Nastiest Campaign Season Ever? Nope

At least one election year had this year beat... 210 years ago.

Burning Korans and Admitting Danger

I think that a very good point has been made by Abraham Piper concerning the proposed Koran burning taking place this upcoming weekend.

Here's the argument in a nutshell: if Islam is a religion of peace like so many of our leaders are claiming, then why are we scared of the potential fallout if a few Korans get burned?

Photo courtesy of www.csmonitor.com

Don't get me wrong; I think this guy in Florida is a crazy who is ready to do something really stupid. But the level of uncertainty regarding the plausibility of a violent Islamic reaction that is being communicated by our leaders says to me that they are not ready to let their Islam-is-a-religion-of-peace mentality govern their true actions or concerns.

Piper sums up the whole deal nicely by writing,

How can we condemn Jones’s actions without also condemning the religion that makes his actions so dangerous? Sure, Jones is not being kind or prudent–He’s an absolute fool.–but the fact that he is causing legitimate worry about the safety of our soldiers, missionaries, expatriates, etc., is not his fault. It’s Islam’s.

Or…

Islam is a religion of peace and Obama, along with America at large, is unfairly concerned. In that case, there’s nothing to worry about.

One final thought.

President Obama tweeted earlier today,

Burning a Quran is contrary to our values—this country was built on the notions of religious freedom and tolerance.

Indeed, religious freedom is an intricate part of the foundation of our country; but isn't the President's tweet working against him on some level? Our values include freedom, yes, and toleration, yes.

But does President Obama hold Islam to the same standard? No. Not by my estimation. He says that Islam is a religion of peace (which I assume connotes both a level of freedom and a level of tolerance) but is concerned with the reaction of Islam when a whack-job in Florida burns a Koran. If there is a violent outbreak, then is it not true that Islam, on some level, is intolerant? The answer must be yes.

I think that it is silly to call Islam a religion of peace. I refuse to paint the religion with a broad brush though. I think that there are many peaceful Muslims. But is Islam a religion of peace? This country's leadership has answered that question for us with their true concerns.

Stark County: No Apologies for Tone Here

Economics Lesson

Do you know who this guy is?

How about this guy?






Watch this:

Now you know.

Christians and the Oil Spill

No one disagrees that the events taking place in the Gulf of Mexico are horrible. And yet the peripheral issues are complex.

Therefore, as Christians, we have to ask ourselves questions about our role in the environment and consult the Bible for answers. Dr. Russell Moore began to explore some of the many questions on NPR's Weekend Edition this past Sunday:

Considering these things, I have to ask: why are Evangelicals are so reactionary? Does it take a catastrophe of eco-system threatening proportions to spark our concern about the environment? Shouldn't biblical commands concerning stewardship be enough?

Still, some people argue that environmental issues are a page out of the liberal agenda. Dr. Moore disagrees. In a recent blog post, he writes, "Some conservatives, and some conservative evangelicals, act as though 'environmentalism' is by definition 'liberal' or even just downright silly. Witness a lot of the evangelical rhetoric across social media on Earth Day a while back: mostly Al Gore jokes and wisecracks about cutting down trees or eating endangered species as a means of celebration.... There’s nothing conservative though, and nothing 'evangelical,' about dismissing the conservation of the natural environment. And the accelerating Gulf crisis reminds us something of what’s at stake."

Let's examine what Scripture says about our role in environmental issues and begin taking necessary action.

Uganda, Rick Warren, and the Media

Rick Warren got himself in hot water with the secular media by not speaking out immediately against Ugandan anti-gay laws. Foreign Policy did a short web piece titled "Rick Warren finally speaks out against Ugandan anti-gay law." They called the incident a hit on his credibility.

Rick Warren posted this video and a brief refutation of the rumors surrounding this topic.

The details aside, I only have one question. How did Rick Warren even get himself in this situation where the media is on his tail so often?

I understand that he is a big spokesperson for the fight against HIV/AIDS in Africa and it is his "role to speak out on moral issues" and not his "role to interfere with the politics of other nations." But the media doesn't make that distinction. Especially when you host political debates in your church and pray at presidential inaugurations. I know he said "other" nations, but getting involved in politics is getting involved in politics; in a global world, Uganda's problems become Rick Warren's problems.

The media always misconstrues things; we can all agree on that. I think Rick Warren's conclusions concerning the anti-gay laws in Uganda are correct (although I think some of his reasoning is faulty). It's the quickness of the media to get on Rick Warren that concerns me. I fear he brought at least a little of it on himself.

Foreign Policy claimed this incident hurt Rick Warren's credibility. The fact that Rick Warren had credibility with Foreign Policy to begin with is the root of the problem.

Arlen Specter: Shameless Self-Promoter

Blogging politics isn't something I've done in a while, but this is too good to pass up.

For those of you who haven't heard, Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter did the flippity-flop from the Republican party to the Democratic party this past week. Why? The answer is simple. He is a shameless self-promoter.

Picture courtesy of the LA Times

In 2004, Specter was reelected to his Senate seat--which he has held since 1991--despite opposition within his own party. His republican challenger, Pat Toomey, painted Specter as a lefty and almost upset Specter in the primary.

Now, with the 2010 election in his sights, Toomey has aimed at the Specter-held Senate seat and many have claimed that he has the ability to take the seventy-nine-year-old in the primary.

Specter has foreseen his beloved Senate seat slipping from his grasp. In 2007-08 he made a bid to shore up his grip by attempting to soothe the pain of a hometown Philadelphia Eagles Super-Bowl XLIII loss to the hated New England Patriots in 2005. He called for a congressional investigation of the destruction of the infamous "Spygate" tapes (illegal video footage the Patriots had taken of other teams game-preparation) by the NFL. Specter wrote to the NFL commissioner, Roger Goodell, asking him to address the tape's destruction hoping to scrounge up some dirt on the Eagles Super-Bowl loss. Goodell shrugged Specter off by saying, "they confirmed what I already knew about the issue." Specter pursued it a little further, but when no one was paying attention, let it fizzle out.

Needless to say, his antics did not win him any support with the Pennsylvania voters. And neither did his March 18, 2008 statement, "To eliminate any doubt, I am a Republican, and I am running for reelection in 2010 as a Republican on the Republican ticket." But Toomey's threat only grew. Specter needed to propel himself forward with something big. Something shameless. Something self-promoting.

So he flopped.

Yesterday Specter declared,

"As the Republican Party has moved farther and farther to the right, I have found myself increasingly at odds with the Republican philosophy and more in line with the philosophy of the Democratic Party."

Riveting.

Don't think for a moment that Specter doesn't understand the gravity of the situation. By switching parties Specter puts Senate democrats at fifty-seven seats. And if Al Franken overtakes Norm Coleman in the never-ending Minnesota recount--which he is predicted to do--democrats will have achieved fifty-eight seats giving them a close to filibuster-proof Senate. Add in the two independent seats, which rarely vote in line with the GOP, and you have the magical number sixty.

With this in mind Specter said, "I will not be an automatic 60th vote."

Yeah. Thank you, Senator Obvious. Specter wants to be the straw that preserves or breaks the camel's back. He wants the publicity and the glory. He wants reelection in 2010 which he was not going to have as a Republican with a 52% Pennsylvania disapproval rating and a significant poll deficit (Toomey: 41%; Specter: 27%).

Changing parties could place him in the limelight. It could give him new life in the heart's of Pennsylvania voters. It could be his ticket to another six-year stint in Washington D.C.

Arlen Specter is a shameless self-promoter.

A Thought On Bishop Robinson's Prayer

At the opening inaugural event on Sunday, Bishop Robinson prayed,

"Bless us with patience – and the knowledge that none of what ails us will be 'fixed' anytime soon, and the understanding that our new president is a human being, not a messiah."

Robinson then went on to spell out that his messiah consists of "freedom from mere tolerance" and a "a genuine respect and warm embrace of our differences..."

Bishop Robinson doesn't think that Barack Obama will save us, but he does think that "anger at discrimination...against refugees and immigrants, women, people of color, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people" and a "warm embrace of our differences" will.

Obama's Choice

With the day close at hand, I have for you three noteworthy items concerning the appointment of Bishop Gene Robinson by Barack Obama to pray at the inauguration ceremony.

1. "How Barack Obama Will Make Christ a Minister of Condemnation" by John Piper
   
2. "The Idol of Our Many Understandings--Bishop Robinson at Prayer" by Albert Mohler
   
3. "This Honestly Upsets Me" by Josh in response to Mohler's article.

With these in mind, now is the time for the Christian to ask, "By what means am I justified?" The answer is not tolerance, acceptance, or understanding. The answer is Jesus Christ.

In light of that answer, it is also imperative that the Christian ask, "What am I a minister of?" The answer is reconciliation. And, "How is reconciliation possible?" Through the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

-2 Corinthians 5:17-21

Failure to acknowledge this truth is the true folly of Bishop Gene Robinson and, unfortunatley on this day before the eve of the inauguration, appears to be the folly of our President-Elect as well.

Obama and a Three-Legged Dog

Let's hope this photo is not a manifestation of the stability of the impending Obama administration.

Read more about the photo at Animals & Politics.

The Importance of Scripture As Shown by President-Elect Obama

In a 2004 interview with Cathleen Falsani, now President Elect, Barack Obama, was asked who Jesus was to him. Here is how he responded:

Jesus is an historical figure for me, and he's also a bridge between God and man, in the Christian faith, and one that I think is powerful precisely because he serves as that means of us reaching something higher.

And he's also a wonderful teacher. I think it's important for all of us, of whatever faith, to have teachers in the flesh and also teachers in history.

A couple of other interesting quotes were generated in the interview.

I'm rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people. That there are values that transcend race or culture, that move us forward, and there's an obligation for all of us individually as well as collectively to take responsibility to make those values lived.

And:

There's the belief, certainly in some quarters, that people haven't embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior that they're going to hell.

I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell.

I can't imagine that my God would allow some little Hindu kid in India who never interacts with the Christian faith to somehow burn for all eternity.

That's just not part of my religious makeup.

When asked about the consequences of sin in his own life, Obama answered:

[I]f I'm true to myself and my faith that that is its own reward, when I'm not true to it, it's its own punishment.

The interview is interesting to me not because of his beliefs; they would seem to be in step with a lot of Christians in the United States. It is the reason why he thinks this way that fascinates me. When asked if he has read the Bible, he answered: "Absolutely. I read it not as regularly as I would like. These days I don't have much time for reading or reflection, period."

Christians should take heed of that. An absence of Scripture leads to a world-view shaped and molded by culture, as is the case here with President-Elect Obama. The Word of God needs to be the lens through which we view all things. Senate and Presidential campaigns are not more important than a Biblical world-view for Christians.

California Propositions

California had some interesting propositions on their ballot this election season. Prop 2 was concerned with the treatment of farm animals. Prop 4 required a waiting period and parental notification prior to the termination of the pregnancy of a minor. Prop 8 limited marriage to a man and a woman.

Prop 2 passed. Congratulations farm animals. You can turn around in your cage.

Prop 8 passed. Partially because religious groups poured millions of dollars into making sure that it did, including many Christian groups like this one:

This has been hailed as a great victory by the religious community. Opponents of Prop 8 have shown their outrage. With Prop 2 in mind, I read a political cartoon that showed an animal in a large cage and then two gay men in smaller cages. The caption read "what California will do with all the unused cages."

But Prop 4 failed. $35.8 million was poured into ensuring a "yes" vote on Prop 8. $2.6 million was scraped in for a "yes" vote on Prop 4.

While I am an advocate for traditional, biblical marriage, I will not be excited about a Prop 8 success considering a Prop 4 failure.

Resident Thorns poet and frequent dinner guest, Jordan, explains exactly why:

Prop 2 creates a new state statute that prohibits the confinement of farm animals in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs.

Prop 4 would prohibit abortion for unemancipated minors until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parent, legal guardian or, if parental abuse has been reported, an alternative adult family member.

Prop 2 passed and prop 4 failed. Go figure.

I understand that there are details to each proposition that I'm overlooking. But consider with me the principle. Compassion for animals is championed while technicalities are questioned over the murdering of humans. Has anyone realized that aborted children are killed before even getting a chance to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs?

Or are we to count limbs fully extended when they go limp?

This is incredible. It's horrific, I know, and I can't stand it anymore.

Gay marriage never killed anyone. The failure of Prop 4 will.

Election Day, One Final Consideration

I have cast my ballot and made my decisions; however, I can't ignore one of the comments left on my last post.

The comment referred to an argument against the Republican party and their views on abortion. The cited article, from the Fargo Forum, entitled "Republicans Pro-birth, Not Pro-life," makes the case that, while the Republican party is viciously pro-life, once birth happens life is very much taken for granted. The author puts it this way:

Looking at the abortion issue through the actions of Republican lawmakers, one must change the term “pro-life” to “pro-birth.” They want to make sure a fetus makes it from the womb to the delivery room, but beyond that, they generally walk away.

If you believe life begins at conception, you must believe it does not cease at birth. Nor does a child cease to exist at age 3, 10 or 17. All too frequently, a child born into poverty – an almost certain circumstance for single mothers – is ignored, vilified, even despised by those who sought that baby’s full-term birth.

Indeed this is an issue. Personally I do not necessarily feel that it is the role of the government to make sure life is always cherished, but I do think it is a direct result of a failure within conservative Christianity, which--as much as I hate to admit it--is represented imperfectly by the Republican party.

There is a theological argument that needs to be explored here. Jesus says a lot about the rich and the poor. Jesus also did not look to government to fix that problem. As Christians we need to be following that example and acting on behalf of the unborn and on the behalf of the poverty stricken.

While I do not entirely agree that this is the reason we should not vote in favor of the Republican party, I do think the argument could be used to support a third party vote.

My final thought is that abortion, unfortunate as it is, has become a government issue. It must be fought on a legislative or judicial level; a level on which our individual vote matters. Poverty needs to be fought on a community level, with our churches leading the way; a level on which our individual action matters. That thought is why I would not let this particular argument, valid as it is, sway my vote.

Why I Would Not Vote Third Party

It is the night before the election and I still have not entirely decided which way I will cast my vote in the morning. I am still considering third party, but there is a looming issue that is keeping me from diving head first into that plan.

Abortion.

I hate the idea that I may be voting for a single issue; however, I hate murder all the more. For this point I simply turn to Randy Alcorn's blog Eternal Perspectives. Here is a snippet from his post "Why I'm Voting for 98% Pro-life John McCain rather than 100% Pro-legal-abortion Barack Obama."

One of the commenters on my last blog said, “God didn't call us to win. He called us to do what is right.” Well, to me this has never been about us winning. I don’t even know who us is. To me, it’s certainly not about Republicans winning, or John McCain winning. My concern is whether unborn babies will be protected. Sure, I want to be able to sleep at night because I did the right thing. But I also want millions of babies to sleep (or cry) at night, because my vote actually helped them live. That, I believe, is the right thing for me to do—not to vote for an ideal unelectable candidate, but to do what I can to help children live even if I have to vote for a flawed candidate to do so.

I don't see casting a vote on the level of unqualified absolute endorsement… All of us become pragmatic (choosing one imperfect candidate over a more imperfect one) at some point or we never vote at all, which some of my prolife friends never do. I give them consistency, but I wonder if they ever choose a less than perfect pastor, insurance program, or loaf of bread.

In my opinion, that is a good reason to forgo my third party argument. Maybe I will...

Consider Voting Third Party

There are several reasons why I am considering voting third party. People have told me not to waste my vote, but I feel like a third party vote might be a good choice for me.

First I will address the wasted vote argument.

• In my opinion, a conscience vote is not a wasted vote. When I have brought up the fact that I am considering voting third party, most people tell me not to waste my vote. How am I wasting my vote if I am casting it for the person who I feel is most in step with my ideals? If anything I feel that I am actually making my vote count.
• In the primaries I voted for Mike Huckabee. I voted my conscience. I felt that he would be the best candidate for the Republican Party, which is the party within which I typically vote. North Dakota went to Mitt Romney. The Republican endorsement went to John McCain. Did I waste my vote? I don't think so.
• Since a third party candidate is such a long shot, it is said that I would be better suited simply to vote along party lines and make sure that the other party doesn't assume office. But, as this video points out, "The greatest power the people have is their vote and in supporting the lesser of two evils each election voters ensure eternal evil." To me, both of the main party candidates represent incorrect policy. Why would I not vote for the policy that I agree with?

• Voting third party is ideal; however, voting in this country was not conceived by realists, but by idealists. A realistic vote is a safe vote; an idealistic vote is not willing to settle for "good enough" or the "lesser of two evils."

So why do I think that voting third party would be a good choice for me?

• I am not a proponent of big government. Government is not the answer for most of the issues that we face in this country. The main party candidates do not understand this. Small government has been a staple of the Republican Party for a long, long time. When did the party lose that concept? John McCain definitely does not seem to want to reduce government. For example, his idea of fixing a mortgage crisis is having the government buy up mortgages. Barack Obama seemed to be heading the right direction when he claimed that he supported the expansion of faith-based organizations as a means to fight poverty. But now it would seem that his "spread the wealth around" concept has overtaken that idea. Those are both big government solutions. Voting third party would not promote big government.
  
• The Constitution is a good document. In fact it is the document. Why have the main parties abandoned it? They don't seem to care what it says or why it's important. Voting third party would ensure that the document written as guidelines for this country would at least be attempted to be adhered to.
• Voting third party would allow me to choose more issues that I agree with: abortion, government spending, taxation, gun control, health care, immigration, and the list goes on. Why would I be willing to settle for "close enough" with a main party candidate when I can say "right on" with a third party candidate?
• Third party candidates are serious about their platform. A flippant platform waivers to get votes. A serious platform is unwavering despite how many votes it will receive. That's conviction I can respect.

So, which third party candidate would I vote for? After weighing the options I would cast myvote for Chuck Baldwin. Of course I have not entirely made up my mind yet even if I am going to vote third party, but if I do, it will be Baldwin. I agree with him on almost everything except foreign policy which I only partially disagree with him on. He was endorsed by Ron Paul, who, if it weren't for Mike Huckabee, I probably would have voted for in the primaries.

Like I said, I don't know what I am going to do yet. But I am considering voting third party. And I think that third party candidates deserve more consideration.

The Sarah Palin Distraction

Everyone is throwing in their two cents on Sarah Palin and I am beginning to feel left out. So I will join the I'm-gonna-throw-my-two-cents-in-on-Sarah-Palin party.

Sarah Palin has been a success as a vice-presidential pick. Why? Because she has distracted the media from Barack Obama. I think that's why John McCain picked her. And it was brilliant.

It doesn't matter if you think that Sarah Palin is a good VP choice or a horrible one, she has distracted the "Great Eye" of the media like Aragorn marching on the gates of Mordor while John McCain tries to slip into Mt. Doom/The Oval Office unnoticed. 

Here is some media to show how this is happening:

• The Consequences of Rejecting Hillary 
• The Anger Factor
• Sarah Palin Defends Experience...
• Misery Loves Democrats
• Libertarians Could Do Worse Than Palin
• Lipstick on a Wing Nut

Palin is front and center of the New York Times home page.

And observe the "Latest News" section for September 11 on CNN.com. Note occurances of "Palin" versus occurances of "Obama" or "Biden."

Some are even saying that Obama Can't Win Against Palin and adsiving Obama to Just Leave Her Alone For Now. 

Would Sarah Palin be a good vice president? It doesn't matter. Could the Sarah Palin choice pay off? It already has. She has fulfilled her duty. We are less than two months from election day and the Obama/Biden ticket is old news. 

Sarah Palin is a distraction. A successful distraction.

Running For More Than President?

When people say that Obama is the antichrist, I usually just laugh.

Nevertheless, people are hanging on his every word and this blog has me thinking twice...