The Frog in the Pot

As evidenced here: JackeHammer: It's About Our Children, Stupid!, I have long been opposed to gay marriage because it makes the unhealthy lifestyle of homosexuality appear to be "normal" to our children who are taught in our public schools that it is simply an "alternative lifestyle," no better or worse than the heterosexual lifestyle. I document the fact that there is a much higher rate of disease and mental illness, along with a higher suicide rate, among the gay community in the above, previous link. I also point out in the comment section, that according to studies, the higher suicide rate has been proven NOT to be linked with intolerance of their sexual preference but has more to do with the higher occurrence of break-ups in relationships:

The American Journal of Public Health Highlights Risks of Homosexual Practices


"While society's alleged oppression of homosexual individuals (homophobia) seems to be a favorite panacea-like theory for the mental-health problems of those who practice homosexuality, the Dutch study is not supportive of such a hypothesis. Dutch society is recognized as one of the most gay-affirming and gay-tolerant in the world, and yet the risk for mental illness among those who engage in homosexuality remains high, and significantly higher than among heterosexuals in that country."

Homosexuality and Mental Health Problems

"The Effect of Social StigmaThird, does pressure from society lead to mental health problems? Less, I believe, than one might imagine. The authors of the study done in The Netherlands were surprised to find so much mental illness in homosexual people in a country where tolerance of homosexuality is greater than in almost all other countries.
Another good comparison country is New Zealand, which is much more tolerant of homosexuality than is the United States. Legislation giving the movement special legal rights is powerful, consistently enforced throughout the country, and virtually never challenged. Despite this broad level of social tolerance, suicide attempts were common in a New Zealand study and occurred at about the same rate as in the U.S.In his cross-cultural comparison of mental health in the Netherlands, Denmark and the U.S., Ross (1988) could find no significant differences between countries - i.e. the greater social hostility in the United States did not result in a higher level of psychiatric problems."

Now, the reason I bring this up again is to clarify that my reason for opposing gay marriage is that I don't want it treated as though it is a normal and HEALTHY alternative to heterosexual marriage. It is not. It is an unhealthy lifestyle, but our children are not being warned about the higher percentage of health risks in a number of categories when homosexuality is talked about in our public schools. This does a disservice to our children.

Another argument that has been used by some Conservatives is the "slippery slope" argument. Bill O'Reilly, a moderate, often sites this argument on his radio program. I have also used this argument myself. People generally get brushed off as a lunatic, myself included, when we suggest that those who practice bestiality, pedophilia and those who would like to engage in polygamy would also like to have the privilege to marry the goat of their choice, the child of their choice and have multiple spouses. But...and that's a big BUT, it appears that this argument is not so crazy, after all. Yesterday, I came across a posting by "H-Bomb" at anklebitingpundits.com:

http://www.anklebitingpundits.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3278

"One of the arguments often dredged up by opponents of gay marriage has been that if the state were to endorse the marriage of any two people other than a man and a woman (which is what marriage is, by the way) it would inevitably open the doors to the normalization of other “lifestyle choices" (or as I like to call them, "twisted perversions") such as polygamy or even bestiality. The bestiality argument in particular was blown out of the water, and its adherents were easily discredited as over-the-top wackos. And then, wouldn’t you know it, the subject of decriminalizing bestiality actually came up in the Massachusetts (where else?) legislature in the form of a bill. Well now comes the “out and proud” polygamy movement, complete with a glossy, largely approving spread in Newsweek...."

From the Newsweek article:

"There's a sound legal argument for making the controversial practice legal, says Brian Barnard, the lawyer for a Utah couple, identified in court documents only as G. Lee Cooke and D. Cooke, who filed suit after being denied a marriage license for an additional wife. Though the case was struck down by a federal court last year, it's now being considered by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Barnard plans to use the same argument—that Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 sodomy case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that individuals have "the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention," should also apply to polygamous relationships."

Stanley Kurtz of nationalreviewonline (NRO) says here:

Stanley Kurtz on Big Love & Polygamy on National Review Online

"It's getting tougher to laugh off the "slippery slope" argument — the claim that gay marriage will lead to polygamy, polyamory, and ultimately to the replacement of marriage itself by an infinitely flexible partnership system. We've now got a movement for legalized polyamory and the abolition of marriage in Sweden. (See "Fanatical Swedish Feminists.") The Netherlands has given legal, political, and public approval to a cohabitation contract for a polyamorous bisexual triad. (See "Here Come the Brides.") Two out of four reports on polygamy commissioned by the Canadian government recommended decriminalization and regulation of the practice. (See "Dissolving Marriage.") And now comes Big Love, HBO's domestic drama about an American polygamous family....

...This means the real challenge we face is not from a huge, nationally based movement of so-called "Mormon fundamentalists." (These renegade polygamists are emphatically not members of the mainstream, Mormon Church.) Instead, as in Canada, the challenge will come from a complex coalition: gay radicals who favor same-sex marriage but who also want to transform and transcend marriage itself, feminists (like Canada's Martha Bailey) who feel the same way, Hollywood liberals like Tom Hanks (an executive producer of Big Love) who want to use the media to transform the culture, civil-rights advocates like the ACLU and ex-Humphrey aide Ed Frimage, libertarian conservatives like John Tierney and an ever-larger number of young people, fundamentalist "Mormon" polygamists, and the ever-growing movement for polyamory (which features both heterosexuals and large numbers of bisexuals), and perhaps someday (as in Canada) Muslim and other non-Western immigrants.

This complex coalition ranging from old-fashioned Humphrey-style liberals to anti-marriage feminist radicals, to libertarian conservatives, is what will power future efforts to radically deconstruct marriage. And we're only at the very beginning of these efforts. For the most part, cultural radicals are holding back, knowing that anything they say may jeopardize the movement for same-sex marriage by validating slippery-slope fears. The remarkable thing is that, at this early stage, the radicals have forced themselves so openly into the cultural argument. That is a sure sign that if same-sex marriage were to be safely legalized nationally, the way would finally be open to a truly concerted campaign to transform marriage by opening it up to polygamy and polyamory, or by replacing it with an infinitely flexible partnership system. Whatever we're seeing now is only the barest hint of what will happen once the coast is clear."

Recently I commented at Angel's blog: The Rogue Angel, under the topic of I Just Don't Get It when she was questioning why Christians blog more about the sin of homosexuality than they do other sexual sins, such as adultery and fornications:

"I agree with you Angel, but I think homosexuality comes up more often at blog sites because it seems to be a particular bone of contention between "Conservative" and "Progressive" Christians. Some "Progressives" deny that it is a sin at all. You do not see "Progressives" or "Conservatives" denying that adultery, lying, cheating and stealing is a sin but rather they were born that way, therefore we must all give them a pass, do you? I don't. Yet, in conversations I have had at "Progressive" blogs I do hear challenges among some Christians as to whether homosexuality is a sin and how can it be a sin since people are born that way and God doesn't make any mistakes...you see? So, if you see more blogging done about the sin of homosexuality than lying, cheating, adultery or stealing, I think it is simply because no one challenges the fact that those are sins.

I do see my own sin everyday, Angel, and I do realize that my sin is no less a sin in God's eyes than the sin of homosexuality, to me there is no differentiation with sin, to some, however, they refuse to call the sin of homosexuality a sin to begin with, now there, that's your differentiation. :)

Posted by: Jacke January 21, 2006 02:26 PM"

Then yesterday, my co-contributor, Momma Twoop sent me an interesting article, Religious group merges with gay rights task force / 1,400 'welcoming' congregations are represented -- hopes for 10,000 in 5 .. , here's an excerpt from that article:

"The gay rights movement has found God.

After decades of working to change secular institutions, the national movement, which has largely convinced society that homosexuality is neither a mental disorder nor a crime, is focusing on what its leaders say is their last, and biggest, challenge: convincing believers that it's not a sin.

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the country's oldest gay rights organization, announced Monday that a religious organization representing 1,400 Protestant congregations that unconditionally welcome gays and lesbians has merged with the task force.

Over the next five years, the task force wants to increase membership in the Institute for Welcoming Resources to 10,000 congregations."

So, no war against Christmas? No "conspiracy" to end traditional marriage? No cultural war? Progressives keep telling us that, don't they? And while we sit like a frog in that gradually heating pot of water on the stove top, they keep turning up the heat, praying we won't notice the hand on the dial.

Remember

I remember

a summer's night and

you

touching my face gently.

If only

Time would have stood still

for us,

I could have been

with you

forever.

Now

I only have times

like that

to look back on

and remember.

An Excellent Read

"The Framers and the Faithful" by Steven Waldman

:0 (Updated)

I heard about this on the radio on my way home Monday:

KMOV.com St. Louis, MO Top Stories


State bill proposes Christianity be Missouri’s official religion

09:24 PM CST on Saturday, March 4, 2006
By John Mills, News 4

"Missouri legislators in Jefferson City considered a bill that would name Christianity the state's official "majority" religion.

House Concurrent Resolution 13 has is pending in the state legislature.

Many Missouri residents had not heard about the bill until Thursday.

Karen Aroesty of the Anti-defamation league, along with other watch-groups, began a letter writing and email campaign to stop the resolution.

The resolution would recognize "a Christian god," and it would not protect minority religions, but "protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs.

The resolution also recognizes that, "a greater power exists," and only Christianity receives what the resolution calls, "justified recognition."

State representative David Sater of Cassville in southwestern Missouri, sponsored the resolution, but he has refused to talk about it on camera or over the phone.

KMOV also contacted Gov. Matt Blunt's office to see where he stands on the resolution, but he has yet to respond."

I'd wager State representative David Sater of Cassville will soon be looking for gainful employment in another field.

UPDATE:

I think I may have spoken too soon. This is not as simple as I at first thought. For some weird and totally unexplained reason I lost my mind and took the media's word for this story rather than looking into it myself, now I regret that. Following is a link to the bill, House Concurrent Resolution No. 13, and the entire, less than a page long bill, itself:

http://www.house.mo.gov/bills061/biltxt/intro/HCR0013I.htm

SECOND REGULAR SESSION

House Concurrent Resolution No. 13
93RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY
4572L.02I
Whereas, our forefathers of this great nation of the United States recognized a Christian God and used the principles afforded to us by Him as the founding principles of our nation; and

Whereas, as citizens of this great nation, we the majority also wish to exercise our constitutional right to acknowledge our Creator and give thanks for the many gifts provided by Him; and

Whereas, as elected officials we should protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs while showing respect for those who object; and

Whereas, we wish to continue the wisdom imparted in the Constitution of the United States of America by the founding fathers; and

Whereas, we as elected officials recognize that a Greater Power exists above and beyond the institutions of mankind:

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the members of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-third General Assembly, Second Regular Session, the Senate concurring therein, that we stand with the majority of our constituents and exercise the common sense that voluntary prayer in public schools and religious displays on public property are not a coalition of church and state, but rather the justified recognition of the positive role that Christianity has played in this great nation of ours, the United States of America.

END

So, that's it. While the article I posted above doesn't say this, the radio account I heard on the way home on Monday stated that this bill "made Christianity the State Religion." Where the heck does it say that? What exactly is wrong with recognizing our Christian roots? This bill addresses Christianity specifically, it allows, with the "exercise" of "common sense," voluntary prayer in public school, NOT MANDATED prayer, it allows for religious displays on public property but does NOT MANDATE it and states that those exercises do NOT represent "a coalition of church and state," simply a recognition that the majority of Missourians are Christians and should have the right to practice the freedom of religion the constitution was intended to afford us.

What am I missing here? It does not deny the right of any other religion to display whatever religious displays that their respective practitioners want to display, it does not deny other religions any rights and even intends to practice "common sense," it merely wants to resolve that CHRISTIANS have a right to practice prayer and display their religious symbols, yes, on public property (gasp!). It even has language incorportated in it to promote respect for those who object.

Do we really have freedom of religion in America or not!??? It's a sad state when we have to try to pass a resolution to insure us the rights that our founders intended all along. That is what this is about, freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

The media is spinning the story again, as if they ever stopped, and I fell for it this time.

Freedom of Speech is a Good Thang, Opinions are Relative

I am still smiling over yesterday's exchange. There is no point in rehashing everything that was said, if you are interested you can find the discussion at my blog entry
Those Wacky Liberals and Democrats and Their Free Speech Bias and Brandon's blog entry at a badchristian blog, a liberal patriot? in both the entries and the comment sections. Dan Lewis at a badchristian blog summed it up about as well as anyone when he had this to say:

Dan Lewis said,
March 7, 2006 at 2:03 pm

(Brandon had said)

"Brandon’s a hypocrite because…

1. On the one hand he wants free speech.

2. On the other hand, he doesn’t want to let conservatives have free speech.

3. He displays this by berating a person’s argument who told him to move the fuck to China.

4. He should just let people say whatever they like, because that’s what freedom of speech is about."

(Dan Lewis added)


"It’s not too hard to imagine steps 5 through 8 of the future course of this argument:

5. On the one hand, Brandon wants to use his free speech to define free speech.

6. On the other hand, he wants to prevent others from using their free speech to define free speech.

7. But then, he wants to use his free speech to explain that defining free speech does not prevent others from using their free speech to define free speech.

8. On the other hand, he wants to prevent others from using their free speech to argue that defining free speech does in fact prevent them from using their free speech to define free speech.

I am starting to buckle under the g-force of this argument."

To summarize, any idiot or sage, depending on one's own perspective can say any stupid or brilliant thing they want to say, what one does not have the right to expect is to not be challenged on anything they say.

For an example: Cindy Sheehan has the right to say terrorists are "freedom fighters," and Bill O'Reilly has the right to challenge that statement. By challenging the Sheehan statement he has not tried to remove her right to free speech, he has merely exercised his own. As a matter of fact, by responding to her statement directly, he has shown her a certain amount of respect, though probably not intentionally, and one could argue that he only extended that respect because the media was disproportionately giving her air time at the expense of other family members who have lost loved ones in the War on Terror.

The good new is that no one has lost their right to speak freely, the good news is also that no one has lost their right to challenge another when they exercise that freedom.

Suggesting that by challenging another you have taken away their right to free speech is a straw man's argument, and when someone challenges their right to challenge, one engages in the very same behavior as the first challenger, in short, whether that argument is put forth by Cindy Sheehanites, Neal Boortz, Brandon at a badchristian blog or Jacke at JackeHammer, that argument exposes them all as the hypocrites they are...and we've already established that we're all hypocrites, right?

That brings us to the issue of respecting others, and that's a whole 'nother subject.

If a neighbor complains to his friend that he doesn't like the neighborhood in which he lives, perhaps the next door neighbors play loud music and host loud parties and keep him up at night. Maybe his neighbor on the other side has a big dog which barks all night long, at any rate, he has some righteous grievances. Would it be wrong for the friend, hearing of his friend's displeasure with his living arrangements to suggest that he might be happier living in a different neighborhood? Would that be a reasonable suggestion? What if the neighbor took that to mean that his friend was trying to tell him "either move or SHUT UP about your neighborhood!" ? Would the friend's suggestion be unreasonable just because the original friend chose to take offense?

I tend to think the friend has a valid bit of advice in suggesting that his friend move if he is unhappy in that neighborhood. Could he have instead suggested that his friend try to discuss the problems with his neighbors? Sure, and that would have been a valid bit of advice too. Both bits of advice would be reasonable, wouldn't they? What if the friend, the one living in the bad neighborhood called all of his other friends on the phone and told them that his advising friend had told him to either get the heck out of that neighborhood or shut the heck up about it! Well, that would be somewhat disrespectful, in my opinion, because it really isn't at all what the friend had suggested, he had merely offered some reasonable advice.

What if, in the blogosphere, someone accused another of telling them to get the heck out of America if he didn't like it here, rather than responding to the advice as what it was, a suggestion that if one was so unhappy and discontented in America they should consider moving to another country? What if he wrote a blog and implied the originator of the remark might be a hypocrite and an aspiring totalitarian!? Funny, huh?

Perspective is a funny thang.

Freedom of speech is a good thang.

Those Wacky Liberals and Democrats and Their Free Speech Bias

Well, I'll be darned. I got back from my trip yesterday and I find that by generalizing about self-professed "Progressive" Christians in an effort to further my position that the Body of Christ needs to be unified, that it has been offered that even recognizing the fact that these varying viewpoints exist I am furthering the division among the Body of Christ rather than my true intention of trying to find some commonality and respect across the aisles between these differing factions in the Body of Christ. Angel, it appears, has totally misread my intentions for dialog, read it here: The Rogue Angel. It seems that everywhere I turn lately Democrats or liberals or Progressives are challenging whether we should even discuss our viewpoints at all, that is, if we happen to be Conservative or Republican or a Conservative or Republican Christian. Now, by seeking to have conversations or even discuss my disappointment in the conversations I've had in the past, it seems I am furthering the divide!? Give me a break!

Brandon writes here: patriotism and loving the usa:

"So, while I’m revelling in the free exchange of opinion, let me offer you one for free. Suggesting that because I don’t believe in your ideals, I should pick up and leave, well, that seems, to me at least, to be a little hypocritical. It feels a little like you’re suggesting that freedom isn’t really all that it’s cracked up to be. It feels a little like you’re trying to create the totalitarian regime the likes of which you profess to despise." (emphasis mine)

I don't know, is it just me or does it seem like Brandon, in his attempt to accept freedom of speech and revel in the free exchange of opinion, is also attempting to demonize someone for exercizing his or her own freedom of speech by suggesting that he move to China!? Brandon wants to be able to say whatever he wants (again) but doesn't seem to appreciate others saying what they want in return. Brandon doesn't want it to be suggested he is less than patriotic because he doesn't approve of every single thing that goes on in America (as if that would ever happen) but when someone suggests he move, he, in turn, accuses the person of trying to create a totalitarian regime!? Oh, my! Remember this?:

Freedom of Speech Liberal Style (Revised and Revisited AGAIN)

"I cannot tell you how many times in discussion with liberals that if anything "bad" was said about Cindy Sheehan, and by the term "bad" I mean factually contrary to her message or exposing her bias against the war before her son Casey was even killed, was viewed as a Conservative trying to silence Cindy Sheehan's message. Since when did commenting on an issue, a public figure's background, mean you are silencing them?...

...Okay. When you are debating or having a discussion with someone on the internet, in a debate group or a comment section of a blog and they:

• Tell you you cannot speak to a particular subject because you have no experience
  
• Change the subject
  
• Attack the style in which you write rather than the content and context of what you are writing about
  
• Laugh at you
  
• Call you names
  
• Suggest you have no independent thoughts but are merely a blind follower, a kool-aid drinker, in other words, question your intelligence
  

Chances are you have struck a nerve and the person engaging in such rhetorical tactics is telling you to shut up."

Is Brandon engaging in a little name calling here? Is he calling the person who invited him to move to China a hypocrite and comparing him/her to a totalitarian dictator? What are the implications?

But that's not all. I visited boortz.com this morning and clicked on the Nealz Nuze link to find this:

"There's a Whole Foods store about two miles from my home in Atlanta. I've shopped there a few times, and gave Belinda a $500 Whole Foods gift card for Christmas. Now it looks like I'm going to have to give the Fresh Market store on the way to the studios a stab.

I've received a copy of an email to Whole Foods "Team Members" from the southern regional offices. Here you go ... read it for yourself.

'Good afternoon everyone.

I need everyone's cooperation on an important issue that has come to my attention here at the regional office.

Recently, on numerous occasions, I have found copies/printouts of articles such as: Today's Nuze, The Hill, and Townhall.com in either the TM break room or the restrooms. This is not acceptable and cannot continue.

We have to ensure that this is a pleasant and welcoming working environment for all of our TMs and visitors. As you all know, on any given day, the regional office has a variety of different visitors (vendors, TMs from other stores/regions, central TMs, candidates for interviews, etc.). We need to make all of our visitors and TMs feel welcome here.

If you have any questions, please refer to the "Solicitation and Distribution Policy" and "Offensive Material" on page 55-60 of our GIG (General Information Guideline).

Thank you for your cooperation.

Vanessa Hall

Team Member Services Director

Whole Foods Market - South Region

1180 Upper Hembree Road

Roswell, Ga. 30076'

So, there you go. I guess Nealz Nuze is offensive material to the management of Whole Foods. Well, it's their company and they are certainly free to put in place any policy they wish as to what reading materials may be brought to their places of business. I do wonder, though, if TMs (another PC name for "employees") are allowed to bring newspapers or news magazines into the break rooms and restrooms. Are they forbidden also? Newspapers, you see, have editorial positions and a multitude of columnists expressing opinions from both the left and the right. Does Ms. Hall try to protect visitors and TMs from exposure to those opinions? Maybe she has an assistant that goes through the newspaper and cuts out any opinion pieces or editorials that might (gasp!) offend someone! In the sports section of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution you will often find advertisements for "massage parlors" that provide something more than just a shoulder rub. Newspapers with advertisements for sexual services might be OK at Whole Foods ... or maybe Ms. Hall has her assistant cut those out also. While she's at it, she needs to cut out all of those announcements for religions services. We don't want Jews to be offended by announcements for a pancake supper at the local Baptist church, and everybody knows that we don't want Muslims to be offended by announcements of services at the local synagogue. Oh, the humanity!

Maybe it's just the conservative and libertarian ideas that are put forth in the Nuze and that can be found on Townhall.com that bother Ms. Hall and the managers of the southern region. Maybe Whole Foods just has a very liberal corporate culture that is intolerant of divergent viewpoints.

Damn. I really liked that store. It would appear, though, that I, and people who think like me, aren't exactly welcome there any more. Drat! Just when I was starting to eat healthy."

Like I said last night under the title of "Do Christians have Freedom of Speech:

"Those who fought for Brandon's freedom to express himself however he sees fit also fought for every other citizen in this country to suggest that any other citizen move to China, France or Russia, go fly a kite or take a leaping fly, not that Brandon suggested otherwise, I just felt it needed to be said. We either all have the same freedom or we don't. None of us gets the privilege of choosing what the other gets to say."

So, what's all the bitchin' about? Either someone has freedom of speech or they don't. I don't get to enjoy my rights at the expense of yours or vice versa. Geesh!

Do Christians Have Freedom of Speech?

Brandon had a good post today at a badchristian blog: patriotism and loving the usa, the only thing I would add is that the person, whoever it was, I didn't research it, who suggested that Brandon move to China had a right to say that, too. Those who fought for Brandon's freedom to express himself however he sees fit also fought for every other citizen in this country to suggest that any other citizen move to China, France or Russia, go fly a kite or take a leaping fly, not that Brandon suggested otherwise, I just felt it needed to be said. We either all have the same freedom or we don't. None of us gets the privilege of choosing what the other gets to say.

Freedom of speech is a grand thang.

Further, anyone who wants to has a right to offend others, and people often do. Some like to use cuss words to emphasize a point and add drama, some use sarcasm or intentionally say something with the intention of getting a rise out of another to spur dialog in a certain direction. Personally, I like having the freedom to express myself in a myriad of ways and don't like it when I feel put upon to get permission to speak freely. If I find I can't speak freely among one group of people I know there are plenty of other groups who will not cause me to feel stifled, or I can come here, to my very own (shared) blog and say anything I want.

The only One I know of that can cause me to want to stifle my speech and consider others is God, Himself.

"With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be. Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water." James 3:9-12 (NIV) ~ emphasis mine.

Here's what's up...

This weekend I will be going out of State to attend a FairTax meeting. Hopefully, I will have something to blog about regarding that meeting when I return.

I can also use the time out. My husband and I will be visiting some of his family while we are away, as well as friends. Specifically, I look forward to getting to meet my dear, on-line friend and fellow contributor to JackeHammer, Momma Twoop, as she will be attending the same FairTax meeting. We also plan to do dinner and I look forward to meeting her family. :)

Most of all I am looking forward to a change of scenery, fresh air and the long car trip with my husband.

I sent an email out to a local news channel this morning asking some hard questions about the accountability of the station in regards to a very specific dangling news story from probably close to two years ago. I hope to have much more on that later.

I hope everyone has a great weekend! See you on Monday!

God bless!

Talking to Myself, Again or More Open Questions to Progressive Christians

I have recently been wondering what has driven me to communicate with Progressive Christians and why I still feel driven. When I began the endeavor it was to find out how they reconcile their positions which are opposed to what the Bible says with their own progressive political positions. In those conversations which I have had with Progressive Christians I got no satisfactory answers to those questions. What I received was an unwillingness to judge others based upon what the Bible clearly defines as sin, or implies would be against God's will. While I can understand this position because it is true that we all sin and we all fall short of God's glory, at the same time we should be able to identify sin as sin, not make excuses for sin because we too sin, all sin should be hated among the Christian community. This should not be confused with an attitude of hatred for the sinner, which is often the knee jerk assumption of Progressives, that by Conservatives non-approval of sin that we somehow hate those who practice it. That simply is not true and is only intended to silence those who disagree with a Progressive agenda which would embrace sin as though it is not sin at all in an effort to love the sinner. One can hate sin and love the person who commits it. We do it every day when we love the people in our families, neighborhoods and all the friends in our lives. Regardless of what men perceive as the "degrees" of wickedness, Christ says that if we are guilty of breaking one law we are guilty of breaking them all. Where the difference for me would come in, I suppose, is an unwillingness to accept certain sins as sin in the first place. There is an attempt by some to try to turn their head away from the fact of a sin because it is inconvenient to face that sin or it would be intolerant and uncompassionate to express the truth that a sin is a sin. This is something that all Christians deal with on a personal basis daily, what concerns me is a whole community of believers collectively arguing that sin is not sin if it is something they would like to embrace.

For instance, in the case of homosexuality, and this is a primary issue between the Conservative and Progressive Christian ideology, though the Bible clearly defines it as sin, as an abomination to God, many Progressive Christians would like to use the argument that, and I know I simplify, homosexuality is not a sin because there are other sins and therefore we cannot address it for fear of alienating the people who practice its lifestyle? No. Homosexuality remains a sin in the same way that a lie is no less a sin just because men consider murder to be a greater sin.

One blogger I visited recently asked the question of why fundamentalists or Conservative Christians make a bigger deal out of the sin of homosexuality than they do adultery or fornication, well the reason is quite simple, we do not spend as much time blogging about adultery or fornication because a faction of the Body of Christ is not busy denying that those sins are sins, that is not the case with homosexuality, there definitely are Progressive Christians who would like to deny that homosexuality is a sin. So, would she accept that as a legitimate answer? Nah, even that blogger refused to recognize my reasons for there being more bloggers discussing homosexuality than adultery, but who denies adultery is a sin? Therefore it is not a controversial subject, homosexuality is a controversial subject and therefore receives more attention.

At one point, in the beginning, I think I was driven to go on the offense with Progressive Christians and prove them wrong, but that was then and this is now. I have evolved from that point, I don't seek to condemn Progressive Christians but rather to understand them and understand what I view as a duplicity of ideas. As the country song said "you've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything," I have been trying to figure out what it is that Progressive Christians "stand for." I know what they claim to stand for, but what are they doing about it short of complaining that Conservative Christians and/or the Republican party isn't doing it right, aren't on the right path, aren't being very "Christian-like," aren't following Jesus as they should?

If we do not communicate, how do we unify? How does the Body work as one? How does the hand refrain from cutting itself off because it isn't the eye, or the eye plucking itself out because it is not the ear? Why does one part of the Body fight so against the other part of the Body?

I find the Progressive Christian movement not much unlike the Democratic Party. Full of complaint about Conservatives but with no solutions of their own. Is it enough to oppose the majority to juxtapose oneself into a position of power? I don't think so. I recently was listening to the Laura Ingraham show on the radio and she played a recording of Nancy Pelosi making the case that, yes, Democrats can win elections without a plan, they can win just by opposing the plans of the Republicans, she pointed to Bush's proposed Social Security reform as an example. Are the American people really so gullible as to vote a party into power which has no plan to implement the agenda for which they give lip service? Will the Christian majority swing over to the side of Progressive Christians because they oppose fundamentalism as hypocritical, and are they not being hypocritical, themselves, by condemning fundamentalists for judging others while they are busy judging fundamentalists themselves? I don't think so. I like to think that Americans, as a whole, and Christians, as a whole, can see through this sort of rhetoric to the real issues and that issue is what is the respective Democratic or Progressive Christian PLAN to implement their agendas?

There are many Progressive Christian bloggers who belittle, parody and write satire pieces on fundamentalist, evangelical, Conservative Christians. There may be Conservative sites which do the same to Progressive Christians and I am just not familiar with them. Wouldn't a better goal be to bridge the divide and communicate with each other? To find some common goal to work toward? To accept that the hand has a place in the Body as well as the eye? I don't know, I just don't get that impression when I talk to Progressive Christians.

After the recent ugliness I went through displayed by a bitter return kiss off for my efforts at communicating with Progressive Christians, I am disillusioned about the Progressive Christian Community. Why is it so difficult for some to believe that another's motive is to understand and communicate, why do some believe that good intentions are always suspect? Could it be because we all believe that others are like ourselves? If, for instance, on is primarily interested in chopping off the hand because it isn't the eye, perhaps he or she thinks that everyone else's goal is to do the same? Rather than taking each other at face value and honoring the differences between ourselves must we tear each other down? Is that what Jesus would do? I don't think so, but for now? These are many of the questions I started with and I don't have any more answers to them today than I did almost a year ago and after extended discussion with Progressive Christians.

Want to Actually DO Something for the Poor?

I have been hearing a lot of lip service from Christian brothers and sisters about how they'd like to do more for the poor or have their government meet the needs of the poor in a more productive way. Since that is the case, I thought it would be a good time to revise and revisit this entry I made over a year ago about how the FairTax effects the poor. I believe the FairTax would go farther in helping the poor than any other thing we could do.

The FairTax and the Poor

There are many reasons why I am a grassroots supporter of the FairTax. The FairTax Act, or H.R. 25, will abolish all federal income taxes, including payroll taxes, estate and gift taxes, capital gains taxes, corporate, and self-employment taxes. These taxes will be replaced with a National Retail Sales tax which is projected to be approximately 23%.

H.R. 25 was introduced by Congressman John Linder and has been referred to the House Ways and Means Committee. In short, it is one of the tax bills which was considered when the Committee was discussing the Bush promised Tax Reform. The only problem with that is that the Tax Reform Panel returned very little for the time they have spent studying tax reform, instead offering more status quo tax tweaking. The FairTax is not simply a tax reform, it REPLACES our current income tax system, that's right, income taxes will no longer exist and the beauty of it all is that it repeals the 16th Amendment and it ABOLISHES the IRS!

I am going to make an effort to do a little in depth series of posts on different ways the FairTax will affect different aspects of our economy as well as social issues. In this in depth post I am going to address the effects which can be reasonably predicted regarding the FairTax and the poor in our Nation.

The reason I have chosen this particular topic to address first is because, in all honestly, it is the aspect of the FairTax which warms my heart the most. In light of the fact that I have spent my entire life short of money and living pay check to pay check I can see the promise for people like myself contained in the FairTax Plan.

The majority of my life I have spent working for "the other guy," beginning with working in a theater's concession stand, fast food restaurants and later in life as an Administrative Assistant. In the whole of my career I was able to count on the fact that an approximate 30% of my paycheck would be withheld in order to pay for federal and state income taxes, Social Security, Medicaid and later on in matching payments for health insurance coverage. Under the FairTax, I would receive 100% of my paycheck. There would be no deductions for any of the items listed, except of course, insurance deductions if I so chose. This would translate into an approximate 30% pay raise for myself and my family. Add to the 30% increase in my weekly paycheck a monthly Pre-bate which will be figured based on my household's income and figured and paid by the Social Security Administration. This pre-bate check is intended to cover the costs of essential goods and services purchased by myself and my family for the month.

Now, if a person is living paycheck to paycheck they will likely spend the amount allotted to them in the form of the pre-bate check on those essential goods and services and have an additional increase of at least 30% on their weekly paycheck with which, initially, to purchase a few things for the house which they have been forced to go without due to their financial situation, pay off existing bills, or invest in a retirement account. Sweet, huh?

Another advantage of the FairTax, in regards to the poor, is that it is the poor among us who are purchasing used goods. Used goods are not taxed under the FairTax plan. If the poor are wise and they continue to purchase re-sale clothing and used cars and goods they can self-control the amount of consumption taxes they will pay. Only NEW goods and services are taxed. If you buy a used car there will be no tax to pay. If you purchase a used item of perfectly good clothing at a re-sale clothing outlet, there will be no tax. Can you see where this is going? On the other hand, it is the wealthier among us who have expendable income. For instance when you go to the grocery store and buy a can of coffee which is a regular consumer brand you pay that price. It is the wealthier among us who are more likely to buy the specialty whole bean coffee, custom ground and twice the price. It is the wealthier among us who are going to go to the butcher counter at the supermarket and ask for that special cut of 100% Angus beef and it is the poorer among us who are going to purchase the ground beef and stew meat. In the same fashion, the wealthier among us are going to continue to purchase new designer clothing at exclusive clothing stores. In short, the wealthy will continue to live in the lifestyle to which they are accustomed but rather than finding loopholes to avoid paying taxes when they buy a new good or service they WILL NOT be able to avoid paying the National Retail Sales tax.

There is also the issue of illegal immigrants in this country who are sending billions of dollars annually back to their home countries without paying taxes. Under the FairTax they will not be eligible to receive the pre-bate checks unless they have a Social Security number. In the meantime, illegals will not be able to continue not paying into the system of government which has allowed their illegal income to go untaxed. Every new essential good they purchase will be taxed and they will not be able to avoid it. If only on food purchases, alone, it will bring in tax revenue which our government has not been able to collect in the past. This will aid in offsetting some of the burden they have caused on our health care system.

I want to see the FairTax pass, I want my 30% increase in wages, my pre-bate check and I want to pay off bills, invest in my future and look forward to a comfortable retirement. I want others who are in poor earning households to have this advantage, as well. How 'bout you?

For information regarding details of how the FairTax will affect the poor, go to http://www.fairtax.org/, click on the link there for information and under the Frequently Asked Questions link read numbers 12 through 14.

If you like what you read there, and I believe you will, please contact your State Representatives and ask them to support the FairTax bill, H.R. 25, S/25. Americans For Fair Taxation also has available many grassroots volunteer positions which need filled.

Sweet and Bitter

What causes brother to hurt brother?
What makes a sister cry?
Why are love and hate so blended?
Intertwined like kite strings stretched out in the sky

Are souls like kite strings playing in the sky?

Disillusioned by the sweet and bitter
disillusioned by shards of heaven's light
by the human dance within it
by the dance of evil in the midst of light
how does evil mix so in the light?

We're walking shadows on taut leashes
spinning tales with worried glances
hiding the light in woven baskets and we're
too taken with ourselves to know

We're spinning tales from sugared bitters
baiting hooks with tainted hatred
playing games with parts of factions
in our spaces growing cold

In the winter

In the sky

frozen kite strings

breaking high

in the wind of bitter hatred
for those factions we find tainted
what causes brother to hurt brother
what causes a sister to cry?

taut leashes...
bitter flow.

Difference of Viewpoint or Troll?

As outlined in my previous post on freedom of speech, one of the tactics often used by others to prevent one from sharing his or her viewpoint is the use of name calling. Today I was called a "troll" at a badchristian blog by Bob from I am a Christian Too. Oh, excuse me, I wasn't actually called a troll but Bob called into question whether I am or not and made the claim that I display characteristics of a troll. Bob's blog was the first "Progressive" Christian blog that I visited when I first began to visit them. Bob and I got crosswise more than once on his blog. Following is what Bob said at a badchristian blog:

"Jacke - I say this with Christian love in my heart, but you display a lot of the behaviors of a troll. I’m not saying that you do this deliberately or consciously, but the effect is the same. You like to attack others aggressively, but in such a way that you can represent yourself as the victim. When they respond aggressively in return, you then feign innocence and make nice. And eventually start the cycle over. I wonder what satisfaction you get out of repeating this pattern."

I, likewise, have Christian love in my heart for Bob, even though we have gotten crosswise in the past. As I said on Zalm's blog, From the Salmon under the topic of Conversation Peace: How?, back on February 19th, before this latest episode between Brandon and I (and Greg was responding to Brandon in his reply, by the way):

Jacke Says: February 19th, 2006 at 3:47 pm

Greg writes:

"Not to sound like a saint or anything (because I’m really not - just ask my wife), but what exactly are you trying to win? Are you trying to get your “opponent” to change their mind and agree with your view? See my second paragraph above - they are exactly as likely to do this as you are, and that is not at all. It seems to me that a good dialogue is an opportunity for one to reexamine the basis of ones own beliefs, and perhaps to gain some new perspectives on an issue. New perspectives will, over time, perhaps cause subtle (or not so subtle) shifts in your beliefs, but the process is quite slow. In any event, that is (or should be imo) the goal of a dialogue - to either solidify, expand, or alter (for the better) ones own beliefs. It is those new perspectives that one should be trying to win. Presumably the person with whom you are engaged in dialogue is trying to do the same thing, and so you are not only working on your own beliefs, but assisting them in working on theirs. If everyone engaged in a dialogue approaches it with this attitude, then they all win. Even if your “opponent” does not have this attitude you can still win, since the person that you are trying to change is you. (end of Greg's comment)

(beginning of my reply)

"I love this and it is spot on, Greg. I have a sneaking suspicion that Brandon and I are very much alike in our personalities even though we have very different views in a myriad of areas. I kind of like that and I also recognize that that is the very reason that Brandon and I often clash. At the end of the day, I like Brandon, as a matter of fact, I like Brandon VERY much. He makes me think, many of you make me think. I would never dream that anyone would be that interested but I have come a long way since I began visiting Progressive Christian blogs with a huge chip on my shoulder. If any of you endeavored to read the evolution of my blog with an open mind, you might realize the softening of my views. I like this community, do I get frustrated at times, OH YEAAAAAH! I have been wrestling with how I want to approach giving an explanation of why I believe GW will be viewed as one of the greatest Presidents of our time for about two weeks. There are about a dozen directions I could go on that topic, which one do I take? I really don’t want to write a book about it and don’t know exactly how to approach it without doing just that. In the end I have decided I’m taking it far too seriously. I’m trying to take a little pressure off myself in the area of believing that I have to satisfy everyone with an answer to every single question asked of me. It’s difficult to keep up. I still intend to answer that question and feel that my integrity has been brought into question by not answering it but it is such a complicated question!

Anyway, I like the idea that I can say what I want to say and still care about each and every one of you…isn’t that what sisters and brothers do? Fuss and fight, scream and yell and then forget all about it the next day? That’s how I view all of you, like brothers and sisters and I make every effort not to hold grudges, I only hope that you view me the same way, not as an enemy or an opponent but as a sister.""

As I said, I wrote that prior to this latest blow up between Brandon and I. No one ever responded to it, perhaps no one read it, perhaps Brandon never read it, perhaps everyone read it and just doesn't care, who knows?

The charge of being a troll, in my opinion, is a serious one and it is one that I feel is unwarranted and therefore I have to question the motives of a person who would make an effort to smear me in such a way. Let's take a look at what the link provided by Bob has to say about trolls:

"In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who posts rude or offensive messages on the Internet, such as on online discussion forums, to disrupt discussion or to upset its participants. "Troll" can also mean the message itself or be a verb meaning to post such messages. "Trolling" is also commonly used to describe the activity."

Well, it certainly has been some people's opinion that I have made rude or offensive comments at blogs, Brandon's and Bob's particularly, of course there are plenty of people who make rude and offensive comments at blogs but no one ever calls them a troll, so what is the line between a person who wants to communicate their thoughts in often heated debate on blogs and a troll? Well, let's look farther at what can be found from Bob's link:

"For many people, the characterising feature of trolling is the perception of intent to disrupt a community in some way. Inflammatory, sarcastic, disruptive or humorous content is posted, meant to draw other users into engaging the troll in a fruitless confrontation. The greater the reaction from the community the more likely the user is to troll again, as the person develops beliefs that certain actions achieve his/her goal to cause chaos. This gives rise to the often repeated protocol in Internet culture: "Do not feed the trolls"." (emphasis mine.)

Already we have a bit of a problem, since I am no longer commenting on Brandon's blog, therefore it cannot be said that "the greater the reaction from the community the more likely the user is to troll again," in my case, I bowed out of commenting any further on Brandon's blog, actually in an effort to show my respect for him because I no longer felt my comments were appreciated, this seems to be the exact opposite of what a troll would do. Also, yesterday, in an effort to restore peace, I removed any mention of Brandon from my blog entry on Freedom of Speech and made it quite generic, this was done prior to Bob's accusations of me trying to cause chaos and done by my choice because I wanted to put Brandon's feelings before mine because I felt it was the "Christian" thing to do. Continuing with Bob's link on trolls:


"Often, a person will post a sincere message about which he is emotionally sensitive. Skillful trolls know that an easy way to upset him is to disingenuously claim that he is a "troll". On other occasions, a person may not instantly understand, or fit into the social norms of a forum where most users have similar characteristics. As a result, his acting just slightly out of the norm (often unintentionally, and for legitimate reasons) garners him the label "troll". It can sometimes be difficult to distinguish between a user who merely has different values, views or ideas, and a user who is intentionally trolling; unfortunately, many users react aggressively on a first impression to a perceived troll, which sometimes leads disgruntled newbies or political minorities to be perceived trolls."

I believe that Bob is "reacting aggressively on a first impression to" me, perceiving me as a troll. But that's okay, we all make mistakes. It is a risk I take when I try to converse with large communities of "Progressive" Christians who have different views from my own.

Everyone is quite capable of discerning for themselves whether I am a "troll" or not.

Peace.

Again with My Pet Peeve *Sigh*

Yesterday a female participant in the debate group of which I am a member explained to a male (geesh, I started to say member!) participant in the group why he wasn't allowed to have an opinion about abortion because he wasn't a woman. When I pointed out to this person that experience or gender is not a reason to disallow someone to speak to the issue of abortion and she was therefore making an effort to silence his "dissent," she turned it on me that I was trying to keep her from sharing her opinion. See? That's how that works. Now, in her mind because I pointed out that one member has a right to his opinion on abortion I have been accused of not allowing her to have an opinion! Such is the confused mind of a liberal in matters of free speech. The irony! ;)

Following is the exchange with names removed:

The Liberal to the male participant:

"Since you don't have the capacity to be raped female & become pregant as a result, you cannot understand this or empathize with this, can you?"

My reply:

"Oh, BS, XXXX. You aren't the President so you cannot understand or empathize with his decisions so shut up. You are not in the military so you cannot understand or empathize with what a soldier goes through, so shut up. You aren't a clown so you cannot speak out on the issue of a clown's make-up, you've never applied it therefore are unable to understand and empathize with a clown, so shut up (I'm wondering if I should rethink that one. wink). This is just your way of trying to tell XXXX he can't have an opinion and voice it...like I said, BS."

The male participant's reply to me:

"Thanks XXXX, somewhere in that debate I threw in a couple of Bullsh*t's because that's exactly what the wimpy excuse is pure bullsh*t."

My reply to male participant:

"These idiotic "free speech" issues get under my skin, XXXX. Yer welcum."

And finally the grand finale reply directed at me from the female denying the male the right to have an opinion on abortion because he is not a woman:

"OK, XXXX. I take back what I said, since my "free speech" gets under your skin so much. Sorry to bother you." (emphasis mine)

There you have it. I am accused of not wanting her to exercise her "free speech" because I reminded her that everyone has an equal right to it, regardless of gender. I couldn't have asked for a better case in point! Thanks, XXXX!

Ephesians 4:31-32

"Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice.

Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you."

Rally Cry to FairTax Supporters!

My husband, who is a grassroots volunteer for the FairTax in our State of Missouri, received an e-mail from Dr. Belinda Noah a few moments ago. Following are some excerpts from her letter:

"To all FairTax supporters,
Without going into a lot of detail, some of the most important factors in developing a platform are the results of focus groups and polls of “likely” voters. They tell us a lot about the issues and how the voters arrive at their decision about who they will support and vote for. This gives us a pretty clear idea about how we should shape our platform.

Based on my campaign manager’s assessment of the focus group results and the results of studied polls, we decided on nine main issues to head our platform – tax reform, Social Security and Medicare, economic security for families, education, affordable housing, the war on terror, pro-life, border security and gun control. We decided that all else could be addressed at forums when they come up, such as gun control before the NRA. Our research has shown that gun control, while important, is simply not a hot-botton issue this year with the vast majority of either Democrat or Republican voters....

... I am in this race because Senator Bill Nelson has shown himself, time and again, to be a follower not a leader on the issue of tax reform. Based on his responses to FairTax volunteer’s requests that he become a co-sponsor in the Senate, it is clear he hasn’t even read the Bill.

Congresswoman Katherine Harris, whom I will face in the Florida Republican Party primary on September 5th, was given Neal Boortz’s FairTax Book at a press conference at Duval County’s Republican Party headquarters in Jacksonville, Florida, in late October of 2005. She went on and on about how wonderful it was that somebody had finally written a book about tax reform that was understandable. During that press conference she also announced her intentions to tour the state to “listen to the voice of the people.” But when she was pressed by one of those voices about when she would become a co-sponsor of the FairTax, she began equivocating, saying she would have to look at all of the reform plans before deciding on which plan to support… as if she hasn’t had a year to do so already. Later, while addressing the Florida Mortgage Broker’s PAC (which opposes the FairTax) she stated unequivocally that she would support “no” tax reform plan that did not include provisions for a home mortgage tax deduction (a major selling point for real estate and mortgage brokers). So, there you have it.

You cannot count on her support until or unless the Administration gets over its weak-kneed approach to tax reform and comes out to boldly say “the FairTax is the only plan that strengthens the economy, will provide for educating the next generation of America’s children, protects Social Security, provides affordable housing, and is able to grow the economy while we fight an inter-generational war on terror.” If she hasn’t yet seen the light and even if she says she will support the president’s tax reform plan in the future, do you think we should take the chance that it would be the FairTax? We need the FairTax now!

After taking a close, hard look at the FairTax as well as the other proposals on the table, I agreed to come on board. My campaign manager, who is the former State Director for the FairTax Action Team in Florida, built my campaign around the FairTax, so I will win or lose on its merits. To me, this is not a one issue campaign but rather a solid platform built around one issue... the FairTax.

Tax reform cannot be achieved without the FairTax. We cannot strengthen security for families without the FairTax. Social Security and Medicare will go bankrupt within the next thirty years under the present tax system. We cannot grow and expand the economy with a tax system that punishes saving and investment. We cannot provide security for families, higher education for our children, or security for seniors and the poorest among us with a tax system that hides the real tax burden from us, artificially inflates prices while holding down wages. And we cannot continue to wage an inter-generational war on terror with a tax system that punishes the American worker, America’s corporations, and does not grow the economy.

I am simply the only candidate in the U.S. Senate race in Florida, and possibly in the entire country, who is running exclusively on the FairTax. If I win the primary and go on to beat Senator Nelson in the General election, it will send shock waves throughout the Halls of Congress. I believe both the Republican and Democratic Parties will have to begin rethinking their entire strategies for the 2008 presidential elections. If a little known, underfinanced candidate coming from nowhere can win on the FairTax issue in Florida over the Machine politics of the Republican and Democratic Parties, it would send a powerful message to them as has nothing before and that they had better get on board the FairTax train or their candidates might just be left at the station in 2008....

...If I win, the FairTax is the big winner and if I lose, the FairTax is still the winner because more people in Florida than ever before will have heard about the FairTax, understand it, and may be willing to get behind it in the future. That is why I am seeking your and support and vote. Your contribution to my candidacy will assure that the FairTax has another voice and vote in the U.S. Senate.

Respectfully,
Dr. Belinda Noah, Republican Candidate for the United States Senate
www.noah2006.com "

If you are a FairTax supporter please consider donating to the campaign of Dr. Belinda Noah. This is not only about the Florida State election, this is about FairTax promotion, and that, my friends, transcends State lines! Yeeeeeeeeeee Haaaaaaaaaaaaaw!

Freedom of Speech Liberal Style (Revised and Revisited AGAIN)

Yesterday I wrote a post titled "Freedom of Speech Liberal Style," which, if you read my blog, you now know I deleted. It was a rather lengthy post and while I deleted it because I didn't want to get as personal with particular people as I did in it, I do feel it is a subject which warrants a little attention. Also, this is something I have noticed in practice by both liberals and conservatives but with more frequency among liberals. I would first refer you to an opinion editorial at The Washington Times, An antiwar message from the Midwest, here are some excerpts:

"A conservative group recently started an advertising campaign in Minnesota showing veterans and families of slain troops expressing their support for the Iraq war, only to have the head of the state Democratic Party condemn the ads as "un-American, untruthful and a lie." He furthermore demands that Minnesota television stations pull the ads "and send a message that we will not tolerate this kind of 'swiftboating' anymore." At least one station so far has complied with the request, which is reason enough for outrage.

But there's been precious little of that. Aside from a handful of bloggers covering the issue and an appearance of one of the veterans on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes," the media has ignored the issue completely, essentially proving one of the ad campaign's main points. The current media meme, at least as it concerns the homefront, is that most returning veterans have turned against the war and those still in field are demoralized and jaded. Meanwhile, parents of slain troops like Cindy Sheehan continue to rack up air time and column inches. The ad campaign seeks to correct this blatant misrepresentation.

Which is exactly why Democrats are trying to stop it with accusations that the ads are somehow "untruthful...."

"...Democrats have also taken issue with the ad's statement that U.S. troops "overwhelmingly" support the mission -- a fact clearly upheld by record-setting retention rates in the military branches. The retention rate in the Army, for instance, is the highest it's been in five years, especially in combat units currently serving in Iraq....

"...The more disturbing issue here is that Democrats are trying to silence a contrary point of view, and are doing so by calling soldiers and military families "un-American." Whenever Republicans attempt to counter antiwar sentiment, be it from the Cindy Sheehans or Paul Hacketts, Democrats shed crocodile tears over the "crushing of dissent." But this is what crushing dissenters actually looks like -- a smear campaign designed explicitly to keep the public from hearing the other side.

Fortunately, readers can see the ads for themselves at www.midwestheroes.com and decide what's so "un-American" about soldiers and families supporting the war. " (emphasis mine)

This is where things get convoluted and twisted in my mind. I cannot tell you how many times in discussion with liberals that if anything "bad" was said about Cindy Sheehan, and by the term "bad" I mean factually contrary to her message or exposing her bias against the war before her son Casey was even killed, was viewed as a Conservative trying to silence Cindy Sheehan's message. Since when did commenting on an issue, a public figure's background, mean you are silencing them? Cindy has had well over her fifteen minutes of fame and the liberally biased media has given only the basest coverage to parents of the war dead who support the war, though they are in the clear majority. One would never know they are in the clear majority if one goes by what the media reports.

More evidence of this effort to silence those who merely wanted to take a look at the source of this "dissent" on Cindy Sheehan's part was the recent David Letterman and Bill O'Reilly exchange wherein David Letterman implied that Bill O'Reilly had no heart because he questioned Cindy Sheehan's motives and statements, though Bill O'Reilly has repeatedly stated his sympathy for her loss and her right to her views, but you see, if one, anyone, counters those views with a little scrutiny they are made to seem as though they are trying to squelch Cindy Sheehan's freedom of speech and personally attacking a grieving mother, the fact of the matter is, by telling people that they are cold heartless fiends if they question a public figure, which Sheehan has made herself, that they are trying to squelch her free speech rights, in essence, is an effort to squelch the free speech rights of the questioners.

Here are excerpts of the David Letterman, Bill O'Reilly exchange:

Bill O'Reilly and David Letterman Clash Over the War

""The United States, particularly the military, is doing a noble thing - the soldiers and Marines are noble," the Fox host insisted. "They're not terrorists. And when people call them that, like Cindy Sheehan called the insurgents 'freedom fighters,' we don't like that. It is a vitally important time in American history and we should be very careful of what we say."

The comment prompted Letterman to admonish O'Reilly, "Then you should be very careful about what you say, also . . . I'm very concerned about people like yourself who don't have endless sympathy for a woman like Cindy Sheehan. Honest to Christ, honest to Christ." (emphasis mine)

"Bill O'Reilly (commentator) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"When O'Reilly attacked the motivations of Cindy Sheehan, Letterman took exception, saying O'Reilly had never lost a family member in a war, and therefore O'Reilly could not speak for Sheehan's motivations. O'Reilly then asked how would those who did lose a member in the war, feel about Sheehan calling terrorists "freedom fighters"." (emphasis mine)

So, evidently, to a liberal, unless you have actually experienced something you have no right to scrutinize anything, anything at all. If you go along with this train of thought this should translate into, unless you've been a President you can't say anything about the motivations of the President, unless you've been a soldier you can't say anything about their motivations, unless you've acted in or written the screen play of a particular movie you shouldn't review it, etc. Is that how it works? No. This is purely an effort to silence those who disagree with Cindy Sheehan and smear them.

Okay. When you are debating or having a discussion with someone on the internet, in a debate group or a comment section of a blog and they:

• Tell you you cannot speak to a particular subject because you have no experience
• Change the subject
• Attack the style in which you write rather than the content and context of what you are writing about
• Laugh at you
• Call you names
• Suggest you have no independent thoughts but are merely a blind follower, a kool-aid drinker, in other words, question your intelligence

Chances are you have struck a nerve and the person engaging in such rhetorical tactics is telling you to shut up. Should you? In most cases, I don't believe you should, however, in the case of commenting at another person's blog, I believe it is similar to visiting someone else's home and the etiquette which would apply to one being a guest in another's home should apply.

So, considering that you are a visitor or guest in another's home, if your host:

• Tells you that you cannot speak to a particular topic because you have no experience
• When you begin to discuss your views on any given topic consistently changes the topic
• Attacks the way you articulate yourself when speaking, corrects the choice of words or tone of your voice incessantly
• Laughs at you rather than with you
• Calls you names
• Tells you that you are not smart enough to form your own opinions and that it is clear that you are only parroting what others say

I wonder if you would feel welcome to return as a guest to that person's home? Even if that person sent you invitations in the mail, called you with invitations and repeatedly told you that you have an important viewpoint to bring to the discussion in his or her home would you feel welcome based on the actions of that host when you were actually in his or her home in the past?

I wouldn't. So, in those type of cases I would prefer not to continue to try to share my viewpoint at someone else's blog who consistently and repetitively has engaged in any combination of those actions.

Fair enough?

I've Been Tagged...

...by Mini Me at A Recovering Republican, which is kind of a weird thing to me, but probably only because I'm weird anyway. You see I've spent most of my life, not my virtual life, mind you, but most of my real life keeping my mouth shut, figuring I don't have anything interesting to say. I think that's why it astonishes me that anyone is interested in my opinion on anything. Astonishing and strange. Anyway, Mini Me tagged me so I figure it would be an insult to a really sweet lady who I am privileged to have met on the internet if I don't play along, so here goes.

FOUR JOBS I'VE HAD:

1). The last job I had was as an Administrative Assistant in the house moving/demolition business. My husband also worked there. It was fascinating. It's awesome to watch houses get picked up and roll down the road at midnight. It's can also be a very political endeavor because one ends up working with the City. My job was mostly as a glorified secretary but also entailed working with Realtors, Utility Companies, and dealing with the employees, payroll and worker's comp claims (the icky part). I spent a lot of my time on the phone scheduling the big events and keeping bill collectors at bay. I wrote company policy, studied a lot and was the "right hand" girl to the President.

2). My first job was at an old time theater, the kind with the box office and the neon marquee out front. I worked the concession stand. Those are nostalgic times for me. I met my first love there and received my first deeply broken heart there. I was still employed there when the place closed down. I believe the movie that was showing on the last night was "Orca the Killer Whale," and I sat in the balcony and cried like my best friend was dying that last night while the projectionist was rewinding the film after all the patrons had gone. Years later the old theater has been restored and is used for local plays. I was very happy to see that happen. It was a community project and I visited there several times while they were working on the theater. I wasn't living there at the time but if I had been I would have loved to have helped in the restoration. For time frame's sake, The Exorcist came out while I was employed there.

3). One of my favorite jobs was as Receiving Manager for a little company in Arkansas that made Hillbilly gag gifts and customized souvenirs. If you bought a Hillbilly Nite Lite, a Hillbilly Bic, a Hillbilly Attitude Adjuster, a Hillbilly Chicken Dinner (little wooden cedar box with three kernels of corn inside), Hillbilly Bubble Bath (a little bag of brown beans labeled with a topper that gave instructions for cooking, eating and making your own "bubble bath" attached), on and on, sometime in the early 90's in the Ozarks, chances are I had a hand in working on that little item. I loved the job.

4). One of my other favorite jobs was simply working as a cashier in a Convenience Store. I loved getting to know the regulars and I always enjoyed running a cash register.

FOUR MOVIES I CAN WATCH OVER AND OVER

1). Being There with Peter Sellers

2). Any of the Indiana Jones movies

3). The old Pink Panther series with Peter Sellers

4). Little Big Man

FOUR TV SHOWS I LOVE

1). House

2). CSI

3). Survivor

4). CSI Miami

FOUR PLACES I'VE VACATIONED

1). Branson, MO

2). Eureka Springs, AR

3). Ohio, several cities, my husband is from Ohio

4). Arizona

FOUR OF MY FAVORITE DISHES

1). Fried CATFISH

2). Cheese enchiladas

3). Lasagne

4). Oh, okay, Fried Chicken with mashed potatoes and gravy! Yeee haaw!

FOUR SITES I VISIT EVERY DAY (OR REGULARLY)

1). Beliefnet: spirituality, prayer, God, angels, meditation...

2). boortz.com: The world-famous Internet site of the Nationally Syndicated Neal Boortz Show!

3). Intellectual Conservative Politics and Philosophy

4). ScrappleFace

FOUR PLACES I'D RATHER BE RIGHT NOW

1). At White Water on a hot summer day

2). Eating oysters on the half shell after White Water. (These two first things are contingent upon Shari being with me) :)

3). Walking in the park

4). Sitting on the creek bank

BLOGGERS I'M TAGGING

None. Unless they want to volunteer. :)

Thanks, Mini, that was fun, even if no one else did, I enjoyed it!

JC's Girls Girls Girls

This was an interesting article/interview I found at Beliefnet yesterday: Lori Albee of Christian ministry JC's Girls Girls Girls on porn, strippers, the Adult Expo, God, Jesus. Interview by Dena Ros...

Here, too, is the link to JC's Girls Girls Girls website.

Just thought I'd share the links. Comments are welcome! :)

My comment is this: No way could I do that but I'm impressed. I figure that the web link shows up under porn links and a lot of porn shoppers get a surprise when they are looking for those Girls Girls Girls.

No Way to Say Goodbye...

Before this quote from Quoteworld goes away, I felt it very appropriate to how I am feeling today and deserving of its own blog entry:

"I loved you in the morning, our kisses deep and warm, your hair upon the pillow like a sleepy, golden storm, yes many loved before us, I know we are not new, in city and in forest they smiled like me and you, but now it`s come to distances and both of us must try, your eyes are soft with sorrow, Hey, that`s no way to say goodbye." More quotes from Leonard

Thoughts on a Recently Deleted Post

This morning I spent quite a bit of time writing a post titled "Freedom of Speech Liberal Style." I have deleted that entry. I realized after the fact that I had written it out of spite over a recent exchange I had at a badchristian blog. My apologies to anyone who might have stumbled across it before I deleted it. Though it said what I had intended to say, I do not want to be guilty of writing entries out of spite toward anyone.

I feel it has been made very clear to me that my comments are less than welcome at a badchristian blog. I cannot feel that any of my comments warranted the repeated critique of my "communication style" rather than my thoughts. This does leave me somewhat bitter. Yes, I am human and I have feelings. Therefore, while I may continue to read Brandon's blog I am going to make every effort to no longer reply there. If I feel I cannot keep my trap shut, I will make every effort to comment on it here rather than there.

Brandon has every right to write about whatever he wants without feeling that he has to please anyone. I have never asked Brandon to edit his thoughts or tried to restrict him in any way. I am sorry he feels that by my comments that somehow I am implying that he should restrict himself and not speak his mind. I feel that he feels I am somehow interfering with his freedom to speak with an open mind. I am truly sorry that he feels that way. Sometimes, however, it is best to leave things alone. I think I have reached that stage. It is obvious that I have overstayed my welcome and that my comments are not appreciated.

Anyway, maybe it means I'll be devoting more time to my own blog. Perhaps I made some friends that I am unaware of, on the other hand, maybe everyone feels like Brandon and Steve J feel, that I am a harsh and smug jackass. In the words of Popeye the Sailor Man: "I yam that I yam and that's all that I yam." I speak my mind, though I do attempt to do it with honesty, sometimes the truth hurts but it is never my intention to hurt someone and I have never intentionally hurt Brandon. My sincere apologies go out to the owner and all commentators of badchristian for any offense that I may have ever caused to anyone, it was quite unintentional and only done in the course of sharing my legitimate feelings or opinions about any given topic. I am well aware that I can be blunt, perhaps I should work on that a bit more. It is definitely something over which I am doing a little "soul searching."

This Just Flat Hurts...

What do you do when, after 11 years, the Doctor your Mother has been going to, the one she loves and you have grown to love, the one who seems like a member of the family, who seems like her other "son," who has seen her through thick and thin, laughed with her, cried with her and held her hand, calls to say that he and the other Doctors in his practice held a meeting and that they all voted that they do not want to see her when they are on call because of all the problems she has? Tells her it was not him but that he has no choice? Tells her to keep her next appointment this month but that he'll refer her to a new Doctor, another Doctor, someone she's never met?

I know of nothing one can do but cry.

There really are no words for this kind of a loss.

I keep seeing him laughing with her, obviously loving her, telling her she's his favorite patient and there is nothing I can do.

Nothing.

The Story of my Long Over Due and After the Fact Baptism

Yesterday I was baptized into the Baptist church. Yes, I was raised in the Baptist church and though I dabbled in visiting a few other kinds of churches, at one point in my life, it is where I wanted to ultimately serve God with my membership.

If you are familiar with Baptist belief you will know that once you have asked Christ to come into your heart and accepted him as your Savior we believe that we are to be baptized to show our obedience to God and our desire to follow in the footsteps of Jesus. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist before he began his ministry, Baptists believe this should be our first step of obedience to Him upon accepting Him as Savior and turning our lives over to him and is symbolic of our own death to self, burial and resurrection as a new creature, in Christ Jesus. So, what happened to me? I fell through the cracks, so to speak. I'll explain how.

When I was about 5 years old I had a great uncle who occasionally took me and several of my aunts and uncles to church. If we memorized a Bible verse he'd give us a quarter. One morning when I went to church with Uncle "Fred," he asked me if I wanted to go down front to get "saved." I didn't really know what he was talking about but I could tell it was something that he wanted to see me do and being the accommodating little 5 year old "people pleaser" that I was I agreed to go down front and get saved. I was baptized shortly after that, I remember Mother purchasing me a special, white chiffon dress to wear and it hung in the closet for a few years after that.

Later, when I was about 12 or 13 years old and living in Arkansas, already a member of the church because I was recognized as having been baptized years before, the Holy Spirit spoke to my heart and I had the genuine experience of "salvation." Those of us who have experienced salvation know just how real it is and cannot describe it to those who have not felt Christ fill your heart with love, mercy, grace and compassion. I felt all of those things that day, I felt that joy, that love, that cleanness and wholeness, but the church did not recognize what had happened to me as "salvation," they viewed it as more of a "re-dedication" because, after all, I had already been "saved" and baptized into the church. Little was said to me about my experience, there was no such thing as a Youth Minister/Pastor in those days. So the years ticked by and I didn't even realize for years that I had missed getting baptized as an act of obedience to God until a few years ago when God laid it on my heart and I began to feel under conviction for not having been baptized. I even questioned if I had and had forgotten it.

Why now? That's an interesting twist. I have let this go for years but a week ago, yesterday, my boy, the one who used to be a neighbor and who my husband and I have been taking to church for about three years, went down to the front to join the church by baptism. He had been saved a few years ago and had been wanting to be baptized for some time. I knew that he was going to go forward that morning and had made sure that he understood what he was doing and why. Before the service, I spoke to the Pastor about my situation and he looked into it at my old church and could find no record of me being baptized after I was 12 or 13 years old. I decided to approach him that day because I thought it would be special to be baptized on the same day that my little "adopted grandson" was baptized. Little did I know that on the following Wednesday night at Awana Club, his little sister would give her heart to Jesus!

Yesterday, I didn't even realize at the moment how blessed I was, each moment of the time since yesterday I have been more and more aware of how blessed that moment was. You see, I stood next to my Pastor in the baptismal while he baptised first my little 10 year old "adopted" grandson, then my little 6 year old "adopted" granddaughter, then me. I watched the faces of these precious children and had the privilege of being in the same waters with them at the Pastor's elbow, so close that at one point I thought he was going to step on my foot. I was right in expecting what a blessing it would be to be baptized on the same day as my boy, I had no idea that the Pastor would call us all in the water at the same time and that I would take part in such a special and historic moment in their lives so "up-close and personally." I thank God for His blessings on my life. I thank my Pastor for the way he allowed us three to, so personally, share in each other's baptisms. I am so accutely aware of the privilege bestowed upon me yesterday, and with each moment my heart grows larger with the love and humble feeling of my own unworthiness to be in that position. Thank you, GOD, for your unmerited favor!!!

Sacrificial Giving

Last night was an exciting for us. My sister-in-law, who lives on the farm next to ours, has goats.......... and one of them gave birth during the first major snow of the winter. As the snow was falling and a brisk wind was blowing, we sat sheltered by the barn and watched the arrival of two baby goats. Having lived in the country most my life, I've seen my fair share of baby animals come into the world, but newborn goats were a first for me. As I was watched these newest additions to God's creation struggle to stand as they were being tended to by their mother, it struck me how in Biblical days, one of these new lives could have been required to be given up to the Father in sacrifice. Being the animal person I am, it was hard for me to imagine how I would have handled it. I guess that's part of what sacrificial giving is all about. Willingness to give up to God what we would rather keep.



Thankfully, the days of animal sacrifices are long over. Though, giving sacrificially is still part of a Christian life. At least, it should be. Giving to God is not about giving up the things we no longer need or use. It should be a sacrifice, it should hurt just a little to let it go. Whether it be time, money, or even things in our homes that make our lives easier. If we never give to God in the way we should, how can we ever come close to knowing what it cost Him to give the precious gift He gave. After all, he made the greatest sacrifice of all. If it hadn't been for the sacrificial giving of the Father, we would have never known the Son.

An Update:

I just wanted to post a note to those of you who might be awaiting my post on why I believe President Bush will go down in history as one of the greatest Presidents of our time (promised in the course of a discussion at badchristian).

Today I took my Mother in for a test, a Dobutamine Stress Echo, to be exact. We got her into the room. Gave all the information that was necessary and for some reason after the nurse asked my Mother if she has a pace maker (she doesn't) she printed something off of the electrocardiogram, or whatever the heck you call that thing, and cancelled her test, saying something about the rhythm of her heart being such that they couldn't give her the test. At the same time, they rescheduled a test for tomorrow, they talked like it would be the same thing so none of this makes much sense to me. They said the test she will take tomorrow will take about four hours.

So, those of you who check in on JackeHammer, say a little prayer for my Mom, if you don't mind. This test will determine whether she will be able to get a total hip replacement surgery that she desperately needs.

I would like nothing better than to have the time to post something interesting to the blog, but for the time being my life is getting in the way.

PJ tells me she is planning to post something. We can all look forward to that.