Biology teaches us that once an egg and sperm unite, a new and UNIQUE life is created. So, prematurely terminating that life (for any reason) denies that life of its right to continue to exist.
Our constitution (until recently) guarantees us the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This "rights list" is obviously in order of priority: life (continued existence), liberty (freedom within that existence), and pursuit of happiness (the ability to acquire and maintain quality of life). It makes sense, it's moral, and it is well-ordered.
If the state permits abortion or declares it legal, it must violate the constitution in that it makes the pursuit of happiness more important than life itself.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Scoring the Progress in Afghanistan and Iraq
Almost every day we hear news of the 'progress' of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Like today, the news spoke of 10 French military killed and attacks on the US troops. Countless times I have heard that 3 US were killed today or 5 were wounded, etc. Has anyone ever noticed they don't say how many enemy were killed or what the real outcome was?
It is like reading football scores (and standings) on Monday morning:
Dallas 3 New York
Green Bay 14 Detroit
New England 31 Buffalo
You only get half-truths and those 'truths' are meant to mislead.
It is like reading football scores (and standings) on Monday morning:
Dallas 3 New York
Green Bay 14 Detroit
New England 31 Buffalo
You only get half-truths and those 'truths' are meant to mislead.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Minimum Belief to be Called Christian
Originally posted on Saturday, January 13, 2007
I must preface my thoughts by saying that logically, I have to believe in absolutes. There are either absolutes, or there are not. Believing that “There are no absolutes” is itself an absolute statement and humorously self-negating. Therefore, there must be this truth out there. Most intuitively perceive in the spiritual side of man (perhaps the use of the word paranormal fis more accurate for some) but can’t quite grasp it. We spend our lives getting glimpses of shadows cast by some ‘Light Source’. Most have a hunger and curiosity concerning the ‘Who’ that is creating this light. That is why we have many religions, faiths, and denominations. It is important that people understand that there are very earnest people seeking God.
In today’s postmodern world, it seems any and every belief is acceptable, except of course orthodoxy. There are many ways to salvation they say. Generally, if you live a good life and say your prayers, you go to Heaven no matter what you do or believe. What is strange is that it is today’s “Christian” who says these things. Some are seminarians, and I know many “Christian“ clergy as well that believe this to include the leader of my church, the Episcopal Church (TEC).
The uninitiated may not see this as a big issue. After all, if one believes that if you do “good” what’s the problem? The problem is what Christ himself said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me.” In fact, this is the crux of Christianity. Salvation is through Christ and Christ alone. Not that there is anything wrong with doing good, but Christ states He and more importantly He alone is the way to God. If one believes in other ways, that is fine, but it is not a Christian belief. Why then did Christ die and rise again? If there are other ways, why did he do so? Like my wife Naomi asked, What does that say about the Christian martyrs? Their faith was in Christ and Christ alone.
I am a Christian, Anglican, and Episcopalian. Our current Presiding Bishop does not seem to espouse Christianity. Rather her approach to religion is like choosing a line at a supermarket; any line will get you 'checked out' when in fact there should be convictions about the line she chose. Her beliefs, as I discern through her statements, concerning Christ are similar then to the Muslims, Jews, and other faiths that believe Christ was a good guy, prophet, teacher, Rabbi, but not the Messiah, THE Savior of the world.
For me, having her leading my denomination is like a Jew or Muslin receiving pork in their temple or mosque respectively.
I must preface my thoughts by saying that logically, I have to believe in absolutes. There are either absolutes, or there are not. Believing that “There are no absolutes” is itself an absolute statement and humorously self-negating. Therefore, there must be this truth out there. Most intuitively perceive in the spiritual side of man (perhaps the use of the word paranormal fis more accurate for some) but can’t quite grasp it. We spend our lives getting glimpses of shadows cast by some ‘Light Source’. Most have a hunger and curiosity concerning the ‘Who’ that is creating this light. That is why we have many religions, faiths, and denominations. It is important that people understand that there are very earnest people seeking God.
In today’s postmodern world, it seems any and every belief is acceptable, except of course orthodoxy. There are many ways to salvation they say. Generally, if you live a good life and say your prayers, you go to Heaven no matter what you do or believe. What is strange is that it is today’s “Christian” who says these things. Some are seminarians, and I know many “Christian“ clergy as well that believe this to include the leader of my church, the Episcopal Church (TEC).
The uninitiated may not see this as a big issue. After all, if one believes that if you do “good” what’s the problem? The problem is what Christ himself said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me.” In fact, this is the crux of Christianity. Salvation is through Christ and Christ alone. Not that there is anything wrong with doing good, but Christ states He and more importantly He alone is the way to God. If one believes in other ways, that is fine, but it is not a Christian belief. Why then did Christ die and rise again? If there are other ways, why did he do so? Like my wife Naomi asked, What does that say about the Christian martyrs? Their faith was in Christ and Christ alone.
I am a Christian, Anglican, and Episcopalian. Our current Presiding Bishop does not seem to espouse Christianity. Rather her approach to religion is like choosing a line at a supermarket; any line will get you 'checked out' when in fact there should be convictions about the line she chose. Her beliefs, as I discern through her statements, concerning Christ are similar then to the Muslims, Jews, and other faiths that believe Christ was a good guy, prophet, teacher, Rabbi, but not the Messiah, THE Savior of the world.
For me, having her leading my denomination is like a Jew or Muslin receiving pork in their temple or mosque respectively.
Israel and Hezbollah
Originally posted on Saturday, August 05, 2006
A peace treaty between Palestine (whoever that is), Israel, Lebanon, and Syria has brought nothing to the area. Hezbollah used the opportunity to move weapons into the southern Lebanon area in preparation to attack Israel while Israel was removing squatters from the Israeli-occupied areas. There was alot Israeli emotion behind adhering to this treaty and when all was said and done, Israel lived up to its part. However, other anti-Israel political and terrorist organizations would or could not allow for it.
Citizens from both the Gaza strip and Lebanon CROSSSED the border and kipnapped Israeli citizens. Paramilitary organizations (also known as terrorists) started bombing (using rockets) Israel indiscriminately. These organizations wanted to use the "prisoners" as leverage to further barter with Israel for the release of prisoners Israel had captured prior to the treaty.
From Israel's perspective, what good is a peace treaty or "cease-fire" when those who sign it continually show no intergrity? Any agreement is AND WILL ALWAYS BE worthless. From Israel's perspective, they get nothing but temporary peace until the other side decides to wage war again.
The war is between two peoples with the following motives: Israel - the desire to exist, Radical Islam - Jews to be exterminated. Make no mistake about it. These are and have been their respective goals since 1948 as witnessed through their leaders and literature.
The only way that Israel can find a lasting peace is to eliminate the threat of those who desire their destruction.
Who is more just? Those who seek to merely exist in peace or those who seek genocide for their enemy?
A peace treaty between Palestine (whoever that is), Israel, Lebanon, and Syria has brought nothing to the area. Hezbollah used the opportunity to move weapons into the southern Lebanon area in preparation to attack Israel while Israel was removing squatters from the Israeli-occupied areas. There was alot Israeli emotion behind adhering to this treaty and when all was said and done, Israel lived up to its part. However, other anti-Israel political and terrorist organizations would or could not allow for it.
Citizens from both the Gaza strip and Lebanon CROSSSED the border and kipnapped Israeli citizens. Paramilitary organizations (also known as terrorists) started bombing (using rockets) Israel indiscriminately. These organizations wanted to use the "prisoners" as leverage to further barter with Israel for the release of prisoners Israel had captured prior to the treaty.
From Israel's perspective, what good is a peace treaty or "cease-fire" when those who sign it continually show no intergrity? Any agreement is AND WILL ALWAYS BE worthless. From Israel's perspective, they get nothing but temporary peace until the other side decides to wage war again.
The war is between two peoples with the following motives: Israel - the desire to exist, Radical Islam - Jews to be exterminated. Make no mistake about it. These are and have been their respective goals since 1948 as witnessed through their leaders and literature.
The only way that Israel can find a lasting peace is to eliminate the threat of those who desire their destruction.
Who is more just? Those who seek to merely exist in peace or those who seek genocide for their enemy?
Texas Gerrymandering
Originally Tuesday, October 18, 2005
One of the reasons that Tom DeLay has been targeted by a rabid democrat DA in Travis County is that DeLay was proactive Texas redistricting so that more republican US House members could be elected. This effort so angered Texas democrat congressmen that they left the state instead of being in session. They left the state to avoid being apprehended by the Texas Rangers.
This certainly sounds like a brave and righteous act until you consider some of the facts. Until recently, the Texas state congress has been controlled by the democrats. Having that control, they established the US congressional districts in favor of their own party. They claimed the republicans wanted to gerrymander the districts so as to give them more representatives. That is all true. But has anyone asked the question why? Did any news network question that the state of Texas was gerrmandered in favor of the democrats? No.
First of all, an unbiased judge would have to admit that if any party gets say 55% of the vote for congressmen, they should get approximately 55% of the representatives all things being equal. Texas has 32 seats in the house, so if democrat candidates recieve 55% of the vote, they should expect approximately 18 seats (32 X .55) in the US house and visa versa for any other party.
If you go to the Texas voting records of 2002, you will find that approximately 55% of all votes for Texas US house seats went to republican candidates. However, based on democrat gerrymandering of Texas state districts, the republicans only got 15 seats (47%). There is an 8% discrepency between the percentage that voted for republicans and what the party actually recieved in representatives to the US Senate, an advantage of 3 representatives, a 20% descrepency.
So, based on voting records and the democrat gerrymandered districts, one can see that the republicans had valid complaints about how the state had previously been gerrymandered.
One of the reasons that Tom DeLay has been targeted by a rabid democrat DA in Travis County is that DeLay was proactive Texas redistricting so that more republican US House members could be elected. This effort so angered Texas democrat congressmen that they left the state instead of being in session. They left the state to avoid being apprehended by the Texas Rangers.
This certainly sounds like a brave and righteous act until you consider some of the facts. Until recently, the Texas state congress has been controlled by the democrats. Having that control, they established the US congressional districts in favor of their own party. They claimed the republicans wanted to gerrymander the districts so as to give them more representatives. That is all true. But has anyone asked the question why? Did any news network question that the state of Texas was gerrmandered in favor of the democrats? No.
First of all, an unbiased judge would have to admit that if any party gets say 55% of the vote for congressmen, they should get approximately 55% of the representatives all things being equal. Texas has 32 seats in the house, so if democrat candidates recieve 55% of the vote, they should expect approximately 18 seats (32 X .55) in the US house and visa versa for any other party.
If you go to the Texas voting records of 2002, you will find that approximately 55% of all votes for Texas US house seats went to republican candidates. However, based on democrat gerrymandering of Texas state districts, the republicans only got 15 seats (47%). There is an 8% discrepency between the percentage that voted for republicans and what the party actually recieved in representatives to the US Senate, an advantage of 3 representatives, a 20% descrepency.
So, based on voting records and the democrat gerrymandered districts, one can see that the republicans had valid complaints about how the state had previously been gerrymandered.
Creationism and the Birth of Our Country
Originally posted on Saturday, October 15, 2005
Before separating from England, there was much debate concerning the matter. Many people did not want to leave the protection of England although England granted the colonies few rights that he citizens enjoyed.
During meetings of the Continental Congress in 1775, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin persuaded Thomas Jefferson to write a declaration to encapsulate the reasons for independence. Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence and after much debate and editing, it was eventually signed by all representatives from the 13 colonies.
In the second paragraph, the declaration states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Our country was established with the Creator in mind. In fact, for the new government to work, it had to recognize that the Creator (dare I say God) gave all men equal rights (slavery was much debated during the drafting process because some at that time did not recognize the rights of black people and others did). The thinking was that since God saw men as equal in the universe, the government should protect this universal law.
However, the very tenets of the theory of evolution are grounded in the fact that all men are NOT created equal. Some are more equal than others and therefore live longer. Those more evolved eventually dominate the species arising to a more higher form of life.
We teach evolution in our schools. So how can our children and our children's children support a government of equal rights when its state-sanctioned public school system teach that all men are not equal. The whole basis of equal rights established in our government is thereby eliminated by rejecting God and His creation.
Before separating from England, there was much debate concerning the matter. Many people did not want to leave the protection of England although England granted the colonies few rights that he citizens enjoyed.
During meetings of the Continental Congress in 1775, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin persuaded Thomas Jefferson to write a declaration to encapsulate the reasons for independence. Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence and after much debate and editing, it was eventually signed by all representatives from the 13 colonies.
In the second paragraph, the declaration states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Our country was established with the Creator in mind. In fact, for the new government to work, it had to recognize that the Creator (dare I say God) gave all men equal rights (slavery was much debated during the drafting process because some at that time did not recognize the rights of black people and others did). The thinking was that since God saw men as equal in the universe, the government should protect this universal law.
However, the very tenets of the theory of evolution are grounded in the fact that all men are NOT created equal. Some are more equal than others and therefore live longer. Those more evolved eventually dominate the species arising to a more higher form of life.
We teach evolution in our schools. So how can our children and our children's children support a government of equal rights when its state-sanctioned public school system teach that all men are not equal. The whole basis of equal rights established in our government is thereby eliminated by rejecting God and His creation.
Abortion vs. The Constitution
Originally posted on Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Because our culture changes and evolves, we face new issues every year. These issues are complex and occasionally the US Supreme Court must decide on the constitutionality of them.
The constitution is a contract that promises that the government has the obligation to protect "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". These prioritized unalienable (vs. inalienable) rights can not be taken away. If so, the contract (constitution) becomes null and void.
The utmost right that the government should protect is "life". When a child is conceived, biology tells us that the uniqueness of that individual has been created. Life is born. To unnaturally cause that life to cease is in violation to the constitution. So, the taking of a life through abortion violates the constitution.
When you realize the Roe vs. Wade decision was really about property rights (rights of the mother of the right of life of the child) rather than life, Roe vs. Wade reestablishes those same tenets that were disposed of during slavery (rights of owners over the rights of slaves). In other words, Roe vs. Wade not only establishes that life is property, but it also elevates that property right over the right to life.
Because our culture changes and evolves, we face new issues every year. These issues are complex and occasionally the US Supreme Court must decide on the constitutionality of them.
The constitution is a contract that promises that the government has the obligation to protect "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". These prioritized unalienable (vs. inalienable) rights can not be taken away. If so, the contract (constitution) becomes null and void.
The utmost right that the government should protect is "life". When a child is conceived, biology tells us that the uniqueness of that individual has been created. Life is born. To unnaturally cause that life to cease is in violation to the constitution. So, the taking of a life through abortion violates the constitution.
When you realize the Roe vs. Wade decision was really about property rights (rights of the mother of the right of life of the child) rather than life, Roe vs. Wade reestablishes those same tenets that were disposed of during slavery (rights of owners over the rights of slaves). In other words, Roe vs. Wade not only establishes that life is property, but it also elevates that property right over the right to life.
Heresy vs. Schism and the Episcopal Debate
Originally posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005
Heresy is a tricky issue. One must carefully balance the probability of a changing the heretic against the effect the heresy has on the health of the church body. The children of Israel illustrate what happens when we entertain heresy. It is one thing to live among people who practice it. It is altogether different when you adopt it as part of your own culture. God anticipated Israel’s problem when he told them to destroy the idols of the foreigners (and in some cases the nations themselves). When they did not, Israel adopted pagan rituals and gods that eventually led to their downfall. When you consider the current issue, the same is true with the blessing of homosexual relationships and leaders by our church.
There are some issues that really should be debated. We should allow wide berths for those that differ in those views. A few examples are: women priests; water baptism; transubstantiation. These concepts are vague in the scriptures. However, homosexuality is not. In the Old Testament, Israel killed homosexuals. In the New Testament, Paul calls it depravity. Therefore, there is no room for argument in my opinion on whether it is a sin. I am astonished that the laity seem to have a better grasp on this matter than the many clergy that have studied the Bible. It ain’t rocket science. Even nature dictates that it is an unnatural thing!
Our clergy have stated that schism is a greater sin than heresy. In this case, the The Episcopal Church (TEC) is practicing both schism and heresy. They have even stated that TEC ordained a bishop against their own canon. This action alone produced the schism. Apparently endorsing homosexuality is more important to TEC than church unity. What is remarkable is that after they have violently welded the cleaver against their charge, they point the finger and blame those who are left bleeding.
As to the realities of schisms in the church, in Matthew 10 Christ says: "because you are not speaking, but the Spirit of your Father is speaking in you. Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will even rise up against their parents and have them put to death. You will be hated by everybody because of My name. And the one who endures to the end will be delivered." Although Christ is not addressing homosexuality here, he is saying that His way will de divisive and sometimes not popular.
Additionally, Paul in Romans 3 discusses the purpose of the law, "For no flesh will be justified in His sight by the works of the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin.". The purpose of the law is to show we need Christ. If we change the law (which we can not do), we are telling those that break it that it is OK. There then is no need for repentance. If we did this, we would not be acting out of love. We would be condemning our fellow brethren.
I agree also that we should allow dialogue on this matter. For the most part, the dialogue is all one way: "you must adopt TEC position", the canon be damned. Those against TEC's position have no means left to communicate their repugnance to the national church. We tried at council and our idea was struck down. That is why I support affiliating with a conservative Anglican organization. It provides a clear statement as a church that we adamantly disagree with TEC's position. Individual membership is not by itself a strong enough statement. Those who oppose affiliation actually stifle the only means left to those in our church to say to TEC that we oppose their action. I am sure that is why many have left not only this congregation but also the Episcopal Church. They have no more means of dialogue. It is important that our bishop know that Anglican conservative affiliation has nothing to do with our diocese but rather our church and TEC.
I too feel that we must not react rashly and not too quickly. We got to this point through negligence and passivity. I think the Anglican community is being wise to slowly introduce discipline to allow TEC to reflect on their position and make the necessary changes.
Conservative Anglican affiliation (CAA) is not a rash act nor do I consider it schismatic. One can equate it to supporting the Order of St Luke’s. As they advocate healing, CAA advocates the need for our church to remain scriptural. No one paints the Order of St Luke as an organization that wants to get rid of the medical profession. CAA is not schismatic but rather emphasizes the ministry of the scripture.
For those who do not support TEC, we were told to ‘shut up’ a long time ago when TEC violated their own canon.
Heresy is a tricky issue. One must carefully balance the probability of a changing the heretic against the effect the heresy has on the health of the church body. The children of Israel illustrate what happens when we entertain heresy. It is one thing to live among people who practice it. It is altogether different when you adopt it as part of your own culture. God anticipated Israel’s problem when he told them to destroy the idols of the foreigners (and in some cases the nations themselves). When they did not, Israel adopted pagan rituals and gods that eventually led to their downfall. When you consider the current issue, the same is true with the blessing of homosexual relationships and leaders by our church.
There are some issues that really should be debated. We should allow wide berths for those that differ in those views. A few examples are: women priests; water baptism; transubstantiation. These concepts are vague in the scriptures. However, homosexuality is not. In the Old Testament, Israel killed homosexuals. In the New Testament, Paul calls it depravity. Therefore, there is no room for argument in my opinion on whether it is a sin. I am astonished that the laity seem to have a better grasp on this matter than the many clergy that have studied the Bible. It ain’t rocket science. Even nature dictates that it is an unnatural thing!
Our clergy have stated that schism is a greater sin than heresy. In this case, the The Episcopal Church (TEC) is practicing both schism and heresy. They have even stated that TEC ordained a bishop against their own canon. This action alone produced the schism. Apparently endorsing homosexuality is more important to TEC than church unity. What is remarkable is that after they have violently welded the cleaver against their charge, they point the finger and blame those who are left bleeding.
As to the realities of schisms in the church, in Matthew 10 Christ says: "because you are not speaking, but the Spirit of your Father is speaking in you. Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will even rise up against their parents and have them put to death. You will be hated by everybody because of My name. And the one who endures to the end will be delivered." Although Christ is not addressing homosexuality here, he is saying that His way will de divisive and sometimes not popular.
Additionally, Paul in Romans 3 discusses the purpose of the law, "For no flesh will be justified in His sight by the works of the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin.". The purpose of the law is to show we need Christ. If we change the law (which we can not do), we are telling those that break it that it is OK. There then is no need for repentance. If we did this, we would not be acting out of love. We would be condemning our fellow brethren.
I agree also that we should allow dialogue on this matter. For the most part, the dialogue is all one way: "you must adopt TEC position", the canon be damned. Those against TEC's position have no means left to communicate their repugnance to the national church. We tried at council and our idea was struck down. That is why I support affiliating with a conservative Anglican organization. It provides a clear statement as a church that we adamantly disagree with TEC's position. Individual membership is not by itself a strong enough statement. Those who oppose affiliation actually stifle the only means left to those in our church to say to TEC that we oppose their action. I am sure that is why many have left not only this congregation but also the Episcopal Church. They have no more means of dialogue. It is important that our bishop know that Anglican conservative affiliation has nothing to do with our diocese but rather our church and TEC.
I too feel that we must not react rashly and not too quickly. We got to this point through negligence and passivity. I think the Anglican community is being wise to slowly introduce discipline to allow TEC to reflect on their position and make the necessary changes.
Conservative Anglican affiliation (CAA) is not a rash act nor do I consider it schismatic. One can equate it to supporting the Order of St Luke’s. As they advocate healing, CAA advocates the need for our church to remain scriptural. No one paints the Order of St Luke as an organization that wants to get rid of the medical profession. CAA is not schismatic but rather emphasizes the ministry of the scripture.
For those who do not support TEC, we were told to ‘shut up’ a long time ago when TEC violated their own canon.
Obsessed
Originally written on Tuesday, December 21, 2004
My wonderful wife brought up a very interesting point. It seems that those who are most obsessed with money are those who wish to control other people's pocketbooks. They obsess over what people give or don't give. They compare their income to what they think the more wealthy give. They desire to take it away from the 'rich' in the form of taxes so that they can control how the 'rich' should give. What is sad is that they feel they are righteous in their actions.
Instead of looking at someone else's pocket book and wanting to control it, wouldn't it be better to work hard and become wealthy so one can give to their heart's content while at the same time praying for those who are blessed with abundance to give to those who are in need?
True charity comes from the heart and is appreciated. Charity that is forced requires a task master and will be detested by all.
My wonderful wife brought up a very interesting point. It seems that those who are most obsessed with money are those who wish to control other people's pocketbooks. They obsess over what people give or don't give. They compare their income to what they think the more wealthy give. They desire to take it away from the 'rich' in the form of taxes so that they can control how the 'rich' should give. What is sad is that they feel they are righteous in their actions.
Instead of looking at someone else's pocket book and wanting to control it, wouldn't it be better to work hard and become wealthy so one can give to their heart's content while at the same time praying for those who are blessed with abundance to give to those who are in need?
True charity comes from the heart and is appreciated. Charity that is forced requires a task master and will be detested by all.
The Professed Tolerant
I was in Phoenix the past week and went down to Tempe to shop and then eat. I was surprised to see a 60's era 'head shop' on Mills Avenue. Head shops were prolific in the late 60's and early 70's. They usually offer marijuana smoking paraphernalia and hippie-wear. I went in to browse, avoid the rain storm, and take a step back into time. I actually bought $75 worth of merchandise: t-shirts, stickers, and posters.
While I was checking out, a woman (dressed very earthy) came in to perhaps shop but most probably to avoid the rain storm too. She breezed through the shop, did a u-turn, and then left. On the way out, she told one of the two female clerks (very sincerely I might add), "God bless you."
When the woman shopper left, the female clerk was totally incensed. She turned to her coworker and was very upset at the woman shopper. She said, "that lady was probably listening to Christian music." She acted like the lady was diseased. I thought the clerk's reaction to the shopper was frightening. Even if she didn't believe the same as the shopper, the shopper was merely projecting good will toward the clerk. Maybe the clerk preferred a "I wish you would die a terrible death" sort of goodbye? I think most people would not be offended if a Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Christian, or deist (maybe in this case) articulated their own unique belief-based blessing. I would be flattered.
I thought how odd it was for this supposed liberal 'tolerant' generation to be so hateful to someone (maybe not even a Christian) who pronounces a blessing on them, especially at a head-shop. These clerks really know nothing about the 60's!
I know it speaks of the cultural bias against Christianity, but it also was frightening. It was frightening to see such a knee-jerk hate-filled reaction to a kind act from a stranger. It was reminiscent of how Christians were thought of and treated in the first century.
While I was checking out, a woman (dressed very earthy) came in to perhaps shop but most probably to avoid the rain storm too. She breezed through the shop, did a u-turn, and then left. On the way out, she told one of the two female clerks (very sincerely I might add), "God bless you."
When the woman shopper left, the female clerk was totally incensed. She turned to her coworker and was very upset at the woman shopper. She said, "that lady was probably listening to Christian music." She acted like the lady was diseased. I thought the clerk's reaction to the shopper was frightening. Even if she didn't believe the same as the shopper, the shopper was merely projecting good will toward the clerk. Maybe the clerk preferred a "I wish you would die a terrible death" sort of goodbye? I think most people would not be offended if a Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Christian, or deist (maybe in this case) articulated their own unique belief-based blessing. I would be flattered.
I thought how odd it was for this supposed liberal 'tolerant' generation to be so hateful to someone (maybe not even a Christian) who pronounces a blessing on them, especially at a head-shop. These clerks really know nothing about the 60's!
I know it speaks of the cultural bias against Christianity, but it also was frightening. It was frightening to see such a knee-jerk hate-filled reaction to a kind act from a stranger. It was reminiscent of how Christians were thought of and treated in the first century.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
