On Tebow and Tolerance

Apparently it is now divisive to share your personal story. I love when the so-called "tolerant" left cannot tolerate another point of view. Here's a link to an article detailing a potential Super Bowl ad that has the left in a tizzy... it concerns Tim Tebow, his mom and their story.

By the way, GO COLTS!

"24" and Politics

I am, for the most part, a fan of the show "24" (minus a few boo-boo seasons). But I have been watching and enjoying it this year... that is until recently.

(Disclaimer: a slight spoiler is ahead, so if you are behind in the show, proceed at your own discretion.)

A couple things are beginning to irk me:

• The incessant "Go Green" commercials interspersed throughout the show, using the actors themselves to promote the supposed global warming theory. They really screwed up last week when the now evil Tony gave his "go green" spiel in the middle of his double crossing... big boo. That did nothing to help the "green" cause.

• Check out this clip from "24's" new "Chloe", played by Janeane Garofalo. It's her obscene take on the Tea Parties (MSNBC allowing such comments is a whole other thing). You really only have to listen to the first 40secs to get the gist.

Actors should keep their mouths shut when it comes to politics. It would help their careers.

"Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue." Proverbs 17:28

Saddleback Follow Up

Most agree that the Saddleback Forum last weekend was well-conducted by lead pastor Rick Warren. He had a chance to ask both candidates some straight-forward honest questions (whether they answered honestly remains to be seen). And he did an excellent job. But what does he himself think about politics? Where does he fall on the issues? He has not been as politically outspoken as say a Dr. James Dobson or the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, and that has caused some to criticize him, some to mischaracterize him and some to appreciate him. Warren's lack of candidate endorsement and political rhetoric in no way means he's soft on the issues or trying to appease all sides. I have heard him speak on government/politics a couple of times and he is well-versed in the arena. He is a man of strong conviction and in my opinion has a pretty good grasp of the biblical worldview.

You can read some of his thoughts here in a rare interview with the Wall Street Journal. The article is worth the read but here's a brief summary of Warren's main points:

• He's pro-life and believes abortion is the most significant issue affecting the evangelical vote in the fall.
• He rejects the idea of tolerance as far as it has come to mean that all ideas are equally valid. He is no relativist.
• He views McCain as a limited government guy and Obama as a big government guy.
• He wants a non-government solution to things like poverty and disease, believing that churches should lead the way in this fight.
• Though he's one of the most generous men in the world (giving away 90% of his income), he believes "the answer to poverty is business development, not charity." He believes free market, enterprise and creativity are vital to a society.
• He knows that true answers to societies ills can only come from Jesus and His Church. The government cannot be a savior.
  
• He wants to return civility to the public square, wishing that people could "disagree about the issues without demonizing each other." And Saturday night was one of his efforts in doing so.

All I have to say is "Amen!" (And read the article...)

Nous Namlok Ein Problema.

Earlier this week I saw a news story that baffled me. In a nutshell, an Iranian couple filed a formal complaint against the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety. They wanted to take their driver's license exams in Farsi, their native tongue, and the state refused their request. The couple does not understand English well enough to pass the normal exam. The complaint accused the state department of "unlawful discrimination based on national origin."

Um, excuse me, but last time I checked, all of our street signs are in English. I'd hope someone could understand enough English before being issued a driver's license. (Just so happens the couple went across state lines to Kansas where they were allowed to take the test based on symbols and not language. They then crossed back into Oklahoma and exchanged their Kansas licenses for Oklahoma ones.)

I heard the young man who filed the complaint on the couple's behalf in an interview a few days ago. It was his belief that every state should provide driver's tests in any language requested. Can you imagine the administrative and financial burden this would place on the government (and in turn, your tax dollars)?

Now, I have no problem with legal immigration. It's how this nation started and one of the many reasons for its greatness. We've been able to draw from the strength and creativity of so many different cultures, and that is beautiful. But it is my belief that in order to maintain the unity and functionality of a nation, you need at least two things: BORDERS and COMMON LANGUAGE. We need to make English the official language of the United States, and people should be expected to learn it if they choose to make their home here.

What do you think? Should English be made the official language of our nation?

I'm a bit confused

I am increasingly disturbed by the gross inconsistencies I see evidenced in much of the western world. I can at least respect a worldview that is consistent, but a belief system that contradicts itself at every turn is hard for me to stomach.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, the principal leader of the Church of England, recently made some unsettling comments. In the name of tolerance and diversity, he actually believes that sharia, or Islamic law, should become part of what he calls “plural jurisdiction” in Britain. This, he says, would help “maintain social cohesion”.

But what, I might ask, is “social cohesion”? Is punishing a woman because she was raped social cohesion? What about allowing a man to beat his wife? Or maybe forcing a 9-year-old girl to marry a 60-year-old man brings about social cohesion. And since when is sentencing a homosexual to death considered tolerant? All of this and more would be ushered in under sharia law.

This is why it’s confusing to me when I hear liberal feminists calling for tolerance and supporting the idea of Muslims instituting sharia law in the West. Do they not know what life is like for women under this system of warped justice?

It’s why I was a bit perplexed when a pastor in Sweden was recently thrown in jail for calling homosexuality a sin. The leader of the Church of England calls for sharia law (under which homosexuals would be killed), while another church leader is imprisoned for merely calling homosexuality a sin.

You can’t have it both ways people.

And therein lies the problem with trying to serve the god of tolerance—tolerance of one person is often a direct violation of the rights of another.

Or maybe its just Christians for whom modern pluralism has no tolerance.

But even so, can someone please enlighten me as to how it’s possible to create a society that’s simultaneously safe for the homosexual and tolerant of the Islamic extremist who wants to kill him? Or how it’s logical to tolerate Islam’s belief that the homosexual should be killed, while ranting and raving because a Christian said that the practice of homosexuality is wrong?

But then again, maybe the Archbishop is onto something with his concept of multiple legal standards. I mean, I myself might develop a proclivity for driving drunk on the wrong side of the highway at 100 mph. Why should I be restrained due to the bigotry and intolerance of the rest of society?