From Crosswalk Religion News Summary:
Haiti Cholera Spreading Faster than Predicted
Haiti's cholera epidemic has spread to the capital city of Port-au-Prince and much of the country, surprising officials and infecting thousands. Reuters reports that the disease as killed more than 1,300 people since the first case was recorded in mid-October. U.N. humanitarian coordinator in Haiti Nigel Fisher said that the waterborne disease could cause 200,000 causes within three months, according to the World Health Organization. "It's going to spread," he said. "The medical specialists all say that this cholera epidemic will continue through months and maybe a year at least, that we will see literally hundreds of thousands of cases." Fisher said U.N. and other aid workers needed to "significantly ratchet up" their response, including going through faith groups to distribute chlorine tablets to purify water, and increasing the number of treatment centers.
Friday, November 26, 2010
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Are You Having Eels for Your Traditional Thanksgiving Meal?
This is quoted completely from The Wild Turkey Zone
Read it here.
For most Americans, the Thanksgiving meal consists of a turkey with stuffing, cranberry sauce, potatoes, and pumpkin pie (or sweet potato pie if you hail from the South.). While there are numerous regional and ethnic variations, this basic menu has not changed much in the last two hundred years. Nor is the standard menu much older than that. Our modern holiday fare bears little resemblance to the food eaten at the three-day 1621 harvest celebration at Plymouth Colony, the event now recalled as the “First Thanksgiving.”
The Wampanoag and Plymouth colonists often ate wild turkey, however it was not specifically mentioned in connection with the Winslow version of the 1621 harvest celebration. Edward Winslow said only that four men went hunting and brought back large amounts of “fowl” – more likely from the scenario to be seasonal waterfowl such as ducks and geese. And what about the stuffing? Yes, the Wampanoag and English did occasionally stuff the birds and fish, typically with herbs, onions or oats (English only).
The typical menu of Thanksgiving dinner is actually more than 200 years younger than that 1621 celebration and reflects both the holiday’s New England roots and a Victorian nostalgia for an imaginary time when hearth and home, family and community, were valued over progress and change. But while we have been able to work out which modern dishes were not available in 1621, just what was served is a tougher nut to crack.
What was really served at the First Thanksgiving
There are only two contemporary accounts of the 1621 Thanksgiving: First is Edward Winslow's account, which he wrote in a letter dated December 12, 1621. The complete letter was first published in 1622.
Our corn [i.e. wheat] did prove well, and God be praised, we had a good increase of Indian corn, and our barley indifferent good, but our peas not worth the gathering, for we feared they were too late sown. They came up very well, and blossomed, but the sun parched them in the blossom. Our harvest being gotten in, our governor sent four men on fowling, that so we might after a special manner rejoice together after we had gathered the fruit of our labors. They four in one day killed as much fowl as, with a little help beside, served the company almost a week. At which time, amongst other recreations, we exercised our arms, many of the Indians coming amongst us, and among the rest their greatest king Massasoit, with some ninety men, whom for three days we entertained and feasted, and they went out and killed five deer, which they brought to the plantation and bestowed on our governor, and upon the captain and others. And although it be not always so plentiful as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodness of God, we are so far from want that we often wish you partakers of our plenty.
He also further describes the bounty of the Plymouth Colony in his later writings --
Our bay is full of lobsters all the summer and affordeth variety of other fish; in September we can take a hogshead of eels in a night, with small labor, and can dig them out of their beds all the winter. We have mussels ... at our doors. Oysters we have none near, but we can have them brought by the Indians when we will; all the spring-time the earth sendeth forth naturally very good sallet herbs. Here are grapes, white and red, and very sweet and strong also. Strawberries, gooseberries, raspas, etc. Plums of tree sorts, with black and red, being almost as good as a damson; abundance of roses, white, red, and damask; single, but very sweet indeed… These things I thought good to let you understand, being the truth of things as near as I could experimentally take knowledge of, and that you might on our behalf give God thanks who hath dealt so favorably with us.1
The second description was written about twenty years after the fact by William Bradford in his History Of Plymouth Plantation. Bradford's History was rediscovered in 1854 after having been taken by British looters during the Revolutionary War. Its discovery prompted a greater American interest in the history of the Pilgrims. It is also in this account that the Thanksgiving turkey tradition is founded.
They began now to gather in the small harvest they had, and to fit up their houses and dwellings against winter, being all well recovered in health and strength and had all things in good plenty. For as some were thus employed in affairs abroad, others were exercising in fishing, about cod and bass and other fish, of which they took good store, of which every family had their portion. All the summer there was no want; and now began to come in store of fowl, as winter approached, of which this place did abound when they came first (but afterward decreased by degrees). And besides waterfowl there was great store of wild turkeys, of which they took many, besides venison, etc. Besides they had about a peck of meal a week to a person, or now since harvest, Indian corn to that proportion. Which made many afterwards write so largely of their plenty here to their friends in England, which were not feigned but true reports.
Though not specifically mentioned as a food on the menu, corn was certainly part of the feasts. Remember that the harvest being celebrated was that of the colorful hard flint corn that the English often referred to as Indian corn. This corn was a staple for the Wampanoag and soon became a fixture in the cooking pots of New Plymouth. The English had acquired their first seed corn by helping themselves to a cache of corn from a Native storage pit on one of their initial explorations of Cape Cod. (They later paid the owners for this “borrowed” corn.) It is intriguing to imagine how the English colonists processed and prepared the novel corn for the first time in the fall of 1621. One colonist gave a hint of how his countrymen sought to describe and prepare a new grain in familiar, comforting terms: “Our Indian corn, even the coarsest, maketh as pleasant a meat as rice.”3 In other words, traditional English dishes of porridge and pancakes (and later bread) were adapted to be used with native corn.
In September and October, a variety of both dried and fresh vegetables were available. The produce from the gardens of New Plymouth is likely to have included what were then called “herbs:” parsnips, collards, carrots, parsley, turnips, spinach, cabbages, sage, thyme, marjoram and onions. Dried cultivated beans and dried wild blueberries may have been available as well as native cranberries, pumpkins, grapes and nuts.
While many elements of the modern holiday menu are very different from the foods eaten in 1621, the bounty of the New England autumn was clearly the basis for both. The impulse to share hospitality with others and celebrate and give thanks for abundance transcends the menu. Edward Winslow’s final comment about the harvest of 1621, is a sentiment shared by many Americans on Thanksgiving Day: And although it be not always so plentiful as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodness of God, we are so far from want that we often wish you partakers of our plenty.
Read it here.
For most Americans, the Thanksgiving meal consists of a turkey with stuffing, cranberry sauce, potatoes, and pumpkin pie (or sweet potato pie if you hail from the South.). While there are numerous regional and ethnic variations, this basic menu has not changed much in the last two hundred years. Nor is the standard menu much older than that. Our modern holiday fare bears little resemblance to the food eaten at the three-day 1621 harvest celebration at Plymouth Colony, the event now recalled as the “First Thanksgiving.”
The Wampanoag and Plymouth colonists often ate wild turkey, however it was not specifically mentioned in connection with the Winslow version of the 1621 harvest celebration. Edward Winslow said only that four men went hunting and brought back large amounts of “fowl” – more likely from the scenario to be seasonal waterfowl such as ducks and geese. And what about the stuffing? Yes, the Wampanoag and English did occasionally stuff the birds and fish, typically with herbs, onions or oats (English only).
The typical menu of Thanksgiving dinner is actually more than 200 years younger than that 1621 celebration and reflects both the holiday’s New England roots and a Victorian nostalgia for an imaginary time when hearth and home, family and community, were valued over progress and change. But while we have been able to work out which modern dishes were not available in 1621, just what was served is a tougher nut to crack.
What was really served at the First Thanksgiving
There are only two contemporary accounts of the 1621 Thanksgiving: First is Edward Winslow's account, which he wrote in a letter dated December 12, 1621. The complete letter was first published in 1622.
Our corn [i.e. wheat] did prove well, and God be praised, we had a good increase of Indian corn, and our barley indifferent good, but our peas not worth the gathering, for we feared they were too late sown. They came up very well, and blossomed, but the sun parched them in the blossom. Our harvest being gotten in, our governor sent four men on fowling, that so we might after a special manner rejoice together after we had gathered the fruit of our labors. They four in one day killed as much fowl as, with a little help beside, served the company almost a week. At which time, amongst other recreations, we exercised our arms, many of the Indians coming amongst us, and among the rest their greatest king Massasoit, with some ninety men, whom for three days we entertained and feasted, and they went out and killed five deer, which they brought to the plantation and bestowed on our governor, and upon the captain and others. And although it be not always so plentiful as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodness of God, we are so far from want that we often wish you partakers of our plenty.
He also further describes the bounty of the Plymouth Colony in his later writings --
Our bay is full of lobsters all the summer and affordeth variety of other fish; in September we can take a hogshead of eels in a night, with small labor, and can dig them out of their beds all the winter. We have mussels ... at our doors. Oysters we have none near, but we can have them brought by the Indians when we will; all the spring-time the earth sendeth forth naturally very good sallet herbs. Here are grapes, white and red, and very sweet and strong also. Strawberries, gooseberries, raspas, etc. Plums of tree sorts, with black and red, being almost as good as a damson; abundance of roses, white, red, and damask; single, but very sweet indeed… These things I thought good to let you understand, being the truth of things as near as I could experimentally take knowledge of, and that you might on our behalf give God thanks who hath dealt so favorably with us.1
The second description was written about twenty years after the fact by William Bradford in his History Of Plymouth Plantation. Bradford's History was rediscovered in 1854 after having been taken by British looters during the Revolutionary War. Its discovery prompted a greater American interest in the history of the Pilgrims. It is also in this account that the Thanksgiving turkey tradition is founded.
They began now to gather in the small harvest they had, and to fit up their houses and dwellings against winter, being all well recovered in health and strength and had all things in good plenty. For as some were thus employed in affairs abroad, others were exercising in fishing, about cod and bass and other fish, of which they took good store, of which every family had their portion. All the summer there was no want; and now began to come in store of fowl, as winter approached, of which this place did abound when they came first (but afterward decreased by degrees). And besides waterfowl there was great store of wild turkeys, of which they took many, besides venison, etc. Besides they had about a peck of meal a week to a person, or now since harvest, Indian corn to that proportion. Which made many afterwards write so largely of their plenty here to their friends in England, which were not feigned but true reports.
Though not specifically mentioned as a food on the menu, corn was certainly part of the feasts. Remember that the harvest being celebrated was that of the colorful hard flint corn that the English often referred to as Indian corn. This corn was a staple for the Wampanoag and soon became a fixture in the cooking pots of New Plymouth. The English had acquired their first seed corn by helping themselves to a cache of corn from a Native storage pit on one of their initial explorations of Cape Cod. (They later paid the owners for this “borrowed” corn.) It is intriguing to imagine how the English colonists processed and prepared the novel corn for the first time in the fall of 1621. One colonist gave a hint of how his countrymen sought to describe and prepare a new grain in familiar, comforting terms: “Our Indian corn, even the coarsest, maketh as pleasant a meat as rice.”3 In other words, traditional English dishes of porridge and pancakes (and later bread) were adapted to be used with native corn.
In September and October, a variety of both dried and fresh vegetables were available. The produce from the gardens of New Plymouth is likely to have included what were then called “herbs:” parsnips, collards, carrots, parsley, turnips, spinach, cabbages, sage, thyme, marjoram and onions. Dried cultivated beans and dried wild blueberries may have been available as well as native cranberries, pumpkins, grapes and nuts.
While many elements of the modern holiday menu are very different from the foods eaten in 1621, the bounty of the New England autumn was clearly the basis for both. The impulse to share hospitality with others and celebrate and give thanks for abundance transcends the menu. Edward Winslow’s final comment about the harvest of 1621, is a sentiment shared by many Americans on Thanksgiving Day: And although it be not always so plentiful as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodness of God, we are so far from want that we often wish you partakers of our plenty.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Pakistani Christian Pardoned
From Crosswalk's Religion Today summaries:
Pakistani President Pardons Christian Woman on Death Row
Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari ended a Christian woman's 18-month ordeal yesterday, commuting her death sentence and allowing her to walk free, The Christian Post reports. Asia Noreen (also referred to as Asia Bibi) was the first woman in Pakistan to receive the death sentence under the country's controversial blasphemy laws. The 45-year-old mother appealed her sentence Saturday after drawing international attention. "This is the only acceptable outcome to what has been a travesty of justice from the outset," said Nasir Saeed, coordinator for U.K.-based Center for Legal Aid, Assistance and Settlement (CLAAS). "Asia Bibi should never have been charged with blasphemy, let alone found guilty and sentenced to death." Muslim women in Asia Noreen's village accused her of blasphemy after an argument arose and Noreen defended her faith.
Let's praise God that the prayers of his saints were heard.
Pakistani President Pardons Christian Woman on Death Row
Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari ended a Christian woman's 18-month ordeal yesterday, commuting her death sentence and allowing her to walk free, The Christian Post reports. Asia Noreen (also referred to as Asia Bibi) was the first woman in Pakistan to receive the death sentence under the country's controversial blasphemy laws. The 45-year-old mother appealed her sentence Saturday after drawing international attention. "This is the only acceptable outcome to what has been a travesty of justice from the outset," said Nasir Saeed, coordinator for U.K.-based Center for Legal Aid, Assistance and Settlement (CLAAS). "Asia Bibi should never have been charged with blasphemy, let alone found guilty and sentenced to death." Muslim women in Asia Noreen's village accused her of blasphemy after an argument arose and Noreen defended her faith.
Let's praise God that the prayers of his saints were heard.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Why I Love Movies
Posted by me on the Filmspotting Forum, where I dwell under the pseudonym, "Oldkid"
Film isn't just one thing. Painting is a visual art. Music is an audible art. Novels are a storytelling art. Film is all of this, or just one, or some combination of them. Film can have a black screen with no sound for thirty seconds and, depending on the context, it can have the deepest meaning or emotional impact. Film is the most complex art form we have, and perhaps only the Wii has the potential of giving us more. But for now, film is it.
Because of this, film has the greatest potential to be different things to different people. Everyone looking at "Starry Night" by Van Gogh sees something a little different. But that is nothing compared to a deeply rich film like Kieslowski's Blue or Coppola's Apocalypse Now. Some claim these to be among the greatest works of art of all time. Some won't appreciate them at all. But one thing is for certain, they speak to each of us differently, and for different reasons. That is what great art does. And the greatest of art sticks with us over time.
Given the complexity of film, it doesn't surprise me that our reactions to it is complex as well. I have my multiple rating system, and yet I find that even that system is inadequate to express my reaction to a film, as I gave Rachel Getting Married all top scores, but had more than twenty films I appreciated above it. What my marathon is helping me understand is that my appreciation for film is complicated enough that I can't dissect it precisely.
So I will have contradictions between my rating and my ranking. And you know why I don't mind that? Because it means that I am a human being-- complex and difficult to put in a box, like every other human being. And film is one of the few mediums that is rich enough to be able to compare to a complete human experience.
Our ratings of movies is funny, really. Do we rate our top 100 life events? How could we even judge such a thing? And, honestly, I see the best of films as being among my favorite life events. Yes, watching Spirited Away is as much a great event of my life as is watching my son be born or travelling to India. No, I won't rate these events, because they can't be measured like that. Nor can I say which event of my life I "enjoyed" the most, as if human experience can be judged on the level of "enjoyment". So, why should we judge film that way?
I really do like rating films. It's a pastime. But my determination of those which I put highest isn't limited to "enjoyment" nor to "greatness", however we might measure that. Rather, it is experience. Which film has become a part of my life more than others? Which film has become a memorable experience that I cherish? I have a hard time cherishing Rachel Getting Married as truly great I think that film is. But I can, and do, cherish the experience of Wendy and Lucy. And Nausicaa. And even Hunger and United 93-- although that may be hard to imagine.
I praise these filmmakers not just for technical ability or for the ability to take the most complex art form and create something truly wondrous with it. I praise them for enriching my life.
Film isn't just one thing. Painting is a visual art. Music is an audible art. Novels are a storytelling art. Film is all of this, or just one, or some combination of them. Film can have a black screen with no sound for thirty seconds and, depending on the context, it can have the deepest meaning or emotional impact. Film is the most complex art form we have, and perhaps only the Wii has the potential of giving us more. But for now, film is it.
Because of this, film has the greatest potential to be different things to different people. Everyone looking at "Starry Night" by Van Gogh sees something a little different. But that is nothing compared to a deeply rich film like Kieslowski's Blue or Coppola's Apocalypse Now. Some claim these to be among the greatest works of art of all time. Some won't appreciate them at all. But one thing is for certain, they speak to each of us differently, and for different reasons. That is what great art does. And the greatest of art sticks with us over time.
Given the complexity of film, it doesn't surprise me that our reactions to it is complex as well. I have my multiple rating system, and yet I find that even that system is inadequate to express my reaction to a film, as I gave Rachel Getting Married all top scores, but had more than twenty films I appreciated above it. What my marathon is helping me understand is that my appreciation for film is complicated enough that I can't dissect it precisely.
So I will have contradictions between my rating and my ranking. And you know why I don't mind that? Because it means that I am a human being-- complex and difficult to put in a box, like every other human being. And film is one of the few mediums that is rich enough to be able to compare to a complete human experience.
Our ratings of movies is funny, really. Do we rate our top 100 life events? How could we even judge such a thing? And, honestly, I see the best of films as being among my favorite life events. Yes, watching Spirited Away is as much a great event of my life as is watching my son be born or travelling to India. No, I won't rate these events, because they can't be measured like that. Nor can I say which event of my life I "enjoyed" the most, as if human experience can be judged on the level of "enjoyment". So, why should we judge film that way?
I really do like rating films. It's a pastime. But my determination of those which I put highest isn't limited to "enjoyment" nor to "greatness", however we might measure that. Rather, it is experience. Which film has become a part of my life more than others? Which film has become a memorable experience that I cherish? I have a hard time cherishing Rachel Getting Married as truly great I think that film is. But I can, and do, cherish the experience of Wendy and Lucy. And Nausicaa. And even Hunger and United 93-- although that may be hard to imagine.
I praise these filmmakers not just for technical ability or for the ability to take the most complex art form and create something truly wondrous with it. I praise them for enriching my life.
Monday, November 08, 2010
Do The Poor Work?
"If you tax people who work and you pay people who don't... do I need to say the next sentence to you? If you tax rich people and you pay poor people you're going to get lots and lots of poor people."
-Arthur Laffer, quoted on NPR's Intelligence Squared Debate
So, Mr. Laffer, you are characterizing poor people as those who don't work. This is the most "laffable" of social prejudices. That people who are poor don't work, but people who are rich do.
I think we can consider this simply. Let's take your average CEO and your average poor person. The average CEO might work hard for a few years, take "well deserved" vacations of a few weeks a year and, if they get fired for incompetence, has a multi-million dollar severance pay so they can spend a couple years looking for work. The CEO's spouse doesn't need to work at all.
The average working poor family has two wage earners, one of whom probably has two jobs. If they lose one of those jobs-- perhaps she was asleep during working hours because she has only been getting five hours of sleep a night-- then she immediately has to find another job to replace it or else she loses her apartment and then her children.
Now let's look at the average homeless person. This person has been up half the night due to anxiety-- worry about being found out by the police and worry about what he is going to accomplish the next day. He has been pounding the pavement every day looking for work, and all the employers are saying, "Too old, needs to be retrained, there are better candidates for the job." Perhaps he might turn to begging so he could get a motel for the night, and as he stand there, he is greeted with people yelling at him, "Get a job" or "Get a life, you bum!". He is constantly ashamed, constantly worried about what his life is going to be.
I am not saying that all of the wealthy are like that CEO. However, Mr. Laffer, don't ever make the statement that poor people don't work. They work harder than you and pundits like you could possibly know. You can only claim that the rich "work" because you don't know what real work is.
Real work is waking up each morning driven to do something because otherwise your children will go hungry.
Real work is being humiliated before your boss and not talking back because you can't have your family end up on the street.
Real work is having to walk for miles with your children to the closest free meal, only to find out that someone gave you wrong information and the meal was closed that day.
Real work is having to carry a box full of cans and pasta miles home because the bus driver wouldn't allow such a large box on his bus.
Real work is being told by the police to leave their town because they don't want to see "your type" here anymore.
Real work is getting up at five in the morning so you can search through dumpsters for cans before the garbage truck comes, so you can make thirty bucks if it's a good day.
Real work is beautifully playing your violin on the street, only to be ignored by all but a handful of passers-by.
Let's face it, Mr. Laffer, obtaining wealth is part talent, part drive and part luck. Not everyone has the specific talents involved to make large amounts of money-- should those who don't have such talents lack basic human needs like shelter and health? Not everyone who has the talents to obtain wealth decides to use them, deciding to benefit others instead of themselves. Should they be penalized for choosing a profession that supports society? And obtaining wealth is a large part luck. Because even if you have the talent and the drive to make a lot of money, ofttimes you won't because you weren't in the right place or the right time.
I am not talking about the tax debate. I am talking about prejudicial statements against the poor in order to win the tax debate. Show respect to the poor. If the only way to win the debate is by telling lies about the people who most need the truth, then the debate is not worth winning.
Sunday, November 07, 2010
Stop HOBOphobia!
November is Homeless Awareness Month!!
Countless times a day, homeless people are rejected, falsely accused, harassed, ticketed, and even beat up, all for the “crime” of not having a roof over their heads or of being dirty or of carrying all their possessions in a backpack. The homeless are treated as the outcast of society, as those at the bottom of the economic ladder. Yet the homeless are not the cause of the evils of our society. Nor are they necessarily the outcome of our evils. The homeless are people—people who want to live and love and hope and work, just like you do. Let us not continue to punish those who are lowly in our society, but help them.
Battle the cliches of the homeless
The homeless are “us”, not “them”—Many of the homeless are good Christians or children of important citizens. Many of our neighbors and friends have been homeless at one time or another. Homelessness is not an evil, or even necessarily a tragedy—it is a stage of life that many of us have gone through.
The homeless DO work—While most do not have jobs, they do work hard, some harder than people who have “regular jobs”. It is not easy to get up at 6am to get to dumpsters before anyone else and climb in many of them in order to get recycled cans. Other homeless volunteer at free hot meals and shelters.
Not all homeless are alcoholics—In general, about one third of the homeless have alcohol or drug abuse problems. Many more have mental health or social difficulties. Many have had tragedies that have overwhelmed them, such as a loss of a job or the suicide of a spouse or family member.
Not all homeless are criminals or violent—Most homeless abhor the crime and violence done by the few homeless who do because it gets them accused. The homeless have the same percentage of theft and violence as those who are housed.
Teach your children and the community not to hate the homeless.
The majority of violent crimes against the homeless are done by middle class youth who feel that they have the right to violently fulfill the prejudices of their parents and community. If our youth and community learn that the homeless are human—people like us—then such crimes will be reduced, even eliminated.
Meet and listen to homeless people
Find out the times and locations of local free meals and sit at the table with the homeless. Find out their real motivations and hopes and desires. You may find that they do not differ that much from your own. Be patient with a homeless person’s oddness—you seem just as odd to them.
Include the homeless in social events
Invite the homeless to community and church functions. However, because many of them do not believe that they would be welcome, certain assurances must be made:
It is not necessary to be well-dressed for the function.
It may be necessary to provide transportation to and from the event.
An announcement may be necessary to make sure that everyone is accepting of the homeless.
Support benevolence organizations that assist the homeless
Volunteer at a free meal, give to an organization that helps the homeless, give blankets and clothes to a shelter. Call a local church to find out where you can help the homeless. As you give and volunteer be a friend to those you are helping—seeing and meeting them— not a distant, nameless Benefactor.
Provide opportunities for the homeless
Provide what the homeless REALLY need—opportunities to shower, socks, clean clothes, an address, a chance to work for money, a chance to do volunteer work for others. Be a friend to the homeless and help them get the resources they need.
Do you want to know more about homelessness or Anawim, our ministry? Please go to:
www.NoWhereToLayHisHead.org
Countless times a day, homeless people are rejected, falsely accused, harassed, ticketed, and even beat up, all for the “crime” of not having a roof over their heads or of being dirty or of carrying all their possessions in a backpack. The homeless are treated as the outcast of society, as those at the bottom of the economic ladder. Yet the homeless are not the cause of the evils of our society. Nor are they necessarily the outcome of our evils. The homeless are people—people who want to live and love and hope and work, just like you do. Let us not continue to punish those who are lowly in our society, but help them.
Battle the cliches of the homeless
The homeless are “us”, not “them”—Many of the homeless are good Christians or children of important citizens. Many of our neighbors and friends have been homeless at one time or another. Homelessness is not an evil, or even necessarily a tragedy—it is a stage of life that many of us have gone through.
The homeless DO work—While most do not have jobs, they do work hard, some harder than people who have “regular jobs”. It is not easy to get up at 6am to get to dumpsters before anyone else and climb in many of them in order to get recycled cans. Other homeless volunteer at free hot meals and shelters.
Not all homeless are alcoholics—In general, about one third of the homeless have alcohol or drug abuse problems. Many more have mental health or social difficulties. Many have had tragedies that have overwhelmed them, such as a loss of a job or the suicide of a spouse or family member.
Not all homeless are criminals or violent—Most homeless abhor the crime and violence done by the few homeless who do because it gets them accused. The homeless have the same percentage of theft and violence as those who are housed.
Teach your children and the community not to hate the homeless.
The majority of violent crimes against the homeless are done by middle class youth who feel that they have the right to violently fulfill the prejudices of their parents and community. If our youth and community learn that the homeless are human—people like us—then such crimes will be reduced, even eliminated.
Meet and listen to homeless people
Find out the times and locations of local free meals and sit at the table with the homeless. Find out their real motivations and hopes and desires. You may find that they do not differ that much from your own. Be patient with a homeless person’s oddness—you seem just as odd to them.
Include the homeless in social events
Invite the homeless to community and church functions. However, because many of them do not believe that they would be welcome, certain assurances must be made:
It is not necessary to be well-dressed for the function.
It may be necessary to provide transportation to and from the event.
An announcement may be necessary to make sure that everyone is accepting of the homeless.
Support benevolence organizations that assist the homeless
Volunteer at a free meal, give to an organization that helps the homeless, give blankets and clothes to a shelter. Call a local church to find out where you can help the homeless. As you give and volunteer be a friend to those you are helping—seeing and meeting them— not a distant, nameless Benefactor.
Provide opportunities for the homeless
Provide what the homeless REALLY need—opportunities to shower, socks, clean clothes, an address, a chance to work for money, a chance to do volunteer work for others. Be a friend to the homeless and help them get the resources they need.
Do you want to know more about homelessness or Anawim, our ministry? Please go to:
www.NoWhereToLayHisHead.org
Saturday, November 06, 2010
Greed Is Good?
The original idea of capitalism by Adam Smith is that the seller would have enough empathy to understand what his customer actually needs and provide it to him. The customer, of course, helps determine the cost by whether he buys it from this seller or the next.
But capitalism is completely different than the way Adam Smith imagined it. Modern capitalism is not so much empathy for the consumer, but a manipulation of the consumer to convince the consumer of "needs" that she never had. Modern capitalism is emotional blackmail, and a blight on civilization.
It is greed that allows a two liter bottle of Pepsi cost less than a loaf of bread. It is greed that makes banks and utilities charge the poor for the fact that they don't have much money. And it is a society of greed that looks down on hardworking people and tells them that they are worthless. And that same society, if those hardworking people lose their job, that tells them that they don't deserve to sleep, or even to use a bathroom. Greed is not good, and has never produced good, except to both the greedy and the lucky.
But capitalism is completely different than the way Adam Smith imagined it. Modern capitalism is not so much empathy for the consumer, but a manipulation of the consumer to convince the consumer of "needs" that she never had. Modern capitalism is emotional blackmail, and a blight on civilization.
It is greed that allows a two liter bottle of Pepsi cost less than a loaf of bread. It is greed that makes banks and utilities charge the poor for the fact that they don't have much money. And it is a society of greed that looks down on hardworking people and tells them that they are worthless. And that same society, if those hardworking people lose their job, that tells them that they don't deserve to sleep, or even to use a bathroom. Greed is not good, and has never produced good, except to both the greedy and the lucky.
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
The "New Perspective" on Paul
A member of a film forum I'm on asked me my opinion on the theological and historical fad concerning Paul the Apostle, called "the new perspective on Paul".
In sum, the "new perspective" is the realization that Paul was Jewish and that as such he did not stand against all things Jewish, as the church, for many centuries seem to portray him. This perspective was initiated by E.P. Sanders in his book Paul and Palestinian Judaism, and expanded into full theologies by J.D. Dunn and N.T. Wright.
The main insight by Sanders is absolutely correct-- Paul was Jewish and we have every indication that he continued to teach in synagogues throughout his life. In Acts, Paul is said to have obeyed the law completely in every aspect (Acts 21:24). He was a Jew in good standing, and although he caused controversy, he was never excluded from the Temple, and, if church tradition is correct, he was killed as a Roman citizen, in accord with Roman law, not as a Jewish citizen. I also think that it is the church's, especially the Protestants', interpretation of Paul that has caused him such disrepute, not what he actually wrote.
However, for me, I think that the "new perspective" theology is still pretty young and not fully developed. I've read a number of commentaries on Romans, including the one by Wright and a good portion of the one by Dunn, and I have yet to read one that made sense of the arguments in the book. I think that Richard Hays explains the book of Galatians adequately (although his book is almost incomprehensible) and I wish he would do some solid work on Romans in the same light.
Okay, now that I've gotten all technical, these are my conclusions as a reflection on the new perspective on Paul:
1. The early Christian church were more persecuted by the second Temple Jews because they considered the temple unnecessary and the priesthood corrupt and not worth obedience rather than their view on the law.
2. I think that Paul was not speaking of law or moral principle in general when he said it was superseded by faith. I think he was speaking specifically about the law of Moses and how it was superseded by Jesus' principles. Paul was still a strong proponent of moral code as being essential for salvation, as seen in I Corinthians 5-6.
3. That Paul was not one who dismissed Judaism, but was one who attempted to reform Judaism, even as Jesus did, even as Luther tried for the Catholic church. In all of these cases, it was the systems of power that rejected the reforms, thus causing new religions to be formed.
4. That what really got Paul rejected was his insistence of the acceptance of Gentiles by God into a Jesus-reformed Judaism. Although many have accused Paul of prejudice, I think that it was his tolerance that got him rejected. And I think that both Galatians and especially Romans are defenses of Paul's "gospel", which is, namely, the welcoming of Gentiles into God's kingdom.
Sorry for getting all technical and stuff. Perhaps my "great learning has driven" me "mad"
In sum, the "new perspective" is the realization that Paul was Jewish and that as such he did not stand against all things Jewish, as the church, for many centuries seem to portray him. This perspective was initiated by E.P. Sanders in his book Paul and Palestinian Judaism, and expanded into full theologies by J.D. Dunn and N.T. Wright.
The main insight by Sanders is absolutely correct-- Paul was Jewish and we have every indication that he continued to teach in synagogues throughout his life. In Acts, Paul is said to have obeyed the law completely in every aspect (Acts 21:24). He was a Jew in good standing, and although he caused controversy, he was never excluded from the Temple, and, if church tradition is correct, he was killed as a Roman citizen, in accord with Roman law, not as a Jewish citizen. I also think that it is the church's, especially the Protestants', interpretation of Paul that has caused him such disrepute, not what he actually wrote.
However, for me, I think that the "new perspective" theology is still pretty young and not fully developed. I've read a number of commentaries on Romans, including the one by Wright and a good portion of the one by Dunn, and I have yet to read one that made sense of the arguments in the book. I think that Richard Hays explains the book of Galatians adequately (although his book is almost incomprehensible) and I wish he would do some solid work on Romans in the same light.
Okay, now that I've gotten all technical, these are my conclusions as a reflection on the new perspective on Paul:
1. The early Christian church were more persecuted by the second Temple Jews because they considered the temple unnecessary and the priesthood corrupt and not worth obedience rather than their view on the law.
2. I think that Paul was not speaking of law or moral principle in general when he said it was superseded by faith. I think he was speaking specifically about the law of Moses and how it was superseded by Jesus' principles. Paul was still a strong proponent of moral code as being essential for salvation, as seen in I Corinthians 5-6.
3. That Paul was not one who dismissed Judaism, but was one who attempted to reform Judaism, even as Jesus did, even as Luther tried for the Catholic church. In all of these cases, it was the systems of power that rejected the reforms, thus causing new religions to be formed.
4. That what really got Paul rejected was his insistence of the acceptance of Gentiles by God into a Jesus-reformed Judaism. Although many have accused Paul of prejudice, I think that it was his tolerance that got him rejected. And I think that both Galatians and especially Romans are defenses of Paul's "gospel", which is, namely, the welcoming of Gentiles into God's kingdom.
Sorry for getting all technical and stuff. Perhaps my "great learning has driven" me "mad"
Friday, October 15, 2010
We Need Jesus, We Need Water
World Water Day Video
Did you know that a billion people in the world today don't have safe water?
That millions of people in China and Bangladesh have natural arsenic in their water?
That one fifth of all children under five in Africa die because they don't have access to clean water?
Pray for those who need clean water, that they might obtain it.
Support organizations that create clean water for those who need it.
Learn more about the need for clean water
Act now to assist those who need water
Did you know that a billion people in the world today don't have safe water?
That millions of people in China and Bangladesh have natural arsenic in their water?
That one fifth of all children under five in Africa die because they don't have access to clean water?
Pray for those who need clean water, that they might obtain it.
Support organizations that create clean water for those who need it.
Learn more about the need for clean water
Act now to assist those who need water
Sunday, October 10, 2010
The Joy of Socks
Thanks to three generous donations of socks-- all from California!-- I've been handing out more socks than ever.
And the best people to hand out socks to are folks with signs or who are begging for money. First of all, they don't expect it. But really, it's something they actually need.
Here's some of the responses I've gotten:
"Whoa! Socks are like gold!"
"You don't know how much I need these!"
"A pair of dry socks is what I need the most!" -- this last from an obvious alcoholic.
Carry socks in your car and hand them out freely to those in need on the street!
And praise God for David Reece who is starting to do this very kind of distribution to those in need in Orange County!
And the best people to hand out socks to are folks with signs or who are begging for money. First of all, they don't expect it. But really, it's something they actually need.
Here's some of the responses I've gotten:
"Whoa! Socks are like gold!"
"You don't know how much I need these!"
"A pair of dry socks is what I need the most!" -- this last from an obvious alcoholic.
Carry socks in your car and hand them out freely to those in need on the street!
And praise God for David Reece who is starting to do this very kind of distribution to those in need in Orange County!
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Atheists Understand Christianity Better Than Most Christians
From Crosswalk Religious News Summary:
A new Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life survey shows that if atheists and agnostics know Christian doctrine better than many Christians, according to the Los Angeles Times. For instance, four in 10 Catholics incorrectly described the bread and wine in Holy Communion as only a symbol of the body and blood of Christ, while atheists were more likely to say the elements become actual body and blood. The reason for this surprise finding may be that atheists and agnostics "are people who thought a lot about religion," said Alan Cooperman, associate director for research at the Pew Forum. "They're not indifferent. They care about it." Stephen Prothero, a professor of religion at Boston University, added, "I think in general the survey confirms what I argued in the book, which is that we know almost nothing about our own religions and even less about the religions of other people," he said.
A new Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life survey shows that if atheists and agnostics know Christian doctrine better than many Christians, according to the Los Angeles Times. For instance, four in 10 Catholics incorrectly described the bread and wine in Holy Communion as only a symbol of the body and blood of Christ, while atheists were more likely to say the elements become actual body and blood. The reason for this surprise finding may be that atheists and agnostics "are people who thought a lot about religion," said Alan Cooperman, associate director for research at the Pew Forum. "They're not indifferent. They care about it." Stephen Prothero, a professor of religion at Boston University, added, "I think in general the survey confirms what I argued in the book, which is that we know almost nothing about our own religions and even less about the religions of other people," he said.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Worldwide Rejection of Burning Qur'ans
A German congregation founded by the Florida preacher who has sparked global controversy with plans to burn Korans on 9/11 says it has had nothing to do with the preacher since 2008, denouncing him as "violent and fanatical." Religion News Service reports that the Christian Community of Cologne, which the Rev. Terry Jones formed in the 1980s, ousted the pastor over financial irregularities and personality clashes. Meanwhile, Vatican officials added their voice to the growing number of leaders denouncing the plan, calling it "an outrageous and grave gesture against a book considered sacred by a religious community." Similarly, Southern Baptist ethicist Richard Land said the burning of the Koran is "appalling" and does not represent the teachings of Christ.
The overall Christian rejection of the plan to burn Qur'ans on Sept 11 is probably the best thing to happen to Muslim/Christian relations. It is wonderful to see Christians reject the prejudice and anger-inducing threats of Terry Jones.
We need to remember to be tolerant, accept everyone and to allow God to do the judging. Praise God that the church in general is deciding to do that this time. It makes for a nice change.
The overall Christian rejection of the plan to burn Qur'ans on Sept 11 is probably the best thing to happen to Muslim/Christian relations. It is wonderful to see Christians reject the prejudice and anger-inducing threats of Terry Jones.
We need to remember to be tolerant, accept everyone and to allow God to do the judging. Praise God that the church in general is deciding to do that this time. It makes for a nice change.
Everybody Pray for Christopher Hitchens
Everybody Pray for Hitchens Day-- Sept 20
Christopher Hitchens, who's book "God is Not Great" had throat cancer and it has been suggested by Christians that we should pray for his healing on Sept 20.
Atheist Christopher Hitchens, who suffers from esophageal cancer, says he would be happy if Christians didn't follow through with "Everybody Pray for Hitchens Day" on Sept. 20. In Vanity Fair's October issue, he writes, "I don't mean to be churlish about any kind intentions, but when September 20 comes, please do not trouble deaf heaven with your bootless cries." He added, "Unless, of course, it makes you feel better." Hitchens, author of the New York Times bestseller God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, says he appreciates the sentiment behind people's prayers, but certainly doesn't believe their prayers will have effect. "[W]hat if I pulled through and the pious faction contentedly claimed that their prayers had been answered? That would somehow be irritating," he writes.
Perhaps, however, it would give him a pause if all of his symptoms disappeared on Sept 20 and he was completely healed. If he is actually a reasoned creature, as he proclaims, a clear, personal miracle may be what he needs.
Pray for Christopher Hitchens!
Christopher Hitchens, who's book "God is Not Great" had throat cancer and it has been suggested by Christians that we should pray for his healing on Sept 20.
Atheist Christopher Hitchens, who suffers from esophageal cancer, says he would be happy if Christians didn't follow through with "Everybody Pray for Hitchens Day" on Sept. 20. In Vanity Fair's October issue, he writes, "I don't mean to be churlish about any kind intentions, but when September 20 comes, please do not trouble deaf heaven with your bootless cries." He added, "Unless, of course, it makes you feel better." Hitchens, author of the New York Times bestseller God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, says he appreciates the sentiment behind people's prayers, but certainly doesn't believe their prayers will have effect. "[W]hat if I pulled through and the pious faction contentedly claimed that their prayers had been answered? That would somehow be irritating," he writes.
Perhaps, however, it would give him a pause if all of his symptoms disappeared on Sept 20 and he was completely healed. If he is actually a reasoned creature, as he proclaims, a clear, personal miracle may be what he needs.
Pray for Christopher Hitchens!
Thursday, September 09, 2010
Should our Language of God be Gender-Neutral?
UK Daily Mail reports that the Scottish Episcopal Church has caused controversy by removing masculine references to God in a new order of service. The new liturgy and worship forms with more "inclusive" language are an attempt to acknowledge that God is "beyond human gender." Not every church, however, will be using the new form -- only those who have difficulty with a male God. To that end, words such as 'Lord, he, his, him' have been removed; 'mankind' has been replaced with "world" in most instances. Traditionalists have criticized the changes on the grounds that they smack of political correctness and because they believe they are not consistent with the teachings of the Bible. The church's Liturgy Committee produced the new form in consultation with the Faith & Order Board of General Synod and the College of Bishops.
While it is true that God is beyond human gender-- both male and female were created in God's image-- the Biblical language of God is always male? C.S. Lewis, in That Hideous Strength, says that God is always the male and we are always the female. Which is to say, God is always the forceful one, we the passive. That sounds offensive to feminists, and so it should. Women are not necessarily passive. For this reason the language of God being male might be offensive to some.
However, just on a biological level, we need to recognize that the male is more aggressive, more apt to be forceful. This is hormonal, not cultural. And the Bible teaches that it is God who goes to war for us, it is God who is aggressive for us, so that we do not have to be. In some ways, for us males, God castrates us. He forces us to surrender our maleness and give it up to Him, allowing him to be the Alpha male.
For this reason, I think it is good to keep the traditional language. To recognize God in the traditional male role, giving us the freedom to remain submissive to Him.
While it is true that God is beyond human gender-- both male and female were created in God's image-- the Biblical language of God is always male? C.S. Lewis, in That Hideous Strength, says that God is always the male and we are always the female. Which is to say, God is always the forceful one, we the passive. That sounds offensive to feminists, and so it should. Women are not necessarily passive. For this reason the language of God being male might be offensive to some.
However, just on a biological level, we need to recognize that the male is more aggressive, more apt to be forceful. This is hormonal, not cultural. And the Bible teaches that it is God who goes to war for us, it is God who is aggressive for us, so that we do not have to be. In some ways, for us males, God castrates us. He forces us to surrender our maleness and give it up to Him, allowing him to be the Alpha male.
For this reason, I think it is good to keep the traditional language. To recognize God in the traditional male role, giving us the freedom to remain submissive to Him.
Friday, September 03, 2010
Anawim Newsletter!
We have e-published our first Anawim newsletter. If you have not received it in your email and you WANT to receive it, please send me your email address and I'll get it to you right away.
My email address is: stevekimes@aol.com
My email address is: stevekimes@aol.com
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Religion and Wealth
Those who need God more seek Him more. Those who are "self-sufficient" don't bother with God except superficially.
An article by Religious News Summaries:
Recently released data by Gallup reveals that religion plays a greater role in the daily lives of people in poor countries than those living in wealthy countries. Christian Today reports that 84 percent of adults in 114 countries say religion is an important part of their daily lives. In countries where per-capita income hovers under $2,000, that figure jumps to 95 percent of people. The percentage plummets in more wealthy nations. In countries where average per-capita income is above $25,000, just 47 percent of people say religion is important to their daily lives. In the United States, 65 percent of people said religion is important to their daily lives. In Estonia, only 16 percent of those surveyed agreed. Gallup said the survey results could indicate that religions plays a "more functional role" in poor countries by "helping many residents cope with a daily struggle to provide for themselves and their families."
An article by Religious News Summaries:
Recently released data by Gallup reveals that religion plays a greater role in the daily lives of people in poor countries than those living in wealthy countries. Christian Today reports that 84 percent of adults in 114 countries say religion is an important part of their daily lives. In countries where per-capita income hovers under $2,000, that figure jumps to 95 percent of people. The percentage plummets in more wealthy nations. In countries where average per-capita income is above $25,000, just 47 percent of people say religion is important to their daily lives. In the United States, 65 percent of people said religion is important to their daily lives. In Estonia, only 16 percent of those surveyed agreed. Gallup said the survey results could indicate that religions plays a "more functional role" in poor countries by "helping many residents cope with a daily struggle to provide for themselves and their families."
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Bangladeshi Christian Accused of Theft
From Crosswalk Religious News Summaries:
Christian Convert in Bangladesh Falsely Accused of Theft
A Christian convert from Islam was falsely arrested for cattle theft last weekend as Muslims attempted to stop his Christian activities, area villagers said. Day laborer Abul Hossen, 41, was arrested on Aug. 21 for alleged cattle theft about 180 miles northwest of the capital, Dhaka. Christian villagers told Compass Direct News that Hossen was the victim of "dirty tricks" by influential Muslims. "There is another Abul Hossen in the village who might be the thief, but his father-in-law is very powerful," said Gonesh Roy. "To save his son-in-law, he imputed all the blame to a different Abul Hossen who is a completely good man." Hossen, who converted to Christianity from Islam in 2007, is very active in the community, and Muslims are harassing him with the charge so his ministry will be discredited and villagers will denounce his faith, Roy said. Some 150 villagers, about 20 percent of them Christian, went to the police station to plea for his freedom
Christian Convert in Bangladesh Falsely Accused of Theft
A Christian convert from Islam was falsely arrested for cattle theft last weekend as Muslims attempted to stop his Christian activities, area villagers said. Day laborer Abul Hossen, 41, was arrested on Aug. 21 for alleged cattle theft about 180 miles northwest of the capital, Dhaka. Christian villagers told Compass Direct News that Hossen was the victim of "dirty tricks" by influential Muslims. "There is another Abul Hossen in the village who might be the thief, but his father-in-law is very powerful," said Gonesh Roy. "To save his son-in-law, he imputed all the blame to a different Abul Hossen who is a completely good man." Hossen, who converted to Christianity from Islam in 2007, is very active in the community, and Muslims are harassing him with the charge so his ministry will be discredited and villagers will denounce his faith, Roy said. Some 150 villagers, about 20 percent of them Christian, went to the police station to plea for his freedom
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Churches Helping Bring Justice Into Prisons
"Six months before she was scheduled to be released on drug charges, Marilyn Shirley was raped in 2000 by a guard at the Texas prison where she was serving time. Her attacker said she wasn't "the only one." Now an assortment of 35 religious and human rights groups is pushing Attorney General Eric Holder to adopt standards that would clamp down on the estimated 60,000 cases that happen each year. "What we are witnessing is justice denied," said Tim Goeglein, vice president of external relations at Focus on the Family and one of the signers of a letter. Religion News Service reports that he standards, proposed last year, would subject correctional facilities to audits and establish a protocol for handling rape in their facilities. According to the 2003 Prison Rape Elimination Act, they were supposed to be enacted by Holder by June of this year."
-Religious News Summaries by Crosswalk
-Religious News Summaries by Crosswalk
Friday, August 06, 2010
Judges Ruling in CA
From Crosswalk Religious News Summary:
California's Proposition 8 Overturned, Christian Leaders Respond
On Wednesday, August 4, U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker struck down California's Proposition 8- a voter-driven referendum, which confirming that marriage should remain between one man and one woman. Many politically active Christian leaders spoke up against this decision, expressing deep concern over implications of the controversial ruling. "The religious liberty dimensions of the decision are momentous and deeply troubling. According to Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary said that "while Judge Walker declared that the religious freedoms of citizens and religious bodies were not violated... the very structure of his argument condemned religious and theological objections to homosexuality and same-sex marriage as both harmful and irrational." "It's not just marriage that was put on trial," said Daniel Blomerg, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, "but the fundamental freedom of having your vote count and having the liberty to express and live by your religious beliefs. It's pretty shocking." On his radio program Thursday, August 5, author and President of Prison Fellowship Chuck Colson told listeners, "What's at stake here goes beyond California and even beyond marriage itself. The reasoning that overturned California's law, that said that the right of gays to marry is a fundamental constitutional right, would, if applied nationally, overturn similar laws throughout the country."
I am not an expert on the Constitution, although I know it, and I am certainly not an expert on the California-- I don't know if anyone is. But I do know that religious freedom cannot be hindered by giving someone else freedom, unless that freedom is to harm people for their religious beliefs. It is a lie to say that heterosexual marriage in general is harmed if homosexuals can get married. One freedom does not define other freedom. The only law that truly harms marriage is divorce laws, which applies to all.
If you want to save marriage, don't get divorced. Or commit adultery. Or cause someone else to get divorced or to commit adultery. Or you can discourage people from getting divorced or committing adultery. But don't think that giving someone else a freedom will break an already broken system.
California's Proposition 8 Overturned, Christian Leaders Respond
On Wednesday, August 4, U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker struck down California's Proposition 8- a voter-driven referendum, which confirming that marriage should remain between one man and one woman. Many politically active Christian leaders spoke up against this decision, expressing deep concern over implications of the controversial ruling. "The religious liberty dimensions of the decision are momentous and deeply troubling. According to Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary said that "while Judge Walker declared that the religious freedoms of citizens and religious bodies were not violated... the very structure of his argument condemned religious and theological objections to homosexuality and same-sex marriage as both harmful and irrational." "It's not just marriage that was put on trial," said Daniel Blomerg, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, "but the fundamental freedom of having your vote count and having the liberty to express and live by your religious beliefs. It's pretty shocking." On his radio program Thursday, August 5, author and President of Prison Fellowship Chuck Colson told listeners, "What's at stake here goes beyond California and even beyond marriage itself. The reasoning that overturned California's law, that said that the right of gays to marry is a fundamental constitutional right, would, if applied nationally, overturn similar laws throughout the country."
I am not an expert on the Constitution, although I know it, and I am certainly not an expert on the California-- I don't know if anyone is. But I do know that religious freedom cannot be hindered by giving someone else freedom, unless that freedom is to harm people for their religious beliefs. It is a lie to say that heterosexual marriage in general is harmed if homosexuals can get married. One freedom does not define other freedom. The only law that truly harms marriage is divorce laws, which applies to all.
If you want to save marriage, don't get divorced. Or commit adultery. Or cause someone else to get divorced or to commit adultery. Or you can discourage people from getting divorced or committing adultery. But don't think that giving someone else a freedom will break an already broken system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)