What have the Romans ever done for us?!

 

I'm taking a class this semester on the social world of early Christianity. Our professor had us watch this video.  I reminds me of a bunch of conservatives sitting around complaining about the government.  Substitute "Rome" for "the government" and laugh with me at their foolhardiness!

Thanks to Feminism, I can be a Father

The other day I was thinking about one of my co-workers, he works while his wife stays home with the kids.  I thought that must be nice for her, but inversely, I realized that it also meant he must have to work a lot to pay the bills.  Being a “traditional” family, that’s sort of the way things go, the man works however many hours to pay the bills while the woman stays home with the kids managing the house and doing the majority of the child rearing.

Being a new father myself, I imagined myself in the same scenario—working fifty or sixty hours a week to make ends meet, then coming home to do home repairs, yard work, and so on.  I realized that such a scenario wouldn’t actually leave much time for me to spend with my child. But then it hit me, that’s exactly the point, I’m not supposed to be doing that—that’s the woman’s job.

In America right now, and especially during this political season, there are two images being portrayed as to what our society should look like; what it really means to be an “American.”  Many are suggesting that we need to go back to the “good old days.” What does that really mean? At least in the context of the family, when some speak of “traditional family values,” what they mean is the dad working and the mom staying at home with the kids.  Leave it to Beaver is the model of the true American family, the ways things should be.

Well, I decided I don’t want to be that kind of man.  I want to be a part of my child’s rearing; I want to help change her diapers, feed her during the night, and take her on walks.  If I’m working fifty hours a week, working in the yard, and doing repairs around the house I can’t do as much as that as I want.   So I’m left with a choice, abandon the traditional image of what being a father looks like in society or miss out on bonding opportunities with my daughter.  Sure, many traditionalists are going to question my status as a good man because I don’t do all the things they expect me to do (work, work, work), but so be it. 

You may be wondering what this has to do with feminism—everything!  It was/is the feminists who continually challenge the status quo, the ways things “used to be,” the good old days.  It’s feminists who point out that a patriarchal society only works for the men.  It’s the feminists who say it’s ok for me to be the father I want to be.  Think about that, I as a man am actually reaping the reward from the hard work of thousands of women over the years who have sought the end of a patriarchal society of “traditional family values.” 

More so, I have the assurance that I can encourage my daughter as she grows  up to do whatever she sets her mind to—no need to worry that only certain careers open to her or that she’ll automatically be considered lower than a man is intellect and capability.  Yes, there still is far too much gender discrimination, but I’m thankful for how far we’ve come.

So, thanks to all the feminists and others who struggle to change the status quo! I fully support you and am with you as we continue to work to bring equality and opportunity to all people.

Hey, how about some ‘legitimate’ science?

If only this was new. Many would have us believe that the comments by Representative Todd Akin of Missouri were “fringe” views or not representative of the Republican party and conservative Christian circles he is a part of; if only that were true. 

When Akin was asked what he thought about abortion being legal in cases of rape and incest, he said that "First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare, if it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down, but let's assume that maybe that didn't work or something. You know I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.” What?!

There’s two incredibly offensive points just in that short statement—first the suggestion that only certain rapes are “legitimate,” and second the complete medical falsehood that a female can “shut it down” when necessary.   Akin says he misspoke, but more likely it was a “Freudian slip.” Last year, Akin co-sponsored a bill with Paul Ryan that would have denied the use of federal funds for abortions only in cases of “forcible rape.”   Heck, the GOP platform seeks to deny abortion in ALL instances. Akin’s views are hardly fringe.

That the GOP is distancing themselves from Akin’s comments and demanding he abandon his run for Senate in Missouri has little to do with their disagreement with his views but rather with the realization that his continued presence in election may cost the Republicans the election.   Tonight on Hannity, Sean pretended that he wanted Akin to quit out of principle, but Hannity’s guests revealed the truth;  Akin is/was the Republican’s best shot at beating a Democratic incumbent and taking control over the Senate.   Missouri is also a crucial swing state in the upcoming presidential election, and if a few more vote Obama in response to Akin, there goes the state and therefore the election.

Akin’s comments represent a continued problem with conservative Christianity in general.   Whenever science disagrees with the theological or political views of conservative Christians, they simply deny the legitimacy of science.   This idea that women can “shut it down,” is hardly new—I heard the same thing when I was in junior high while in Christian school.  It’s just another example of Christians either denying science or simply making up their own to fit their own views.

This tactic of denying science or simply making up their own has been done again and again.  Global warming?  Scientists the world over all assured us the global warming was a coming reality, something that will require drastic action to stop or at least slow down.  Yet thanks to a smear campaign and their own “science,” most doubt the existence of global warming.  Evolution?  Again, having discarded and denied science, conservative Christians have made up their own “creation science” in order to prove the “veracity” of the Genesis account(s).  Of course, those who actually claim to be Christians and accept modern science are “denying the truth of the Word of God.”

Christianity denying science goes back hundreds of years. Copernicus, the man who discovered that the earth actually revolved around the sun, held back publishing his findings until he was on his death bed in fear of the backdraft he would face from the Church.  Galileo actually had to recant his acceptance of this same view under threat of excommunication.  What was the big deal with this new science by Copernicus? It contradicted the Bible—Joshua 10:13 says that the sun stood still, which obviously meant that the sun revolved around the earth.  Copernicus then was “contradicting the Bible.” Sound familiar?

Thankfully, all “Christians” don’t think that way (me for one), but for those who do, it’s time for a change—stop twisting or simply denying facts when they don’t fit with your point of view.

Forget Chick-Fil-A, boycott Christianity

With all the hullabaloo about a certain chicken sandwich business these days and the people who run such institution, I think it’s time to set the record straight—Chick-Fil-A is not the problem.

 Sure, Dan Cathy wasn’t doing himself or his business any favors when he said that “we’re inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage. And I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude that thinks we have the audacity to redefine what marriage is all about” (Washington Post). Whatever one feels about that statement on a moral level, it doesn’t seem like a smart idea to alienate potential customers.  Of course, Chick-Fil-A quickly backtracked from Cathy’s statement when this all started to blow up, posting on Facebook that they “treat every person with honor, dignity and respect – regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender” and that “going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.”

Regardless of the craziness that has since ensued with mayors trying to ban the restaurant from their cities, Mike Huckabee declaring a “Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day” and the huge turnout that followed, and the “kiss-in” protests after it all falls short;  Chick-Fil-A isn’t the problem, Christianity is the problem.

"One of the disturbing things about Church history is the Church's appalling track record of being on the wrong side of the great social issues of the day" -- Richard Stearns (President of World Vision).  In his book, The Hole in the Gospel, Stearns recounts how Christianity as been on the wrong side of slavery, civil rights, AIDS, and so on.  In that same way, Christianity is on the wrong side when it comes to gay marriage and homosexuality.

My beef isn’t with a chicken sandwich anymore, it’s with a religion that has made this issue its rallying point. It’s with Christians narcissistically convincing themselves that they are the ones in America being oppressed.  Being that Christianity is the largest religion by far in America and a huge percentage of Americans consider themselves to be Christians, 78.4% in fact according to a Pew Forum survey, those seeking marriage equality are actually the ones being oppressed. They are the ones being denied “equal protection under the law” yet countless numbers of Christians assured themselves that they are heroes of the faith because they ate a chicken sandwich.  Last Wednesday wasn’t a good day for Christianity—it was a day that should quickly be forgotten.    

The majority of present-day Christianity continually disregards any modern biblical scholarship that disagrees with their narrow-minded positions.  Despite the continual refrain of “believing what the Bible says,” Christians could care less about what the Bible actually says.  Their interpretation isn’t even close to being accurate, but that’s what happens when one insists on reading the Bible as if it was written in the 20^th century when in fact it was formed thousands of years ago in cultures vastly different then our own.

So like the Occupy movement, perhaps that’s what needs to happen to current-day Christianity. Those who claim to be followers of Jesus must demand change or boycott the religion of Christianity until the religion changes.  I like chicken sandwiches, I like waffle fries, and I like good customer service so I’ll probably eat at Chick-Fil-A again, but they aren’t the problem, Christianity is the problem.

Obamacare pro-family policies beginning August 1st.

What does “pro-family” really mean these days?  The term is used quite a bit by certain folks in regards to different policies these days, but when it’s all boiled down, what someone usually means when they say they are “pro-family” is that they oppose gay-marriage and abortion. Is that the only way to be “pro-family?”  It seems that if someone is really “pro-family,” they should support other policies that help families.

 The Affordable Health Care Act, or “Obamacare” as it is so commonly referred to as, does a lot to support families.  Unfortunately, because of all the demagoguery and misinformation by political pundits, few of these details ever get discussed. “Eight new prevention related health measures are now being provided to 47 million women under the Affordable Care Act. Previously some insurance companies did not cover the eight preventative services, or only offered co-pays or deductibles. However beginning on August 1, or at the next renewal date, the following services will be completely covered by the insurance companies.” (Houston Chronicle)

·    Well-woman visits.

·    Gestational diabetes screening that helps protect pregnant women from one of the most serious pregnancy-related diseases.

·    Domestic and interpersonal violence screening and counseling.

·    FDA-approved contraceptive methods, and contraceptive education and counseling.

·    Breastfeeding support, supplies, and counseling.

·    HPV DNA testing, for women 30 or older.

·    Sexually transmitted infections counseling for sexually-active women.

·    HIV screening and counseling for sexually-active women.

These new parts of the law are explicitly pro-family.  While traditional “pro-family” advocates emphasize that they are “pro-life,” rarely it seems do they do actually promote any policies that protect the lives of mothers.  Providing well-woman visits and Gestational diabetes screenings will help ensure the health of mothers and potential mothers across the country. 

By providing support and screening for domestic violence, “Obamacare” works to protect the often most vulnerable members of the family—the women.   Helping screen for and protect women from violence protects the family and is thoroughly “pro-family.”

As nearly any mother will confess, breatfeeding—despite that mothers have been doing it for thousands of years—hardly comes easy.  It seems pretty obvious to me that providing support and supplies to moms is a good thing. Breastfeeding is good for moms and for babies, perhaps one might say it is “pro-family” to encourage breastfeeding, as Mayor Bloomberg of New York City did.   

I could go on, but I think you get the point.  There are many other policies that are “pro-family” that don’t involve gay marriage or abortion and if one claims to truly be “pro-family,” it seems fairly logical that they should support policies that actually help that family rather than seek to repeal them.

Guns don’t kill people, people kill people—using guns…

Unless you’re living under a rock, you’ve heard about the horrific shooting in Aurora, CO.  Tragedies like this have an ability to suck us in—we find ourselves watching hours and hours of coverage, seeing the same video over and over again.  Shortly thereafter we begin to try to make sense of senseless tragedies as our hearts and minds and prayers go out to those affected.  We’ll donate money or even hold a candle, but after a while life just of goes back to normal—and nothing changes; we’ve done nothing to address the problems that led tragedy or disaster in the first place.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg was the first to speak out and say that we’ve got to look at how horrible things like this continue to happen in this country. Frankly I’m tired of reading about armed madmen walking into a church or a school or a mall and killing innocent people. I was in high school here in Colorado when the first large scale gun tragedy shook this state.  I played in a summer basketball league with kids from Columbine.  One of my teammates tragically took his own life unexpectedly a year or so later.  One of the best basketball players in the state, he had hid in a closet during the whole ordeal.  At my own high school, one of my teammate’s mother committed suicide some time later—the Columbine tragedy weighing heavily on her.  My father and I went to the memorial at the movie theater down the street from Columbine, so I’m not just trying to exploit a tragedy to get my political agenda across.

I’m going to be holding a new-born baby any day now, and I’ve got to wonder what kind of world she’s coming into.  So when someone respectable and intelligent suggests that we should revive the conversation about guns in our country, I don’t think it’s outrageous.   Of course President Obama isn’t going to touch it with a ten foot pole when he’s in a tight race for re-election as it is and Romney is already in bed with right-wing gun owners so that leaves people like you and me to have an intelligent, respectable conversation about it.

So here we go:

I’m sure you’ve heard the refrain before, that guns don’t kill people, its people that kill other people.  It’s said that someone could use a car, a baseball bat, or a sledgehammer to kill someone—but here’s the catch; none of those items are designed to kill or maim human beings.  A car is designed for transportation, a baseball bat to hit a baseball, and a sledgehammer for construction demolition.  Can something be misused or perverted from its purpose? But guess what most guns are designed for?

Another argument against tougher gun control laws is that they will only impact the law-abiding citizens, since a criminal already disregards law and order as it is.  Ok, but again, the alleged shooter was a law abiding citizen until he went out and blew away 12 people in a horrific tragedy.  We’re all law-abiding citizens until we go out and break the law.  It doesn’t seem unreasonable to ban a high-powered rifle capable of doing irreparable harm to scores of people in seconds or perhaps for local law enforcement just to check in when someone is suddenly stockpiling guns.

And don’t tell me that more people there with conceal-and-carry guns could have saved the day.  In a dark movie theater, with hundreds of panicked people running and screaming, and with a gunman geared up in a bullet-proof vest and helmet is someone really going to be able to calmly stand up and take out the assailant with a headshot amidst the chaos.  Law enforcement professionals train for hours and hours for such situations.

I’m not trying to trash on the 2^nd Amendment either, but when conservatives constantly cry that the founders didn’t envision “equal protection under the law” applying to homosexual rights, I’ve got to think they didn’t foresee semi-automatic rifles either, the guns back then were one-shot and reload muskets.  So if we’re going to talk “Original Intent” in one area, shouldn’t we at least be consistent?

So what can we do about this?  The NRA doesn’t own the conversation.  Can we at least start by being honest with ourselves? Guns do kill people—because they are made to.

Clearly – I’m the stupid one

As economic conservatives and libertarians have become increasingly emboldened, preaching their gospel of tax cuts for the rich and gutting of social welfare programs, I’ve become more and more perplexed.  Try as I might to understand the logic of their economic policies, the more I thought about it, the more it baffled me.  Well, thank goodness, I now know the truth; I’m just plain stupid—or so says
“capitalist evangelist” Wayne Allyn Root in a recent op-ed for FoxNews.com . 

Funny, I don’t remember Jesus praising rich people as “job creators” in the Gospels, but again, I’m the ignorant one.  Root says that the problem with those who adhere to the fiscal policies of Obama and other liberals is “economic ignorance.”  Myself and others like me who support “big government” programs like food stamps and other forms of government aid for the poor are stupid and ignorant.  Even worse, Root says, we are out of touch.  Those in the private sector (Oh, sorry I didn’t type that in gold letters to signify their greatness) are the ones with “boots on the ground.”  If there’s anything that comes to mind when I think of Romney and his $10,000 bets, his wife’s couple of Cadillac’s, and net worth of $250 million, it’s that he’s down to earth.  But truth be told, before now I hadn’t realized how stupid I really am.

Root’s examples of why the private sector is sucking so badly under “liberal stupidity” are without-a-doubt bullet-proof.  Root references the closing of the ESPN Zone restaurant chain, and because restaurants never fail, this certainly is just another example of the doom and destruction liberal policies cause.   Another example is Las Vegas and the casino industry (who knew “the strip” was “Main Street America?”)  The economic troubles of casinos certainly must be Obama’s fault, because a trip to Vegas is the LAST thing I’d want to cut from my monthly budget.  Heck, if that fact that millions of people aren’t blowing their hard-earned money boozing it up in Vegas isn’t a sign of failed democratic policies, I don’t know what it! A third rock-solid example of the horrible economic suffering of the private sector is that NFL owners can’t sell-out their stadiums anymore.   Really? The Green Bay Packers, the only NFL team that releases financial information, are doing quite well.  Even the Cleveland Browns, one of the worst teams in the league, seems to be doing quite well according to Forbes.com.  But again, I’m certainly missing something—because I’m ignorant.

From this stupid person’s point of view (me), I’d like to see Root cite one of the many public opinion polls which recognize the ignorance of liberal policies since there are apparently so many out there I should “just take a look at.”  And I don’t understand why it’s necessary to make use of Red Herrings instead of actually refuting the economic policies of Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman.  (Obviously the Nobel Prize people are stupid as well for having given him the award!).  But Root says I simply need to “connect the dots” which clearly I’m not able to do, so my only semi-intelligent conclusion is that I just must be plain stupid.

Disappointing as it is to be told I’m stupid after all this time, I’m actually kind of upset about it.  I’ve spent a lot of time and money on a graduate degree which I’m hoping to finish up this year.  Now, I’m wondering what’s the point, because after 3 years, I’m perhaps more brainless than ever.  I think I need to have a talk with my place of higher education and ask for my money back! Because clearly, I’m the stupid one.