The Rev. Joseph B. Fuiten, senior pastor of Cedar Park Church in Bothell, has an opinion piece in the Tacoma News Tribune lamenting the price Christians paid for fighting and losing Referendum 71.
We failed in our message.
We failed in our methods.
We failed in our money.
Furthermore, I still have to wonder if God was in the effort.
I'd like to address each of these.
They failed in their message.
Essentially it was fear based. School curricula would likely be changed to teach children that same-sex marriage and homosexuality are normal. Marriage was being redefined. Free speech would be criminalized. Marriage needed to be protected. Children growing up in nontraditional families--as if this referendum would suddenly make them disappear if it was defeated?--are not as healthy emotionally and physically as children in traditional families. Even the Catholic church I attend handed out pamphlets imploring us to preserve marriage and protect our children.
All nonsense. I'm reminded of the closing argument Clarence Darrow made while defending Henry Sweet for murder back in 1926. Darrow made clear that the real issue was race, not murder. (A wonderfully crafted speech I highly encourage you to read.) The real issue here was anti-gay bigotry. In that respect I think they were very effective making their message known.
They failed in their method.
As the reverend admits, they appealed to people who would likely agree with them--other Christians. And they fear mongered. They set up a web site just for this purpose adding to their claim to the high road when it comes to "values". Their video productions were emotional appeals to believers and offered nothing to dissuade or convince an open-minded person dealing in reality. Even the Catholic church, under the guise of a reasoned and rational argument, used "gay marriage" as a boogeyman. I think their method was very successful at conveying their message.
They failed in their money.
Hands down. (Select 71 in the Initiative list on the left) If there's a future attempt at legalizing same-sex marriage in the State of Washington, there may be a lot more money spent as was done in Maine. For example, the Catholic church in Maine, despite having to close parishes they couldn't afford to keep open, somehow managed to contribute over a half of a million dollars to help pass Proposition 1, defeating same-sex marriage. It will be interesting to see what the bankrupt Spokane Diocese does if legalized same-sex marriage is attempted in Washington.
Rev. Fuiten has to wonder if God was in the effort.
An interesting wonder. Why, because they lost? How many fights, battles, wars and arguments have taken place in which one or both sides claimed or was assured God was an ally? History has shown that the winner gets to claim the support of their divine being. The Great Spirit may have presided over the death of George Armstrong Custer at Little Big Horn, but God made sure it never happened again. There was no need for God to be in the effort this time. God's most fervent followers make God less relevant and that is what I think really concerns the Reverend Fuiten.
Pastor Fuiten should look at the email he sent back in May of this year when he listed reasons for not running a referendum. (The many replies from other religious leaders, attorneys, and friends are enlightening.) He knew this was a losing effort from the start. So why the anguish?
In support of my relevancy comment, Fuiten wonders if the reputations of Christians have suffered.
Was the referendum an effort blessed by God? Did the Kingdom of God advance because of the effort? I have not heard of people giving their lives to Jesus because of the referendum. I did hear from a non-Christian friend commenting about one of his friends. He wrote, “I noticed the anger building in him, and tried to soften his approach, but he’s fed up. Referendum 71 has turned him against Christians.” Neither is a Christian.
And who's fault is that? Small wonder when your most intense messages spread false fears. Intolerance is an attractive force for like-minded people and detestable to everyone else.
Like he said in his email, if they lose at least they make a statement of faith.
Fuiten continues.
We paid a price for the referendum. It was not just a question of the price we would pay if we didn’t run the referendum. We have to consider the price of doing it as well.
We clearly lost ground with some. Did we gain offsetting ground with others? I don’t know. I do know we all worked hard for what we hoped was the will of God. We did it mostly for the right reasons.
In our best motives, we might have done it for God’s glory. Unfortunately, it appears we have fallen short of the glory of God.
They worked hard for God's will and God's glory. And their statement of faith supporting intolerance has cost them.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
WIP Snapped!
Usually any projects done in the house, such as painting, wall paper, flooring, etc., take place as a result of a discussion that Kathy and I have had. Granted, she's more likely to bring up the need for the project and convince me, but then it's a mutual decision that this project will take place.
But every once in a while I end up with a wife initiated project--a WIP. This is a unilateral decision not involving me yet involving work...for me. You can imagine my less-than-keen desire for such projects. For instance, out of the blue a couple months ago some paint and paint supplies appeared and I learned that I was going to paint two walls. The new color on each wall will make them "look nice."
In front of one of the walls is our heaviest piece of furniture, a rosewood china cabinet, which I have moved twice before for painting projects, the need for which were determined by the For-better-and-for-worse committee of which I am a co-chair. (Hmm, could the frequent appearance of the word "which" be some sort of foreshadowing?)
So what's the big deal about moving the china cabinet, you ask? Well, it's just as much psychological as it is physical. The last two times I moved in my Air Force days, I moved all of our stuff myself. Both moves were local, from Geiger Heights to Fairchild and then from Fairchild to our home. After that I swore I was never moving my stuff again. I don't even like to rearrange the furniture. So it's with great reluctance that I agree to a project that involves moving furniture and appliances.
As I mentioned before, some paint and associated supplies have been waiting patiently to be put to use. But patience has worn thin and SWMBO has cracked the whip in order to get the WIP done. I was recently informed that the the For-better-and-for-worse committee has been supplanted by the 'Til-death-do-us-part committee, of which I am not a member, and I am strongly encouraged to paint the two walls and make them "look nice" which--there's that word again--doesn't sound as appealing when spoken through gritted teeth.
I never should have agreed to getting more cable channels. If I don't post anything for a while and without explanation, don't let her be the first to get off scot-free.
But every once in a while I end up with a wife initiated project--a WIP. This is a unilateral decision not involving me yet involving work...for me. You can imagine my less-than-keen desire for such projects. For instance, out of the blue a couple months ago some paint and paint supplies appeared and I learned that I was going to paint two walls. The new color on each wall will make them "look nice."
In front of one of the walls is our heaviest piece of furniture, a rosewood china cabinet, which I have moved twice before for painting projects, the need for which were determined by the For-better-and-for-worse committee of which I am a co-chair. (Hmm, could the frequent appearance of the word "which" be some sort of foreshadowing?)
So what's the big deal about moving the china cabinet, you ask? Well, it's just as much psychological as it is physical. The last two times I moved in my Air Force days, I moved all of our stuff myself. Both moves were local, from Geiger Heights to Fairchild and then from Fairchild to our home. After that I swore I was never moving my stuff again. I don't even like to rearrange the furniture. So it's with great reluctance that I agree to a project that involves moving furniture and appliances.
As I mentioned before, some paint and associated supplies have been waiting patiently to be put to use. But patience has worn thin and SWMBO has cracked the whip in order to get the WIP done. I was recently informed that the the For-better-and-for-worse committee has been supplanted by the 'Til-death-do-us-part committee, of which I am not a member, and I am strongly encouraged to paint the two walls and make them "look nice" which--there's that word again--doesn't sound as appealing when spoken through gritted teeth.
I never should have agreed to getting more cable channels. If I don't post anything for a while and without explanation, don't let her be the first to get off scot-free.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
More Hate Mongering
In today's Spokesman Review, Cal Thomas informs us that Major Hasan's attack on his fellow soldiers proves that our country is blinded by tolerance.
By now, the script should be disturbingly familiar. Whether in the Middle East, or increasingly in America, a fanatical Muslim blows up or goes on a shooting spree, killing many. This is quickly followed by “condemnations” from “Muslim civil rights groups,” like the Council on American-Islamic Relations. We are then warned by the president and some newspaper editorials not to jump to conclusions, or to stereotype.
Should we jump to conclusions or stereotype? Cal doesn't explicitly say.
People claiming to know Hasan told interviewers he made frequent statements against the wars and the U.S. presence in Islamic countries. Rep. Michael McCaul, Texas Republican, told reporters after he was briefed on the shootings that Hasan “took a lot of advanced training in shooting.” Why would a psychiatrist need advanced training in shooting unless he believed in murder as therapy?
Shouldn’t that, coupled with his statements about “the aggressor” and other actions – including his preference for Muslim clothing – have alerted someone in authority that he might be a time bomb waiting to go off?
I've learned to shoot a lot of weapons, but I've never heard of "advanced training in shooting." Should we be concerned with people who exercise their Second Amendment rights--especially if they wear Muslim clothing?
How much longer will we tolerate fighting this war as if it were a minor crime wave? Our enemies are fighting to win and they are fighting everywhere, including within our borders. People trained to appear nonthreatening, until the threat becomes obvious and it is too late to do anything about it, are infiltrating our government and society at every level.
What do we do about these nonthreatening-appearing people?
It is irrelevant that some have put the number of radicalized Muslims worldwide at 10 percent. Even if that figure is accurate, 100 million jihadists can cause a lot of damage, as they plot the destruction of Western democracies. Other wars have been won with far fewer soldiers and far fewer dupes.
Cal doesn't offer a solution other than we should do something. But his intent is clear.
His comments also make me wonder. What other ethnic, religious, racial or cultural groups are we being too tolerant of? American history is replete with acts of violence committed against groups and individuals. Some in the name of a religion. People like that have been infiltrating our government and society for years.
From Cal Thomas's point of view it appears you should make sure you are born into the right group of people in the first place, lest we be blinded by tolerating you.
By now, the script should be disturbingly familiar. Whether in the Middle East, or increasingly in America, a fanatical Muslim blows up or goes on a shooting spree, killing many. This is quickly followed by “condemnations” from “Muslim civil rights groups,” like the Council on American-Islamic Relations. We are then warned by the president and some newspaper editorials not to jump to conclusions, or to stereotype.
Should we jump to conclusions or stereotype? Cal doesn't explicitly say.
People claiming to know Hasan told interviewers he made frequent statements against the wars and the U.S. presence in Islamic countries. Rep. Michael McCaul, Texas Republican, told reporters after he was briefed on the shootings that Hasan “took a lot of advanced training in shooting.” Why would a psychiatrist need advanced training in shooting unless he believed in murder as therapy?
Shouldn’t that, coupled with his statements about “the aggressor” and other actions – including his preference for Muslim clothing – have alerted someone in authority that he might be a time bomb waiting to go off?
I've learned to shoot a lot of weapons, but I've never heard of "advanced training in shooting." Should we be concerned with people who exercise their Second Amendment rights--especially if they wear Muslim clothing?
How much longer will we tolerate fighting this war as if it were a minor crime wave? Our enemies are fighting to win and they are fighting everywhere, including within our borders. People trained to appear nonthreatening, until the threat becomes obvious and it is too late to do anything about it, are infiltrating our government and society at every level.
What do we do about these nonthreatening-appearing people?
It is irrelevant that some have put the number of radicalized Muslims worldwide at 10 percent. Even if that figure is accurate, 100 million jihadists can cause a lot of damage, as they plot the destruction of Western democracies. Other wars have been won with far fewer soldiers and far fewer dupes.
Cal doesn't offer a solution other than we should do something. But his intent is clear.
His comments also make me wonder. What other ethnic, religious, racial or cultural groups are we being too tolerant of? American history is replete with acts of violence committed against groups and individuals. Some in the name of a religion. People like that have been infiltrating our government and society for years.
From Cal Thomas's point of view it appears you should make sure you are born into the right group of people in the first place, lest we be blinded by tolerating you.
Monday, November 9, 2009
You Go First
One can only imagine why this warning was attached to the curling iron. Did someone try to curl their eyebrows or eyelashes?No, the curling iron is not mine.
Speed Demon
Over the weekend I finally bought a watch to replace the one my sweat killed during the summer. A nice, cheap Timex Ironman Triathlon watch--perfect for a poseur like me. And it was on sale!
Looking at the Spokesman Review clock at the beginning and end of a run is okay for a rough estimate but it's not enough to answer the question, "Am I running faster?" My marathon training last year involved a lot of running (duh, Hank!) and I'd have to say that was my best year for running--except for the part where I had to train for and run a marathon. BTW, I am still on track for running one every 51 years.
Using my Bloomsday results as a guide--I've done the last 14--my fastest time ever was 1:01:45 and that was in 2008 which kind of confirms my "best year" hypothesis. Yeah, I'm getting all scientific here. My last three Bloomsday finish times are in the 1:01:45 to 1:12:08 range. For five years before that I was accompanying Steph so those times don't count. But before that, I was in the same range. I think it's safe to say I can consistently run an 8:30-9:00 minute mile pace for 7.46 miles of Bloomsday. Heck, for the first half of the marathon I kept a comfortable 9:00 mile pace. I don't want to talk about the second half.
Anyway, today I ran for four miles and got my split for each mile. I took my shoes off at the 2-1/2 mile mark which took a minute so I had to subtract a minute from the third mile, which also afforded me a minute to catch my breath so that's kinda cheating, but hey if I was to go totally Type A I'd be out there measuring the exact distances and marking them off with spray paint and I'd be wearing a heart monitor complete with GPS and an avalanche transponder so I think I'm allowed a little leeway here.
Mile 1 - 7:36
Mile 2 - 7:36
Mile 3 - 7:38
Mile 4 - 7:47
Total - 30:37
I find I need to warm up during the first 2-3 miles and then I get into my rhythm. During the fourth mile I was breathing easy and running comfortably at a pace I felt I could continue for...um...well...at least another mile. I guess the test would be to check my mile splits during a run to work.
I think the answer to the question is, "Yes, I am running faster." Now if I brought my weight from the upper end--but still in the normal range--of my allowed Body Mass Index to the lower end--a twenty pound difference--I could probably pick up the pace a little. But I love my mint chocolate chip ice cream. And beer.
Regardless, next year will bring my first under-an-hour Bloomsday finish.
Looking at the Spokesman Review clock at the beginning and end of a run is okay for a rough estimate but it's not enough to answer the question, "Am I running faster?" My marathon training last year involved a lot of running (duh, Hank!) and I'd have to say that was my best year for running--except for the part where I had to train for and run a marathon. BTW, I am still on track for running one every 51 years. Using my Bloomsday results as a guide--I've done the last 14--my fastest time ever was 1:01:45 and that was in 2008 which kind of confirms my "best year" hypothesis. Yeah, I'm getting all scientific here. My last three Bloomsday finish times are in the 1:01:45 to 1:12:08 range. For five years before that I was accompanying Steph so those times don't count. But before that, I was in the same range. I think it's safe to say I can consistently run an 8:30-9:00 minute mile pace for 7.46 miles of Bloomsday. Heck, for the first half of the marathon I kept a comfortable 9:00 mile pace. I don't want to talk about the second half.
Anyway, today I ran for four miles and got my split for each mile. I took my shoes off at the 2-1/2 mile mark which took a minute so I had to subtract a minute from the third mile, which also afforded me a minute to catch my breath so that's kinda cheating, but hey if I was to go totally Type A I'd be out there measuring the exact distances and marking them off with spray paint and I'd be wearing a heart monitor complete with GPS and an avalanche transponder so I think I'm allowed a little leeway here.
Mile 1 - 7:36
Mile 2 - 7:36
Mile 3 - 7:38
Mile 4 - 7:47
Total - 30:37
I find I need to warm up during the first 2-3 miles and then I get into my rhythm. During the fourth mile I was breathing easy and running comfortably at a pace I felt I could continue for...um...well...at least another mile. I guess the test would be to check my mile splits during a run to work.
I think the answer to the question is, "Yes, I am running faster." Now if I brought my weight from the upper end--but still in the normal range--of my allowed Body Mass Index to the lower end--a twenty pound difference--I could probably pick up the pace a little. But I love my mint chocolate chip ice cream. And beer.
Regardless, next year will bring my first under-an-hour Bloomsday finish.
If We Could Only Tell Them Apart
Bryan Fischer, AFA Director of Issues Analysis, of the American Family Association tries to convince us that after Major Hasan's attack on his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood Muslims should be barred from the U.S. military. Why? Because
It became evidently almost immediately that the mass murderer in yesterday's killing spree at Fort Hood was a Muslim who was motivated by jihadist impulses.
You could feel the impulses from here.
The reason is simple: the more devout a Muslim is, the more of a threat he is to national security. Devout Muslims, who accept the teachings of the Prophet as divinely inspired, believe it is their duty to kill infidels. Yesterday's massacre is living proof. And yesterday's incident is not the first fragging incident involving a Muslim taking out his fellow U.S. soldiers.
There are 5 million to 7 million Muslims in the United States. There are between 10,000 and 20,000 Muslims in the U.S. military. You'd think that with all the "jihadist impulses" there would be more massacres, more so among the civilians. But he continues:
Of course, most U.S. Muslims don't shoot up their fellow soldiers.
No shit.
Fine. As soon as Muslims give us a foolproof way to identify their jihadis from their moderates, we'll go back to allowing them to serve.
Them danged Muslims all look alike. Hmmm, but the yellow stars were all used up. You'll have to use something else.
You tell us who the ones are that we have to worry about, prove you're right, and Muslims can once again serve. Until that day comes, we simply cannot afford the risk. You invent a jihadi-detector that works every time it's used, and we'll welcome you back with open arms.
Trust no Muslim. Watch every Muslim. Children, turn your parents in. Especially if you're Muslims. I thought we had a jihadi-detector. Isn't that an inclined board and a bucket of water?
This is not Islamophobia, it is Islamo-realism.
Of course it is.
While Christianity is a religion of peace, founded by the Prince of Peace, Islam is a religion of war and violence, founded by a man who routinely chopped the heads off his enemies, had sex with nine-year old girls, and made his wealth plundering merchant caravans.
Just look at how peaceful the Christian United States is.
And just as Christians are taught to imitate the life of Christ, so Muslims are taught to imitate the Prophet in all things. Yesterday, Nidal Malik Hasan was simply being a good Muslim.
Just as Christ taught, Fischer is turning the other cheek? And Hasan, imitating the Prophet, chopped the heads off his enemies, had sex with nine-year old girls, and plundered merchant caravans?
How do you talk to a person like Fischer?
It became evidently almost immediately that the mass murderer in yesterday's killing spree at Fort Hood was a Muslim who was motivated by jihadist impulses.
You could feel the impulses from here.
The reason is simple: the more devout a Muslim is, the more of a threat he is to national security. Devout Muslims, who accept the teachings of the Prophet as divinely inspired, believe it is their duty to kill infidels. Yesterday's massacre is living proof. And yesterday's incident is not the first fragging incident involving a Muslim taking out his fellow U.S. soldiers.
There are 5 million to 7 million Muslims in the United States. There are between 10,000 and 20,000 Muslims in the U.S. military. You'd think that with all the "jihadist impulses" there would be more massacres, more so among the civilians. But he continues:
Of course, most U.S. Muslims don't shoot up their fellow soldiers.
No shit.
Fine. As soon as Muslims give us a foolproof way to identify their jihadis from their moderates, we'll go back to allowing them to serve.
Them danged Muslims all look alike. Hmmm, but the yellow stars were all used up. You'll have to use something else.
You tell us who the ones are that we have to worry about, prove you're right, and Muslims can once again serve. Until that day comes, we simply cannot afford the risk. You invent a jihadi-detector that works every time it's used, and we'll welcome you back with open arms.
Trust no Muslim. Watch every Muslim. Children, turn your parents in. Especially if you're Muslims. I thought we had a jihadi-detector. Isn't that an inclined board and a bucket of water?
This is not Islamophobia, it is Islamo-realism.
Of course it is.
While Christianity is a religion of peace, founded by the Prince of Peace, Islam is a religion of war and violence, founded by a man who routinely chopped the heads off his enemies, had sex with nine-year old girls, and made his wealth plundering merchant caravans.
Just look at how peaceful the Christian United States is.
And just as Christians are taught to imitate the life of Christ, so Muslims are taught to imitate the Prophet in all things. Yesterday, Nidal Malik Hasan was simply being a good Muslim.
Just as Christ taught, Fischer is turning the other cheek? And Hasan, imitating the Prophet, chopped the heads off his enemies, had sex with nine-year old girls, and plundered merchant caravans?
How do you talk to a person like Fischer?
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Jammin' On The STA Again
My ancient iPod has returned to the living. Just for grins I connected it to my computer and the recharging symbol showed up on the display and then froze. I disconnected and reconnected. No change. I was ready to give up on it.Steph dinked around with it and hooked it back up again and the displayed showed it was charging. After a bit I tried it out and it played. And then I dropped it again and it still worked. Whoo-hoo!
GSL Boys Cross Country Rules--Again
Kudos to North Central (3A) and Ferris (4A), respective champions, for extending the Greater Spokane League dominance of the sport to 22 years. Congrats to Andrews Gardner, Mead freshman, for placing 8th overall.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Bakin' And Bacon Tonight
Steph and I made chocolate cupcakes and frosting from scratch. We also made cupcakes from a box and topped them with store bought frosting. Then we had a taste test for dinner. We liked the scratch cupcakes best. If you've ever heard Bill Cosby's routine about chocolate cake for breakfast, you'll know you can rationalize a meal of cupcakes. But just to make sure, I cooked up some bacon, too. After squeezing all the grease out I put the cooked bacon back on the griddle and drizzled it with real maple syrup. Sticky, sweet greasy bacon to top off sticky, sweet chocolate cupcakes. And a glass of milk. And smiles.
Sometimes the best meals are the ones you have the most fun with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
