Category: Politics/Current Events

President Luter

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

Last week the Southern Baptist Convention elected a new president, and they elected Fred Luter, pastor of Franklin Avenue Baptist Church in New Orleans, and the first African-American to be elected to the position.

This is newsworthy for the fact that Luter is the first African-American SBA president, but even moreso because when the SBA was founded–167 years ago–it was formed, at least in part, out of an effort to defend segregation and even slavery. In 1995 the SBC apologized for its history. I am not a huge fan of apologies made by individuals years, decades, or in this instance, centuries, after the offense occurred because I fail to see the significance in most instances. I am not sure how I could apologize to someone for something that I did not do and that they did not suffer from and have it carry any real meaning. I am getting off track now, though…. In this instance, anyway, I believe it was appropriate for SBA leadership and the denomination as a whole to express regret over the offensive elements of its history, and certainly to clearly articulate that those principles are no longer a part of the organization now. And it certainly is noteworthy that an organization–any organization–that has such a past would now elect as its president an individual who, at the time of its founding, would have never even been considered for membership.

I do not know Fred Luter, nor do I know anything about him other than what I have read in news stories, but it certainly sounds from those stories like the Lord has worked through him to greatly impact the New Orleans area. His dedication to his church after Hurricane Katrina, and the rebuilding of that church, is incredible.

In actuality, though, what has prompted me to write about this issue today is not the election of Fred Luter per se, but some of the realities that still exist in some SBC churches. Full disclosure: I am a former member and deacon of an SBC church. I do not consider myself a southern Baptist, nor did I even at the time of my membership in an SBA church, but it was the church in our community that was most faithfully teaching and preaching the Word of God and carrying out the Great Commission.

On usatoday.com there was a comment made by a reader regarding a report that stated that Luter “came out of the racist south.” The commenter was expressing chagrin over such “unbiased reporting”–a term he was using sarcastically. Unfortunately, however, it is true. Whether or not it is relevant to the story of Luter’s election may be debatable, I suppose, but it is a fact that Luter was raised in a part of the south that was in many instances still very racist during his formative years. This same commenter said, in a later post, that in all of his traveling in the U.S. the south is one of the least racist parts of the country. Perhaps he has been very selective in the parts of the south that he has visited, or perhaps he–either by choice or by lack of perception–failed to see the racism that does still exist.

Apparently his commenter is not the only individual so deceived, either. Another individual commented on the story of Luter’s election, and the comment referenced above, with this statement: “This actually has nothing to do with racism. Since racism hasn’t existed in most SBC churches in 35 years only an idiot would think there is a connection. The only reason the major media thinks there is a difference is that it has been that long since any of them went to church.” The word idiot is a strong one, but this individual apparently feels quite strongly that there is no racism in SBC churches, and has not been, in quite some time.

It saddens me to say, however, that I have seen racism first hand in SBC churches. And I use the plural on purpose, because in the position in which I served I had the opportunity to be in many different churches throughout part of the south, and I experienced or witnessed first had the racism that does still exist. I have been in churches that would not allow African-Americans into their church. I have been in a church that almost fired its pastor because he married a biracial couple. I have been in more than one church where the spoken and implied position of more-than-a-few of the members was that African-Americans should stay in their own churches and had no place “infiltrating” theirs.

Now, I need to interject a few things here. One, I think that same individuals–Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton come immediately to mind–cry racism over every and any little thing and attempt to make racism the source of most any wrong that occurs. Individuals of that ilk tend to stoke the racist flames and are just as racist in most instances as those they claim to be challenging. The dialogue they tend to engage in is not constructive, but destructive. At the same time, however, I also recognize that the existence of all-white or all-black churches does not in and of itself mean that the congregations are racist. There are cultural differences, differences in worship style and tradition, and a variety of other reasons why churches may remain predominantly or even exclusively made up of one race, none of which are racist.

I am pleased to say that the SBC church that I was a part of made tremendous strides towards breaking down long-standing walls of division that stemmed from a long tradition of racism in an area of the country that had once been covered with tobacco fields worked by slaves. I do not think that that church is a racist church. But that does not mean that there are never racist individuals or racist thoughts within the church, either.

Here’s what it comes down to: (1) racism does exist, and it does exist even within the church; (2) racism does not exist, in most areas, to the level or the extreme that it once did or that some instigators would still have us believe, but (3) that is not justification to get lax or to turn a blind eye to racism when we do see it. Oh, and (4) the fact the he grew up in the “racist south” and is now the president of an organization founded in part with racist principles is relevant to the newsworthiness of the election of Fred Luter as SBC president.

Bottom line, though–there is simply is no excuse for racism. The Bible makes it absolutely clear that God created all humans, that He creates them in His image, and that we are all–regardless of the color of our skin–descended from common ancestors (both Adam and Noah). The old children’s song is right on: “Jesus loves the little children/all the children of the world/red and yellow, black and white/they are precious in His sight/Jesus loves the little children of the world.” He loves the adults, too. And there is one other thing that the Bible is just as clear on–we are to love each other just as God loves us, without qualification or clarification.

The Foolishness of Legalism

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

“Legalism” is one of those words that it is just about possible to use with a positive connotation. It is typically used in a judgmental manner by those who oppose the attitudes and requirements of individuals and groups who are legalistic, and those who fit into that category often fail to realize it, and so would rarely if ever use the term to describe themselves. The truth is, though, that legalism was a problem in the early church, and is sometimes a problem still in churches today. I will address that here somewhat, but first I will provide a modern example of the foolishness of legalism from outside of the church.

Even before that, though, perhaps it is a good idea to define what legalism is. Dictionary.com provides this definition: “strict adherence, or the principle of strict adherence, to law or prescription, especially to the letter rather than the spirit.” And that definition provides a perfect backdrop to this contemporary example.

Apparently, a county employee in Detroit, Michigan was mowing grass last month–not his own grass, but grass he was supposed to mow as part of his job. In other words, he was at work. In the course of mowing, he came across a loaded revolver. He called the police to inform them of the gun, thinking they would come retrieve it. However, the authorities never arrived. So, when he finished working, the county employee took the gun to a local police station to turn it in. The police thanked him, happy to get another gun off of the streets. County officials, though, fired him, saying that he was in violation of county policy by possessing a gun while on the job.

Now I’m guessing that when you read that your initial reaction was probably somewhere along the lines of, “Oh brother!” or “You’ve got to be kidding!” After all, the individual in question was clearly doing the right thing–the responsible thing. Without a doubt, the policy barring gun possession at work by county employees was devised in an effort to promote safety, and the vast majority of the time there would be no reason for a county employee to possess a gun. The problem is, rules and policies always have the potential to run smack into unforeseen situations–situations in which the “letter of the law” no longer makes any sense.

For just about my entire working life I have been in positions that required me to enforce rules. First, I was a classroom teacher, so I had both my own classroom rules to enforce as well as those of the school. But for the last eight years I have been in positions where I was usually the one who was the ultimate enforcer of the rules. Sometimes I was also able to craft, or re-craft, the rules, but other times I was expected to enforce the rules that were given to me by those in authority over me. Either way, I was “the executive branch,” and enforcing the rules was my responsibility. What I learned very quickly is that developing rules that are absolute is rarely a good idea. Why? Exactly because of situations like the county worker in Detroit who found a gun and took it to the police station to turn in. Odds are good that as the county policy is written those in authority had a choice to make: fire the gentleman, or fail to enforce a county rule.

There are students expelled from school and inmates incarcerated in prisons all over the country because of so-called three strikes rules. in an effort to curtail crime, many states passed three strikes laws, mandating life sentences for individuals who were charged with their third felony. No, I am as anti-crime as anyone I know. In fact, other than criminals, who in the world would claim to be pro-crime? But I also think it is absurd for someone to be spending the rest of his life in prison for a third minor offense, while someone else might get ten or twenty years for killing someone. The same thing is true of students who have been expelled from their school for an accumulation of relatively minor offenses. There needs to be wisdom in the application of the law…which necessitates wisdom in the crafting of the law.

To go back to the definition of legalism, the letter of the law and the spirit of the law are not always in complete agreement. Legalism is what results when the former is given precedence over the latter. And as foolish as it is in the workplace, the school, or the criminal code, it is perhaps even more foolish to allow legalism to creep into one’s relationship with the Lord. But I’ll address that tomorrow….

“That Star Spangled Banner”

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

I originally posted this a day early. TODAY, June 14, is Flag Day.

Today is Flag Day. This is the day on which we commemorate the adoption of the U.S. flag, which was done by the Second Continental Congress in 1777. Any nation’s flag is important, because of what it stands for. It is the visual symbol of a nation. The flag should stir patriotism and pride in the hearts of the citizens of its nation.

Contrary to some public figures in recent times, I believe that the United States is an exceptional nation. While she may never have been a “Christian nation,” there is no doubt that America was founded by men who were deeply influenced by the Bible, and who endeavored to establish a nation that reflected biblical principles and honored God.

As we celebrate Flag Day 2012 I would like to reflect a bit on one particular moment in history when the flag inspired the poem that eventually became our national anthem. I think this is a fitting time for such a reflection since, in addition to being Flag Day, this year marks the bicentennial of the start of War of 1812.

Historical legend has it that Betsy Ross sewed together the first American flag, though there is insufficient evidence to support the claim. What is not in doubt, however, is that Mary Pickersgill stitched together the gigantic flag that flew above Fort McHenry in Baltimore, Maryland when Francis Scott Key was observing the British bombardment of the fort from a British ship.

I will not go into the full story here, but I think that this is an important and often-unknown part of American history, so I will give some detail.

Key was a young lawyer in Washington, D.C. and he had been dispatched by President Madison to negotiate with the British for the release of Dr. William Beans. Beans had been taken captive by British soldiers after he had several of the British arrested in Upper Marlboro for breaking into his house…after he had helped to care for the wounded that had been left behind by the British on their trip back to the coast after burning Washington, D.C.

Key was successful in negotiating Beans’ release. However, the British were now on their way to Baltimore, and their commander decided that Key had seen and heard too much, so he and Beans would be required to remain on the flag ship until the British attack of Baltimore was over.

It was this series of events that led to Francis Scott Key standing on the deck of a British ship, watching and listening to the 24-hour bombardment of Fort McHenry, a star-shaped fort that the citizens of Baltimore has paid to have designed and built to protect their city. Literally thousands of British shells rained down on the fort during the bombardment. The British ships carried cannon with a longer range than the cannon in the fort–meaning that the ships could sit safely beyond the range of the fort guns and continue to fire at will. Miraculously, not one soldier in the fort was killed.

Key, however, had no way to know that. He could see the British sailors on the ship he was on, and on the other ships in the fleet, and his ears were undoubtedly ringing from the incessant cannon fire. The smoke from the cannon fire would have obscured his view of the fort after a while, and then daylight gave way to darkness. Still, the bombing continued…

In the morning, though, the bombing had stopped. Key could only wonder whether that meant the defeat of Fort McHenry. As he stood on deck in “the dawn’s early light” he heard the fort’s morning gun, and saw the fort’s flag waving in the breeze. This was no ordinary flag, either. The fort’s commanding officer was Major George Armistead, and he had commissioned Mary Pickersgill–who had a business making flags for ships–to make him “a flag so large that the British will have no difficulty in seeing it from a distance.” Pickersgill fulfilled that order: she constructed a flag that was 30 feet high and 42 feet long. Each stripe was two feet wide, and each star was two feet from tip to tip. (At the time, it was the practice to add one new star and new stripe for each new state in the Union, so the flag Key saw that September morning in 1814 had 15 stars and 15 stripes).

Now, with the context in mind, read again the words of Key’s poem. I assure you it will have much more meaning:

O say, can you see, by the dawn’s early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight,
O’er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming!
And the rockets’s red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there:
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

There are, by the way, three more verses to the poem, though rarely are they sung.

If you ever find yourself in the Baltimore area, I strongly encourage you to visit both Fort McHenry and The Star Spangled Banner Flag House, the home of Mary Pickersgill where the fort’s flag was commissioned and sewn. And today, and every day, I urge you to remember the patriotism and pride that swelled in the heart of Francis Scott Key in 1814 when he saw the flag, and realized that the Americans had not been defeated.

Portion Control

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

New York City has been in the news again lately, this time for Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s proposal to restrict restaurant soda sales to 16 ounces. His reasoning? He told MSNBC, “The percentage of the population that is obese is skyrocketing. We’ve got to do something.”

In an editorial on USAToday.com, Dr. Deborah Cohen, of the non-profit, non-partisan RAND Corporation said Bloomberg is right in advocating portion control as a way to combat the obesity epidemic in the U.S. Bloomberg has been quoted as saying, “You tend to eat all of the food in the container. If it’s bigger, you eat more. If somebody put a smaller glass or plate or bowl in front of you, you would eat less.” Cohen agrees, writing that the mayor’s proposal “opens the door to one of the most important solutions to address obesity: portion control.”

According to both Bloomberg and Cohen the average person is apparently too stupid to regulate consumption on his or her own, and therefore needs to government to do it. Cohen points out that, “The Agriculture Department has established serving sizes for every type of food available — although there are no regulations applying portion sizes to restaurants.” That’s because the Agriculture Department has developed what are known as “recommended daily allowances.” The key phrase there is “recommended.” If the government wants to conduct the research necessary to determine what a healthy quantity of foods, or food categories, would be for a person, then it can do so, I suppose (though even the necessity of that is dubious at best). However, for the government to get into the business of determining how much of a food can be served to any person is a serious violation of a free market society, not to mention the “inalienable right” to the pursuit of happiness referenced in our Constitution.

Bloomberg pointed out that is someone really wants more than 16 ounces of soda there will be no restriction on that person buying another one. I have not seen what impact the restriction will have on free refills offered at some restaurants; perhaps as long as no more than 16 ounces is served at one time that will be okay, I don’t know. And frankly, I don’t care.

See, Cohen’s editorial is headlined, “Bloomberg right that portion control works.” And with that statement I agree. Unfortunately, that’s about the end of my agreement with Dr. Cohen. See, she thinks, as does His Honor Mayor Bloomberg, that the government needs to control the portions for me (or anyone else). I counter that with the argument that portion control does indeed work–but if someone does not care enough about his or her health to restrict their own portions, the government has no business doing it on their behalf.

I have no problem leaving some of the food on my plate if I get full, or leaving some of the drink in my glass if I do not need any more. If someone cannot do that–if someone is so lacking in self control that he simply must eat and drink everything that is set before him–he has problems that go way beyond the sugar content of a 16 ounce soda. It’s still his problem, though; not mine, not yours, and certainly not the government’s (at any level).

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I need to get back to my 20 ounce soda….

Violation of an Oath

~ jbwatson ~ 1 Comment

For those of you who keep current with political news the topic I am about to address, yes, I realize that the topic I am about to address is a few months old. It is not that I am just becoming aware of it. In fact, I was “hot on it’s trail” when it happened…but I decided to put it on the back burner and address it later after I had had some time to “cool down,” so angry did this news make me.

I am well aware of the fact that I tend to pay more attention to politics and care more passionately about it than the average citizen, and so I may get riled up over things that others may not even notice. But if this one goes unnoticed we have a serious problem.

See, in February, U.S. Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg visited Egypt, and while she was there she took a swipe at the U.S. Constitution. She said, “I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.” Instead, she suggested that the constitution of South Africa might be a better model, since it “embraced basic human rights [and] had an independent judiciary.” Justice Ginsburg has also been known to express admiration for the Canadian Charter of Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights.

One of the reasons Ginsburg has expressed discontent with the U.S. Constitution is that it originally excluded women, slaves and Native Americans. (Of course, until recently, South Africa excluded blacks, too). I don’t think anyone would argue that the the U.S. Constitution is perfect. It was wrong to tolerate slavery and to exclude the vote from women and other minorities. Those flaws have, thankfully, been corrected. Therein, however, lies part of the beauty of our Constitution; it allows for corrections and amendments.

I do not fault Ginsburg for suggesting the a newly-forming representative democracy look at a field that does not contain the U.S. Constitution exclusively while preparing to draft its own constitution. What I do find egregious is her suggestion that the U.S. Constitution not be looked at at all. Notice she did not say that she would not look exclusively at our Constitution; she said, “I would not look to the U.S. Constitution.”

By the way, are Canada and the EU really examples we should encourage other countries to follow? The freedom of speech in Canada is under attack pretty regularly. The Bill of Rights of Kenya–which was drafted by later-Supreme-Court-justice Thurgood Marshall and is based on the European Convention on Human Rights, guarantees rights to health, welfare and work. We have already seen what has happened in other countries (including Canada and the many members of the EU) who have included rights to health and seen it necessary to provide state-run health care systems in order to do so–and we see now what that looks like as Barack Obama tries to institute the same thing here. We have seen the economies of many European nations crumble as their debts have spiraled out of control, due in no small part to the right to work and absurd guarantees for workers. See, here’s the paradox of socialism: when it becomes essentially impossible to fire someone there is no longer any incentive for someone to work. Look at recent strikes in Spain and riots in Greece, among other examples.

How does any of this relate to her oath, by the way? Well, Supreme Court justices have to take two oaths of office, and if you want to read all of the particulars you can do so on the Supreme Court’s web site (supremecourt.gov). Part of the first oath, which is taken by all federal employees, reads, “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.” When a justice publicly (and in front of international audience, at that) says that she would not refer the U.S. Constitution if she were drafting a constitution today, it stretches the imagination to think how that can be consistent with supporting or defending the Constitution, or bearing allegiance to it.

Am I suggesting that Justice Ginsburg should be impeached? Not necessarily. But I think her comments are troubling, and I think they point to two very important demands that “we the people” must make of our senators: (1) the responsibility of approving nominations to the Supreme Court must be taken seriously, and we must demand that our justices be faithful to the Constitution; and (2) we have to have justices who see the Constitution as a living document, able to be changed when appropriate and within the prescribed channels, but who will interpret the Constitution with faithfulness to the intent of the Founders and the people. It’s time we say “enough” to those who want to remake our Constitution from the bench to have it more closely resemble those of other nations.

Memorial Day

~ jbwatson ~ 2 Comments

Today is the day selected on the calendar when our nation is supposed to take time to remember the sacrifice made by the men and women who have lost their lives in the service of our country. Hundreds of thousands have paid the ultimate price while wearing the uniform of the Minute Men, the Continental Army, the Confederate or Union army, or the United States Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines or Coast Guard. This the day when we are supposed to pause to remember that freedom is not free.

Unfortunately, for many people in our nation it is simply a day off from work, a day to have a bbq or to go to the beach. There is nothing wrong with those things, of course, and the greatest celebrations and remembrances often involve times of sharing a meal. The trouble is, though, when people see today as for those activities only. Yesterday our pastor shared some of the history of Memorial Day, and I have to say that far too few of us really take time to remember what has been done on our behalf.

I suspect that those who have served in the armed forces and those who have lost loved ones in the service of the nation have no trouble remembering what Memorial Day is really all about. My grandfather served in World War II and, as I understand it, was injured and assumed dead by his unit while in Italy. He was on top of a building that was hit by a shell, causing the building to collapse. He was buried in the rubble. Though his unit moved on, some other soldiers (not American) later found him, and stitched him up with hemp that came from untwisting a rope. I say “as I understand it” not because I have any reason to doubt the veracity of this account, but because I never had the opportunity to hear it from my grandfather. Of the ten grandchildren my father and his brother and sister gave to my grandparents, I am the only one who ever saw my grandfather at home, and that was only when I was very young. The remainder of his years were spent in a nursing home or a VA hospital, and rarely was he in full possession his faculties when any of us visited him. He passed away while I was in high school. Were the injuries he sustained during the war the direct cause of his poor health and mental powers later in life? I don’t know. I really never knew him, and what I have learned about him since he passed away leads to believe there were other causes, too. Regardless, thinking about my father’s father standing on top of a building half a world away when that same building was hit by a shell fired by an enemy determined to eliminate America and what she stands for helps to put into perspective what the men and women of the armed forces do, and do willingly.

My father was in the Navy. He was never involved in conflict, though the Vietnam War was still going when he enlisted. He has talked some about his service, and has shown us his white sailor’s cap and pictures of him in uniform and the ship he served on, but his time in the Navy was short and, I suppose, relatively uneventful, and it has never been the subject of lengthy conversation. Still, I am proud to think that my father wore the uniform of the United States Navy and was willing to do so. I have a step-nephew who recently returned from his second tour in Afghanistan.

War during my lifetime has been completely different than any previous war. During the first Gulf War I, along with millions of others, watched the action on the television. We could literally watch the path of a missile as it sped toward its target, the screen going white and then black when it hit. We could listen to daily briefings from General Schwarzkopf or General Powell. We had unprecedented access to the realities of war. And yet, at the same time, I think war has also seemed more remote and disconnected to our daily lives that conflicts of the past. We never hear air raid sirens, we don’t own gas masks, and we have not been subjected to rationing. There is no push to buy war bonds. In other words, unless we know someone who is in the war, we have not been inconvenienced by war other than at the gas pump.

Except for September 11, 2001, I have never known what it was like to feel like our nation was vulnerable. The possibility of an attack has always been a remote possibility during my lifetime. Even though I can remember the last years of the Cold War, and I remember being aware that the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. possessed hundreds upon hundreds of nuclear weapons and that, at least in theory, nuclear war could bring the world as we know it to a sudden halt, it was always such a remote possibility that I do not remember ever being afraid that it might happen. I have never wondered if I would be drafted to serve in the military, and when I turned 18 our nation was at peace and there was absolutely no push or pressure for me to even consider service in the military. While I grew up respecting the men and women who serve, and recognizing the value of their service, there seemed little need for me to even think about the armed forces.

Yet, the reality is that there seemed little need because there have always been enough men and women willing to serve. Other than 9/11 and the completely unorthodox tactic of turning commercial airliners into weapons of mass destruction our country has never been attacked during my lifetime because we have men and women who stand on the proverbial wall and keep me safe. The freedoms I so often take for granted were purchased with the blood of patriots who gave their all to gain freedom and to protect it. The liberties I have grown up accustomed to have been defended by men and women who thought they were valuable enough to give their lives for. And I am grateful….

Not So Common

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

One of my favorite professors in graduate school used to say, “Sometimes common sense is not so common.” We all see abundant examples of that on a regular basis, I know, but one example I read about recently seems to be crying out for a comment…and I feel I simply must oblige.

If you have ever lived in or visited a large city you have likely seen homeless individuals. I am not suggesting that homeless individuals reside only in large cities; I am well aware that that is not true. However, they do seem to be more evident in large cities, and there are often sizable efforts and ministries in place in those cities that seek to help meet the needs of the homeless.

I am not interested here in exploring the reasons why someone may become homeless. I am well aware that some are homeless by choice and some are homeless through no fault of their own, and some are somewhere in the middle. Regardless of the reasons, the fact is that if someone is homeless there is no reason why in the United States of America such individuals should not be able to obtain shelter, clothing and food, at least temporarily.

In New York City, however, there is an egregious example of a lack of common sense. (Not that that in and of itself is much of a surprise, I suppose. After all, NYC, if you recall from a not-too-long ago post, has also banned churches from meeting in public schools out of fear that the students will be unable to discern between the doctrines/positions of the church and the secular nature of the school). The example to which I am referring now pertains to feeding the homeless. The powers that be in NYC have passed, and are enforcing, a regulation that bans homeless shelters in the city from accepting donated food because there is no way for the shelters to determine if the donated food meets the standards established by NYC for fat, salt and fiber content.

Milne wrote that Winne the Pooh was a bear “of very little brain,” and yet I bet even Pooh could figure out that when the choice is between no food and food that might not be as nutritious or as healthy as the NYC politicians/bureaucrats think it should be, the choice should be obvious.

The irony of all this is that the very same people who would claim to be “bleeding heart liberals” and would under most circumstances bend over backwards to protect rights and provide services for the homeless are the very same ones who promulgate such idiotic regulations. And the truth is, such regulation is one more example of the absence of a true market-driven economy in the United States.

I read an editorial recently–I cannot remember where, but I am thinking it may have been in WORLD Magazine–discussing the fact that there are so many regulations, limitations, subsidies, and other artificial influences on the economy and every industry in the U.S. that we cannot truly claim to have a free market economy. And that’s sad, because as we stray from free market principles we necessarily find ourselves wandering closer and closer to government control.

Is it a good idea for government, at any level, to regulate the amount of fat, salt or fiber in food that is served, whether in restaurants, food stands, or homeless shelters? That’s a lengthy debate that should probably wait for another day, since it goes far beyond the realm of restricting food access for homeless individuals in NYC. For now, I just have to echo Dr. Jones…”Sometimes, common sense is not so common.”

National Day of Prayer

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

Today is the annual National Day of Prayer. Since 1952, when Congress mandated the event, there has been an annual day set aside to pray for our nation. In 1988 the law was amended, setting aside the first Thursday in May as the Day of Prayer. Long before it became a law, however, there were instances of national prayer, and presidential proclamations encouraging prayer. It is impossible to read the history of the United States or the original documents of the Founding Fathers are come to any conclusion other than the Founders’ belief that prayer is important and appropriate, and that national proclamations and days of prayer in no way violate any separation of church and state the Constitution may require.

The National Day of Prayer is most prominently observed by evangelical Christians, and the chair of the NDP has long been Shirley Dobson, the wife of Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family. The day is not reserved for Christians, however, and it is not an exclusively Christian event. President Obama, in his proclamation for this year’s NDP, said “… I invite all citizens of our Nation, as their own faith directs them, to join me in giving thanks for the many blessings we enjoy, and I call upon individuals of all faiths to pray for guidance, grace, and protection for our great Nation as we address the challenges of our time.”

While my faith directs me in a very definite way, and while I am one of those “intolerant” people who believes that biblical Christian faith is the only true faith, I also happen to respect the right of every individual to exercise his or her own faith, and I agree with the President that each person should give thanks and pray in accordance with their faith tradition.

In today’s Faith and Reason column on USAToday.com, Cathy Grossman writes, “The very conservative evangelicals who control the privately-run celebration will do their thing. The coalition led by Shirley Dobson allows only people who agree with a specific Christian expression of prayer to take the microphone at their events although all are welcome to attend and say amen.” It is clear from her tone that she does not approve. I cannot help but ask why? If the “celebration” (and I question the use of that word for the event) is privately run, why should the organizers not be free to set their own guidelines and limit the public prayer to those whose faith is consistent with their own? I would not expect any private event to do otherwise. If the organizers of a private event want to have an ecumenical event, or an event that includes many faiths, that’s great. If they want to have an event that adheres strictly to their own faith, equally great. If there happens to be a NDP event organized by Muslims I would not expect them to invite Christians to pray at their event.

The oh-so-tolerant organization Americans United for Separation of Church and State has, of course, made their annual opposition known. Director Barry Lynn said, “Americans don’t need to be told when or whether to pray….” Agreed. Americans can and do pray all the time without being told or invited to do so. But there is also absolutely no problem with the President, the Congress, a governor or a mayor inviting and even encouraging people to pray. The only problem would come if any of those individuals were to mandate prayer, and no one is doing that.

Stephen Prothero, in his My Take blog on CNN.com, titled his entry today, “Dear God: How to Pray on National Day of Prayer?” He raises interesting points and questions in his blog. He seems to respect the right and desire of people of any faith to pray in a manner consistent with their faith, but he also asks questions about whether any one faith should become the “national voice” and whether we as a nation are guilty of using God rather than following Him. Good questions, and worthy of consideration and discussion.

Here’s where I come down. The theme selected by the NDP task force for this year is Psalm 33:12, “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.” I do not think the Lord is the God of the United States of America. By that I mean not that He is not sovereign over the U.S., because I believe that He is sovereign over everything. I mean that I do not believe that America, as a nation, has submitted itself to God, His ways and His will. As I have said here before, our nation is not a theocracy, and I am not sure that I think it should be. However, ours is a nation founded on religious freedom, and that freedom does, and should, include the right both of the President to call on the nation to pray, of the Congress to set aside a day to be known as the National Day of Prayer, and of the NDP Task Force to design its events for the day in ways consistent with its faith and belief, even when that includes disallowing those whose faiths and beliefs are not consistent with its own.

As for me, I put my faith in the God of the Bible. I believe that both the Old Testament and New Testament are the inspired, infallible Word of God, and I desire to be a follower of Christ. Accordingly, I will pray to the God of the Bible. Having accepted the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on my behalf I have forgiveness of sins, and I have the right to go boldly before the throne of God and speak to Him directly (Hebrews 4:16). And that’s what I will do…today and everyday. I will continue to ask God to protect this nation, to give discernment to our leaders, to cause our nation to desire to turn to Him. And I will continue to thank God that I have that right.

A Response to Feedback

~ jbwatson ~ 1 Comment

My last post, addressing Kirk Cameron’s statements about homosexuality during an interview with Piers Morgan, prompted a comment from someone I do not know. This individual responded to my post with this comment:

“No tolerance is living YOUR life YOUR WAY, and letting other people live THEIR LIVES, THEIR WAY. I don’t interfere in Mr. Cameron’s choice of who he’s going to spend his life with nor am I interested in what sort of consensual sex he has. The LGBT community would certainly appreciate it if he didn’t concern himself with our lives either. Scripture (and its interpretation) is only of interest to those who follow it, certainly not to those who do not.”

This comment reveals several important points that are relevant to an issue that includes, but is larger than, discussion of homosexuality. First, the commenter argues that tolerance means letting everyone live their lives in their own way, without interference from others. Interestingly, however, it has not traditionally been those who are opposed to homosexuality and other hot button issues in the tolerance discussion that have dragged the issue out of the realm of the private and into the realm of the public. In the specific instance that was the basis for my last entry, it is important to recall that Cameron’s remarks came in response to a question that he was asked–and a question that was not consistent with the reasons he had been led to believe that he was on the show. Had Mr. Morgan asked Mr. Cameron a question about his new documentary, and Mr. Cameron proceeded to contort his answer in such a way that provided an opportunity to speak out against homosexuality then the comment above would have merit. In light of the reality of the situation, however, his comment does not hold water.

This principle holds true for the entire matter of homosexuality. I am not aware of anyone in this country going around suggesting that homosexuality should be a crime, or that engaging in homosexual behavior should result in criminal or civil penalties. On the contrary, there are many people–most them plenty noisy and aggressive–who are suggesting that homosexual couples should be granted the same rights as heterosexual couples, that marriage should be redefined to include a man and a man or a woman and a woman, and that the legal protections, rights and benefits that have always been reserved for marriage should be extended to include homosexual couples. Who, then, is interfering with whom? It is the LGBT community that is actively seeking to force its views on everyone else. If asked, I am confident that Mr. Cameron would say that homosexual behavior is unnatural and is a sin. So would I. But I also feel confident saying that Mr. Cameron would not suggest that two consenting adults engaging in homosexual behavior should be criminalized, and neither would I. Put differently, if the LGBT community would, as my commenter suggested, live their lives their way and let others live their lives their own way, the issue would pretty much go away. Issues such as homosexual marriage, sodomy, birth control and others deal with issues that should be private, and if they were kept private rather than brought out into the open by those who actually want to destroy their own definition of tolerance and force their positions on everyone else, they would not be nearly the controversy that they are. There are people who believe that the use of contraception is a sin. I do not know of anyone, however, who has argued that the manufacture and sale of contraception should be outlawed. There are those, however, who believe, and argue strongly, that contraception should not be paid for by the government. This only became an issue when those on the other side of the argument began demanding that the government pay for contraception, claiming that contraception is a right.

The second element of my commenter’s statement is that Scripture is only of interest to those who follow it, and not to those who do not. I hope the individual who took the time to leave the comment does not think that he has just advanced a novel or arresting argument, because it is disingenuous and, quite frankly, obvious. I am not suggesting, nor, in my opinion, was Mr. Cameron suggesting, that what Scripture says should be forced on everyone in our country. We live in a representative democracy, not a theocracy. We live under a government “of the people, by the people and for the people,” meaning that “we the people” have the right and the responsibility to be actively involved in the affairs of government, to make our voices heard, and to seek to effect the changes we believe should be made.

That does not mean that those who believe the Bible should not speak out in accordance with their beliefs. The same right that an unbeliever has to say he does not believe it is held by those who believe it and have their opinions and convictions shaped by its teaching. The presentation of arguments is a required, and healthy, part of the democratic process.

So here’s what it comes down to, sir… If you, and the LGBT community at large, want to keep your positions to yourselves and live your lives in such a way that do not interfere with mine, then we would probably get along just fine. I will continue to believe that you are living in sin, but I will also continue to love you with Christ’s love. You will be free to continue to think that I am an arrogant and bigoted Bible-thumper, and you can love me or hate me, or just plain ignore me, the choice is up to you. But if you, and the LGBT community at large, is going to continue to actively seek to redefine foundational elements of our heritage, our law and our culture, please be prepared for to speak out against those redefinitions. If you want to argue passionately for your beliefs, convictions and opinions, please respect my right to do the same thing. If you want to ignore the Scripture, please respect my desire to embrace it. You just cannot have it both ways.

Oh, and one last thing, for Piers Morgan and anyone else…if you ask a question, have the decency to respect the other person’s answer even if it is one with which you completely disagree. Isn’t that actually what freedom of speech is all about?

Taking a Stand

~ jbwatson ~ 1 Comment

Actor and former teen-heart throb Kirk Cameron has been in the news a lot lately, and most of it has been in the form of attacks on Cameron for his stand on the issue of homosexuality.

Cameron has a new documentary, Monumental: In Search of America’s National Treasure, in which Cameron addresses the founding of America and the decline of the nation, which he directly attributes to a turning away from those founding principles. I have not seen the film, so I am going by what I have read about it in articles and reviews. Apparently, though, the film has nothing to do with those issues for which he has been in the news, and according to Cameron himself, “never alludes to such hot-button topics.” The controversy stems from Cameron’s appearance on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight in early March.

Morgan asked Cameron about homosexuality, abortion and other so-called social issues during the interview rather than talking much about the documentary. Morgan’s approach, in my opinion, was a result of Rick Santorum’s prominence in the GOP presidential race at the time and his focus on such issues, combined with the general tendency of the liberal media to seek out opportunities to attack Christian beliefs that are consistent with Scripture.

When asked about homosexuality, Cameron told Morgan, that homosexuality is “unnatural” and that it is “ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.” That should not come as any surprise to anyone who (1) is familiar with biblical teaching, or (2) expects a Christian to stand by his beliefs. Cameron made the point in the aftermath of the interview and resulting frenzy that there should have been nothing surprising about his answers. Rather, he said, “the only thing that would have been surprising is if I had not answered the way I did. That would have been more newsworthy than what I said” (WORLD, April 7, 2012, p. 61).

Initially Morgan said that Cameron had been “brave” and “honest to what he believed,” according to the Huffington Post. But when Cameron expressed during an interview on FOX that he was blindsided by Morgan’s questions since he had been told that the interview would be about his new documentary, Morgan took offense and retaliated through Twitter, tweeting that Cameron was “moaning” and “whining” and accusing Morgan of “stitching him up” on the issue. One tweet said, “So I’ll let others decide if he was stitched up…or just a bigot.” That was followed by Morgan’s final tweet on the issue: “I respect his religious beliefs – just don’t respect his use of bigoted, inflammatory language re homosexuality.”

Hmmmm… Let’s see. There seems to be a contradiction there somewhere. Piers Morgan respects Kirk Cameron for speaking out for his religious beliefs, and for staying true to them, but he thinks that in so doing Cameron was bigoted and inflammatory? I don’t see how it could be both ways. After all, there is not really any less-direct or less-offensive way to say what Cameron said, is there? I suppose he could have simply said that he believes it is a sin and left it at that, but that would not really change the message. And I think that it is relevant to point out that Cameron did not launch into an attack on homosexuals or use the platform of Morgan’s international audience to advance his convictions; he merely answered Morgan’s question.

What we have here is yet another prime example of the intolerance of those who so loudly preach tolerance. Apparently tolerance means tolerating just about any position, belief or idea other than those held by Christians and taught by the Bible. After all, there were no loud cries of inflammatory language against those who spoke out against Cameron after his interview. Herndon Graddick, spokesman for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), said that Cameron’s comments cause “gay youth and victims of bullying” to “truly suffer,” and said that Cameron said that homosexuals were detrimental to civilization. (What he said, of course, is that homosexual behavior is detrimental to civilization). Roseanne Barr went much further, tweeting, “Kirk or Kurt or whatever Cameron is an accomplice to murder with his hate speech.” GLAAD launched a petition called, “Tell Kirk Cameron It’s Time to Finally Grow Up.” Notice the implication–having a conviction that is contrary to what the media or the noisy masses say is okay is considered juvenile and immature.

This issue also serves to highlight the growing tendency of liberal churches and liberal Christians (and I do not mean “liberal” in the left-wing political sense) to compromise on, and even ignore, biblical teaching. Entire denominations have, of course, now sanctioned homosexual marriage and allow homosexual clergy. Outspoken individuals professing to be Christians are lauded for saying that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality and that God created homosexuals that way. The problem is, the Bible clearly does not teach that. Why would our culture embrace those who claim to believe something and then deny part of what it is that they claim to believe? It is easy-believism. Believe the parts we like, leave out the parts we don’t. That way we can feel good about ourselves and still do what makes us feel good.

A case in point, unfortunately, is actress and singer Kristen Chenoweth. She is a professing Christian, but is also a support of gay and lesbian rights, and she says there is no contradiction between those two things. How does she explain that? By claiming that homosexuality is not a choice, but is actually how God makes some people. “If it was a sin to be short, what would I do? Well I’d be right on the hell bus,” she has said (Chenoweth stands 4’11”). “I don’t believe God makes mistakes, and that includes a person’s sexuality.” I have addressed this issue in previous posts so I will not elaborate other than to point out again that there is a definite and important difference between physical attributes over which people have no choice and they cannot change (height or race, for example) and behaviors over which people do have a choice, even if you believe they were born with a predisposition toward such behavior.

Here is a comment from Chenoweth, posted on Flordia Agenda’s web site (Florida Agenda is an LGBT newspaper): “Even as a young child, I thought, ‘Why is being gay bad?’ I didn’t understand it. So I asked my grandma, who is the best Christian I ever knew. I’d say, ‘what about my friend Denny: he’s gay, is he going to hell?’ She told me, ‘I read the Bible like I eat fish. I take the meat that serves me well but I don’t choke on the bone.'”

The problem is, the hard teachings of Scripture, those that are contrary to what we may like or want them to say, are not bones in the sense that Chenoweth’s grandmother used that analogy. Fish bones are not intended to be eaten. The Scripture, however, is intended to be read and understood–eaten and digested, if you will–in it’s entirety. Not just the parts that taste good.

2 Timothy 3:16 says, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.” That little three-letter word at the beginning makes all the difference. Not some…but ALL.