Charity and the #IndianaLaw

So earlier I discussed the Virtue of Charity- and specifically what is required to see a resurgence in its practice.  Now I would like to turn to the idiocy among a certain segment of our population as it relates to the Indiana RFRA.

I am not going to explain what an RFRA really is- go over to the Ace of Spades HQ, we’ll probably be talking about it there if you’re really interested.  Or [search engine of choice] Bill Clinton’s 1993 Federal RFRA.

I’m going to discuss Charity as it relates to the RFRA.

First- that there has to be an RFRA at all shows a failure of charity.  Whether or not I agree with same sex marriage, my business is mine to conduct.  If I do not wish to do business with you, that may be bad.  In some cases it may be a failure of charity on my part (it normally is not, however).  However, it is *certainly* a failure of charity, and a much worse one, to impoverish me and have the Government force me at the point of a gun to do business with you.  Had everyone been charitable, then no RFRA would be necessary- wedding cake designers would not be having to make cakes for ceremonies they believe to be sinful, but would be as helpful as possible outside those bounds (in most cases, they are already fulfilling that second part).  The government would not be seizing sacred objects from Indian tribes, and Indian tribes would not be bothering others with their sacred items.

Second- The RFRA is not a license for Christians to be uncharitable, and I have heard of no particular case where they have been.  It is not uncharitable to say, “No, I do not wish to do business with you.”  It might be uncharitable if my objection to doing business with you was something you could not control (your ethnicity, or gender)- but it wouldn’t necessarily be.  It is certainly not uncharitable when my objection is to an action you are going to take because it violates my own moral code.

The Gay Lobby is either ignorant (or, more likely, does not care) of the fact that to Christians and Jews homosexuality is morally reprehensible.  Considering that the wedding ceremony is specifically a Religious one, homosexual weddings are not just immoral; they are making a mockery of Christianity.  And while that is not, no its own, a reason to make them illegal or even prevent them from having legitimacy in the eyes of the State, that is ample reason for a Christian to elect not to support one with his labor.

Do you want charity to rule in this case?  I agree with you.  So let’s all agree to be charitable.  But at this point, there’s only one side that isn’t living up to that bargain.

The Greatest Command

He answered, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

I've been think about this, the Greatest Commandment, a lot recently.  What does it mean?  How do we obey it?  How are heart, soul, and mind different?

We get a lot of advice on how to love one's neighbor as one's self, but not a whole lot on how to love God with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind.  And, while I was thinking about that, I realized something.  I'm fat.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not confined to a chair or anything.  Many people would probably not give my weight a second thought.  Sure, I look overweight, but in modern America, who notices that?  We notice when people aren't far more than we notice when people are.  Fat is just how things are, right?

But God recently hit me with the clue-bat.  See, I have a family history of diabetes so I happen to know that one of the warning signs is being constantly thirsty, especially when you've been drinking water anyway.  And this is where I find myself right now.  Which is kind of scary.

But that got me thinking, in light of the Greatest Commandment, how have I been loving God with my strength?

And the answer came back: I'm not.

I will here stipulate that I do not think I can "lift weights for God."  I don't think getting ripped like a certain Australian actor in a certain comic book movie about a certain Norse god is the objective.

Nevertheless I am convicted that being fat, unable to climb or descend stairs without breathing heavily, and so out of shape that even thinking of walking down to the park is exhausting is *not* what God intended.

I have already told some that I'm starting on a journey of small steps to a new me.  This is a slow life-style change that I hope will get me into better shape.  I had decided that before the clue-bat struck. 

I want to challenge you to think on the same thing.  I'm very cerebrial.  I live in my own head a lot.  Loving God with my mind is not difficult for me.  I'm still not completely sure on the difference between heart and soul, but I find my passion for God growing every day, lately, so I'll chalk that up as a win.  But in modern America, with our computers and cell phones and tablets and cars and... well, that whole "strength" thing doesn't mean as much to us anymore.

So I am committing to love God with my strength by first *building* my strength.

How are you loving God with your strength?

Wait, what?

Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised, but I am.  At today’s national Prayer breakfast, Barack Obama made some remarks.  That’s surprising enough, really- he doesn’t seem to be too big on prayer- but it’s the contents of the speech that are so insulting.

After talking some time about Mohammedan terror, he went on to say this (quote taken from the CSPAN link above)

HUMANITY HAS BEEN GRAPPLING WITH THESE QUESTIONS THROUGHOUT HUMAN HISTORY, AND UNLESS WE GET ON OUR HIGH HORSE AND THINK THAT THIS IS UNIQUE TO SOME OTHER PLACE, REMEMBER THAT DURING THE CRUSADES AND THE INQUISITION PEOPLE COMMITTED TERRIBLE DEEDS IN THE NAME OF CHRIST. IN OUR HOME COUNTRY, SLAVERY AND JIM CROW ALL TOO OFTEN WAS JUSTIFIED IN THE NAME OF CHRIST.

Take a look at that again.  We should not “get on our high horse” about Mohammedan terror because “during the Crusades and the Inquisition people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ,” also because “slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”

You have to love the moral equivalence there, right?  Because of things that happened 1000 (ish) years ago (the Crusades), several hundred years ago (the Inquisition- I presume he means the Spanish Inquisition), and decades ago (Slavery and Jim Crow) we should not “get on our high horse” and think ourselves better than Mohammedan terrorists.

Seriously, he could have saved some poor closed caption transcriber a lot of words by simply saying “Godwin” and sitting back down.

But. lest the historical inaccuracies continue to propagate, I felt I should address them.  Let’s do it in reverse order:

Jim Crow

Jim Crow laws (enacted by southern Democrats, mostly) were laws designed to keep blacks from doing a great many things, including vote.  To my knowledge, never once was Christ invoked as a reason blacks should not vote.  So while southern Democrats were, indeed, Christian, there is no indication it was their Christianity that excused Jim Crow laws.

Slavery

Slavery existed long before the United States of America, and continues to this day (largely because of Mohammedans, in fact).  Slavery as practiced in the United States (and other places) was a horrible evil.  And, indeed, some people did claim that African slaves were slaves because of Noah’s curse on Ham. 

However.  It was precisely this nation’s foundation on Christian principles which lead many religious types to oppose slavery.  Far more Christians (as Christians) were abolitionists than were slavery apologists.  If you are going to claim that Slavery existed “in the name of Christ” it is only right that you also point out that it was opposed (violently, when that became necessary) in the name of Christ.  Indeed, the Battle Hymn of the Republic states: “as He died to make men holy let us die to make men free.”

“The” Inquisition

Apparently the President is unaware that there were numerous agencies which went by “the Inquisition.”  The first- called the Medieval Inquisition- was created specifically to *stop* violence against so-called heretics.  They used much more strict evidentiary requirements than kings of the day, and when heresy was found allowed the heretic to repent and rejoin society. 

Eventually, Kings took over the reigns of the Inquisition.  This lead to the now infamous “Spanish Inquisition.”  But even there the reality is vastly different from popular belief.  Yes, the Spanish Inquisition was a terror for a time.  It was built on Jew hatred, and was used as a tool of political force.  But not for terribly long.  It was then reformed and became the most lenient and merciful court in Europe.  The witch hunts which spread throughout Europe (and put thousands of innocents to death) did not gain foothold in either Spain or Italy specifically because of the Spanish and Papal Inquisitions.  Indeed, almost everything you think you know about “The” Inquisition is likely wrong.

The Crusades

The Crusades were responses to Mohammedan aggression, pure and simple.  It was only after Mohammedans took over several of Christianity’s Holy cities- and then began butchering pilgrims- that the first Crusade was declared.  The second, third, and fourth Crusades were each called specifically to restore Jerusalem to Christian hands.

The thing about the Crusades was that they were *wars.*  Wars fought in the middle ages were brutal affairs at the best of times.  Yes, atrocities were committed by both sides.  But where Mohammedans claimed such atrocities were justified, the Church opposed all such instances by the Crusaders.

In short, there is absolutely no moral equivalence between Mohammedanism, which really does preach death to the unbeliever and conversion by the sword, and Christianity, which teaches personal nonviolence (turn the other cheek, he who lives by the sword will die by the sword, etc.).  To suggest there exists such an equivalence is insulting to Christians.  Worse, it is a way to white-wash or soft-sell Mohammedan Terror.

If we are going to confront Mohammedan Terror, we must admit the truth: the writings of Mohammedanism teach forced conversion, death to the unbeliever, and jihad.  Mohammedanism is an evil death cult, and it must be treated as such.  These comments show, yet again, that the President is either unwilling or unable to understand that fundamental fact.

The God Who Weeps

When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled.  “Where have you laid him?” he asked.
“Come and see, Lord” they replied
Jesus wept.
-John 11:33-35

This has been a tough week.  From the explosion at the Boston Marathon on Monday to the explosion in West, TX last night, it has been reminder after reminder that life sucks.  From the marathon, families are mourning.  As far as I know there are none missing.  From West, as of the last information I have, there are still people missing- and probably dead.  The nation stands in shock and mourning.

It is at times like this that people search for answers.  They want to know “why?”  And while they focus on the worldly “why” - “Why would someone bomb the Boston Marathon?”  “How did the fire start at the fertilizer plant?” – most people really want to know the cosmic “why?”  Why is the universe so fundamentally unfair?  Among those dead in Boston are mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, and an 8 year old boy.  Among those dead in West are (almost certainly- see also: some not accounted for) some of the emergency responders who were trying to combat the blaze in the first place.  None of these people deserved to die.

Now, part of me says, as Clint Eastwood’s character in Unforgiven so famously did: “Deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.”  That’s a cold and clinical part.  Maybe it’s because I’m a guy.  Maybe it’s because I’m not “all there” emotionally.  Whatever the reason, I understand that bad things happen to good people, and we just have to deal with it.  The only answer is an early exit- and that’s no answer at all.

But part of me says, “God, why?” 

And God answers, “Because the world is fallen.  Because you have chosen Sin over Righteousness.  Because the Prince of the World is defeated, but not powerless.”

And when I hear that answer, it is no comfort.  But then I remember something, something that makes that answer bring comfort.  I remember a man- middle aged for his day, a young man by today’s standards, standing on a road in Bethany- just over two miles from where he would die- crying like a baby because one of his best friends was dead.  Jesus would raise Lazarus in just a little bit- probably about an hour, when all was said and done- yet “Jesus wept.”

I have a God who weeps.  I have a God who knows “it’s not fair.”  I have a God whose Mercy cries out to just make all the bad go away- but holds itself in check so that just a few more might be Saved and live with Him forever.  I have a God who I can cling to and cry like a baby when the world is too much.

And that brings me comfort.  I hope it brings you some, too.

Barack Obama: "We Accept" Limits on Free Speech

Today's address by Barack Obama to the UN General Assembly was execrable for a variety of reasons.  I could go into a variety of reasons, but the most important are these two quotes:

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."

and

"Many countries do not share our freedom of speech... we accept that."

Yes, Barack Obama has admitted to the world that he is willing to limit Americans' speech.  That's what those two phrases mean, and there is no way to spin them otherwise.

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam?"  How about those who slander Christians, or Christ Himself?  How about those who slander Jews?  Mormons?  Hindus?  Why is Islam special?  Or are we suddenly defending religion from vitriol and I just missed it?  Wait, no, Modern Family and The New Normal are still on TV, so I'm guessing I didn't miss a memo, there.

And since when do we accept limits on Freedom of Speech (note the caps)?.  Understand that "accepting" other countries' limits on speech means implicitly accepting when a Muslim country jails someone for being a Christian.  It means, taken to a not-unimaginable-end, that we're willing to arrest people for violating speech rules in other countries.  Oh, wait, we already did that.

No American should accept limits on Freedom of Speech, and slander of Mohammed should not influence whether the future "belong[s] to" you or not.

With these statements, Barack Obama is setting the stage for more midnight, brownshirted raids.  Right now it's for the maker of a movie who his administration quickly threw under the bus for coordinated Terror Attacks (Remember: post 9/11 years w/o terror attacks: Bush - 7/ Obama - 3).  What next?  Do we capitulate when the Muslims already in this country start demanding "anti-blasphemy" laws?  Do we start surrendering American Christians and Jews to Muslim thugs?

Nothing short of a full-throated defense of Freedom of Speech should ever be acceptable from the United States President. 

No, Mr. Obama, we don't accept that.

Beyond Parody

If I had wanted to write a parody of what an out-of-touch Liberal Reporter would say about the attacks on American Embassies in the Middle East, I would have started with this piece from Kari Huus from NBC.  Then I would have directed a critical eye at it and said, "Nah, that's too much."

Oh.  My.  God.

Her (I presume Kari is a her) premise seems to be that yes, yes, those attacks are deplorable, but it's not the Muslim's fault.  It was the fault of that icky YouTube video that no one had heard of, let alone seen, prior to the attacks.  Indeed, she tried to equate them to "vocal protest."  Yes.  Really.

Want proof?  Sure you do, that's an unbelievable charge.  No one would try to equate the rape and murder of four Americans, including an Ambassador, with vocal protest.

He pointed to the uproar over 1988 Hollywood film "The Last Temptation of Christ." Director Martin Scorsese's adaptation of a book by the same name showed Jesus struggling with lust, depression and doubt, and  engaging in sex — in his imaginings — before snapping back to reality and dying on the cross. That movie was seen as blasphemy by some Christians, who — though not violent — were vocal enough to prevent the film from being shown in many parts of the United States.

Wait what?

Now, some may point out that this isn't "her" saying it, but the interviewee.  That is, these aren't her words, they're his.  Three problems with that.  First, at no point does she express any incredulity over the assertion, which one would expect if she did, in fact, disagree.  Second, this isn't a direct quote, meaning this is her interpretation of the comment, again, you would think there would be some comment if she disagreed.  Finally, the only one interviewed for the piece was John Espizito- there were no contrasting opinions.  Based on all of that, it is quite clear that Ms. Huus agrees with the sentiment.

And that's not the worst from the article.  How about this little gem (later in the piece):

"Muhammad didn’t win over his enemies by violence, he did so through compassion."

Ummm... excuse me, but I'm pretty sure "slay them" and variations of such are found throughout the Koran.  He did expressly win over his enemies by violence.  Indeed, it was because he failed to win them over and was exiled that he started assembling armies and conquering his neighbors "by the sword."

Here's another:

"Innocence of Muslims" features wooden acting, poor dubbing, awkward sexual moments and ham-fisted insults, with none of the production values of "The Last Temptation of Christ," or any serious exploration of Islam. Experts said it would almost certainly have remained obscure had it not ignited the protests and violence after being circulated in Arabic via the Internet.

Yes, because it's quality should matter regarding a) it's "worthiness" as free speech and b) whether or not someone should be offended enough to riot and murder.

Perhaps the kicker, though, it the thought that dominates the end of the piece.  The thought seems to be that Muslims, in general, are just nice, go-along-to-get-along folks, rubes even, who just can't help themselves when their religion is subjected to any form of criticism or ridicule.  Further, that the ones to blame here are somehow not "Muslims" but are, instead, "extremists in the region who are using anti-American sentiment to advance their own goals." 

Umm... goals like Jihad, forced conversions, and world conquest?  Like the Koran teaches?  Those goals?

More:

"The sad thing is these people are doing it on purpose," he said. "And unfortunately these Muslims fell right into the trap."

Yes.  Because the victims here are not four murdered Americans, it's the Muslims.

That NBC could approve this piece is beyond me.  Beyond being moral relativist drivel, which I expect, it's infantile, one-sided, and pathetically credulous.  Moreover, it's insulting- it's insulting to Muslims (oh, those poor dears are too stupid to know they shouldn't riot), it's insulting to Christians (vocal oppostion to an offensive movie is just like rioting, anal rape, and murder), but mostly its insulting and insensitive to those victims and their friends and family.  It's using their deaths to squash religious speech of which Ms. Huus obviously disapproves.  They deserve better than that.

H/T: @tsrblke

The Growing Police State: Anti-Charity Edition

Every so often, when discussing dismantling the 'social safety-net,' someone will claim there is no way that private charity could take care of everyone who would need it.  Beyond the fact this is an assertion without evidence, especially in light of how well private charity did prior to the advent of the modern welfare state, this is an argument made from a stacked deck.  That is: of course private charity can't do what government does.  It's not allowed to.

In Phoenix, AZ, Dana Crow-Smith was with a group handing out free water in the 112 degree heat.  According to her, and reaffirmed in a letter sent by the civil liberties organization representing her, she was approached by a Neighborhood Preservation Inspector and instructed to stop or face a citation.

First off, what the heck is a Neighborhood Preservation Inspector, and why are they telling people what they can do with bottled water they purchased?

Second, I have no doubt that, according to the letter of the law, the city official was correct.  I'm certain the group (probably from a Church, based on the linked report) hadn't even considered they'd need a permit to engage in charity.  Alas, they obviously don't read this blog, or they'd know the Police State will brook no competition.  If you offer a service that the All Beneficent Government sees as lessening its control on the populace, you will be permitted, fined, and inspected out of existence, if the State has anything to do with it.

The people of Phoenix need to stand with their fellow citizen and demand an apology and a clarification in whatever permitting ordinance would cover giving away bottled water.  Simple acts of charity like this should be encouraged by society, not punished.  If the Inspector did overstep his or her bounds, they should be disciplined, and made to apologize individually as well.

The Growth of the Police State is most easily addressed at home.  If we don't do it in our own cities, how can we expect the States or the Federal Government to stop it there?

On Marriage

So, apparently Dan Cathy, current CEO of Chick-Fil-A Restaurants, made liberals cry the other day when he said that it was the height of hubris to believe that humans, not God, define marriage, and asked God to have mercy on us for believing otherwise.  Liberals decided this makes him a big meany, and that they should vociferously boycott Chick-Fil-A Restaurants.

First off- good, that means there might be enough fewer people at the CfA drive-through when I go to lunch today that the line doesn't wrap all the way around the building. 

Secondly, let's examine the idea he put forward- does Man, or God (or, if you prefer: The Universe) define marriage?

Now, to some extent, man defines marriage.  Inasmuch as there is a societal construct called "marriage" that has varied from society to society, and that many societies have put the force of law behind that institution, marriage is "man made."  We even call it "the marriage contract," for this reason.

However, if we examine nature, we find that God (or 'The Universe') defines marriage far more than man does.  As CS Lewis once pointed out, different societies may have differed on marriage in that they differed about how many wives one could have, or how easy it was to dissolve that contract, but all societies everywhere have believed it wrong just to "have any woman you liked."  Even animals, to one extent or another, follow these rules.

Now, much ado has been made about specific instances of "homosexual behavior" found in animals.  These seem to fall into two categories- the truly abnormal, and what might be called, for lack of a better descriptor, "critical thinking in sexuality."  Truly abnormal instances, like the so-called "gay penguins," are remarkable specifically because they are abnormal.  Even those who believe in Darwinian evolution must concede that if homosexuality were the norm in animals, we'd have a lot fewer animals. 

Liberals often, however, point to supposed "normal" homosexual behavior in some simian species, especially varieties of monkey.  Even there, however, they have to admit that in the vast majority of cases the issue is not that the moneys are actually "homosexual," but rather that they tend to be males who have no chance of breeding with the females.  One might say, "They have certain needs..." 

In neither case is it considered "normal" behavior.  It seems pretty clear that the "normal" mode of nature is heterosexual.  Inasmuch as marriage as we know it is simply putting some limits on otherwise base and animal behavior, then we could say that God (or the Universe) defines marriage, not man.

Of course, if you're religious at all, you don't need to go through that thought process.  God has spoken, and he defined marriage as a heterosexual union between one man and one woman.  We got to the same place, but much simpler.

All of this backs up what Mr. Cathy said.  Nothing Mr. Cathy said was discriminatory or bigoted.  He didn't pass judgment on gay couples, simply on society for enabling or encouraging the behavior.  As a social conservative, I must say I agree with him.  You'll even note he never said anything about banning the behavior, simply not condoning it- which are two very different things.

Radical Christians? What, Are They Going To Pray You To Death?

I know, as a southern male reared in a Christian home, that the worst curse that can be laid upon you is when some silver haired old lady says, "Bless your heart."  I'm not thinking that's what Texas Democrat Al Green had in mind though.

In House Homeland Security Committee hearing on Wednesday, June 19, the Representative apparently decided that no hearing on radicalization was complete without discussing the "radicalization of Christianity."

Pull quote: "If you agree that radicalization exists within all religions to some extent, would you kindly extend a hand into the air?"  He then noted "all the hands are raised."

This is so chock-full of fail, I may not have time for any other quotes.  Let's start with the idea that radicalization exists within all religions "to some extent."  First off: no.  To date, I have never heard of a "Radical" Hindu.  At least, not in the United States.  So if they do exist, they're hardly an appropriate topic for a US Congress Committee hearing.  And you know those darn Radical Unitarians and Lutherans are just itching to force you to a Church Social.

Which brings up the next point.  When he says, "to some extent," that's a cop-out line.  It's a line that says, "I know what I just said is complete cow manure, but I can plug in this little phrase and anyone who disagrees with me will look out of touch."  So let's be clear, here.  To what "extent" does Radicalization exist within Christianity?

Oh, certainly you can point to actually deranged people like Tim McVeigh and say "They're radical Christians!"  Except they aren't.  You could point to people who bomb abortion clinics or kill abortion providers and say, "They're radical Christians!"  Except they aren't.

Suppose a Muslim, crying "Allahu Akbar!" blew up an empty mosque- or one in which one of the five daily prayers was being said.  Could you really call that "Radical Islam?"  Not without some stretching.  That's just barbaric, probably sectarian, violence.

However, when Muslim screams "Allahu Akbar!" and proceeds to shoot the predominately Christian crowd which is around him, you can make a better case.  It's made easier by the fact that Islam teaches conversion by the sword and to kill all "Infidels."  Christianity makes no such claim.

To date, I have no knowledge of someone screaming, "God Loves You, and Jesus Died for all your Sins!" and proceeding to blow up a bomb.  Maybe I just missed it somewhere.

The difference between "Islamic Radicalization" and "Christian Radicalization" is in what it means to be a "Radical" Muslim or Christian.  A Radical Christian is going to annoy you because they'll often seem so syrupy and "nice."  They'll say things like "God Bless You" for no readily ascertainable reason.  They'll say, out of the blue, "I'm praying for you."  In short, a Radical Christian, if you notice their Radicalization at all, will mostly just seem to be socially awkward.

A Radical Muslim, on the other hand, is likely to try to kill you.  A Radical Muslim is liable to strap a bomb to his chest and blow it up in as crowded a location as possible.  Radical Islam is responsible for the deaths of more than 3000 Americans on September 11, 2001, as well as the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt, among other atrocities.  Radical Islam believes that Israel has no right to exist, and that it is an Islamic Religious duty to either convert or kill every non-Muslim in the world.

Enough of the moral equivalency crap.  The reason the House Homeland Security Committee doesn't hold hearings on Radical Christianity is the same as why they don't hold hearings on Radical Hinduism, or Radical Budhism: such people may exist, but not in enough numbers to be an existential threat to US National Security.  Radical Islamists, however, are gaining a foot-hold in actual governments in the Middle East, which is much more worrisome.