Fake China :: Fake Church

I have a friend who is about to travel to Beijing for the 2008 Olympics. One of her friends has a brother who is swimming for Tunisia, so she decided to come along for the ride.

Last night she was over at our house, telling us about some of the interesting steps the Chinese government is taking to make their capital city a world-class experience for these two weeks in August:

1) They are shutting down numerous factories for a period of time, with the hopes of drastically improving air quality. Imagine the let-down for those Beijing residents who discover what it's like to take a deep breath for two weeks, before going back to "normal".

2) They are banning cars from the road. For a three-month period, cars are restricted on alternate days, depending on their license plate numbers. My friend said they were banning cars completely during the Olympics, which may be true, but I haven't found support for that yet on the web.

3) She also said they'll be banning the internet, which is certainly something they'd like to do, but I can't prove that they've decided to do so, against the insistence the IOC.

In addition to those things, the Chinese government has prompted (to put it gently) its citizens to do many other things, such as: changing the names of its restaurant dishes (and remove dog meat from the menu), quit asking personal questions that might offend westerners, stop smoking, stop using fireworks, and the list goes on and on.

With all these expensive initiatives, it is not likely that China will make money on the Olympics. Chances are that they don't care... they see this simply as an extremely expensive public relations project, which will garner them First World status.

After mentioning all these bans, my friend lamented that she would just rather experience Chinese culture for what it really is. Of course the breathing will be nice, but she is sad for the lack of one very important thing: Authenticity.

We may laugh at the Chinese government's paranoid attempts at keeping, or saving, face. But there is something very human about it. In a bad way, that is.

The Church is a prime suspect of the same offense. The Church is polluted, it's noisy and messy. It has a beautiful culture, but is not without it's crazy jargon and undesirable characters. It's natural that we should want to mask all that ugliness. Otherwise, who would ever come?

But people can surprise you. Authenticity is a powerful thing, and people will put up with a lot to be in the presence of real honesty and transparency. It's scary to put yourself out there, and a lot of people really will turn away in disgust. But those are not the people you need around anyway.

And before you accuse the Church too sharply, do some navel-gazing of your own. What are you trying to hide? Put up your facade if you must; disbelieve it if you like, but most people would rather know the Real You.

Rock the Vote - Coming in November

This is just a sneak preview for you blog readers. The Front Porch is teaming up with Randy Bacon and Springfield Music to bring you the local music event of the year on Saturday November 1: Rock the Vote 2008!

As you can see from the poster prototype, there will be (at least) three stages, the Front Porch, Randy Bacon Studio, and the studio next door to Randy Bacon, called Figment. Each stage will host its own style of music, and no matter where you are, there will be opportunities to register to vote, and to learn more about the major candidates in an informative, even-handed way.

The plan is to have at least two dozen bands, mostly local, but also to include several touring acts, and hopefully one big-name draw from outside the area. All proceeds will go to the continuing work of the Front Porch, but the main idea is to get people excited about exercising their right to vote the following Tuesday.

I'll definitely be keeping you up to speed on the details. If you know of any bands who would like to contribute to this effort, ideally for free, you can contact Ben Johnson at music@thecoredowntown.com. or if you'd like to help out in any way, please e-mail Christina Wiksell at christina@thecoredowntown.com. But in the meantime, just put it on your calendar and I'll plan to see you there!


+

Starbucks: A Follow-up

This post is a continuation of Starbucks: Keeping a Tight Lid on Freedom of Speech.

Following is the overly tactful and judicious e-mail I received from Starbucks Customer Relations:

Ryan,

Starbucks is committed to contributing to our communities and to the environment. We provide our support through monetary contributions, product donations and through The Starbucks Foundation.

Starbucks provides donations and sponsorships to nonprofit organizations in the following areas: the work of young social entrepreneurs, literacy, the environment, local communities, and programs in coffee-growing communities.

We believe our partners (employees) are the best resource we can offer, therefore we also support organizations in which they are active volunteers. This ensures that our investments touch the neighborhoods where Starbucks partners live and work.

Please note that as a rule, Starbucks does not donate to individuals, programs that promote or endorse a specific religious affiliation, political candidates, or for-profit organizations. This includes the donation of space inside of our store locations (ie: community boards).Sincerely,

Julie S.
Customer Relations
Starbucks Coffee Company

And here is my response:

Julie,

It is obvious that Starbucks is trying to make a positive impact in the communities it occupies. However, I am very sad to hear that you consider the usage of your community board as a "donation of space" and therefore something that cannot be extended to religious or political entities.

Although this type of policy is certainly within your right as a private corporation, it is nevertheless an attempt, in my opinion, to homogenize the atmosphere of dialogue within your restaurants, and avoid anything which might run counter to the beliefs or loyalties of your customers. The only possible result is a bland environment which insults people's intelligence by assuming that they cannot co-exist with ideas which are not complementary to their own.

I say this not for my own benefit. (There are plenty of other places to put up my harmless and extremely unoffensive posters. In fact, not only have I lost interest in promoting our worship gathering at Starbucks, I've lost interest in your company at every level.) I say this because I believe the public deserves better, and that Starbucks has failed to live up to the culture of insightful and challenging dialogue that has characterized the coffeehouse environment for centuries.

Sincerely,
Ryan Wiksell.

Starbucks: Keeping a Tight Lid on Freedom of Speech

Two Saturdays ago, I had to be at the Front Porch at 8 am to let a friend of ours in, so he could do some work on the interior doors.

I'm never buying anything from Starbucks again.

Or at least not from a certain location, depending on how things pan out.

Last night I was driving around putting up posters for the Front Porch, at a few non-downtown locations for a change. Three Panera restaurants, a Borders bookstore, and... Starbucks.

As you may know, every Starbucks store has a magnetic board for community fliers and announcements. I went to the South Campbell location, and found that there was plenty of space for my poster... if I moved a few things around. It took me a minute, and business was slow, so one of the baristas asked me in a friendly tone if I was having fun. I said sure. I got my poster put up, and I headed out.

But I had a different experience altogether at the East Sunshine location, near Bass Pro. It was even slower there, and the situation was the same with the magnet board, so I started moving things around.

I was almost done when an employee behind me (presumably the manager) bluntly informed me that if I put up my poster, he would have to take it down immediately. Why? Because it's corporate policy that nothing religious be placed on the community board. Nothing religious or political, he said. I could be wrong, but I sensed a smirk on his face.

Frankly, I was stunned. Religious and political censorship? In a coffee house? How many alliances and visions and revolutions have been birthed in coffee houses over the centuries? Paris... London... Boston... the coffee house was the community heartbeat for intellectual dialogue and sociological progress. Can you imagine if all these historic conversations had been interrupted by 19 year-old baristas with a warning not to cross corporate policy?

Does this manager mean to tell me that announcements for peace rallies, get-out-the-vote campaigns, church charity drives, and biblical counseling are all contraband?

You should see what's left over. There was a notice of a lost dog, a certificate of thanks awarded to Starbucks for community investment of some kind, and a newspaper clipping. That's it.

I will allow the possibility that this particular manager was mistaken, in addition to being rude. I sent an e-mail through their corporate website, asking if he was correct about corporate policy. If he was not correct, I hold nothing further against Starbucks, only their East Sunshine location. If, however, the coffee giant has gone so far as to turn their entire chain into an oppressively polite family dinner table, then I will have nothing further to do with them.

You may still want to go there... that's up to you. But if you must discuss your opinions about Bush or Obama or Moses, I suggest you keep your voices down.



+

P.S. Or, if you must have your say, simply have your religious or political thoughts published on their cups... like Rick Warren did.

A Penny Saved Is a Penny That's Probably Voting Republican

How bout some thoughts on economics & politics...

Economics

This evening we saw a very clever news piece on CBS about the penny. Apparently (and I may have known this already) it costs more money for the U.S. Mint to produce pennies (and nickels, actually) than their actual value. And inflation is getting to the point where we may be in danger of sinister individuals melting down those two coins to sell them for scrap metal. It's happened in other countries... it could happen here.

The nickel is probably safe. But the cost overruns on the penny are so severe, that it's practically doomed.

Granted, there is a certain nostalgia involved. Finding a penny on the ground heads-up. A penny saved is a penny earned. A penny for your thoughts. Pennies from Heaven. But the people who really feel strongly about them should just keep a few for themselves, and not complain if the government wants to take them out of circulation.

The conventional wisdom is that all prices would then be rounded to the nickel. (Dogma Alert) But that doesn't make sense, because as long as we're adding some silly amount to the top of every price, like 7.1%, why bother rounding the sticker price at all? Retailers could leave the sticker price alone, and then just round the price after adding sales tax. That's what they'd have to do anyway.

But (and here's the dogma) I have something very different in mind. When I traveled to Europe in high school, I noticed that their merchandise tended to have human-type prices, such as 7.50, or 14, not this 1.99 crap, or worse yet, gas for 2.699 a gallon. Somebody decided awhile ago that every American would actually be fooled by the number nine, into thinking that the price was really significantly lower. As if 2.00 would cause sticker shock, but 1.99 seems reasonable.

The sad thing is, this may actually be true. But I'm tired of letting our culture be dictated by the lowest common denominator. I also think that life would be better if the price at the cash register was a human-type number. After all, what's the point of rounding the sticker prices if you still have to dig into your pocket (or run out to your car) to get the necessary coins to handle the sales tax?

So here's my proposal: Mandate by law that all prices below $1 be rounded to the nickel, all prices between $1 and $5 be rounded to the quarter, all prices between $5 and $20 be rounded to the half-dollar, and all prices above $20 be rounded to the dollar. This would naturally make the penny obsolete. In addition to that, ban the adding of any extra cost at the cash register, which would require retailers to include sales tax in their prices. There's a few who do it anyway... it's not hard. And if people see prices going up equally and simultaneously at every store, and they know there's a good reason that's not actually costing them more money, there should be no problem.

Imagine how much better things can be. You scan the items: $5.50, $6.00, $4.25, you select the $6 item, you take it to the cash register, and the amount you owe is... $6.00. Beautiful.

Will it happen? Duh... no.

Politics

I've decided that I'm not going to share my thoughts about the presidential candidates anymore, from here on out. And here's why...

Despite being 28, and a relatively self-assured individual, I've discovered that I'm still fairly impressionable. I actually care what people think about me. And if I'm in the habit of talking about who I like and don't like, who I'm supporting or opposing, I am susceptible to supporting a Democrat because I want to gain credibility with the young progressive people I often find myself around. Or to supporting a Republican because I'm afraid of alienating my fellow pastors, family members, or conservative friends.

But if I just keep the whole thing to myself, I can know that I am supporting the candidate I really believe in, and I don't have to wonder if my motives are pure. I'm not saying this should be anyone else's approach... just mine.

So I'm writing it here to make it official. If you catch me going back on my word, feel free to call me on it... and... throw me a sucker-punch.

No, wait.

Of Liver Transplants and Vacuum Cleaners

I don't spend much time on politics here, but I am compelled now to join the chorus of voices crying out against the health insurance industry here in the U.S. We are drawing very close to crisis mode, and the media is actually stepping up to bring it to a head.

As reported by the Hartford Courant newspaper, protesters gathered outside the Glendale, CA headquarters of CIGNA HealthCare to protest the reversal of their decision to cover a critical liver transplant for 17 year-old Nataline Sarkisyan, calling it "too experimental". You can read the details by clicking on the above link.

During the appeal process, doctors had to induce a coma to keep her alive until she could receive the transplant she'd already been promised. Finally, after a barrage of protest and media coverage, they re-reversed the decision, saying they would "make an exception in this rare and unusual case". Rare and unusual in the amount of bad press they were getting, is what I assume they meant. And then of course, to add the cherry to the top of this mud sundae, "Our hearts go out to Nataline and her family, as they endure this terrible ordeal." There are words for that, but I will not assume that only adults read this blog.

When I was on a mission trip in Cordoba, Argentina, the resident missionary there told me a story about a time he bought a vacuum cleaner at a small, independent store. When he got home to use it, it immediately fell apart. So he took it back, demanding a refund, but the store refused, and would not budge. So he took the only recourse available to him: he stood out on the sidewalk, showing people the busted vacuum, and telling them that the store sells crap without a refund policy. He drove so many customers away that the store finally relented, and gave him his money back.

Is that where our Health Insurance industry is headed? Where you have to organize a demonstration, or form a Facebook Causes group, or put a loose change jar at every grocery store check-out in the neighborhood to pay for what ought to be covered by your exorbitant monthly premiums? Will we soon see the health giant CEOs burning in effigy on the nightly news?

"But at least the story has a happy ending," you say. If only that were true. After the claim was approved by CIGNA, but before surgery could begin, 17 year-old Nataline died, according to ABC News.

Onto the hands of an industry already caked with dry black blood, the flow now runs fresh and red in full public view.

God have mercy.

Law, Grace and Illegal Immigration

I really don't think the migration debate will ever end... either in this country or any other. Some countries are debating how to control immigration (people coming in) and others are more worried about emigration (people leaving.) But I imagine just about every country is happy when the right people (the ethnically and religiously acceptable, the educated, the hard-working) arrive, or stay, and unhappy when the wrong people (the opposite of the right people) arrive, or stay.

I probably don't have to tell you this, but the debate in the U.S. is about the wrong people coming in... or at least coming in the wrong way. I've always made sure to share my opinion on this stuff when it comes up, but I feel like now is the time to go on record, both with my certainties and uncertainties.

Upon Introspect

The first thing each of us should do, as Americans, is check our hearts. Ask yourself, "Am I a racist?" After your self says, "No, of course not," keep pushing. Think about the last time you were standing in a check-out line, and there was a Mexican family in front of you "yammering" in Spanish. Let's assume that it caused you no actual inconvenience. How did you feel about that? Did you think, "Why don't they just learn English?" Did you dread the time, 10 or 20 years down the road, when white people may be in the minority, and every sign in the entire country is in two languages?

If you're honest, and you answered "yes" to any of these questions, don't worry. You may not actually be a racist. You may just be an anglo-centric nationalist bigot.

Just kidding.

Nevertheless... these are important things to sort through in your heart, before you take a serious look at the immigration debate.

Goooooooal!!!

Now that we've got that out of the way, I think the second thing to do is recognize that there is an illegal immigration problem in our country, and figure out what the goal is.

So what is the goal? What's the ideal? I hear very few people talk about this, but how silly is it to talk about billion-dollar programs to solve a problem if we don't have a clear goal in mind?

So let me propose a goal... and ask you to do the same when you add your comments. I think the goal is to continue to be a highly diverse nation of immigrants, with the following provisos: 1) We should not show favoritism to any nation, regardless of alliance or proximity (although we may have to put in extra filters for immigrants from enemy nations), 2) We should stack our deck in favor of those most likely to work, and obey the law (although we should not favor professionals over laborers), 3) We should put regulations in place to ensure ongoing efficiency of communication in society, 4) We should grant citizenship only to those who are serious about being Americans, and upholding our nation's best interests and founding principles.

Global Citizens

I'm going to outline what I think are a few reasonable steps to take. But before I do that, I have to make it clear that we cannot proceed with only American interests in mind. If you and I are going to be followers of Christ (although that may be a big "if") it is imperative that we see ourselves as members of the human race first, and Americans second. We cannot take a dollar from a foreigner to give an American a dime. We cannot kill an alien to heal a citizen. Of course, it is natural to favor your kin. I show more concern if my wife bangs her head than if someone is murdered in Iraq.... and you are the same way. So let's just recognize our natural biases and move on. But let's also recognize that we are global citizens, and that anytime we have an impact on another human's well-being, we must approach them with true compassion.

Stem the Tide

I have heard of very few, on either side of the debate, who are not calling for a way to stem the tide of illegal immigrants. Sometimes this involves plans to improve the conditions in Mexico, often it involves building a wall. Whatever it is, I don't think we can really even get started solving the problem until we have gotten the deluge under control.

The Bowser

To me, the biggest bad guy... the Bowser at the end of Level 8... is the contingent of Corporate America who sees illegal immigration as an opportunity to cut labor costs. I'm not talking about the companies who take steps to verify proper work status, and still miss a few. I'm talking about those companies who are clearly seeking out illegals, and paying them sub-standard wages. They need to be slapped with huge fines, and put on some sort of employment probation.

Law vs. Grace

Now we get to the immigrants themselves, and the question of law vs. grace. Did they knowingly break the law? For the most part, yes. Were they in desperate straits, just trying to give their families a fighting chance? Again, mostly yes. It looks a lot like the quintessential "stealing a crust of bread" dilemma. So this is a question I'm not going to try to answer definitively. But I will try to clear some of the smoke around it.

Let's start by asking what grace really is. Is it mere pardon (or in this case, amnesty?) Is it grace to dismiss another's trespasses with a wave of the hand? Or might it actually be in the best interests of both current illegals, and all future immigrants, to show that there are consistent consequences to breaking the law? Otherwise, one man's grace can become another man's injustice.

I hope you agree that we have to be fair. Mexicans (and other Latin Americans) are not the only people in the world who can benefit from life in these United States. And if extending grace to Latin Americans means withdrawing welcome from others (for fear of over-crowding,) than our grace is really not very gracious at all.

I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with those who want to impose a fine on illegals, and require them to return to their home country within a generous period of time to apply for a visa.

And now I think we've come to the end of my ability to talk intelligently about the issue. It is indeed a huge, complex problem, and ultimately I have to be thankful that it's not up to me to solve it.

I also must recognize that this post has become quite lengthy. And so I shall sign off now before I wear out my welcome among the kind citizens of Weblogistan.

Adios.

Two and a Half Lesbians?

Six years into his vice-presidency, I can finally say that I'm proud of Dick Cheney.

Sure, he's had his bright spots. We all smirked when he retreated to his "undisclosed location." We all laughed when he finally represented the true feelings of Americans by shooting a lawyer. And we all smiled when he announced his intention to never run for president.

But this morning I was actually proud of him. When it was announced that his lesbian daughter Mary was pregnant, parents Dick and Lynn Cheney went on record saying that they were "looking forward with eager anticipation to the arrival of their sixth grandchild."

I know I am about to shamelessly repeat myself here, but I don't care. Every pregnancy is worth getting excited about. A new life has been created with endless opportunities and possibilities. The little person growing in Mary's uterus is an infinitely valuable, hopelessly beautiful human being. Right now. And Mom and Pop Cheney are right to be excited.

But then comes the fallout. That is, the reaction from the Conservative Right. I will let Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America speak for them when she says, "It's very disappointing that a celebrity couple like this would deliberately bring into the world a child that will never have a father." She also described the pregnancy as "unconscionable."

How can we say that every fetus is a treasure, and call any pregnancy unconscionable?

If Mary Cheney did indeed take deliberate steps to become pregnant (which is likely,) can we say that we are disappointed with her choice? I suppose. But can you imagine what the reaction from the Conservative Right would have been if the Vice President had a single, heterosexual daughter who got pregnant? That's right... silence. OK, maybe a few tiny potshots, but that's it. Millions of children are growing up in fatherless households, so why single out this one? Why can't they just come out and say what they mean? "We Conservatives are concerned that this new child will be trained up in the ways of homosexuality."

The fact is that the Christian Right is suffering from a combination of two diseases. 1) Celebrityphilia (although they're not alone), and 2) Homophobia. By Homophobia, I am referring to an excessive emphasis on the evils of homosexuality. Do I believe that homosexuality is contrary to the design and desire of the Creator? Yes, I do. But do I think it is the kingpin of abominations, worthy of all our spiteful energy? Not even close.

Mary Cheney is a lesbian. And she wanted to be a mommy, too. Does anyone here honestly mean to ask gays and lesbians to stop wanting children?

Dick Cheney is a father. And he has a 35 year-old daughter who took a different path. Is the Christian Right actually deluded enough to believe that he should still be trying to run his daughter's life?

So who are they really angry at? Or are they just plain angry?

If we as Christians really believe that love is the answer, then maybe we should get started.

Do-It-Yourself Attack Ad Kit!

Hey kids! You know those rabid, virulently negative political ads you see on tv? Have you ever wanted to make one of your own, but didn't know how? Well, now's your chance, with our patented...

DO-IT-YOURSELF ATTACK AD KIT!

In just four simple steps you can be slinging mud with the best of them!

Step 1: Find a really unflattering picture of your opponent, suck all the color out of it, boost the contrast, and give it a really grainy look. Or better yet, get some video footage of your opponent speaking, and run it is slow motion. Then slap his or her name across the whole thing, preferably in red, in some kind of stencil font. Play some ominous music, and have somebody with a creepy voice make up stuff about how wicked he or she is.

Step 2: Zoom in on the picture or clip, and ask the viewer a ridiculously leading question.

Step 3: Switch to a gently flapping American flag in the background, play some happy, frontier-type music and show your candidate talking to old people, or farmers, as if carefully explaining why they need to stop trying to plant $100 bills. Then have a pleasant-sounding woman talk about all the beautiful promises your candidate is making.

Step 4: Show everybody a nice little portait shot of your candidate in front of a picture of a pretty little farm or something, and bring it home with a catchy slogan!

That's all there is to it, kiddos... So get to work!

P.S. If Claire McCaskill or Jim Talent happen to be reading this, I just want to say, I hate your smear campaigns so much, I don't plan to vote for either one of you.

I'm the Coreman, and I approved this message.

Roe v. Wade, Love v. Power

I am about as pro-life as they come. I believe that each abortion is the termination of innocent life, otherwise known as murder. I don't believe that this is any business of the federal government or federal courts, therefore Roe v. Wade should be repealed, leaving the issue up to each individual state. If Missouri then held a referendum to decide whether or not to ban abortion except to save the life of the mother, I would vote "yes."

I speak only for myself when I say this, because I have friends and loved ones who disagree with me, and I respect their opinions. I disagree with those who believe that banning abortion would increase dangerous back-alley abortions without decreasing abortions in general, but I empathize with their concern. I disagree with those who say that an abortion ban amounts to the oppression of women, but I can see their point.

The Core holds no official position on abortion, nor on any other political issue for that matter. As Americans we each have a duty to vote, and get involved in the political process to some degree. We have the right to communicate our views, and attempt to persuade one another.

But when Jesus commissioned his disciples to become the Church, did he intend to form a fractious political coalition? When the Church spread across the world, and began to include the majority of people in some societies, did the angels rejoice because of our newfound potential for political power?

I have yet to see convincing evidence that the Church can simultaneously muster the forces of political influence, and live out the kind of love that Christ has commanded of us. Maybe it really is possible, and if you have an example of this, please share it with me.

But what do we have to say about all the Christian women and girls getting abortions every day? I don't know if there's a singe source of statistics that I trust to be unbiased in this area, but I am sure we can all agree that there are far too many. Far too many single women too afraid of the judgment of the Church to be seen pregnant among them. Far too many young girls too afraid of their (Christian) father's wrath to confess their mistake. If the Church cannot be a bastion of forgiveness, support and unconditional love to those whose lives have bottomed out, we should give up now and find a new hobby.

And that's what brings me to my conclusion. I believe the Church should completely stop talking about abortion until we learn what it means to be a redemptive force in the lives of people, rather than a coercive force in the halls of power.

So yes, vote your conscience. Support your opinions. Exercise your freedom of speech. But remember that not one life has ever been transformed by might, or by power, but only by his Spirit working through us.

Working On Your Serve

So you want to be a servant...

What's the opposite of classify? Declassify, of course.
What's the opposite of regulate? Deregulate.
Humidify? Dehumidify.
Sensitize? Desensitize.

What about Serve? What's the opposite of that?

In the late 1780s, America's founding fathers were trying desperately to get our government off the ground. But it wasn't until 1791 that the first ten Amendments to the Constitution were ratified, and America had its Bill of Rights. This acheivement served to overcome the final obstacle to a stable and workable government uniting our 13 original colonies, and the Bill of Rights is now recognized around the world as a uniquely American document.

I think everyone I know would agree that the adoption of the Bill of Rights was a triumphant moment in American history, and indeed a turning point in the civilization of humanity.

But it also has a lot to tell us about our character as Americans. Our nation was founded on the idea, among others, that all humans deserve to have certain rights and opportunities. Thomas Jefferson called them "unalienable." The framers of the Constitution broke them down into three categories: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (a modification of John Locke's list- Life, Liberty and Property.) Then, the Bill of Rights put them into lawyerspeak for time immemorial.

And lo and behold, it stuck. 215 years later, what better way is there to identify an American in a crowd than to find the one demanding to get what he deserves (or more precisely, what he wants.) As a nation, we are so focused on our rights that it has become impossible to understand the true character of Jesus.

If you are always thinking about how you can serve others, you are a SERVANT.
If you are always thinking about what you deserve, you, my friend, are a DESERVANT. You are the opposite of what Jesus was, and is calling you to be.

Take a look at Philippians 2:5-7 in the Message.

Think of yourselves the way Christ Jesus thought of himself. He had equal status with God but didn't think so much of himself that he had to cling to the advantages of that status no matter what. Not at all. When the time came, he set aside the privileges of deity and took on the status of a slave, became human!

Jesus would be a terrible American.

If the Creator of Volcanoes, Constellations and DNA can stoop to washing dirty feet, not to mention submitting to a Roman crucifixion, then maybe we can stop thinking about ourselves, and start noticing the pain and desperation all around us. Maybe we can let our church services start serving others instead of ourselves (otherwise maybe we should call them disservices.) Maybe we can stop complaining about how badly people treat us long enough to realize that we've been treating them even worse.

OK? Starting.... now.

A Passive-Digressive Political Rant

Forgive the total irrelevance of this post to my published purpose. But I had something to say, and this blog is my soapbox, so here we go...

I am resigned to the fact that, in its current state, the United States Congress can accomplish nothing worthwhile. The Republicans are practically all up for sale, and the Democrats would be too if there was anyone who wanted to buy them.

Has anyone noticed how the votes in Congress all tend to go the highest bidder? We shouldn't have to wonder why our country is run by the mega-corporations. (Lobbying reform is very important, but my beef today is going to be election reform.)

The obvious fact is, if you can afford a massive tv, radio and newspaper ad campaign, your chances of getting elected greatly improve. So how can we voters complain that money buys votes in Congress, when that's exactly what's happening in the elections. The high-rollers, the big spenders, are going to be the eventual victors.

So, if you want to get elected, you have to court the billionaires. And once you're successful, you're beholden to them. Thus, the billionaires are really the only ones being represented in Washington.

My solution? Not a campaign reform bill... a campaign ban! (of sorts)

Campaigns today have gotten completely out of control, with any given candidate starting the ball rolling 12 - 18 months in advance, and spending money totalling billions of dollars that could be feeding hungry people. And for what? Propaganda. Very, very little of any campaign is devoted to real discussions of issues, qualifications and character. Anymore it's a mere combination of Grandstanding and Mudslinging. Not to mention all the governing that doesn't get accomplished during that time.

Obviously, however, candidates need opportunities to become known by the people. But as long as their opportunities hinge on the size of their wallets, we will never have an effective goverment. So here's my proposal for elections to the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the White House:

1) Whereas, it will be unlawful for anyone to formally announce one's candidacy for public office more than six (6) months in advance of the first primary election, at which point, public speaking and interviews regarding the nature of one's candidacy may lawfully begin. These two activities will not be restricted. However, absenteeism from one's current duties in office in order to engage in these activities will be duly noted.

2) Whereas, a fee will be charged of each candidate desiring to enter the primary elections. The fee shall be $4,000 for the House of Representatives, $12,000 for the Senate, and $20,000 for the White House. This fee may be provided by a political party, or by the candidate's own treasurer. Each candidate in the primaries must be verbally sponsored by an approved political party [note: new parties can become approved through public petitioning.] The treasury of an individual candidate may be funded only by gifts from individuals (other than the candidate or the candidate's immediate family,) not to exceed $200 per benefactor.

3) Whereas, no political party will be permitted to provide the entry fee for more than two candidates for the same position in the primary elections. However, they will be permitted to verbally sponsor as many as they like. [note: Political parties will try to keep their pool small, so as to avoid spreading the votes of their support base too thin.]

4) Whereas, it will be unlawful to "advertise" or "market" one's candidacy in the mass media. Those who report the news will be expected (but not required) to provide balanced information about each candidate running, for the education of the public. Although mass media outlets are free to take an editorial position in endorsing particular candidates, any exchange of money, goods or favors between said media outlet and the endorsed candidate will be unlawful. Official pamphlets will be produced by the government providing the employment, criminal, voting and attendance records, plus a brief statement from the candidates on key issues. These pamphlets will be widely circulated.

5) Whereas, official debates will be hosted and broadcast (on a network station or PBS,) very similar to the current practice. One debate will be hosted during the month prior to primary elections. Every candidate will be invited to participate, and also offer a personal speech. Three debates will be hosted during the two months prior to the general election, and several opportunities will be given to each candidate to broadcast personal speeches.

6) Whereas, primary elections will be open, and not based on political party. All candidates running for a given position will be on the ballot, and voters will be given 5 votes to use. They may give all 5 to one candidate, give 1 vote to 5 different candidates, or divide them up in other ways. The two candidates with the most votes received will advance, even if they are both from the same party.

7) Whereas, there shall be no Electoral College. It is stupid and useless.

8) For the general elections, each voter is given one vote to use, and the candidate who earns the most votes will be the winner.

9) Whereas, all offical debates and speeches will be hosted and broadcast at the expense of the United States government, using entry fees, and tax money when necessary.

10) Resolved, representation in Congress and the White House shall be returned to the voters of the United States, and undue power shall be revoked from corporations, special interests and the wealthy.

I know a lot of this sounds socialistic, and kind of un-American. But remember, capitalism and free market principles are for the market, not for the government. There is nothing un-American about placing constraints on government operations in order to increase and maintain the quality of egalitarian representation therein. In fact, I think it's the most American thing we can do.

God Hates Fred Phelps (?)

“God Hates America”
“Too Late To Pray”
“God Is Your Enemy”
“America Is Doomed”
“Thank God for [Dead Soldiers, 9/11, IEDs]

Free speech run amok.

It’s hard to get angry at the news anymore. So much murder, death, corruption, spin, extortion, starvation, hopelessness… you can’t care about all of it and keep your nerves intact. Desensitization is the consequence of an information-soaked society.

But I’m sure my blood was not alone in boiling at the latest news from Crackpot Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas. “Pastor” Fred Phelps, infamous for his leadership in the “God Hates Fags” demonstrations, is protesting not just the war in Iraq, not just the Bush Administration, but the soldiers and even the widows, declaring to the spouse of a departed, “You’re partly responsible for him being dead, woman.”

So, without bothering to ask any funeral attendees their opinion of the war, or of homosexuality, Fred and his crew are crashing the party, holding aloft their signs of contempt and derision. And I mention homosexuality because, for this crowd, that’s what it all boils down to. Fred isn’t really against the war, or the military, or their widows. He’s against “fags” and all those who tolerate them.

Not only is his rhetoric disgusting, it’s illogical. He has a knack for contradicting himself. His website claims that Jesus did not die for the unregenerate, including homosexuals, and that they have no chance for redemption. Yet he persists in picketing against them, demanding that they turn and repent. He thanks God for dead soldiers, and yet, as quoted above, blames widows for bringing dead soldiers about.

I answered a poll at Good Morning America’s website that told me I am among the unanimity of responders so far in believing that funerals should be off-limits to protesters. I can say with confidence that America is against people like Fred Phelps, and for legislation (being introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Michael Rogers of Michigan) to keep him and his ilk away from grieving friends and family.

We despise his message. We abhor his method. Do we hate Fred Phelps? Does God?

“For if you love those who love you, what reward will you have?” Jesus asks in Matthew 5:46. If we cannot love our kids when they’re insubordinate, our friends when they’re negligent, and our fellow citizens when they’re out of their minds, we have not loved at all.

And ultimately, if we find our love to be no better than Fred’s, I have only one thing to say:

“America is doomed.”