Response to Ricardo

This post is to answer some comments made by Ricardo from over at Enemy of the Republic. Keep swinging, Ricardo!

Ricardo,

In beginning,

“Gary......polygamy? Let's not go crazy here. I understand the concern but that's going to the extreme.”

With all due respect Ricardo, that is a deflection. It addresses none of the points I raised.

“We were talking about couples. Who is it hurting if they are involved in a meaningful relationship?

What is the difference between couples and groups? If the standard is “who is it hurting?” then one is as valid as another. Both standards came from the same place, didn’t they? If you want to use “no harm” as a reason to allow something, the polygamy meets the spec. It really shouldn’t matter whether it’s two consenting adults, three, or a dozen. If you have a good reason why it does, please let me know.

Likewise with incest. People will say that they are against it because of the possibility of genetic defects. Fine, in a very short period of time we will be able to screen people for any number of genetic defects in offspring. Do we want to limit people’s ability to marry on that basis? If not, then why not abolish incest rules between two consenting adults? Wouldn’t that have the same validity as any other pairing?

“Case in point using my own faith, I can't eat pork chops. But you can buy them in the grocery store. It's a bad thing for us Jews to do. Everyone has the choice to cook em up and eat them. But it goes against Jewish law. My law. So I don't do it.”

“You go to that grocery store and get pork chops and no harm done. It's not against your spiritual doctrine but it's against mine. So I make the choice to not buy them and you make the choice to buy them."

“What I do not do is try and get the grocery store shut down because it doesn't jive with my beliefs. I do my thing, you do their thing and we're happy. Because, Gary, trying to impose my beliefs on everyone else does not make me a more pious Jew. It makes me a meddlesome jackass."

Tell me Ricardo, does your law say that the pork chops are bad for everyone, or that it was established to separate the Jews as a unique people? Is it really part of your belief that no one should eat pork chops? I don’t think that is the case, and if it is not, we aren’t dealing with parallel situations are we?

“If you think sleeping with someone of the same sex is wrong, fine. God bless you. You know what you have to do to stay on your version of the straight and narrow: Don't screw another guy and you shall be holy.”

Ricardo, you are responding with emotion and not to what I wrote. Quick recap: None of us is holy. Not one. We are accepted on faith, or not at all. Having said that, the law is still there to guide us as to what is right and wrong. In good conscience, I cannot let what God says is wrong be characterized is good and write. I am imposing my will on no one. I am simply relaying the point of the scriptures. Do with them what you will.

When Feelings Attack!

A lot of what I've read relating to spirituality lately seems to revolve around the feelings of the person making the statement. Though generally presented in the form "I believe...," there is often nothing specific to reference the belief to. The belief may stem in part from the Bible or Koran, or any number of other texts considered sacred. Or the belief may spring from a purely secular source, again not specific in reference. Essentially, the belief is a result of what the person "feels" to be correct from some frame of reference. The reference frame might be social or moral. It might be rebellious and chaotic. And it might be any mixture of those, or none of them or any others. But again, it all comes down to what "feels" right.

While I certainly don't want to disparage a person's feelings, I think that feelings form a poor basis for most life choices. If I didn't, I would probably be dead.

I had been in the navy for approximately 12 years at the time. I was enlisted, assigned to submarines. A few notes on submarine life: the people are great, some of the best guys you'd ever want to meet. Smart. Professional. Good people to have backing you up. I'll never say different. Even the ones that I didn't particularly get along with, I still had a good amount of respect for. The job is important, too. Despite all of the griping we did about "poking holes in the ocean," I don't think there was a man on board that wasn't proud of the part they played.

For all of that, there are bad parts. The job is stressful. (There's a shocker, right?) It's exhausting, as well. If I wasn't putting in at least 80 hours a week when we were out to see, I was slacking off. Weeks closer to a hundred were a lot more common. And at high alert times, you could forget about anything like sleep or time off. That's just the way it was. I handled it okay for a while, but over time, it wore me down. And finally, around the twelve year point, I was pretty much at the point where I felt like life just wasn't worth living any more. I was crushed under a work load I couldn't hope to meet. I was trapped in a job that I had come to despise, but could not quit. I worked myself to exhaustion each day, but when I found a few hours to lay down, I found that I could not sleep. Instead, my mind replayed a flowing "greatest-hits" version of the disasters of the day while I tossed and turned miserably and waited for the watchmen to wake me at breakfast.

I was diagnosed later with clinical depression. Of course, at the time, I had no idea that I had a medical condition. I simply thought that I was the only one who understood how much things really sucked. And as things got worse, as they often do on the way to the bottom, it occurred to me that life really hurt a lot, and that death would probably hurt a lot less. And the more I thought about it, the more I was convinced that it was true. Yet for all of that, when the base psychologist asked me a short while later if I had contemplated suicide, I could truthfully answer "no."

I credit two things with that answer: The first was my acceptance of Christ at a very young age. I had slid a good deal from the teachings of my youth, but I had never walked entirely away from Him. He had not walked away from me either. The second (which probably is also greatly related to the first) was an teaching that I had taken to heart in high school: The idea that suicide was never an answer. As lousy as I felt, there were still people that cared about me and that counted on me.

The moral to the story, at least from my point of view, is that feelings can lead you astray. They can make the bad seem good, and the good seem bad. They depend on the time of day, the time of the month, what you had for your last meal, what your family medical history is. Any number of things can affect them and place you in an alternate universe completely divorced from reality.

I do not say this out of a belief that they are not important. Feelings are like tastebuds that allow us to savor the days of our lives. They are the highs and the lows, the warmth behind the hug, the tear behind the card, the sparkle in our eye as we feast on its beauty. For all of that, however, left unchecked they can destroy you and all around you. They are the spite in the last remark, the mob crying out for vengeance, and yes, the compassion that overrides common sense and leads to destruction.

I love my wife very much. However, if I was counting on that feeling to keep us together, we probably would not be. There have been a few low points where either one of us might have thrown in the towel. I love my kids, but don't even get me started about the roller coaster of "feelings" I go through with them during an average week. A lot of days, I don't feel like getting up and going to work. Lately, I don't "feel" like getting older, but as I have already mentioned I am not about to take the steps required to prevent it.

There's a reason why in the Bible, we are told to love God with our heart, mind, and soul. To keep growing in Him, it has to be a commitment of all that we are - emotional, intellectual, and spiritual. Can we be saved without it? We can, through faith. But if we aren't growing and strengthening all aspects of that love, it can be a pretty bumpy relationship. Kind of like the other relationships in our lives.

C.S. Lewis once said (and this is an approximate quote) that "If the gospel is false, it is of no importance. If the gospel is true, then there is nothing else as important." And the reason he said that was that the gospel proclaimed that there was an eternity of suffering for all who did not turn to God. More than that, it proclaimed that there was only one way to be saved.

I'm not trying to be overly dramatic here. I am simply trying to point out that, if all of eternity is at stake, that would be a significantly important matter. Given that, how do you handle important matters? Do you want to feel, or do you want to know? Do you rest on your own knowledge, or do you study to find out the truth? And when it gets down to crunch time, how are you going to make your decision?

Those are the big questions. How do they make you feel?

So, We Need This...Why?

This is probably a hot-button issue for a lot of people out there. The title of the post may seem a little whimsical, but I must affirm it is serious. And it is also without rancor, so please bear that in mind as you proceed...

I am given to understand that the Equal Rights Amendment is back on the legislative circuit, or soon will be. The names have been changed to protect the failed (mild sarcasm intended), but I've been led to believe it's the same idea that tried before and was found wanting. What I have to ask (and again I point out this is a serious question), is why do we need this?

Now, I don't think that my political leanings are any secret to anyone who has taken the time to glance at my profile or read some of the other stuff that I've written. Hard-core Christian conservative, through and through. Having said that, I do believe that in all respects, gender should not be a determining factor in the attainment of rights under law. I also consider male and female to be full and equal creations under God from a spiritual standpoint, and hold no conception of superiority of one gender over another overall. (I will confess to belief that certain specific areas of endeavor strongly favor one sex over another. E.g., I could spend the rest of my life trying to mother a child, and somehow I don't think I would make it.)

Taking all of that into account, I still ask the question: Why do we need another amendment? What is this one supposed to do that the 14th does not? The amendment process is long, expensive, and contentious. I think it foolish to distract from other business if we are talking about a purely symbolic gesture. So back to the question: Why this? What do we need it for? What do we hope to gain? Anyone up for discussion?

Is Our Faith Still in the Boat? (or did it even get on board?)

Not so long ago I submitted a post for "Original Faith," another Blog associated with this area of websites. The subject matter was a scriptural view of the gay lifestyle with an emphasis relating to gay marriage. I appreciated the opportunity to post, considering that no one much stops by here. Perhaps someday, but that's not really the point. Anyway...

I pretty much knew the lay of the land when Paul, the host of the website referred to my discussion of gay marriage as "An Opposition View." I have to complement the tenor of the discussion, really. It remained wonderfully civil for the most part. There were even a few people who seemed to agree with me. Not many, but some. And even those who did not kept things pretty cool. I appreciate that. I've been in substantially rougher landscapes. And there were some interesting comments about different views and personal faiths. Every seemed intelligent and thoughtful, and still...

There's a sign at the entrance to the website. It reads: "To participate in thoughtful discussion on religious and spiritual matters, enter the Original Faith blog — where respect for all viewpoints on religion is a spiritual passion." As I said, I found the respect for the most part. I found the thought, as well. But passion?

Picture this: Your in a small boat in the middle of the night. You are rowing hard against the wind, and the waves are splashing over the sides. Your arms are already tire, and you wonder if there is enough left in you to make it to the shore. It's nearly pitch black. No lamp will light; no torch will burn. And then out of the shadowy ways you see something coming toward you. It's a figure that walks on the waves as easily as you or I walk down the path. Now if this is me, I'm convinced by now that what I am seeing is probably the angel of death coming to take me out of the boat, or maybe it will wait until I fall into the sea and drown, and then it will pick up the pieces. And even when you hear a familiar voice saying "Do not be afraid!" I'm still probably face down at the bottom of the boat, crying and praying and who knows what else.

And then I hear a second voice. Maybe it isn't as calm as the first, but it's loud enough. It's saying "Lord, if that's really you, order me to come out on the water to you." And I'm thinking "Is this guy nuts?" But the Lord answers "Come!" and next thing you know the boat is rocking because someone is getting out and heading into the waves.

It wasn't much of a trip, but there has never been another one like it. Think about it: In the midst of the wind and waves, already in danger, what does Peter do? He doesn't just say "Lord, allow me to do the impossible" or "Lord, enable me to do the impossible." He says "Lord, order me to do the impossible!" In the face of fear and maybe death, Peter, arguably the biggest screw-up of all the apostles, is saying he wants the Lord to give him an impossible job.

That's a passion for faith. That's the kind of faith I want to have - a faith that faces everything, and still wants more to do. It's a faith that is bold, that proclaims right up to the end. Or at least until I start sinking up to my neck.

That was what was missing during most of the discussion. The person I read with the most passion was the person that seemed to have no real faith at all. Most of the rest was...bland. There was philosophy and spirituality and lots of opinion, but was there faith? People looked within themselves for belief. It was a spirituality that asked for nothing and promised nothing. It might give personal comfort, but would it spread? Would it empower? Would it build anything that would last? Was it faith?

Not a faith that I could see.

There's a passage in the scriptures around the commandments that is translated that the Lord God is a "jealous" God. A better translation, more exact translation, is the Lord God burns passionately for you. He burns for a relationship with you so that you will know him and fellowship with him. And the fellowship will change everything about you. And it will last forever.

That's the faith I want. That's the passion I seek. And that's the journey I try to continue each day. I've seen a small peak of heaven. I won't turn back again.

If Jesus is appalled, then...what?

There seems to be a great deal of consternation across the web for a certain political candidate taking the position that certain facts of life in America would "appall" Jesus. Considering the conditions mentioned include indifference to the poor and an over emphasis on self, I would not be surprised if Jesus were indeed "appalled." (There were also references about "going to war unnecessarily" which begs the question "Was it necessary?" Another time on that one.) As a conservative Christian, I can't really say that I find anything un-Biblical about the idea. If we accept that notion, however, a more important point becomes "What do we do about it?"

From what I read later in the posting, Edwards seemed to advocate things like government provided health coverage, public assistance, etc. All of this would be financed by the tax payers. There was never any reference, to the best of my knowledge, claiming this is what Jesus would do. Nevertheless, I think since Christ was used for the question, he should be referenced in the answer, at least as much as possible. Accepting Christ as God incarnate, I certainly do not want to take responsibility for speaking for him. I do think that we can use the history provided though for some educated interpretations.

Christ was certainly no stranger to taxes, or tax collectors for that matter. His disciple Matthew was a tax collector prior to leaving to become one of Christ's disciples. Jesus attended a party at Matthew's home for tax collectors, and later declared a tax collector, Zacchaeus, as one of the lost sons of Israel that he came for. Jesus told Peter to pay the temple tax, and one of the favorite lines I hear quoted with regards to taxation begins "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's..." I find it very revealing that the second part, "and give unto God what is God's," is seldom included.

At the time of that writing, in that setting, the tax system of the Romans in Judea had little to do with Benevolence. It was a method of finance for Rome's interest. I'm sure that Jesus could have dictated any number of books on the subject should he have chosen to do so. He did not. On the other hand, charity was a matter for the church. In addition to the tithe to be collected for the maintenance of the temple and the priests, there was supposed to be an additional tithe, or ten percent, for poor Jews under Mosaic Law. There was a third tithe to be given over a three-year period, or three and a third percent per year, for the purpose of subsidizing poor gentiles in the land. These would have been a matter for the priests, and not the politicians.

Sadly, many of the religious leaders of the time seemed more interested in lining their own pockets than taking care of the poor. The gospel writers make it pretty clear that poverty and illness were common in the land. Yet Christ did not appeal to the priests or the government. When Peter told Jesus they needed to send the people away to get food, Christ's response was immediate and personal: "You give them something to eat." His was a message of returning to God and personal holiness. When Zacchaeus the tax collector met Jesus and received salvation, his response was not to tax people to help the poor. Instead, he gave half of his wealth to the poor, and returned all of the money that he had wrongly taken many times over.

Don't get me wrong. I certainly believe that we are called to help the poor, and to generosity of all kinds. I simply don't believe that the tax code is the best way to do that. Taxes collected for one thing have a habit of ending up elsewhere, with very little accountability. I heard somewhere a while ago that less than 30% of the money collected for "the poor" actually makes it there. The rest is lost in government overhead and bureaucracy. I also find it hard to associate taxes with charity. Charity, by it's very nature, is freely given. The scriptures say that "God loves a cheerful giver." Not a lot is mentioned about tax payers.

If we do want to help the poor, then I think we owe it to them, and ourselves, to do it the best way possible. Let's restore charity to the public square, free from coercion and resentment, and let government do the things it can do best.

The Lady Takes a Fall (or does she?)

I have to admit that I'm saddened by all of the bru-ha-ha about Ann Coulter's comments towards John Edwards. Not surprised, really, but saddened. I'm saddened that the comment was made. Sad that the media gave it so much attention. I'm very sad that it seems to be a rallying point for so many with axes to grind.

I think that the lady (perhaps a qualified term) explained it best herself. She acknowledged that it was a juvenile taunt at someone she wanted to insult. Once upon a time, that might have been the end of it. That was an older day, when our parents tried to teach us not to fear words. We've now arrived at the point where politics may be local, but snippy remarks can go global in a heart beat. If this is supposed to be a more civilized era, I can't say I understand why.

I'm not going to defend an insult. I try to avoid them myself, but I don't much like confrontation. I also prefer to be polite. Having said that, it seems pretty ridiculous to me that so many people are getting upset about this. If people stopped airing the comments, they'd die out soon enough. As it is, I guess we'll be treated to media outrage for quite a while.

I was amused however at some of the comments directed toward Ms. Coulter. There were claims that she was getting her due, or just desserts, or some such thing. I read snickers as assumed conservatives apologized for or denounced her words. "Thrown under the bus," was in at least one blog. "Sniveling" appeared in another. I didn't hear what any of the Republicans said about her, but I read Ms. Coulter's statement. The sniveling escaped me. Like her or hate her, there's a l0t of steel in that woman. She's smart enough to know that the best way to let yourself be destroyed these days is to apologize to the media circus. It did in Trent Lott. It did in Larry Summers. For anyone that might lean conservative these days, there is no upside to an apology. Better to ride it out.

And she will. I've read a fair portion of Ms. Coulter's work. She dishes it out, but she's shown that she can take it as well. She realizes that words have power, yes, but only the power we give them. And that's why she'll survive long after the apologizer's have disappeared.