Some thoughts on the All-Star Game tonight:
Bernie Miklasz (St. Louis Post-Dispatch) has some thoughts on the game tonight, worth the 5 minutes reading time. Check it out either in print, or over at the online version of Bernie Bytes: Can the NL finally win?
Some things he left out, (unfortunately), and others demanding amplification
Will Obama pay another visit to this game, throwing the first pitch, and occupying the announcing booth for an inning like he did in St. Louis last year? (And no, I still haven't forgiven him from ruining The Man's moment in the sun...)
Can the National League FINALLY win home field advantage in the World Series? Last time the Senior Division took the win was back in 1996. That was FOURTEEN years ago! Thinking that the "Visiting" team will bring home the win tonight may actually be a dream. Stranger things have happened!
Amen to Griffey, Jr. Even if he doesn't play, a curtain call is well deserved.
Let's see what happens. I'd love the road to the championship end up where it belongs -- Busch Stadium!
Play ball! -- Greg
13 July 2010
Requiscat in pace Mr. Steinbrenner
Good afternoon, y'all:
Yesterday, I posted about the theory of playing baseball "the Cardinal Way." Gutsy, tough play based on fundamentals, strong pitching, running out singles, all that stuff we learned playing Little League baseball or from our parents as we watched the game when we were young. A friend of mine (originally from Nevada) remarked to me how unusual and refreshing that Cardinal fans would stand and applaud players from the other team if they used to wear the Birds on the Bat, or were great and gifted players worthy of respect.
Today is no exception.
Granted, I'm not a Yankees' fan, so I wasn't overwhelmed with sorrow, sadness and grief at hearing the news of George Steinbrenner's death earlier today at the age of 80. (Come to think of it, I think there may be a few fans of the Bronx Bombers that may not be too upset as well, but I digress...) But, like the men that take the field or step into the batters box, Mr. Steinbrenner deserves a moment of applause.
Since he took over control of the Yankees, they've gone from a shadow of the team that once had its uniform on the likes of Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Joe DiMaggio, Mickey Mantle, Yogi Berra, Whitey Ford, and countless other legends to what can be legitimately called as one of the premier teams of Major League Baseball. Seven of the 27 flags representing World Series Championships came under his reign. He's put together a team that, for much of the 37 years, has been a perennial contender. Ranging from Reggie Jackson, Jim "Catfish" Hunter, to Derek Jeter and Alex Rodriguez, the Yankees have typically represented the best money can buy. (FYI -- Steinbrenner at first saw free agency as something that could destroy baseball!) "Lead, Follow, or Get Out Of The Way" was more than a plaque on his desk -- it represented the management style of the man appropriately nicknamed "The Boss." Demanding the best was one thing, hiring and firing manager Billy Martin FIVE times takes it to a whole new level. Regardless of everything else, the man led the Yankees' back to prominence, back to success, and back to "leading," instead of following or getting out of the way.
Sadly, Steinbrenner's death comes one day after Bob Sheppard, "The Voice Of Yankee Stadium," who long served as stadium PA announcer of the Yankees. His voice and delivery is just as legendary as the players he announced coming to the plate. His voice last graced the stadium three years ago, but the standard he set is as solid as the legacy of any other Yankee honored in Monument Row. Sheppard was 99.
For more information -- From the websites of the Yankees', the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (good stuff there!)and MLB:
On Bob Sheppard
On George Steinbrenner
Views from St. Louis sports writers on Steinbrenner
Requiscat in pace, gentlemen. Well done.
Yesterday, I posted about the theory of playing baseball "the Cardinal Way." Gutsy, tough play based on fundamentals, strong pitching, running out singles, all that stuff we learned playing Little League baseball or from our parents as we watched the game when we were young. A friend of mine (originally from Nevada) remarked to me how unusual and refreshing that Cardinal fans would stand and applaud players from the other team if they used to wear the Birds on the Bat, or were great and gifted players worthy of respect.
Today is no exception.
Granted, I'm not a Yankees' fan, so I wasn't overwhelmed with sorrow, sadness and grief at hearing the news of George Steinbrenner's death earlier today at the age of 80. (Come to think of it, I think there may be a few fans of the Bronx Bombers that may not be too upset as well, but I digress...) But, like the men that take the field or step into the batters box, Mr. Steinbrenner deserves a moment of applause.
Since he took over control of the Yankees, they've gone from a shadow of the team that once had its uniform on the likes of Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Joe DiMaggio, Mickey Mantle, Yogi Berra, Whitey Ford, and countless other legends to what can be legitimately called as one of the premier teams of Major League Baseball. Seven of the 27 flags representing World Series Championships came under his reign. He's put together a team that, for much of the 37 years, has been a perennial contender. Ranging from Reggie Jackson, Jim "Catfish" Hunter, to Derek Jeter and Alex Rodriguez, the Yankees have typically represented the best money can buy. (FYI -- Steinbrenner at first saw free agency as something that could destroy baseball!) "Lead, Follow, or Get Out Of The Way" was more than a plaque on his desk -- it represented the management style of the man appropriately nicknamed "The Boss." Demanding the best was one thing, hiring and firing manager Billy Martin FIVE times takes it to a whole new level. Regardless of everything else, the man led the Yankees' back to prominence, back to success, and back to "leading," instead of following or getting out of the way.
Sadly, Steinbrenner's death comes one day after Bob Sheppard, "The Voice Of Yankee Stadium," who long served as stadium PA announcer of the Yankees. His voice and delivery is just as legendary as the players he announced coming to the plate. His voice last graced the stadium three years ago, but the standard he set is as solid as the legacy of any other Yankee honored in Monument Row. Sheppard was 99.
For more information -- From the websites of the Yankees', the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (good stuff there!)and MLB:
On Bob Sheppard
On George Steinbrenner
Views from St. Louis sports writers on Steinbrenner
Requiscat in pace, gentlemen. Well done.
12 July 2010
The "Cardinal Way"
Good morning, y'all:
Came across this article at StlToday.com (the website of the Post-Dispatch) -- thought it very appropriate given Herzog's induction into the Hall of Fame, plus the All-Star Game this week.
I've seen it in recent billboards and other promotional materials -- "Play Like A Cardinal." And, growing up in Southeast Missouri, I've grown fond of the Cardinals, and may be a little biased. But it seems that quite a few teams have their own way of playing the game -- call it their DNA. In the article, Dan O'Neill talks to several Hall of Famers who wore the "Birds on the Bat" as to whether the "Cardinal Way" of playing baseball is just a marketing campaign, or if it goes a little deeper than that.
The article is here.
I think it goes much, much deeper. More than just getting a uniform dirty with solid fundamentals, tough pitching and a gritty defense. More than running out the singles into doubles, and making opponents earn every win. And I think that the "Cardinal Way" is best personified in Stan Musial. Granted, most of my reading of Redbird history starts about 1941, so I don't know much about "The Rajah" or many of the players that held court at Sportsman's Park. But the more I read about Musial, especially in light of the LeBron James debacle, the more I sense that there's a bit more to the "Cardinal Way" than just performance on a field. Players are held to a higher standard on and off the field. A shortstop makes a disparaging display to fans in the stadium? Traded off to San Diego. (And yes, the player we got in exchange didn't do too bad at all, either!) You don't see our players at nightclubs or trolling around at 3:30 am. And if they (or their manager) are, there aren't too many forgiving eyes.
Today, many athletes on professional sports teams act in manners that are far from what we can consider "role models." The "Cardinal Way" runs opposite to that. Which made me even happier that my kids learned how to properly cheer at a baseball game in the same way I did.
"Go Cardinals!"
Came across this article at StlToday.com (the website of the Post-Dispatch) -- thought it very appropriate given Herzog's induction into the Hall of Fame, plus the All-Star Game this week.
I've seen it in recent billboards and other promotional materials -- "Play Like A Cardinal." And, growing up in Southeast Missouri, I've grown fond of the Cardinals, and may be a little biased. But it seems that quite a few teams have their own way of playing the game -- call it their DNA. In the article, Dan O'Neill talks to several Hall of Famers who wore the "Birds on the Bat" as to whether the "Cardinal Way" of playing baseball is just a marketing campaign, or if it goes a little deeper than that.
The article is here.
I think it goes much, much deeper. More than just getting a uniform dirty with solid fundamentals, tough pitching and a gritty defense. More than running out the singles into doubles, and making opponents earn every win. And I think that the "Cardinal Way" is best personified in Stan Musial. Granted, most of my reading of Redbird history starts about 1941, so I don't know much about "The Rajah" or many of the players that held court at Sportsman's Park. But the more I read about Musial, especially in light of the LeBron James debacle, the more I sense that there's a bit more to the "Cardinal Way" than just performance on a field. Players are held to a higher standard on and off the field. A shortstop makes a disparaging display to fans in the stadium? Traded off to San Diego. (And yes, the player we got in exchange didn't do too bad at all, either!) You don't see our players at nightclubs or trolling around at 3:30 am. And if they (or their manager) are, there aren't too many forgiving eyes.
Today, many athletes on professional sports teams act in manners that are far from what we can consider "role models." The "Cardinal Way" runs opposite to that. Which made me even happier that my kids learned how to properly cheer at a baseball game in the same way I did.
"Go Cardinals!"
10 July 2010
"The Selective Modesty of Barack Obama"
(h/t to Roy R. for bringing this to my radar screen)
This article by Charles Krauthammer ties a few things together -- from his "number one priority for NASA" to remarks over the past year. It does make me wonder how Obama views America -- not just our history or governement or process -- not the theory, but the belief in what America has been, is today, and can be tomorrow. The potential of America, in my opinion, lies in the belief that we are a collection of ordinary people capable of doing extraordinary things, due in no small part to the fact that our society and government sees the individual as sovereign and equal -- a trait that is immutable and irrevocable. Krauthammer makes some very good points here -- well worth a 5 minute read.
Greg
This article by Charles Krauthammer ties a few things together -- from his "number one priority for NASA" to remarks over the past year. It does make me wonder how Obama views America -- not just our history or governement or process -- not the theory, but the belief in what America has been, is today, and can be tomorrow. The potential of America, in my opinion, lies in the belief that we are a collection of ordinary people capable of doing extraordinary things, due in no small part to the fact that our society and government sees the individual as sovereign and equal -- a trait that is immutable and irrevocable. Krauthammer makes some very good points here -- well worth a 5 minute read.
Greg
04 July 2010
Thoughts for today
Today, there will be countless blog entries, numerous Facebook postings, and oh-so-many other expressions of what this holiday, and all our celebrations mean. For some, it's a time to celebrate the birth of our nation, our republic, arguably the most succesful, strongest and most powerful nation this world has ever seen. To others, today is a time to pay homage to, and remember all who have sacrificed, both military and civilian, to make this country what it is today. And to still others, a time to celebrate our freedoms and rights we are able to so freely exercise in this country. There will be postings of our Declaration of Independence, Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, speeches and writings from Founding father to patriot, from Paine, Jefferson and Adams to Reagan, Hannity and Beck.
But I'd like to take a moment, and turn our thoughts towards something a little simpler, something more profound, something more basic and integral to this great, 234 year old experiment.
I celebrate an idea. I celebrate a belief.
A belief that we all are, by design, a free and sovereign people.
A belief that these rights to exist, to choose our own paths, and pursue that destiny are irrevokable and undeniable.
A beleief that, as a free and sovereign people, we alone have the right and freedom to choose who governs us, in which matter, and under which laws.
A belief that God created us all equal, but left wide open our potential, limited only by our choices.
And a belief that can be but one generation away from extinction. Reagan famously said that "if we lose freedom here, there's no where left to run- this is the last stand for freedom on Earth."
While this grand experiment in liberty is a third of the way through its third century, it is far from impossible to fail. Great nations have fallen to tyranny before. But today is a day to remind ourselves of our past, and rededicate ourselves to that simple belief that has been the cornerstone of our republic.
To me, second only to my salvation, my free-will, liberty and freedom are the most important gifts from God.
But I'd like to take a moment, and turn our thoughts towards something a little simpler, something more profound, something more basic and integral to this great, 234 year old experiment.
I celebrate an idea. I celebrate a belief.
A belief that we all are, by design, a free and sovereign people.
A belief that these rights to exist, to choose our own paths, and pursue that destiny are irrevokable and undeniable.
A beleief that, as a free and sovereign people, we alone have the right and freedom to choose who governs us, in which matter, and under which laws.
A belief that God created us all equal, but left wide open our potential, limited only by our choices.
And a belief that can be but one generation away from extinction. Reagan famously said that "if we lose freedom here, there's no where left to run- this is the last stand for freedom on Earth."
While this grand experiment in liberty is a third of the way through its third century, it is far from impossible to fail. Great nations have fallen to tyranny before. But today is a day to remind ourselves of our past, and rededicate ourselves to that simple belief that has been the cornerstone of our republic.
To me, second only to my salvation, my free-will, liberty and freedom are the most important gifts from God.
27 September 2009
So where have all the Christians gone?
Good question. In some ways, a double whammy -- the number of Christians as a percentage of the U.S. population is dropping, and the number of Christians that affiliate themselves with a denomination (such as Lutheran, Baptist, or Methodist) or with an existing institution (a non-denominational church).
Here's the article -- http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/09/25/bruce-feiler-christians-americans-gone/
Personally, a Christian is a Christian, pure and simple. But I do find (generally) that those Christians that aren't "lone wolf" believers -- those believers that find a group of like-minded people to strengthen and nourish their faith and fellowship tend to be stronger in their faith.
And of course, I like this passage from Ecclesiastes 4 (emphasis mine)...
Personally, a Christian is a Christian, pure and simple. But I do find (generally) that those Christians that aren't "lone wolf" believers -- those believers that find a group of like-minded people to strengthen and nourish their faith and fellowship tend to be stronger in their faith.
And of course, I like this passage from Ecclesiastes 4 (emphasis mine)...
I turned my head and saw yet another wisp of smoke on its way to nothingness: a solitary person, completely alone—no children, no family, no friends—yet working obsessively late into the night, compulsively greedy for more and more, never bothering to ask, "Why am I working like a dog, never having any fun? And who cares?" More smoke. A bad business.
It's better to have a partner than go it alone.
Share the work, share the wealth.
And if one falls down, the other helps,
But if there's no one to help, tough!
Two in a bed warm each other.
Alone, you shiver all night.
By yourself you're unprotected.
With a friend you can face the worst.
Can you round up a third?
A three-stranded rope isn't easily snapped.Ecclesiastes 4:8-12(The Message paraphrase)The devil LOVES the divide and conquer strategy. One on one, he's got us outmatched and outgunned. Together, along with Christ, the game's done, and we're the one with the W. What do you think?
07 September 2009
"Labor" Day -- Losing something?
"Labor Day reverence is lost, say historians"
[Click here for the article in the San Diego Union-Tribune]
There's a good article in today's San Diego Union-Tribune by John Wilkens that reminds us why Labor Day was created. No, it wasn't to grill up the last of the summer's supply of ribs and steaks, nor was it a last chance to take a mini-vacation before school really got into session. Over 125 years ago (127, to be exact) Labor Day was founded as a day of protest against the working conditions of the time -- 12 hour work days, 7 days a week(84 hour work-weeks? That's worth marching in a parade for), with truly horrid working conditions. From all of this spawned more than a holiday, but the beginnings of the labor unions.
[Click here for the article in the San Diego Union-Tribune]
There's a good article in today's San Diego Union-Tribune by John Wilkens that reminds us why Labor Day was created. No, it wasn't to grill up the last of the summer's supply of ribs and steaks, nor was it a last chance to take a mini-vacation before school really got into session. Over 125 years ago (127, to be exact) Labor Day was founded as a day of protest against the working conditions of the time -- 12 hour work days, 7 days a week(84 hour work-weeks? That's worth marching in a parade for), with truly horrid working conditions. From all of this spawned more than a holiday, but the beginnings of the labor unions.
Over the past century and a quarter, the power and might of the unions have seen it's highest points, and is currently in one of it's lowest points -- a recent Gallup poll found that on 49% of Americans have a favorable view of labor unions -- the first time that rating has fallen below 50% since that question started being asked around 1937.
PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup finds organized labor taking a significant image hit in the past year. While 66% of Americans continue to believe unions are beneficial to their own members, a slight majority now say unions hurt the nation's economy. More broadly, fewer than half of Americans -- 48%, an all-time low -- approve of labor unions, down from 59% a year ago.
These results are from the 2009 installment of Gallup's annual Work and Education survey, conducted Aug. 6-9. The 48% of Americans now approving of unions represents the first sub-50% approval since Gallup first asked the question in the 1930s. The previous low was 55%, found in both 1979 and 1981.
Source -- "Labor Unions See Sharp Slide in U.S. Public Support" by Lydia Saad. [Article here]
And I can understand why -- at its height, unions fought for the workers and against unfair labor practices. Their efforts spearheaded the 40-hour work week, fair wages (not to be confused with minimum wages), and many of the benefits they rightfully enjoy today. (My family was able to put my sister and I through a combined 12 years of college on our dad's earnings as a railroad engineer -- so I know how good the fruits of that labor have been to us.) But right now, unions are at a low point. I think their involvement in political campaigns that go far beyond 40 hour work weeks and good working conditions is in no small part to blame. Americans are looking at the past 5 or so years, and they're not liking what they see. And with "Card Check" (a nice way of taking away the secret ballot when it comes to elections), and "health care reform," there's probably not much to change this pattern anytime soon. At the bottom are more of the results of the Gallup poll in quick hits fashion -- if you want to see the analysis, head over to the Gallup page. The current economic conditions lean toward a strengthening of the labor movement -- but their politics might blunt, or negate that trend. Granted, I strongly believe that our national holidays, formed for good reason (Independence Day, Memorial Day, Thanksgiving and Christmas leading the way), are being lost do to apathy and neglect, but here, I wonder if the organizations that "represent" labor are shooting the holiday that honors labor in the foot? What do you think?
29 August 2009
Glad I'm an LCMS Lutheran...
And here comes more of the slippery slope for the ELCA.
I understand how easy it is to be overly permissive -- to let things slide. Standards and rules can get messy, tough to enforce. Good gravy, with 3 kids, I've let hard-and-fast "rules" bend a bit.
But we're talking about God's word here. A little bit higher standard than cleaning your plate, or choosing what socks to wear to school.
Here's the article from the St. Louis Post Dispatch :: http://preview.tinyurl.com/nbvh2n
What ever happened to "Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner?" Can we not pull the two apart? Isn't that a VITAL part of forgiveness?
27 August 2009
This is only a test...
OK, using the "Networked Blogs" app on Facebook -- just doing a little test here.
16 August 2009
Sunday morning, and all is well...
...for now.
Ellen's at work, and it's me vs. three kids. Two rooms in desperate need of cleaning out. Facebook pages needing updating, and a blog in desperate need of a posting.
One down, and a few more to go.
31 July 2009
A good resource for the summer blockbuster season
Came across this story on MSN.com. http://runpee.com is a little tool that lts you know when it's a good time in the story to rush over to the restroom and, ahem, deal with that 64 oz soda you picked up at the concession stand on the way in, and have since drank. (Or, as is my case often, dealing with the earlier soda, and getting a refill). Looks pretty cool. Give it a look, and let me know what you think!
14 June 2009
"Police Protection" in St. Louis? Calling Paul Blart!
Here's the story from Sunday's St. Louis Post Dispatch. Take a gander:
OK, please tell me that "Mall Cop" and "Observe and Report" were just bad movie flops, and not the prototype for police protection in the Greater St. Louis Metro area!
OK, please tell me that "Mall Cop" and "Observe and Report" were just bad movie flops, and not the prototype for police protection in the Greater St. Louis Metro area!
OK, how 'bout this... If someone tries to pull me over, or detain me:
(a) They'd better be clearly identified as city/county police, not rent-a-cops filling in the gap, as evidenced by a clearly marked SLPD/SLCPD squad car and by official licence plate,
(b) They'd better be in uniform, complete with SLPD/SLCPD/et.al. badge and identification.
Otherwise, I'd be calling 911, asking them to confirm that the folks following me with all the light, sirens and guns are ACTUALLY ON DUTY, honest to God law enforcement officers. Otherwise, I'm not stopping for pretenders, wannabes, or someone on a second job. Isn't that called "impersonation of a law-enforcement official?" Isn't that against the law in Missouri? (Or for that matter, any other state?) Are things sooooo bad that rent-a-cops are required to keep the peace?
(a) They'd better be clearly identified as city/county police, not rent-a-cops filling in the gap, as evidenced by a clearly marked SLPD/SLCPD squad car and by official licence plate,
(b) They'd better be in uniform, complete with SLPD/SLCPD/et.al. badge and identification.
Otherwise, I'd be calling 911, asking them to confirm that the folks following me with all the light, sirens and guns are ACTUALLY ON DUTY, honest to God law enforcement officers. Otherwise, I'm not stopping for pretenders, wannabes, or someone on a second job. Isn't that called "impersonation of a law-enforcement official?" Isn't that against the law in Missouri? (Or for that matter, any other state?) Are things sooooo bad that rent-a-cops are required to keep the peace?
Why not just hire more police? Put it to a vote to raise taxes in a specific, delineated zone to hire dedicated, OFFICIAL police for a particular zone. If it passes, hire the cops needed. If it doesn't, work with what you have.
23 April 2009
I hate "efficiency."
Good evening, y'all:
This past March and April have really been busy, which means I've been worn down much more often than usual. Other than increasing my intake of good, strong Lutheran coffee and Monster energy drinks, it also ends up getting me a little more philosophical than usual. In short, I've been thinking. And thinking. And thinking some more.
It's also given me the opportunity to really examine things a little. Changes of direction will do that, especially when it changes everything from the ground up. So let me take you on a little journey through my thinking on this. It touches a lot of bases, but it started off all together simply, with a Facebook posting.
"I hate efficiency."
I was tired, most likely a bit more irratable than usual, and I had had my fill of rude customers at work, going through the cow queue lines at McDonalds, and enduring other processes that are streamlined to optimize the efficiency of whatever the heck they were doing. Wandering around the local Barnes and Noble a few minutes before I took over things at the Bunny Set in the mall, somehow, my mind dredged up a simple concept from Steven Covey (the 7 Habits of Effective People author.) Summed up, he stated that while you can be efficient with things, you can't be efficient with people. You can, however, be effective.
I've heard many times on how, when waiting in line, how often we're "herded like cattle," or treated like sheep when patiently holding on until it's our turn. Yes, the jokes are old and well worn, but like all good jokes and satire, they have that kernel of truth at the core. But it goes much deeper than simple puns.
I see the problem as two fold: first, we allow others to be "efficient" with us. Can you be "efficient" when relating to your mom or dad? How successful were you when you were last "efficient" with your wife or husband? I'm guessing not too well. So why do we allow others to be efficient with us when waiting at the DMV, or anywhere else. I think that when we allow others to get the notion that we are something that can be handled purely on an efficiency level of interaction, we lose something very important. Note in that previous sentence the word "something." Not someone, nor a person, but something. A thing that can be dealt with efficiently.
When we lose the person part of the word, and become a thing, we revolt. "I AM A PERSON, not a THING!" we might say. And in doing so, we take that anger and frustraton out on the person who's doing the job. Or on the other drivers as you head home. Or, to get your revenge on "the man," you start seeing other people as "things," depersonalizing them...
I'll keep things going tomorrow.
This past March and April have really been busy, which means I've been worn down much more often than usual. Other than increasing my intake of good, strong Lutheran coffee and Monster energy drinks, it also ends up getting me a little more philosophical than usual. In short, I've been thinking. And thinking. And thinking some more.
It's also given me the opportunity to really examine things a little. Changes of direction will do that, especially when it changes everything from the ground up. So let me take you on a little journey through my thinking on this. It touches a lot of bases, but it started off all together simply, with a Facebook posting.
"I hate efficiency."
I was tired, most likely a bit more irratable than usual, and I had had my fill of rude customers at work, going through the cow queue lines at McDonalds, and enduring other processes that are streamlined to optimize the efficiency of whatever the heck they were doing. Wandering around the local Barnes and Noble a few minutes before I took over things at the Bunny Set in the mall, somehow, my mind dredged up a simple concept from Steven Covey (the 7 Habits of Effective People author.) Summed up, he stated that while you can be efficient with things, you can't be efficient with people. You can, however, be effective.
I've heard many times on how, when waiting in line, how often we're "herded like cattle," or treated like sheep when patiently holding on until it's our turn. Yes, the jokes are old and well worn, but like all good jokes and satire, they have that kernel of truth at the core. But it goes much deeper than simple puns.
I see the problem as two fold: first, we allow others to be "efficient" with us. Can you be "efficient" when relating to your mom or dad? How successful were you when you were last "efficient" with your wife or husband? I'm guessing not too well. So why do we allow others to be efficient with us when waiting at the DMV, or anywhere else. I think that when we allow others to get the notion that we are something that can be handled purely on an efficiency level of interaction, we lose something very important. Note in that previous sentence the word "something." Not someone, nor a person, but something. A thing that can be dealt with efficiently.
When we lose the person part of the word, and become a thing, we revolt. "I AM A PERSON, not a THING!" we might say. And in doing so, we take that anger and frustraton out on the person who's doing the job. Or on the other drivers as you head home. Or, to get your revenge on "the man," you start seeing other people as "things," depersonalizing them...
I'll keep things going tomorrow.
10 November 2008
A step or two back :: 276#
Yep -- busy week last week (funeral on Friday, all the video prep for Sunday morning), plus the election (yeah, LOTS of healthy food then...) equals no time for the gym, and plenty of time in the McD's fast food lane. Up 4 to 276#. I'll get'em next week.
02 November 2008
How my punch card is looking right now...
OK, a short rundown of how I see the ballot for this Tuesday:
NATIONAL/STATE OFFICE ELECTIONS ::
Ok, these horses have been beat straight into the glue bottle, so I won't offer any rationale (unless, you want me to. Reply if you do.)
President :: McCain/Palin
US Congress :: Emerson (MO-8)
Governor :: Hulshof
Lt. Govenor : Kinder
Missouri Prop A ::
Yes, schools need all the funding they can receive. Yes, I hate increased taxes. But also, YES, removing loss limits when people have less money they can afford to lose is a BAD IDEA. Freezing the casino licences (especially when two Cape Girardeau business men are in the home stretch of applying for a licence!) also bad. And, YES, keeping the casinos in St. Louis and Kansas City (and out of everywhere else that would like to participate in the business they generate is also dubious. So, I think I'll vote NO.
Missouri Prop B ::
I wish there was a way of making sure that the elderly and homebound received the health care they needed, and NOT have to spend their life in a nursing home. Ellen and I help with this by living with her mother -- and through services provided through the Visiting Nurses Association (VNA). Prop. B would create what amounts to a "matchmaking service," where those in need of such service can be matched up with service providers who can help. Most of this is covered by Medicare, Medicaid, or some other program. So far, so good.
But, all is not perfect. Minimum wages for these jobs are set. Pre-set wages are always a red flag with me, especially seeing first hand how slip-shod and lazy some (not all, a few have been really good!) of the VNAs have been. I'd want some way of making sure that good ones are kept and rewards, and the poor ones assisted in finding another line of work, and quickly. The proposition also lowers the threshold for unionization -- any other industry, 30% of that factory's/plant's/store's workers must indicate that they desire to organize -- under this measure, only 10% need voice their opinion. Why the dramatic drop in the threshold? Will this mean that my wife (who provides some of these functions) will either have to join the union (and pay dues from a non-existant paycheck from her mother!), or stop doing what she does, merely because 10% of these health care workers state-wide want to unionize? Amazingly enough, a big backer of this measure is the SEIU (Service Employee's International Union).
Providing quality health care would get a yes vote. Passing a proposition to help pad a union's membership roles gets a no vote. Sorry, this doesn't pass the smell test at all! NO
(More info can be found in this "Letter To The Editor" from the Southeast Missourian here)
MO Constitutional Amendment 1 :: English as official language of Missouri.
Why? I do believe that protecting borders, language and culture are critical to keeping the United States intact and unified over the long run, but I don't see a threat here. I'm more worried about borders and culture than language right now. NO
NATIONAL/STATE OFFICE ELECTIONS ::
Ok, these horses have been beat straight into the glue bottle, so I won't offer any rationale (unless, you want me to. Reply if you do.)
President :: McCain/Palin
US Congress :: Emerson (MO-8)
Governor :: Hulshof
Lt. Govenor : Kinder
Missouri Prop A ::
Yes, schools need all the funding they can receive. Yes, I hate increased taxes. But also, YES, removing loss limits when people have less money they can afford to lose is a BAD IDEA. Freezing the casino licences (especially when two Cape Girardeau business men are in the home stretch of applying for a licence!) also bad. And, YES, keeping the casinos in St. Louis and Kansas City (and out of everywhere else that would like to participate in the business they generate is also dubious. So, I think I'll vote NO.
Missouri Prop B ::
I wish there was a way of making sure that the elderly and homebound received the health care they needed, and NOT have to spend their life in a nursing home. Ellen and I help with this by living with her mother -- and through services provided through the Visiting Nurses Association (VNA). Prop. B would create what amounts to a "matchmaking service," where those in need of such service can be matched up with service providers who can help. Most of this is covered by Medicare, Medicaid, or some other program. So far, so good.
But, all is not perfect. Minimum wages for these jobs are set. Pre-set wages are always a red flag with me, especially seeing first hand how slip-shod and lazy some (not all, a few have been really good!) of the VNAs have been. I'd want some way of making sure that good ones are kept and rewards, and the poor ones assisted in finding another line of work, and quickly. The proposition also lowers the threshold for unionization -- any other industry, 30% of that factory's/plant's/store's workers must indicate that they desire to organize -- under this measure, only 10% need voice their opinion. Why the dramatic drop in the threshold? Will this mean that my wife (who provides some of these functions) will either have to join the union (and pay dues from a non-existant paycheck from her mother!), or stop doing what she does, merely because 10% of these health care workers state-wide want to unionize? Amazingly enough, a big backer of this measure is the SEIU (Service Employee's International Union).
Providing quality health care would get a yes vote. Passing a proposition to help pad a union's membership roles gets a no vote. Sorry, this doesn't pass the smell test at all! NO
(More info can be found in this "Letter To The Editor" from the Southeast Missourian here)
MO Constitutional Amendment 1 :: English as official language of Missouri.
Why? I do believe that protecting borders, language and culture are critical to keeping the United States intact and unified over the long run, but I don't see a threat here. I'm more worried about borders and culture than language right now. NO
Starting point :: 272
"You haven't changed a bit (since high school)!"
"You look exactly the same!"
Man, I hate those words. You'd think that somehow, over the past 15 years, I'd find a way to improve on Greg v.1993. Especially in some areas.
In one area I know I've changed. In 1993, I tipped the scales at about 250#.
Last Friday at the gym, the scales at FitnessPlus showed I had made a slight improvement. Only 272#, down 10# from last month.
For those of you who don't know me, haven't seen me in a while (or have struggled to forget me...for some weird reason...), I have been blessed with many things in my life, especially an great appreciation for well cooked foods (in the finest German and Southern traditions -- meaning lots of fat, yeasts and sugars), and fine, friendly folks ever eager to make sure I never go wanting in this regard. So, this afternoon, after a fun day at St. Andrew of troubleshooting microphones on the fly, making sure the Powerpoint worked, and that the video recording was being captured into Adobe Premier just like it should, I had an idea. Actually, I remembered an idea.
Several years ago, while I was burning time browsing through blogs, I came across one where the writer would, every week, post how he was doing in his battle with his belly. I liked the idea in that not only did it allow a way for his "cheering section" to kep rooting him on, but also was a unique way to chart how and what he was doing. Nice way to keep himself accountable.
Soooooo...... I'm going to see if it works as well for me as it did for him. Exercising, staying away from the french fries and other junk -- saying it is easy. Sticking with it -- a bit harder.
So, how 'bout it? Let me know what you think. As of right now, let the battle start at the 272 line. I'll let you know how it goes.
"You look exactly the same!"
Man, I hate those words. You'd think that somehow, over the past 15 years, I'd find a way to improve on Greg v.1993. Especially in some areas.
In one area I know I've changed. In 1993, I tipped the scales at about 250#.
Last Friday at the gym, the scales at FitnessPlus showed I had made a slight improvement. Only 272#, down 10# from last month.
For those of you who don't know me, haven't seen me in a while (or have struggled to forget me...for some weird reason...), I have been blessed with many things in my life, especially an great appreciation for well cooked foods (in the finest German and Southern traditions -- meaning lots of fat, yeasts and sugars), and fine, friendly folks ever eager to make sure I never go wanting in this regard. So, this afternoon, after a fun day at St. Andrew of troubleshooting microphones on the fly, making sure the Powerpoint worked, and that the video recording was being captured into Adobe Premier just like it should, I had an idea. Actually, I remembered an idea.
Several years ago, while I was burning time browsing through blogs, I came across one where the writer would, every week, post how he was doing in his battle with his belly. I liked the idea in that not only did it allow a way for his "cheering section" to kep rooting him on, but also was a unique way to chart how and what he was doing. Nice way to keep himself accountable.
Soooooo...... I'm going to see if it works as well for me as it did for him. Exercising, staying away from the french fries and other junk -- saying it is easy. Sticking with it -- a bit harder.
So, how 'bout it? Let me know what you think. As of right now, let the battle start at the 272 line. I'll let you know how it goes.
24 May 2008
Something that doesn't get trumpteted enough. Since we're remembering everyone who's gotten their boots dirty in stuff like this...
Change That Matters
Matthew Continetti Fri May 23, 9:49 PM ET
Washington (The Weekly Standard) Vol. 013, Issue 36 - 6/2/2008 -
General David Petraeus was back in Washington last week. President Bush has promoted him to chief of Central Command (CENTCOM), which requires Senate confirmation. Under Petraeus's leadership, Iraq has changed dramatically. Why can't the Democrats change with it?
Bush announced the surge in January 2007. Iraq was a violent place. Al Qaeda in Iraq held large swaths of territory. Shiite death squads roamed much of Baghdad. The Iraqi political class seemed feckless. Hence Bush's decision to send more troops, replace General George Casey with Petraeus, and change the mission from force protection and search-and-destroy to population security. The new strategy's strongest proponent and supporter was Senator John McCain.
Democrats opposed the surge almost without exception. Barack Obama said that the new policy would neither "make a dent" in the violence plaguing Iraq nor "change the dynamics" there. A month after the president's announcement, Obama declared it was time to remove American combat troops from Iraq. In April, as the surge brigades were on their way to the combat zone, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid proclaimed "this war is lost" and that U.S. troops should pack up and come home. In July, as surge operations were underway, the New York Times editorialized that "it is time for the United States to leave Iraq." The Times's editorial writers recognized Iraq "could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave." But that didn't matter. "Keeping troops in Iraq will only make things worse."
Wrong. When Petraeus returned to Washington in September 2007, he reported that the numbers of violent incidents, civilian deaths, ethnosectarian killings, and car and suicide bombings had declined dramatically from the previous December. Why? The surge--and the broadening "Awakening" movement, which began when the sheikhs in Anbar province rebelled against al Qaeda in late 2006 and accelerated when the tribal leaders understood America would not abandon them in 2007.
How did Democrats respond? MoveOn.org bought a full-page in the Times suggesting Petraeus had betrayed the American people. Senator Hillary Clinton said that to accept Petraeus's report required the "willing suspension of disbelief." Those Democrats who did not question the facts moved the goal posts instead. They said the surge may have reduced violence, but had not led to the real goal: political reconciliation.
Petraeus returned again to Washington in April of this year. Violence had been reduced further. American casualties had declined significantly. Al Qaeda was virtually limited to the northern city of Mosul. There were more Iraqi Security Forces, and those forces were increasingly capable. The Iraqi government had passed a variety of laws promoting sectarian reconciliation. And the prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, was demonstrating that he was a national leader by meeting with Sunnis and launching military operations against Shiite gangs and Iranian-backed "special groups" in the southern port city of Basra.
Democrats responded this time by saying the Basra operation was a failure and that any reduction in violence only meant Americans could come home sooner rather than later. Wrong again, because (a) despite early missteps the Iraqi army had control of Basra within a couple of weeks, and (b) any precipitous, politically calculated American withdrawal would clearly lead to more violence, not less. What is new is that Petraeus's strategy and tactics, his patience and expertise, have succeeded and now allow some of the surge brigades to return home without replacement--and without a spike in killing. There's every reason to continue his strategy, not abandon it and force a withdrawal.
On May 22, Petraeus was able to tell the Senate that "the number of security incidents in Iraq last week was the lowest in over four years, and it appears that the week that ends tomorrow will see an even lower number of incidents." On May 10, Maliki traveled to Mosul to oversee the launch of a campaign against al Qaeda. The number of attacks in Mosul has already been reduced by 85 percent. Acting CENTCOM commander Martin Dempsey says that Al Qaeda in Iraq is at its weakest state since 2003. Also last week, Iraqi soldiers entered radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr's Sadr City stronghold in Baghdad. They met no resistance.
The Iraqi army and government have done exactly what Democrats have asked of it, and the Democrats remain hostile. Their disdain and animosity has not diminished one iota. Nor has their desire to abandon Iraq to a grim fate.
We keep hearing that this year's presidential election will be about judgment. If so: advantage McCain. For when it comes to the surge, not only have Obama and his party been in error; they have been inflexible in error. They have been so committed to a false narrative of American defeat that they cannot acknowledge the progress that has been made on the ground. That isn't judgment. It's inanity.--Matthew Continetti, for the Editors
We've made the commies mad...
Heard about this on a radio news break on Friday, saw it on MSN.com today. I've heard of movies generating bad reviews, but to evoke threats of nuclear holocasts... Oh well, I hope the movie's good...hope to see it next week.
"Spielberg Movie Angers
Russia's Communist Party"
posted at http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=315822>1=7701, viewed 2008-05-24 at 5:15 p.m.
MOSCOW (AP) -- Members of Russia's Communist Party are calling for a nationwide boycott of the new Indiana Jones movie, saying it aims to undermine communist ideology and distort history.
"Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" stars Harrison Ford as an archaeologist competing in 1957 with an evil KGB agent, played by Cate Blanchett, to find a skull endowed with mystic powers.
It hit Russian screens Thursday.
Communist Party members in St. Petersburg said on a web site this week that the Soviet Union in 1957 "did not send terrorists to the States," but launched a satellite, "which evoked the admiration of the whole world."
Moscow Communist lawmaker Andrei Andreyev said Saturday "it is very disturbing if talented directors want to provoke a new Cold War."
25 April 2008
"Christians Should Keep Scripture Out Of Politics" by Uwe Siemon-Netto
Man, it's been a while. Found this article that caught my eye, if for no other reason, (a) it's election season, and for nutcases like me, it's always interesting this time of year, and (b) the article draws a lot from the philosophy and theology of fellow Lutherans Martin Luther and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. I've added my comments, and highlighted them in red, just like this. Pretty, ain't it...
"Christians Should Keep Scripture Out Of Politics"
by :: Uwe Siemon-Netto
Posted 4:00 AM ET, Friday, April 18 at http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080418/cm_csm/ysiemonnetto;_ylt=An5e1XLenT5Z1xXdemmkz7X9wxIF
"Christians Should Keep Scripture Out Of Politics"
by :: Uwe Siemon-Netto
Posted 4:00 AM ET, Friday, April 18 at http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080418/cm_csm/ysiemonnetto;_ylt=An5e1XLenT5Z1xXdemmkz7X9wxIF
St. Louis - What is Christianity's proper role in American presidential politics? This question has gripped the 2008 campaign. From the dispute over the acceptability of Mitt Romney's Mormonism, to Mike Huckabee's musings about conforming the US Constitution more to the Bible and the controversy over Sen. Barack Obama's former pastor, the spiritual and secular realms have collided fiercely. Just this week, Senator Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton fielded questions from US religious leaders at a special forum broadcast on CNN.
More broadly, arguments over public policies – from war to illegal immigration – are increasingly being infused with scriptural justifications.
The media, of course, relish such controversy. So do many religious leaders, who use the occasion to offer the "real" interpretation of what Scripture says about a particular issue. As a result, religion and politics aren't just mingling – they're being wedded to the same goal: redeeming America's body politic.
A largely Protestant nation that can trace its theological taproot to Martin Luther ought to know better. As the original Reformer, Luther understood how critical it was to separate church and state and, in a more important sense, the spiritual kingdom of Christ and the secular realm where God reigns in a hidden way through humans using reason as a guide.
This is new -- I didn't know that Luther was such a separatist. But since quite a few of the world's princes and kings held their religious allegiance to the Vatican, whose level of influence would greatly increase if Luther would disappear under their watch, it wouldn't surprise me that Luther wouldn't mind keeping kingdoms of earth and heaven a little bit further apart. I wouldn't mind seeing something in the Book of Concord, or the Augsburg Confessions to back that point up...
That is not to say that Christians today shouldn't let their Christianity inform their political values and action. They should. But the Bible is not a political playbook. Christians, or adherents of any religion for that matter, should refrain from using holy text to fight politically over human concerns. Using Christian doctrine to push a political agenda is not just rude – it is a dangerous departure from the core message of Christianity: salvation by grace through faith.
Watching the primaries, I would never confuse the Bible with a how-to guide from Carville or Rove. But why not gauge political decisions against God's word? True, I look with extreme skepticism on laws, rules, and policies whose sole justification is one man's/groups interpretation of scripture. But the central message of "faith alone in God's grace alone, and God's word alone" isn't the only message in the Bible. You could make a strong argument that this message runs at the same level of importance as the Great Commandment
Jesus said, "The first in importance is, 'Listen, Israel: The Lord your God is one; so love the Lord God with all your passion and prayer and intelligence and energy.' And here is the second: 'Love others as well as you love yourself.' There is no other commandment that ranks with these." Mark 12:29-31, MSGBelieving that the Bible isn't any sort of answerbook or guide book to how one should live life here on earth, I believe, leaves a LOT of the Bible out. How else to describe the book of Proverbs?
Christ Jesus was not crucified to make society nicer or fairer; no, he suffered to redeem the believer from sin.
Did not Christ tell Pontius Pilate: "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36)? Which of these seven words is so hard to understand?
Possible the part where Jesus is telling Pilate that, while he has the ability to "veto" whatever decision he, or the Pharisees, or the shouting mob makes, this isn't God's kingdom, it's the kingdom of mortal, flawed man -- whose decision will stand. I see this as the result of what may be the second greatest gift God gave human kind (aside from justification, of course!) -- the gift of free will. God could very well make us mind numbed robots -- but doesn't. He wants us to love him, but that is only possible if we have the ability and choice not to. Pilate's decision wasn't Christ's to make.
Yet the clarity of Christ's statement hasn't stopped mankind from trying to bring heaven to earth ever since – mostly through political tyrannies of the collectivist utopian variety.
Luther understood these temptations. "The devil never stops cooking and brewing these two kingdoms together," he wrote, referring to the spiritual and the secular realms. With these words in mind, Lutherans – or at least Lutherans strongly committed to the confessional writings of their church – shake their heads over the misuse of Scripture in American politics on both sides of the political divide. (Emphasis mine -- GR)
Whodathunk? Flawed, sinful, mortal men misusing scripture? Yes, the devil is constantly at work, turning us against ourselves, and against God. And what better tool than objects that are given to us by God? That doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater -- we look at issues with a discerning eye, and use our knowledge, wisdom, as well as prayer, to make our decision.
How, then, should Christians engage in political affairs? Through the language of reason in the framework of natural law.
Citing Paul, Luther reminded Christians that natural law is "written with the finger of God" on people's hearts, a fact to which their conscience "bears witness." Thus, Christians who want to publicly oppose the practice of abortion and same-sex marriage do not need to quote the Bible to do so. Instead, they can appeal to logic and universal principles that exist, not by man's decree, but by, as the Declaration of Independence puts it, "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God."
Unfortunately, "natural law" isn't always the same as the United States Code, or the Official Statutes of (insert your own state here...). Natural law, in my own, humble, lay person opinion, would say you don't kill your own children. It would say that a man and a woman would be joined in a marital union. It's through our political system, flawed and full of pitfalls as it may be, which we write our own laws. By using the Bible as a guide, we might just get our laws close to "natural law."
Sadly, natural-law thinking became unfashionable in the two centuries after Jean Jacques Rousseau. This philosopher behind the French Revolution extolled instead man-made "positive law," which was detached from the universal ethic usually attributed to divine authorship.
In this context it is worth noting how the 20th-century Lutheran theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer judged the French Revolution, whose utopian dream was the liberation of man from all constraint. To the martyred Bonhoeffer, this Revolution was "the laying bare of the emancipated man in his tremendous power and most horrible perversity," a false liberation that leads only to man's self-destruction. He saw both Communism and Nazism as the French Revolution's heirs. (Emphasis mine - GR)
Does "the liberation of man from all constraint" mean the liberation from the evil kings and emperors of the world? Or does it also imply the liberation of man from all rules, including those set down by God? Please remember, that in past experiments with Communism, the church (Christian and otherwise) were either banned or, in the case of China, handled closely by the government. In the church's place was the government.
Natural law is the "operating system" in what Luther called the "left-hand kingdom," where God reigns in a hidden way "through good and bad princes," who in a democracy include the voters. In this secular realm, "reason is the empress," Luther said, describing reason as a gift from God that enables humanity to manage this temporal world.
Bonhoeffer considered the inability to distinguish between the spiritual and earthly kingdoms a major flaw of American theologies that manifest themselves as organized struggles against some particular worldly evil. "It is necessary to free oneself from the way of thinking, which sets out from human problems and which asks for solutions on this basis. Such thinking is unbiblical," he asserted. "The way of all Christian thinking leads not from the world to God but from God to the world."
My church last year underwent what for us was a major project -- building a "fishing village" in Haiti. This was inspired by Matthew 25:31-46: a portion of which -- "I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me." (vs. 40) So, by using the Bible to guide our thoughts, goals and missions to serve our fellow man, these efforts were unbiblical? Should I adopt an "I believe, I'm saved, that's good enough for me" attitude? Or should I reach out, extend a helping hand, and share God's love. Last week's sermon held this quote from Rev. Tony Campolo: "We dare not talk about the love that was expressed on
Luther proclaimed a liberating message "that society need not be run by the Church in order to be ruled by God," according to the late William Lazareth, a former Lutheran bishop of New York. Yet too many Protestants have a hard time grasping the breathtaking implication of this insight.
To be sure, it would be desirable if more people turned to the Bible more often for everyday guidance. But the Gospel has nothing to say about traffic rules, illegal immigration, the price of gasoline, or the Iraq war.
Oops. The 11th commandment? "Thou shalt not run red lights, nor photograph any driver who runs a red light"? "Thou shalt have a green card?" I'll ask my pastor this Sunday, but I don't think that Jesus ever got around to writing the Driver's License Manual. But it gets a little bit more serious once you start talking about wars, though. Here, we're talking about justified homicide writ large. Here we're talking about preservation of liberty, free will. And in some cases (World War II for starters) we're talking about good vs. evil. "All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing." (I wish I remembered who said that...) And how do good men find out what to respond to, which fights to fight, and how to fight them?
The Gospel – the good news of salvation through Christ – is the Christians' highest good. Thus it is difficult to fathom why so many of them insist on exposing this magnificent treasure to public derision by using it for the wrong purpose. The Gospel can illume the believer's reason in his secular pursuits but is not meant to be a script for them.
Now we're getting close to agreement here.
Half a millennium after Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of the Castle Church of Wittenberg, it makes sense to ponder his down-to-earth comment that in politics, as in all other aspects of secular life, Christians must act reasonably according to natural law. The Gospel has freed them to do just that; it must not be perverted into a weapon to be slapped around other people's heads.
• Uwe Siemon-Netto, a former religion editor for United Press International, is director of the Center for Lutheran Theology and Public Life in St. Louis. This essay was adapted from a longer version originally published by Christianity Today.
I'm going to have to read the whole version and educate myself a bit better before digging my grave any deeper. But what do you think?
22 March 2008
Bush Whacking At A Wall...
Came across this op/ed, titled "Bush Whacks the Wall of Separation," by John Nichols from The Nation, courtesy of yahoo.com. It made some comments about President Bush's weekly radio address. Some of it struck me as slightly odd, so I thought I'd post some insights here as we go along.
Wha...? OK, so we need to require that someone check their Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or whatever at the door before they're sworn in as president? Quite frankly, the fact that they believe in something higher than themselves plays a substantial role in who I vote for.
Thomas Jefferson observed in his January 1, 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists that America was not a church state.As such, he explained, it was the president's duty to refrain from displays of religious devotion."
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god (sic), that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state," wrote Jefferson. "[Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorized only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
Note the phrase: "I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church..."
Keep in mind, that at this writing, King George of England was the leader of the Anglican Church. Absolute monarchs throughout the Middle Ages and Renaissance were seen as divinely chosen -- God put them there, and therefore, should be obeyed as such. In the case of Great Britain, the King was also the equivalent of "pope" in the Anglican Church. Hence, the potential source of Jefferson's viewpoint where "an Executive is the legal head of a national church." This is true in very few other places, if any at all. (I'm excluding a ruler, dictator, despot, or any other governmental systems that try to set themselves up as god.) Continuing...
Now, note, George W. Bush's Easter Weekend radio address, in which the Jefferson's successor as president of the United States, quoted from and repeatedly referenced the Christian Bible. The address was more religious in tone and text than those delivered today even by the executives of states that identify as having a national church.
I hate to let you in on a dirty little secret, but the clear majority of Americans are Christians. And Easter is a pretty important celebration in Christianity. President Bush is more likely than not a Christian. So it should surprise no one that President Bush's address this weekend would include a few quotes from the Bible. Would we similarly chastise the President for quoting the Declaration of Independence right before July 4?
Sounding more like a pastor than a president, Bush spoke of remembering remember "a sacrifice that transcended the grave and redeemed the world" and "the gift that took away death's sting and opened the door to eternal life."
See above. These are some of the basic tenets of Christianity. Toss in the forgiveness of sins and John 3:16, and you've got a pretty good entry into Christianity 101.
Bush even declared, with a bias more toward the "Onward Christian Soldiers" camp than the "thou shalt not kill" teachings of the faith, that "America is blessed with the world's greatest military..."
If President Bush took more of a "thou shall not kill" approach, would we also criticize him about talking about abortion? Respect for life? Beating back the culture of death? Nah, that's not as headline grabbing as criticism over the Iraq war...
Interesting... The reasons why Jefferson "trembles for his country" could be an interesting discussion. Could it be for our many transgressions, or for the hope we represent -- a shining beacon of freedom for the world. Of course, if we're not supposed to talk about the Easter message outside our churches, temples, and synagogues, we probably shouldn't talk about the fact that THE reason a perfect, sinless, son-of-God Jesus came to earth, lived, died by (what I believe is STILL) the most horrific, brutal means of execution, and rose again was FORGIVENESS of ALL SINS. Could Jefferson be trembling because of what he saw our role in the world being, and fearful that we may not be up to the task?Perhaps, in light of that final comment, it is best to close with another quote from our third president.
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just," wrote Jefferson, "(and) that His justice cannot sleep forever."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)