The subtitle of this blog is: "This is God's universe, so he does things his way. Now, you may have a better way of doing things, but you don't have a universe."
That's one of my favorite quotes from the late expositor and pastor J. Vernon McGee. I appreciate it so much because it's a simple way of stating many truths that I need to be slapped in the face with from time to time, such as:
1) God is the Creator God.
2) God is sovereign over his creation.
3) Man is sovereign over nothing.
4) Man is puny and nothing when compared to God.
5) The reasoning and wisdom of man is futile when compared to that of God.
Good things for me to remember.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Change Ain't Going To Be Easy
First of all, let me say that this is not a post that is going to rip on the electoral college. I think it's a fair and good way to run the presidential elections. What I want to focus on here is the illusion that this is an Obama-nation. A lot of people are rejoicing that we have finally voted for change as a country. But change from what? The answer that everyone is giving is, the divissive and unproductive Bush administration. Did we really move toward change though, or did we merely put a new face on the division of this country? A look at the popular vote shows that not much has actually changed. Consider the following:
In the 2000 election, Al Gore won the popular vote by a mere half million votes. That's about as close as it gets. Our country was clearly divided down the middle.
In the 2004 election, George Bush won the popular vote by by three million votes over John Kerry - 50.7% to 48.3% respectively. A little bigger margin, but for all intents and purposes, the country was still essentially divided down the middle.
Barack Obama has won the 2008 election in what has been declared an electoral college landslide. But again, the popular vote says differently. Obama won the popular vote by a mere 7 million votes - 52.3% compared to McCain's 46.3%. Remember how angry people were in 2000 because the popular vote was so close, but Bush won the election? They felt unrepresented, and they were angry that so many in the country were markedly against the Bush administration, and yet they still found themselves under its rule. Well, you don't have much difference between the 2000 and the 2008 elections. Once again - for yet another presidency - our nation is essentially divided down the middle.
What's the point? Why analyze the popular vote? Because although the electoral college implies that this country wants change, 46.3% of Americans have said differently, which brings up all kinds of speculation on the "change" that has been thrown around for the last 2 years. Change isn't going to be easy, because almost half of the country doesn't want change. All of you people rejoicing that change has finally come should realize this - especially those in government - those who are responsible to the people. Perhaps the smarter thing to do would be to recognize the division, rather than celebrate the illusion of change.
Barack's election is not a sign of change. If anything, we're still in a year 2000 mentality of division.
In the 2000 election, Al Gore won the popular vote by a mere half million votes. That's about as close as it gets. Our country was clearly divided down the middle.
In the 2004 election, George Bush won the popular vote by by three million votes over John Kerry - 50.7% to 48.3% respectively. A little bigger margin, but for all intents and purposes, the country was still essentially divided down the middle.
Barack Obama has won the 2008 election in what has been declared an electoral college landslide. But again, the popular vote says differently. Obama won the popular vote by a mere 7 million votes - 52.3% compared to McCain's 46.3%. Remember how angry people were in 2000 because the popular vote was so close, but Bush won the election? They felt unrepresented, and they were angry that so many in the country were markedly against the Bush administration, and yet they still found themselves under its rule. Well, you don't have much difference between the 2000 and the 2008 elections. Once again - for yet another presidency - our nation is essentially divided down the middle.
What's the point? Why analyze the popular vote? Because although the electoral college implies that this country wants change, 46.3% of Americans have said differently, which brings up all kinds of speculation on the "change" that has been thrown around for the last 2 years. Change isn't going to be easy, because almost half of the country doesn't want change. All of you people rejoicing that change has finally come should realize this - especially those in government - those who are responsible to the people. Perhaps the smarter thing to do would be to recognize the division, rather than celebrate the illusion of change.
Barack's election is not a sign of change. If anything, we're still in a year 2000 mentality of division.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Am I A Racist?
I'm a bit confused. I think I might be a racist.
On my way home tonight, I was listening to AM 1500's election night coverage, hosted by Dave Thompson, a staunch conservative, and A.L. Brown, a raving liberal. Given the pairing, I suppose it was balanced coverage.
During my ride home, I heard that things weren't looking good for McCain, and listened to the results of the Minnesota senate and house races. As things began to look better and better for Obama, A.L Brown piped up for a couple minutes and said something to the effect of (almost in tears, by the way): "I am so proud of this country and its people, because in this election it has shown that it has finally gotten over the racial divide, and now we have proven that anyone can do anything. We have shown that anyone can become president - black or white," or something to that effect. His main point was the fact that Obama was steadily being elected our next president was a sign of how race relations in this country were finally getting better. When A.L. finished his diatribe, Dave Thompson - who is usually not at a loss for words - seemed to not know what to say. I think I know why he had that problem, because I had it as well.
When I got home and turned on the TV, I heard the same message from NBC (by this time, Obama had been declared the winner): "we are finally a country that will elect a black man," again, not their exact words, but that was definitely the message. And this message was repeated over and over again, by pundit after pundit: "We have finally come to a place in our history where we can look past our differences and elect a black president." Statistics were given to support this idea, such as: "45% of white men voted for Obama - see how far we've come?"
This puts me in an odd position, because I voted against Obama. I don't want him to be president. I don't want him to lead our country. I fear the direction that our country will take under his leadership. By A.L Brown's reasoning, and also by the reasoning of those at NBC, I have not progressed, I have not come to a place where I am comfortable with a black president, I have apparently not overcome the racial divide in this country, because I voted for McCain. The message put forth by Brown and NBC is that a vote for Obama means that you are a progressive, diversity-loving, tolerant, person. A vote for McCain means that you are not ready for a black president, and your vote against him is a sign of your prejudice and unwillingness to conform to racial equality. Or in other words, if you didn't vote for Obama, you're a racist. Since when did electing a black man become the litmus test for racial tolerance in this country? You'd think it would be defined by our unity and willingness to live together as Americans in every day, normal situations.
As I have been thinking about this for the past couple hours, I am becoming angry. How dare they imply that I am not ready or willing to elect a black man (this is the implication that is made, whether your like it or not)? How dare they imply that my vote for McCain means I let skin color influence me? I've never been one to demand apologies, but I might start now. This line of thinking is very offensive. It paints me and every other person in this country that didn't vote for Obama as racists. Obama's skin color didn't sway my vote - I didn't vote for Obama because he's a pro-death (abortion) socialist. If it were Joe Biden on the top of the ticket instead of Obama I'd vote against him too, because he likewise is a pro-death socialist. One's white, one's black. They both think the same way, and I couldn't be more on the polar opposite of what they have to offer. And if I did vote for Obama, I would feel extremely patronized - as if voters need a pat on the back from the likes of A.L Brown and NBC for doing the right thing and electing a black man. What a joke.
This whole sentiment is not new - it has been going on throughout the whole campaign. There's been plenty of people who have implied that if you don't vote for Obama, you're a racist, and you're just not voting for him because he's black. Nothing could be further from the truth. See the above paragraph.
So according to the media and A.L. Brown, I'm a racist. I beg to differ.
On my way home tonight, I was listening to AM 1500's election night coverage, hosted by Dave Thompson, a staunch conservative, and A.L. Brown, a raving liberal. Given the pairing, I suppose it was balanced coverage.
During my ride home, I heard that things weren't looking good for McCain, and listened to the results of the Minnesota senate and house races. As things began to look better and better for Obama, A.L Brown piped up for a couple minutes and said something to the effect of (almost in tears, by the way): "I am so proud of this country and its people, because in this election it has shown that it has finally gotten over the racial divide, and now we have proven that anyone can do anything. We have shown that anyone can become president - black or white," or something to that effect. His main point was the fact that Obama was steadily being elected our next president was a sign of how race relations in this country were finally getting better. When A.L. finished his diatribe, Dave Thompson - who is usually not at a loss for words - seemed to not know what to say. I think I know why he had that problem, because I had it as well.
When I got home and turned on the TV, I heard the same message from NBC (by this time, Obama had been declared the winner): "we are finally a country that will elect a black man," again, not their exact words, but that was definitely the message. And this message was repeated over and over again, by pundit after pundit: "We have finally come to a place in our history where we can look past our differences and elect a black president." Statistics were given to support this idea, such as: "45% of white men voted for Obama - see how far we've come?"
This puts me in an odd position, because I voted against Obama. I don't want him to be president. I don't want him to lead our country. I fear the direction that our country will take under his leadership. By A.L Brown's reasoning, and also by the reasoning of those at NBC, I have not progressed, I have not come to a place where I am comfortable with a black president, I have apparently not overcome the racial divide in this country, because I voted for McCain. The message put forth by Brown and NBC is that a vote for Obama means that you are a progressive, diversity-loving, tolerant, person. A vote for McCain means that you are not ready for a black president, and your vote against him is a sign of your prejudice and unwillingness to conform to racial equality. Or in other words, if you didn't vote for Obama, you're a racist. Since when did electing a black man become the litmus test for racial tolerance in this country? You'd think it would be defined by our unity and willingness to live together as Americans in every day, normal situations.
As I have been thinking about this for the past couple hours, I am becoming angry. How dare they imply that I am not ready or willing to elect a black man (this is the implication that is made, whether your like it or not)? How dare they imply that my vote for McCain means I let skin color influence me? I've never been one to demand apologies, but I might start now. This line of thinking is very offensive. It paints me and every other person in this country that didn't vote for Obama as racists. Obama's skin color didn't sway my vote - I didn't vote for Obama because he's a pro-death (abortion) socialist. If it were Joe Biden on the top of the ticket instead of Obama I'd vote against him too, because he likewise is a pro-death socialist. One's white, one's black. They both think the same way, and I couldn't be more on the polar opposite of what they have to offer. And if I did vote for Obama, I would feel extremely patronized - as if voters need a pat on the back from the likes of A.L Brown and NBC for doing the right thing and electing a black man. What a joke.
This whole sentiment is not new - it has been going on throughout the whole campaign. There's been plenty of people who have implied that if you don't vote for Obama, you're a racist, and you're just not voting for him because he's black. Nothing could be further from the truth. See the above paragraph.
So according to the media and A.L. Brown, I'm a racist. I beg to differ.
Customer Service - It Does Exist!
A couple weeks ago I bought the 2007 Video Illustration set of videos from Bluefish TV. They're a company that makes short videos that can be used as illustrations, discussion starters, and just good things to get you thinking for church groups/Bible studies, etc. The set also included a bunch of background videos and pictures that can be used for power point presentations.
I was pretty jazzed to receive the set, as our church is starting to break some ground in the technological and multi-media realm. But as I sorted through the contents of my package, I realized that one of the DVD's that had been sent to me was missing. What actually happened is that the packaging for 2 of the DVD's had gotten mixed up, or in other words, I received the wrong DVD in the wrong packaging. The whole mix up resulted in me not getting one of the DVD's that had been promised in the package.
I called Bluefish and told them about the problem, hoping that they would send me out an individual copy of the DVD I was missing. I talked to a super nice guy named Eric, who told me he'd tell his supervisor about the problem and get back to me. About an hour later, Eric called me back and said that they were very sorry for the mixup, and as a result they'd like to send me the 2009 Video Illustrations pack for free! The 2007 and 2009 video illustration sets are $200.00 apiece, so when I heard that, I was floored. I greatfully accepted his offer, and thanked him for their kindness and their willingness to satisfy me - the customer.
A lot of times you hear horror stories about how poorly people are treated by companies. Nothing could have been further from the truth in my experience with Bluefish. I will gladly give them more of my business, and I encourage you to do the same.
I was pretty jazzed to receive the set, as our church is starting to break some ground in the technological and multi-media realm. But as I sorted through the contents of my package, I realized that one of the DVD's that had been sent to me was missing. What actually happened is that the packaging for 2 of the DVD's had gotten mixed up, or in other words, I received the wrong DVD in the wrong packaging. The whole mix up resulted in me not getting one of the DVD's that had been promised in the package.
I called Bluefish and told them about the problem, hoping that they would send me out an individual copy of the DVD I was missing. I talked to a super nice guy named Eric, who told me he'd tell his supervisor about the problem and get back to me. About an hour later, Eric called me back and said that they were very sorry for the mixup, and as a result they'd like to send me the 2009 Video Illustrations pack for free! The 2007 and 2009 video illustration sets are $200.00 apiece, so when I heard that, I was floored. I greatfully accepted his offer, and thanked him for their kindness and their willingness to satisfy me - the customer.
A lot of times you hear horror stories about how poorly people are treated by companies. Nothing could have been further from the truth in my experience with Bluefish. I will gladly give them more of my business, and I encourage you to do the same.
Monday, November 3, 2008
In Praise of Single Issue Voting
Check out this excellent article from this month's WORLD magazine, by Tony Woodlief. He brings up several points that I've been thinking for a long time now, but have not been able to verbalize. Basically, it comes down to this - abortion is the only issue. If abortion really truly is the taking of a life, then nothing else matters at this point in our nation's history. Here's Tony's article:
I have become something I once reviled: a single-issue voter. I used to think that a wise voter tries to discern each candidate's intentions on major issues, and then casts his vote based on an assessment of who will do the greatest overall good—or the least evil. I thought those voters who support a candidate based on a single issue—whether he will increase school funding, say, or lower taxes—were shirking their duty to consider the full ramifications of putting someone in office. What good is electing someone who is "right" on one thing, I thought, if he gets everything else disastrously wrong? This was the reasoning I used as I congratulated myself for wisely apportioning my votes based on utilitarian calculations.
Now I suspect this sort of calculation misses something. I've become convinced that a nation which sanctions the extinguishing of unborn children, and further, the outright execution of near-term infants, doesn't deserve admiration even if it gets every other policy right.
I used to include abortion as part of my voting calculus, mind you, but only a part. What if a candidate is pro-life, for example, but favors disastrous tax and trade policies that would consign people to lower living standards? Or what if he wants to use our military in pursuit of ill-defined foreign policy goals? Shouldn't these things factor into my equation?
Those other issues certainly affect a country's safety, prosperity, and greatness. But I've come to believe that a nation that tolerates destruction of innocents deserves neither safety nor prosperity nor greatness. We've descended into barbarism, and it poisons how we treat the elderly, the incapacitated, even ourselves. We shouldn't be surprised, having made life a utilitarian calculation, that more and more humans become inconvenient.
It's certainly true that there are other issues that ought to concern Christians, like the sanctity of marriage, and how we treat the mentally ill, the elderly, and children who have been born. But abortion is, in my view, the touchstone. Get this one wrong and your moral compass can guide you in nothing else.
There are complications. Does it really matter, for example, if a county supervisor is pro-life? Maybe so. Years ago the late-term abortionist George Tiller expanded his murderous facility in Wichita, Kan., with little trouble, even as local authorities harassed pro-life groups. The battle over abortion is being waged locally, and it makes all the difference in the world whether officials welcome abortionists with open arms, gutlessly tolerate them for fear of legal trouble, or actually get down to the business of scrutinizing their activities with a fine-toothed comb.
Even worse in the Wichita case, the city's mayor during this period advertised himself as pro-life. Hence an additional problem for the single-minded voter: Many candidates claim this label, yet they have no intention of taking action. The ones who will act, meanwhile, may be far less electable. Voters who don't care about abortion can tolerate a candidate who pays lip-service to the Bible-thumpers. But there's a danger they'll write him off as a nut if he devotes significant energy to the cause once in office.
There's also the challenge that a genuine and committed opponent of abortion may win office, work to end this abomination, and simultaneously arm regimes that slaughter innocents in other countries. If we oppose the murder of unborn infants not because they are cute, but because the execution of innocents is evil, then we have to apply this standard throughout our politics. I always thought the single-issue voter didn't have to think, but maybe that's not the case. There are indeed complications.
Yet there is also painful clarity that comes with single-mindedness. Jobs, highways, schools, economic growth—none of these matter if we're willing to sanction murder to get them. Perhaps my mentality is a recipe for political isolation for Christians, for the losing of elections, and maybe even a loss of national greatness. I worry that the alternative, however, is to lose something far greater, which is our ability to discern good from evil, and to act accordingly.
I have become something I once reviled: a single-issue voter. I used to think that a wise voter tries to discern each candidate's intentions on major issues, and then casts his vote based on an assessment of who will do the greatest overall good—or the least evil. I thought those voters who support a candidate based on a single issue—whether he will increase school funding, say, or lower taxes—were shirking their duty to consider the full ramifications of putting someone in office. What good is electing someone who is "right" on one thing, I thought, if he gets everything else disastrously wrong? This was the reasoning I used as I congratulated myself for wisely apportioning my votes based on utilitarian calculations.
Now I suspect this sort of calculation misses something. I've become convinced that a nation which sanctions the extinguishing of unborn children, and further, the outright execution of near-term infants, doesn't deserve admiration even if it gets every other policy right.
I used to include abortion as part of my voting calculus, mind you, but only a part. What if a candidate is pro-life, for example, but favors disastrous tax and trade policies that would consign people to lower living standards? Or what if he wants to use our military in pursuit of ill-defined foreign policy goals? Shouldn't these things factor into my equation?
Those other issues certainly affect a country's safety, prosperity, and greatness. But I've come to believe that a nation that tolerates destruction of innocents deserves neither safety nor prosperity nor greatness. We've descended into barbarism, and it poisons how we treat the elderly, the incapacitated, even ourselves. We shouldn't be surprised, having made life a utilitarian calculation, that more and more humans become inconvenient.
It's certainly true that there are other issues that ought to concern Christians, like the sanctity of marriage, and how we treat the mentally ill, the elderly, and children who have been born. But abortion is, in my view, the touchstone. Get this one wrong and your moral compass can guide you in nothing else.
There are complications. Does it really matter, for example, if a county supervisor is pro-life? Maybe so. Years ago the late-term abortionist George Tiller expanded his murderous facility in Wichita, Kan., with little trouble, even as local authorities harassed pro-life groups. The battle over abortion is being waged locally, and it makes all the difference in the world whether officials welcome abortionists with open arms, gutlessly tolerate them for fear of legal trouble, or actually get down to the business of scrutinizing their activities with a fine-toothed comb.
Even worse in the Wichita case, the city's mayor during this period advertised himself as pro-life. Hence an additional problem for the single-minded voter: Many candidates claim this label, yet they have no intention of taking action. The ones who will act, meanwhile, may be far less electable. Voters who don't care about abortion can tolerate a candidate who pays lip-service to the Bible-thumpers. But there's a danger they'll write him off as a nut if he devotes significant energy to the cause once in office.
There's also the challenge that a genuine and committed opponent of abortion may win office, work to end this abomination, and simultaneously arm regimes that slaughter innocents in other countries. If we oppose the murder of unborn infants not because they are cute, but because the execution of innocents is evil, then we have to apply this standard throughout our politics. I always thought the single-issue voter didn't have to think, but maybe that's not the case. There are indeed complications.
Yet there is also painful clarity that comes with single-mindedness. Jobs, highways, schools, economic growth—none of these matter if we're willing to sanction murder to get them. Perhaps my mentality is a recipe for political isolation for Christians, for the losing of elections, and maybe even a loss of national greatness. I worry that the alternative, however, is to lose something far greater, which is our ability to discern good from evil, and to act accordingly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)