As we continue to watch the events in Newtown, CT, we are saddened for the needless loss of life. We are saddened that 26 people were killed by a man who was most likely out of touch with reality. We are saddened that these families have to go through such agony and grief. Instead of these families sharing the Christmas season opening gifts and spending quality family time together, they will have the unfortunate task of burying a child during a time that is supposed to be filled with joy and happiness.
As Americans, we find the slaughter of 20 innocent young children and 6 adults to be an atrocious act committed by a completely deranged person. How could anyone do something so horrendous? To what depths of depravity can someone reach?
As horrendous as the murders of these children are in our eyes, it pales in comparison to the greatest massacre that we face today. And that massacre is abortion. We should not have to see even 1 case where a child, or anyone else for that matter, is murdered in cold blood. Yet, the unborn are aborted every day by the thousands, in cold blood, and no one bats an eye about that number.
In Newtown, there were 26 people murdered in cold blood. Since the legalization of abortion in 1973 in the United States, there have been more than 50,000,000 innocent, unborn children murdered through the medical procedure we know as abortion. Yet, no one is on the news today, talking about the number of children that are aborted each and every day.
For some reason, our society today does not seem to have a problem if we kill innocent children, so long as they are still in the womb. I, for one, would love to know why a child outside of the womb is more valuable than the potential of the child that is still in the womb. We even have the terrible procedure where a child is allowed to be partially born, then killed before it is completely out of the womb, a 'procedure' we know as partial-birth abortion. And while there are pro-abortion people who are against this procedure, there is still considerable support from the pro-abortion movement for this kind of child-murder.
Our society has killed off the unborn at an alarming rate. And while the numbers have slowed down a little bit over the last 10 years, we are still aborting close to 1,000,000 unborn children every year. While the pro-abortion crowd cheers the fact that there are not as many abortions, the pro-life crowd continues to mourn that there is even 1 abortion every year, much less 1,000,000 abortions.
Abortion is an atrocity committed against the helpless, defenseless, unborn child. While we are appalled when someone goes into a school and kills children, or someone goes into a movie theater and randomly shoots and kills people, or we hear that a dictator in some third world country kills thousands and thousands of his fellow countrymen, why are we not as equally appalled when we find out that abortion providers have legally taken the life of millions upon millions of unborn children since the legalization of abortion?
While we need to take time to stop and mourn for the loss of life in Newtown, CT, and pray for these families that are directly, and indirectly, affected by this tragedy, we also need to stop and pray that this senseless murder of the unborn comes to an end in this country. No society should accept the loss of innocent life, even if it is legal.
Abortion stops a beating heart. It kills a living being inside the womb. The fact that this kind of act is legal is sad. The fact that there are people who do everything within their power to keep abortion legal is even sadder. The fact that we do not seem to care enough to do anything to stop it - well, that is a problem that we need to address.
We need to stop abortion. Until then, our society, as a whole, will continue to devalue human life. Because if we do not even protect the most innocent and helpless among us, who will?
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
A Time To Mourn, A Time To Weep, A Time To Pray
On Friday, December 14, an unspeakable act occurred - 20 children and 6 adults were shot to death by a gunman at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT. We look at this act in utter disbelief, trying to understand why someone would do this. To take a gun and use it to kill 20 helpless first grade children and 6 teachers who were doing what they could to protect these children.
We cannot help but mourn the tragic loss of life in Newtown. There was absolutely no need for this. There are 20 families grieving for the loss of their 6 and 7 year old children. It is so hard to fathom what it must be like for these parents to have to bury their children, and it is happening only a week before Christmas. Usually this is a time of joy and happiness. It's a time to spend time with those closest to you. These families will now have to lay that aside and mourn over the loss of their children.
There are 6 adults who perished in this massacre. By all accounts, they died trying to protect the lives of the students. They died taking heroic actions against a man intent on killing. These people died heroes. We read in John 15:13, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." These teachers and administrators exemplified that Bible verse - they showed love to those children by trying to protect them, even to the point of giving up their own lives. Yet, just as the children who perished, these teachers are people who have families, who have children, who have parents. These families also mourn at the loss of their loved ones.
We cannot help but mourn for the families that lost loved ones that fateful Friday. We cannot help but mourn for other school children, who lost their friends and siblings that day. We mourn for the teachers who lost their co-workers. We mourn for a community that lost 26 people to a senseless act of violence that did not have to happen.
And because we mourn for these affected by this tragedy, we should not be ashamed to weep with compassion for them. Though maybe not considered to be a manly response, it is very understandable to want to cry for these families. After all, Jesus Christ wept when his friend, Lazarus, died. He wept, not only for Lazarus, but for His people and Jerusalem. If it is OK for Jesus to weep, then I have no problem being able to weep in the face of unspeakable tragedy.
The people in Newtown, CT are experiencing unspeakable tragedy. We weep with them because we see the tragedy that others must now face. We weep because we see what unbridled evil is able to do in the heart of someone who allows it to be there. We weep for the senseless loss of life. We weep because there are those who do not necessarily mourn over the loss of life, but how they might be able to use this event to further their own selfish, political ambitions.
But as we mourn, and as we weep, we must also pray. We must pray that those who are so closely affected by this tragedy are able to mourn. We must pray that these people are able to heal. We must pray for our schools, that they will be able to keep our children safe. We must pray for our nation, that we do not lose sight of the fact that we need God's guidance and protection, not just in our schools, but in our communities and in our homes.
It's hard to understand why these things happen. Why did God allow it to happen? How could He let this happen to children? How could someone be this evil? What drove him to do it? We may never find out the answers to these questions. We can look up Bible verses all day long. We can ask the most learned among us. And we may never know the answers.
But I think we can take solace in the fact, that even though horrendous events like this happen, God still loves us. He loved us enough to send His Son to die for us. I think we would be wise to look at the words of a song written by Marsha Stevens, and heed them.
We also need to show love to our children. We need to love them, hug them, cherish them. We just don't know how much longer we have with them.
We cannot help but mourn the tragic loss of life in Newtown. There was absolutely no need for this. There are 20 families grieving for the loss of their 6 and 7 year old children. It is so hard to fathom what it must be like for these parents to have to bury their children, and it is happening only a week before Christmas. Usually this is a time of joy and happiness. It's a time to spend time with those closest to you. These families will now have to lay that aside and mourn over the loss of their children.
There are 6 adults who perished in this massacre. By all accounts, they died trying to protect the lives of the students. They died taking heroic actions against a man intent on killing. These people died heroes. We read in John 15:13, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." These teachers and administrators exemplified that Bible verse - they showed love to those children by trying to protect them, even to the point of giving up their own lives. Yet, just as the children who perished, these teachers are people who have families, who have children, who have parents. These families also mourn at the loss of their loved ones.
We cannot help but mourn for the families that lost loved ones that fateful Friday. We cannot help but mourn for other school children, who lost their friends and siblings that day. We mourn for the teachers who lost their co-workers. We mourn for a community that lost 26 people to a senseless act of violence that did not have to happen.
And because we mourn for these affected by this tragedy, we should not be ashamed to weep with compassion for them. Though maybe not considered to be a manly response, it is very understandable to want to cry for these families. After all, Jesus Christ wept when his friend, Lazarus, died. He wept, not only for Lazarus, but for His people and Jerusalem. If it is OK for Jesus to weep, then I have no problem being able to weep in the face of unspeakable tragedy.
The people in Newtown, CT are experiencing unspeakable tragedy. We weep with them because we see the tragedy that others must now face. We weep because we see what unbridled evil is able to do in the heart of someone who allows it to be there. We weep for the senseless loss of life. We weep because there are those who do not necessarily mourn over the loss of life, but how they might be able to use this event to further their own selfish, political ambitions.
But as we mourn, and as we weep, we must also pray. We must pray that those who are so closely affected by this tragedy are able to mourn. We must pray that these people are able to heal. We must pray for our schools, that they will be able to keep our children safe. We must pray for our nation, that we do not lose sight of the fact that we need God's guidance and protection, not just in our schools, but in our communities and in our homes.
It's hard to understand why these things happen. Why did God allow it to happen? How could He let this happen to children? How could someone be this evil? What drove him to do it? We may never find out the answers to these questions. We can look up Bible verses all day long. We can ask the most learned among us. And we may never know the answers.
But I think we can take solace in the fact, that even though horrendous events like this happen, God still loves us. He loved us enough to send His Son to die for us. I think we would be wise to look at the words of a song written by Marsha Stevens, and heed them.
You said you'd come and share all my sorrowsI also think that we should not be afraid to talk to our kids about this kind of tragedy. While most "experts" believe that you should not do this, it is important for our children to know that evil exists. It's also important for them to know what it is like to mourn for others, to have compassion for others, to pray for others.
You said you'd be there for all my tomorrows
I came so close to sending you away
And just like you promised, you came there to stay
I just had to pray.
And Jesus said, Come to the water, stand by my side,
I know you are thirsty, you won't be denied.
I felt every teardrop when in darkness you cried,
And I strove to remind you that for those tears I died.
We also need to show love to our children. We need to love them, hug them, cherish them. We just don't know how much longer we have with them.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Happy 2nd Birthday, Hannah!
Of course, at that time, we had no idea what our lives would be like. The preliminary diagnosis at that time was that she had Down Syndrome. Further test results that we received a couple of weeks later confirmed the initial diagnosis. Our lives were overflowing with fear and trepidation. We did not know what to expect.
Needless to say, we went through a myriad of emotions. The first couple of months were overwhelming. We had so much to learn. We had so many specialists that we needed to see.
It seemed so surreal. It seemed as though we were living in some king of dream world. Our reality had been turned completely upside-down. We knew our lives were going to change by finally having a little girl in the house. We just had no idea that our lives would change this much.
As time went on, we didn't need to see as many specialists. We had more knowledge of Down Syndrome. We had developed a network of people who either had people with Down Syndrome in their family or had worked with people with special needs. I'm thankful for our Pastor's wife who went out and purchased books about Down Syndrome, and read them, and encouraged us with what she was learning. What a blessing it was for these people who had offered us advice and words of encouragement.
Looking back, we have been blessed. Hannah has not had any serious health problems. Yes, she wears glasses, and for the most part, she does leave the glasses on her face. She had to have tubes put in her ears, which definitely made a difference in her hearing, as well as her overall balance. And she has braces that she wears to help strengthen her ankles. Other than this, she has had no other health problems. It definitely could have been much worse, and we are truly thankful that her health has been good.
While her development has been slower because of Down Syndrome, we could not be happier with the progress she has made this far. She is finally starting to let go of the furniture and starting to walk. While she does not make it across the room, she is getting better and going farther day by day. And hopefully, in the next couple of weeks, she'll be walking all over the house. Just think of how much fun she'll have tearing the decorations off of the Christmas tree.
Pam has been teaching her sign language. We have a couple of sign language videos for kids that she watches, and Pam reinforces those signs with her. Hannah has even been able to teach me a couple of signs. I now know how to say "please" and "thank you" in sign language. Granted. that's not very much, but it's a start.
She continues to see a couple of developmental therapists, and when the new year rolls around, she will be seeing a speech therapist. I am not able to be involved in this part of her life, as these therapy sessions usually happen in the morning while I am at work. But I do read the therapist's reports, and from what I can tell, they are pleased with her development so far. Of course, they continue to push Hannah to do more, so that she can continue to develop.
Needless to say, I am so very proud of Hannah and the progress that she has made so far in her short-lived life. Just because she has Down Syndrome does not mean that we have to sit back and resign ourselves to a hopeless future. I have every intention of helping Hannah reach her full potential as she continues to grow and mature.
She has been such a blessing to us. She is such a happy child (most of the time, except for when she is tired). At times, she is about the only one that is happy to see me come home from work. She is very playful, and she likes to play with all of her brothers. And they like to play with her. It's been a tremendous blessing to see how the boys get along with her.
Words can't truly express how proud I am of her and how much I love her. I find it so refreshing just to be able to pick her up and give her a hug. She is the only one of my kids that will allow me to do that any more (and yes, I still can pick up and hug all of my kids, should I choose to do so). I love to see her laugh. I love to see her try so hard to do new things. I love to see her show love to her brothers and to her mother. I love her to death.
So, Happy Birthday, Hannah! We love you so much!!!!!
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Where's The Outrage?
The last blog post that I made was back in September, days after a bad call determined the outcome of a football game. In that post, I asked why there was such outrage about this bad call, considering that it only affected the outcome of a GAME. Yes, only a game. It had no bearing on the life of anyone outside of the 2 sports organizations playing in that game (unless people were wagering money, then it had an effect, depending on how they wagered).
Anyway, the press went berserk about this bad call. They wanted the regular refs back and wanted the league to give them anything that they asked for. This was all that the press (both sports press and regular news press) seemed to talk about for days. Everyone was a critic about the NFL commisioner, and how he mismanaged this whole referee situation. He was incompetent. He needed to step down. He was ruining football as we know it.
Yet, not even 2 weeks prior to that bad call, something much more important happened on the world stage that could have a much larger effect on this country. That was the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya. In that attack, several were killed, included our Ambassador to Libya. We were attacked on the 11th anniversary of 9/11.
For many days, we were told that this attack happened because of some obscure video on the internet that insulted Mohammed. We were told that those who attacked our consulate were not terrorists. We were told that this was not an organized protest. We were told that we need to be more tolerant and not insult the prophet of Islam. We were told how it was the intelligence community's fault. We were told how it was the State Department's fault. Some even seemed to indicate that somehow it was Romney's fault. I am sure the President was even trying to figure out how they could blame President Bush for what happened.
And now, what we find out today, is that the administration knew what had happened, mere hours after the events of that fateful 9/11 afternoon and evening in Libya. They had intelligence that there was trouble in Libya. We now have e-mail evidence that the administration knew what was going on, almost as it happened. They have e-mail evidence of the group who took credit for the attack on our consulate. And yet they have lied to this country for the last 42 days about the events of that day, and they continue to lie to us. This is something worthy of our outrage. Yet, the media chose to be outraged at Gov. Romney for correctly calling this an act of terrorism.
Isn't this just a little more important than the outcome of a football game? Isn't this more important than what the Kardashian family is up to? Isn't this more important than who various Hollywood celebrities are going to vote for? In other words, why does the media choose to cover all of these secondary news stories, instead of covering a story that involves the security of our nation?
Simply put, they are covering for the President. They want him to be re-elected, and they will do anything that they can to stifle news that does not put a positive light on the President. Unfortunately, some still fall for the media narrative. Thankfully, more and more people have figured out the media agenda, and they are choosing to ignore it.
John C. Maxwell has said that leadership is taking more than your fair share of the blame and less than your fair share of the credit. This is something that our President has yet to learn. He continues to blame his predecessor for anything that goes wrong, but he is more than happy to take credit for other people's work.
That is not what this country needs in a leader. We need a leader who we can be proud to follow, not a leader who tells us that we need to be proud to follow him. President Harry Truman once said that "The buck stops here." Maybe that is a lesson that our President needs to learn.
Anyway, the press went berserk about this bad call. They wanted the regular refs back and wanted the league to give them anything that they asked for. This was all that the press (both sports press and regular news press) seemed to talk about for days. Everyone was a critic about the NFL commisioner, and how he mismanaged this whole referee situation. He was incompetent. He needed to step down. He was ruining football as we know it.
Yet, not even 2 weeks prior to that bad call, something much more important happened on the world stage that could have a much larger effect on this country. That was the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya. In that attack, several were killed, included our Ambassador to Libya. We were attacked on the 11th anniversary of 9/11.
For many days, we were told that this attack happened because of some obscure video on the internet that insulted Mohammed. We were told that those who attacked our consulate were not terrorists. We were told that this was not an organized protest. We were told that we need to be more tolerant and not insult the prophet of Islam. We were told how it was the intelligence community's fault. We were told how it was the State Department's fault. Some even seemed to indicate that somehow it was Romney's fault. I am sure the President was even trying to figure out how they could blame President Bush for what happened.
And now, what we find out today, is that the administration knew what had happened, mere hours after the events of that fateful 9/11 afternoon and evening in Libya. They had intelligence that there was trouble in Libya. We now have e-mail evidence that the administration knew what was going on, almost as it happened. They have e-mail evidence of the group who took credit for the attack on our consulate. And yet they have lied to this country for the last 42 days about the events of that day, and they continue to lie to us. This is something worthy of our outrage. Yet, the media chose to be outraged at Gov. Romney for correctly calling this an act of terrorism.
- Where was the outrage from the media when our consulate was attacked and US citizens were killed?
- Where was the outrage when the President and his people tried to blame this whole incident on an unknown video about Islam?
- Where was the outrage when the President blamed this on everyone but did not take any responsibility?
- Where is the outrage that the President went out of town on a fundraiser, mere hours after these events, knowing what had happened?
- Where was the outrage when Hillary Clinton fell on the proverbial sword for this administration and the President let her do it, knowing that it should have been him?
- Where is the outrage that the President still has not come clean on this?
- Where is the outrage at a President who cannot, and will not, tell the truth to the American people about what happened on that day?
- Where is the outrage at the now-public e-mails, that indicated the administration knew what was going on, yet decided to tell the American people a false narrative of the events of that day?
Isn't this just a little more important than the outcome of a football game? Isn't this more important than what the Kardashian family is up to? Isn't this more important than who various Hollywood celebrities are going to vote for? In other words, why does the media choose to cover all of these secondary news stories, instead of covering a story that involves the security of our nation?
Simply put, they are covering for the President. They want him to be re-elected, and they will do anything that they can to stifle news that does not put a positive light on the President. Unfortunately, some still fall for the media narrative. Thankfully, more and more people have figured out the media agenda, and they are choosing to ignore it.
John C. Maxwell has said that leadership is taking more than your fair share of the blame and less than your fair share of the credit. This is something that our President has yet to learn. He continues to blame his predecessor for anything that goes wrong, but he is more than happy to take credit for other people's work.
That is not what this country needs in a leader. We need a leader who we can be proud to follow, not a leader who tells us that we need to be proud to follow him. President Harry Truman once said that "The buck stops here." Maybe that is a lesson that our President needs to learn.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
It's Just A Game - It's Not Life
I’m having trouble understanding some of the outrage concerning the end of the Packers-Seahawks game on Monday night. I know that this opening statement probably creates controversy, and leaves many people scratching their heads and thinking to themselves, “Where is this idiot coming from?”
Let me explain myself. When I’m done, you may still think that I am an idiot (and you would not be alone in thinking that). Fewer may think that I am brilliant. Others may cast me off as a right-wing nut. And there are probably a few out there who will just not get what I am trying to say.
At the end of the game, while it looked like the Packers intercepted that last pass, the officials decided (after some discussion) to call a touchdown for the Seahawks. And now, for the last 2 days, no matter what you watch, they are talking about this last play and how that it is unacceptable that this could have happened.
After giving it some thought, I think that this game, in some respects, actually mirrors where we stand as a country today. Let’s pretend that the Packers are the “rich”, the achievers in society, those who have been successful. And let’s say that the Seahawks are the “poor”, the downtrodden, the suppressed. The officials are the government. And the game of football is analogous to life itself. Now, you are probably saying, “What does this game have to do with the rich, the poor, and the government?”
I see the Packers being analogous to the rich, in that they have been to 5 Super Bowls (and won 4 of them), they have been a consistently successful franchise, and they have a huge national following and excellent brand merchandising. I see the Seahawks being analogous to the poor, maybe like the Occupy protesters. They view themselves as the people being stepped on in order for the rich to get richer. The Seahawks have only been to 1 Super Bowl, which they lost, and they still complain about some of the calls made in that game to this day (which, by the way, was reffed by the regular NFL referees).
You see, the government often acts just like these game officials did. In order to be fair, they want to take from the rich (via taxes) in order to give to the poor, who they say deserve better but are just not able to achieve greater riches and success. No matter how much protesting the rich do, the government does not care. It’s all about fairness, not based on how hard you worked to become successful.
Isn’t that what the refs in this game did? They took from the more successful and popular franchise in order to help make the less popular, less successful franchise better. It doesn’t matter how much complaining that the more successful team does. The referees and the league have said that the play stands and the more successful team loses.
So why are people so upset? The Packers-Seahawks game was just that – a game. Nothing more. Nothing less. It has no bearing on how we live our lives day in and day out. Yet, the government wants to redistribute wealth and control our lives, and they want to do it whenever they get the chance. But people don’t seem to be as incensed about that, even though redistribution has a direct effect on their lives. Maybe it’s because redistribution benefits them and doesn’t hurt them. Maybe it’s because they just don’t care. Maybe they view sports as being more important than keeping our politicians responsible for their decisions.
Maybe it would be good for all of us to get upset at the intrusion of the government into our daily lives, trying to make decisions of what is best for us, instead of allowing us to play by the rules and letting the results work themselves out. No, the government wants to get involved in and have a hand in the outcome.
Maybe sports is a microcosm of life after all.
Let me explain myself. When I’m done, you may still think that I am an idiot (and you would not be alone in thinking that). Fewer may think that I am brilliant. Others may cast me off as a right-wing nut. And there are probably a few out there who will just not get what I am trying to say.
At the end of the game, while it looked like the Packers intercepted that last pass, the officials decided (after some discussion) to call a touchdown for the Seahawks. And now, for the last 2 days, no matter what you watch, they are talking about this last play and how that it is unacceptable that this could have happened.
After giving it some thought, I think that this game, in some respects, actually mirrors where we stand as a country today. Let’s pretend that the Packers are the “rich”, the achievers in society, those who have been successful. And let’s say that the Seahawks are the “poor”, the downtrodden, the suppressed. The officials are the government. And the game of football is analogous to life itself. Now, you are probably saying, “What does this game have to do with the rich, the poor, and the government?”
I see the Packers being analogous to the rich, in that they have been to 5 Super Bowls (and won 4 of them), they have been a consistently successful franchise, and they have a huge national following and excellent brand merchandising. I see the Seahawks being analogous to the poor, maybe like the Occupy protesters. They view themselves as the people being stepped on in order for the rich to get richer. The Seahawks have only been to 1 Super Bowl, which they lost, and they still complain about some of the calls made in that game to this day (which, by the way, was reffed by the regular NFL referees).
You see, the government often acts just like these game officials did. In order to be fair, they want to take from the rich (via taxes) in order to give to the poor, who they say deserve better but are just not able to achieve greater riches and success. No matter how much protesting the rich do, the government does not care. It’s all about fairness, not based on how hard you worked to become successful.
Isn’t that what the refs in this game did? They took from the more successful and popular franchise in order to help make the less popular, less successful franchise better. It doesn’t matter how much complaining that the more successful team does. The referees and the league have said that the play stands and the more successful team loses.
So why are people so upset? The Packers-Seahawks game was just that – a game. Nothing more. Nothing less. It has no bearing on how we live our lives day in and day out. Yet, the government wants to redistribute wealth and control our lives, and they want to do it whenever they get the chance. But people don’t seem to be as incensed about that, even though redistribution has a direct effect on their lives. Maybe it’s because redistribution benefits them and doesn’t hurt them. Maybe it’s because they just don’t care. Maybe they view sports as being more important than keeping our politicians responsible for their decisions.
Maybe it would be good for all of us to get upset at the intrusion of the government into our daily lives, trying to make decisions of what is best for us, instead of allowing us to play by the rules and letting the results work themselves out. No, the government wants to get involved in and have a hand in the outcome.
Maybe sports is a microcosm of life after all.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Searching for a leader with character
Character is a quality that is mandatory in a leader. Without character, the leader will not be effective. He will not be able to lead. How can you follow someone who is lacking in character? How can we follow after so-called leaders who say one thing, yet do something completely different? How can we follow leaders who tell us that we need to act a certain way, yet they have no intention of acting in that same way?
Some have said that character is who you are when you think that no one is watching. In other words, character is who you are, not in public and in front of others, but in the privacy of your home, when no one is around to watch you. Anyone can put on a good show in public. But is that who you really are when the people go away and you are no longer on the forefront?
Many years ago, in my freshman speech class in college, we learned the rules of the effective speaker. The first rule is "The effective speaker is a person whose character, knowledge, and judgment command respect." In other words, if you have character, you can have a commanding presence and can be a truly effective speaker and leader. However, if you lack character, it will be extremely difficult to lead others, because you will lose trust with those who you are trying to lead.
Many Americans today are looking for leaders with character. We often complain about the lack of character in our elected officials. We complain about the lack of character in athletes. We complain about the lack of character in entertainers. Yet, many times, we do nothing to promote people of good character. Instead, we continue to promote people of questionable or bad character.
As I watch the current candidates run for President, I am reminded of our nation's ongoing search for a leader with character. We all want someone who can lead, but not everyone desires a leader that has impeccable character.
Why is that? It is because there are people who do not value this important trait of character in a leader. Some want a leader who will promise them a life where the government will give them whatever they want. Some want a leader based on political party alone. Some are content voting against someone instead of voting for someone.
But as I have observed the conventions over the past couple of weeks, I have seen a marked difference in character in the two men running for President. I do not hide the fact that I am a conservative Republican, and some may think that I am biased in my analysis. But I believe character is one of the most important, if not the most important, trait that our national leaders must possess.
During the Republican convention, many people spoke about Mitt Romney and his quiet way of helping others through difficult times. He helped others as the were going through difficult financial times. He helped families who were going through difficult health problems. And he did so without drawing attention to himself. He did it because he had the means to help. He did it because he wanted to help. He did it because he knew it was the right thing to do. He does not like to talk about the ways he helped others, because to him, it is a way of life.
In contrast, President Obama does a lot of talking about helping others. Yet, we never hear about how he has taken time to actually help others on an individual basis, before or after he became President. He is very good at telling us that we need to help others, but where is his example? His idea of helping others is to have the government help them, not get his own hands dirty and help them out.
It seems to me that Mitt Romney holds true to the motto "Actions speak louder than words." He knows that you can say whatever you want. However, you cannot be effective as a leader and be viewed as a man of character unless your actions back up your words. If your actions do not back up your words, you will quickly be labeled a hypocrite (well, Republicans will be labeled as hypocrites, Democrats will not).
In contrast, it looks like the President lives by the motto "Do as I say, not as I do." This is not an effective way to lead. He is a man whose words speak louder than his actions (actually, they speak louder than his inaction). The President says good things. However, he fails to live them out in his own life. If he does indeed live them out, why are we not hearing about it?
Character is important. We need to judge our leaders based on their character. Is Mitt Romney perfect? No, he is not. But in my view, he displays so much more character than the person who currently occupies the Oval Office. And we need to take this into account as we head toward the voting booth in November.
Some have said that character is who you are when you think that no one is watching. In other words, character is who you are, not in public and in front of others, but in the privacy of your home, when no one is around to watch you. Anyone can put on a good show in public. But is that who you really are when the people go away and you are no longer on the forefront?
Many years ago, in my freshman speech class in college, we learned the rules of the effective speaker. The first rule is "The effective speaker is a person whose character, knowledge, and judgment command respect." In other words, if you have character, you can have a commanding presence and can be a truly effective speaker and leader. However, if you lack character, it will be extremely difficult to lead others, because you will lose trust with those who you are trying to lead.
Many Americans today are looking for leaders with character. We often complain about the lack of character in our elected officials. We complain about the lack of character in athletes. We complain about the lack of character in entertainers. Yet, many times, we do nothing to promote people of good character. Instead, we continue to promote people of questionable or bad character.
As I watch the current candidates run for President, I am reminded of our nation's ongoing search for a leader with character. We all want someone who can lead, but not everyone desires a leader that has impeccable character.
Why is that? It is because there are people who do not value this important trait of character in a leader. Some want a leader who will promise them a life where the government will give them whatever they want. Some want a leader based on political party alone. Some are content voting against someone instead of voting for someone.
But as I have observed the conventions over the past couple of weeks, I have seen a marked difference in character in the two men running for President. I do not hide the fact that I am a conservative Republican, and some may think that I am biased in my analysis. But I believe character is one of the most important, if not the most important, trait that our national leaders must possess.
During the Republican convention, many people spoke about Mitt Romney and his quiet way of helping others through difficult times. He helped others as the were going through difficult financial times. He helped families who were going through difficult health problems. And he did so without drawing attention to himself. He did it because he had the means to help. He did it because he wanted to help. He did it because he knew it was the right thing to do. He does not like to talk about the ways he helped others, because to him, it is a way of life.
In contrast, President Obama does a lot of talking about helping others. Yet, we never hear about how he has taken time to actually help others on an individual basis, before or after he became President. He is very good at telling us that we need to help others, but where is his example? His idea of helping others is to have the government help them, not get his own hands dirty and help them out.
It seems to me that Mitt Romney holds true to the motto "Actions speak louder than words." He knows that you can say whatever you want. However, you cannot be effective as a leader and be viewed as a man of character unless your actions back up your words. If your actions do not back up your words, you will quickly be labeled a hypocrite (well, Republicans will be labeled as hypocrites, Democrats will not).
In contrast, it looks like the President lives by the motto "Do as I say, not as I do." This is not an effective way to lead. He is a man whose words speak louder than his actions (actually, they speak louder than his inaction). The President says good things. However, he fails to live them out in his own life. If he does indeed live them out, why are we not hearing about it?
Character is important. We need to judge our leaders based on their character. Is Mitt Romney perfect? No, he is not. But in my view, he displays so much more character than the person who currently occupies the Oval Office. And we need to take this into account as we head toward the voting booth in November.
Friday, July 20, 2012
The Politicization of Tragedy
As you have probably heard by now, a gunman went on a shooting rampage at a movie theater in Aurora, CO early this morning. It happened shortly after the midnight showing of the new Batman movie, "The Dark Knight Rises" started. There are 12 dead, and at least 50 more injured. This is a tragedy beyond comprehension. What would drive someone to do such a dastardly thing?
We mourn for the families affected by this tragedy. The only thing that these people were guilty of was being in the wrong place at the wrong time. They were simply gathered in a movie theater, waiting to watch the movie that they had eagerly anticipated. And out of nowhere, someone comes into the theater, protected by body armor, and starts shooting, without any regard for human life. It is a tragedy, but that word does not seem adequate to describe the totality of the events that happened in that theater.
But not everyone sees this event as a tragedy. Some see it as a chance to try to gain some sort of political advantage, or to affix blame on a group of people that they do not like. George Stephanolpoulus interviewed James Ross on ABC this morning, and Ross floated the theory out there that this might have been someone within the Tea Party (the same tactic they tried after Rep. Gabriel Giffords was shot).
His "extensive" research was finding a person on a Tea Party website that had the same name as the gunman, and saying that this Tea Party guy was the shooter. Really?? This is the best that this "investigative" reporter could do? Let's ruin someone's life by affixing the blame on them when they had nothing to do with it. I can see a lawsuit coming on this one.
I have seen several message boards and Twitter feeds where people are blaming this on the Tea Party, or Rush Limbaugh, or conservatives in general. Yeah, let's just blame people we do not agree with, because that will make us feel better about ourselves. How can people be consumed with such hatred that they would think this way?
As I write this, the police are at the gunman's house trying to find clues as to why the gunman did what he did. He has booby-trapped his house. This gunman obviously had issues. But we do not know what was going on in his head. We do not know why he did what he did. Why do people fell the need to point fingers at others when tragedies happen? The only person to blame is the person that committed the crime.
The dust has not even settled at this point, and there are already people out there trying to make political points out of this. The illustrious mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, want more gun control laws. He has already demanded of President Obama and Mitt Romney their plans for tighter gun control measures if elected to office. Piers Morgan has come out in favor of tighter gun control laws. So has D.L. Hughley. And we all know that the U.N. wants global gun control laws, and they will use this incident as an example and a rallying point for why that should happen.
We can argue the merits (actually de-merits) of tighter gun control measures, but now is not the time to do that. We need to let the families mourn. We need to let people heal, both physically and mentally.
Many years ago, the current mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, said that you should never let a tragedy go to waste. In other words, use tragedies to your political advantage. This is the unfortunate mindset of a lot of politicians today. Do what you can to retain your office, even if it means taking advantage of other people's misfortunes.
But we do not need to make this a political battle. The gunman did not care if the people that he shot were Republican or Democrat or Independent or Libertarian or Green Party. He randomly shot people, not caring about political affiliations, or race, or gender, or anything else. He had a complete and utter disdain for his fellowman.
The media today tries to link all news to politics - how will this help/hurt President Obama or Mitt Romney? Well, many of the events that happen on a daily basis are outside the world of politics. They have nothing to with politics, but we live in an age where the media attempt to link tragedies such as this to politics. We need to understand that events like this happen, not because of politics, but because of the sin that we all have within us.
There will be a time in the future where we finally know what happened and why this man decided to shoot people at that movie theater. And we will be able to hopefully have a rational discussion about how to keep this from happening again.
But will it require more legislation? I doubt it. It will only require us to be more vigilant in enforcing the current gun legislation that is already in place.
But this unfortunate tragedy happened in an election year and politicians are going to try to use this to their political advantage. And that is unfortunate. And sad. And it only compounds the tragedy that happened early this morning.
We mourn for the families affected by this tragedy. The only thing that these people were guilty of was being in the wrong place at the wrong time. They were simply gathered in a movie theater, waiting to watch the movie that they had eagerly anticipated. And out of nowhere, someone comes into the theater, protected by body armor, and starts shooting, without any regard for human life. It is a tragedy, but that word does not seem adequate to describe the totality of the events that happened in that theater.
But not everyone sees this event as a tragedy. Some see it as a chance to try to gain some sort of political advantage, or to affix blame on a group of people that they do not like. George Stephanolpoulus interviewed James Ross on ABC this morning, and Ross floated the theory out there that this might have been someone within the Tea Party (the same tactic they tried after Rep. Gabriel Giffords was shot).
His "extensive" research was finding a person on a Tea Party website that had the same name as the gunman, and saying that this Tea Party guy was the shooter. Really?? This is the best that this "investigative" reporter could do? Let's ruin someone's life by affixing the blame on them when they had nothing to do with it. I can see a lawsuit coming on this one.
I have seen several message boards and Twitter feeds where people are blaming this on the Tea Party, or Rush Limbaugh, or conservatives in general. Yeah, let's just blame people we do not agree with, because that will make us feel better about ourselves. How can people be consumed with such hatred that they would think this way?
As I write this, the police are at the gunman's house trying to find clues as to why the gunman did what he did. He has booby-trapped his house. This gunman obviously had issues. But we do not know what was going on in his head. We do not know why he did what he did. Why do people fell the need to point fingers at others when tragedies happen? The only person to blame is the person that committed the crime.
The dust has not even settled at this point, and there are already people out there trying to make political points out of this. The illustrious mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, want more gun control laws. He has already demanded of President Obama and Mitt Romney their plans for tighter gun control measures if elected to office. Piers Morgan has come out in favor of tighter gun control laws. So has D.L. Hughley. And we all know that the U.N. wants global gun control laws, and they will use this incident as an example and a rallying point for why that should happen.
We can argue the merits (actually de-merits) of tighter gun control measures, but now is not the time to do that. We need to let the families mourn. We need to let people heal, both physically and mentally.
Many years ago, the current mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, said that you should never let a tragedy go to waste. In other words, use tragedies to your political advantage. This is the unfortunate mindset of a lot of politicians today. Do what you can to retain your office, even if it means taking advantage of other people's misfortunes.
But we do not need to make this a political battle. The gunman did not care if the people that he shot were Republican or Democrat or Independent or Libertarian or Green Party. He randomly shot people, not caring about political affiliations, or race, or gender, or anything else. He had a complete and utter disdain for his fellowman.
The media today tries to link all news to politics - how will this help/hurt President Obama or Mitt Romney? Well, many of the events that happen on a daily basis are outside the world of politics. They have nothing to with politics, but we live in an age where the media attempt to link tragedies such as this to politics. We need to understand that events like this happen, not because of politics, but because of the sin that we all have within us.
There will be a time in the future where we finally know what happened and why this man decided to shoot people at that movie theater. And we will be able to hopefully have a rational discussion about how to keep this from happening again.
But will it require more legislation? I doubt it. It will only require us to be more vigilant in enforcing the current gun legislation that is already in place.
But this unfortunate tragedy happened in an election year and politicians are going to try to use this to their political advantage. And that is unfortunate. And sad. And it only compounds the tragedy that happened early this morning.
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Calvin Coolidge and the Declaration of Independence
As I am sitting at my desk at work, eating lunch, I came across an article on the internet (specifically on Breitbart.com) about a speech that President Calvin Coolidge gave regarding the United States and the Declaration of Independence. I have never come across this speech before, but that is understandable, considering President Coolidge is not one of our better-known Presidents.
Anyway, in this speech, President Coolidge talks about the Declaration as not only a founding document, but also as a spiritual document. Could you imagine if any politician would give this speech today, much less the President of the United States? (Well, we know that the current President of the USA would never give a speech like this, but you know what I mean.)
President Coolidge delivered this speech on July 5, 1926 (88 years ago today). Once cannot help but scratch their head and wonder what has happened to this country from the time this speech was delivered until today.
Here is the excerpted speech (copied from Breitbart.com).
Anyway, in this speech, President Coolidge talks about the Declaration as not only a founding document, but also as a spiritual document. Could you imagine if any politician would give this speech today, much less the President of the United States? (Well, we know that the current President of the USA would never give a speech like this, but you know what I mean.)
President Coolidge delivered this speech on July 5, 1926 (88 years ago today). Once cannot help but scratch their head and wonder what has happened to this country from the time this speech was delivered until today.
Here is the excerpted speech (copied from Breitbart.com).
"We meet to celebrate the birthday of America. It is to pay our tribute of reverence and respect to those who participated in such a mighty event that we annually observe the fourth day of July. At the end of 150 years the four corners of the earth unite in coming to Philadelphia as to a holy shrine in acknowledgement of a service so great, which a few inspired men here rendered to humanity, that it is still the preeminent support of free government throughout the world.Now, don't you think they ought to teach stuff like this in our public schools today? Maybe, if they did, the future of this country would look much brighter than it does right now.
It is not so much then for the purpose of undertaking to proclaim new theories and principles that this annual celebration is maintained, but rather to reaffirm and reestablish those old theories and principles which time and the unerring logic of events have demonstrated to be sound.
We are obliged to conclude that the Declaration of Independence represented the movement of a people. It was in no sense a rising of the oppressed and downtrodden. It brought no scum to the surface, for the reason that colonial society had developed no scum. The great body of the people were accustomed to privations, but they were free from depravity. If they had poverty, it was not of the hopeless kind that afflicts great cities, but the inspiring kind that marks the spirit of the pioneer. The American Revolution represented the informed and mature convictions of a great mass of independent, liberty-loving, God-fearing people who knew their rights, and possessed the courage to dare to maintain them.
The Declaration of Independence was the result of the seasoned and deliberate thought of the dominant portion of the people of the Colonies. It was in no sense a radical movement but took on the dignity of a resistance to illegal usurpations. It was conservative and represented the action of the colonists to maintain their constitutional rights which from time immemorial had been guaranteed to them under the law of the land.
It was not because it was proposed to establish a new nation, but because it was proposed to establish a nation on new principles, that July 4, 1776, has come to be regarded as one of the greatest days in history. Great ideas do not burst upon the world unannounced. They are reached by a gradual development over a length of time usually proportionate to their importance.
No one can examine this record and escape the conclusion that in the great outline of its principles the Declaration was the result of the religious teachings of the preceding period. They are found in the texts, the sermons, and the writings of the early colonial clergy who were earnestly undertaking to instruct their congregations in the great mystery of how to live. They preached equality because they believed in the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. They justified freedom by the text that we are all created in the divine image, all partakers of the divine spirit.
This was the purpose which the fathers cherished. In order that they might have freedom to express these thoughts and opportunity to put them into action, whole congregations with their pastors had migrated to the colonies. These great truths were in the air that our people breathed. Whatever else we may say of it, the Declaration of Independence was profoundly American.
In its main features the Declaration of Independence is a great spiritual document. It is a declaration not of material but of spiritual conceptions. Equality, liberty, popular sovereignty, the rights of man these are not elements which we can see and touch. They are ideals. They have their source and their roots in the religious convictions. They belong to the unseen world. Unless the faith of the American people in these religious convictions is to endure, the principles of our Declaration will perish.
Governments do not make ideals, but ideals make governments.The people have to bear their own responsibilities. There is no method by which that burden can be shifted to the government. It is not the enactment, but the observance of laws, that creates the character of a nation.
Ours is a government of the people. It represents their will. Its officers may sometimes go astray, but that is not a reason for criticizing the principles of our institutions. The real heart of the American Government depends upon the heart of the people. It is from that source that we must look for all genuine reform. It is to that cause that we must ascribe all our results.
There is far more danger of harm than there is hope of good in any radical changes.
No other theory is adequate to explain or comprehend the Declaration of Independence. It is the product of the spiritual insight of the people. We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of material things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration created them. The things of the spirit come first."
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Jerry Sandusky: A Sinner in Need of a Savior
Last night, the jury in the Jerry Sandusky case handed down a verdict that Mr. Sandusky was guilty in 45 out of the 48 counts that he was charged with in his now-infamous child sexual abuse trial. Once the verdict was announced to those outside of the courthouse and eventually to the nation and the world, there was great rejoicing in the fact that a man who had violated the trust and the innocence of so many young boys was finally getting his just dues. The man who physically and mentally abused so many boys is headed to prison, never to be released or to see freedom again.
As I watched the media circus last night, I saw people rejoicing in the fact that this monster is headed off to jail. People were cheering the decision that the man who performed such heinous acts on young boys will now be locked up, unable to violate any more boys. There is justified outrage at this man, who started a charity to help young people, but used his charity instead to meet, and susequently take advantage of, the young boys he was supposed to be helping. Instead of helping these boys, he was helping himself to these boys.
As Jerry was being led from the courthouse in handcuffs, he had a dumbfounded look on his face. I had to ask myself, "What is he thinking? He shows no remorse for what he did." Was he in shock at the decision of the jury? Was he so arrogant that he thought that the jury would never convict him? Does he really have any remorse for what he has done?
As they were putting him in the police car to transport him to prison, the TV microphones picked up voices of those who were yelling at him and taunting him. One of the people who was yelling at Jerry Sandusky in the background could be heard saying, "I hope you rot in hell!" This is a natural human reaction, as we tend to view those who violate the trust and innocence of young people as scum of the earth. But as Christians, is this to be our reaction? Should we actually hope that a human being is sent to an eternity of torment in hell?
The answer to this question lies in this simple question - what does the Bible have to say about this? John 3:16 tells us that God loved us so much that He sent His Son to die for us, and that anyone who believes in Him will have everlasting life. There is no exception to this. Salvation is for anyone who believes, even Jerry Sandusky. We read in Romans 3:23 that all men have sinned and have come short of God's glory. Romans 6:23 tells us that the wages of sin is death, but we have been offered the gift of eternal life. II Peter 3:9 tells us that the Lord is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
What these verses tell me is that we are all sinners. We have all committed sins against God. While the Bible lists many sins, I have yet to find a sin ranking in the pages of the Bible. In other words, any sin causes a sinner to be separated from God. Sin is sin. Just because I have not committed the same heinous acts as Jerry Sandusky does not mean that I am any more innocent before God or any less of a sinner. We all need to ask for God's forgiveness for our sins, including Jerry Sandusky.
To say that we want Mr. Sandsuky to "rot in hell" is saying that we believe that he is not worthy of God's salvation. That, however, is not our choice to make. None of us can do anything to deserve the salvation that God has offered to us. In the end, the only person who can choose whether or not Jerry Sandsuky ends up in hell is Jerry Sandusky. The choice is his - and it is his alone.
So what should we, as Christians, do, now that he has been convicted? We should pray. We should pray for those who were abused, that they would begin to have closure. We should pray for them, that they would be able to move past this horrific stage in their lives, and start to put their lives back together again. We should pray for their families, that they would have wisdom in moving forward. We should pray for Jerry Sandusky, that he would repent of what he has done. We should pray that he would ask forgiveness from those he has abused and taken advantage of. We should pray that he falls on his knees before God and asks forgiveness from the Almighty for the sins that he has committed.
I am not saying that if he has a cellblock confession that we should somehow completely forgive him and release him from the sentence that he will be receiving in the not-too-distant future. Part of seeking forgiveness for your sins is paying the price for the sins that you have committed. Mr. Sandusky should never be allowed to leave prison. The acts he performed are unconscionable. The sentence he gets is probably not going to be tough enough for what he has done. But we have a God who has made salvation available to everyone - including Jerry. And we should not wish an eternity in hell on anyone.
As I watched the media circus last night, I saw people rejoicing in the fact that this monster is headed off to jail. People were cheering the decision that the man who performed such heinous acts on young boys will now be locked up, unable to violate any more boys. There is justified outrage at this man, who started a charity to help young people, but used his charity instead to meet, and susequently take advantage of, the young boys he was supposed to be helping. Instead of helping these boys, he was helping himself to these boys.
As Jerry was being led from the courthouse in handcuffs, he had a dumbfounded look on his face. I had to ask myself, "What is he thinking? He shows no remorse for what he did." Was he in shock at the decision of the jury? Was he so arrogant that he thought that the jury would never convict him? Does he really have any remorse for what he has done?
As they were putting him in the police car to transport him to prison, the TV microphones picked up voices of those who were yelling at him and taunting him. One of the people who was yelling at Jerry Sandusky in the background could be heard saying, "I hope you rot in hell!" This is a natural human reaction, as we tend to view those who violate the trust and innocence of young people as scum of the earth. But as Christians, is this to be our reaction? Should we actually hope that a human being is sent to an eternity of torment in hell?
The answer to this question lies in this simple question - what does the Bible have to say about this? John 3:16 tells us that God loved us so much that He sent His Son to die for us, and that anyone who believes in Him will have everlasting life. There is no exception to this. Salvation is for anyone who believes, even Jerry Sandusky. We read in Romans 3:23 that all men have sinned and have come short of God's glory. Romans 6:23 tells us that the wages of sin is death, but we have been offered the gift of eternal life. II Peter 3:9 tells us that the Lord is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
What these verses tell me is that we are all sinners. We have all committed sins against God. While the Bible lists many sins, I have yet to find a sin ranking in the pages of the Bible. In other words, any sin causes a sinner to be separated from God. Sin is sin. Just because I have not committed the same heinous acts as Jerry Sandusky does not mean that I am any more innocent before God or any less of a sinner. We all need to ask for God's forgiveness for our sins, including Jerry Sandusky.
To say that we want Mr. Sandsuky to "rot in hell" is saying that we believe that he is not worthy of God's salvation. That, however, is not our choice to make. None of us can do anything to deserve the salvation that God has offered to us. In the end, the only person who can choose whether or not Jerry Sandsuky ends up in hell is Jerry Sandusky. The choice is his - and it is his alone.
So what should we, as Christians, do, now that he has been convicted? We should pray. We should pray for those who were abused, that they would begin to have closure. We should pray for them, that they would be able to move past this horrific stage in their lives, and start to put their lives back together again. We should pray for their families, that they would have wisdom in moving forward. We should pray for Jerry Sandusky, that he would repent of what he has done. We should pray that he would ask forgiveness from those he has abused and taken advantage of. We should pray that he falls on his knees before God and asks forgiveness from the Almighty for the sins that he has committed.
I am not saying that if he has a cellblock confession that we should somehow completely forgive him and release him from the sentence that he will be receiving in the not-too-distant future. Part of seeking forgiveness for your sins is paying the price for the sins that you have committed. Mr. Sandusky should never be allowed to leave prison. The acts he performed are unconscionable. The sentence he gets is probably not going to be tough enough for what he has done. But we have a God who has made salvation available to everyone - including Jerry. And we should not wish an eternity in hell on anyone.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Marriage, Dear Abby, and Bad Advice
I do not usually read the Dear Abby column in the newspaper. I usually do not even have the time to read the newspaper. But for some reason, today was different. I was perusing the newspaper at work today while I was eating lunch. For some reason, as I approached the comic section of the paper (my 2nd favorite section of the paper, behind the Sports section), my attention was drawn to the Dear Abby column. Maybe it was the heading of the article. Maybe my curiosity got the best of me. I don't know why I looked at it, but I did, and what I read took me by surprise.
First, I am not sure why people write into Dear Abby or Ann Landers. The advice that is given by these columnists is not usually good advice. I can't believe that these people that are asking for advice have no one else to go to, whether friends, family, co-workers, pastor, or anyone close to them. In a nationally syndicated column, why would you choose to show how pathetic you are by asking for bad advice from a stranger?
Well, here is the situation from a person labelling themselves as 'What Happened in Vegas.'
DEAR ABBY: "Darrel" and I have been married 28 years. I thought we had an easy, comfortable relationship. We have no children; it's just the two of us with a large family of furry animals. We don't take vacations together because one of us has to be home to care for the animals.
Last year Darrel took four trips to Las Vegas -- two for business and two for special sporting events. I'm beginning to get little nagging signals that he may not have been on these trips alone.
He shuts his phone off for hours at a time and changed the password on his computer after I had to get on it for a security update. The last time he went, he told me he had won two tickets in Las Vegas to a show, so I asked him to bring the extra one home so I could see it. When he returned, he didn't have it. He said he had misplaced it.
There are other things, too, and I don't know what to think. I don't want to hurt his feelings if there isn't anything going on, but I need to know. What do I do? -- WHAT HAPPENED IN VEGAS?
So, what is wrong with this picture? First, there is a serious problem in this marriage. They go on separate vacations. As a married couple, you should strive to do things together, to draw closer together, to enjoy the company of each other. Obviously, there is very little communication. He turns his phone off so she cannot get in touch with him. He does not do something that she has asked of him.
Second, in the place of children and in place of each other, these people have pets. And they allow these pets to get in between them. They do not go on vacation together because someone needs to stay home with the animals that they call family. Now, there is nothing wrong with pets, but if the pets come between you and your spouse, you have a serious problem. How in the world do you choose to stay home from a vacation with your spouse because you cannot leave the pets under the care of someone else while you are gone? How could you put the family pet above the relationship with your spouse?
I am not going to condone the behavior of the husband, but if the wife is rejecting him because the pets are more important to her, can you understand why he might stray in the marriage? He is longing for attention, and his wife is not giving it to him. Spouses need to have the attention and love of the other partner in the marriage in order for that marriage to be successful.
The problem then becomes that she goes to an outside source for an answer to the problem. Instead of approaching her husband to find out what is going on, she turns to a nationally syndicated columnist known for giving questionable advice. So, in the tradition of giving bad advice, Dear Abby gives this answer to the wife in distress.
DEAR WHAT HAPPENED IN VEGAS: If your intuition is telling you that something is wrong, listen to it. Tell Darrel you're feeling insecure and why. Start going with him to Las Vegas. Hire a pet sitter if necessary. It will be money well spent. If your husband isn't open to it, hire a private investigator to tell you what's going on. Clearly, something is up.
Surprisingly, she does tell her to hire a pet sitter, so that she can go with him on vacation. However, she does not give the advice until midway through her response. The first thing she should have said is that this lady needs to go to her husband and apologize to him for letting the animals get in the way of their relationship. She should be willing to give them up if it means restoring her marriage and getting her husband back. It really is not enough to get a pet sitter for a vacation, for that only shows a short-term willingness to restore a relationship. By being willing to to give up the pets altogether, you show a long-term commitment to your spouse.
They should seek counseling to help them in their relationship. They need to talk, to communicate, to let each other know where they see the problems in their relationship. They need to make a commitment to each other not to let pets, or anything else, come in between their relationship with each other. They do not need to hire a private investigator. That will do nothing to restore trust in each other. That will only continue to drive suspicion and distrust.
Without proper communication in a relationship, it will be destined for failure. Unfortunately, many married couples today do not see the need to communicate with each other. We live our lives, many times barely even taking the time to say hello to each other, much less taking the time to have a deep conversation with each other. We let work, or kids, or sports, or the news come between us, using them as an excuse to not have to communicate. And then we wonder why the divorce rates are so high.
We need to learn to re-connect with our spouses. We need to learn to communicate with our spouses. This is a hard thing to do, especially for men. We do not like to talk on an emotional level. But we need to do that, because, in many cases, that is what our wives need from us. Remember, the marriage is successful when both the husband and wife work at it, and communicate, and work to meet the needs of the other person.
We need to get back to this model in our marriages. Not only will it help marriages last, it will show our kids that a successful marriage takes the hard work of both parties. Marriage is not a one-sided endeavor, but a trip that a man and a woman take together.
First, I am not sure why people write into Dear Abby or Ann Landers. The advice that is given by these columnists is not usually good advice. I can't believe that these people that are asking for advice have no one else to go to, whether friends, family, co-workers, pastor, or anyone close to them. In a nationally syndicated column, why would you choose to show how pathetic you are by asking for bad advice from a stranger?
Well, here is the situation from a person labelling themselves as 'What Happened in Vegas.'
DEAR ABBY: "Darrel" and I have been married 28 years. I thought we had an easy, comfortable relationship. We have no children; it's just the two of us with a large family of furry animals. We don't take vacations together because one of us has to be home to care for the animals.
Last year Darrel took four trips to Las Vegas -- two for business and two for special sporting events. I'm beginning to get little nagging signals that he may not have been on these trips alone.
He shuts his phone off for hours at a time and changed the password on his computer after I had to get on it for a security update. The last time he went, he told me he had won two tickets in Las Vegas to a show, so I asked him to bring the extra one home so I could see it. When he returned, he didn't have it. He said he had misplaced it.
There are other things, too, and I don't know what to think. I don't want to hurt his feelings if there isn't anything going on, but I need to know. What do I do? -- WHAT HAPPENED IN VEGAS?
So, what is wrong with this picture? First, there is a serious problem in this marriage. They go on separate vacations. As a married couple, you should strive to do things together, to draw closer together, to enjoy the company of each other. Obviously, there is very little communication. He turns his phone off so she cannot get in touch with him. He does not do something that she has asked of him.
Second, in the place of children and in place of each other, these people have pets. And they allow these pets to get in between them. They do not go on vacation together because someone needs to stay home with the animals that they call family. Now, there is nothing wrong with pets, but if the pets come between you and your spouse, you have a serious problem. How in the world do you choose to stay home from a vacation with your spouse because you cannot leave the pets under the care of someone else while you are gone? How could you put the family pet above the relationship with your spouse?
I am not going to condone the behavior of the husband, but if the wife is rejecting him because the pets are more important to her, can you understand why he might stray in the marriage? He is longing for attention, and his wife is not giving it to him. Spouses need to have the attention and love of the other partner in the marriage in order for that marriage to be successful.
The problem then becomes that she goes to an outside source for an answer to the problem. Instead of approaching her husband to find out what is going on, she turns to a nationally syndicated columnist known for giving questionable advice. So, in the tradition of giving bad advice, Dear Abby gives this answer to the wife in distress.
DEAR WHAT HAPPENED IN VEGAS: If your intuition is telling you that something is wrong, listen to it. Tell Darrel you're feeling insecure and why. Start going with him to Las Vegas. Hire a pet sitter if necessary. It will be money well spent. If your husband isn't open to it, hire a private investigator to tell you what's going on. Clearly, something is up.
Surprisingly, she does tell her to hire a pet sitter, so that she can go with him on vacation. However, she does not give the advice until midway through her response. The first thing she should have said is that this lady needs to go to her husband and apologize to him for letting the animals get in the way of their relationship. She should be willing to give them up if it means restoring her marriage and getting her husband back. It really is not enough to get a pet sitter for a vacation, for that only shows a short-term willingness to restore a relationship. By being willing to to give up the pets altogether, you show a long-term commitment to your spouse.
They should seek counseling to help them in their relationship. They need to talk, to communicate, to let each other know where they see the problems in their relationship. They need to make a commitment to each other not to let pets, or anything else, come in between their relationship with each other. They do not need to hire a private investigator. That will do nothing to restore trust in each other. That will only continue to drive suspicion and distrust.
Without proper communication in a relationship, it will be destined for failure. Unfortunately, many married couples today do not see the need to communicate with each other. We live our lives, many times barely even taking the time to say hello to each other, much less taking the time to have a deep conversation with each other. We let work, or kids, or sports, or the news come between us, using them as an excuse to not have to communicate. And then we wonder why the divorce rates are so high.
We need to learn to re-connect with our spouses. We need to learn to communicate with our spouses. This is a hard thing to do, especially for men. We do not like to talk on an emotional level. But we need to do that, because, in many cases, that is what our wives need from us. Remember, the marriage is successful when both the husband and wife work at it, and communicate, and work to meet the needs of the other person.
We need to get back to this model in our marriages. Not only will it help marriages last, it will show our kids that a successful marriage takes the hard work of both parties. Marriage is not a one-sided endeavor, but a trip that a man and a woman take together.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Missions Conference 2012
Faith Baptist Church in Lebanon, PA, will be hosting their annual Missions Conference, beginning Saturday, March 10, and will go through Wednesday, March 14. You will have a chance to hear missionaries from all over the world speak about the people they minister to, the countries they minister in, as well as the details of their ministry in those countries.
The service times are as follows:
- Saturday Evening: 7:00 pm
- Sunday School: 9:15 am
- Sunday Morning: 10:30 am
- Sunday Evening: 6:30 pm
- Monday Evening: 7:00 pm
- Tuesday Evening: 6:50 pm
- Wednesday Evening: 7:00 pm
If you are able to attend any of these services, I would encourage you to do so. You will truly be blessed.
Monday, February 27, 2012
A Bibilical View Of Homosexuality
I am currently taking a class at my church on the topics of The Doctrines of Man and Sin (Anthropology and Hamartiology, respectively). We are looking at man and sin from a Biblical viewpoint. One of the assignments for this class was to write a 1-page paper on a topic that deals with any area of these doctrines. After some thought, I chose to write a paper on a Christian view of homosexuality. What does the Bible say about it? What does God say about it? Given the elevated status that homosexuality seems to garner in today's society, how should the Christian view this lifestyle choice? Anyway, here is the content of my paper.
“God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” This is a trite expression used by many Christians as evidence that homosexuality is not a lifestyle that God intended for mankind. While there is validity to this expression (as you will see later), it falls short of being a complete and total Biblical argument against the homosexual lifestyle.
Homosexuality as a lifestyle has become more common and prevalent in the last 15-20 years, though it has been existence since Bible times. In fact, it has become an in-your-face movement. No longer does it have the stigma that it once had. Popular culture tries to dictate to today’s Christian that we must accept the homosexual lifestyle. If we do not, we are labeled as bigoted, intolerant, or ‘homophobic.’
Sadly, many “Christian” churches have accepted openly gay people and their lifestyles into their churches, because “God loves everyone,” regardless of their lifestyle or their unwillingness to change their lifestyle to meet God’s standards. They try to tell us that God loves us just the way we are. In essence, instead of us trying to become closer to God and meet His standards, they want to bring God closer to us and have Him change His standards to accept that which He clearly condemns. We are not necessarily supposed to show our love for God on His terms. Rather, He is to show love for us on our terms.
So, does this mean that we are supposed to accept sinful lifestyles which are contrary to the Word of God? Are we supposed to ignore open sins which God condemns? Are we supposed to shut up about God’s standards and get along so that it might be easier for us to witness and win souls? Let’s see what the Bible has to say about this topic, and then I think the answer will be clear to us.
In Genesis 1:26-27, God says that man is created in the image of God. The end of verse 27 states that God created both male and female. This would make sense, seeing that in verse 28, God blesses the man and the woman, and He tells them to “…be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.” This command is not a possibility if there are 2 men or 2 women on earth. Not to be crude, but God made the body of the man and the body of the woman to fit together anatomically for the act of procreation (which is to be within the bounds of marriage).
Later, in Genesis 2, the author goes into a little more detail on the creation of man and woman. In verse 18, God looks at Adam and sees that he is alone, and that he is in need of a help meet. In verses 21-22, God causes Adam to fall asleep. He then takes a rib from Adam, and God makes woman. It is the woman that is to be the help meet for man. This is clearly not the role of another man. Also, in verse 24, the author says that it is God’s command that man shall cleave unto his wife. These are not generic terms. This is quite specific that God intended for man and woman to be together.
In Romans 1, the Apostle Paul is writing to the church in Rome about the temptations and sins facing the church. Because man had rejected God and worshipped other things, God allowed man to be given over to his own fleshly, vile affections (Romans 1:26-32). In verse 27, Paul states that because of this, men started to be attracted to other men, doing that which is unseemly. Because of this, God gave them over to a reprobate mind. They have no guilt for what they are doing. In fact, they find pleasure in such acts.
In I Corinthians 6:9-10, Paul tells the Corinthian people that those who are unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Among the list of the unrighteous are those who are effeminate and abusers of themselves with mankind. These are clearly listed as unrighteous lifestyles that are not compatible with a Christian lifestyle.
So people now use the argument that people are born gay. We are told that they are born with the predisposition for people of their own gender. And it seems as though many “Christian” churches are starting to buy into this philosophy. Well, according to Scripture, people are not born this way. Can I prove this scientifically? No, I am not a scientist, so I would not even know where to start. However, as I read the Bible, I can easily refute this line of thinking Biblically.
We have clearly seen that Scripture tells us that homosexuality is a sin. James 1:13 tells us that “…God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth He any man.” God does not tempt us to sin. God does not cause any man to sin. God will not force any man to sin. Why would He do anything to force mankind to do something contrary to His will? Man chooses to sin. Man chooses to live his life in rebellion to God and His Word. Romans 3:23 tells us that all have sinned and come short of God’s glory. People are not born gay – they are born a sinner. That sin can lead people to homosexuality.
So, as Christians, what are we to do? Are we to let these people continue in their sinful, vile ways and watch as they doom themselves to an eternity in hell? No, we are not to do that. We know that people can turn away from this lifestyle and follow after God. As soon as Paul is done listing different lifestyles that will keep us from the Kingdom of God, he goes on to say that some have turned from this lifestyle (I Corinthians 6:11). People are not doomed to stay in this type of lifestyle for the rest of their lives (which is another argument against being born gay – if we were born gay, then there is nothing we could do to change our lifestyle). People have turned away from their evil lifestyles and followed after God. They asked forgiveness of God, and He washed and sanctified them. It is possible.
We also are to show God’s love toward the sinner. We are not to accept their sins, but we are to display God’s love to them. John 3:16 tells us that God loved the world so much that He gave His Son to die for us. The Bible does not list any exceptions to this – He died for all. He died for everyone that ever lived. His death on the cross covered all of the sins of all mankind. His death covered all the sins that mankind has ever committed. Again, the Bible does not list any exceptions to this – the blood of Christ is able to cover any sin that man has committed. God is able to forgive someone who is gay, should they ask forgiveness. With His help, they can turn from this wicked lifestyle. But as long as they are living a life contrary to what God has prescribed in His Word, there can be no fellowship with God.
“God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” This is a trite expression used by many Christians as evidence that homosexuality is not a lifestyle that God intended for mankind. While there is validity to this expression (as you will see later), it falls short of being a complete and total Biblical argument against the homosexual lifestyle.
Homosexuality as a lifestyle has become more common and prevalent in the last 15-20 years, though it has been existence since Bible times. In fact, it has become an in-your-face movement. No longer does it have the stigma that it once had. Popular culture tries to dictate to today’s Christian that we must accept the homosexual lifestyle. If we do not, we are labeled as bigoted, intolerant, or ‘homophobic.’
Sadly, many “Christian” churches have accepted openly gay people and their lifestyles into their churches, because “God loves everyone,” regardless of their lifestyle or their unwillingness to change their lifestyle to meet God’s standards. They try to tell us that God loves us just the way we are. In essence, instead of us trying to become closer to God and meet His standards, they want to bring God closer to us and have Him change His standards to accept that which He clearly condemns. We are not necessarily supposed to show our love for God on His terms. Rather, He is to show love for us on our terms.
So, does this mean that we are supposed to accept sinful lifestyles which are contrary to the Word of God? Are we supposed to ignore open sins which God condemns? Are we supposed to shut up about God’s standards and get along so that it might be easier for us to witness and win souls? Let’s see what the Bible has to say about this topic, and then I think the answer will be clear to us.
In Genesis 1:26-27, God says that man is created in the image of God. The end of verse 27 states that God created both male and female. This would make sense, seeing that in verse 28, God blesses the man and the woman, and He tells them to “…be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.” This command is not a possibility if there are 2 men or 2 women on earth. Not to be crude, but God made the body of the man and the body of the woman to fit together anatomically for the act of procreation (which is to be within the bounds of marriage).
Later, in Genesis 2, the author goes into a little more detail on the creation of man and woman. In verse 18, God looks at Adam and sees that he is alone, and that he is in need of a help meet. In verses 21-22, God causes Adam to fall asleep. He then takes a rib from Adam, and God makes woman. It is the woman that is to be the help meet for man. This is clearly not the role of another man. Also, in verse 24, the author says that it is God’s command that man shall cleave unto his wife. These are not generic terms. This is quite specific that God intended for man and woman to be together.
In Romans 1, the Apostle Paul is writing to the church in Rome about the temptations and sins facing the church. Because man had rejected God and worshipped other things, God allowed man to be given over to his own fleshly, vile affections (Romans 1:26-32). In verse 27, Paul states that because of this, men started to be attracted to other men, doing that which is unseemly. Because of this, God gave them over to a reprobate mind. They have no guilt for what they are doing. In fact, they find pleasure in such acts.
In I Corinthians 6:9-10, Paul tells the Corinthian people that those who are unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Among the list of the unrighteous are those who are effeminate and abusers of themselves with mankind. These are clearly listed as unrighteous lifestyles that are not compatible with a Christian lifestyle.
So people now use the argument that people are born gay. We are told that they are born with the predisposition for people of their own gender. And it seems as though many “Christian” churches are starting to buy into this philosophy. Well, according to Scripture, people are not born this way. Can I prove this scientifically? No, I am not a scientist, so I would not even know where to start. However, as I read the Bible, I can easily refute this line of thinking Biblically.
We have clearly seen that Scripture tells us that homosexuality is a sin. James 1:13 tells us that “…God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth He any man.” God does not tempt us to sin. God does not cause any man to sin. God will not force any man to sin. Why would He do anything to force mankind to do something contrary to His will? Man chooses to sin. Man chooses to live his life in rebellion to God and His Word. Romans 3:23 tells us that all have sinned and come short of God’s glory. People are not born gay – they are born a sinner. That sin can lead people to homosexuality.
So, as Christians, what are we to do? Are we to let these people continue in their sinful, vile ways and watch as they doom themselves to an eternity in hell? No, we are not to do that. We know that people can turn away from this lifestyle and follow after God. As soon as Paul is done listing different lifestyles that will keep us from the Kingdom of God, he goes on to say that some have turned from this lifestyle (I Corinthians 6:11). People are not doomed to stay in this type of lifestyle for the rest of their lives (which is another argument against being born gay – if we were born gay, then there is nothing we could do to change our lifestyle). People have turned away from their evil lifestyles and followed after God. They asked forgiveness of God, and He washed and sanctified them. It is possible.
We also are to show God’s love toward the sinner. We are not to accept their sins, but we are to display God’s love to them. John 3:16 tells us that God loved the world so much that He gave His Son to die for us. The Bible does not list any exceptions to this – He died for all. He died for everyone that ever lived. His death on the cross covered all of the sins of all mankind. His death covered all the sins that mankind has ever committed. Again, the Bible does not list any exceptions to this – the blood of Christ is able to cover any sin that man has committed. God is able to forgive someone who is gay, should they ask forgiveness. With His help, they can turn from this wicked lifestyle. But as long as they are living a life contrary to what God has prescribed in His Word, there can be no fellowship with God.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Is our political primary system in need of repair?
In case you have not yet noticed, the Presidential primary election system is upon us. Up to this point, only 2 states have voted (and one of them was a caucus, not a primary). There has been much emphasis put on winning the caucus in Iowa and the primary in New Hampshire. But why is that? I have a hard time understanding why we put so much emphasis on winning these 2 states, when Iowa only has 6 electoral votes and New Hampshire has 4. (Granted, the primary races are for delegates at the convention, not for electoral votes, but the electoral vote count gives us an idea of how big the state is compared to the entire country.)
This is not to say that their votes should count any differently than mine or yours. I guess my problem is that their votes seem to count more, since there is so much emphasis put on those 2 states. After all, the Republican winner of those 2 states this year has been declared the front-runner and people are basically handing him the nomination for the fall Presidential election. Yes, winning definitely provides momentum, but is it too early to declare a winner, after only 2 states?
The next state having a primary election is South Carolina (9 electoral votes). Then it will be on to Florida, with 29 electoral votes. Certainly, after these 2 primaries, we will have a definitive front-runner. Or will we? Will it be too late for someone else to move to the front of the race? Probably, but it would not be impossible.
As I have thought about this over the last several weeks, and months, I have come to the conclusion that the primary system in America needs to be fixed. And to avoid being one of those whiners that only complains and offers no solutions, I have several ideas that I believe would help fix the system that we use to elect a party's candidate for political office.
So without further adieu, here we go.
This is not to say that their votes should count any differently than mine or yours. I guess my problem is that their votes seem to count more, since there is so much emphasis put on those 2 states. After all, the Republican winner of those 2 states this year has been declared the front-runner and people are basically handing him the nomination for the fall Presidential election. Yes, winning definitely provides momentum, but is it too early to declare a winner, after only 2 states?
The next state having a primary election is South Carolina (9 electoral votes). Then it will be on to Florida, with 29 electoral votes. Certainly, after these 2 primaries, we will have a definitive front-runner. Or will we? Will it be too late for someone else to move to the front of the race? Probably, but it would not be impossible.
As I have thought about this over the last several weeks, and months, I have come to the conclusion that the primary system in America needs to be fixed. And to avoid being one of those whiners that only complains and offers no solutions, I have several ideas that I believe would help fix the system that we use to elect a party's candidate for political office.
So without further adieu, here we go.
- Close the primaries for both parties. The Republican primary should only be for registered Republicans and the Democrat primary should only be for registered Democrats. I have no interest in voting for a Democrat nominee, and I surely do not want the Democrats picking the Republican nominee (heaven knows we have enough liberal Republicans voting in the primary). To me, this is akin to people from New Jersey or New York coming to PA to vote for our governor or representative, or me going to their state to vote for their governor or representative. I am not a citizen (i.e. member) of that state, so I should not be voting in their election. Likewise, if you are an independent, you have no right to vote for a nominee of either party.
- Political parties should not endorse any candidate. I have never made a decision to vote for someone simply because the talking heads of the Republican party endorsed a candidate. Once the party does endorse a candidate, they throw the weight of the party (and the money) behind that particular candidate. Personally, I do not care who the talking heads want as the nominee. And I do not believe that many other people out there care about the opinion of the talking heads. However, once the talking heads make an endorsement, it makes it much more difficult for other candidates to have their voices heard and get their message out to the electorate.
- Politicians should not endorse any candidate. Celebrities often make political endorsements. They just do not realize that most people could care less about their political leanings and beliefs. Politicians often feel as though they are celebrities, so they think we care about who they are going to endorse for office. This will often hurt them more than it will help them. For instance, this hurt Rick Santorum in 2006, and was part of the reason he was not re-elected. In 2004, Santorum endorsed the re-election of that Senatorial turncoat, Arlen Specter. Many conservatives were extremely unhappy about this, and they did not vote for Santorum in the 2006 election (they most likely did not vote for Sen. Casey either, most likely choosing a 3rd party candidate, or not voting for that office at all). So my message to politicians is this - keep your nose out of the primaries and stop endorsing candidates.
- There should be a limited number of caucus/primary dates on the calendar. The primary/caucus season started on 1/3/12 for this election cycle, and will not be over for several months. That is just too long for an election cycle. I believe that we should have 7 dates for primaries/caucuses. There would be 7 primaries on each date, except for the first one, which would have 8 states voting that day. These primaries should start on the first Tuesday in April, and proceed for the next 6 weeks after that. That way, they will not be strung out for months. Also, it would shorten the political season, as most of us are too tired of the whole thing by the time the conventions roll around.
- Large states should be the last to hold primaries/caucuses. In conjunction with the truncated primary season, I contend that the primaries and caucuses should be held in reverse order of electoral votes. This way, the big states would come last. This would cause the candidates to have to go to the smaller states in order to win elections and get an advantage over their competitors. This should also keep more candidates in the race longer, as these smaller states would probably be won by several of the candidates. This should also lead to an exciting finish of the primary season, instead of having the primary season over by mid-March, with half the nation still having not voted in a primary and basically being disenfranchised in the primary process. No particular candidate would be able to win enough delegates until the final couple of weeks of the primary season, therefore allowing candidates to stay in the race longer and making it more competitive. Also, it would keep states from arguing with each other and trying to move their primary dates so they can be earlier in the whole process. (In case you were wondering, being from Pennsylvania, we would vote on the last primary day under this proposed plan of mine.)
- If you are going to run for higher political office, you need to resign from your current elected office. This is a pet peeve of mine. The people voted a politician into office to do a particular job. The people did not vote someone into office in order for that person to run for a higher office and forsake the job they were elected to do. If that person is running for higher office, he is not doing what he was elected to do, thus giving those who elected him a raw deal. We should have expectations of our elected officials to do the job they were elected to do. If they do not do it, they should not hold that office. Also, this would allow us to see who is really serious about running for office. If they are willing to give up their current elected office instead of using it something to "fall back on" should they lose, then we know that the person will be a serious candidate for office.
- The political season needs to be shorter. Once Wednesday, November 7 rolls around, the 2016 Presidential race will start. Thankfully, many of us will to tired of politics to care. But that does not mean that the networks will not try to shove it down our throats. The Presidential election process should not start until January of the election year. This year, by the time January 1 had rolled around, the Republicans had already had numerous debates. This is happening too early, and it continues to get earlier each election cycle. Right now, unless your state is having a primary, not many people are paying attention to the process and the candidates. It is time to shorten the election season.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)