“Those voting against healthcare are leaving their Christianity in the closet.”

“It’s the Christian thing to do.” – referring to the need to support increased government welfare programs.

“Anyone who votes against government helping the poor and defenseless cannot call themselves a Christian.”

These and similar quotes are heard often from various supporters of increased government social programs.

But, where in the Bible does it tell anyone to take money from someone else (rich or poor) and give it to others (rich or poor)?

As Christians we are indeed called to help the poor. “There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.” Deuteronomy 15:11

There should be no doubt that every Christian should help the poor to the extent that they are able. “If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.” 1 John 3:17-18

However, we are called to do so as relatives, individuals, or churches. Never as governments. It scares me to make assumptions about scriptures and what the writer or God might have meant. But, every time I hear politicians and others talking about how the government needs to do more for the poor, how the government needs to take more from the wealthy in taxes and give more to the poor, I think of this verse:

“They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely.” Mark 12:40

Perhaps more important, God makes it clear that rather than handouts, we are to provide opportunities for the poor and less fortunate to help themselves.

Among many similar verses, Leviticus 19:10 says “Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God.”

This is very wise advice.

Someone who is simply given a handout develops no real appreciation for it. They don’t value it. And, the more often they receive something for nothing, the less they value what they’ve received. To a lesser extent, people who don’t value something can be more wasteful – of food, housing, healthcare choices, or what have you. Why be a conscientious consumer if it doesn’t cost you anything?

Someone who is given a handout begins to expect more handouts. The more someone receives from others, the more they expect. It’s human nature. Instead of appreciating what they’ve received from others, they begin to complain when they don’t receive it or if they receive less or if what they’re receiving doesn’t increase. Soon that expectation turns into a right – people have filed lawsuits when the handouts stopped or were reduced!

Someone who receives their livelihood with little or none of their own effort develops low self-esteem.

Someone who receives handouts from a far-off faceless government has no appreciation for what they’ve received and for the fact that behind their handout are people who’ve given something up in their own lives to provide the handout.

Those who receive welfare, be it foodstamps, welfare checks, or free healthcare, have little incentive to improve themselves. They have little or no appreciation for what they are receiving, and do not feel that they are a part of the rest of society.

There are shining exceptions, but unfortunately few and far between.

And on the other side is the animosity that these handouts generate. When people who work hard for their money see a significant chunk of it going towards taxes they become irritated. When they see a lot of these taxes then going to help poor people who do not seem appreciative it, who do not seem to be working towards getting off of welfare or helping themselves, who use foodstamps to buy junkfood while listening to their $300 ipod, who have among the highest obesity rates in the population, …this animosity turns to anger. And then when they hear more and more calls for more and more money to be poured in to social welfare programs…

On the other hand, following what the Bible teaches produces a far different result.

Someone who receives support and assistance from an individual or even their church has a much greater appreciation for what they’ve received. They value it more. They know the person or people who they received it from and they know that these people made sacrifices in their own lives to help others. Besides valuing and appreciating what they have received, they have a sense of being loved and cared for by these people.

Someone who works for what they’ve received may have an even greater appreciation. Aside from appreciation and value though, they’ve put their own effort into it. Their self-esteem is improved because they have earned their livelihood themselves. They feel more a part of normal society.

Receiving assistance from those closer to us, relatives, individuals, and our church, also has the benefit of providing a lot more than just material assistance. Closer support often comes with assistance in better managing our lives and support for making better decisions.

And that animosity people feel toward the unappreciative poor? Here it is replaced by enthusiasm. People, even many grinchy kinds of people, enjoy helping those who are genuinely appreciative and who are working and doing their best to help themselves.

The upshot is that instead of people angry on one side that they’re not getting enough handouts and people angry on the other that they’re being taken advantage of, we have appreciation and enthusiasm. We have people working together.

Now, which sounds better?

“Jesus answered, If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'” Matthew 19:21

Rick Perry very handily won the Texas Republican Primary yesterday and did so against Kay Bailey Hutchison, who is often believed to be the most popular politician in Texas. Apparently not.

Hutchison is not a fiscal conservative. On that point, I’m glad she was voted down. From what I know of him Perry is at least somewhat fiscally conservative and says the right things about state’s rights and federalism.

On the other hand, his comments about, and treatment of, the FLDS Mormons at Yearning for Zion Ranch is completely and utterly repulsive. To support, in any way, the removal of 500 children from their parents ONLY because you disagree with their polygynous lifestyle is reprehensible. As became evident in the follow-on court cases, there was no evidence whatsoever to justify the government raiding the ranch and taking the children. I strongly disagree with many elements of Mormon theology and some elements of their lifestyle, but unless they are harming others, there is no cause for action against them.

Knowing all of this I get ill every time I see Rick Perry speak.

Note: I wrote this earlier and forgot to post…

This morning I was in my favorite café writing the previous post about Harry Reid and rationing healthcare. When I sat at my table I noticed a college-aged girl sitting at a table by herself not too far away from me. About an hour later she was joined by a friend. They talked and laughed, kind of loudly. Maybe 30 minutes later a 3rd friend joined them and their collective loudness increased. It wasn’t just their talking, which was quite louder than it needed to be for all of them to hear, but every few minutes they would erupt into raucous laughing cackles.

Their loud talking was distracting, but I was fairly successful in tuning it out. The cackles were another thing entirely, completely interrupting my train of thought with each outburst.

After some time I finally leaned over and asked if they could “use their inside voices”.

They weren’t amused. One of them was quite offended. But they did quiet down. And I quit bugging them. (that last sentence added just so I could use quite, quiet, and quit in one paragraph ). Two guys sitting on the other side of their table from me mouthed their thanks for my saying something.

About 15 minutes later they announced, somewhat loudly, “Let’s get out of here.”. And off they went. Of course, unlike most patrons of this wonderful café, they didn’t bother to remove their dirty cups so the table would be clean for the next person.

As I was getting ready to leave a woman walked over and thanked me for saying something. I appreciated that.

Where do we draw the line? What behavior is acceptable and what behavior is not. At what point is it proper to correct someone else’s behavior?

If I’m in a drinking pub in Scotland I’d never say anything to someone about being too loud or obnoxious. It’s acceptable and rather expected. There are nuances though. For one, a pub is not a pub is not a pub. Loud and obnoxious isn’t as acceptable in a pub that sells as much food as drink. Loud and obnoxious is more acceptable later than earlier.

In cafés around Europe loud and obnoxious behavior is quite unacceptable and it’s not unusual for staff or others to say something to loud folk (who are often American). Same goes for trains and other public places. In many European countries there’s a pretty strong belief that you should do what you can to avoid interfering with or irritating others. They talk just loud enough for their friends to hear.

In the U.S.?

Sen. Harry Reid commented this morning that the U.S. is the only nation where people must file for bankruptcy because of healthcare costs. This may or may not be true. What he declined to mention is that in other nations most of these people would not have received the healthcare in the first place.

Healthcare is expensive. There are some areas where we can certainly cut healthcare costs but the reality is that if someone needs major surgery it is going to cost at least thousands and likely tens of thousands and maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars. The costs of the people involved, the equipment, drugs, and hospital facilities are what they are.

No nation can afford to provide full, complete, and unrationed healthcare to all of its citizens. The costs to do so, with today’s technology, would exceed the GDP of any nation.

Some form of rationing is required. There will not be enough to go around. Most countries with socialized medicine use Queuing as their primary method of rationing. You simply wait your turn until whatever you need becomes available. Many surgical procedures, such as a hip replacement, that we consider critical in the U.S. and that are often provided within hours, may involve several month waits in Canada, The UK, and other countries.

Limiting what procedures are available comes next. Many newer or more expensive procedures fairly widely available in the U.S. are not available at all in countries with socialized medicine. Worse, the vast majority of these are developed in the U.S., if we adopt government run healthcare system who will invent even better options?

The final form of rationing is probably best termed Justification. Does this person’s life justify spending limited resources on them? Is it worth spending $20k on a hip replacement to a 90-year-old? How about $40k in chemo therapy for someone with severe mental and physical disabilities?

So yes Harry, some people in the U.S. may go in to debt or even bankruptcy to get medical care . But under the system you want to give us they wouldn’t even have that option.

Among the numerous commotions at last week’s CPAC in Washington was the official inclusion and recognition of Gay Republicans.

For some people this is a screaming huge oxymoron. How can someone who is gay, and more to the point, someone who supports being gay, be any part of the conservative (or Republican) establishment?

My question: Why can’t they be?

If I understand the purpose of CPAC it is to fight for political issues, not religious issues. If I’m correct, and I admit, I may not be, then our primary goals are:

National Security – We want (and need) our government to coordinate our national defenses. To help us protect ourselves from those countries, ideologies, and individuals who might want to harm us and take away our liberties.

Domestic Security – We need government to coordinate the laws and law enforcement necessary for peaceful and orderly daily life. We need laws and law enforcement to protect us from criminals who would do us harm such as murderers, rapists, thieves, and drunk drivers and we need laws for coordinating common and fair behavior such as rules of the road and financial accounting.

Functional Infrastructure – We need government to help coordinate the building and maintaining of roadways, flight control, telecommunications, and similar infrastructure for the public good.

Restraint – We want a more fiscally responsible, smaller, and less intrusive government. We don’t want government meddling in or taking over private enterprise or private lives. We don’t want socialist redistribution. We don’t want heavy regulations telling us what we can and cannot do if it doesn’t impact other people.

So far, I’d guess many gays fit in extremely well. I know a number of gays who support all of the above 100%.

So where’s the problem?

At the core is that, for many Christians, myself included, homosexuality is a sin. Well, if we kick out everyone in the conservative movement who sins, or even just the ones who sin regularly, we’ll have a pretty small group. The bigger issue though is that this isn’t a church. Do the Baptists want to kick out everyone who’s not Baptist? The Catholics kick out all the non-Catholics? What about the Episcopalians, Atheists, Presbyterians, Agnostics, and Jews? What religious groups ideology and theology do we plan to use as a litmus test for who to include and who not to?

This is a political group, not a church. Its purpose is to promote and organize a government that makes the U.S. a safe and equitable place for each and all of us to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. Someone being gay does not intrude on my life, liberty or happiness.

How about gay marriage? Well, I’m not for it. In fact, in light of recent events with Catholic Charities being forced out of their adoption business, I’m pretty strongly opposed to it. But then, a number of gays I know aren’t for it either. Gay marriage also isn’t one of the core fundamentals above. And if we’re planning to use support of gay marriage as a litmus test then we have a lot of non-gays to deal with first, starting with our newest Republican, Sen. Scott Brown. We can welcome someone who supports the core concepts of liberty and fiscal responsibility and agree to disagree on gay marriage while we continue to discuss it, its implications, and options, in a rational way.

Gays in the military? No problem (though I don’t support Don’t Ask Don’t Tell as it effectively commands someone to lie, not a good precedent). The valid concern is one of housing and this can be solved similarly to how it was with women.

The gay agenda? First we have to define what ‘the gay agenda’ is, and that would take much longer than the time we have here. There are elements of it that I strongly oppose. Interestingly, I know gays who oppose these elements as well.

What about the estimated 17% of Republicans who visited prostitutes during the GOP convention in Minneapolis? Do we give them all the boot? Many politically active conservative Christians believe that drinking alcohol is a sin, are they working to kick everyone out of the conservative movement who drinks? We can welcome those who drink alcohol and at the same time support tougher drunk driving penalties. We can welcome gays and at the same time support separate housing for gays in the military.

Tiger Woods gave a brief 15 minute statement this morning. The first we’ve seen or heard from him since the public revelations of his sex life late last year. The amount of coverage devoted to Tiger and his sexual trysts over the past couple of months has been truly amazing. Perhaps more interesting is the amount of time over the past 48 hours given over to speculation on what he would say this morning. He even surpassed the profit motives of wall-street as trading came to a near standstill for the 15 minutes he spoke. And on the disgusting side is the coverage and stalking of his wife, children, and friends the past months.

And all of this because he’s, well, just like everyone else.

He’s like Elliot Spitzer, Hugh Grant, Ryan Philippe, Charlie Sheen, Jude Law, Peter Cook, Ethan Hawke, David Boreanaz, Jessie Ventura, Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Kobe Bryant, David Vitter, Dick Morris, Larry Craig, Barney Frank, Henry Hyde, Bob Livingston, Geraldo Rivera, Newt Gingrich, Bill Randall, Bob Barr, Wayne Pace, Newt Gingrich, John Edwards, Gary Hart, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, John F. Kennedy, David Letterman,

…and over 80% of all men.

OK, maybe he’s not totally like David Boreanaz who was married to Rachel Uchitel when he had a mistress (or three?) unlike Tiger for whom Rachel was a mistress. Got it?

Statistically, over 80% of the male journalists, pundits, and others talking about Tiger are no different than he is. And over 80% of the men watching the news coverage or reading the plethora of articles about him are just like him. And over 80% of the women have husbands just like him. Just about every study on this topic indicates that fewer than 20% of married men are monogamous (and then only if you don’t include porn).

And Tiger being average is news? This would be like news bulletins that Tiger believes Elvis is dead. Actually, there are probably more guys who believe that Elvis is alive than are monogamous so Tiger believing Elvis is dead would be more newsworthy.

Who are we to be critical of Tiger? Why is his sex life even remotely any of our business anyway?

I’m not saying that what Tiger did is OK or that it’s OK for anyone. But our collective national hypocrisy (to quote Joseph McNamara) is rather deafening.

We need to get over ourselves.

29 Hours in a Day
Male Menopause
A Truly Universal Remote
Free Chocolate
Male Periods
Clone to wash, cook, clean bathrooms, please him…
Three-Day Weekends
Bounce Free Workouts
Male Pregnancy
Urinals (just like the boys have)
Did I mention guys getting a visit from Aunt Flo? Every month!

Are people less considerate of others than they used to be? Are people in the U.S. less considerate of others than people in Europe? Or Asia?

Yesterday I was working in one of my favorite cafes. There is a line of about 10 small rectangular tables lined up along one wall that are prime spots for people with laptops. The table next to me was empty and a woman who’s a professor at a local university put her bag on it and began to get her laptop out when she noticed a friend sitting nearby. She stopped to talk to him briefly and as their conversation continued she sat in the chair to rest her legs (she walks with a cane, not sure why).

About 10 minutes later a guy who was sitting in one of the sofa’s came over, grabbed her bag and then shouted at me “Is this yours?”

“No.” I replied as I reached to keep her laptop from falling out of her bag.

The professor shouted over that it was hers and her friend came over and grabbed her bag from the ofe who was still holding it.

I said no more until about 30 minutes later as I was putting my laptop away to leave. I mentioned to the guy that he really shouldn’t grab other people’s stuff without asking. He was quite offended by my saying this.

Before delving in to this let me make one thing clear. SMOKING POT IS STUPID! It is not harmless. It messes with peoples mental ability.

But then, we all do stupid things occasionally don’t we?

I recently met a guy named Marcus. Marcus is African American, 37-years-old, dropped out of school in 11th grade, has 4 kids (that he knows of), and lives with the mother of the two youngest along with his second child. He doesn’t know where his first child, Sarah is. Sarah’s mother moved away with her soon after she was born. Marcus has a couple of arrests on his record for drug possession, once for cocaine, once for pot. Thanks to prison over-crowding he was given probation both times instead of a jail sentence. He no longer does cocaine, but still gets together with friends once or twice a week to smoke a joint in the garage behind his house.

I drove by his house one day. This is not a neighborhood I felt very comfortable in and I’ve spent some time in some pretty unappealing and rough neighborhoods. I didn’t even slow down when I drove by. His house is a 1940’s 500 square foot pseudo Cap Cod in need of a lot of work. I also saw the 1 car parallelogram shaped garage in back where he and his friends smoke their pot.

So, what do you think about Marcus? Sound like a problem? Not someone you’d want living next door to you? Someone with a lot of things in his life to fix? Should he be arrested and convicted for dealing and smoking pot? Think his children should be taken away from him?

I met Marcus through a mutual acquaintance, one of the people Marcus smokes a joint with occasionally. Our mutual acquaintance just so happens to also be his
former probation officer. Marcus has been off probation for 14 years but they’ve stayed in touch because his probation officer has become a mentor to Marcus for these many years. It was his probation officer who, a year after his probation ended, helped him decide to quite doing cocaine, to marry the mother of his child, and to become a father rather than just a baby maker.

Marcus works at an industrial laundry. He doesn’t make much money but it’s a job and has provided 7 years of steady income. He knows the street and the local gangs and works to keep his kids free from them. Though he cut his own education short he’s intent on all of his children at least finishing high school. He doesn’t know much about college or ‘professional’ careers but he does know that he wants them to get jobs and be “decent”.

What good would it do to arrest Marcus? To throw him in prison? He may not be an ideal father, but he is a father. Will his kids do better if they’re visiting him in prison instead of having him at home?

And what about a pot smoking probation officer? I met him at a Christmas dinner for the board of directors for our state’s second largest charitable foundation. My wife is on the board with his wife (who is BTW, a VP of Engineering for a Fortune 100 corporation). Their oldest child goes to NYU and plans to be a neurologist. Should he be arrested for his pot smoking? What good would that do?

Both of these guys will tell you that they know that they’ve been permanently harmed by their pot smoking. I don’t disagree, particularly with Marcus, who exhibits typical pot-head slowness. My probation officer friend said that he has cut back to just once or twice a month though. Neither of them believes that any future harm from their occasional use is worth giving it up.

On this last point I strongly disagree. I think that their current and future use, even just once or twice per month, will harm them. I also think that their actions are harming their families.

On the other hand, they are both, from everything I’ve been able to tell, decent husbands and pretty good fathers.

Is it possible that a pot head can also be a good spouse, father, and citizen? Probable even?

Our society’s solution is to arrest Marcus. Is that the right thing to do?

There is a well-known study by Barna Group regarding a higher divorce rate among Christians than among non-Christians. I’ve also mentioned my own initial study indicating that the divorce rate among those who meet at Christian colleges appears even higher than this.

The February 2010 issue of Christianity Today magazine includes an article entitled Why Gayle Haggard Stayed. The clear insinuation that it would be expected by Christianity Today’s readers that she would have left her husband Ted Haggard.

Throughout the Biblical period and likely up through the first 1800 or so years of Christianity no such headline would ever have appeared. Until just very recently, perhaps the past 80 or so years, a woman in Gayle’s position wouldn’t have even considered divorcing her husband. Why? First because doing so would go against God’s commands regarding marriage and divorce, second would be her love for her children and the knowledge of the impact of divorce on them, and perhaps a distant third would be her concern for how she would support herself and her children as a single-mother.

Some reading this will quickly disagree with my first point. Certainly it would be OK and maybe even preferable for Gayle to divorce Ted in this situation. Biblically though, that’s not so. The only reason given for divorce in the Bible is adultery, which throughout history and until just very recently involved a married woman having sex with someone other than her husband. Ted having sex with someone other than his wife was not adultery and from a Biblical standpoint was not grounds for divorce.

I’m not excusing Ted Haggard’s actions. From my reading of the Bible, he was clearly involved in sexual sin. But when we wonder why we get divorced so much more now than ever before and more often than non-Christians, well…