Guns don’t kill people, but video games do??

The logic that comes out of gun rights activists continually puzzles me. After the horrific events at Newtown, NRA president Wayne LaPierre infamously blamed everything except the gun which was used to kill 26 innocent children and teachers.  He blamed violence in video games, violence in the movies, and violence in music. The violence in video games has been particularly targeted as of late by Republicans.  I find this curious, since so many “gun rights” activists say that blaming guns for deaths is the same as blaming a spoon for someone getting fat. Guns don’t cause violence, but a bunch of zeroes and ones programmed to appear on a screen do??

Even more strange is that Republicans have recently taken to accusing liberals of overlooking violence in video games and media.  Conservatives accuse President Obama of giving the video game industry a pass.  Lawmakers are assuming liberals don’t care about the violence portrayed in movies and TV.  What liberals are they actually talking to? This must be more of the bulletproof logic (pardon the pun)that Daily Show correspondent John Oliver noticed recently.  Liberals are almost entirely against violence. Who were the ones protesting the war in Vietnam? Liberals. Who were the ones protesting the war in Iraq? Liberals.

I would self-identify as liberal and I detest violence to the point where I would consider myself a pacifist.  I know lots of liberals who are firmly against violence. I listened to a liberal teen perform slam poetry in which she decried the idea that shooting someone on a screen was somehow “okay,” while pointing out that real-life has no “reset” button.  My first semester in seminary, I took a class on theological issues in films in which the professor mentioned he was unsure about including a couple of movies that had significant violence such as The Passion of the Christ and Unforgiven. My ethics class this semester has an entire section devoted to the problem of violence.  Even today at church in “Sunday School” someone mentioned the problem of violence in entertainment.  So when I hear conservatives and Republicans accusing liberals of not caring about violence in media, I have no idea what they are talking about.

It’s not like all the gang-related shooting in Chicago were from kids playing video games then going out an killing each other.  Poor black kids can’t afford video game systems; its upper middle-class white teens and young adults playing these violent games—aka Republicans.  So, conservative lawmakers need to take a look in the mirror, and at their own voting bloc.

The problem with violence in entertainment isn’t necessarily that kids are going out replicating the violence they see on screen.  The problem is that violence in media desensitizes us the horrors of violence in real life.  When I see bloodied, mutilated bodies on TV, bloodied, mutilated bodies of soldiers and civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn’t hit me as hard.  When I see torture scenes acted out in movies, the horrors of Auschwitz don’t seem so horrible.  Video of men so starved that they were literally skin and bone, of real people being mowed down by the bullets of Germans is less disturbing than that which I can see just by visiting my local Redbox. So yes, violence is a problem in entertainment, but not because it’s supposedly causing kids to go out and kill each other. But if we’re going to accuse video games of causing our violence, why can’t we also blame guns?

The irony of the tax day Boston tragedy

It’s a tragic irony that the horrible events in Boston took place on April 15, otherwise known as tax day in the United States of America.

It’s ironic because so many Americans spend so much time and energy complaining about paying the taxes that support the police, firefighters, and other first responders who are so important on days like today.  They complain about paying the taxes that pay for federal investigators to track down and prosecute the perpetrators of this horrific event and help prevent others like it.  The taxes that will help the city of Boston rebuild. The taxes that will help support the recovery of the victims.

It’s ironic because once again, our nation will “unify,” saying we all care about one another in the same manner we have after Columbine, 9/11, Virginia Tech, Aurora, and Sandy Hook. Why it takes the death and destruction of innocent lives for the citizens of this nation to truly care for one another is beyond me.

It’s ironic because on a day (tax day) when so many Americans complain about paying taxes which support their fellow Americans, they will turn around and say how much they care for their fellow Americans in light of this tragedy.

It’s ironic because the same people who will tweet out support for their fellow Americans who were victims in Boston, yesterday were sharing status updates accusing recipients of tax-dollar-funded “entitlement” programs like food-stamps, welfare, and other social-welfare programs as “moochers,” “takers,” “lazy,” and worse.

It’s ironic because tax day is perhaps the epitome of Jesus’ words in Matthew 6:21 “where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” Tax day reveals the truth, that for many people, their treasure—their heart—is concerned only for themselves and their own piles of cash.  Jesus had strong words to say against people who stockpiled their own wealth while ignoring the needs of those around them. He called such people fools and hypocrites, saying such people were not welcome in his heaven.

It’s ironic that people can actually claim to care about their fellow human beings on days like today, and then be so totally careless and callous towards their fellow Americans so many other days of the year.

Why my church supports gay marriage...

I'm sharing the following response from my church on this issue of gay marriage:

Recently, a local church made headlines by stating their opposition to gay marriage. The story was front page Easter Sunday in the Boulder Daily Camera. As another Christian community of faith in Lafayette, we at Cairn Christian Church, an Open and Affirming congregation of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), formerly First Christian Church of Boulder, openly affirm the right of two people to express their love in marriage, regardless of gender.

We believe this because love was the number one value for Jesus; Love of neighbor, love of self, and love of God.  People who show love are part of the kingdom of God.  If our sexuality, like any other part of our personhood, expresses love and does no harm to another human being, it is far from sinful—it is godly. 

We remember that Jesus treated the marginalized – the diseased, women, children, the poor—with equal dignity and even invited them to eat at his table. He did not treat them as sinners and ask them to change their health status, gender, age or social status in order to be welcomed. His actions were completely against the norms of his day. As followers of Jesus we must then be on the side of the oppressed which are in this instance gays and lesbians seeking equality.

Though we understand the Bible to be a sacred text that has been normative for Christians for hundreds of years, we also understand it is a text written and compiled in a culture far different than our own, thousands of years ago.  We remember that the same Bible that is used to condemn homosexuals also condones child abuse, genocide, slavery, and rape. The Bible prescribes that disobedient children are to be stoned. The Bible thinks touching a woman in public is a sin. The Bible says divorce is a sin. The Bible says disease is a sin. Further, we understand the Bible has been used to justify slavery, misogyny, racism, and more—all within our own country no less.

Trying to define “Biblical marriage” is very slippery. The Hebrew Bible, or Old Testament, allows for multiple wives, allows the man to have a mistress, allows a man to sleep with any other woman without impunity as long as that woman is not herself married. Further, there is no equivalent word in the original language of the Old Testament for marriage.  In New Testament marriage was thought of as unnecessary in expectation of Jesus’ soon return. The Apostle Paul grudgingly conceded marriage but preferred celibacy.  So if we are going to define marriage as “Biblical,” which definition are we going by? Who gets to pick? And why are they right?

We recognize that the definition of marriage has changed over time.  Marriage once allowed for multiple wives.  Marriage once was a formal financial contract between families and tribes.  Marriage once had little to do with love.    It was once impossible to marry across classes.  Only a few decades ago it was illegal to marry between races.  Our definition of marriage has changed with our changing ethics and our deeper understanding of the human psyche, the human body, and the human community.

Therefore, we of Cairn Christian Church, an Open and Affirming congregation of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) affirm the right of two consenting adults to express their love in marriage—no matter their gender.

On behalf of the members of Cairn Christian Church,

Senior Minister Rev. Dr. Charisa Hunter-Crump (BD,MDiv, DMin)

Youth Minister Dustin Adkins (BA, Min)

Seminary Intern Loren Richmond Jr. (BS, MDiv student Phillips Theological Seminary)

(Via: CairnChristianChurch.com/response )

On "Illegal" Immigration: we are not the righteous ones...

I’m tired of thinking...

I decided to give up meat for lent this year. So for 40+ days—carnivore that I am—I ate no meat. Meat is so engrained in our culture—and that was my biggest reason for doing it, I wanted to see if I could break out of the cultural norm of the meat culture.  It wasn’t nearly as bad as a thought it would be, especially after the first few days when I found myself drooling over a half-eaten hot dog at a basketball game. Thankfully, vegetarian hot dogs taste very much like the “real thing” (that’s an oxymoron if there ever was one!).

I stumbled through my time. I found a couple easy recipes that I liked (vegetarian chili is awesome), I substituted garbanzo beans for meat in spaghetti and hamburger helper, and relied on my lunchtime staple of peanut butter sandwiches, ate beans and rice a few times, and hit up Taco Bell when I needed a quick, easy meal.  Yesterday, for Easter, I ended my Lenten fast with a bang, eating Ham for all three meals (not intentionally). Today I didn’t eat any meat, but I’m not sure if I want to keep being vegetarian. For one, the McDonald’s 20 pieces nuggets are calling my name, and I still enjoy a good burger. But, secondly, and most importantly, I’m tired of thinking about it.

I’m tired of trying figure out which restaurant I could possibly eat something at.

I’m tired of getting odd stares when I ask the waiter what the vegetarian options on the menu are.

I’m tired of trying to figure out what to possibly eat while on a road trip.

I’m tired of trying to avoid eating meat.

Basically, I’m tired of thinking about it. I’m tired of thinking about how farming and livestock has become industrialized to the point where beef gets rinsed in bleach and chickens are genetically altered to grow big breasts.  I’m tired of thinking about all the antibiotics I’m taking in when I eat beef because the cows are juiced up on the stuff to keep them healthy.  I’m tired of thinking about the gout my father has and I very well might get if I keep eating red meat all the freakin’ time.

I bet we all know a thing or two about being tired of thinking about things. Those in power don’t want us to think. Advertisers don’t want us to think. Marketers don’t want us to think. The rich and powerful don’t want to think. Why? Because they realize if we think, we might actually start protesting the way things are.

I get it. We’re all busy. We’re all spread thin. We’re all just trying to make it through the day.

But we’ve got to try to start paying more attention, questioning the way things are, asking more questions. I know most of us are don’t have the time, resources, and energy to change the world. But, if we all just thought about things a little more, it could be the start of something big. We’ve got to start thinking about things—and that often requires asking questions.

Why do we live in the richest nation on earth yet still consistently have people living in poverty?

Why do business leaders talk about the logical free market but then sell to our emotions?

Why do we need to keep sending drones to kill “enemy combatants”?

Why is healthcare a privilege and not a right?

Why can’t we end hunger worldwide?

I’m going to try to keep thinking, to keep eating Burger King veggie burgers (even though their fries suck) instead of Wendy’s, to try to keep asking for the vegetarian options on the menu, and I’m going to try to keep thinking. That’s what I ask from you.

Stop listening to FoxNews.

Turn off MSNBC.

Stop and think for your-self.

If you and me, and a few others could start doing that, I bet we could change some things…

My calling is to serve God...and my student loan debt

If you haven’t been paying attention, one of the cuts from the “sequester” was to funding for military tuition assistance programs.  One of my buddies from college is an army vet who has served multiple tours of duty. He was taking advantage of the tuition assistance program to complete a Master’s degree.  Without the financial assistance from the program, he will have to put his schooling on hold.

Thankfully for his sake, the Senate decided to reinstate the program, inserting a measure to re-fund the program as part of a bill to fund the federal government through the rest of the year. Now, it’s not a sure thing, because the Republican controlled House is unpredictable at best, but being that helping our military vets is politically expedient, my guess is that this measure will be enacted.

On some levels, I wasn’t really that sorry for my friend when I heard that he was losing funding for his education, for I thought he might get a taste of why myself and my fellow seminarians have been struggling with for years—trying to figure out how to pay for our own theological education.  I am fortunate that my school, Phillips Theological Seminary, is very affordable and recently even lowered tuition. Along with scholarships I received from the seminary, I have been awarded help from my denomination as well. For me, paying for my theological education hasn’t been nearly as hard as paying for life while I complete that education.

I am far from alone in this struggle. I know of fellow students who are serving two, three, even four churches in order to cobble together one full-time salary.  Once finished with seminary, despite having an advanced degree and a respected position as an ordained reverend, graduates are again piecing together multiple positions or even passing up church jobs because churches can’t pay them enough to repay their student loans (payments of which often comprise 10% of earned income).

I have to wonder what makes what my friend does in the military more valuable to our society than what I will do—working for a church, for a non-profit, in education, some of the above, all of the above? Who gets to make that decision? Why is it that my classmates and I have to take out loans upon loans (which are no longer subsidized thanks to the GOP) to pay for our education while an 18 year old can get college money for volunteering one weekend a month. Do you know how many weekends ministry students volunteer for churches!?

My friend and his fellow soldiers deserve the commendations they receive for serving, and they are not the only ones who serve our country. Anyone who invests their time and talents into a career that is about more than just money is invaluable to America.  I’m talking about teachers, medical service providers, child care workers, firefighters, police officers, artists, and of course pastors and non-profit community workers.  People like this are priceless pieces of our society—their value cannot be measured.

Unfortunately, our society has things backwards and values money-makers like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, and Warren Buffet over people who dedicate their lives to helping others. It shouldn’t be that way.  The Bible tells that we shouldn’t seek after money or possessions, but rather invest in that which last lifetimes.  As a society, we should be investing in people who dedicate their lives to serving others, who choose careers which will have an impact will last a lifetime—or in the case of minsters, an eternity.

That means more scholarships for people going into non-profit work, loan forgiveness for folks who choose careers that are about serving others, and grants for those who inspire us in ways that can’t be measured (pastors, artists, musicians).   That means more funding for higher education in general. 

In reality, this looks like what Democratic Congresswoman Karen Bass recently proposed in the “Student Loan Fairness Act of 2013.” This would create a “10-10” standard in which students would be required to pay 10% of their discretionary income for 10 years, after which the remaining debt would be forgiven.  It would also permanently cap federal student loan interest rates at 3.4%, suspend interest rates while borrowers are unemployed, and reward graduates for entering public service.

This stands in sharp contrast to what Republicans recently tried to do, in repealing the Student Loan Reform Law.  This law takes the loan processing out of the hands of banks and uses the savings to increase Pell Grant scholarships to the tune of $61 Billion. It also lowers monthly payments and shortened the debt forgiveness timeline.  Yet the GOP wanted to get rid of this.  Lest we forget VP candidate Paul Ryan wanted to double interest rates on student loans while giving tax break to millionaires.   

                    

That is why I selfishly wanted my friend to lose his tuition assistance, for I thought he might see which political party really cares about the “little guy”—and perhaps that might influence his decision making next time he goes to the polls. That is why, what Congresswoman Bass proposed, and more, would begin to re-order towards a society which values service to others as invaluable.

If the US Budget was a family budget, it would look like this…

I’m sure you've heard it before…Politicians like to cite the mantra that the US government needs to behave more like a family budget and that the government, like families, needs to learn to live within its means.  Personal finance “guru” Dave Ramsey suggests that the government, like any family, needs to say “enough is enough.” This “family budgeting” talk isn't just coming from Republicans, even President Obama has made the comparison.  The problem is that the comparison just doesn’t work, it’s a poor analogy (see here, and here, and here as well).  But, I’m not going to write why I disagree with the analogy, rather I’d like to paint a picture of what the US budget would look like if reduced to a single family.

Let’s start with the kids, for it’s always the kids that conservatives name when critiquing government spending. We are “bankrupting future generations” they say by borrowing money that will eventually have to be repaid. 

So here’s what our family can do. In order to save money, the family stops paying for as many meals for their daughter, stops saving for her college education, stops paying for her to go to pre-school, and stops paying for her medical coverage amongst other things. Hey, we've got to live within our means, right? The daughter, who happens to be an ethnic minority, is developing Diabetes because she’s just eating a bunch of junk food, because she can only afford the dollar menu at the fast food joint, and she doesn't get any opportunity to exercise.  Despite clear evidence that these fatty foods are hurting her health, dad refuses to limit her access to them or provide her with anything better to eat. We've got to live within our means though, and that means making tough choices.

Thankfully, because of the cuts to spending on the sister, the family can afford to send the white son to a private school, save for an Ivy-league education, establish a 7 figure trust fund for him, get him the best medical care money can buy, and take him out every week to the best restaurants in town among other things.  He’s learning that it’s his hard work and personal responsibility that are getting him success in life—or his father’s fat wallet. Either way, thank goodness we are making the tough decisions now so we don’t “bankrupt” his future.

Let’s look at mom next.  Mom is trying (but failing) to pay for medical procedures like breast cancer screenings, well-woman visits, breastfeeding support, and contraceptives (i.e. what Obamacare provides). Problem is dad says we just can’t afford for mom to get all this coverage.  Funny thing is that dad refuses to pay for mom’s contraceptives, yet then critiques her for being “irresponsible” when she gets pregnant.  Further, dad is absolutely insistent that she keep the baby she can’t afford to pay for and didn't want. Dad grumpily obliges to give mom some help with nutrition during the pregnancy, but as soon as the baby is born, dad refuses to keep footing the bill and disparages mom for being a “welfare queen.”  He demands she gets a job, yet refuses to help out with child care and could care less that she actually gets paid a decent salary or even an equivalent salary to men that are doing the same job as her. If only she would take some personal responsibility.

Dad is doing quite well thanks to his “hard work and ingenuity” he likes to say.  He doesn't like to mention the free public education he received or the fabulous college education his own parents paid for, nor does he like to bring up how he got his good job thanks to a contact his parents had in the firm.  Further, dad gets real upset when anyone starts talking about “redistributing” his income to pay for his daughter’s food or clothing.  Dad says he’ll lose all motivation to work hard if he’s forced to commit more of his salary to providing for his daughter. He likes to say that if he’s just allowed to keep more of what he makes money will just “trickle down” to his daughter. All in all, he likes thing the way they are. His insurance pays for his Viagra and Cialis (which came in quite handy when he was impregnating mom), he gets paid more than his female counterparts on average, and his company gets a nice tax break which in turn pads his annual bonus and retirement account.

Dad also spends a lot of money on home(land) security which he says is essential to keep the family safe. It’s “defense” spending he says.  Forget that he spends more on home security than the rest of the neighborhood combine. Forget that he pisses off some of the neighbors when his remote control helicopters (aka drones) damage their property in the name of destroying “threats” to his security.   Forget that he’s spending $1 Trillion on a single plane. Oh, and if anyone dare threaten to reduce the money he can spend on security, he’ll keep paying for the expensive gadgets and instead cut the salaries of the armed guards he employees and/or make them work longer.

Let’s not forget about grandpa, whose future isn't so rosy. He may have a decent pension from his time as a teacher—but dad doesn't think he deserves so much and seeing to it that the pension is reduced. Grandpa does have some medical coverage, but again dad doesn't want to pay for what grandpa can’t afford and would rather just give grandpa a couple of bucks each month and let him go buy his own insurance (which is far more expensive and he likely can’t get because of his past heart attack).  Dad complains about possible rationing of end of life care, but misses the fact that because grandpa can’t afford adequate health care now, his life will probably end early. Grandpa will end up stashed in some old person warehouse (aka “nursing home”), rotting away due to inadequate care and poor staffing.  But remember, our family values all life.

Grandma is doing much better, no thanks to grandpa’s dead weight.  She’s pretty upset about all this talk about the capital gains tax going up.  She’s worked hard to buy and sell stocks so it’s wrong that she should have to be taxed on money she just sits and waits around for each month. Who cares if the workers in the companies she has stock in pay a much higher rate.  She doesn't really see it as a problem that she’s getting rich off their hard work. Rather, she’s convinced her wealth is due to her own “ingenuity” and “financial acumen.”  Her future is set with her low-tax nest egg, multiple houses (of which she writes off the interest), and the best medical coverage money can buy.

This is what the US government budget would really look like if it was a family budget. But, maybe the conservatives are right. In the end, maybe we do need to run the government like a family.  Maybe the American budget would be better in the end if we made the “tough” decisions.  Perhaps, but I can tell you this, we’d be one big, dysfunctional family. No moral person would dare treat members of their family like this, so we can’t let politicians get away with talk of doing the “right, moral thing” in cutting spending while at the same time talk about running the federal budget like a family.  

If politicians or other leaders want to talk about America being a family, that’s fine, but then it’s about time we showed the same love and care to ALL members of our family.