Political Silliness

This piece from the New York Times just cruised through the RSS reader, and I'm more than a little disappointed.

Never mind the fact that I don't like using politics to effect a change that can really only come through Christ. Never mind the fact that I think that Social Security is in need of an overhaul. Using SS reform to get what you want socially is not a good plan.

Let's say that Bush, for whatever reason, decides not to push for the marriage ammendment. Maybe he's decided that he resents the Religious Right(tm) thinking they own him because they voted for him. Maybe he never really wanted to do it to begin with -- it was just campaign rhetoric to get our votes. Whatever the reason, he decides not to do it after all. So the Social Security reform doesn't get passed because of a lack of support.

Now, in thirty years or however long SS has left in it's current state, the whole thing tanks. People are upset: "Why wasn't something done about this?" And the answer? "We tried, but the Christians fought us, so it didn't get done. Blame them, not the GOP."

Don't think it will happen? Ha. The GOP will turn on us so fast it will make EVERYONE'S head spin, if it means staying in charge and in power. They don't owe us a thing.

The gay marriage issue won't go away because we legislate it away. The solution is changing hearts, minds, and lifestyles with the message of the Gospel of Christ. Let's be about our Father's business.

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 01:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 270 words, total size 2 kb.

What was that about a Social Mandate?

From the New York Times:

Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee, has asked an Ohio Republican who supports some abortion rights to be his co-chairman, stirring the ire of social conservatives.

Mr. Mehlman's choice is Joann Davidson, who was chairwoman of the Bush campaign in the pivotal Ohio Valley region and a former speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives. In an interview on Thursday, Ms. Davidson declined to discuss her views on abortion. "My focus is on building a stronger party," she said.

Her nomination awaits approval by the Republican National Committee.
She has been a member of the advisory board of the abortion rights group Republicans for Choice since its founding in 1990, according to a statement posted on the group's Web site congratulating her.

So what was all that back in December about how the Republicans were going to govern according to the wishes of the Religious Right(tm)? And what was that from evangelical circles about how the GOP now "owes us one?"

Politicians aren't the answer, folks. And this shows what the GOP thinks of us, especially of the nomination passes. And from a political perspective, why wouldn't it pass? It's just what the "big tent" GOP needs. I'm just not sure that they need us anymore -- but there aren't many decent options out there.

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 03:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 235 words, total size 2 kb.

News Roundup

Cruising through some news stories that I've heard about today -- and commenting on them, of course!

• 2 stories about the "James Ossuary." I tend to agree with the Observer article -- whether the ossuary is authentic or not is NOT going to change anyone's mind about the truth of Christ, or the truth claims of Christianity. Plenty of people believe that Jesus existed, and that He taught and was killed by the authorities, but they don't believe that He was the Messiah. It is reassuring to some Christians that they can point to the existence of something like this to support their faith, and we like to be able to show archaeological evidences for things that the Bible records. But we cannot rely on history or archaeology to win people to Christ -- only the faithful preaching of the Gospel and the working of the Holy Spirit can do that. Note to the Observer, though -- the jury is still out on whether the findings of the IAA were accurate. There are some indications that their findings were biased from the beginning.
• The New York Times is reporting that religion is on the rise, but not the "fundamentalist" kind. Not surprising. I THINK they are including evangelical Christianity in their definition of "fundamentalist," and I think that the reasons people don't like evangelical Christianity are obvious. They want spirituality without responsibility. They don't want any obligation to any type of holy living. They don't want to think that God has any claim on their behavior at all. They also don't want to think about having to share their faith. They've found a type of "this works for me, go see what works for you" spirituality, and that contradicts the claims of the Bible that Christ is THE way, not A way. Biblical Christianity is an exclusivist faith, and people don't want to think that way.
• The Dallas News (which is a great source for good religious news reporting) has an editorial that should make us thing about what we are doing when we say something like "God says" or "Jesus says." I love this statement:

  If Jesus is just a metaphor, or one of many paths to God, then speaking for him is treacherous enough. But those Christians who flatly reject that notion ought to set for themselves an even higher standard of caution.
  Because if Jesus really is the one and only true Son of God, then who would dare presume to speak for him?

  We all need to think seriously about that.
• National Review Online has a great interview with Naomi Schaefer Riley about the potential influence of "Generation M" -- the students who are currently enrolled in religious schools. Not much comment on this one -- except to say that there is a LOT of potential out there to make a tremendous difference in our society.
• Crosses have been banned along the parade route for the innauguration this year, and some Christians aren't happy about it. Personally, I really don't care if they are there or not, though I think there's a problem because no other religious symbols were mentioned in the memo.

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 02:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 527 words, total size 4 kb.

Generosity and the US

I admit, I was a bit offended and irritated when I hear the UN call us stingy. After all, they're staying here rent-free, on a prime piece of New York real estate. And we DO send money to relief efforts -- we tend to do it through various charities and religious groups, but we do it.

I read Kristof today (piewview; blogger42 to log in) -- I missed the last two of his pieces because I was on the road, and it looks like I'd have LOVED the December 22 piece -- and I am once again placed in the difficult position of agreeing with him. We are great at responding to disasters, but we're lousy most of the rest of the time. We focus on ourselves and what's going on here, rather than being globally minded.

We're like this in a LOT of different ways, too. While Canadians are lamenting the potential loss of the entire NHL season this year, the subject has been missing from US papers. Out of sight, out of mind, I guess. I was in Pensacola, Florida over Christmas -- there are still a lot of people who are homeless there, and a lot of devestation and damage still hasn't been fixed. Don't hear much about it, though, do you? I'd expect that the Orlando area is still trying to recover from the 'canes that hit them as well.

We have a very short attention span. We saw in this election that the average American cannot focus on much more than a soundbite at a time. I saw it when I taught -- kids were shocked that I expected them to remember something I taught a week ago. We pay attention only to what's new and different, and ignore or forget about things that aren't. Part of the blame is simply cultural -- we live in a society that is always in motion, always fast. We buy more powerful microwaves because we don't want to wait 4 minutes for our popcorn. We want our internet fast, so we pay mor money for faster services, better wireless connections.

My real concern is that in a few more months, when the relief efforts in Asia aren't front-page news, and when the recovery and rebuilding can actually begin, when our help is needed, we'll have forgotten all about the tsunami. We'll be on to the next big thing, and our money will go elsewhere. In another week or so, people will start complaining about the extensive coverage that the tsunami is getting -- "Can't they tell us about something else? There are other things going on in the world." And the people there will still be right in the middle of it, and they'll be forgotten.

I hope I'm wrong. I hope that we will keep these people in our prayers, and keep their needs in mind. I hope that the generosity will continue, and our attention spans will be lengthened so we are not so easilly distracted.

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 06:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 508 words, total size 3 kb.

Tsunami Relief

I'm not going to go into the "why" about the tsunami. I've been hearing "Why does God do this??" all week long, and I keep telling people "Who are we to be so arrogant to think that God owes us an explanation? Who are we to think that we can understand everything about God?" And those answers aren't satisfactory at all to most people.

I'm leaving the philosophical answers to the philosophers for once. I'm trying to help with the practical stuff. There is a link on the left margin to my tsunami relief page. It's set up through Justgiving.com (which I wish I had known about back in December -- I'd have used them rather than my Amazon thing!), and wil track your donations for you -- and you get the tax deduction, too. My goal right now is about $500 -- which is ambitious for a blog with the traffic this one has, but I figured I'd aim high.

So head over there to donate, and show the world that we care.

Posted by: Warren Kelly at 01:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.