1) I've been following this story for the past few weeks about a UN inspector who is inspecting holding facilities in the US for illegal immigrants. When I first read the story, my thought was, ‘it’s about time the US gets investigated for something.’ Now most of the investigations have taken place. A few however were cancelled at the last minute and no reason was given. The only one that was given a reason was a cancellation in TX in which the facility spokesman basically said that they were in the middle of a law suit with the ACLU and didn’t want any incrimination brought about that could aide the ACLU. The whole part about us denying a UN inspector and not wanting to incriminate ourselves reminds me of the 01/02 time-frame when Iraq kept denying UN weapons inspectors. Just one more example of how hypocritical our government is.
2) I once heard an explanation terrorists are basically created the same way gang members are -- poor people (young men) looking for dignity but get into situations they can’t get out of. I’ve always like this, but put some more thought into it today. Terrorism has 3 attributes according to international law: a) the threat or act of violence creating a climate of fear, b) targets civilians, and c) is based upon political, social, economic, or religious reasons. (With this definition, basically everyone who commits a crime is a terrorist, but our national and state laws also define certain crimes, so people aren’t tried as terrorists for everything…that’s not my point though.)
The obvious solution to the causes of terrorism as described above is to alleviate the conditions of poverty and such things that cause this behavior. My recent criticism of this theory is as follows… by targeting poverty as the cause of terrorism we might ignore many other issues. Governments for example…our government has had a history of terrorist activities based on the 3 criteria above. (Sure, we don’t ‘target’ civilians we call it collateral damage.) Terrorist groups like al-Qaeda are made up of mostly middle-class educated people. At least one of the guys that hi-jacked the planes for the 9-11 thing had been in school in Germany as an example… not poor and ignorant like we want to assume.
So, as far as I can wrap my brain around it, the danger of focusing on the cause of terrorism being poverty, we might ignore our role in the whole situation and also ignore holding our government accountable for it’s actions. We are trying to ‘Americanize’ the entire world and people hate us for it. While doing this we are also taking part in terrorist type activities, holding ourselves to different standards, and further pissing people off. There was an even stronger point I had come up with but I seem to have forgotten it now. That sucks…it was a good one. Of course we should take some responsibility in alleviating world poverty, but not in the name of fighting terrorism. Our reason should just be, ‘because we can’
3) I’ve been reading the Old Testament because I never have and I don’t know many of the stories from it in depth. I want to examine a few things while reading it. When and why does God call for war? What things might be metaphor and not realistic? With that – why would it be important for certain things to not be seen as history but as symbolism? What notions do I have of God that might be wrong or at least not completely biblical or correct?
What I’ve found so far: Not only is Got a jealous god, but he is pretty damn forgetful too. A few times so far God is about to put his wrath on some people and someone says, “wait, what about your promises to us?” and God says, “Oh shit! You’re right, I almost screwed that up. Thanks man, here’s a treat.”
There’s more that I’ve learned, but that’s the most fun right now.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Mother's day
I saw this sign on the way down the highway today. Kinda thought it was funny...ironic I suppose.Mother's Day
I haven't sent any flower or cards to my mom for Mother's Day over the past few years. A couple of times I've gone over to her town and taken her out to dinner but I try not to go there too often. This year she's married and was going to be in an even shittier town celebrating mother's day with her new husband and some of his family so I stayed in Santa Cruz. I have this thing where I don't like to buy stuff for holidays. I hold firm in my belief that most holidays are simply there for companies to sell shit. They may not have always had that purpose but since holidays have turned into marketing devices I refuse to participate. I could have made a card and sent it to her, but even then I would be buying supplies in support of the holiday. I've gotten some flack because I choose not to do this. The main arguement is that it's not about me it's about her. I have to admit that it is a little selfish that I might be making her kind of sad in an attempt to hold to my own values but hopefully she will understand.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Time for a rant!
In my frustration with the media coverage of the guy that crashed his truck in Oakland, CA I wrote a letter to the editor of our local paper that got published this past Sunday*. I was actually kind of amazed that they published it because I accused them of libel.
This whole thing has made me even more frustrated with the world we live in. Seriously, I hate our world. Everybody falls into one of three categories: 1) Assholes who only look out for their own interests (CEO's, politicians, and religious leaders) 2) Giant pussies who are afraid to stand up for what is right and rely on other people to make decisions for them, or 3) people who do the best make their point only to be dissappointed at the end of the day knowing that their world is just one day closer to being a complete shit hole. Why can't option 3, the people that really care about the world, have as much media coverage as category 1? I'm no genius, but I'd bet that the number of people in the world who are willing to put aside religious issues and other such hang-ups in order to create a more peaceful and safe world (2 & 3), greatly out-number the folks who want power at any cost(1). But no-one hears us.
The media has special protection under the consitution because of the importance put on personal freedom. The media is protected in order for it to be able to provide information that you wouldn't normally get from your government...because the framers of the constitution understood, as much as all of us do, that governments lie...not just our government, but ALL governments. I don't know where I was first introduced to the following idea, but somewhere along the way someone said that 'the government and media can't tell you what to think, but they can tell you what to think about'.
When AP and all the papers across the country publish one man's criminal record, when it has nothing to do with any crime committed or foul play of any kind, what is it that they are not telling us. What drives them to publish sensational bullshit instead of real news? My answer: the media can't get any answers from the government so they've given up. Just like in the Rawanda deal in the 90's, the U.S. and the entire world community is being cautious about calling the problem in Darfur genocide. If they were to do that, then according to U.N. agreements, they'd have to intervene. They have not been able to come up with anything, so the press leaves it alone. It's not sexy enough to print.
I have a bit of a theory. It's not original, just my own take on it. The world is getting dumber (or is it 'more dumber'?...yes I'm funny). Look at the US. Because of TV and other forms of motion media, people don't need to read. We see this problem in our own schools. News papers and other print periodicals can provide a vast array of mainstream and underground knowledge that you can't get anywhere else. But with the growth in illiteracy, or at least proficient literacy, less people are reading these, they're going out of print, and we must rely on the electronic media. What happens is that whatever is shown on TV is all people know about, and the only news they get. Such as the lack of coverage on the battle of naming what is going on in Darfur. In the mid 20th century, Nepal was faced with a massive change in government. There were communists, socialists, royalists, and the list goes on of different parties who were trying to control the county. What it boiled down to was who had access to radio and TV to get their views across because the vast majority of the population was illiterate. Same thing as in Rawanda; the Hutu extremists made use of radio broadcasts to get the people up in arms to slaughter the Tutsi.
What I think this leads to is simple. Since electronic media is funded mainly by advertising, the public is more and more bombarded with ads. These ads tell little boys and girls what they can and can't be. They tell kids that they need to watch "the OC" because that's where they'll learn how to be cool. All of this is done for the sake of money. The marketing firms and corporations are just out to make another buck...and they're doing it at the expense of us, and more importantly our kids. Higher teen pregnancy rates, highers death rates, school shootings, drug use...on and on and on.
What can we do? NOT A DAMN THING!! But it feels good to try.
*text of my letter:
I feel a deep sympathy for this Mosqueda guy who crashed his truck in Oakland. He was well past the TSA standards for driving hazmat and posed no threat. The whole point of prison and recovery is re-integration into mainstream society so people can show reform and become productive citizens — just like Mosqueda has done with his 10 years of sobriety and having a job. But as the way of the media, there must be a scandal. If anyone should be scolded and their reputation tainted, it should be AP for reporting this libel and the Sentinel as well as every other paper for printing it. The reports could have been excitement that, amazingly, nobody got hurt. But that wouldn't accomplish their goal of keeping the fear level at "orange!"
This whole thing has made me even more frustrated with the world we live in. Seriously, I hate our world. Everybody falls into one of three categories: 1) Assholes who only look out for their own interests (CEO's, politicians, and religious leaders) 2) Giant pussies who are afraid to stand up for what is right and rely on other people to make decisions for them, or 3) people who do the best make their point only to be dissappointed at the end of the day knowing that their world is just one day closer to being a complete shit hole. Why can't option 3, the people that really care about the world, have as much media coverage as category 1? I'm no genius, but I'd bet that the number of people in the world who are willing to put aside religious issues and other such hang-ups in order to create a more peaceful and safe world (2 & 3), greatly out-number the folks who want power at any cost(1). But no-one hears us.
The media has special protection under the consitution because of the importance put on personal freedom. The media is protected in order for it to be able to provide information that you wouldn't normally get from your government...because the framers of the constitution understood, as much as all of us do, that governments lie...not just our government, but ALL governments. I don't know where I was first introduced to the following idea, but somewhere along the way someone said that 'the government and media can't tell you what to think, but they can tell you what to think about'.
When AP and all the papers across the country publish one man's criminal record, when it has nothing to do with any crime committed or foul play of any kind, what is it that they are not telling us. What drives them to publish sensational bullshit instead of real news? My answer: the media can't get any answers from the government so they've given up. Just like in the Rawanda deal in the 90's, the U.S. and the entire world community is being cautious about calling the problem in Darfur genocide. If they were to do that, then according to U.N. agreements, they'd have to intervene. They have not been able to come up with anything, so the press leaves it alone. It's not sexy enough to print.
I have a bit of a theory. It's not original, just my own take on it. The world is getting dumber (or is it 'more dumber'?...yes I'm funny). Look at the US. Because of TV and other forms of motion media, people don't need to read. We see this problem in our own schools. News papers and other print periodicals can provide a vast array of mainstream and underground knowledge that you can't get anywhere else. But with the growth in illiteracy, or at least proficient literacy, less people are reading these, they're going out of print, and we must rely on the electronic media. What happens is that whatever is shown on TV is all people know about, and the only news they get. Such as the lack of coverage on the battle of naming what is going on in Darfur. In the mid 20th century, Nepal was faced with a massive change in government. There were communists, socialists, royalists, and the list goes on of different parties who were trying to control the county. What it boiled down to was who had access to radio and TV to get their views across because the vast majority of the population was illiterate. Same thing as in Rawanda; the Hutu extremists made use of radio broadcasts to get the people up in arms to slaughter the Tutsi.
What I think this leads to is simple. Since electronic media is funded mainly by advertising, the public is more and more bombarded with ads. These ads tell little boys and girls what they can and can't be. They tell kids that they need to watch "the OC" because that's where they'll learn how to be cool. All of this is done for the sake of money. The marketing firms and corporations are just out to make another buck...and they're doing it at the expense of us, and more importantly our kids. Higher teen pregnancy rates, highers death rates, school shootings, drug use...on and on and on.
What can we do? NOT A DAMN THING!! But it feels good to try.
*text of my letter:
I feel a deep sympathy for this Mosqueda guy who crashed his truck in Oakland. He was well past the TSA standards for driving hazmat and posed no threat. The whole point of prison and recovery is re-integration into mainstream society so people can show reform and become productive citizens — just like Mosqueda has done with his 10 years of sobriety and having a job. But as the way of the media, there must be a scandal. If anyone should be scolded and their reputation tainted, it should be AP for reporting this libel and the Sentinel as well as every other paper for printing it. The reports could have been excitement that, amazingly, nobody got hurt. But that wouldn't accomplish their goal of keeping the fear level at "orange!"
Thursday, May 03, 2007
I've had my one-in-a-milliion situation in ministry
So, I gave a talk tonight. I'm never nervous about speaking in front of middle school kids because I do it often. Tonight however I was a little nervous. I gave my talk tonight on what this whole God/Jesus thing means to me. I started off by telling the kids that the've been dealt a crappy hand in life. That the world sucks. And that we went through the Jesus story to find a solution to our shitty world. I proceeded to tell them that at one point I stopped believing in God and eventually came back to faith because I re-discovered what God was.
Anyways...here's the fun part. After the talk, I was milling around and a kid grabbed me and struck up a converstation about my talk and how it interested him. How he is trying to figure out this whole God thing and he's not sure what to think, but what I said was intrigueing(spelling?). Then his friends came around and he stopped talking.
Every youth worker hopes at some point that a kid will engage them in conversation about God or whatever. It makes us feel like we're doing our job...even for me. I don't ever expect to "lead a kid to Christ" in the traditional sense, but I do enjoy a nice real conversation and l like to hear kids question things. All I want to do, is be there to help them think through things. This is probably the only time this will ever happen in the rest of my ministry career...and that's ok. James was the youth pastor at a church I went to in early high school. I wonder if I was that kid for him at all -- the one that he never thought he'd "reach" -- although i didn't really hang around him much. But I can imagine that if the NOW me was working with the THEN me, the NOW me would be pretty damn frustrated.
Anyways, tonight I as encouraged. That's nice for a change. I get verbal encouragement from people all the time, but this was a different type of encouragement.
Anyways...here's the fun part. After the talk, I was milling around and a kid grabbed me and struck up a converstation about my talk and how it interested him. How he is trying to figure out this whole God thing and he's not sure what to think, but what I said was intrigueing(spelling?). Then his friends came around and he stopped talking.
Every youth worker hopes at some point that a kid will engage them in conversation about God or whatever. It makes us feel like we're doing our job...even for me. I don't ever expect to "lead a kid to Christ" in the traditional sense, but I do enjoy a nice real conversation and l like to hear kids question things. All I want to do, is be there to help them think through things. This is probably the only time this will ever happen in the rest of my ministry career...and that's ok. James was the youth pastor at a church I went to in early high school. I wonder if I was that kid for him at all -- the one that he never thought he'd "reach" -- although i didn't really hang around him much. But I can imagine that if the NOW me was working with the THEN me, the NOW me would be pretty damn frustrated.
Anyways, tonight I as encouraged. That's nice for a change. I get verbal encouragement from people all the time, but this was a different type of encouragement.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
My name is Thomas...or is it Judas?
I've been wondering lately what my purpose in working with kids is. What does God have in store for me? It's funny that Mike posted his recent 'Marginalia' post about the same time that I'm wondering many of the same things as him. It could have something to do with the fact that we live in the same place, but I'm not going to entertain that idea...it would be too easy. Although it could be something in the water.
Anyways, at the youth group I work with, we just finished the story of Jesus right around Easter. Since then I've been having the leaders tell the kids -- in the weekly talk -- about what this whole God/Jesus thing means to them. They've been telling these warm fuzzy stories about feeling accepted by God and being able to turn to God when they couldn't turn to anyone else..blah blah blah. Can I vomit now? The reason I say that is because I've never felt that crap. My entire history of faith has for the most part been brief moments of clarity surrounded by an assload of doubt.
I suppose my job, my purpose, is to share Jesus with these kids. Two problems: 1) I don't even feel like I have a grasp on that stuff most of the time. What is it that they need to hear about Jesus? My pastor and I were having a discussion the other day, and he elaborated on it in his sermon this past Sunday. He made the comment that in the church we have a tendency to lay out the story of Jesus as if he is saving us from God. That God is punishing us for being so bad and Jesus came to repair that relationship so we don't die. This is the part of 'sharing Jesus' that really turns me off to it.
At these camps we go to, on the night the speaker is going to talk about sin, he always encourages us leaders to let the kids wrestle with the idea that they sin and can't have a relationship with God. As if they've driven him far away. Do the kids not already have enough to worry about and to be scared about? Their parents are splitting, they get beat up at school everyday, and the list goes on... How then do I share about Jesus? This leads to problem 2): I'm not good at having conversations about spirituallity...especially with kids. I think the main reason is that I want to be absolutely sure that I'm not trying to convince these kids of anything. This whole Christianity thing is a HUGE deal. It's something that i want them to CHOOSE, not be talked into. I want them to come to this choice (if they do) completely on their own...so it completely belongs to them. So they know exactly why they are making any decision in regards to Jesus.
Maybe that's my place. Maybe it's perfectly fine for me to be the doubter guy that lets them choose this stuff on their own. The only way that I feel like I can share the whole Jesus thing with them is through actions. Man that sounds cheesy! I consider myself a pacifist and try to take that to the extreme. Not only do I not physically want to impose myself anywhere, but ideologically I try to shy away from imposing my views. In any public setting, I will only engage in spiritual conversations if it is brought up by someone else or 100% appropriate (such as camp or church). It's about letting people come to their own conclusions on their own terms. I'm pretty sure that alot of other leaders and parents and other folks who work with kids, see the way I interact with the kids, and wonder if I'm actually doing my job. Apparently they think my job is to convert these kids: to make sure that they are perfect little Christians.
Unfortunately, I don't have any conclusion to this.
Anyways, at the youth group I work with, we just finished the story of Jesus right around Easter. Since then I've been having the leaders tell the kids -- in the weekly talk -- about what this whole God/Jesus thing means to them. They've been telling these warm fuzzy stories about feeling accepted by God and being able to turn to God when they couldn't turn to anyone else..blah blah blah. Can I vomit now? The reason I say that is because I've never felt that crap. My entire history of faith has for the most part been brief moments of clarity surrounded by an assload of doubt.
I suppose my job, my purpose, is to share Jesus with these kids. Two problems: 1) I don't even feel like I have a grasp on that stuff most of the time. What is it that they need to hear about Jesus? My pastor and I were having a discussion the other day, and he elaborated on it in his sermon this past Sunday. He made the comment that in the church we have a tendency to lay out the story of Jesus as if he is saving us from God. That God is punishing us for being so bad and Jesus came to repair that relationship so we don't die. This is the part of 'sharing Jesus' that really turns me off to it.
At these camps we go to, on the night the speaker is going to talk about sin, he always encourages us leaders to let the kids wrestle with the idea that they sin and can't have a relationship with God. As if they've driven him far away. Do the kids not already have enough to worry about and to be scared about? Their parents are splitting, they get beat up at school everyday, and the list goes on... How then do I share about Jesus? This leads to problem 2): I'm not good at having conversations about spirituallity...especially with kids. I think the main reason is that I want to be absolutely sure that I'm not trying to convince these kids of anything. This whole Christianity thing is a HUGE deal. It's something that i want them to CHOOSE, not be talked into. I want them to come to this choice (if they do) completely on their own...so it completely belongs to them. So they know exactly why they are making any decision in regards to Jesus.
Maybe that's my place. Maybe it's perfectly fine for me to be the doubter guy that lets them choose this stuff on their own. The only way that I feel like I can share the whole Jesus thing with them is through actions. Man that sounds cheesy! I consider myself a pacifist and try to take that to the extreme. Not only do I not physically want to impose myself anywhere, but ideologically I try to shy away from imposing my views. In any public setting, I will only engage in spiritual conversations if it is brought up by someone else or 100% appropriate (such as camp or church). It's about letting people come to their own conclusions on their own terms. I'm pretty sure that alot of other leaders and parents and other folks who work with kids, see the way I interact with the kids, and wonder if I'm actually doing my job. Apparently they think my job is to convert these kids: to make sure that they are perfect little Christians.
Unfortunately, I don't have any conclusion to this.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
I might have a fun idea!
I'm watching the Senate on C-Span right now. They are discussion medical insurance companies, drug makers, and how their relationships and competition makes drug prices cheaper for the American people. The arguement is whether or not to allow medicare to negotiate prices directly with drug companies or whether it's best to let private insurance companies negotiate their prices. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) says that "competition works" so if we let medicare negotiate prices we will undermine the market by interfering with the natural competition of the medical market. John Kerry (D-Mass) says that by not allowing medicare to negotiate their own prices the tax payers are paying higher prices for drugs through a federal program. I have an opinion on the matter but it doesn't matter.
What I see in this, is a deeper arguement of whether or not America should create a universal medical insurance system or the private companies should continue to have the upper hand. Congress seems to be passing all sorts of legislation regarding healthcare that is beating around the bush on the issue of universal healthcare. So, what do the American peole think? I don't know what polls say. But I do know that behind any issue like this there is a massive amount of money going into lobbying our Congressfolks. Does a poll on this matter even have any leverage here? Probably not...I can't make a poll and get an accurate count of what people think, but someone with money can. And there lies the issue that brings me to my point. Our relationship with Congress is based on money. Whoever has the most money has the biggest voice (in most cases).
All of this leads me to this thought - How would it work if there were national issues attached to the presidential elections every four years that gave the people a voice. If a national election could be held, not to pass legislation, but to let Congress and the President know how we stand on issues. For example, the congress passed a non-binding resolution that told the President their stance on the war in Iraq. There would obviously have to be limits on something like this. Maybe that would look like a certain amount of issues (i.e. gay marriage, universal health care, limits on abortion). They would be the most pressing issue surrounding the presidential election. The problem would be figuring out who got to choose what went on this list. Would it be Congress? Would it be a committee set up? Would it be the cabinet with approval from the current President?
Sure, this comes out of my distrust of Congress. I think that too many representatives don't actually pay attention to what their constituency wants and only play attention to who donates the most money to them. I don't have any answers, but if anyone out there wants to put in their own two cents on the idea i've proposed, it would be appreciated.
What I see in this, is a deeper arguement of whether or not America should create a universal medical insurance system or the private companies should continue to have the upper hand. Congress seems to be passing all sorts of legislation regarding healthcare that is beating around the bush on the issue of universal healthcare. So, what do the American peole think? I don't know what polls say. But I do know that behind any issue like this there is a massive amount of money going into lobbying our Congressfolks. Does a poll on this matter even have any leverage here? Probably not...I can't make a poll and get an accurate count of what people think, but someone with money can. And there lies the issue that brings me to my point. Our relationship with Congress is based on money. Whoever has the most money has the biggest voice (in most cases).
All of this leads me to this thought - How would it work if there were national issues attached to the presidential elections every four years that gave the people a voice. If a national election could be held, not to pass legislation, but to let Congress and the President know how we stand on issues. For example, the congress passed a non-binding resolution that told the President their stance on the war in Iraq. There would obviously have to be limits on something like this. Maybe that would look like a certain amount of issues (i.e. gay marriage, universal health care, limits on abortion). They would be the most pressing issue surrounding the presidential election. The problem would be figuring out who got to choose what went on this list. Would it be Congress? Would it be a committee set up? Would it be the cabinet with approval from the current President?
Sure, this comes out of my distrust of Congress. I think that too many representatives don't actually pay attention to what their constituency wants and only play attention to who donates the most money to them. I don't have any answers, but if anyone out there wants to put in their own two cents on the idea i've proposed, it would be appreciated.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
I Finally Won Something!
I had one of the most interesting experiences I’ve ever had tonight. About two months ago a professor of mine brought in some flyers for an essay contest to win a scholarship of $1000, toward a trip costing $1500, in which a group of people from across the nation bring medical, educational, and other types of humanitarian aide to the people of Cuba. The point of the trip is to protest the blockade that the U.S. has imposed against the Cuban people since the early 60’s. It’s required by federal law that anyone bringing aide to Cuba must acquire the proper permits to do so, which limit the amount of aide being taken to Cuba. We don’t apply for the permit and refuse to pay any fines that are then given to us.
So, tonight we had a dinner to celebrate community heroes who are active in Latin American affairs both abroad and domestically. I showed up to help set up and was eventually told that I was the winner of the essay contest. After a number of speeches I was introduced by Congressman Sam Farr. He read a little bit of my essay to the crowd then invited me up to accept the check and make a short speech…I wasn’t expecting to have to do this so I had to come up with something as I began to talk. I simply said that with all of the inspiring speeches made tonight I wasn’t going be able to say anything insightful, so thanked the 150+ people there for their support in the community and for helping people like me and the others like me to have the chance to stand up against the government and say in a voice of solidarity that their embargo is immoral a just plain wrong.
The Congressman praised my writing ability (something I generally don’t feel is too incredible). He was briefly heckled by the crowd to hire me on his staff… that was fun.
I was then invited to a little after party by the organization that put the contest on. These are all people in their 60’s to 80’s. We sat around until midnight discussing the various policies of our government and the different ways that they have worked to change things and how we could change things in the future. These people are very well connected people. People who know House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on a first name basis. It was a new thing to sit around in a group of like-minded people discussing things that we all have a good amount of knowledge about. This one guy who has been involved with Cuba and Nicaragua and other Latin American countries was talking about his experiences in the 80’s in working with the Sandinistas and contra groups in Nicaragua trying to fight the coups the Reagan administration was supporting. Crazy stuff.
Listening to some of the stories these people told I became aware of how very few people can make a huge difference. Though I often have conversations with one of my roommates about direct action like protesting and marching do make a difference, I don’t always believe it. Tonight gave me a new way to look at this stuff. The fact that I was presented an award from a U.S. House representative (one of the richest I might add) made me realize that I was closer to the action, to making a difference, than I feel most of the time.
So, in July I’m going to Cuba! This is going to be a tiring trip but meaningful. I don’t get excited about much but I’m excited about this. The people who gave me the scholarship told me a few things they want me to look into while I’m there. They want me to break away from the group to investigate things like the hospital and prison systems so I can write about them and hopefully spread the message to the American people that our policy in Cuba is ridiculous. I don’t know if I’ll actually be able to do that, but this whole thing is going to be fun!
So, tonight we had a dinner to celebrate community heroes who are active in Latin American affairs both abroad and domestically. I showed up to help set up and was eventually told that I was the winner of the essay contest. After a number of speeches I was introduced by Congressman Sam Farr. He read a little bit of my essay to the crowd then invited me up to accept the check and make a short speech…I wasn’t expecting to have to do this so I had to come up with something as I began to talk. I simply said that with all of the inspiring speeches made tonight I wasn’t going be able to say anything insightful, so thanked the 150+ people there for their support in the community and for helping people like me and the others like me to have the chance to stand up against the government and say in a voice of solidarity that their embargo is immoral a just plain wrong.
The Congressman praised my writing ability (something I generally don’t feel is too incredible). He was briefly heckled by the crowd to hire me on his staff… that was fun.
I was then invited to a little after party by the organization that put the contest on. These are all people in their 60’s to 80’s. We sat around until midnight discussing the various policies of our government and the different ways that they have worked to change things and how we could change things in the future. These people are very well connected people. People who know House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on a first name basis. It was a new thing to sit around in a group of like-minded people discussing things that we all have a good amount of knowledge about. This one guy who has been involved with Cuba and Nicaragua and other Latin American countries was talking about his experiences in the 80’s in working with the Sandinistas and contra groups in Nicaragua trying to fight the coups the Reagan administration was supporting. Crazy stuff.
Listening to some of the stories these people told I became aware of how very few people can make a huge difference. Though I often have conversations with one of my roommates about direct action like protesting and marching do make a difference, I don’t always believe it. Tonight gave me a new way to look at this stuff. The fact that I was presented an award from a U.S. House representative (one of the richest I might add) made me realize that I was closer to the action, to making a difference, than I feel most of the time.
So, in July I’m going to Cuba! This is going to be a tiring trip but meaningful. I don’t get excited about much but I’m excited about this. The people who gave me the scholarship told me a few things they want me to look into while I’m there. They want me to break away from the group to investigate things like the hospital and prison systems so I can write about them and hopefully spread the message to the American people that our policy in Cuba is ridiculous. I don’t know if I’ll actually be able to do that, but this whole thing is going to be fun!
Sunday, April 08, 2007
Forty Days of Worthless!
Tomorrow (Monday) marks the beginning of my anti-lent. If you want to know more about my anti-lent, scroll down to read my post about it. I decided to create a new blog for this endeavor because I want the students I work with to read the stories if they want, whereas this blog is for regular people. Also, I wanted to make it so my regular blog could just be completely separate to make things easier, since there will be so many posts. It's called 40 Days of Worthless. I've made a link to it underneath this blog title so you can easily access it. It's probably going to be a lot of fun, you should stop by and check it out.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Nastolgia
I was driving home from the youth group that I lead tonight. I'm not sure what I was thinking about but completely zoned out. I finally came out of my daze and had no idea where I was but I knew that if I kept driving i'd end up somewhere I knew. I felt like I had been in my car for hours but it was really only about a minute or two. As I looked around it reminded me of the time when I went on tour with a band I was in. There were three of us in a van driving all over the western half of the U.S. We would drive all night so we could hang out the next day with other bands and then play our shows, get a free meal, hang out for a little more, then get on the road again.
There were a ton of times when I had been driving on some back ass country highway through New Mexico or Colorado and had no idea where I was. Sometimes we'd stop into a small town store that was open late at night and get looks from creepy locals who just happened to be hanging out in the store at 3 or 4 in the morning. This intense nastolgic feeling came over me. There's something I really enjoy about having no plan or idea of what's going on. So...
this summer I'm planning on going to Cuba on a humanitarian/protest trip. This whole zoning out nastolgia thing gave me a great idea. I come back in to Texas on July 28th. If time and money allows, I think I'm going to try to make my way back to California very slowly. It would be fun to just catch buses from city to city and stay in hostels nights that I'm not sleeping on a bus. There's something comforting about not having a plan or being bound to any time schedule. Plus, it will be a good way to take some pictures of fun things and meet interesting people. Maybe I'm looking for some sort of spiritual experience but I don't think that's it. There's those commercials from my childhood that had some messed up guy getting chased by a cop then an announcer says "Nobody says, 'I want to be a junky when I grow up'." I don't want to be a junky but I do wish I could be homeless and drunk most of the time. That would be way better than having a job and having to care about people. So minus the drunk part, i'm gonna try to live that as close as I can for about a week this summer...hopefully.
Done and done.
There were a ton of times when I had been driving on some back ass country highway through New Mexico or Colorado and had no idea where I was. Sometimes we'd stop into a small town store that was open late at night and get looks from creepy locals who just happened to be hanging out in the store at 3 or 4 in the morning. This intense nastolgic feeling came over me. There's something I really enjoy about having no plan or idea of what's going on. So...
this summer I'm planning on going to Cuba on a humanitarian/protest trip. This whole zoning out nastolgia thing gave me a great idea. I come back in to Texas on July 28th. If time and money allows, I think I'm going to try to make my way back to California very slowly. It would be fun to just catch buses from city to city and stay in hostels nights that I'm not sleeping on a bus. There's something comforting about not having a plan or being bound to any time schedule. Plus, it will be a good way to take some pictures of fun things and meet interesting people. Maybe I'm looking for some sort of spiritual experience but I don't think that's it. There's those commercials from my childhood that had some messed up guy getting chased by a cop then an announcer says "Nobody says, 'I want to be a junky when I grow up'." I don't want to be a junky but I do wish I could be homeless and drunk most of the time. That would be way better than having a job and having to care about people. So minus the drunk part, i'm gonna try to live that as close as I can for about a week this summer...hopefully.
Done and done.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
My Anti-Lent
I think lent ends in a week. I'm not sure if l(L)ent is supposed to be capitalised or not, so I'm gonna go lower case just for consistancy's sake.
Once again I didn't give up anything for lent this year. Well I did give something up, but not specifically for lent. Anyways, I missed the beginning of lent and I didn't want to start late for some reason. But I was thinking about how an ex-girlfriend's dad did lent. He would give up hard liquor and beer. He liked wine, but was a wine snob so drinking enough wine to get drunk would cost him a lot of money...he was also (probably) an alchoholic. So he decided that he could drink brandy since it was made from grapes, just like wine, and would be in the clear. This is really the first I had ever heard of lent.
In my thinking about lent it occurred to me that most people I know who practice lent, don't spend the time that they would have been doing the particular thing they gave up, with God... which I think (though I'm no expert) is one of the points for modern lent observers. So I decided that I'm going to practice an anti-lent of sorts. That 'anti' isn't to be interpreted that I don't like or support lent. It's just to say that instead of not doing something I'm going to do something. After all, my god is a god of action and he probably wants me to follow suit. Although I will admit that this little exercise that I will embark on doesn't really get me closer to God in any way. Unless of course one of my gifts is writing and I am honing the skill for the betterment of his kingdom, but i doubt that's the case.
So...the Monday following Easter will be the beginning of my anti-lent. I will publish on my blog one short story per day. I tried to think of something meaningful to do on those 40 days, but I really couldn't come up with anything that wasn't super cheesy, so this is what you get. When the time rolls around I'll post the web address for the new blog that is dedicated to my stories.
Once again I didn't give up anything for lent this year. Well I did give something up, but not specifically for lent. Anyways, I missed the beginning of lent and I didn't want to start late for some reason. But I was thinking about how an ex-girlfriend's dad did lent. He would give up hard liquor and beer. He liked wine, but was a wine snob so drinking enough wine to get drunk would cost him a lot of money...he was also (probably) an alchoholic. So he decided that he could drink brandy since it was made from grapes, just like wine, and would be in the clear. This is really the first I had ever heard of lent.
In my thinking about lent it occurred to me that most people I know who practice lent, don't spend the time that they would have been doing the particular thing they gave up, with God... which I think (though I'm no expert) is one of the points for modern lent observers. So I decided that I'm going to practice an anti-lent of sorts. That 'anti' isn't to be interpreted that I don't like or support lent. It's just to say that instead of not doing something I'm going to do something. After all, my god is a god of action and he probably wants me to follow suit. Although I will admit that this little exercise that I will embark on doesn't really get me closer to God in any way. Unless of course one of my gifts is writing and I am honing the skill for the betterment of his kingdom, but i doubt that's the case.
So...the Monday following Easter will be the beginning of my anti-lent. I will publish on my blog one short story per day. I tried to think of something meaningful to do on those 40 days, but I really couldn't come up with anything that wasn't super cheesy, so this is what you get. When the time rolls around I'll post the web address for the new blog that is dedicated to my stories.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Place your votes!!
The 2008 elections are on there way and the candidates are beginning to campaign. When the candidates speak, it's important that they know what to and what not to do with their hands. Some candidates point with their index finger. Bill Clinton for example made the letter A in sign language then turned so the thumb was on top and would wave his hand on the left side, then the right side and settled in the center with the thumb point. Hitler had his entire right arm extended. That one's pretty much off limits to American candidates...same with the mustache.
So, here's the contest: Either pick a hand guesture that will be most popular regardless of candidate or if you're feeling really ambitious you can pick what candidate is prone to do which guesture.
Mine...Barak Obama will have the thumb and index signal. When he pounds on his podium he'll do so with his pointer and thumb extended over a fist. He wont point it directly at anything. It will often look like he's measuring something or in honor of Seinfeld, squishing someone's head.
So, here's the contest: Either pick a hand guesture that will be most popular regardless of candidate or if you're feeling really ambitious you can pick what candidate is prone to do which guesture.
Mine...Barak Obama will have the thumb and index signal. When he pounds on his podium he'll do so with his pointer and thumb extended over a fist. He wont point it directly at anything. It will often look like he's measuring something or in honor of Seinfeld, squishing someone's head.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Tickets to the gun show anyone?
I know this is a little morbid that I would get a kick out of it, but rarely do I get episodes like the following.
I pulled up to the house where I lead a middle school youth group (WyldLife) tonight. I was fine tuning the talk I was to give and looked up for a moment of thought. Right then, a car that had just passed by jammed his brakes. As the tires half rolled and half skid, I saw a creature come out from under the right front tire. I know... it's sad.
So, the guy sits in his car for a second. Puts the car in reverse, backs up to where he had hit his brakes as if he could rewind time. He sits a little longer. Then he finally gets out of his car. He looks around to see if anyone saw what happened. He was probably hoping he could just get in his car and drive away. Then he spots me. He looks at me. I just shrug. By this time, the cat had run from under the car with an interesting sideways limp, like it just had it's ass skid accross by a car. The guys starts to go to where the cat is, then decides it's not worth his time. He starts to walk to the house on the other side of the street, then stops and turns back to his car. Then the cat ran across the road again toward the house he had started to walk to. Then he looked at me. I shrug. He stands there for a few seconds trying to figure out what to do. He looks at me. I shrug. Then he gets in his car and leaves.
During the whole thing, I just had a fun feeling that this whole thing was like a show for my enjoyment only. I know there's nothing fun about a cat getting run over...as my mom puts it, "Oh no, somebody's baby!"
Thanks God, thanks for that little bit of morbid joy.
I pulled up to the house where I lead a middle school youth group (WyldLife) tonight. I was fine tuning the talk I was to give and looked up for a moment of thought. Right then, a car that had just passed by jammed his brakes. As the tires half rolled and half skid, I saw a creature come out from under the right front tire. I know... it's sad.
So, the guy sits in his car for a second. Puts the car in reverse, backs up to where he had hit his brakes as if he could rewind time. He sits a little longer. Then he finally gets out of his car. He looks around to see if anyone saw what happened. He was probably hoping he could just get in his car and drive away. Then he spots me. He looks at me. I just shrug. By this time, the cat had run from under the car with an interesting sideways limp, like it just had it's ass skid accross by a car. The guys starts to go to where the cat is, then decides it's not worth his time. He starts to walk to the house on the other side of the street, then stops and turns back to his car. Then the cat ran across the road again toward the house he had started to walk to. Then he looked at me. I shrug. He stands there for a few seconds trying to figure out what to do. He looks at me. I shrug. Then he gets in his car and leaves.
During the whole thing, I just had a fun feeling that this whole thing was like a show for my enjoyment only. I know there's nothing fun about a cat getting run over...as my mom puts it, "Oh no, somebody's baby!"
Thanks God, thanks for that little bit of morbid joy.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
When the wind blows, it spooks the horses!
The subject line is the comment I made to my roommate yesterday. I went on to explain that 'the horses' are me. For some reason, when the wind blows I get all wierded out, don't want to leave the house, and I get anxious. And it's not because there are any trees that might fall on my house. I've been this way for as long as I can remember. Just thought I'd let you all know that fun little Rob fact (all 1 of you who read my blog). Thanks for your time, and good night!
Thursday, March 22, 2007
F#@k the kids!
The title here is just to get your attention. Post number two in a single day...wow, this is a record for me.
It's really exciting to see what's going on with kids today. On March 18th the NY Times reported about a student whose case has made it to the Supreme Court. The student was forced by a school administrator to take down a sign that that read BONG HITS FOR JESUS . The students case is an example of a violation of free speech. Another case is that of a California girl who, with the help of a SF law firm and the California ACLU, is filing a case against her school district because she has been held to dress code violations such as wearing knee high socks of Whinnie the Pooh and once being sent home for wearing a drug prevention shirt! My guess it was a DARE shirt and since it has the color red on it, was considered gang paraphernalia. Another example is of Zach Hunter who, as far as I know, was somewhat the inspiration behind the making of the recent documentary "Amazing Grace".
ADULTS!! Take notice of how effective kids can be...don't be lazy! Good job kids, good job!
It's really exciting to see what's going on with kids today. On March 18th the NY Times reported about a student whose case has made it to the Supreme Court. The student was forced by a school administrator to take down a sign that that read BONG HITS FOR JESUS . The students case is an example of a violation of free speech. Another case is that of a California girl who, with the help of a SF law firm and the California ACLU, is filing a case against her school district because she has been held to dress code violations such as wearing knee high socks of Whinnie the Pooh and once being sent home for wearing a drug prevention shirt! My guess it was a DARE shirt and since it has the color red on it, was considered gang paraphernalia. Another example is of Zach Hunter who, as far as I know, was somewhat the inspiration behind the making of the recent documentary "Amazing Grace".
ADULTS!! Take notice of how effective kids can be...don't be lazy! Good job kids, good job!
Congress v. the People
In yesterday's post, I put link to make it easier for anyone who stumbles onto my blog to write a quick letter to their representatives in Congress voicing their opinion. Sometimes it feels like that's about all I can do, so it's a little comforting to write a little email and send it on its way. Rousseau write a lot about 'collective consciousness' (as do many western philosphers) an idea we base our representative democracy on...republic. We elect leaders who in theory vote the conscience of their constituency. I'm not sure if congresspeople have ever really voted based on what their district wants, but they sure don't seem to now. The more I pay attention to Congress i realize that our elected officials take the role of protectors...that meaning, they know what the people think they want, but it's up to the representative to choose what is actually best. Why? Because they are smarter or better educated? I don't know if it really matters. What matters is that our representatives need to represent the consciousness of the people.
Reading an article in the NY Times today, this becomes clear that there's a good chance we may not have full representation of our beliefs from our Congressmen. The article by Jeff Zeleny is about the struggle between Democrats and Republicans on the issue of creating a deadline for funding, essentially for withdrawl, of our troops in Iraq. In the article it discusses two representatives specifically who have changed their vote from supporting withdrawl to now not supporting it. Dan Boren (D-OK) and Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH). Both originally followed their party line but after trips to Iraq to witness, first hand, the absolute mess it is, they changed their mind. So maybe they see something that we don't. Maybe they had some experience that softened them and that sympathy caused them to decide that we need to stay and help these poor people. Does that mean that we're wrong here in the states? Is it wrong that we sit in our comfortable living rooms and have the ability to detach ourselves from the reality of what's going on in Iraq? And if so, is our being wrong an excuse for the representatives of our will to vote different than what we feel?
I'm going to say no, it's not fine for them to choose their own vote just because they've seen something first hand that we haven't had the chance to. Some of us are morally opposed to war and violence under any circumstances...is our voice then obsolete? Some people may not understand the whole concept of how pulling our troops out of Iraq may effect the stability there. Does their opinion not count? I don't know what official polls say about the American public's stance on Iraq, but as Dennis Kucinich is quoted in today's article, "we used the war to help us [Democrats] win control of Congress." This tells me that the American people want our troops home and want to stop spending money on something that we think is futile.
Things are already in utter chaos. There is already immense instability in Iraq. There are already signs of genocidal tendencies on the part of religious sects. Things are falling apart regardless of our presence there. If we are to continue in Iraq, we would need political support from the majority of countries in the region and worldwide. Until we pull our troops out and let things fall apart, we wont be able to achieve the political solution that needs to take place for stability in Iraq because everyone is pissed off at us. If that's what the public thinks, then that's how our Congress needs to vote. It's our consciousness, not there's. And, if they do think that our minds need changing, then come to our towns and our districts and present your case, instead of to an empty chamber on C-Span.
Reading an article in the NY Times today, this becomes clear that there's a good chance we may not have full representation of our beliefs from our Congressmen. The article by Jeff Zeleny is about the struggle between Democrats and Republicans on the issue of creating a deadline for funding, essentially for withdrawl, of our troops in Iraq. In the article it discusses two representatives specifically who have changed their vote from supporting withdrawl to now not supporting it. Dan Boren (D-OK) and Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH). Both originally followed their party line but after trips to Iraq to witness, first hand, the absolute mess it is, they changed their mind. So maybe they see something that we don't. Maybe they had some experience that softened them and that sympathy caused them to decide that we need to stay and help these poor people. Does that mean that we're wrong here in the states? Is it wrong that we sit in our comfortable living rooms and have the ability to detach ourselves from the reality of what's going on in Iraq? And if so, is our being wrong an excuse for the representatives of our will to vote different than what we feel?
I'm going to say no, it's not fine for them to choose their own vote just because they've seen something first hand that we haven't had the chance to. Some of us are morally opposed to war and violence under any circumstances...is our voice then obsolete? Some people may not understand the whole concept of how pulling our troops out of Iraq may effect the stability there. Does their opinion not count? I don't know what official polls say about the American public's stance on Iraq, but as Dennis Kucinich is quoted in today's article, "we used the war to help us [Democrats] win control of Congress." This tells me that the American people want our troops home and want to stop spending money on something that we think is futile.
Things are already in utter chaos. There is already immense instability in Iraq. There are already signs of genocidal tendencies on the part of religious sects. Things are falling apart regardless of our presence there. If we are to continue in Iraq, we would need political support from the majority of countries in the region and worldwide. Until we pull our troops out and let things fall apart, we wont be able to achieve the political solution that needs to take place for stability in Iraq because everyone is pissed off at us. If that's what the public thinks, then that's how our Congress needs to vote. It's our consciousness, not there's. And, if they do think that our minds need changing, then come to our towns and our districts and present your case, instead of to an empty chamber on C-Span.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
DAMN YOU BLOGGER!!
I spent the last half hour typing out a new post in which I discussed the impersonal replies from my Congressional representatives to letters I had written to them at the beginning of last month. Somehow in the process of posting it, an error occurred and my post was gone forever. Here was my concluding point in fewer words... go to the text of Senate Joint Resolution 3 of the 110th Congress read it over. If you agree that it should be revised for more immediate action and also reworded to specify the use of remaining troops in Iraq after the withdrawl mandated by Congress, write a letter to your Senators and let them know your opinion. You'll probably just be as frustrated as I was when it took one of them 38 days to get back to me but it might make you feel a little better.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Sometimes I really hate church!!!
Today at my church, we had a guest speaker. He was a man from the higher up part of Covenant denomination who has been involved with helping our congregation coordinate a property renovation project. The campaign is called Generation to Generation (G2G) and is going to update the facilities we currently have as well as build new ones and improve our property overall. It has been stressed throughout the whole process of introducing the project to the congregation that the project itself is meant to expand our ministry and that part of the funds that we raise for the project will go towards a church plant. A church plant in the Watsonville area sounds like a really great idea as does the concept of being responsible with what the church has been given, along the lines of property and buildings.
First of all, I have to admit that when a sermon (or speech in this case) on giving to the church happens, I turn cynical and shut down. I say this so no one will think I'm trying to hide any bias I have. I think it comes mainly from the fact that I don't support the church as an official institution. I like supporting my community of believers but once the concept of that as an institution arises I am immediately resentful.
Our Guest Speaker
He dives right in to the fact that he's going to be talking about giving. Good...at least he's not trying to hide it. His point was that God calls us to give. He was using an example of the lady who dropped in two coins after all the rich people had dropped a lot of money into the offering plate. He presented the notion of equal sacrifice, not to be confused with equal giving. I like that...it's fair. I believe he is right here. God calls us to sacrifice ourselves and some have more, so they should give of themselves what is due to God's Kingdom.
In much detail he explained exactly how God is putting it on our hearts to give. He had a lot of backing from scripture, but I couldn't help but think that anyone who is asking for money in a church would pull those scriptures out of context to support their claim. Then he says, "Some of you need to grow in the grace of giving" in reference to people who may not want to give to this project. If I'm not mistaken he even pointed his finger. He then proceeded to say something along the lines of 'after you write that $30 check, you have communicated with God...'. What I heard here and other times in his speech was that giving money is the best way to communicate with God. There were a number of times that I couldn't help but cringe or even laugh at some of the things he said.
I was waiting for him to bring Satan, the Devil, the dark force of sin into the lecture. Sure enough, it came is the form of "the adversary"...that, in this coming week 'the adversary' would be working in our lives to keep us from giving 'over and above'. He would break our car, ruin some relationship, or various other things so we don't help grow the Kingdom. I personally do believe in a spiritual struggle between God and the Devil in whatever form they exist in that struggle. To be fair, he did say that he wasn't saying this to scare anyone, only to point out how real the threat is and not to be discouraged. But now, anything that happens in the next week is going to be blamed on the adversary. The reason I have an issue with this, is that people now have a tool to take the blame off of themselves. This is a free ticket to take personal responsibility in one's problems off of themself and blame it on a dark force...then to feel better, give money to prove their resistence to that dark force. Also, when something bad happens this week they'll say it's the devils work. Then they'll instantly remember what our speaker said and be coerced by this well crafted logic sequence into giving money to this G2G campaign...not out of desire to give to God or desire for this campaign to be successful, but because they think that what they experienced is truly the work of the devil and that this guy was right.
Last week at church, it was announced that this guy was going to come speak to us. I was under the impression that he was going to be talking about how part of our money from the church plant proposal in Pajaro/Watsonville and how awesome that is. It was barely mentioned. I was excited that he was going to talk about this because I like the idea that we are going to do something with our money that helps a less fortunate community. My roommate put it well when he said that $25 will go a lot farther in Pajaro than it would in Scotts Valley. Our help there is much needed and is truly something to celebrate. Instead of speaking at length about this or other church plants, he explained that it is our duty as part of "the face of the Covenant" to give money to grow this demonination.
In conclusion, I saw a number of new faces in the crowd today and was thouroughly embarrassed that visitors would be welcomed to our community on a Sunday like this. Hopefully these new people have actually been going to our church for a while and I just haven't noticed them. Though this would speak poorly of my welcoming newcomers, it would make me feel better knowing that their first impression of our church was something other than this impersonal speech on stewardship.
For the record, I am in support of our church doing this remodel and expansion thing. It's great that we want to make our facilities better serve the community as a long term goal and it's great to see that in raising the money for this we are essentially raising money that will directly benefit our community. There are some aspects that I think are unnecessary, like the outdoor theater, but the congregation approved it so it must be part of the collective conscience. With that said, I need to say that I am very unimpressed with this recent portion of the fund raising aspect of the project. To have such a impersonal approach to such a personal subject was not a good idea. If he was going to talk about the benefit in regards to planting a church and getting people excited about that idea, that would have been great. I don't know what I expect out of writing this, I just needed to voice my opinion, and probably what is the opinion of any new people who were at the church today as well as other people who think the same as me but wouldn't take the time to write it out like this. There's a lot more that I could add, but I wouldn't be able to make a very good case unless I could hear the audio...maybe my roommate Mike will do a better job when the audio of the speech is posted on the church website.
First of all, I have to admit that when a sermon (or speech in this case) on giving to the church happens, I turn cynical and shut down. I say this so no one will think I'm trying to hide any bias I have. I think it comes mainly from the fact that I don't support the church as an official institution. I like supporting my community of believers but once the concept of that as an institution arises I am immediately resentful.
Our Guest Speaker
He dives right in to the fact that he's going to be talking about giving. Good...at least he's not trying to hide it. His point was that God calls us to give. He was using an example of the lady who dropped in two coins after all the rich people had dropped a lot of money into the offering plate. He presented the notion of equal sacrifice, not to be confused with equal giving. I like that...it's fair. I believe he is right here. God calls us to sacrifice ourselves and some have more, so they should give of themselves what is due to God's Kingdom.
In much detail he explained exactly how God is putting it on our hearts to give. He had a lot of backing from scripture, but I couldn't help but think that anyone who is asking for money in a church would pull those scriptures out of context to support their claim. Then he says, "Some of you need to grow in the grace of giving" in reference to people who may not want to give to this project. If I'm not mistaken he even pointed his finger. He then proceeded to say something along the lines of 'after you write that $30 check, you have communicated with God...'. What I heard here and other times in his speech was that giving money is the best way to communicate with God. There were a number of times that I couldn't help but cringe or even laugh at some of the things he said.
I was waiting for him to bring Satan, the Devil, the dark force of sin into the lecture. Sure enough, it came is the form of "the adversary"...that, in this coming week 'the adversary' would be working in our lives to keep us from giving 'over and above'. He would break our car, ruin some relationship, or various other things so we don't help grow the Kingdom. I personally do believe in a spiritual struggle between God and the Devil in whatever form they exist in that struggle. To be fair, he did say that he wasn't saying this to scare anyone, only to point out how real the threat is and not to be discouraged. But now, anything that happens in the next week is going to be blamed on the adversary. The reason I have an issue with this, is that people now have a tool to take the blame off of themselves. This is a free ticket to take personal responsibility in one's problems off of themself and blame it on a dark force...then to feel better, give money to prove their resistence to that dark force. Also, when something bad happens this week they'll say it's the devils work. Then they'll instantly remember what our speaker said and be coerced by this well crafted logic sequence into giving money to this G2G campaign...not out of desire to give to God or desire for this campaign to be successful, but because they think that what they experienced is truly the work of the devil and that this guy was right.
Last week at church, it was announced that this guy was going to come speak to us. I was under the impression that he was going to be talking about how part of our money from the church plant proposal in Pajaro/Watsonville and how awesome that is. It was barely mentioned. I was excited that he was going to talk about this because I like the idea that we are going to do something with our money that helps a less fortunate community. My roommate put it well when he said that $25 will go a lot farther in Pajaro than it would in Scotts Valley. Our help there is much needed and is truly something to celebrate. Instead of speaking at length about this or other church plants, he explained that it is our duty as part of "the face of the Covenant" to give money to grow this demonination.
In conclusion, I saw a number of new faces in the crowd today and was thouroughly embarrassed that visitors would be welcomed to our community on a Sunday like this. Hopefully these new people have actually been going to our church for a while and I just haven't noticed them. Though this would speak poorly of my welcoming newcomers, it would make me feel better knowing that their first impression of our church was something other than this impersonal speech on stewardship.
For the record, I am in support of our church doing this remodel and expansion thing. It's great that we want to make our facilities better serve the community as a long term goal and it's great to see that in raising the money for this we are essentially raising money that will directly benefit our community. There are some aspects that I think are unnecessary, like the outdoor theater, but the congregation approved it so it must be part of the collective conscience. With that said, I need to say that I am very unimpressed with this recent portion of the fund raising aspect of the project. To have such a impersonal approach to such a personal subject was not a good idea. If he was going to talk about the benefit in regards to planting a church and getting people excited about that idea, that would have been great. I don't know what I expect out of writing this, I just needed to voice my opinion, and probably what is the opinion of any new people who were at the church today as well as other people who think the same as me but wouldn't take the time to write it out like this. There's a lot more that I could add, but I wouldn't be able to make a very good case unless I could hear the audio...maybe my roommate Mike will do a better job when the audio of the speech is posted on the church website.
Friday, March 16, 2007
God of Rob or God of Chistendom?
I know this sounds pretty damn self righteous, but here it goes...I am becoming more and more convinced that I believe in a different god than most Christians. I do call myself a Christian because my belief is that Jesus died for my sins and created a new world in which his example is the model way of life, so I feel that I shouldn't be bashful about proclaiming my faith in his work. Many Christians now days say, "I'm not a Christian, I'm a follower of Christ", or ,"I'm not religious but I am highly spiritual". Here's how I explain this... too many people confuse Christianity with Christendom, which is where that shame of being labelled as a Christian comes from. Most people will probably say that Christendom died with the Roman Empire (which brings up a whole other issue of how much of the "Roman Empire" still exists...as far as ideology goes), but I think it's safe to say that Christendom is alive and well, and continues to be as much of a threat to the Kingdom of God and teachings of Christ as it was during the time when it was controlled and constructed by tyrannical emperors and popes.
There's more to come as far as my case for what Christendom is and how it is still with us today...it'll be a short comparisson between the history of the old church with today's church. I just thought this would be a good start.
There's more to come as far as my case for what Christendom is and how it is still with us today...it'll be a short comparisson between the history of the old church with today's church. I just thought this would be a good start.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Amazing News Story!!
There was a short news brief in the NY Times today that described a 50-50 divorce to the extreme. A man in Germany measured his house, then proceeded to cut it in half with a chain saw. When he was done with that, he picked his house up with a forklift and drove away. HOLY CRAP THAT IS FUNNY!!! The man's comment was that he was "just taking his due."
Friday, March 09, 2007
If you hate masturbation then you hate hands!!
I was watching a news program that was talking about the growth of Muslims in Europe. A Scotish Muslim leader was on T.V. saying that he is sad about the Muslims of South Western Asia hating Europe. He explained that for him, Europe is his homeland and "if you hate my homeland then you hate me". STOP SAYING SHIT LIKE THIS!!! It's too easy to use language like that. It can be used by any dumb asshole. It takes no level of creativity and it doesn't get a point across. The guy could have said something like, "Europe is my homeland and I am proud of that. For people to hate Europe as a whole is saddening for me because these people who say this are my brothers in faith, and it's not my continent that is doing harm to them, but the ideology of the modern west." To me, it's a sign of a simple (or dishonest) mind in people who use rhetoric like that.
I'd imagine that members of PETA might not agree with the use of cow leather for wallets. With the same logic that this man used, a cow might say, "if you hate leather wallets then you hate me". It doesn't make a damn bit of sense. First of all, in this case, it's better for the cow that people don't like leather wallets...that's ovbvious, I know. Second, PETA would hate the leather wallet because of what it stands for. In the same way, the Muslims of South Western Asia probably just hate the "western ideology" of Europe, not necessarily everything or everyone in it.
The other part, is that any statement like this carries with it at least a little bit of hypocrisy. It's just a matter of exploring the claim and who's making it in order find the hypocrisy. This same rationale President Bush used at the beginning of the war on terror. The President laid down the doctrine 'if you're not with us, you're against us' as a basis for all policy domestic and abroad. He said at one point that any states that harbors terrorists are terrorists themselves. Here's the hypocrisy... a man named Luis Posada and another named Orlando Bosch are well known terrorists among the conflict with past few decades of conflict with Latin America. They were both involved with a bombing of a passenger plane that killed 73 people, among other attrocities in Central and South America. Orlando Bosch, by request of Jeb Bush was granted a presidential pardon by George H.W. Bush. Luis Posada, who has been officially convicted in more than one country of terrorist acts, is being held in a U.S. jail for an immegration violation. Despite the request of one country, I believe Columbia, in which he was responsible for many deaths, we continue to hold him essentially granting him asylum. As further display of hypocrisy, the U.S. House of Representatives will be deciding soon on a piece of legislation that states what the U.S. will only begin to consider relations with Cuba if they release William Morales who was involved in some of the same activities as Bosch and Posada.
Here's the point. Be better than people who use this kinds of rhetoric and logic. Do this by stating the real problem and not by using feelings of nationalism, patriotism, or loyalty of any kind to manipulate other ignorant people!!!
I'd imagine that members of PETA might not agree with the use of cow leather for wallets. With the same logic that this man used, a cow might say, "if you hate leather wallets then you hate me". It doesn't make a damn bit of sense. First of all, in this case, it's better for the cow that people don't like leather wallets...that's ovbvious, I know. Second, PETA would hate the leather wallet because of what it stands for. In the same way, the Muslims of South Western Asia probably just hate the "western ideology" of Europe, not necessarily everything or everyone in it.
The other part, is that any statement like this carries with it at least a little bit of hypocrisy. It's just a matter of exploring the claim and who's making it in order find the hypocrisy. This same rationale President Bush used at the beginning of the war on terror. The President laid down the doctrine 'if you're not with us, you're against us' as a basis for all policy domestic and abroad. He said at one point that any states that harbors terrorists are terrorists themselves. Here's the hypocrisy... a man named Luis Posada and another named Orlando Bosch are well known terrorists among the conflict with past few decades of conflict with Latin America. They were both involved with a bombing of a passenger plane that killed 73 people, among other attrocities in Central and South America. Orlando Bosch, by request of Jeb Bush was granted a presidential pardon by George H.W. Bush. Luis Posada, who has been officially convicted in more than one country of terrorist acts, is being held in a U.S. jail for an immegration violation. Despite the request of one country, I believe Columbia, in which he was responsible for many deaths, we continue to hold him essentially granting him asylum. As further display of hypocrisy, the U.S. House of Representatives will be deciding soon on a piece of legislation that states what the U.S. will only begin to consider relations with Cuba if they release William Morales who was involved in some of the same activities as Bosch and Posada.
Here's the point. Be better than people who use this kinds of rhetoric and logic. Do this by stating the real problem and not by using feelings of nationalism, patriotism, or loyalty of any kind to manipulate other ignorant people!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)