Love and Behavior

   This week the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that states could not stop same sex couples from marrying.  This set off a reaction from all kinds of sides.  Of course there was the expected reactions from conservative Christians and liberal secularists.  As usual, they did not see eye to eye on this matter.  There have also been reactions liberal Christians, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, conservative Jews, liberal Jews, conservative Muslims, liberal Muslims and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on.

  So I sit here and I wonder how I should react to same-sex marriage as a Christian.  I do not consider myself conservative or liberal when it comes to my faith.  There are plenty of examples of Jesus being very conservative and of Him being very liberal.  That tells me that He does not fall into either camp and that neither camp has a lock on practicing His commands at all times.  Yet they both get it right at times.  Politically, I am closely aligned to the libertarian school of thought.  So needless to say, I am all over the board with this ruling.

  Let's get the political side out of the way first.  I have heard people say that the Court was legislating from the bench.  That they had made a new law.  I could be wrong but it seems to me that they struck down parts of state laws.  I would think that there is less law now.  The other argument that I hear is that they took away the democratic process from the people.  A couple of things concerning that note.  One, I have heard conservatives for years to rightly point out that we are not a democracy.  The other is that if we allowed the people to always choose how the government governed then we would be susceptible to tyranny of the majority.

  I would also encourage people to read the transcripts from the oral arguments.  Those who were representing the states (traditional marriage) made arguments that marriage was about raising children.  Those representing the plaintiffs (same-sex marriage) made arguments that one had the right to choose whom they married.  That gay people were a distinct group of people and had 14th Amendment rights.  I am no constitutional scholar, so I cannot for sure say if that argument is correct or not.  I do know that from reading it, those representing the states had problems defending their position from a legal standpoint.  I do know this, had the states won this case, there may have been precedent for a state to exclude people from marrying if they could not or had no intention of having children one day.

  But to the part that is more important to me, how should I act as a Christian when it comes to this subject?  Let me first say that many Christians would say that I should not be married.  I am divorced and remarried.  And I promise you that I did not come to the decision to remarry lightly.  Before my divorce, I was arrogant.  I knew that I did not need anyone else.  I knew that I could take on life alone.  After going through a divorce, I learned that I was weak.  I was broken.  When I began thinking about getting married again, I researched the subject.  I did not just feel that it was OK to marry again.  I read arguments for and against it.  I came to a spot where I had good reason to believe that it was OK to marry again.  I say all of that to say this.  Recently, I have read and read on same-sex relationships and what the Bible says.  One could only guess that I have found good solid arguments for both sides of the issue.  And people from both sides have a deep faith and seem to love Christ just as much as the other side. I have to say that I still believe that homosexuality is a sin.  Yet at the same time, I do not have those feelings.  I have never walked in those shoes.  I also have to concede that I could be wrong and that the other side could be right.

  While so many are worried about what the government says about marriage, I am much more bothered by our putting our nation ahead of our Savior. I have also noticed that as Christians in America, we have attached our faith too much to our nation. I hear people say, "I wish it was like the old days." "America is turning from God."  I would like for someone to tell me which old days they would like to go back to in America.  Slavery is legal time? Women have no right to vote time?  Segregation time?  When was America turn towards God? When beating slaves was OK?  When gaining more and more possessions was OK?  When starting wars without just cause was OK?  We are the point where the Confederate battle flag is raised and put on social media just to spit in the face of our fellow brothers and sisters.  Just to show that nobody is going to tell me what I can or cannot do.

  Here is how I am going to react to this subject and to all others in my life.  I am going to love people.  I don't mean that I am going to have this mushy feeling.  That is not Biblical love.  You see, in 1 Corinthians, we are told that three things remain.  Those are faith, hope and love.  The greatest of these is love.  I mean, I read that and I think how it is taught that faith is so important.  I agree that it is very important.  Yet, the thing that is greater is love.  Earlier in that chapter, we are taught what love is and is not.  For one, it is not a record keeper.  That tells me that love is not constantly telling someone where I believe they are messing up in life.  I do believe that we have an obligation to point out to each other when we are sinning but that is different than yelling and protesting.  Love also does not envy or boast.  I think this is one area where the church has failed so much when it comes to the gay community.  We have said that, "well, I have sin in my life but it is not so bad as to be homosexual sin."  Love is not easily angered yet how often do we as Christians jump right to anger when this subject is brought up.  Look at posts from the last couple of days.

  I am going to love.  I am going to put myself behind others.  Even when I do not agree with them. They are going to answer one day for their lives and I will answer for mine.  The great thing will be that if we are both in Christ then we will both experience grace like never felt before.  I am not going to let society sway the way that I love no matter what.
  

Fear and Entitlement: The Real American Values

What is wrong with America? You can ask that question to one million people and get two million answers. Here is my answer, fear and selfishness. 

We once had a president whose name I won't say in fear of being called a communist. He said that the only thing we need to be afraid of is fear itself. If you want to put a name with his words, we will call him FDR. That president took over a country that was on the cusps of two real crises. One was the Great Depression, which we were already in the early stages. The other was World War II while it had not began yet, the world was setting itself up for it. Do I agree with FDR's policies? Hardly, his interferences in the economy gave the nation problems that to this day keep getting kicked down the road. Later, he would lead a nation that would intern some of it's own citizens. Coincidently it would do this out of fear. We should never expect perfection just honest effort. However, our fear today is being stoked by politicians. FDR did not stoke fear. In fact, he stayed positive. He told the nation that the bad economic times would pass. He told the nation that we would defeat Japan and Germany. Let's see what our nation does today. Ebola breaks out, we want to ban flights from other parts of the world without considering the unintended consequences. A terror group attacks us, we invade two countries (one which was housing the terrorists, the other not so much). Those invasions right or wrong militarily, both violated our Constitution. We did not mind allowing one man to decide when, where and with whom we should go to war. We also gave away our liberties because we feared another attack and believed the government would protect us. We also fear letting others have religious liberties. Just look at stories about France prohibiting certain apparel of Muslim women, American comments support the French law. Some cities have tried to ban Mosques. American fears are used to trample the rights of others. Of course minorities are told to fear certain political parties. Just look at stories about literature that the Democrat party is sending out in Georgia. We fear a person crossing an imaginary line to better his family's life. We want the government to ask him questions that we would never allow the government to ask us. Oh wait, unless there is another terrorist attack. I can go on and on about our fears. The only thing it seems we do not fear is fear itself. In fact, we embrace the fear.  

We once had a president with the initials JFK.  He once encouraged Americans to do for others and their country. He said not to go around with a hand out if that hand was able. What is the motto of modern day America? I think it is somewhere along the lines of get yours and screw everyone else. We cheat each other. We cheat the system. We cheat our children. We think only of ourselves. We pay our taxes and expect the government to take care of our brothers and sisters. We do not parent our kids because we need to go out to the club. We constantly ask, "what's in it for me?" If we get offended, we ask everyone else to change instead of making a conscience choice to either avoid that situation or choose not to be offended. We want society to revolve around us.

We live in fear and with a sense of entitlement. Our politicians just keep those two pots stirred. We need a leader that will stand up and say that we will not fear, we will help our fellow man no matter how much different he is from me. 

Interfere to Fix Previous Interference

When I was a youngster, I watched Star Trek: The Next Generation (big surprise if you know me). In the Star Trekverse, the Federation has what is called the Prime Directive.  It is a key document that holds Starfleet and the Federation back from interfering in the natural development of other civilizations. On a side note, captains of Enterprises seem to have problems adhering to it but yet it is still a core value. 

While it is idealist and sometimes it would not allow someone to stop an atrocity or protect people from disasters, it would be good for the United States along with most developed states to adopt a similar policy. In 2014, we are seeing the results of many years of interference in the Middle East. Not that that is the only place in which we see interference, it however is a great example of what can go wrong when states interfere with other civilizations. 

So, primarily the West has shaped the Middle East of today. They have drawn up borders that have divided some nations and mixed them with other nations. This has led to oppressive regimes. This has also given Western states (and others) a reason to go to war in the region. It also has led to more interference in the form of equipping and training groups to oppose those who invade and that we do not like (USSR v Afghanistan). It also gives Western governments a reason to train and equip groups to fight oppressive regimes that we do not like (Assad v The Other Bad Guys Who Might be Good). 

So out of all of that, we get a new group of bad guys named ISIS aka ISIL. These guys like to behead folks and keep traffic flowing smoothly in the streets of cities they capture. They have taken control of places in Syria and Iraq. What is the solution presented by the Obama administration? Bomb them and train groups to fight them. I'm sure this will workout great.

Time to Get Back to Being Americans

Today is the thirteenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on America. Thirteen years and one day ago we were a totally different nation. We did not live in fear of attacks from Islamic radicals. We had been attacked once in the 90s on our own soil. Not so coincidently, it was the World Trade Center that had been bombed that time. Of course we had experienced attacks by fellow citizens who looked like us (well the white ones of us). Timothy McVeigh was the face of the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City which occurred in the 90s as well. While both of these attacks grabbed the attention of the American public, they were small beans compared to the 9/11 attacks. Of course everyone knows that two commercial jets were flown into both World Trade Center towers, one flown into the side of the Pentagon and one was downed in a Pennsylvania field after the passengers showed courage like no others and took the plane back from the hijackers. 

I was not in a spot to watch the coverage that day but I have watched much of it in the last thirteen years. One thing that always sticks out in my mind (besides the fact that CNN reporters were curious if two planes could accidentally slam into the side of two buildings that sat next to one another) was Tom Brokaw saying that we were about to have to give up some rights for security. As I think more and more about that statement as the years pass, the more I am sadden at that statement. It was a statement that was half true. We have given up rights but are we safer? The other thing that has sadden me is that we gave into fear. Since those attacks, we have gone on a war spree. We have lost our values and have lost what made us exceptional. The terrorists did score a victory that day and it seems that they continue to reap the benefits even today.   

Shortly after the attacks, Congress passed the Patriot Act and other laws that would vastly expand the power of the federal government and concentrate that power in the executive branch. We now have a government that intrudes into our lives like never before via technology. Congress gave the president the power to go after whoever he saw fit with very little or if any restraints. We began imprison people indefinitely and kill others to include citizens without due process. We began to accept torture as acceptable. We would invade countries based on the decisions of one person. Not that that the practice of presidential wars were new but now they seemed to be on steroids. If the president thought a nation was a threat to our secruity then our miltary would invade without any declaration of war from Congress. We would invade two sovereign nations in the name of national security. One would be in response to the 9/11 attacks. The next would be to prevent the next 9/11. We also would spread democracy through military action. These wars may or may not have been needed. That is not the point. Out of fear, we allowed them and without any kind of accountability from the ones who made the decision to start them. The other problem with presidential wars is that we go in and get out based on one person's whims and those of their successors. We are starting to see this causes us to seem bipolar in our foreign policy. We lose credibility with the world and gives the bad guys some great PR to use for recruiting. 

There is a popular talking head out there that always wants us to go back to 9/12/01. He thinks we were more kind and caring on that day. I would agree that in some ways we were more kind and caring to some people on that day. To other people, we demonized them and pre-judged them based on race and religion. Heck, sometimes they weren't even the race or religion that we thought they were. We lived in fear and were willing to bow to the government and give them all of our rights. We were ready to go around the world and make countries pay even if they had nothing to do with the attacks. I do not want to go back to 9/12/01. I want us to take a stand and no longer live in fear. We do not give away our rights. We love our neighbors and treat them as Americans even if they look like or have a similar name to someone who attacked us. They attacked our neighbors also. We need to hold Congress accountable and not let them pass off their responsibility of declaring wars to the president. What we really need to do is to get back to American values. We need to love peace, our neighbor and the individual. 

MASH Theme Song is not True

This week one of the great comedians and actors took his own life. Just like everything else in today's society, it has set off a social media firestorm. Most people have talked about their sadness over the tragedy while others have interjected their opinion on suicide. That is not what I am trying to do with this post. I know very little about the subject. It has never effected me. I have not educated myself enough on the subject to run out and say that the act of suicide is selfish. Here is what I do know about mental health and suicide.

1. There are enough people with mental illness that most of us probably know or even respect someone with mental illness. I have seen stats that 1 in 5 have some form of mental illness.

2. Those with mental illnesses probably never did anything to deserve the illness. 

3. Most people with mental illnesses want to get better.

4. Those who take their own life do not want to die, they just see their life as hopeless. I always think about 9/11 and those people on the floors above the crash sight. They saw a fire behind them. They knew the jump from so high up was a better option than burning alive. Those who take their own life are in a situation in which they see a metaphoric fire all around them. It is burning them. They see the option of suicide as the lesser of two evils. As a person who is currently mentally healthy, I can look and see that the circumstances in my life are not so terrible that I need to jump. However, my mental health is not unstable. I can see things clearly. 

5. I cannot judge those who have taken their own life. 

This is what I encourage others out there to do. Before you post something on Facebook or Twitter about suicide, mental health or any subject for that matter; consider that you may be friends with or have followers who have strong opinions on the subject. There is a good chance that you may know someone who has attempted suicide, thought about suicide or known someone who has committed suicide.

If you are thinking about suicide, call someone you know, call 911 or go to this website.

https://m.facebook.com/800273TALK?refsrc=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.google.com%252F&_rdr

Need a Hobby?

Today the Supreme court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby when it comes to the Affordable Care Act.  Hobby Lobby management did not want to provide healthcare coverage that provided the morning after pill and IUD.  Hobby Lobby cited religious reasons as to why they do not want to provide coverage that would pay for these methods of birth control.  From everything that I have read and heard about the IUD and the morning after pill, I would argue with Hobby Lobby that these are immoral or unethical.  This does not mean that the government has the power to force them provide coverage that includes these methods of birth control.

Many on the left are upset because they feel that women have a right to all forms of birth control and employers are responsible to provide women with a way to obtain them. This would mean that the employer may have to check their religious beliefs at the door. This to me seems to violate the first amendment.

There are those out there that truly see contraceptives as a sin. They believe that people should not interfere with this part of nature. They would have moral issues with being involved in any part of the process. This would truly violate their conscience. 

The left would also say that this is a corporation and has no right to freedom of religion. While I do not agree with Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, it does set the precedent that corporations have 14th Amendment protections. Couple that with incorporation and this means that corporations have 1st Amendment rights. Now, I agree with the left that this is crazy especially since people in the corporations commit fraud and rarely face indvidual consequences. Even if one rejects SCC v SPR, then one must concede that corporations are made up of people and those people cannot be forced to violate their conscience. 

Some of my liberal friends argue that this opens Pandora's Box and now companies will be able to discriminate based on religion. If a white does not want to hire an African-American or a Christian does not want to serve a Muslim then they will not have to because of this ruling. This argument sounds a lot like the "if gays can marry then a dad and daughter can marry

or a woman and a horse" argument. We still use common sense with laws. It is interesting to me that both sides use the same templates for their arguments. 

Our nation has chosen certain values to follow. One of them is to protect te freedom of religion. This must be protected at all costs. Just as freedom of speech and due process should be protected at all costs along with our other constitutional rights. Your boss not assisting you in purchasing birth control does not prevent you from going out and getting it yourself but the government forcing your boss to violate their conscience does violate their first amendment rights.

Good Corporations

Yesterday, I was catching up on The Daily Show.  One of the episodes had an interview with Howard Schultz, the founder of Starbucks.  He was on the show promoting their new program that will send employees to college for free.  He talked about how he was concerned about the rising cost of college and the debt it was creating for young people today.  He mentioned that we cannot wait on the government to fix the situation and that profits should not be the only goal of a corporation.  That got me thinking about the Chick-Fil-A.  This too is a company that does not seek profits as the end all be all. 

It is funny that these two corporations both have goals other than profits and have a sense of social responsibility.  Now, I am not saying these two corporations have all the same values because they do not.  However, both corporations have created a very positive environment in their stores.  This is a result of money not being the determining factor in all decisions. 

I am a huge fan of both places.  I have always been impressed with Chick-Fil-A's employees asking how they can serve you.  It might not seem like much but that is a very humbling statement and these days, humility is in short supply.  At Starbucks, the employees really do seem to take pride in their work and enjoy the place.  Pride in one's craft and enjoying work is also in very short supply these days. 

What is my point?  It is this, finding a purpose greater than money in life will lead to even better things.  If more corporations would find ways to help their employees and foster better environments then the world will be a better place.  Yes, I know that sounds like a statement from a third grader but it is so very true.  If everyone went into work, knowing that on some level the company took some interest in their well-being then maybe we would not have fast food employees out protesting to make $15/hour and CEO's would not crash companies into the ground by making greedy decisions just to walkout with a multi-million dollar severance package while the investors lose their life savings.  It starts with the leadership.  Schultz said in this interview that Starbucks is not just a coffee business but a people business.  If you go onto the Chick-Fil-A website, you would see they find ways to keep the environment clean.  They also offer scholarships to employees and help to send disadvantaged youth to college. 

These are not the only companies out helping others.  I do find it interesting that the founders of these companies are opposites politically.  Those on the right would demonize Starbucks for having a founder that supports Obamacare.  Those on the left would demonize Chick-Fil-A for having a founder that speaks out against gay marriage.  How about instead of painting people with the brush of politics (colors would be Fox News Red and MSNBC Blue), we start looking at how these people are leading the way in helping their fellow man?