Can't We All Just Get Along? Probably Not.

Before I get into the meat of this post, I feel it necessary to make it known that I did not, nor do I now, support Donald Trump for president (although he is the president elect, and I will "support" him in that I will respect him in his office).  I did not vote for Donald Trump.  My "tribe" stands to lose very much from his election to the office of president (which, much to my chagrin, my tribe doesn't seem to understand).  For instance, I am of the opinion that the election of Donald Trump has effectively ended the debate on the sanctity of marriage.  Conservatives have unknowingly abandoned their argument for marriage being between one man and one woman by throwing their support behind a candidate who does not share a like-minded opinion on the sanctity of marriage.  The same is (somewhat) true for the life argument, although, to be fair, it remains to be seen how the newly elected president actually will deal with life issues.  At the very least, we can say that his commitment to pro-life values is very late in coming, and is not entirely robust.

I could go on and on about my problems with Donald Trump, but I'll leave it there for now.  I hope that you can see that I am not a Trump supporter, and that this reality will give you some context to what I'm going to say next.

In the two days since Trump's election to the presidency, there has been much consternation on the left that has manifested itself in the form of protests, riots, and social media outrage.  Others - both conservatives and liberals - have called for unity and to put our support behind the president-elect, and that this is a time for us to see how we can work together toward a better future for our country.

Well, it ain't gonna happen.

Please understand: I don't say this because I don't want it to happen, or because I don't think it should happen.  Indeed, I do want it to and think it should happen.  But the reality is that our society has changed so drastically in the past 10 years, that our collective cultural and social constructs and "enlightened" worldviews won't allow us to make peace with one another.  It's a fascinating (and frightening) time to be alive.  Let me give you just three reasons why I think there will be no peace and unity in our nation for the foreseeable future:

1. Because we now interpret disagreement as hate speech.  Certain issues in our society that used to be matters of opinion in which two disagreeing parties could engage in vigorous debate have been deemed to be the litmus test for bigotry, hatred, racism, etc.  For example, the opinion that illegal aliens should not be allowed in our country is interpreted as having racist motivations.  And nobody wants to reason with a racist, because racism is wrong, right?  Nobody wants to have unity or peace with racists, because racists are filled with hate, right?  In the eyes of some in our country, it would be akin to finding unity with the KKK, which obviously is a type of unity that nobody wants to have.  Another example is opinions about the sanctity of marriage.  Not advocating for gay rights is considered discrimination and bigotry.  Who wants to sit down and work together with a bigot?  No one.  Since one side is convinced that the other is filled with hate-mongers, they have no desire for unity or peace with them.  To do so would be to validate what they see as hatred and bigotry.  As long as people interpret the opinions of others as hatred and bigotry there will be no peace or unity in our country.

2. Because we we buy the narrative perpetuated by the media.  The media loves ratings, and they know that juicy stories are going to garner page views, link clicks, air time, and advertising dollars.  The media doesn't care about the truth so much as the bottom line.  They don't care about what's actually happening, but they're happy to report on fringe stories that are just that: on the fringe, so as to make people angry.  When people are angry, they visit websites and share articles on social media; they watch cable news shows and read magazines.  The media knows this, so they consistently report stories that they know will push people's buttons, and we - people who like to have our buttons pushed - take the bait.  We ingest these fringe stories and we react to them.  The media tells us what is important, and we go along with it like obedient sheep.  As long as we allow the narrative of our society to be perpetuated by the media, there will be no peace or unity in our country.

3. Because social media amplifies the worst about us.  Similar to the way the media spins the narratives in our country, many of us live in the microcosm of social media.  We're never more than a click away from airing our most inflammatory opinions that we haven't thought out, vetted, fact-checked, or even read beyond a headline.  This kind of sharing simply perpetuates the anger and extremism that we all fall into if left unchecked.  Plus, social media is a safe place for us to say inflammatory things - there are no checks and balances.  The worst that can happen is for someone to call us a crazy liberal or conservative.  A very recent and real example is this website that supposedly catalogs instances of racism that have occurred since Donald Trump was elected president two days ago, and allegedly as a result of his election.  Take a look at the examples posted there, and you'll hopefully notice a few things pretty quickly (note: I am not justifying any of the horrible things described on this site): 1) many of these reports are unsubstantiated; they are based on circumstantial evidence and hearsay.  2) considering that reality, it is possible that these alleged instances of racism could be spread by anti-Trump people who want to hurt the image of those who have supported Trump (in other words, they're intentionally causing trouble - something that has been done before the in the recent past).  3) it's also possible (and, in my opinion, likely) that these instances of racism (if substantiated) were perpetrated by fringe minority groups who always have been racist losers and are simply living up to their reputation.  It's unlikely that all of a sudden, once Donald Trump was elected, a vast number of people suddenly began to let their racist strips shine through.  It's more likely that racist losers - who were racist losers long before Donald Trump was even on the political scene - have taken this opportunity to perpetuate their wickedness because they know they'll get the spotlight (see point 2 above).  But people have taken these fringe incidences and have used them as an opportunity to showcase the very worst things about humanity.  And others on social media see them and are (rightly) enraged by them.  But rather than direct their anger toward the fringe minority groups perpetuating evil, they choose to instead direct it at those who merely disagree with them (see point 1 above).  There will not be peace and unity in our country for a long time because social media brings out the worst about us, and we're all too quick to believe it and attribute it to everyone who thinks differently than we do.

We are a long way off from having unity as a country.  We can't even trust one another when we say that we don't hate each other.

Thinking About Bullying

This video has gone viral, and several of my Facebook friends were posting it in their feed as recently as last night, all with positive comments for the woman in the video.  It got me and The Mrs. thinking about the topic of bullying last night.

The focus on bullying as a social behavior is a more recent trend.  Certainly bullying is not new, nor has it just recently come into existence or into the general knowledge of the public.  Bullying has been around as long as there have been people on earth, and everyone has known about it.  In recent years, however, the topic of bullying has garnered more and more attention in the public realm.  We hear about it on the news, and there are even movies and documentaries being made on the subject.  I think it's safe to say that the level of attention bullying has been given in schools and even in the public square has increased dramatically since I was a kid.  While I was taught to respect others and their differences when I was in elementary school, kids nowadays are going through all kinds of education on bullying and its sometimes devastating results.  Why the shift?  Why has bullying become such a prominent and public issue?

First I think we need to know what a bully is.  The online Merriam Webster's dictionary defines a bully as "A blustering, browbeating person; especially one habitually cruel to those who are weaker."  By this definition, everyone in the United States of America either is, or at least has been, a bully.

Think about it: did you ever make fun of kids when you were a kid?  I certainly did.  I was even "habitually cruel" to some kids.  Maybe you're even a bully now.  Ever experience road rage?  Ever yell at a driver for doing something you think is stupid and then retaining that anger for a while?  Is there a co-worker of yours that is nerdy and weird, and you and other co-workers talk about him or her behind their back?  Do your kids ever irritate you so much that you are irrationally angry with them and give them a punishment they don't really deserve?  If you've answered yes to any of these questions, then you, my friend, are a bully.

But if the definition of a bully is so broad as to encompass all people in the country, and if we all either have been or currently are bullies by definition, then why is there such an intense focus on bullying at the present time?  It can only be that the type of bullying that is being brought into focus through the news media and in schools is something different than what I've just described above.

In one sense, bullying has become an issue that has been brought to the forefront for the simple reason that the way people (children and teenagers in particular) respond to bullying has changed drastically.  Rather than crying, being a loner, or enlisting the help of friends or adults to take a stand against a bully, kids nowadays respond to bullying with measures of their own violence, cutting, or even by taking their own lives.

Furthermore, the things that kids are bullied for nowadays are different from even when I was child (which I like to think wasn't that long ago).  When I was in third grade, I was made fun of quite a bit for wearing a Super Man belt.  I told my dad what had happened, and he told me kids were making fun of my belt because they were jealous of it.  That explanation worked for me at the time, and I wore my Super Man belt with pride.  In my later elementary years I was teased more for my size.  I was larger than most other kids (horizontally and vertically) and they pointed it out to me quite a bit (although not too much, as size does have its advantages!).  And let it be known that I did my own share of teasing as a kid, even on into my teenage years, and the objects of my scorn were those who were different, dirty, weird, or undesirable in some way.  Nowadays kids can not only be bullied for the same things I was bullied for, but also for sexual orientation, weight, race, etc.  The stakes seem to have been raised, and kids (and adults, for that matter) are responding differently.

But while this may be true, and I do agree that bullying is a serious issue worth addressing, there are also some elements of the current conversation around bullying that I think need to be thought out, spoken about, and taught more.

1. Bullying can be a two-way street.  It's perhaps not surprising (at least not to me) that those who are victims of bullying can also become bullies themselves by the way they respond to bullying, and often times their bullying is directed toward those bullies who bullied them (wow, there's a lot of bullies in that sentence).  That is, while I believe it is right and good to stand against bullying, I think we need to have a careful and measured answer for how to respond to bullying.  The proper response to a bully is not to disparage him or her publicly, or to return the bullies actions or words in kind.  I even wonder if the newscaster in the video linked to at the beginning of this post was crossing the line by addressing the issue publicly on television.  Obviously she was using the occasion as a spring-board to launch into a speech about how bullying is serious and detrimental, but at what cost?  Did she become what she was speaking against by calling out the man who bullied her in front of thousands?  Or was it really wise for her husband to post the letter on the man's Facebook page?  I'm not saying she did become a bully by doing these things, but I think it's something worth thinking about.  I just wonder if it wouldn't have been a more effective stand against bullying if she had simply deleted the email as soon as she received it.  If we are teaching kids (or adults) to respond to bullies with scorn, disdain, and general hatred, we are doing a disservice to our children, and are, in fact, teaching them to be bullies.  What we need is a good dose of Matthew 5.21-22 and 38-42 taught to our kids, but let's not hold our collective breath.  If nothing else, I think there needs to be some careful thought about how we respond to bullying.

2. The negative impact of bullying is directly related to the victim's propensity to be bullied.  In other words, bullies only have as much power as is given to them by their victims.  When my dad told me that other kids made fun of my Super Man belt because they were jealous of it, I couldn't have cared less about their derogatory comments toward me and my belt.  I refused to let them bother me about it.  Now, it would be too simplistic to say that we can cure bullying by instructing kids to not take offense at the words and actions of those who wish to do them harm.  There are some bullies that will be relentless in their bullying, even if no acknowledgement is given by the victim.  But I think this is an important point to consider in the conversation: bullies are only as powerful as we allow them be.

3. We need more thorough definitions of terms.  In one sense, the anti-bullying campaigns are somewhat unsettling to me - not because I endorse bullying, but because I'm not really sure what bullying is.  As homosexuality and other issues become more culturally acceptable and mainstream it will become increasingly unpopular to oppose them.  As schools and other public forums increasingly embrace a "tolerance" mindset that prohibits any dissension from pro-gay norm for example, will my children be labeled as bullies if they speak out about their belief that homosexuality is wrong (see point number one above)?  In a world where Christian organizations are openly labeled as hate groups for being "anti-gay," is it really a stretch to think that my kids will some day be labeled as bullies for supporting the biblical view of marriage?  Again, something to think about before we jump on the anti-bullying bandwagon.  In a lot of ways, the anti-bullying message sounds a lot like the tolerance nonsense we hear in media and in culture.  This is why we need a better definition of terms before we go about branding people with the bully label.  Who is a bully?  And what must one do to be a bully?  Physically harm someone?  Verbally or emotionally harm someone?  Disagree with someone?

It should be noted that in order for me to watch the video that I linked to at the beginning of this post, the website the video is hosted on popped up a window on my screen that had a survey question on it.  The site wouldn't let me watch the video without looking at the question.  It said this: "I support equality for all.  I believe everyone should be treated equally, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation."  Below the statement there are two options to choose from: either "Agree" or "Disagree."  That's the most loaded question I've ever heard.  I, for one, absolutely agree that everyone should be treated equally, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation.  But I do not agree that "treated equally" means allowing homosexuals to marry.  So I can either agree with the statement or disagree and be labeled a bigot (bully?).  Take your pick. I just hope the current conversation about bullying doesn't go the way of the tolerance insanity that we're currently dealing with in our culture.

So how should we think about and respond to bullying?  I'm certainly not saying I have all the answers, but I am saying it's something we should keep thinking about, as it is a topic that has far-reaching implications - both for me as a person and also as a parent.

Olympic Debauchery

I really enjoy the olympics.  I could watch it all day, even if a lot of the events I like aren't televised, and even if it's the monotony of gymnastics.  It's still fun when it's the Olympics.  Plus, now in the age of the internet you can see almost all of the events online if you so desire.  I love competition; I love sport; I love seeing our athletes represent our country on the world stage.

That being said, my love for the Olympics died a bit today.

One of my Facebook friends posted this article on his page this evening, explaining how the Olympic Village quarters in London will be stocked with an ample supply of condoms.  The article goes on to talk about how the two plus weeks the athletes stay in the village are usually packed with raucous parties and casual sex, even casual sex out in the open, according to Hope Solo.  Great.  That's great.  Now when I watch the olympics this year, I'll be thinking about who our athletes have shacked up with the past night before they stick that landing, run that race, or swim, or whatever.  Not what I need to be thinking about.

And this information is in addition to the rash of recent pictures I've seen of virtually ever American Olympic team from this year posing nude in some goofy picture of them covering their goods with their hands, arms, or appropriate sporting equipment (I won't link to those pictures, for obvious reasons).  Why?  Why do Olympic athletes need to pose nude?  And what kind of moral compass do these athletes have that tells them posing nude is a good (let alone necessary) thing to do?  Why?  WHY?  What does this add to the sport?  To the competition?  To my experience as a spectator?  Not to mention the fact that I'd like to watch the games with my kids.  Thankfully they're too young to read articles on the internet and peruse sports news sites where they might see a nude picture of our once-proud American athletes.  But some day they won't be too young.

I was really bummed when I read that article about the athletes' propensity for casual sex during the game, and have been increasingly disappointed with every nude picture that has been released of our athletes.  But maybe I shouldn't be bummed.  After all, the pagans are acting like pagans, as Todd Friel says.  Why are we surprised?  Isn't this exactly what Romans 1 tells us is going to happen?  Yes, it definitely is, but I guess I'm bummed that it's so much in the public eye.  Part of me wishes that if these people were are going to be so debauched to sleep around every chance they get and pose nude for whoever'd like to see their naked bodies, that they'd at least have the decency to do it behind closed doors and not expose it to the news media so that I can enjoy the purity of the Olympics, even if it's just a pipe-dream.  After all, ignorance is bliss, as they say.  But another part of me wonders if that's just catering to my own idealistic way I want the world to be, with complete disregard for the way things actually are.  If Olympic athletes are sleeping around but not exposing their actions to the public, it doesn't make it any less sinful and debauched.  But do we need to know about it?  I don't think so.  I mean, really: are we really that debased as human beings?  Are we really that uncontrollable that we have to have sex with anything/one that moves?  Really?  You people can't control yourselves for two weeks?

All things considered, I wouldn't be surprised if the tales of casual sex that are reported on in the media are actually the exception rather than the rule.  That is, for every debased athlete that wants to get busy, there are probably a dozen that are satisfied to simply compete and enjoy their time on the international stage.  It's a shame that the actions of some have brought a bit of a black cloud on the games.  I still plan to watch the games (at least as much as I am able), although I have to admit that my attitude toward them will be different this year.  And I'm struggling with this: is that right?  Am I right to be bugged by this, or is it just the way of the world, and I need to reform my overly idealistic view of the world's morality?

I'll have to ponder this.

One Step Closer

A while ago I posted about how PETA wants an animal-gender-inclusive translation of the Bible. They would prefer that animals mentioned in scripture be referred to as "he" or "she" rather than "it." They feel that animals aren't "its," and personal pronouns communicate their individuality and personhood, I guess.

I also said that Phil Johnson predicted (somewhat tongue in cheek) that such a translation of the Bible would, in fact, come down the pike at some point in time in the future. Today we are one step closer to such a translation, or at least the kind of thinking that would bring about such a translation has moved from being held just amongst the PETA folks. It's now moved to the academy, and specifically, to the theological academy.

Professor Andrew Linsey believes that calling animals "pets" is insulting to the animal, and that even referring to animals as "wildlife" is demeaning. Instead, pets should be known as "companion animals," and wild animals should be referred to as "free-living" animals. And those people who own animals shall henceforth be known as "human carers."

Ugh. Here it comes.

Read the whole article here. It's embarrassing. How does this guy have a job?

I Follow Jesus Holy Truth Church

My dad alerted me today to a half-page advertisement in Thursday's Pioneer Press for the "I Follow Jesus Holy Truth Church." Yes, that's what it's called. I'm not sure why. It's definitely one of the more interesting church names I've ever heard.

The advertisement is riddled with grammatical and spelling errors, not to mention several items which point to the shaky theology of the leadership of the I Follow Jesus Holy Truth Church. The wording and phrasing of the ad is so bad, in fact, that it makes me think it was translated from another language into English for the purposes of the ad. Since these folks probably paid upwards of $5,000 for this ad, I hope for their sake that's the case. Here's the content of the ad (note: all of the bad grammar and spelling belong to the ad, not to me):

Dear Friend in Christ,

A new church is about to open in the Whittier neighborhood. Its success mainly depends on the hearts of those who want to make something really positive and powerfully wonderful happen.

The "I Follow Jesus Holy Truth Church" is refreshingly different in its approach to what is the heart of our many fine Christian churches scattered around the Twin Cities and surrounding areas.

Although preaching is a valuable means of communicating the word of God, we prefer to focus on acting "hands on" by the means of serving that of which we have already learned. We want to take what we know and apply in our lives - starting in the community. We have seen how the joy of serving is contagious. When onlookers see how we live the word, they will witness honest faith.

Our building which houses our church (members) will mainly be used for these purposes.

1. Bible study occurring anytime 2 or more care to gather.

2. Discussing the different projects of service we are currently doing and their progress. Determining what other needs our community demands that we will have to address, and plan how to effectively handle them. Then addressing the impact these actions may have. We will be vigilantly aware to keep refining our means of service to be the most utmost efficient.

3. Addressing problematic concerns of members and guests by means of relating our own true life experiences and their resulting outcomes. No advice, speculation, or guessing given. Members will follow these and other ground rules as best they can.

4. Events and activities - of course, there will always be a time to have soe fun. We will play and socialize as well.

At the bottom, on either side of the ad, there are two ornate crosses and the words "Generous givers change our emotions." Below this it says "You may become a donor who: makes us satisfied - any amount; makes us happy - $100; makes us excited - $500; makes us most joyful - $1,000; makes us extremely grateful - $10,000; makes us cry - $100,000 or more."

A few comments for the folks at the I Follow Jesus Holy Truth Church, based on this ad:

1. Your church's "success" (whatever that means) does not "mainly depend on the hearts of those who want to make something really positive and powerfully wonderful happen." Your church's "success" depends on God.

2. You say your church is "refreshingly different" in that it is at the heart of what other churches in the area are doing. How's that different?

3. Preaching is, in my opinion, the most effective way the word of God is communicated to the world. Serving is good and noble, but don't serve the community at the expense of the preaching of the word.

4. Never (NEVER!) quantify your level of satisfaction based on the amount of a monetary gift. This runs the almost certain danger of alienating someone who can only give $5.00. According to your scale, that person can only make you satisfied - not even happy, let alone "most joyful"! Ever heard of the widow's mite?

5. This ad really looks atrocious. At the very least, make sure that words are spelled correctly and your grammar is accurate. People are watching.

The more I think about it, I think this might be a scam just to get people to send whoever placed this ad some money. Either way, it's definitely unique.

Good Grief

I think the United States government may have reached a new low - or a new high, if we're talking about incompetence. Have you heard about this? It's a bill that mandates that TV commercials be at the same volume as the programs in which they appear, and no louder. The bill basically instructs the FCC to regulate the volume level of commercials. It's gone through the house and the senate and is apparently waiting on President Obama's signature. Apparently U.S. citizens aren't smart enough to turn down the volume when commercials come on, and they need the federal government to come running to their aid and save their ears from annoying car commercials. Who actually thought this was a good use of taxpayer dollars? I'm almost speechless. It's despicable.

Here's a clue for ya, government. When I see an ad I don't like, I turn the channel, or I turn the volume down, or I just don't give the company my business. Case in point:

This is perhaps the most annoying, ridiculous advertisement I have ever seen in my life. This ad virtually assures me that I will never buy a car from Luther Kia. The dancing Santa is ludicrous; the song makes me want to pull my hair out; and the guy screaming at me to buy a new Kia grates on my nerves. I would never give money to the company that produces these commercials. I find them offensive.

But you know what? I don't need the government to rescue me from "Santa's Brand New Ride." I've got a remote and a finger. That'll do the trick. No new laws necessary.

Swine Flu Hysteria

OK, don't you think we've gone a bit overboard on this swine flu thing? I just heard about the swine flu for the first time this past Friday, and since then it's become a global pandemic. How did it balloon to such a huge problem in such a short time?

These folks suggest that Twitter is partly responsible. Certainly the media involvement can't be ignored either. I first heard about swine flu on the radio on Friday (for the first time in my life, that is!) and now it leads every major news broadcast. There are videos of people walking the streets in surgical masks, and a lot of people are scared about contracting the disease.

But how much of this is actually something to be worried about, and how much is just hysteria, fear mongering, and rumors? The LA Times posted some statistics on the swine flu about 45 minutes ago (11:15 am CST, April 27). So far there have only been 40 confirmed cases of swine flu in the U.S. and all of those have been mild cases, and only 1 of those forty cases has been hospitlaized (considering the population of the U.S. is over 300 million, I like those odds). The flu is easily treatable with common flu medications available by prescription.

There have been 103 deaths in Mexico that have been attributed to swine flu, but here's what the media isn't telling you about that number: only 26 of those 103 deaths has been confirmed as having been caused by swine flu! So far, out of a planet of more than 6 billion people, 26 have died, and that's a global pandemic? Isn't the regular flu technically more lethal than the swine flu?

The LA Times goes on to say that rumors of swine flu being reported in other countries are just that: rumors. There have been no confirmed cases other than in Mexico, the U.S. and Spain (two mild cases were just reported in Spain by travelers who just returned from Mexico). The World Health Organization says that the numbers being "bandied about" by the media are over inflated and not true.

It's amazing to me to see the inflated sense of hysteria that has occurred regarding the swine flu, if nowhere else than in the media. I guarantee that if you turned the news on right now, you'd hear about the global pandemic of swine flu, and see people walking around the streets wearing surgical masks. What, are they afraid they'll run into one of the 40 people who have the disease?!

This is just another instance of how people need to look for the facts before they decide how to react. It's also another example of how the news media doesn't always have it right, and certainly doesn't always portray an accurate picture of what's actually happening.

Never Underestimate The Power Of AWedgie

This story made my day. This woman thwarted a car thief by giving him a good wedgie. The guy broke into a car in the parking lot where she works. When she confronted him, he took off. She gave chase. When she caught him, she grabbed a hold of his jacket, which he quickly squirmed out of. When she caught him again, she grabbed his boxers which were sticking out of the back of his pants and pulled up. When that stopped him, she proceeded to put him in a headlock and held him that way until police arrived. Read the whole story here.

Man, I love wedgies (giving them, that is, not receiving them). And now to know that wedgies are an integral part of the war against crime puts a smile on my face.

Never underestimate the power of a good wedgie.