A recent article in the Chicago Sun Times (not necessarily a paper I read, but I found the article on the web) poignantly points out a problem with our politically correct culture. The article is about Heidi Zamecnik's attempt to wear a T-shirt that didn't support the gay lifestyle. On the day after the "Day of Silence" in 2006, Heidi wore a T-shirt that said "BE HAPPY, NOT GAY". The Dean of Students at her school told her to remove the T-shirt of leave because her message "offended others". Whoa... Apparently it is OK to offend Christians by promoting a lifestyle counter to God's command, but possibly offending other students is not OK.
Face it, Christianity is an offensive religion, at least in the eyes of the world. This has been true since Christ started his ministry on earth, and is just as true today as ever before. Now that the hair on the back of your neck is raised if you're a Christian, or you are chuckling to yourselves if you are not, let me explain. Christians believe that Christ and only Christ can redeem us from our sins and that he died on a cross to pay the penalty for our sins, past, present, and future. Christians believe that only a personal relationship with Christ can grant us everlasting life. I would imagine this is pretty offensive to the current culture that believes anything goes as long as it doesn't hurt someone.
The difficulty with that view is that how can you know whether you've hurt someone (including yourself) or not? To know whether you've hurt someone requires omniscient knowledge of the results of your actions. Unfortunately that isn't something we as humans can ever know. Almost by definition we can't be omniscient. We can't see into the future and see the results of our actions. Only an omniscient God can see the impact our decisions and actions make upon ourselves and others throughout all time.
Although there is almost universal belief that harming someone else without "cause" is bad, that belief is likewise faulty in that it assumes something about what is "cause" or "just", what is "bad", and what is "harm". The only way to have a real understanding of what is appropriate "cause" or suitably "just" or to really know whether something is harmful or not is to have measuring stick. If one uses the culture's measuring stick that is relative to one's background, feelings, belief, experiences, etc., then we can't know what is "just" or causes "harm" for someone else because it is all relative to what we believe and value. This is why we need the absolute truth of God to help us discern what is "just" or "bad" or "harmful". Again, only an omniscient God can know those things for everyone.
What does all of the above rambling mean? Well first that the relative truth of the world will only lead to conflict or sin as it ultimately leads to the conclusion that everything is truth, which obviously can't be the case. That to know what is really truth requires an intimate relationship with our creator who ultimately knows what is right and wrong or what is truth and what is lie. This is why Satan is referred to as the great deceiver as his "truth" is really a lie and he deceives us into believing that he has the truth. This is certainly going to "offend" those that believe anything goes as it means they are wrong.
What is really sad in the action taken by Bryan Wells, Dean of Students at Heidi's school, is that it is apparently OK to offend Christians by promoting a lifestyle that is offensive to God, but that it is not OK to offend those same people by advocating a different lifestyle. As Christians, we have been put on the defensive. The culture says it's OK to espouse Wiccan ideology, Satan worship, Scientology, or any other loony belief system, but promoting Christian beliefs has become "offensive" and doesn't deserve the same level of tolerance or acceptance that these other belief systems now receive. How sad is that.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Children deserve unconditional love
Apparently Alec Baldwin really doesn't get it. He at least admits to being sorry for getting angry, although whether he is sorry for what he said is hard to say. What's disturbing is that what he is most saddened about is that the recording was released to the media. Way to go Alec! Instead of being most saddened by the impact a tirade like that can have on his daughter's emotional well being, he instead rationalizes his behavior by stating "...told by numerous people not to worry too much, as all parents lose their patience with their kids...". I think there is a difference between losing your patience and unleashing a tirade that most likely cut to the core of his daughter's sense of self worth and value. It's a pretty safe bet that even without all this press, his daughter will never forget those words. How could anyone forget words like that when spoken by a parent and directed at your person.
As parents, I believe it helpful to follow God's example. God loves us no matter what we do, yet He doesn't necessarily love what we do. The difference is that one focuses on the person and the other focuses on the behavior. We need to love our children no matter what. Yet we don't have to love their behavior. Love the sinner, but not the sin. If more people would get that, I believe we'd have a lot less conflict and hurting people in the world. I also believe this is why Christianity is sometimes portrayed in a bad light.
Take the issues of homosexuality, pornography, gambling, alcoholism, etc. As a Christian one must remember that we are to love God first and people second. Not that we are to love the lovable people second. As Christ said in Luke chapter 6, even sinner's love the lovable. We're called to love sinners and our enemies. Christ showed this sort of love with the adulterous woman. He loved her as a person by stopping her impending stoning. Yet he commanded her to stop her adulterous ways. Love the sinner, not the sin. Separate the person from their actions. Alec Baldwin confused the two when he uttered "You are a rude, thoughtless little pig, OK?" or "You don't have the brains or the decency as a human being."
I pray that some good will come out of all the publicity this story is receiving. I hope that some parents will "get it" and understand that their words cut deeper than the sharpest knife. Lift your children up instead of beating them down.
As parents, I believe it helpful to follow God's example. God loves us no matter what we do, yet He doesn't necessarily love what we do. The difference is that one focuses on the person and the other focuses on the behavior. We need to love our children no matter what. Yet we don't have to love their behavior. Love the sinner, but not the sin. If more people would get that, I believe we'd have a lot less conflict and hurting people in the world. I also believe this is why Christianity is sometimes portrayed in a bad light.
Take the issues of homosexuality, pornography, gambling, alcoholism, etc. As a Christian one must remember that we are to love God first and people second. Not that we are to love the lovable people second. As Christ said in Luke chapter 6, even sinner's love the lovable. We're called to love sinners and our enemies. Christ showed this sort of love with the adulterous woman. He loved her as a person by stopping her impending stoning. Yet he commanded her to stop her adulterous ways. Love the sinner, not the sin. Separate the person from their actions. Alec Baldwin confused the two when he uttered "You are a rude, thoughtless little pig, OK?" or "You don't have the brains or the decency as a human being."
I pray that some good will come out of all the publicity this story is receiving. I hope that some parents will "get it" and understand that their words cut deeper than the sharpest knife. Lift your children up instead of beating them down.
Friday, April 20, 2007
James 1:19
I've always heard that we have two ears and one mouth because we should listen twice as much as we speak. Paul tells us in the book of James that we should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry. Although not especially relevant to the listening part, perhaps Alec Baldwin should heed a little of what Paul teaches. His latest tirade against his daughter is utterly dismaying. The sad part is how many of us have heard explosive comments like that growing up. Condemnations of person and character that slowly and surely destroy one's sense of self worth; often said in anger.
As one who struggled with anger that I learned from an example set by my father, I regret all the inappropriate outbursts I made before taming my tongue. I pray that others can learn from Alec Baldwin's much publicized outburst. Learn that you can't take back words once they've left your mouth. Learn that however angry you may be, taking it out on your children is more damaging than you can imagine. Learn that there are healthier ways to deal with your anger and that maybe counting to 10 before launching a tirade might just let you discover what your anger is all about and keep you from saying something you may regret for the rest of your life.
As one who struggled with anger that I learned from an example set by my father, I regret all the inappropriate outbursts I made before taming my tongue. I pray that others can learn from Alec Baldwin's much publicized outburst. Learn that you can't take back words once they've left your mouth. Learn that however angry you may be, taking it out on your children is more damaging than you can imagine. Learn that there are healthier ways to deal with your anger and that maybe counting to 10 before launching a tirade might just let you discover what your anger is all about and keep you from saying something you may regret for the rest of your life.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
The running of the bloodsuckers
Well, after completing 4 income tax returns and assisting with 2 others, and paying an obscene amount of taxes, I've come to the conclusion that our taxing system is completely and totally screwed up! I'm sure that doesn't come as news to anyone. A simple example is the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Because our tax code is so riddled with social engineering and special interest promotion, certain high-income people were managing to avoid paying much tax at all. Apparently CONgress learned in 1969 that 155 families earning more than $200,000 hadn't paid any taxes. So their solution was to come up with a tax add-on that would eventually turn into a parallel tax code that was supposed to target high-income families. The difficulty is that the definition of high-income wasn't indexed to inflation. Thus millions of tax payers are now paying additional taxes. According to the Congressional Budget Office over 1/3 of all tax payers in the $50,000 - $100,000 range will pay AMT in 2006. The IRS estimates that 1/3 of ALL individual tax payers will have to pay AMT by 2010.
On a related note, as a tax payer with 3 household members in college, I notice that because I have been fiscally responsible and saved money since I was in college, I'm not eligible for any educational financial assistance from the government. On top of that, the tax breaks for college tuition and fees don't apply to me either because an investment I made in 1979 paid a large dividend to me and bumped me temporarily into a tax bracket that prohibits those tax breaks. Even without that dividend, taxable income from my other savings push me out of the eligible income ranges. What I glean from all this is that federal government doesn't want people to save their money. After all, I get taxed on the income from my savings, I am excluded from many tax breaks and/or aid options simply because I have been frugal and am not counting on the federal government ever paying me back a penny of the nearly $100,000 they've taken from me in social security taxes over the last 30+ years. Perhaps this is why in 2005 the US national savings rate dipped into negative territory for the only time other than the Great Depression. I'm not suggesting people not save, I'm just curious as to why the government penalizes people that save quite so much?
Another interesting tidbit about AMT is that it must certainly violate constitution guarantees. Under AMT rules, if you exercise ISO stock option (options granted you to reward performance or help ensure employee retention), you are taxed on the difference between the exercise price and the current market price. "Say What?" you say? So my company grants me 1000 options at $10/share. If I then buy the stock that those options allow me to buy some years later, I will pay a total of $10,000 for those shares. Yet if the market price for the stock is now $60/share, according to AMT, I just made $50,000, although you won't find that $50,000 in any of my accounts. Had I just bought those 1000 shares for $10 and now the price of those shares is $60, I have $60,000 worth of shares, that I will pay taxes on WHEN and IF I sell them, i.e., when I actually have money in my hands as a result of the stock transaction. But NOOOOO, with AMT, I get to pay for the stocks, AND pay for the increase in value that at the moment is only on paper. What a ripoff!
Instead of this "progressive" income tax system that we currently have that in effect discourages people from earning money, and penalizes you more and more the better at making money you are, and discourages savings, why not move to a consumption based tax? He who spends more pays more, with some obvious threshold(s) applied. As well tax heavily those items you want to reduce such as energy consumption, oil consumption, etc.
Well, in any case, the bloodsuckers got their pound of flesh from me this year!
On a related note, as a tax payer with 3 household members in college, I notice that because I have been fiscally responsible and saved money since I was in college, I'm not eligible for any educational financial assistance from the government. On top of that, the tax breaks for college tuition and fees don't apply to me either because an investment I made in 1979 paid a large dividend to me and bumped me temporarily into a tax bracket that prohibits those tax breaks. Even without that dividend, taxable income from my other savings push me out of the eligible income ranges. What I glean from all this is that federal government doesn't want people to save their money. After all, I get taxed on the income from my savings, I am excluded from many tax breaks and/or aid options simply because I have been frugal and am not counting on the federal government ever paying me back a penny of the nearly $100,000 they've taken from me in social security taxes over the last 30+ years. Perhaps this is why in 2005 the US national savings rate dipped into negative territory for the only time other than the Great Depression. I'm not suggesting people not save, I'm just curious as to why the government penalizes people that save quite so much?
Another interesting tidbit about AMT is that it must certainly violate constitution guarantees. Under AMT rules, if you exercise ISO stock option (options granted you to reward performance or help ensure employee retention), you are taxed on the difference between the exercise price and the current market price. "Say What?" you say? So my company grants me 1000 options at $10/share. If I then buy the stock that those options allow me to buy some years later, I will pay a total of $10,000 for those shares. Yet if the market price for the stock is now $60/share, according to AMT, I just made $50,000, although you won't find that $50,000 in any of my accounts. Had I just bought those 1000 shares for $10 and now the price of those shares is $60, I have $60,000 worth of shares, that I will pay taxes on WHEN and IF I sell them, i.e., when I actually have money in my hands as a result of the stock transaction. But NOOOOO, with AMT, I get to pay for the stocks, AND pay for the increase in value that at the moment is only on paper. What a ripoff!
Instead of this "progressive" income tax system that we currently have that in effect discourages people from earning money, and penalizes you more and more the better at making money you are, and discourages savings, why not move to a consumption based tax? He who spends more pays more, with some obvious threshold(s) applied. As well tax heavily those items you want to reduce such as energy consumption, oil consumption, etc.
Well, in any case, the bloodsuckers got their pound of flesh from me this year!
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Apple's plan to destroy Windows
I'm not particularly a Microsoft fan, in fact, I'm far from it. Yet my experiences with Apple has been equally bad if not worse. As I've blogged before, I think the iPod is a total POC and Apple should be shot for selling something with such incredibly bad software on it. iTunes and Quicktime have also caused me more pain than gain. Most recently I was trying to scan images from my network attached scanner. As the web based print server delivered the images in TIFF format, the Quicktime plugin handily scarfed the image. But I wanted the image in a file so my son could manipulate it for a school project. To do that with Quicktime would have required purchasing Quicktime Pro! Just to save an image to disk that I created with something other than Quicktime. Brilliant piece of work Apple. On top of this, the Quicktime plugin manages to kill both Internet Explorer and Firefox. Nice work guys!
Some other time I'll write about trying to use iTunes on a library of thousands of songs. Combine that with their proprietary DRM system, has convinced me to become Apple free. All this stuff may work just great on OS X, but I don't really care to run OS X. So Apple, take your software somewhere else.
Some other time I'll write about trying to use iTunes on a library of thousands of songs. Combine that with their proprietary DRM system, has convinced me to become Apple free. All this stuff may work just great on OS X, but I don't really care to run OS X. So Apple, take your software somewhere else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)