double standard being used to persecute women and girls who have most often already been subjected to circumstances in their lives which would horrify us. And for what? Some puritanical notion that prostitution is a sin? Well, so is gluttony, but last time I checked the McGriddle was still legal. So is greed, but Wall Street's still too big to fail. At least in the case of prostitution, if it were legalized we'd stop perpetuating an often insurmountable barrier to the "perpetrators" being able to become productive, non-puritanical belief system-offending citizens. For instance, I'd often see rap sheets three pages long or more that had "prostitution" or some derivative of it listed as the first charge followed by, "failure to register: no address provided," "failure to register: failure to pay registration fees," "failure to register: no notices sent," etc., and then low and behold, another conviction for "prostitution" would pop up... Some of these "failure to register" charges are felonies, mind you, so guess who can't get a job? Guess who can't find housing because no one wants to rent to a felon? Guess who can't register or send notices because they don't have a home much less the ability to pay any registration fees? And hmmm, if you were a woman in this position who society had already tagged with a scarlet letter anyway with little to no means of raising yourself out of these circumstances, what might be one way to feed yourself or put a roof over your head for a day or so?

The criminalization of prostitution is doing absolutely NOTHING but hurting any chance these women and girls have to getting out of this vicious cycle. Luckily, states have been taking prostitution out of the lists of crimes for which one has to register as a sex offender (a designation originally designed to identify sexual predators but expanded by religious zealots to include every possible sex-related offense under the sun), and some have even forgone prosecution of prostitutes as felons. However, more needs to be done to decriminalize something that is inherently should not be criminal in the first place. I could talk all day about how not every moral tenet needs to be turned into a criminal statute, but that's for another post. However, in particular to prostitution, it is especially harmful to target the women and girls who engage in it and not take a good hard look at whether doing so actually solves any society ills.

Further, I firmly believe that if some version of prostitution were legal, there would be more of an outlet for people's sexual desires who wanted to engage in such behavior and perhaps, less of a black market for exploiting young girls by the way of human trafficking or other predatory behavior. As a judge once told a peeping tom client of mine while he was admonishing him during sentencing, "listen, if you need to do that, I can tell you where to go." He was referencing a strip club down the street from the courthouse. In a roundabout way, my sentiments exactly.

The simple truth is that the criminalization of prostitution hurts women and young girls, and it is not the answer to the problem, even if you are of the persuasion that prostitution is a sin. For more about how damaging the criminalization of prostitution is for especially young girls, how our criminal justice system is failing them, and how this topic intersects with the issue of human trafficking, see:

http://www.sheknows.com/parenting/articles/1028191/should-child-sex-trafficking-victims-go-to-jail-for-prostitution

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-raphael/legalize-prostitution_1_b_4251956.html

Submitted by Amanda Love, Esq.

#6 Prostitution Will Not Go Away

While I try not to adhere myself to political labels, I’d have to admit up front that I typically land more within the Libertarian camp than anything else. This position is not due to any particular party loyalty, I simply believe that all things being equal, grown adults should and can be responsible for themselves.

There are no easy answers to such horrors as the sex slave trade, poverty, public health issues and the other types of criminal activity that go along with the sex industry in general. However, I believe wholeheartedly that a decriminalization of prostitution would be a step in the right direction.

Taking the world's oldest profession out of the back alleys and into government regulated, taxed and protected arenas would, in my opinion, make considerable improvements in an industry that refuses to be abolished no matter what steps are taken to prohibit such activities. The current criminalization of prostitution is a key component in the victimization of the women and men who choose that profession. For those inside it who haven’t chosen it, but instead have been sold into the industry, the darkness under which they must stay hidden provides the very cloak of oppression that keeps them in such a horrific situation. Decriminalizing prostitution would help to bring those dark places into the light of public and governmental accountability and regulation.

Governmental regulation would also mean that, like the porn industry, regular testing and governmental oversight would help protect public health much more than the aforementioned cloak of darkness. It also means a potential tax on a multi-billion dollar industry, providing tax dollars that could help educate those in the profession, assist those in need who may be choosing it out of a multi-faceted poverty structure, and also help stop sex slave trades.

In short, prostitution will not go away. We can either continue to fight it in our current strategy and continue to lose, or work with it to minimize the casualties. If the definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing and expect different results, then the continued criminalization of prostitution is, indeed, insane. I believe decriminalizing it would be a much better step in the direction of solving the base issues that both feed into the industry and arise out of it.

Submitted by Shae Cotter.

Whose responsibility is it to care for the poor, the orphans, the widows and the homeless?

noreply@blogger.com (Jason Buchanan) — Tue, 14 Jan 2014 00:44:00 +0000

#1 The Church Relegated This Responsibility to The Government

Deuteronomy 14: 28-29 describes one of 3 tithes mentioned in the Old Testament. This particular tithe was taken every 3 years, and it's purpose was to take care of the poor. This tells us that at the time this was written, the church took care of the poor in this manner. This was not the same tithe that was to be used to support the temple.

It appears to me that the church relegated this responsibility to the government, who through taxes use various programs to satisfy the needs of the poor. Certainly the New Testament teaches us that we should be benevolent, but at this point in time, the church would not be able to meet all the needs of the poor.

Submitted by David Parker.

#2 Humans Have This Pesky Little Incorporation Called Individuality

This question leads one to believe that there is one answer, and that orphans, the homeless, the poor, and widows, are all in the same boat. They are not. To be clear, not all homeless people are in the same boat as each other, necessarily; and the same with widows and the poor.

The question of orphans, on the other hand, is a category all its own. It represents, to me, ultimate helplessness, especially in the instance of young children who are orphaned.

But you were looking for an answer, not a new question.

I believe that it is the responsibility of every individual to take care of him or herself in as much as that person has the ability. Everyone, of every ability level, has times when they must rely on someone else for something. That is a part of the human condition, something that forces us to enter into community with each other. The more a society learns to use each person's strengths to benefit his neighbors and to work together, the more it can thrive. But this is not something that can be accomplished on a corporate level with true success. Humans have this pesky little incorporation called individuality, and that ingredient will forever make it impossible for any society to have a utopia on this earth. That is why communism, while it sounds fantastic on paper, fails miserably in every application. It's because someone has to lead and manage, and because humans need ambition, however small, in order to be happy, and because they desire deeply, uncontrollably, to be happy. It is part of our nature to want to become something. We simply cannot peacefully and happily live in the “ideal” situation where we all work toward the greater good, as defined by someone other than ourselves.

Compassion, however, must drive us to care for those who cannot care for themselves. We must care for our own families, our own old, our own sick. Morally and Biblically, that is our obligation, and also a system which makes sense. If we all cared for our own, there would be a great deal fewer helpless who were not cared for.

But there are very very many in our world who are not cared for and need to be. Whose responsibility is to care for them? That's a very difficult question. As a citizen of our nation, is it my responsibility to care for a helpless stranger. I say no. As a human, however, and especially if you consider yourself a Christian, it is not an option to leave the helpless without help, if it is in anyway within your power to assist.

The answer, then, i think, in short, is "MINE."

Submitted by Beth Rogers.

#3 This Is What Matters!!

I believe the Bible is very clear about our requirements as God’s children to care for the Orphans and Widows. The book of Deuteronomy has several instructions about caring for Orphans, Widows, and those unable to work, i.e. the Poor and Homeless. The first thing Jesus states in Matthew 5, The Beatitudes, is blessed are the Meek, the Hungry, and the Thirsty. Right after that he states blessed are the Merciful. In James 1 and 2, James, the brother of Jesus, is also very clear about taking care of the less fortunate.

But 1st Timothy 5:16 explains it a little further by giving an explanation of those who are truly needy. These passages explain that those who have relatives to care for them, or can work for themselves, are not truly needy of our support. The book of Ruth is a great story about a redeemer kinsman for both the widow Ruth and her widow mother-in law, Naomi. Ruth turns out to be the great grandmother of King David. Another example can be found in Acts 3 with the Story of Peter and John being asked by a beggar for money. They tell him they have no money for him and offer him salvation instead. One point is they probably had some small amount of money they could have given him, at that time the Church was strong and sharing all things with each other. But they didn't offer the beggar a “Gift”, they offered hope and salvation. So there appears to be some level of accountability presented in the Bible.

When Jesus was pressed about the greatest of the laws he states to Love God, to Love Others. Two of the Fruits of the Spirit are Love and Kindness. When you really do Love someone, you hurt when they hurt. If you are a follower of Christ and do as he commanded you will feel a certain level of love and compassion for those who are truly needy. The Church has always been surrounded by the poor and the needy have always been with us. History tells us that. It seems sometimes that the poorer or more destitute a person is, the more they realize their need for God and are receptive to hearing his voice and command. Why is it that Jesus stated how hard it will be for the rich man to enter heaven? Why did he say if you want to be perfect, go sell your possessions and give to the poor and then you will have treasure in heaven? Then come follow me?

If you open the eyes of your heart, stop, be still, and listen, you will hear the voice of God on many occasions. I had that happen recently while on a South Dallas mission trip to help the homeless. My Christian joy was being stunted by several silly and petty issues within my Church life. I was having issues with the church band, the quality of music we are playing, how we are being lead in worship, and even some of our bible studies and men’s retreat topics. These seemed to be big and important topics for me and I was not the happiest camper in the building. While downtown and talking with some of the homeless (who really do sleep under a bridge) I had a break through moment with the Lord. I clearly heard his voice say to me “This is what matters!!” I could powerfully feel Christ’s compassion for the needy and lost. I knew he was talking to me about taking care of those who are truly less fortunate than us and to stop worrying about things that don’t really affect salvation and the message of the Cross. If you’re honest with yourself and seek, you will see the needs of poor and homeless, those who truly need our help. They are all around us.

Submitted by Dave Forrest.

#4 Requiring People to Give of Themselves Breeds Resentment & Contempt

The easy answer to the question of who’s ultimately responsible for the poor, the orphans, the widows, and the homeless would be “the government,” but the question itself is not that simple. In an ideal world there would be no forced charity because requiring people to give of themselves (through taxation) breeds resentment and contempt vis a vis Mitt Romney’s infamous “47%.” Our government spends untold billions on social programs that tend to instill a learned helplessness on recipients instead of giving them the motivation to overcome their situation and flourish on their own. Charitable giving should come via people looking within themselves and giving readily and altruistically to causes designed to help those in need. In return these non-governmental agencies would be responsible for giving the needy a hand-up instead of a handout.

Submitted by Neal Harkner.

#5 A Microscopic Solution to A Macro-Cosmic Problem

Aside from the fact that I feel we are asking the wrong question here, I think there is a multifaceted answer. The question we should be asking is not who, but how. Determining how we solve the problem is more vital to the solution than determining who solves the problem, and I think it would lend itself to the answer we are seeking. Nevertheless, I believe that above all else, we have a personal responsibility to take care of our own. Just as it is my responsibility to take care of myself and my family, it is your responsibility to care for yours. This may seem like a microcosmic solution to a macro-cosmic problem, but starting on a small scale is an effort worth making. Solving the problem on a larger, governmental scale, has proven ineffective. Large scale solutions are the government’s way of placing a band aid over a gaping wound. They offer the same assistance to all poverty stricken families without considering that not every person is needy in the same way, or for the same reasons. If we could localize, and perhaps privatize the care that the needy receive, we could go a long way toward minimizing, or possibly alleviating the problem. Charity starts at home, after all.

Submitted by Lauri Lenox.

#6 Rich In Material Things, But Poor In Spirit

In short, everyone's. I've spent my legal career advocating on behalf of the poor, and from experience I can tell you that the needs of, “the poor, the orphans, the widows, and the homeless,” are multifaceted and cannot be fully addressed by mere donations of money or well-meaning charities. In addition, I am of the mind that the verse from the Bible this phrase is taken from is not necessarily literal. There are those that are rich in material things, but poor in spirit. There are those that have mothers or husbands or homes in a technical sense, but not within the true meanings of those words. To me, the notion of caring for the poor, etc., speaks to the desire from God or the shared humanistic value for us to be more compassionate toward and to take care of one another, and yes, even create a government that represents that notion.

Submitted by Amanda Love, Esq.

Why Would You Vote for Sarah Palin?

noreply@blogger.com (Jason Buchanan) — Sun, 04 Apr 2010 03:47:00 +0000

#1 No, I Would Not Vote For Sarah Palin

To put it simply, I would not vote for Sarah Palin.

It is true that my political ideology and hers are often very far apart. But I do have respect for some folks on the other side of the aisle, and political ideology is not always a barrier to receiving my vote, since I believe that what is most important is that a public servant be a servant.

There are two main reasons I will not vote for Sarah Palin. Number one is her affiliation with Christian Dominionist groups. Freedom of (and from) religion is an important foundation of our country. Revisionists are always attempting to undermine this freedom, to replace it with the freedom to be any flavor of Christian, and in general, to create a soft theocracy. Palin has shown a willingness to pander to these people. I absolutely refuse to allow that. She seeks her power by walking a path that appeals to fringe extremists.

Number two is that she is a quitter. Public service is a hard thing. If it is too demanding, she should not seek public office. I have little sympathy for the litany of excuses offered on her behalf.

No, I would not vote for Sarah Palin.

Submitted by Matthew Rohr.

#2 It's Like Pizza...

Why would I vote for Sarah Palin? Well, right off the bat, the reasons why I wouldn't vote for her spring to mind. She does, however, have one thing in her favor. She's a Republican. That would get her my vote no matter who was on the ticket for the Democrats. I feel the way about Republicans that I feel about pizza. Bad pizza, though it may be awful, may make you sick, may make you never want to eat pizza again, is still pizza. It's still better than brussel sprouts. A bad Republican is better than any Democrat.

Is it a good reason? Maybe not... but it's what I've got. Now let's hope I never have to use it.

Submitted by Lauri Lenox.

#3 Passion

I can't imagine a situation in which I would vote for Sarah Palin. Voting for her would pretty much go against all of my political views. However, there is one characteristic I find in Palin (and most other conservatives) that could possibly attract my vote if the situation is desperate, passion. While I mostly don't agree with conservatives or their methods of persuasion, I sometimes can't deny their passion. Conservatives have levels of passion I wish I could regularly find in liberals. I thinks it's basically because conservatives stick to so many ideas and principles that they are able to develop passion for their familiarities. Liberals contemplate change and progression, continuous growth as a civilization. New ideas are exciting, but of course they bring uncertainty. I'm not saying it's impossible to find passion in a liberal. Look back at Obama's campaign, you can't get more passionate than that.

Submitted by Damian Trudell

#4 If Someone Held A Gun...

I'd would vote for Sarah Palin if someone held a gun to not just my head, but my entire family's. Yeah, that's pretty much the only circumstance. She's appalling in too many ways to describe, but I'll sum up my main qualm with a quote I recently heard:

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in an American flag and carrying a cross."

Submitted by Amanda Rogers, Esq. Visit her blog - Seven Eighty One.

#5 People Gasping In Disgust And Horror

These are my thoughts on the question and they are not eloquent; maybe some would consider them naive, but here they are nonetheless. I might as well come out of the closet now, I voted for Palin and McCain. While at this very moment there are people gasping in disgust and horror at the very thought, I was one those who felt it was the best decision of the two candidates. Isn't that an amazing statement in and of itself, "I" thought it was the best..." We as Americans have the wonderful ability to vote as our conscience so chooses. We are not bulled or harassed, taken at gunpoint to the voters booth, or manipulated (ok, maybe a little, but that is a whole other topic all together!) into voting for someone other than OUR CHOICE. We have the ability to research every candidate and then vote based upon the knowledge we have accumulated according to the information given.

I believe that every person who runs for President has good intentions, that they want to make our country something to be proud of, admired; a country that its constituents can stand by and most importantly believe in. Sadly they are human, and with that humanness they make promises that are never kept; more men are sent to a war instead of coming home, our elderly are rejected medical care that is desperately needed, and jobs continue to be scarce. Most people believe we need a President that has experience in the political arena (aka circus, yes once again another topic to be debated) or a military background, or charisma, but basically I vote according to not only research but also who I feel God is leading me to vote for. If it is a Democrat then so be it, if a Republican then that is great as well, but essentially I would vote for Palin based upon what I stated above....information gathered and prayer. In the end, I believe God appoints all leaders in the positions they hold and it is my duty to pray for my President to make decisions that will make this country not only great, but be a place of safety for my children and others, despite whether I voted for them or not.

Submitted by Hope Cloud.

#6 Because She Is Smoking Hot!

Really, I'm very impressed that she is not ashamed to be pretty. Though I realize this is a sweeping generality, I believe that women in politics - and power in general - often forget the importance of their femininity. The pursuit of power and prestige is not a sum-loss game with retaining one's physically attractive attributes - and Sarah Palin seems to understand that her "women-ness" is important to her success. It is almost as important as her faith and her ultra-conservative platform. How many women do you know that would vote for her - just because she is a woman? In the same way, if I were ever to have to vote for her - it would probably be, however shallow this may sound, because she is good looking.

Submitted by Jason L. Buchanan. Visit his Facebook Profile.

How Much Time Do You Waste?

noreply@blogger.com (Jason Buchanan) — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 04:00:00 +0000

#1 I Spend Way Too Much Time on Facebook

I’m not going to say that I don’t waste time. In the past two or three years I have given myself a schedule of cleaning so I can keep myself accountable to the rest of my family. As long as I do what I have scheduled for that day of the week, then I don’t feel like the other time during the day has been wasted. Granted, I spend WAY too much time on Facebook. I am not addicted, but I do get on there quite frequently during the day. I do watch a good lot of TV. I don’t have dvr (thank goodness) or I might watch much more. Both TV and the internet are most likely a waste of my time, and maybe I will change sooner than later. I guess the real answer is: How much time do I actually use wisely?

Submitted by Amanda Bell.

#2 Walk The Middle Path

I grew up driven by a father who settled for nothing less than the best. In his mind, there was no call for "wasting" time. There were always chores, there were always jobs that needed doing. I learned from my time spent under rules like those. There are always going to be chores and jobs. Always. They aren't going anywhere.

It took me a long time to deprogram myself. I used to get horrific headaches when I was doing anything that my father might label "wasting" time. It made it difficult for me to do anything for fun or relaxation. But I continued to push myself until I was able to take time for me, to do things specifically just for my entertainment - for no reason other than that I wanted to.

Now, I guard my free time jealously. It is important to "waste" time. One of the deep purposes of life is to enjoy living, to enjoy the process of life, to breathe in and out and smile. Your chores and jobs will always be there waiting for you.

Moderation in all things. Walk the middle path. Balance.

Submitted by Matthew Rohr.

#3 Let The Rationalizing Begin

Let the rationalizing begin. Define “waste”. I do agree that waiting in a line that isn’t moving, or spending three hours on a movie that I kept thinking had to get better, but didn’t, is a waste of time. Activities such as these that are not productive, not enjoyable or maybe even detrimental, I consider a waste of time. I don’t think I have much of this kind of wasted time. Eight hours of sleep when I could actually function on about five could account for three wasted hours daily, but I believe I function better and might possibly live longer because of it. The three to four hours I spend each week checking on a relative in a nursing home could be considered a waste of time, but maybe it’s more important than I think it is. Some would say the time I spend in church, praying and reading my Bible is a waste, but I think my life is richer because of the time I spend developing a relationship with my Creator. In general, I get more enjoyment when I “stop to smell the roses”. If I spend an occasional weekend in my PJ’s “vegetating”, I don’t consider it wasted time. We all need some “down time” in order to rejuvenate and repair. So ultimately, what is wasted time? Maybe like beauty it is in the eye of the beholder.

Submitted by Donna Buchanan.

#4 What Are You Supposed To Be Doing?

Everyone wastes a little time. I think it's important to know that not everyone's definition of "waste" is the same. It also depends on what you are supposed to be doing with your time. If you're getting paid to write computer programs and you're playing around on Facebook, you're wasting someone else's time by not doing what your time has been intended for. In order to determine how much time we waste, we need to first ask ourselves, "What are you supposed to be doing?"

I am a housewife and a mother. I don't have a set schedule. I have a list of things I know I need to get done on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis, and I know that I have to allow myself the time to do those things. If I know cleaning the bathrooms and doing the laundry is my job for Monday, I make sure I have the time to get that done. If it takes me an hour, and that's all I needed to do for the day, then the rest of my time is mine. I can do what I want with it. If I choose to watch a 6 hour Hoarders marathon, that is my choice. It's not time wasted, it's time well spent.

Could I change the world in those 6 hours? Maybe. But I'd rather watch Hoarders.

Submitted by Lauri Lenox.

#5 Like People That Don't Use Keyboard Shortcuts

This is a dangerous question. Am I willing to be critical of myself and reveal all of the ways in which I fail? Because honestly, I always feel like I’m wasting time. I guess I assume that if something – which I may have completely intended to do – didn’t get accomplished…I must’ve wasted time.

Wasted time is like people that don’t use keyboard shortcuts. How much time have you wasted clicking on the “File” menu and selecting “Save”, instead of simply pressing ⌘+S? Or, for that matter, how much time have we all wasted by continuing to use QWERTY keyboards?

I am reminded of an often-quoted verse from the Bible, in the book of Ecclesiastes 1:9, “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.” In the same way, I believe there is always a better way to accomplish a task – ways of which I am not yet wise… I could spend my life pursuing better ways. But then, my pursuit of better ways would become an infinite futility…inevitably the worst way to waste time.

Submitted by Jason L. Buchanan. Visit his Facebook Profile.

#6 The Amount Is Incalculable

I have ADHD. To some those four letters are seen as an excuse, a cop out. To them I don't have anything physically wrong with me. I'm just disorganized...or better yet...lazy. In the past there have been days at work where the only thing I can concentrate on is not working. Throw in the daily commute for the icing on the cake. How much time do I waste exactly? The amount is incalculable, but it's more than I know I should. Heck I've even wasted some time writing this paragraph. Hopefully Jason's not waiting up for this.

Submitted by Neal Harkner

Why Do You Celebrate Christmas?

noreply@blogger.com (Jason Buchanan) — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 04:38:00 +0000

#1 Someone Died Last Year Because Of It

Every year on Christmas day, I make sure to take the time to remember the purpose of the holiday and take note of the many blessings in my life. That is my way of celebrating Christmas. And that is the only part of the holiday season I enjoy. It is a time to make sure we take care of those who are truly in NEED. It is not a time to become stressed over what our loved ones WANT. It is so sad how much focus we have put on the commercialization of Christmas; even to the point that someone died last year because of it.

Submitted by Damian Trudell, Visit his blog - "My Thoughts"

#2 Christmas Is Not A Story

I am a broken, depraved person. Left to my own devices I will stumble along through life succumbing to a multitude of self-serving, self-centered, self-pleasing, actions. It is only thru the grace of God that I can be saved from myself.

Christmas is not a story. It’s history. Christmas is not a materialistic holiday (at least not to me.) It is a celebration of a birth that occurred some 2000 years ago. Christmas is a celebration of the day that God sent down his son, fully God and fully human, to save us from our sins. Born to an unwed, virgin mother; Jesus Christ entered this world not in all the splendid grandeur expected but into a humble beginning.

So yes; I celebrate Christmas. And I celebrate Christmas to honor a birth. But how do I celebrate? I celebrate by spending less and giving more. I celebrate by giving gifts to my family and close friends. I celebrate by spending time with my family, my friends, and people I don’t even know. I celebrate by spending less and giving more. I celebrate by sacrificially giving to Living Water International (this year), by serving others, and by remembering the birth of Jesus Christ.

Submitted by Brian Hummel.

#3 An Incredibly Strong Cultural Tradition

I celebrate Christmas because it's an incredibly strong cultural tradition in the United States and I happen to have been born here. I think this is the case with most people in this country even if they are of the "Jesus is the reason for the season" persuasion. Given how much more I hear "I've finished my Christmas shopping!" or "Just put up the Christmas tree" or "Taking the kids to get pictures with Santa tomorrow" rather than "Hey, isn't it neat that Jesus was born around this time a couple thousand years ago?" I'd go so far as to say Jesus is no longer the sole reason for the season even if one does happen to be Christian. The reason for the season instead seems to stem from multiple sources all boiling down to a very strong cultural priority to wrap up the year in a way that celebrates family, friends, good will, and reflection (and you know, stuffing our faces with cookies, spending hundreds of dollars on stuff we don't need, and driving ourselves insane with planning). And that's fine with me; whatever floats your boat... What I do get annoyed with is the hypocritical nature of a lot of those who say "Jesus is the reason for the season" on one hand yet openly incorporate greed and glutony into the holiday and pass this notion on to their children (for instance, in the form of a Black Friday "win" or the latest and greatest toy being unwrapped on Christmas morning to be flaunted in front of neighbors and friends). I also get annoyed at those people (usually the same lot) who claim the term "Happy Holidays" is an afront to Christmas or Christianity as a whole (ahem, Bill O'Reilly and your ilk) like any celebration of other holidays at this time automatically amounts to a dimunition of the importance of their religious expression. I'd like to explain to these individuals that December 25th is not actually Jesus' birthday; the date was switched from January 7th when we switched from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian one we now follow. And, I'd like to explain to these individuals that historians have long agreed that even the January 7th date was likely picked out of a hat to align with already existing pagan holidays or Winter Solstice in order to more easily convert people. I'd also like to explain that Hanukkah and Winter Solstice celebrations have been around a heck of a lot longer than Christmas celebrations, so if anyone has a right to be pissed, it's probably not the relative latecomers. And, most of all, I'd like to explain to these people that unless you're a Muslim jihadist, there shouldn't be a battle over whose religion is more revered or important so they should leave other people be. But, I digress... Everyone celebrates Christmas or "the Holidays" for their own reasons. And, everyone should be free to do so... I happen to celebrate "Christmas" (I suppose not the literal "Christ's Mass" of the word's origin, but the modern incarnation of the day) because it is a wonderful way to set aside time for recuperation, time for family, time for friends, and time for appreciating and loving one another (family, friends, and strangers alike). Ain't nothin' wrong with that.

Submitted by Amanda Rogers, Esq. Visit her blog - Seven Eighty One.

#4 Its Kind Of Like Being Republican

I celebrate Christmas for many reasons. Celebrating any holiday, Christmas included, is kind of like being a Republican. You're a Republican growing up because your parents are Republicans, but as you grow up and your views on the world change, your opinions about politics (or holidays, as the case may be) change and develop as well.

I celebrate Christmas because I believe in what it represents. I believe that Jesus is the Savior of the world and that He came to us as a baby in a manger to save us from our sins. Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Christ, so why wouldn't I celebrate it?

I celebrate Christmas because I believe in the spirit of it, the spirit of love and giving. I know many people think that the holiday is all about greed and the gimmes, but I believe that if you allow yourself to truly feel the spirit of the holiday, you will realize that it really is about giving and love. And who wouldn't want to celebrate that?

Submitted by Lauri Lenox.

#5 Let "Christmas" Go And Call it "Shopping Holiday #12"

Is it OK to say I celebrate Christmas because everyone else does? I mean, honestly, how weird would I be if I didn’t celebrate Christmas? So, maybe I don’t think we really get the point of Christmas being a celebration of Christ’s birth…but shouldn’t we be celebrating that all year anyways?

I get frustrated when people feel robbed of their Holiday when someone says "Happy Holidays", instead of "Merry Christmas". Or when I see a sign that signs Merry X-Mas... I get it, the world doesn’t want to celebrate Jesus’ birthday – and yeah, December 25th isn’t the day Christ was born…sorry, kids.

In reality, I don’t want my kids to struggle with confusion of Santa Claus and Jesus Christ. I’d almost be happier if we just let Christmas go and called it “Shopping Holiday #12”. I'd almost prefer to tell my kids about Jesus without the confusion our modern Christmas creates.

Submitted by Jason L. Buchanan. Visit his Facebook Profile.

#6 Christmas Karaoke And Lots of Champagne

Personally, I celebrate Christmas for two main reasons which are: to recognize and celebrate my religious views and to carry on the WONDERFUL traditions my family has built based on this one special day.

Let’s address the first reason. The whole idea that a child was born into such unfortunate circumstances, just so he could save my life, is simply unfathomable. I am proud to make merry this one day every year that I get to buy or make my family and friends wonderful presents, which ultimately represents, but will never measure up to, the gift that God blessed me with.

Now with that said, my family also likes to enjoy many unconventional traditions that we’ve made first-hand and will continue to enjoy with our children and grandchildren. Our ritual starts on Christmas Eve by going to Kobe’s Steakhouse for dinner and then going to see The Nutcracker Ballet at Fair Park. We finish up the evening by opening only 1 present from a family member and we also do a White Elephant Gift Exchange. The morning of Christmas, we always have my mom’s wonderful pumpkin roll (simply amazing) and we all open presents together. THEN, the real fun starts. We have our annual “touch” football game with our family and close friends. Then, we sing Christmas Karaoke and have lots of champagne. Christmas is a wonderful day for my family!

Submitted by Lindsey Averkamp

Are You Colorblind?

noreply@blogger.com (Jason Buchanan) — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 02:56:00 +0000

#1 Short And Sweet

I'm not color blind. You're not either. Wanna know how I know? Drive through the 5th Ward in Houston at 2 a.m., or really any time of day. Feel that compelling and overwhelming need to lock your car door? Why is that, do you think?

Enough said.

Submitted by Lauri Lenox

#2 How Shallow

Am I colorblind? The answer is no. I see vivid colors in all shades and hues. The thing of it is that I don’t use those colors as definitions but as attributes. I don’t think that any one person or any group as a whole can be expressed as a color. How shallow it is for someone to consider that they know the depth of another individual from the pigment of their skin. We as individuals do not chose the circumstance of our birth. As humans we are all created equal but from that point, it is strictly up to us. No one else in life is responsible for who we become. From our decisions and our actions do we decide the person that we will be. There are only stereotypes because people choose to uphold those stereotypes. People limit themselves when they define themselves. With that said, a person is an individual. No two people that I have ever met in this life are exactly the same including my girlfriend and her sister and they are twins. To assume that a single commonality such as skin color can come close to defining the array of experiences and trials that create an individual would only diminish our investment in the human race.

Submitted by Jeremy Rinard.

#3 Pretending Our Differences Don't Exist

Are you color blind?

No. I'm not. And I don't want to be.

I'm not racist either.

I simply believe that so-called “color-blindness” when it comes to race and culture seems unhealthy and disrespectful. It is our differences that add to the beauty of this nation and this world. To ignore those differences is silly. I would rather recognize them and appreciate them.

Everyone has a story. I am here because my grandfather, as a teenager, escaped from Communist rule in Eastern Europe and eventually brought his entire family to the United States. A staggering percentage of black Americans descended from someone who beat terrifying odds, having been kidnapped, stuffed into a boat, and crated across the ocean in conditions we can't even imagine, to eventually survive and procreate in the United States. Many Latino Americans descended from, or are themselves, immigrants who gave up their homes and way of life to look for prosperity and freedom in the U.S., some of them risking their actual lives to get here.

A person's culture or race or color is not a means to make conclusions about the integrity or values or personality of that individual. But our histories are to be respected, not ignored. They help make up who we are, one way or another. And all those differences make our nation, our society, more beautiful if we accept each other WITH our differences, instead of pretending our differences don't exist.

Submitted by Beth Rogers. Visit her blog - Veritable Observations.

#4 Making It About Race

No, I'm not colorblind. I think to be so would be to ignore the inherent differences between cultures and people, and by virtue of that, to ignore a part of who someone is. The point is not to be colorblind, but rather, to not judge someone negatively because of their color. I think a lot of the time (for instance with our current President), people in the majority tend to think, "Well, why do they (e.g., the nonwhite person) always make it about being Black/Mexican/Arab/etc.?" I believe this stems more from the people in the majority placing too much value on being "colorblind" rather than not being racist. People who tend to say the above statements interpret these people's owning their own unique cultural narrative as "making it about race." My response to that would be, "How can it not be?" We no longer live in a world where those in power, on television, or living next door to us are all the same color as us. As soon as we stop pretending it's possible or productive to be "colorblind" and start talking about and embracing our differences and stop pre-judging each other because of them, we might get somewhere with this whole race relations thing.

Submitted by Amanda Rogers, Esq. Visit her blog - Seven Eighty One.

#5 I Am Proud To Be White

I am not completely color blind because, like others, I obtain particular stereotypes that are far too often verified by other races of people.

However, I am confident that I am far more color blind than many people on earth. There are two roles I believe race plays in society that I find need to be corrected. One has to deal with the caucasian perspective towards minorities, and the other addresses the progression of minorities in society. I will try to explain both with examples.

The first role is that, yes, unfortunately there are those who have not escaped from their own ignorance to understand that if a person's skin is anything other than white, they still have just as much right to live, progress, an succeed in this world. Most discrimination stems from a lack of understanding. A simple way to explain discrimination at school is that children tend to make fun of the things they don't understand. This logic can be applied to race differences. Instead of light humor and fist fights though, we tend to find hate and fatal violence. It seems that a solution would be educating and a deconstruction of a self implied cultural hierarchy, but it hasn't been that simple.

The second role of race that needs to be corrected is appropriateness of using race as an excuse. I know that, because of the ignorance of others, there may still be some challenges when it comes to achievement in society (and I am referring to progressive societies), but it's not impossible. There is no excuse for any minority in this day and age to say that they can't achieve something because of the skin color, especially in a country with a minority President. It is conceivable that it may be harder for some depending on family background, but not impossible.

I am not ashamed to say that I am proud to be white, proud of my culture. I am not a racist, I say it along with all other races who are proud to be who they are. With the ever increasing influence of other cultures in this country I would hope that minorities can learn to appreciate the white culture as they expect white to appreciate theirs and understand (there's that word again) that the white citizens of today are not the ones responsible for the hardships of minority ancestors from the past.

Submitted by Damian Trudell, Visit his blog - "My Thoughts"

#6 My Kids Are

My parents witnessed true racism and segregation. I read about it. My kids don't even know what racism is (yet). In three generations, we have moved both further away from racism and further away from the "identities" of color that once defined us. Can you imagine what my grandchildren will think about race and color? I wonder...will there be some other defining aspect that brings us together for the common cause of discrimination? If not color, what will it be?

Submitted by Jason L. Buchanan. Visit his Facebook Profile.

Is Pornography Bad?

noreply@blogger.com (Jason Buchanan) — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:32:00 +0000

#1 Unnecessary And Inappropriate

This may sound somewhat strange given my personal and moral beliefs, but I don't believe pornography is bad. I do believe that it is unnecessary and in some cases dangerous in the fact the some people are capable of becoming addicted to pornography. I find it unnecessary and inappropriate simply because it's an act that should be shared between two individuals and only those two individuals. Obviously there are those out there who share more explorative ideas when it comes to sex, and I understand that, however i find no reason to share those views or acts with others.

Although, I can't say that the industry of pornography itself is bad the way it is operated. It's a thriving business, something that many Americans dream of achieving. The porn industry simply uses the methods of a capitalistic system to grow, and I don't see how we can fault them for that simply because some people find the product degrading. A numerous amount of people found a way to make money in a legal way, and through pornography, they have been able to make major amounts of money because their product is attractive.

In most cases, the porn industry is not much different from the sports industry. There are those out there who posses certain skills and are able to display those skills in an appealing way which draws attendance. As long as we pay, we will continue to watch, and they will continue to play.

Submitted by Damian Trudell, Visit his blog - "My Thoughts"

#2 "Whatever Floats Your Boat"

Determing whether something is "good" or "bad" is difficult because I don't really believe anything in the world can be boiled down to such black and white terms. Pornography to me is a vice like any other... As long as one partakes sparingly and it isn't hurting anyone else, my feeling on it is, "whatever floats your boat."

Submitted by Amanda Rogers, Esq. Visit her blog - Seven Eighty One.

#3 Pornography Is Wrong

Bodies are a sacred gift from God that are not to be degraded my performing sexual acts for entertainment. As a Christian this is how I view it but, even if I wasn't I just couldn't see how any justification could be placed upon such immoral acts. Even some non-religious people have the same thoughts. Sadly enough, there are some Christians who view pornography or have at one time or another after becoming a Christian. The whole idea behind pornography is just degrading to the people who display themselves and to the people who are watching it. I know Pornography is very enticing to say the least. Especially to Men whom in general seem to have a stronger urge to view it.

Married couples will even Justify it by saying "It will improve our sex lives and give us Ideas, so what's the big deal ?" I'll tell you the big deal is, it's still pornography. If it looks like a duck,walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then guess what........IT'S a DUCK.

Single men will watch it and think "it's no big deal, I'm not married so I'm not hurting anyone", no maybe not but your taking part of something that is degrading. Young men who view Porn especially Teenage Boy's will have this distorted view as to what a real life woman is and is not. Teenage boy's would probably expect there future wife to be like a porn star and go into marriage with unrealisitc expectations and could cause marital problems. You may not agree with my views and that's fine if you don't but that's my perspective.

Submitted by Stefanie Greene.

#4 Its So Much Sexier When There Is Love Involved

Is Pornography Bad? Pure and simple no, almost never. With few exceptions:

When a child is being victimized (I classify this as anyone not of legal consenting age, which is unfortunately only 14 in some parts of the south still). Or when a woman/man is being exploited.

This is the tricky one. I know... you’ll have to let that sink in...

Here's the twist, just because it involves whips, hand-cuffs, and "punishment" does not make it exploitation, for some it's the rush of their life (or that week), and "can" be a healthy outlet for mild flares for the dramatic, or even sadistic or masochistic tendencies - I'm still talking about the porn "stars" and not the viewers just yet, get your head out of the gutter ;)

However, even the most mundane soft-core lesbian pornography, no penetration involved, can be outrageous exploitation, if it's a woman who is being forced to perform by her pimp, someone who was bought out of the sex-trade industry, or if she's homeless and doing it for her next heroine fix. And this is a fact of the porn industry, because it is a fact of life. Getting rid of porn won’t get rid of young women and homeless boys from being sexually exploited every day.

Now, whether or not it is “wrong” for your husband to watch it behind your back, is another topic entirely! And not one for me to postulate on *LOL* However, I (from a marriage therapist in training point of view) truly can’t see anything wrong with a married couple checking out a bit of amateur married porn together once in a while to get some new ideas and spice up the bedroom. Whaaaat?!? The experts say it’s good for you really! But if you want your woman to enjoy it, I’d stay away from the hard core and outlandish stuff, and stick to watching other amateur married couples and sexual technique videos with real couples in them, after all – it’s so much sexier when there is love involved ;)

Submitted by Summer Cartwrig

#5 Cheapen The Human Body And Intimacy

I have a moral objection to pornography, which is based on my faith and religious beliefs. For those readers who don't give a hoot about my faith and religious beliefs, I will analyze further.

First question: Is pornography good?

Second question: Who does pornography affect and how?

I will use the second question to answer the first.

Pornography most directly affects the actors or models who are viewed, the business persons who finance the production, and the consumers who purchase and/or view the pornographic media produced. The actors or models are paid (i'm not going to go into unpaid, volunteer porn) a small or large sum to display the entirety of their naked bodies, or to have sex on camera (or pretend to) for the benefit of consumers who are most often men who will use the media for masturbation inspiration. No matter what they got paid, that sounds like almost the most degrading thing a woman (I don't know about men) could do to her own psyche and self-esteem. The financiers make lots of money because lots of people are willing to pay quite a bit of money to view porn. I'm sure the financiers and producers think pornography is wonderful. I think they should get a real job. The consumers are trained by pornography to cheapen the human body and intimacy. This must (in my mind) lead to poorer marital relationships, which leads to more broken families, which leads often to more unparented kids.

The brief paragraph I have written seems to me only a small slice of the negative affect of pornography on society. Is pornography good? Not by a long shot. And in this case, the questions answered also lead me to conclude that yes, pornography is definitely bad.

Submitted by Beth Rogers. Visit her blog - Veritable Observations.

#6 What's The Harm?

I don't think pornography is bad. There, I said it. I think when used for the proper purposes, it can enhance a couple's love life. While that can sometimes be the case, excess in anything is bad. Addiction to porn is bad. Then again, so is addiction to caffeine or television. When used in the right way and with the consent of both partners, I don't see anything wrong with it.

My hang up with porn doesn't lie in the viewing of it, but in the people in the industry and their reasons for choosing it. There are actors and actresses in the industry who chose that lifestyle for whatever reason. There are also those women (and possibly men) who have either been forced into it or are looking for some kind of fulfillment that they think a career of this kind will give them. This is where the industry gets its bad name. And then there are those sickos who think it's okay to use children. This, of course, is never okay. I'm not advocating that in any way whatsoever. I'm simply saying that when all parties involved are consenting adults, what's the harm?

Submitted by Lauri Lenox

Is The Death Penalty 'Cruel & Unusual'?

noreply@blogger.com (Jason Buchanan) — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 04:05:00 +0000

#1 Compare That With Lethal Injection

Is the death penalty cruel and unusual? In the past that case could certainly be argued. Whether it was death by firing squad, electrocution, hanging, the gas chamber, or beheading, execution was cruel, inhumane, and incredibly painful. Compare that with lethal injection. Being completely anesthetized and then paralyzed hardly seems cruel in comparison.

Whether you agree with the death penalty or not, the way it's typically administered in the US is hardly cruel and unusual.

Submitted by Neal Harkner. Visit his Facebook Profile.

#2 A Matter Of Perspective

Whether the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment is a matter of perspective. To the accused person's family, I will wager that it is. Try asking the victim's family. I'll bet it doesn't seem so cruel and unusual to them. What's my perspective on the matter? I've always been conflicted about this particular issue. It's not so much that I believe it's cruel and unusual, but it sets a bad example. It's hypocritical. It's like the parent who seeks to teach his child not to hit by spanking him. Really? Is that the lesson we want to teach here? It doesn't seem like we're sending the right message.

While I don't necessarily feel that the death penalty is the right choice, I do feel that there should be an ultimate form of punishment. A crime like murder should not go unpunished, and it should not be punished in the same way as theft. There must be an order to things. Furthermore, it has been shown that not all people who are executed are necessarily guilty. Something as severe as the death penalty should not be enforced unless there is absolutely no question of guilt. Until we have a foolproof system, there needs to a better way.

Submitted by Lauri Lenox.

#3 We Are Capable Of Rehabilitation

I don't consider the death penalty as cruel and unusual, but I don't agree with it either. The death penalty is a form of punishment sentenced to those who exercise actions strongly against the social norm; most common is murder. And while it may seem fitting to end the life of one who insists on ending the life of another, I believe that the majority of abnormal behavior stems from an abnormal psyche. I know there are those who understand and have full control over what they do, even if it's wrong, but there are those who are strongly affected by their abnormalities, and can not help themselves. Various forms of death penalties have existed throughout history, though, I believe these days, we are capable of rehabilitation of the psyche and giving prisoners a second chance of life. I am not naive enough to know that rehabilitation will not work for everyone, but I have strong support for the effort.

Submitted by Damian Trudell, Visit his blog - "My Thoughts"

#4 Cruel And Unusual By Whose Definition?

The death penalty may seem cruel to some, but a life sentence without the chance of parole seems cruel to others. Who chooses? The death penalty is carried out by individuals every few minutes; it’s called murder. So, the death penalty is certainly not unusual. OK, so I don’t think the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment, but I really don’t agree with its use. I’m not saying the death penalty is wrong. Throughout Biblical history, God gave death penalty orders many times. The biggest problem I have with the death penalty in our culture is human error. I am afraid there are too many innocent people on death row while others that are guilty get away with their crimes because of money and position.

Submitted by Donna Buchanan.

#5 The Question My Son Asked

I spank my kids. When they misbehave or disobey, they know that a spanking is a likely punishment. One day, my son asked me, "Why is it OK for you to hurt me, but it is not OK for me to hurt other people?" I answered him honestly with reference to reinforcement and the like. I still spank my kids.

Using the same logic, the death penalty would be the ultimate "reinforcement". They definitely won't commit that crime again...because they are dead. Such a penalty is overtly cruel and unusual because the person/criminal is only considered as a means to executing punishment...with no other purpose. If the punishment is to be understood and comprehended, the recipient must be alive to receive that punishment. Punishment ceases to serve a purpose when the recipient cannot understand it.

Submitted by Jason L. Buchanan. Visit his Facebook Profile.

#6 I Can't Wait For The Right Supreme Court Case To Come Along And Ban It

Since we're quoting the Eighth Amendment in discussing "cruel and unusual punishment," I'm taking this as distinct from whether I think the death penalty is "right" or "wrong." I recognize that there are other arguments for whether or not it's right or wrong, but "cruel and unusual" is a legal term, so that's what we're going with.

The Eighth Amendment bans, among other things, "cruel and unusual punishments." Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan wrote in the seminal death penalty case, Furman v. Georgia, that a punishment is cruel and unusual is it falls into one of the following criteria: 1) it is carried out in a wholly arbitrary fashion, 2) its severity is degrading to human dignity, 3) it is clearly and totally rejected throughout society, or 4) it is patently unnecessary.

On the first criteria of "arbitrariness," I suggest one read up on the cases of Cameron Todd Willingham (who was factually and legally innocent yet murdered anyway by the state of Texas) or John Thompson (who after spending 18 years on death row was released because of the death bed confession of an ADA who withheld exculpatory evidence) or Troy Davis (who has been trying to enter into evidence statements from witnesses who were bullied into identifying him as the killer by police for years and whose case was just granted certiorari). Too many of these individuals have been convicted of capital crimes due to notoriously unreliable jailhouse snitches or "eyewitnesses" for me to consider the death penalty as anything other than arbitrarily carried out (especially considering how black men are inexplicably and disproportionately represented on death row).

On the criteria of whether the death penalty has been rejected by society, I guess that depends on what you consider your "society." Do you consider your society your town? Your state? The United States? The World? In terms of similarity and feeling as one "community," I consider my "society" as the civilized nations of the world. And, guess what? The United States is one of the only countries in the civilized world to still have the death penalty. Yep, we're just as civilized as Saudi Arabia, Libya, and Botswana in this respect.

As to whether the death penalty is unnecessary, it is in all respects. It's not a deterrent, and it certainly isn't efficient. In a recent article in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, eighty-eight percent of criminologists did not believe the death penalty was a deterrent to murder. A recent nationwide survey of police chiefs ranked having the death penalty LAST among deterrents to violent crimes. The South, which executes 80% of all people executed in this country, has the highest murder rates of any region. And, honestly, think about it? If someone is so gone mentally as to think taking another human life is okay, do you really think they are thinking about the range of punishments they might receive for doing it? Thinking the death penalty is a deterrent is not only ridiculous, but has been disproven time and time again. Is it then necessary to keep dangerous individuals off the street? No, that's what life without parole is for. But, one might say, "What about prison overcrowding?" I'll tell you what, release the millions of people in prison for "victimless crimes" such as marijuana possession, and we wouldn't have a problem. Plus, life without parole is a hell of a lot less costly than to carry out the death penalty. For example, it costs the state of Texas $2.3 million to give someone the death penalty. By contrast, in Texas it costs less than $1 million to imprison someone in a maximum security prison for 40 years (about the average term of life without parole). Now, does it make sense to spend that extra $1.3+ million on securing the death of a person that, for the most part, I could give two shits about, or does it make more sense to spend that money on improving our public schools or figuring out other ways to prevent violent crime?

As to whether the death penalty "offends human dignity," since the death penalty is arbitrarily carried out, rejected by the civilized world, and is completely unnecessary, what reason is left for its application? The mob calling for vengeance? I consider vengeance anathema to human dignity. Maybe that's just a personal opinion, but to me "an eye for an eye" just seems childish and petty. The cultivation of vengeance as a social value or "justice" pretty much makes me sick and exists nowhere in my definition of dignity of a society or the individuals in that society. No matter how heinouse a crime, no one on this earth is capable of deciding who lives and who dies on the basis of whether "they deserved it." And in the case of the death penalty, if a society is wrong just once, there's no way to fix it. There's no justice in that.

In sum, as society changes, our values change and whether a punishment fits into one or more of the Furman criteria changes. This is why in 1977, the Supreme Court banned the death penalty for rape of an adult woman. This is also why just last year the Supreme Court banned the death penalty for rape of a child when the child was not also killed. In all, the death penalty is not so entrenched in the American legal system as one might think, and its "acceptability" is constantly being called into question. I, for one, believe that it is not only wrong in every respect of what is moral and civilized, but it fits into the Eighth Amendments definition of "cruel and unusual punishment." As such, I can't wait for the right Supreme Court case to come along and ban it again.

Submitted by Amanda Rogers, Esq. Visit her blog - Seven Eighty One.

Is Space Exploration Important?

noreply@blogger.com (Jason Buchanan) — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 06:21:00 +0000

#1 Get Control of The Monster

Well, this was something I wanted to write simply based on personal opinion. I imagine that I had dreams like many other children about being an astronaut. All of the movies made over the last decade about space have continued to foster our inner-child as we dream about the unknown. However, our current reality is that we are a nation that is 11.8 TRILLION in debt. We do not need to be spending money we do not have on exploring the “great-unknown.” I like the idea of exploring the universe but in this time of financial crisis we must realize that some things must be cut. Tightening the belt does not mean that when our nation is healthy again we cannot increase our spending again. All of America is being forced to realize that some of their dreams will have to wait. Unfortunately, some of our “inner-child” dreams should wait until our dreams do not continue to increase our debt. So, yes space exploration is important, just not more important than getting control of the monster that is our national debt.

Submitted by Paul Buchanan.

#2 Gotten Out Of Hand

I believe space exploration is important to a cetain degree. I greatly admire those who have the guts to do it, and those who are future astronauts. To be quite truthful, it has gotten out of hand and costly to the USA. I know there is talk about what we can use SPACE for. Is there another form of life, yada, yada, yada...

The discoveries that have been made recently are cool but I think we should just take it easy on fundings for it. There is no doubt that Sapce Exploration is important but it sickens me to know that soooooo much money is being given to NASA when there are critical times on Earth.

Submitted by Stefanie Greene.

#3 So Much To Learn

Absolutely! Space exploration is important for a number of reasons. First, how arrogant is it to assume that Earth is the only planet with life in the entire universe? We are a tiny speck even in our own solar system and not nearly the oldest planet, which leads scientists to believe that life began long before life on Earth.

The universe is vast, which means that the odds that there is more to our reality than meets the eye is very good. Besides, we stand to learn so much about ourselves, our existence, and what else might be out there through space exploration.

There are those who feel insignificant when faced with the expanse of the universe. I have a completely different view. I am excited to find out what else is out there, what other creations exist, what or possibly who we can learn about.

Space exploration is important because it reminds us to never stop wondering, and gives us a sense of humility in the universe.

And then there are all the practical reasons. So much “space exploration” actually teaches us more about life on Earth from medical treatments to botany and improved technologies. The space industry employs so many people, too. To just end space explorations would put hundreds of thousands of people out of jobs and would affect a number of other industries that supply and benefit from space exploration.

And if this isn’t enough to convince you, have a look at this:

http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagegallery/igviewer.php?imgid=3971&gid=286

It’s truly amazing…makes my heart race and my eyes bright with excitement!

Submitted by Laura Jung.

#4 Young People Who Dream Turn Into Adults Who Innovate

Space exploration is important for a number of reasons.

One, if we (the United States) don't maintain supremacy in space exploration, someone else will and will end up bombing us from the moon (or somewhere; you know what I'm saying) one day. I'm not a huge proponent of spending billions on military might, but there is some serious military clout in space technology that I'd rather see in our hands than in, say, China's.

Two, space exploration is important because one day we as a human race might find ourselves having ruined this planet and having to move to another. Seriously, that might be an extreme view, but I wholeheartedly believe natural environmental changes, pollution, and overpopulation will have dire consequences eventually. I'd like to have an "out" to survive.

And three (and this may be as important or more so than the others), space exploration reminds us that we're small and keeps our sense of wonder in tact. Who know where we'd be if entire generations of engineers, scientists, and others weren't inspired at all of the possibilities of this world by the Apollo missions or the launch of Discovery after we thought all was lost after the Challenger? I still remember sitting in our school cafeteria in elementary school when they brought us all in to watch the latter; it was magical... Inspiring young people to dream is one of the most underrated priorities of parents, educators, and well, anyone. Young people who dream turn into adults who innovate, and if space exploration does nothing else but help this process, it's certainly important.

Submitted by Amanda Rogers, Esq. Visit her blog - Seven Eighty One.

#5 Because We Can

Space exploration is important and should be pursued simply “because we can”. Why do we always need an excuse to be stupidly extravagant on something that doesn’t always pan out like anticipated? :) Just stop pretending that “concrete” results are why we keep sending people up into space – really… Who wouldn’t go up into space if they had the chance?

Though we have obviously benefited from space exploration, I don’t think it is worth trying to justify the noble goal through its own merit. We simply do it because we can. I know there are good reasons to explore space, but we should all just quit lying and fess up to the real reason…"Hmm...send people to the moon, why not?"

Submitted by Jason L. Buchanan. Visit his Facebook Profile.

#6 In Comparison To?

Is space exploration important? I would have to say yes, it is. I believe it is important to learn as much as we can about the universe we live in so that we have a better understanding about what surrounds us. It is key to gain all of the knowledge and understanding available to us so that we can teach others everything we know about our universe. Keeping information up to date and current is imperative. Putting correct information in our childrens’ textbooks is certainly significant. That’s one side of the coin.

The other side of the coin is this: how important is space exploration? I realize that wasn’t the question at hand, but I believe it should be addressed. It’s important to know what’s around us, what could potentially happen to our planet and our universe, but is it more important than say, education? Cancer research? I think it’s essential to prioritize where funding goes. There is only so much out there that we have the capability to explore, but there are things here on Earth that need our immediate attention.

Submitted by Lauri Lenox.

What Do You Want To Change About Healthcare?

noreply@blogger.com (Jason Buchanan) — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 03:00:00 +0000

#1 I Have One Problem: The Federal Government

Surprisingly (perhaps) I have a pretty short answer for this one. Of all the possible complaints and difficulties any American might have concerning how he or she receives healthcare in this country, my biggest problem is the seemingly overwhelming assumption that the federal government should be the entity from whom a solution must come.

There seem to be about a thousand rumors circling as to what the new hypothethical healthcare bill may entail. There are some ideas I don't have a big problem with. There are other ideas I feel I would nearly give my life to protest. But with all of the prospective policies, I have one problem: that the federal government of the United States would institute them.

Submitted by Beth Rogers. Visit her blog - Veritable Observations.

#2 The Snapping Sound Of A Latex Glove

I would like a guarantee that when I go to the doctor I never have to hear the snapping sound of a latex glove being putting while the doctor is standing behind me. Hopefully by the time I am old enough that I need a prostate exam, doctors will have come up with a new way to perform the exam. I could probably go on and on about what I want out of healthcare, but that would take a while. So, instead I am just going to leave short bullet points and we'll see where we go from there.

I want every American to have access to some form of a healthcare plan, even if it includes a government option.
I want more for my money. I pay a monthly premium and rarely need to go to the doctor. Why can't I get some of that money back?
I want my premiums to stop going up every year.

Now, obviously, this topic has to stem from ongoing, hard to ignore, healthcare debate that has been going. Where do I stay amongst the debate? I am for the reform. I have read the bills. I agree with Obama's plans. I am sorry, but I find no evidence validating any arguments from the opposition. I have no belief that Obama is going to kill my grandma because there is nothing in either the House or Senate bills that mention the creation of "Death Panels." I welcome anyone who wants to discuss this.

One final thought. I find it humorous that just a few years ago there was a desperate cry for healthcare reform. Now that there is present progress, we've experienced tremendous opposition. The reason why I mention this is because I am confused what has fueled the rage at these town halls; is it because they have actually read the bills, or because they are just mad Obama is president?

Submitted by Damian Trudell, Visit his blog - "My Thoughts"

#3 Too Bad, So Sad...

I can tell you this right now, I DON'T want the Government’s Health Care Plan. What I would like to see happen is congress taking a stand against insurance companies that have no problem taking your high monthly payments and huge deductibles – so much so that you almost can't reach your deductible before anything is paid for by the insurance, so it's almost pointless unless you are to end up in the Hospital.

Healthcare companies seem to have no heart. Pre-existing conditions are not covered on private plans nor is Maternity offered on private plans. Group plans for large companies don't seem too be nearly as expensive as smaller companies’ insurance plans. So its too bad so sad for those who work with a smaller company. The employee will often have his/her insurance for free compliments of the company they work for. What is preposterous to me is more often than not the employee could expect to pay $500+ a month just for one dependent. In some cases the employee has no other option but to put a dependent on the plan if they have a pre-existing condition that a private plan won't cover.

Hospitals overcharge for services. You pay for every cotton swab and cotton ball that is used – or so it seems. If the Hospital didn't charge so much for their services then they would probably see more patients paying their bills. For some people, going to the ER for a simple sinus infection or urinary tract infection or whatever else – can be seen by a Doctor to take care of. I do like the new Nurse Practitioner locations such as Minute Clinic where its more affordable to be seen. I for one am a fan of Minute Clinic and similar facilities and think there should be more. This is just my brief take on things.

Submitted by Stefanie Greene

#4 We're Paying For That

What would I change about healthcare in 250 words or less…can we make it 25,000 words? For one, I’d change the way health insurance is distributed. Think about your car insurance policy. Do you file a claim every time you get a door ding? No. Why? Your deductible for one - you’d have to pay most of the cost out-of-pocket. Your rates would also rise, and eventually your insurance company would cancel your policy. Why can’t health insurance be like that? Many people in this country use health insurance like a discount plan. Every time you pay that $20 co-pay, the insurance company has to work with the doctor to pick up the rest. In many cases, what the insurance company pays the doctor’s office doesn’t cover the doctor’s expenses. As a result, private practitioners across the country are closing up shop. Why not incentivize health insurance so that those people who make healthy choices get lower rates and incentives for seeing the doctor for preventive care. Get rid of unreasonably low co-pays and put the onus for taking care of one’s self back on the individual.

Secondly, the cost of prescription medications is outrageous. Ask yourself why a pill made at a factory in Canada costs pennies on the dollar when compared to the exact same pill manufactured in the US. There is no need for drug companies to spend tens of millions of dollars directly advertising medications to the general public. Most folks, me included, are tired of the endless ads for cholesterol and erectile dysfunction pills. We’re paying for that. Additionally the drug companies overcharge us to cover their research and development and litigation costs because our insurance industry will pay for it.

From a technological perspective I’d like to see stricter enforcement and modernization of HIPAA guidelines related to the electronic exchange of health-related data. Get rid of paper records and antiquated mainframe systems completely. Create a modern set of standards for all medical software companies to adhere to.

These efforts, combined with common sense (a trait that is sorely missing in legislative halls across the country) will help to make healthcare more affordable.

Submitted by Neal Harkner. Visit his Facebook Profile.

#5 Healthcare Equity System

I'd like to see insurance companies pay 100% of the bill to doctors/hospitals/labs/etc. – immediately and up front. Then, they should bill me the remaining portion that is due from me. Simply put, insurance companies should pay the providers, so providers don't have to become bill collectors. If physicians spend less time worrying about receivables, then they could spend more time providing care.

This would inevitably create problems for insurance companies - as they would become the bill collectors in the healthcare process. But because people already have financial arrangements with them, collecting payments (and making payment arrangements) would be much easier for insurance companies (in comparison to any other intermediary in the process).

Finally, the concepts of equity and financial incentive should be available to the consumer. Because if healthiness paid financial dividends, we'd be healthier... An example of a rudimentary Healthcare Equity System might look like this...during months/years where no major medical expenses occurred, the premiums we pay toward health insurance should operate like cash value of life insurance. In future years, when healthcare expenses may be higher, the cash value of the previous years' health insurance could be applied toward medical expenses that exceed the standard coverage amounts.

Submitted by Jason L. Buchanan. Visit his Facebook Profile.

#6 The Worst Kind Of Harm

I would change a lot of things about the U.S. healthcare system. And, unsurprisingly for those who have read my posts on this blog, expanding government-subsidized "public option" health insurance coverage would be one of them (and I say "expanding" because, hello people, this is not a new idea; Medicaid and Medicare have been around since the Social Security Act of 1965). But, before everyone pulls a Glenn Beck on me and starts calling me a Communist, I'd like to emphasize that this is hardly the focus of what I would change about the healthcare system. The United States spends more on healthcare than any other developed country yet we're also among the least healthy citizens of of any developed country. There's no excuse for that. Creating a public option won't cure the problem of rising healthcare costs, so I'd like to see more energy spent on combatting the costs rather than simply increasing access to a flawed system. I mean, increasing access to healthcare is vital, but eventually if we don't combat the rising costs of healthcare in this country, it's all going to be for naught and will bankrupt us in the process.

As an attorney, I'd like to see tort reform to somehow curb the huge amounts of money doled out to "victims" in frivolous lawsuits filed by unscrupulous lawyers. I worked for a personal injury attorney for a day when I was in law school. I promptly quit the same day I started when I was assigned to research the monetary value of an eyeball in a ridiculous lawsuit against the New York City Board of Education (a kid picked a fight at school, got his eye knocked out, and then his parents wanted some loot). Doctors shouldn't have to order every test known to man in order to cover their asses in case they're sued down the line. Billions of dollars are wasted every year by insurance companies having to pay for these unnecessary, expensive, and potentially harmfull (we're being x-rayed to oblivion; radiation much?) tests. In turn, insurance companies raise our premiums so they don't have to suffer the profit losses caused by the rise in tests. So, shame on the lawyers, shame on the plaintiffs in these cases, and shame on the insurance companies for passing the buck to the public which is far less equipped to absorb such a cost. Tort reform is one way to keep these people in check.

Secondly, I'd like to see doctors acting more like doctors and less like businessmen. Doctors these days have what they call "diversified revenue streams" meaning that not only do they bill for visits, tests, and procedures to keep us healthy, but they actually own their own testing equipment. Doctors who own their own CT scanners, x-ray machines, etc., order two to eight times the imaging tests than doctors who don't (according to a 2002 University of North Carolina study). Coincidence? I think not. This is because the more tests they order, the more times they can bill to and then get paid by insurance companies. A single CT scanner can make a doctor $400,000 a year. Further, for doctors such as these, if a patient with diabetes comes into their office, they can either treat them by diet and exercise and make little to no profit, or they can conveniently ignore these preventative measures and wait until the patient needs an operation to amputate a limb and make a comparatively gigantic profit. Knowing that greed is a tempting beast, which do you think they'd choose? I'd go so far as to say this type of behavior on the part of doctors violates the "do no harm" spirit in that it's causing a huge harm by jacking up costs so that millions of Americans can't even afford healthcare when they need it. Preventing people from receiving the care that they need is the worst kind of harm. To combat this type of practice, Dr. Andrew Weil suggests that we restrict ownership of testing equipment to hospitals, other nonprofits, or independent private entities. Given how little human beings can quell their greed at times, I'd say that sounds like a good idea.

Third, some of the blame for rising healthcare costs should be owned by us... We're a nation of (to use Ashley Judd's words) the overfed and undernourished. As delicious as a Chipotle burrito is with it's 1000 plus calories, there's just no reason for it to exist. Americans consume far more protein and fats than our bodies need or than even should be humanly possible (well, on second thought, it's probably not humanly possible because it's killing us). The fact that we as a people prefer to poison ourselves with transfats, suppress our immune systems and encourage anxiety and depression by not keeping our stress levels in check, and then run off to the doctor so they can "fix" us is a shame. Instead of contributing to a "patch 'em up and send them on their way" health system, we should instead strive to change our lifestyles and our healthcare system to focus on lasting health. Dr. Andrew Weil appropriately calls our healthcare system not a healthcare system at all, but rather a "disease management system." That's no way to live, and I'd like to think we could do better than that without government intervention. Unfortunately, however, I don't think we can. In 2000, the Surgeon General stated that the total annual cost of obesity in the United States was $117 billion in healthcare costs and lost productivity (for good measure, smoking costs us $52 million a year); I can't imagine what it is nine years later. Childhood obesity is rising at a shocking rate. According to the CDC, over the past three decades the childhood obesity rate has more than doubled for preschool children aged 2-5 years and adolescents aged 12-19 years, and it has more than tripled for children aged 6-11 years. This is partially due to large corporations like McDonalds and General Mills specifically targeting children in marketing campaigns, but this is also due to parents and children not knowing or caring what this is doing to our bodies, and thus, our healthcare costs. If the citizens are too dumb to stop buying "super sugar bomb" cereals as if they're a nutritious breakfast and Big Macs (the average American family eats fast food three times a week!) as if they constitute a decent meal, then I'm sorry to say the government must step in before this behavior bankrupts us. Look what getting rid of Joe the Camel did to reduce smoking... It looks like we may need similar intervention in the eating department. Many cities are banning transfats and requiring calorie breakdowns on menues. I think it's a good idea (hell, I know it would prevent me from ordering a molten chocolate cake a la mode or two).

So in sum: 1) tort reform, 2) put a check on greedy doctors, 3) stop treating ourselves like crap, and then, 4) increase access to healthcare coverage.

Submitted by Amanda Rogers, Esq. Visit her blog - Seven Eighty One.

Do You Give Money To The Homeless Guy?

noreply@blogger.com (Jason Buchanan) — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:36:00 +0000

#1 Just Buy The Crack Yourself

Plain and simple, the vast majority of the homeless are composed of drug and alcohol addicts. A few are mentally ill, and a very few are “down on their luck”. So if you give a 5 to a homeless man, he’s probably going to use it to help kill himself on his addiction.

One day several years ago my wife (then girlfriend) encountered a homeless man holding a sign that read, “Hungry. Please help. God bless.” Having already been lectured on my theories on the homeless, but still wanting to help, Amanda offered to take the man into a nearby Subway and by him a sandwich. “Oh um. Ok. Well... No, that’s Ok.” he said. “But your sign says you’re hungry.” said Amanda. “I know, that’s Ok” he replied. Now, either he’s hungry but no amount of hunger could coerce him to eat a Subway sandwich, or he just wanted money for some alcohol or drugs.

I’m not saying don’t help the homeless. In fact, I believe we are called to help and there are many programs you can get involved with to that end. But if you’re dead set on just giving them what they’re really asking for... then just buy the crack yourself and give it to them - cut out the middle man.

Submitted by Daniel Stevens.

#2 I'll Buy You A Burger

Do I give money to the homeless person? To put it quite simply, no, I absolutely do not. And let me tell you why. There have been times in my life when I had absolutely no idea where my next meal was coming from. There have been times when I wasn't sure if my lights were going to get turned off, or if my rent was going to get paid. I have been a few dollars away from being homeless myself. Did I stand on the side of the road with a crudely written cardboard sign in 100+ degree heat and beg complete strangers for money? No, I did not. I got up off my duff and helped myself as best I could.

But this isn't about me. It's about the homeless person. I realize the statistics. I realize that a large portion of the homeless population is mentally handicapped in some way. Nevertheless, there are a plethora of programs instituted by our government to help people in need. There are millions of people who get a check from the government every month because they are incapable of entering the workplace or sustaining a job. There are emergency programs out there to help people get food, and even money, until they can find an alternative. So, why should I give money to someone who doesn't have the fortitude to help himself when help is out there? I'd be happy to take a homeless man to McDonald's and buy him a burger. However, something tells me he doesn't want my money for food anyway, and when he respectfully declines my offer for a Value Meal in lieu of scoring cash for whatever his vice from people who don't know any better, I just have to walk away knowing that I offered what I could.

Submitted by Lauri Lenox.

#3 Uncontrollable Need To Make People Happy

I give what I can. I rarely carry cash or change so it's not often I am able to give. My reason for giving is somewhat selfish. I don't believe giving to the needy will better the reputation of my character, I just have an uncontrollable need to make people happy. I've met those who say, "I don't give because it's not my problem. They got themselves into the mess, they can get themselves out." If someone has the courage to drop their pride and ask for help, then help. It's up to them what they do with the help.

I would like to recommend a book: "Under the Overpass" - By Mike Yankoski

It's about two guys who, by choice, live on the streets in various cities to see what the homeless life is like. Not only do they learn how much people take for granted the pleasures of a secure life, but they also learn about the drive some homeless people have for a second chance at life.

Submitted by Damian Trudell, Visit his blog - "My Thoughts"

#4 Before The Light Turns Green

Well, I guess I have to ask, "which homeless guy?"

I don't have an absolute answer to this one.

As a Christian, I have a barrage of scriptures and scriptural principles banging around in my head, "...do unto others...,” “...be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove...," "...give to him to asks...", "...be a good steward of the Lord's money..." and so forth.

As a human being, I recognize that “the homeless guy” may or may not actually be homeless, may be about to spend my money on liquor or drugs, may be homeless by choice (those who choose to withdraw from society), or he may be someone just like me who had a bad run of luck and just doesn't know what to do but ask random strangers for money so he can eat.

But in that moment, that thirty-second window at the stop light, when I see said (possibly) homeless stranger at the corner hoping someone will drop him a five, I think the answer is “maybe.” It's really always a judgment call. And often it depends mostly on the off chance that I actually have some cash that can easily be handed out the window before the light turns green. And if he's selling something, not just begging for money, i'll gladly buy it if I can.

[This article is continued further on Beth's Blog, Veritable Observations]

Submitted by Beth Rogers. Visit her blog - Veritable Observations.

#5 I Might Have An Illness Or Something

I usually keep this sort of thing to myself for fear of sounding like I'm tooting my own horn or for fear of enduring any judgments from people who might think I'm a fool, but yes, I give money to homeless people. I don't give money to those who seem entitled or aggresive with their requests because, well, those people piss me off. But to those who politely ask, simply hold a sign, perform some sort of service (I've seriously been accosted by men who squirted shoe polish on my shoe before I could decline), or in earnestness beg, I usually give them something. That "something" is usually anywhere from a $1 to $20. I've even emptied my entire coin purse because I didn't have any cash. I've gone so far as to ask a homeless man what he needed, gone to the pharmacy, and came back with a backpack full of things he needed (it was winter in New York so he needed some flu medicine, a giant Gatorade, and a blanket... I ended up giving him the backpack, too, because he needed something to carry all of it in).

I'm especially giving when all they ask for is a little change. I feel bad giving them anything less than $1 because my thought is, "What am I going to do with that money? With $1, I might buy a coke, but I could probably do without it. With $5, I might buy a magazine, but again, I can live without it. With $20, I might buy gas, but I could just drive my car less this month or buy less at the grocery store this week to spare it." I've even justified giving away my last five bucks when I knew I'd have to put my next week's groceries on a credit card by thinking that, "Well, at least I have credit and future earning capacity; that's more than that person has." I know, I might have an illness or something because of how little strength I have to refuse these people... It's pretty ridiculous.

Maybe this makes me a sucker... When I lived in New York I remember reading an article in The New York Post about a lady who made more than $50K a year by parking herself on Fifth Avenue and covering herself with a ratty blanket and trash bags. Home girl was doing better financially than I was at the time... But, I still couldn't help give something here or there to the guys I'd see sleeping on cardboard boxes on the subway platform.

I don't think giving money to homeless people makes one a sucker, though. No matter how broke I've been (and trust me, I was pretty damn broke at times during my eight years of higher education), I've always managed to have a roof over my head and never gone hungry. The people you see on the streets can't really say that. Sure, they may go buy a crack rock or forty with the money I gave them, but they also might go feed their kid or it might be enough for them to afford a bed for the night. After it leaves my hands, what they do with their money is their business. The nature of giving is not to expect anything material in return, so who cares what they do with it? And, regardless of what they do with it, at least the exchange made both them and me happy for a moment.

You might be thinking, "How can one be happy parting with $20 to a complete stranger that will probably just go spend it on drugs?" In his book, Field Notes on the Compassionate Life: A Search for the Soul of Kindness, Marc Ian Barasch posits that there is no such thing as pure altruism because the giver actually gets something in return in such situations. When we give, our neural functioning actually changes, our brain produces more dopamine (the "feel good" chemical that so many drugs try to imitate), etc. Increased dopamine levels create a more positive outlook, and more positive outlooks guard against depression, etc. On the most minute biological level, altruism is good for us. How cool is that?!

There are those who might say giving money to the homeless is enabling the person to whom you're giving money to never gain employment, to stay on drugs, etc., but honestly, my feeling is that 40% - 50% of these people have serious mental illnesses like clinical depression, schizophrenia, severe anxiety disorder, and severe bipolar disorder. The vast majority of the rest have behavioral or substance abuse issues (both of which are other, even if more mild, forms of mental illness). It's not like these people are going to miraculously say, "Hey, you know, schizophrenia be damned! I think I'll go get a job and become a productive citizen now!" They don't have the capability to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, so my refusing to give them money wouldn't "teach" them anything. The best I can do as an individual is try to make their lives a little easier or happier by looking them in the eye, saying "hello," and/or giving them some cash.

And, if the person I give money to does happen to be one of the few who has such a capability, I think human kindness and being treated like a person can be a catalyst for personal growth. For instance, if even one person I've given money to over the years thought, "Wow, if this complete stranger thinks I'm worth saying "hello" and "have a nice day to" and giving a buck to, maybe, just maybe my mom will forgive me and let me come home/just maybe the people down at the shelter will help me get a job/just maybe I can get through rehab this time..." then it has been more than worth it. I think sometimes people may just need a little help believing in themselves, and maybe a smile, some cash, and interest in how their day is going might just do the trick.

In either case, maybe these people will never get their lives together. But, again, you know... For a brief moment, they were happy, I was happy, and the world was a bit better place.

Submitted by Amanda Rogers, Esq. Visit her blog - Seven Eighty One.

#6 Alms For The Poor

I give money to the homeless women and men I encounter on a daily basis. I may not give every homeless person I see a small bill or whatever change I can scrounge up in my purse or pockets, but I give what I have when I can. If I’ve got a bag full of lunch and snacks, but know I could buy lunch today and let someone else have a meal, I usually give whatever I think someone might eat. And why shouldn’t I?

For me, I’m not just giving that man or woman money – I’m not giving a handout. I’m giving that man or woman something they seldom experience – dignity and respect. The homeless are not simply a scourge upon our cities, or an eyesore to be avoided or pretended out of existence. Nor are they people we should treat with any less respect and kindness than we treat our neighbors or colleagues. They key to remember is that they are human beings – you are no more entitled to anything you have than they are. The most important thing that separates me from a homeless person is privilege. Remove privilege from society – and the world would be a much better place.

The fact is many homeless people aren’t there because they are lazy, drug addicts, or alcoholics. Indeed drug addiction and alcoholism may well be the result over time of becoming homeless and abandoned by society. Humans were not made to be isolated, we were made to interact and look after one another. It is only in recent history (early 1800s) that the idea of individualism over collectivism even became part of our effective reality. In fact, the only reason individualism became part of our vernacular and hence the way in which we conduct ourselves in society was as a result of the ruling authority’s desire to quash popular dissent. Popular dissent leads to revolution, which ultimately leads to the removal of the old guard and thus their source of wealth and power. Ask yourself why Americans don’t protest anymore. Dissent has been disciplined out of us. Even if we disagree – we keep it to ourselves out of fear of retribution, or worse, what our “friends” and employers might think of us. We are all too individual, too self-absorbed with our things, and our work, and our wealth that we cannot be bothered to see the world around us as it is – broken, greedy, selfish, and poorer for it.

In Chicago, where I live, 3 out of 4 homeless people suffer from mental illness. That population used to have a home somewhere – that employed nurses, doctors, and caretakers to help the most needy in our society (those who have no control over the way they were born or the illnesses they suffer) and gave them shelter and three square meals a day. They aren’t on the street, begging you for a break because they want to be. They are there because someone of privilege decided that they were undeserving. All the facilities were closed and each person thrown to the darkest, dankest corners of our cities and towns – many of them incapable of navigating the complicated, bureaucratic systems necessary to obtain identification, employment, housing, and health care without assistance.

All those homeless people you see have not always been homeless – and most would prefer not to be homeless. With the recent economic turmoil you can’t even be sure that the family that used to live next to you (before they left their home on short-sale or even foreclosure) isn’t on a street or in a shelter somewhere.

Systemic violence plays a major role in redistributing people, including those taken advantage of by a credit scandal. Gentrification – the process of “developing” an area of a city to make it more appealing to wealthy non-minorities – is a fantastic example of systemic violence. (I say developing in quotations here because the term is misleading, and where gentrification is concerned, has a very narrow connotation.) In reality, when an area chooses to gentrify it chooses to neglect existing problems created and fomented by a political economic system that unevenly distributes services. It’s much easier to push the poor out to the fringes of a town or city than it is to figure out ways to improve wages, provide services, create job and education incentives, and create disincentives for crime and unemployment.

Addressing poverty would require society, government, each individual to take a collective look at the way our economic and political systems work and embark on a thorough self-evaluation that would result in some harrowing conclusions about ourselves. It would also require, without exception, that those with power and wealth cede some of both to make the systems function better and to break the cycle of poverty – a cycle that by its very nature ensures that the rich have the opportunity to get richer and the poor have no chance to escape the death grip of a subpar existence.

I don’t lie to the people who ask me for money. If I have something to give, I do. To me it’s no different than anonymous philanthropy. If I have food I give that, and if I’m going to buy lunch and I pass a man by, I get change from the clerk and drop it in his cup or his hand on my way back. It’s honest, it shows dignity, and it’s human. I’m not denying that there are drug addicts and alcoholics who are homeless because of choices they have made. I don’t give money to someone who reeks of booze or is clearly inebriated, but I will give them food and I will treat them with dignity and respect. I know and understand that I hold a position of privilege and that I have the power to improve the lives of people around me. So should you.

Submitted by Laura Jung.

Is Homosexuality Wrong?

noreply@blogger.com (Jason Buchanan) — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 19:00:00 +0000

#1 Pardon Me If I Decline To Pick Up Rocks

No, homosexuality is not "wrong."

To say homosexuality is "wrong," to me, is just self-righteous. Most people who lay claim to knowing what is "right" and "wrong" do so because they have the "good book" of their choice (the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, etc.) telling them what that is. Because of the "knowledge" bestowed upon them by these "good books," they think that they must inform those around them that anything they're doing that doesn't comport with what those books say is "wrong." Well, you know... The Bible also implies incest to be okay (Abraham and Sarah) and the slaughtering and raping of entire groups of people (The Medianites) to be alright, too.. The Koran teaches that those who blow other people up will be given 72 virgins in heaven for their deed... So, needless to say, I'm not inclined to take any of these books too literally. So when people point to explicit phrases in them that declare homosexuality worthy of stoning and the like, pardon me if I decline to pick up rocks.

Show more...

I can't imagine ever feeling so confident that I was 100% absolutely right in my beliefs that I could declare what is obviously a fairly prevalent variation in human behavior "wrong." Alfred Kinsey's study of human sexuality in the 1940s and subsequent introduction of the "Kinsey Scale" in 1948 did away with (or, rather, should have) the concept of the majority of this country adhering to traditional "American Protestant values" and what is "natural" in terms of human sexuality.

More about Kinsey... The Kinsey Scale is scored from 0 to 6 with 0 being completely heterosexual, 1 being "predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual," 2 being "predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual," 3 being completely bisexual, 4 being "predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual," 5 being "predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual," and 6 being completely homosexual. His study showed that rather than people being exclusively either heterosexual or homosexual, most of the population falls in the middle of the scale. Further, individuals can switch categories in different phases of their lives (which, I suppose to some degree explains those chicks making out on "Girls Gone Wild"). For instance, Kinsey found that based on their survey answers, 11.6% of white males aged 20-35 were given a rating of 3 for this period of their lives. That's right, almost 12 percent of males in their early 20s are straight up bisexual. Whether they act on those impulsions or not probably depends on their circumstances. The study also found that nearly 46% of the male subjects had "reacted" sexually to persons of both sexes in the course of their adult lives, and 37% had at least one homosexual experience. My point? Sexuality is fluid, and sexual orientation is much more varied than the narrow constraints of "homosexuality" or "heterosexuality" allow. So, this whole notion of homosexuality being "unnatural" is ridiculous. (And as an aside, he found that 22% of adult males had sexual responses to sadomasochism, so how's that for flipping what's "natural" on its head?)

So now that the religion-inspired reasoning and claims of it being "unnatural" are dismissed, on what ground could we declare homosexuality to be wrong? I find none.

Submitted by Amanda Rogers, Esq. Visit her blog - Seven Eighty One.

#2 Who Are We To Judge?

When invited into a discussion about this particular topic, I always find myself greeted with more questions than answers. Faced with someone who knows his or her viewpoint on the subject is always interesting because they have no qualms about immediately pulling out biblical references. In response to that, I have a few references of my own.

Who are we to judge whether homosexuality is wrong? Are any among us sinless? The Bible says, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Is that you? It's certainly not me. There are none of us to whom that applies. In reference to homosexuality, I fear that many take it upon themselves to judge and condemn what they are afraid of and what they do not understand. Without having actually lived the life, none of us can understand the inner workings of the mind and heart of the gay community. The point is simply that we are not capable or qualified to judge the moral standings of anyone, as no human being is without sin.
"Love one another." The Bible commands us to love one another. Are we not refuting that commandment by judging and condemning our fellow man? God hates the sin, not the sinner. We should do the same. We are directed to love our neighbors as ourselves, and yet we are throwing around condemnation based on someone's mistakes. Every one of us is a sinner, and yet, we are choosing to condemn a person based on their sinful nature, when it could just as easily be our sinful nature being called into question. In that case, this forum could be titled, "Is Lying Wrong?" or "If I Don't Honor My Father and Mother, is that wrong?". We should focus on loving and understanding one another instead of picking apart each others flaws. We know we all have them.

Old Testament Law. I have heard hundreds of times that the Bible speaks out against homosexuality directly. Let me make this clear. I have done the research, I have read the passages, and I'm not convinced. I do believe the Bible speaks out against sexual impurity, but there are a multitude of things that fall under that category, so why has this one been selected and highlighted by the Christian community? The Old Testament does say that a man who lies with a man as he lies with a woman is detestable and should be punished by death. Again, this is Old Testament law. This particular passage of scripture goes on to detail a man offering his virgin daughter up to these men for their pleasure, imploring them to have their way with her instead of his men. Talk about your sexual immorality! The point is this: if we are still accountable for obeying the laws of the Old Testament, then everyone who has eaten a ham sandwich or a pork chop lately is in a world of trouble. We are no longer responsible for obeying and upholding those laws. The New Testament speaks out against sexual immorality in general, and while we are still accountable for those directives, we are accountable for all of them, not just one. This includes sex before marriage and promiscuity. Let's focus on the real issues here. Let's focus on the rapists and the child molesters, not the homosexual community.

Show more...

My other issues with this particular topic are not Biblical, they are social and medical. There are those in the medical community who say that homosexuality is genetic. There are also those who will say that because they have not found substantial evidence of a "gay gene", it does not exist. How incredibly hopeless for the medical community! That mean that there is no cure for cancer, because they have yet to find it. We should all wash our hands of research and just give up completely. Just because it hasn't been substantially proven yet doesn't mean it isn't out there. And to those naysayers, what if it is? What if it's proven that homosexuality is genetic? Those who have been saying it is wrong for all of these years have been condemning something that is out of a person's realm of control. Why not say, "It's wrong to have brown eyes. It's wrong to have brown hair. It's wrong to have attached earlobes." It sounds ridiculous, no? Perhaps I'm oversimplifying. However, if we are discussing right and wrong, then I know for sure to the core of my being that to judge someone for something that is completely out of their hands is wrong.

Furthermore, there are those children out there whose sexuality has been chosen for them by their parents and their doctors. There are infants who are born with both sets of reproductive organs. From the standpoint of the doctors and the parents, a choice has to be made. Male or female? The choice is made, the surgery is performed, and all is forgotten. Is it? Changing the outside doesn't change the inside. Assigning a gender to a child doesn't mean that it's the right choice. There are ramifications of that choice later in that person's life that they cannot control and more than likely do not understand. Is that wrong? How can it be wrong when it cannot be controlled? That person's choice was made for them without their consent. Can we be so blind as to say that it's our job and our right to judge that person? Is that person's morality in question because of a medical misstep?

Should a person's "rightness or wrongness" be determined by something that they cannot change and cannot help? That is the real question here. Can we judge a person based on something we cannot understand? Do we have the right to decide a person's salvation based on something they cannot control? If your answer is yes, then I vehemently disagree. Not our job, not our place, not our right.

Submitted by Lauri Lenox.

#3 Good People Are Still Good People

I think homosexuality is wrong. But I also think it is difficult to openly think homosexuality is wrong...because our PC society has made it increasingly difficult to disagree intelligently.

I'm either an ignorant, holy rolling fundamentalist who thinks homosexuals should be euthanized or I'm a tree-hugging liberal that thinks everything is OK as long as it doesn't negatively affect me...
There is a balance between right and wrong where the answer to most difficult decisions can be found. But this place – of balance – can only be achieved through peaceful discussion and mutual respect.

And let’s face it - the majority of loud and obnoxious detractors are protestant Christians...mostly weirdoes – but protestant Christians, nonetheless.

That being said, moral guidelines and standards are not meant to be dividing lines upon which we ostracize, criticize and discriminate. Homosexuality (along with a myriad of other human behaviors) can be “wrong” without engendering hatred and judgment. And good people are still good people – even with flaws (present company included).

Submitted by Jason L. Buchanan. Visit his Facebook Profile.

#4 Hard To Come To A Clear Conclusion

I do not believe that that homosexuality is wrong. However, I also do not believe that is right as well. I find that it's hard to come to a clear conclusion because I don't fully understand homosexual attraction, though, I will give it a try. If we take a look at the human species - with disregard to any religious preference, the anatomical structure of mankind shows that it makes sense that a natural partnership would consist of a male and a female. When it comes to procreation, it makes sense that men and women were meant to come together. Though, when it comes to the intimacy and the connection of relationships, that's when it becomes interesting when validating same-sex attraction. One way of looking at the evolution of attraction is focusing on marriage. Over the past few decades it seems that the passion for same-sex marriage has significantly increased, while at the same time we have witnessed a decline in the importance of marriage among traditional relationships. I'll end my thoughts by saying that given my personal beliefs I maintain a certain opposition to homosexuality, though, since I do not fully understand homosexuality I am hesitant to completely disregard it.

Submitted by Damian Trudell, Visit his blog - "My Thoughts"

#5 People Use Rationalizations To Explain Their Actions

One of the greatest moral questions our society faces is the issue of “gender-preferences” with relation to sexuality. As we have progressed in intelligence as a society so many moral lines have been crossed and broken as people use rationalizations to explain their decisions. “...this is what makes me happy...” “...I was made this way...” The excuses are numerous. I would like to approach this debate from a non-Christian perspective. (Even though biblically, homosexuality is clearly wrong) I would like to look at this from the standpoint of good-old-common-sense. All of nature proclaims that our purpose is to re-create or reproduce. Whatever your beliefs are about how we came into existence you cannot deny the inherent dangers involved in homosexuality. For the male, the damage caused is obvious. However, numerous studies have shown that a women that has given birth, breast-fed and so forth has a greatly reduced chance of numerous types of cancer and other health issues. As you look at creation; plants, animals, etc, you see an intelligent design that both provides and requires the ability to reproduce. Homosexuality is contradictory to that reality. No matter what your “spiritual” beliefs, something or someone, greater than us, has designed this entire planet, including our bodies, with a purpose for reproduction. That cannot be denied and because of that, homosexuality must be wrong.
Submitted by Paul Buchanan.

#6 If Something Is Natural, How Can It Be Wrong?

My first thought refers back to what I’ve learned in at least 3 psychology of sexuality courses thus far, any time in history, in any culture, there are consistently between 3 and 5% of the population that are "homosexual". In more liberal cities, in more sexually liberal societies throughout history, this can be as high as 11-13%. But as for the “real numbers”, we can refer to the most credible source in the health and social literature at this time, the 1992 findings from NHSLS (National Health and Social Life Survey). Laumann, Gannon, Michael, and Michaels (1994, as cited in Rust, 2000) reported that 4.3 percent of women and 9.1 percent of men have engaged in one or more specific sexual activities with a member of the same gender since puberty. They also reported that 4.1 percent of women and 4.9 percent of men reported same-gender sexual behavior since age eighteen. These findings are consistent with the Center for Health Affairs Survey as well (conducted in 1993). So it is my firm belief on this issue that… if something is natural, how can it be wrong??? And if homosexuality is "unnatural", then why would you see these numbers consistently throughout time and cultures? It must be natural. Thus the creator made some people this way, thus it cannot be wrong. Modern science and research on brain chemistry, neural circuitry, and hormones would lead us to accept this as well.

Show more...

Byne and Stein (1997, as cited in Cohler & Galatzer-Levy 2000) define three major types of biological models of same-gender orientation. They state that “formative experience models assume biology shapes the organizing and interpretation of life experiences, including sexual desire. Direct effects models hold that factors like genetic predisposition or prenatal hormones produce brain circuit’s determinative of sexual orientation. And indirect models suggest that biological factors like temperament, not directly related to sexuality, indirectly shape sexual orientation." Here it is important to point out that direct effect models involving behavioral genetics, hormonal influences, and regional brain studies have gained exceptional recognition and backing in recent years. The search for a biological origin for same-gender sexual orientation finds encouragement in several groups of observations as noted by Byne and Parsons (1993):

Experimental animals whose prenatal hormone levels are altered often adopt mating positions which are presumed to be gender-atypical. Assuming that rodent and human behavior are analogous, human sexual orientation might be accounted for by hormonal changes in the uterine environment.

Gender nonconformity often emerges in early childhood, suggesting that gender orientation may be inborn. (See 1999-2009 Harvard, NYU, etc studies on this)

The resistance of sexual orientation to change through psychotherapy and behavior therapy could mean that sexual orientation is “hard wired” (cited in Cohler & Galatzer-Levy 2000).

As I assume that many on this blog will cite biblical reasons why homosexuality is wrong, I’m way over my allotted word count as usual, but I would offer these biblical scholar sites as a response to the traditional biblical arguments against homosexuality; I strongly encourage you to read them and decide for yourself if the holy book is ACTUALLY against homosexuality, or if those arguments are based off of mis-translations against other forbidden acts much more nefarious:

Submitted by Summer Cartwright.

Does Illegal Immigration Threaten the Safety of the United States of America?

noreply@blogger.com (Jason Buchanan) — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 22:30:00 +0000

#1 I Am Going To Get My Gun

I'm no national security expert. I have never even met anyone who works for Homeland Security (that I know of).

To answer this question, I will convert the situation to my level of responsibility.

I am a semi-well-educated lower middle class American homeowner.

If I discover strange persons in my home who are uninvited and refuse to introduce themselves, I am going to call 911.

What I mean to say is that I am going to get my gun.

It is the policy in my home that strangers are not allowed to come in the back door (or the back yard) uninvited. My husband and I feel that allowing this sort of trespass would threaten the safety and sanctity of our home.

It seems to me that the principles involved in the security of a sovereign nation should be similar.

Submitted by Beth Rogers. Visit her blog - Veritable Observations.

#2 There Has To Be A Better Way

Of course illegal immigration threatens the safety of this country. It threatens this country in the same way the David Koreshes and John Walker Lindhs of the world threaten the United States. My point is that wackos who mean us harm are wackos that mean us harm regardless if they are illegal immigrants or United State citizens. In other words, illegal immigrants pose no greater harm to this country than The Boyd Family or say, Dick Cheney.

In my legal career, I've represented people who had no business being thrown into high security prisons with rapists and murderers simply because they, in desperation to give their children food or a chance for a better life, came into this country illegally. In terms of human rights, it's disgusting what our country is doing to people who are only doing what is in our nature as humans to do (e.g., provide for our and our childrens' basic needs at any cost). There has to be a better way to deal with illegal immigration than locking people up in this way or pretending the problem of exploiting these people for cheap labor doesn't exist at the highest levels of corporate policy. Immigration reform now, people!

Submitted by Amanda Rogers, Esq. Visit her blog - Seven Eighty One.

#3 The Prevention of Terrorism Cannot Be Related to Immigration

According to my understanding of the law, immigrants become "illegal" when they fail to meet the requirements of naturalization set forth by the government.

The use of the word "naturalization", though, makes me cringe. The US has adopted immigration policies based primarily on economic needs since the 1800s...and our historical (dis)allowance based on race, ethnicity, literacy, etc. is well documented. As a result, I believe the legal status of an immigrant has no relation to the physical safety of our nation - but maybe the economic safety...

Once naturalized, immigrants will forever contribute to the increase of the population of the US. But if naturalization policies are intended as economic tools, wouldn't it be logical to assume that the government would want those people to leave when the economy is down...?

It is pretty obvious that no moral individual would accept the practice of forcing naturalized citizens out of the country for economic purposes (e.g. when unemployment is high, etc.) - why then, do we base the legality of immigration on the economic potential of individuals?

In my opinion, the prevention of terrorism (though vitally important) can not be related to immigration and naturalization.

Submitted by Jason L. Buchanan. Visit his Facebook Profile.

#4 Looking For A Better Life

If we’re speaking from a physical standpoint (does it have the potential to injure or even kill myself or my family?), I’d say no. No more so than walking down the street. I would wager that most people who are coming to the states illegally are just looking for a better life for themselves and their families. Perhaps they’re fleeing from persecution and strife in their home country. And let’s face it, America is still a land of opportunity.

However, it’s the more intangible aspects I believe that harm our nation; Population growth, working outside of the system and therefore dodging taxes, etc. I’m all for assisting others, helping to give them that American dream and so forth. At some point though, our generosity is going to give way to freeloading. Why work when I’m being taken care of by others?

If someone wants to move to America, great! Go through the proper channels and become a citizen. I don’t mean to sound like a rule monger or anything, but if you’re going to come and be a part of this country, please do your part to ensure that we continue being successful. If I were to move to say France, I would be expected to do the same thing in order to buy a home, get a job, or drive a car.

Submitted by Brian McMeans.

#5 What Happens When There Are No More Jobs?

Yes and no. Immigration itself is what made this country. The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, yes, but we are also the melting pot of the world. When immigrants came to America fleeing religious persecution, they were offered safety and peace of mind. They were offered a chance for a new life and an opportunity to better themselves in a way that their country had not provided. If not for immmigration, I'll wager that most of us wouldn't be in this country at all. How many people do you know whose grandparents came over on a boat from (insert country here)?

On the other hand, I think illegal immigration does threaten the safety of the United States today. When I think of safety, it's not always physical safety that comes to mind. It's the comfort of knowing that I'm provided for, taken care of, that my basic human needs will always be met. In the stressful economy of today, it's easy to become increasingly concerned about our ability to maintain a lifestyle we have grown accustomed to. What happens when there are no more jobs? Illegal immigrants are coming to this country to find a better opportunity for themselves andour opportunities are rapidly decreasing with each immigrant who is hired to work longer hours for less money.

Submitted by Lauri Lenox.

#6 The Numbers Speak For Themselves

When dealing with issues of "morality" vs. "law", I tend to think that we should air on the side of law, unless the law is unjust. But in this case, the question is “Does Illegal Immigration Threaten the Safety of the United States of America?” For the answer, I think we should let the raw data and research be an indicator as to what the “right” course of action is.

Never mind the health system and education costs which have become an overwhelming drain on our budget in a system where much needed funds for essential programs are scarce (for education alone it is estimated by US news that in 2004 the cost was between $270 and $650 per household; The estimated costs of educating illegal aliens and their children for the entire US budget exceeded 28.6 billion dollars in 2004 alone.)

Why do I bring these figures up? Because money devoted to healthcare, especially for those NOT paying back into the system, takes much needed funding AWAY from other essential services, such as fire fighters and policemen, and eventually our defense budget on the whole. A case-in-point example of this is the California scenario:

"Between 1993 and 2003, 60 hospitals in California alone were forced to close, and many others had to reduce staff or implement other procedures which reduced the level of service they could provide. The article attributes these closings mainly to illegal immigration. [18] "In Fiscal Year 2001, the total cost for emergency medical care for illegal immigrants in California was more than $648 million. At the same time, the California Association of Public Hospitals notes that California’s public hospitals face a $600 million a year budget deficit."

It doesn’t take a mathematician to see how eliminating illegal immigration would turn a deficit into a surplus. And in the reverse, all of those dollars that California has been heaping onto the illegal immigration problem, has gone from putting Band-Aids on small lesions in 2004, to not having the money for gauze to put over gushing wounds in 2009. Now it has gone totally bankrupt – unable to pay its police force, fire fighters, and national guardsmen – thus the state is now in a total body-cast, with no one to pay the hospital bill finally. I would say that if this trend continues across the southwest, and Texas being next hardest hit after Arizona, the issue will go from merely funding healthcare and education for illegal immigrants, to not being able to fund necessary law enforcement and emergency services across the states.

If we want to address the question of “are illegal immigrants dangerous?” head on, I hate to go there, as I believe that most illegal immigrants are like the rest of us, they just want to earn a decent wage, provide for their family, and give their children the chance they never had – to live the American dream, not to mention, I personally know a few, who are my dearest friends, and are in fact living the American dream, earning PhDs and contributing to our society. However, the numbers speak for themselves:

"California and Texas are facing drastically higher levels of crime including, Rape, Murder, Theft, Drug trafficking, DUIs, ETC in areas with high illegal alien populations. The criminal system is inundated with illegal aliens. California law enforcement agencies are claiming that they are encountering MUCH HIGHER LEVELS OF gang activity, which they attribute to illegal immigration. MS-13...ETC...MS-13's initiation ritual includes forcing initiates to rape and murder random women on the streets....Even George W. Bush citing federal agencies in 2004 (who is pro amnesty), claimed that 1 out of every 10 illegal immigrants has a criminal record in Mexico. If there are 20 million illegal immigrants in the United States, then you do the math..." (taken from a US and World report blog, dated about a year after the hit of Hurricane Katrina)

Submitted by Summer Cartwright.

Who Can Adopt?

noreply@blogger.com (Jason Buchanan) — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 07:01:00 +0000

#1 Stable Life

We adopt so that we can provide a suitable lifestyle and unconditional love to a child. I do believe that a main criteria must be that the adopter is able to provide the same situation for their own self. We always hear about helping others, but it is also important that we make sure we, as well, are taken care of. Having our own stable life allows us to pass that particular lifestyle to those whom we adopt. Of course there are other factors, I simply believe that this one idea is important before considering adoption.

Now I know there is a big debate over whether or not gay couples should be able to adopt. I have always said that I am amazed by the passion that the gay community has about marriage and family. I am not saying its non-existent, but it's sometimes hard to find that same kind of passion in straight couples these days. If a homosexual couple is stable they should be able to adopt. I could actually go on and on about this topic, though, given the circumstances, I'll end it here and perhaps continue in the comments section.

Submitted by Damian Trudell, Visit his blog - "My Thoughts"

#2 In The Words of a T-Shirt

Who can adopt? Any person or couple who can provide a stable, loving home to children in need. This includes gay couples, single parents, and older people. In the words of a t-shirt I saw recently, "Two dads are better than none." Anyone willing to give a home to a child in need deserves a medal, not a hard time.

Submitted by Amanda Rogers, Esq. Visit her blog - Seven Eighty One.

#3 More Questions

This week’s topic gave me more questions than answers:

Why do I have a problem with uber-celebrities adopting children from foreign countries?
Why do I think homosexuals will raise homosexual children?
How do you become capable of deciding, “Who can adopt?”
Are children actually “better off” with adoptive parents – or would they have been better with their natural parents, regardless of the circumstances…?
Do I think I am capable of adopting children? And, would I be considered capable of adopting children?
Should there be limits on the number of children a family (or person) can adopt?
Does providing financial compensation for providers of foster-care discourage families from adopting (because there is no $$ in it…)?

All in all, I think I am capable of adopting – but I don’t want to… Even more, I don’t think there is anyone truly capable of determining who can.

Submitted by Jason L. Buchanan. Visit his Facebook Profile.

#4 An Act of Love

Adoption is an act of love. No matter what kind of adoption is performed. It is an act that willfully represents the unselfish act of love and kindness that is bestowed upon one another or even for any other living, breathing, object.

If the world would only open their eyes and hearts to the many different needs in society besides their own, we would undoubtedly realize the need to adopt those less fortunate or those looking for a loving home that will adequately provide a loving roof over their head, or a nurturing environment to help with their development.

Who should adopt? This question leaves open many difficult answers from different sects or groups. Today’s society has the notion that homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt children into their homes because of the lifestyles and values that the particular environment may present upon the child. Although, I partially agree with this thought, I do again have to go back to the main essential needs of the child or children being adopted by such groups or any groups. If there is an abundant amount of love, respect, discipline, adequate care and concern in the homes of people privileged to adopt, then, I would not have a problem allowing such groups or anybody extending their arms to receive or adopt a child that is homeless, needing these qualities. Many would disagree with homosexuals adopting, especially the religious groups who would point it back to the bible. The fact of the matter is this, if many heterosexuals disagree with homosexuals adopting, then more heterosexuals should be at the fore front of the issue and adopt more children into their home and provide the perfect environment to raise up and adopt children without a loving, nurturing home. It is simply just an unselfish act of love being extended to those less fortunate.

Submitted by Kristine Ogbolu.

#5 Anyone

Anyone who has love to give. Yep, I said anyone. That of course does not include pedophiles but other than that ... Anyone. I don't care if you are married, straight or gay. Why should we decide who is "worthy" of being a parent? If you have love in your heart to share and the means to take care of that child then I'm not stopping you. People who have far less to give a child are already parents.

Submitted by Tabitha Frohardt-Johnson. Visit her blog, TFJ Photography {Beautifully You}.

#6 No One

Parents just screw kids up - to some degree. All parents, all kids. Even those with the best intentions. Why should anyone be able to screw kids up that aren't really theirs? They shouldn't. But, I guess the alternative is for countless kids wandering around homeless. No one wants that, so we allow people to adopt - when that is really not preferred.

Submitted by Anonymous.