Flags have been on my mind lately.
What an interesting thing, a flag. What’s it for? Vexillologists tell us that flags were originally designed for identification and signaling purposes. They were meant to communicate important information in an efficient manner. Most flags have evolved past that, to become largely ceremonial or symbolic. But, events often conspire to reinvigorate flags with new potency.
The tragedies of 9/11 prompted a renewal of the
That’s not what’s on my mind.
The U.S. House recently passed a resolution in June, supporting a Constitutional amendment that would ban flag desecration. It will likely move to a vote in the Senate any day now. Having failed to get the necessary votes the last five or six times it’s been tried, legislators apparently stand a much better chance of passing it this time around. While there are some compelling issues surrounding the issue of flag desecration, that’s not what’s on my mind.
The confederate flag has also received a great deal of attention lately. Several Southern states and numerous local institutions continue to debate the balance between heritage and offensiveness.
But, that’s not what’s on my mind.
THIS is what’s on my mind:
The
I first heard about this flag here and here.
Some of you may be familiar with the original Christian flag, designed by a Sunday school superintendent and a Methodist minister in 1907.
The original pledge to the Christian flag was,
I pledge allegiance to the Christian Flag and to the Savior for whose kingdom it stands. One brotherhood, uniting all mankind, in service and love.
Most conservative Protestant churches, feeling that the message was too broad and liberal, modified the pledge to read,
I pledge allegiance to the Christian flag, and to the Savior for whose kingdom it stands; one Savior, crucified, risen, and coming again with life and liberty to all who believe.
While more than a little disturbing in its crusade-ishness, for decades the Christian flag sat stoically next to the American flag in Protestant churches, proclaiming a strange and benign version of patriotism and faith. It received little attention beyond mumbled rituals of punch-stained preschoolers at vacation bible school.
Well, apparently, the Christian flag’s design and pledge were too anemic and inclusive for Marcia Thompson Eldreth and her pastor.
The Betsy Ross of American Fundamentalism designed the new U.S Christian flag, which carries this pledge:
I pledge allegiance, to the Christian Flag, of the United States of America, and to the Lord, who made us great and free. I purpose, to band together, with all believers, to protect the truth and liberty of God.
Holy. Shit.
Where to begin. Why a flag? Why an exclusively U.S. flag? Is the U.S. unique in its "greatness" and "freedom?" When we "band together," is that a thinly-veiled call to arms? By "all believers," does that imply only American believers? Since when did God's truth or liberty need your protection? And that's just for starters.
I know this represents a perverted extreme of the American Christian Right, and I know that many of my conservative friends will recoil at this too; but where is this God-is-on-our-side stuff going to end? Star-spangled bibles? Pistol-packing missionaries? Seeing the cross by the rockets red glare?
Whenever we fly something, wave something, or display something designed to signal our cultural location, our religious identity, or our ideology; and whenever the flying, waving, and displaying become more important than the living and the loving, we have completely missed the point.
My neighbor, Bill, regularly displays an American flag on his house. While Bill and I do not agree about most things political, and I am not much for flag-waving, his flag is not offensive to me at all. Bill is a good guy whose son is in the military, and who is simply proud of his country. He doesn’t fly his flag to say something about me, or to draw some line of division between us, and he would never let his flag come between our relationship as neighbors.
The U.S. Christian flag bothers me a lot. My God and my faith are not things to be possessed by an exclusive group or nation, or weapons to be wielded in a nationalistic culture war.
Jesus said that his followers will be known for their love, joy, peace, kindness, etc. He didn’t say, “They will know you by your flags.” Someone needs to remind Marcia that Jesus taught that we win by losing.
So, does God hate flags? I don’t know. I honestly don’t think God gives a damn about our flags. But I feel sure that God hates it when we spend more time and attention on banners, edifices, proclamations, and policies than we do loving God and loving our neighbors.
29 comments:
A-freakin-men. I do not understand the obsession to combine Christianity and Patroitism. Whatever happened to seperation between Church and State? Did someone forget that idea somewhere along the way? I understand believers will have their faith influence them in all areas of life, including state matters. But if the state dare influence the church, someone's going to hang for it. A perposterous double standard. There's a church in my grandparents' hometown in East Texas that holds an annual Christian flag "contest." Basically a bunch of old women try to out do each other on who can come up with the fanciest new flag to display each year. They spend hundreds of dollars on sparkly material and rhinestones so they can "win." I'm glad to know that kind of cash can be spend on useless crafting projects instead of helping those in need.
Jen M.
It was the late seventies and I was in VBS at Grant Ave. Baptist Church in Springfield, Mo. I remember, " I pledge allegiance to the Christian Flag and to the Savior for whose Kingdom it stands. One brotherhood uniting all christians in SERVICE and in LOVE."
I remember that time I think, wow, it was so simple.
God loves me.
Jesus loves me.
I am loved!
SIMPLE.
Simple flag, though truly not needed.
Simple faith, desperately needed.
Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and love your neighbor as your self.
Why does it have to be so hard. Why do we have to have a flag?
(An Eddie Izzard joke is bubbling at the surface right now.)
Why can't we (christians) just have a revolution of LOVE sweeping through the world. Why can't we live lives with such love and mercy and grace that we change peoples moods in drive throughs and check-out lines and traffic lights.
Why?
Because the eyes are on self and self's rights. (I really meant to write it that way.)
"Don't you take my freedom to have a Christian Flag with an Eagle (Freedom) carrying a Cross (Salvation)!"
Freedom carrying Salvation? How perverted is that?
Rights? Seriously?
The bible I read tells me that as a Christian, life is going to be tough. It's gonna be hard. Oh, and I own nothing! I steward things. That's it.
Jesus didn't say, "Follow me...'cuz theres a free ride on this earth if you do. Oh, and over here we'll make flags and really big tour buses and solid gold chairs to sit in and really nice suits to wear."
Well, I went a totally different way than when I started this comment but hey, anyway, Reach I couldn't agree more with your observation on flags.
"You're a Brand new flag, you're a high flying flag and you stand for the RIGHT PERFECT Way! You're the Emblem of the Man I love and see him in mir'r each day. Well, I will see you just don't sit in my pew and o'er the off-ring we'll brag. Should homeless and hungry be forgot, Keep your eye on our brand new Flag!"
Stuff like this reveals how inclined toward theocracy some people are. And that disturbs the hell out of me, quite frankly. There was a map posted to the internet right after the elections showing the red/blue breakdown, only this map had two titles: "America" and "Jesusland."
I'd actually be fine if those so inclined would like to make their own little Christian theocratic splinter country, as it would make both of us very happy -- on the condition that we get the nukes, of course. Nobody who enjoys the Left Behind novels should ever get access to a nuclear weapon. But in a perfect world, neither would anyone who can't correctly pronounce "nuclear." Wish in one hand...
As to the issue of flag burning, I remember reading a pamphlet a few years ago about the laws and mores of US flag handling, and the section on disposal of an old flag caught my notice. It said that worn-out flags should be disposed of (and this is close to a direct quote), by burning or other "similarly respectful" means.
Luckily, amending the Constitution is very hard, and that's as it should be. Probably this is just a matter of politicians wanting to appease their far-right base by going after a cause they know they'll fail at so they can return to them, shrug, and blame those stinkin' liberal secularists for monkeying up the plan that clearly Jesus wants us all to follow.
I'm afraid that stuff like this reveals that every criticism Socrates had of democracy (lowering the level of debate, leaning toward a government governed by emotion rather than reason, ensuring that politicians would care more about reelection than governing, etc.) was correct.
Reacher,
I, too, feel like patriotism and Christianity have become scarily mixed. And nationalism in the U.S. has certainly been on the rise since 9/11. When I moved to Germany in 2003, one of the cultural preparation questions we had to answer was "how do Americans feel about the flag and national anthem" versus how we expect Germans to feel about theirs. Most Germans don't even know their national anthem, and it's almost never sung. Now, naturally, they're a bit gun-shy about excessive displays of nationalism given their more recent history.
And I agree with middleclasstool that a growing number of people in this country are inclined toward theocracy, though MOST would never say it that way. It's more popular to say they want to return the country to the Christian values of our forefathers. But don't doubt that some are willing to build their "own little Christian theocratic splinter country." They're trying to do so in South Carolina. Check out ChristianExodus.org. Thankfully, they haven't been widely successful. Yet.
Why ARE so many Christians more focused on a few issues and influencing politics rather than loving one another? Well, we love those who agree with us. Tragically, "sinners" know most Christians by their hate and disapproval. But I am encouraged to read the comments here and experience some hope.
I think I have a bit of an answer (though most certainly incomplete) to that last comment:
" Why ARE so many Christians more focused on a
few issues and influencing politics rather than
loving one another?"
I don't been to start a heated debate, or a series of them... but we are in a very unique time in our nation. A time I don't believe will last our lifetime (I know all of you are thinking, "Thank God!"). Right now many "conservative" Christians believe that they cannot sit by in a democratic nation and allow, in good conscience, things to go on publicly that they strongly believe are detrimental to humanity and society. I can tell you with certainty that there are about 3 or 4 issues that are "holding things up" and causing this intense war-like mindset. Abortion. Human stem-cell research (again, abortion) and cloning. And homosexual marriage. If party lines were not largely drawn there, I guarantee we would not have the partisan "culture war" we are having. In a nation that is "of the people, by the people, and for the people" the people can't help but vote and lobby their convictions. I these instances, most of them are not assuming the role of God in determining ultimate right and wrong for everyone. They just believe in a couple of core truths. One - "innocent until proven guilty." That's pretty basic, right? We don't imprison someone-God forbid execute them-until they're proven guilty. So why allow the least empowered of all human beings, who have no say whatsoever as to their fate, be murdered in the first degree, permissable by national law?! If we want to preach empowerment, let's at least be consistent! Ok, so we're "not sure" when life begins (and that's what it all boils down to). Like I said, which side of the uncertainty to we want to err on. What if we were wrong, and life does begin at conception?! Oh, now hell's broken loose. We've made the murder of our most innocent and powerless citizens completely legal, because of intellectual, scientific-methodic filibustering! Whoops, I didn't reveal my bias did I? Crap. I guess I won't be welcomed into this e-community any longer, since I apparently am the type of person under attack. Or do I just hold strongly the convictions of the people who are being attacked, while trying my best to go about things in a more civilized, ethical manner?
I sure as hell couldn't care less about freakin' flags, the national anthem, the pledge of allegiance, or the 4th of July (I'm really not even all that impressed by fireworks). Frankly, I think the predominant "American" ideology is frighteningly anti-Christian and certainly not "God's ideology." God bless America, my ass. God is on the side of the humble, the weak and the poor, but is against the proud, arrogant and self-sufficient.
Very well articulated. I couldn't agree more with your conclusion that as Christ's ambassadors we ought to be modeling his example! I couldn't have said it better myself. One thing I think each of us would agree with here is that Jesus upheld the cause of the oppressed. And certainly he ALWAYS did it out of 100% compassion, without ever a hint of selfish motive or inward (or outward) validation. You know, the phrase "What would Jesus do?" is so worn out that it's use it almost meaningless these days, but I think this is a good place to ask it. We certainly have no written record of Jesus addressing issues of infanticide, as well as a number of other things. All we have is what he DID do. And the one consistent thing he did was love and defend the defenseless. If Jesus was here, I guarantee he would be loving those mothers who became pregnant against their will. The question is, would he encourage them to kill their babies so they didn't have to suffer any emotional hardship? (even though it is common knowledge that emotional disturbance doesn't go away after abortions, but remains longer and stronger than those of mothers who have their babies) Would he encourage them to kill their babies to avoid personal physical harm? Death? After all, looking after one's self is the ultimate ethical thing to do... right?
Ok, let's say (only if heaven came down!) Christians universally came to a consensus that murdering babies is wrong, and that because God foreknew those babies even before they were conceived and prepared a soul for them. Even then, some would take issue as to whether or not our "religious beliefs" should affect our government policy. And so goes the delimma. Without faith-based assumptions, there is no basis for government at all. God ordained government--reluctantly, but he put in in place, nevertheless. The ten commandments were the first offcial law to come to mankind (even before established government). They WERE the Law. Governments ever since have held those basic commandments to be true and good for all mankind. The only governments who have not used the Law as the foundation for their laws are wicked, tyrannical, communistic, oppressive governments (which have been and continue to be under the judgment of God). In other words, you cannot separate "the ten commandments from state." Notice I did not say "church and state." For church is something altogether different from government. Church is the fellowship of believers, serving each other and working together to love others into the family of Christ, and nurturing them into disciples who will, in turn, do likewise. So where does that leave us in relation to government? All I know for certain is that righteous government must be based on the Law, which is from the one true God, Jesus Christ. Jesus didn't come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. Don't forget that the greatest commandments have always been to love God first, and to love humanity second. Everything else falls into these two commands.
That's all for now.
I doubt anyone actually responds to this. Thank you, Annie, for your thoughtful and encouraging response. Hope to continue to benefit from your insight. God bless you all.
BL here - The first couple of times I read this post, I missed the Fred Phelps reference.
But the more I look at it, I wonder about whether God really does hate flags.
On the one hand, there's the issue of God's emotions. But I'm prone to believe that if God loves us, he can hate us also - or hate things we do.
But back to flags. I guess to me, God provides what we need. And if some people need flags as a tangible expression of their faith, is that really so bad. It seems as well that it's not so much the flag, as the way the flag has changed to promote a more militant/militaristic brand of evangelical Christianity that is the real problem.
Do I disagree with you, Beloved? Let me count the ways. First, I am not aware of anyone who is encouraging people to "kill their babies." Most of the pro-choice people I know are far more broken-hearted about abortion than many pro-lifers, who are often only concerned about cultural victories. They objectify fetuses as operatives in their political gamesmanship, which is as bad as those who see unborn life as disposable.
Second, I abhor abortion, but I am reluctant to overturn Roe because I have read the data, and the facts are clear: changing the law will not significantly reduce the number of abortions. When you factor in the loss of maternal lives, and the fact that illegal abortion will have disproportionate impacts on the poor, it is does not appear to be the issue Jesus would pursue. I suspect he would work hard to reduce the economic injustices and cultural conditions that make the demand for abortion so high. Why is this issue always about evil feminist groups and not about evil white corporate executives that close factories and steal pensions, prompting poor women to abort the children they can't pay for anymore? (Understand, I do not drink the Clinton Kool-Aid, but during his second term there were 50,000 fewer abortions a year than under Bush's first term.)
As for the ten commandments, you must be kidding. Virtually all major civilizations developed moral codes similar to the TC. They are hardly unique, and they contain principles that are expressly theocratic, and would require "law-abiding" citizens to worship no god but Jehovah. They are an impossible source of condemnation, from which Christians can escape by the gift of grace; but as an exclusive standard for law and jurisprudence, they are dangerous.
By the way, are you suggesting that democracies based on the TC have been more moral than the list of evil regimes? Native Americans, African-Americans, Asian-Americans..., and pockets of colonized and conquered peoples around the world, who have experienced their own version of American genocides, might disagree.
Church and state should remain separate. Caesar should never be god.
We should always be careful about the flags we wave.
I'll respond, briefly, for the record. But I seriously doubt we're going to change each other's minds on this. ;)
The fundamental question here is what beliefs your principles and ethics are based upon. The very way phrasing we choose to ask the question reveals this. For instance, you said this:
Ok, let's say (only if heaven came down!) Christians universally came to a consensus that murdering babies is wrong, and that because God foreknew those babies even before they were conceived and prepared a soul for them. Even then, some would take issue as to whether or not our "religious beliefs" should affect our government policy.
How many Christians do you know that would say killing babies is okay? We're pretty much all in agreement that killing a baby should generally be frowned upon. The question is not whether killing babies is wrong, it's a question of whether and at what point abortion constitutes baby killing. You answer "yes" and "always," but a lot of others disagree.
So your prediction is and always has been fulfilled. We all agree that killing babies is wrong, and yet we still debate the question of abortion.
Your answer is based on your religious convictions, including that (a) God exists and (b) gives us our souls even when we're still a tiny aggregation of cells, and these are convictions which millions of Americans do not share. By insisting that your faith's religious convictions supercede all others in the law, you're edging very close to de facto theocracy. I understand this is not your intent, that you perceive murder and wish to put a stop to it, but nevertheless that's the end result of pursuing a Christian-first government.
But you answer my point with this:
Without faith-based assumptions, there is no basis for government at all. God ordained government.... The ten commandments were the first offcial law .... Governments ever since have held those basic commandments to be true and good for all mankind. The only governments who have not used the Law as the foundation for their laws are wicked, tyrannical, communistic, oppressive governments...
Again, sez you. Says your faith, that is, and there are a whole lot of people who disagree. And they have reason to, even if they believe in God.
No basis for government without religion? How about protecting the people from foreign invaders, establishing a rule of law to prevent harm from within, providing funds and resources to battle poverty, protecting and developing natural resources? Waste of time, not a good enough reason to govern?
Then there's your dismissal of all societies out of hand who didn't use the Decalogue as their basis of law as "wicked" and "tyrannical." But there have been plenty of Christian governments who based their laws on Mosaic law that were wicked and tyrannical. Like, say, every Christian monarchy that has ever existed. In fact, any government that institutes "thou shalt have no other gods before me" as actual policy can pretty much be guaranteed to be vicious and oppressive.
Well, hell, on preview, Reacher beat me to it.
Boo-yah.
I love it when someone says BOO-Yah!
If ever I were to make a flag for myself, I might put Boo-yah in the corner. That or Slamalama-dingdong! That's another good one.
Sorry about the distraction from the debate, it's just that no one ever wants to talk about boo-yah or slamalama dingdong.
So, in other words, the ends justify the means? Because it will save the lives of mothers who wish to murder their babies, and in doing so harm themselves? We allow babies to be legally executed (maybe "extracted" is a more politically correct term... since it doesn't evoke the emotion that should rightfully be evoked in such a serious matter)? I agree 100% that there are astronomical socio-economic causes behind abortion, and that likewise there MUST be socio-economic solutions. But in a nation where democracy is the rule, and where life is the foremost value of our value system by which we make law, how can we allow this to continue?
I find it rather interesting that noone responded to my question about "innocent until proven guilty", or better yet, "alive until proven dead." That's all I'm saying. There is no proof that God doesn't give us souls when or even before we are conceived, because God is the only one with a monopoly on the Truth. We all agree on that here. But do you understand why I am so distressed, along with the millions of others who support this cause? By the way, for someone who frowns so heavily upon prejudice and stereotyping, where does Reacher get off assuming that all, or even the majority, of people who share my convictions are hate mongers that are only concerned with self-centered personal victories? What a sad way to look at the world. I'm sorry, but it's just sad. Yeah, I know you've been jaded by Christianity Incorporated and all the lost people who claim Christ and give Christ a bad name, but what right do you have to assume that they "objectify fetuses" in some selfish perverted lust for control? That's a distorted view of reality. Until we choose to embrace a more optimistic reality we will never be able to dialogue and build relationships for fear of judgment, condemnation and spite.
Do I agree with militant domination (including religious)? Not at all! Have there been many instances where "Christian" monarchies have been wicked? Yes. I know of no "Christian" government that has ever existed apart from Constantine's Roman empire, and that obviously was a mess.
I don't believe that America is or ever has been a "Christian government." But the majority of our values stemmed from values that God himself gave to us. True, most major religions believe similar things to the Judeo-Christian tradition. We have to remember here, however, that the Commandments came first. All of humanity began at a single location, until they became to proud, arrogant and smart for their own good and God separated them. He then proceeded to choose a specific nation of people to be His people, and all the others were not. Does that sound fair? Certainly not by our standards. But who are we to decide what's fair, ethical, moral, right, and so on. That's the point. Human beings cannot develop their own "ethics" or "values" or "morals" or whatever, because of that reason--they are flawed because we are flawed. As for "protecting the people from foreign invaders, establishing a rule of law to prevent harm from within, providing funds and resources to battle poverty, protecting and developing natural resources", why are those values important? What's so noble about those values? What are ethics, anyway? What gives something value? Why are relationships of value, particularly on this blog site? Why does life in general have value? Of what value is education, or affluency, or humility, or fairness, or love, or social action, or equality, or freedom? Where do values come from, mid air? Who cares if everyone just kills everyone because they feel like it? Who cares if everyone just goes around raping each other and hating each other? WE DO!! But why? That's the question we must answer. Why? It's not "just because that's the way people are." It's not because "that's the consensus that civilizations around the world have come to over thousands/millions of years." No. Value is delegated by a higher being, THE higher, in fact, highest being, who's not just a detached creator who set things into place and left them to spoil (or better themselves... after all, things deteriorate over time, not improve). God is love, and therefore has created us to center everything around love--loving Him and loving others. True, not everyone believes that or knows that or understands that. That doesn't make it false OR irrelevant. I don't like to "debate" religion, but when people use arguments and tactics that tear down my brothers and sisters in the faith, my faith in general, and my God whom I love more than anything or anyone in this world, the only option left is to debate back. Some people decide to give up on debating for Truth because they hurt people through their own prideful misuse of debate (which was a manifestation of a HEART issue, not a method issue in the first place). Therefore they commit themselves to debating against knowing the truth, with the same condition of the heart, just a different agenda. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I get.
If Jesus was "just a prophet, or a good teacher" he wouldn't and couldn't have claimed to be God. To state that "I am THE Way, THE Truth, and THE Life and NO ONE comes to the Father but through ME" would be quite a wicked thing to do if it was not true. Either that or he was as raving mad as Charles Manson, and I don't know a single intelligent person who would equate Jesus with Charles Manson. Sure there have been other religious leaders who lived lives of love. But none of them claimed to be God and proved it with their lives. People just don't think about these things. I'm not making these claims because it gets me off when I win arguments, or because it makes me feel more secure in who I am or what I'm here for. I am absolutely certain what I am here for and there has never been a lingering doubt in my mind about that. People have caused me to question it, but rather than giving in to intellectual lust, I have chosen the route of faith in a GOOD, LOVING God who promises only the best for His beloved children and bride. If I didn't love you all, I wouldn't waste my time writing on this web site. If my convictions and the intensity of my passion aren't welcome here, just let me know and I'll be happy to share my heart with people who long to be set free by the love and truth of Jesus Christ.
I gotta go. I'm headin out to go love some people who need Jesus.
Grace and Peace.
Dear Jen M.,
The Establishment Clause of the First Ammendment of the United States of America says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Why is that so many liberals in our country love to eliminate the last part? "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" ??? Why is that the ACLU is getting Christian public high school coaches fired for praying before a football? That is definitely "probiting the free exercise" of the religious practice of the American People.
Are you also certain that the old ladies who make the flags in your grandparent's church DON'T give to people in need as well? Do you yourself give every one of your extra dimes to people in need? Do you EVER buy cigarettes, clothes you don't really need, a book to read, etc? O, you who are so quick to judge.
Dear Skippy,
I don't care if people are making new Christian flag or not...I am glad that in this country we can fly them...You guys should go to China. It pisses me off when Americans take our freedom for granted. I'm not saying I think we NEED a U.S. Christian flag, please don't get me wrong...Obviously the Bible says our citizenship is in Heaven. But you would be jailed for flying one of those in China...
Dear Middleclasstool,
Your comments allude to that fact that you think all Christians are ignorant. I would just like to point out to you that not all of us take the Left Behind series to heart, and the way some people pronounce nuclear is due to their DIALECT, not their intelligence level.
I'm afraid if you were president a Jihad would clearly be in order.
Dear Beloved,
I'm glad you for one realize that Christians are the most 'oppressed' group in this society. We really are. Television, movies, corporations - everything is pretty open to homosexual lifestyles, to liberals. If you want to feel the sting of judgement, try being a Christian (not nominally Catholic like, err, John Kerry) in the government, in a public school or college, or in a major corportaion.
And about abortion...I happen to work at a non-profit pro-life agency. Regardless of when you all think conception begins, most women don't find out they're pregnant until a month later. Here are some quick facts for you all:
- The baby's heart begins to beat at 18-25 days (in most abortions, the baby's heart is already beating)
- Brain waves begin at around 40 days
- What about rapr? Pregnancies from rape are very rare. In the case that it does occur, should one violent act produce another? Liberals are the ones saying we shouldn't go to war b/c Afgahnistan bombed us...But they're also the ones saying it's okay to kill MILLIONS of our own.
- Abortion actually hurts more than the baby. Women who've had abortions go on to a lifetime of regret and often chronic depression and even suicide. It's not a quick soultion.
- Can any of you really agree that partial-birth abortions - pulling a baby's head of the mother, just as if giving birth the baby, then stabbing it in the head with scissors - is okay?? Can you really believe that?
- The RU-486 (the morning after pill) has killed at least three of the women who've taken the drug.
- Overruling Roe will not make abortion illegal. Rather, it'll take it back to the people and the individual states. (www.overruleroe.com)
And finally, about stem cell research: Why the big fuss? Are any of you aware the ADULT STEM CELLS HAVE CURED DISEASES? Taken right out of the sick patient, multiplied and planted back into organs such as the brain - one paralyzed woman in Korean is now able to walk again b/c of adult stem cells...We don't have to kill babies to get those!! On the flip side, EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS HAVE PRODUCED NO RESULTS!! Yet California has issued 7 million dollars in embryonic stem cell research - why? (There you go, Jen M. - talk about wasting money!!!) It's like we just want to spend money to kill babies. Kill 'em all, they have no value! That's how Hitler started, my friends, killing those who had little "worth" in society...Do we want America to come to that?
Much love to all,
Keep your hearts open,
Sarah
Sorry for all the typos, I hope you can tell what I was trying to say!
Your comments allude to that fact that you think all Christians are ignorant.
No, I don't, actually. I know quite a few intelligent Christians. Like my wife, or my friends who are pastors.
I would just like to point out to you that not all of us take the Left Behind series to heart, and the way some people pronounce nuclear is due to their DIALECT, not their intelligence level.
Yeah, I know, I was joking. If the president can tease himself about his own malapropisms, I think it's probably okay for the rest of us.
I'm afraid if you were president a Jihad would clearly be in order.
I have absolutely no idea what that means.
I'm glad you for one realize that Christians are the most 'oppressed' group in this society. We really are.
The fact that you honestly believe this shows what a sheltered life you've led. You're oppressed because people make movies and TV shows that you don't watch? You owe every African American an apology for that comment.
If you want to feel the sting of judgement, try being a Christian (not nominally Catholic like, err, John Kerry) in the government...
Like, say, the guy we elected President? Or the Speaker of the House? Or the Senate majority leader? Yes, Christians are victims of the worst discrimination history has ever known.
Sarah,
Thanks for the reality check with some good facts regarding abortion and stem-cells.
As for the allusion to my comment about "the most oppressed group in America", I would like to clarify that I was referring to the unborn citizens, not Christians. I'd have to disagree that we're "oppressed." Tempted by a lot of garbage--yes. Our way of life as the Body of Christ threatened by a society that elevates power, prestige, and possessions over relationships and community--yes. But far from oppressed.
Just as a loving rebuke, please consider your comments a little more carefully so as not to come across as an "unintelligent, uninformed Christian".
As for the flag issue, no one's saying it should be illegal. They're just exercising their right to free speech in criticizing their use as a symbolic encouragement of manifest destiny, which is clearly an anti-Christian value (throughout the entire Bible God establishes a counter-politic of love, debt-cancellation, neighborliness, refusal to dominate and accumulate, and so forth). It's important to talk about these things, as there is much anti-Christian foreign and domestic policy promoted and practiced in the name of Christ.
Like I said, though. Thanks for the facts.
" I think it's probably okay for the rest of us." - middleclasstool
Not really. I can talk about my mom, but you had better not talk about her. Just like my Asian friends can themselves FOBies, but you'd better not.
"The fact that you honestly believe this shows what a sheltered life you've led. You're oppressed because people make movies and TV shows that you don't watch? You owe every African American an apology for that comment." - middleclasstool
Sheltered? I'm not sure what you mean, and I feel we're getting a little off-topic, but please tell me how you think I'm sheltered?
And your inference about American-Africans, let me tell you, two of my most beloved cousins are half African American. They got more college funding than I did, solely based on their race. Meanwhile, I'm still swimming in 30K of debt. I don't think I owe anyone an apology.
The point at which a conversation becomes nothing more than a battle to prove the other wrong, it ceases to be a conversation.
Let's quit the nit-picking and get back to the good stuff.
thank you, beloved...
Wow, this is quite a debate.
I just wanted to point out that I missed the "l" in the title and really got aggravated. But then, I started reading the post and am I glad for the pictures. Color me confused!
I will not join in the debate. I think it gets too frustrating debating through blog sites. I would rather look my opponent in the eye and kick him in the shins when he doesn't agree with me.
My debates will most likely be reserved for the academic theology arena where we can debate jots and tittles. The only thing about flags that I will say is this: A few weeks ago, I spent some time with my son and some other Boy Scouts at their summer camp. At the end of the week, they retired a flag by ceremonially burning it. I was surprised at how reverant this event turned out to be. All of the 200+ boys were sitting there in the semi-darkness staring at the dancing flames in the fire ring as the staff suspended the flag over the flames and read an intense statement of the purpose and experiences of the flag. I was told that every camper would get part of the ashes as a reminder of the ceremony. My father nurtured patriotism in me as well as a yearning for a close relationship with God. Neither of these attributes are the sum of me, but contribute to the whole. I'm proud of what the flag represents and I'm humbled by the God I love. I don't want to respond to anyone and I don't care if you respond to me. This is me, not you.
Tool, how dare you make fun of the president. I don't care how easy it is.
Reacher, keep it up.
Skippy, call my wife.
Go, Cards.
Wow! This is awesome...and so far from the original point. I love it. Let us just sit and type and argue and fight and scratch...I like that.
Seriously!
Sarah, I want to give you hug...I don't think you got what I was saying at all. It's not about the flag.
To any and all:We don't need a Christian flag. We don't need to fly a Christian flag. We don't need to make sure that because we have a right to fly the flag we make a new one. We, as my pastor says, live on the Cruise Ship America. We have it good. Oh, and we're not oppressed. Give me a break and please take this in love, I know that with these typed out words it can sound hateful or mean, But we are not entitled to anything.
I did not get saved so that life would be goody gum drops.
I got saved because of Salvation. I got saved realizing I am a sinner, filthy rags and can't make it on my own. I now look at my salvation and then take a gander at 1st century christians a see that I am living the high life. I see the focus in their stories. I see the "its not about me, its about God" mentality. Its a LOVE that can't be seen where I walk around. I'm not there. I'm working on it but it will be a long while. It's finding alternatives, not picket lines. It breaks my heart. I want others to get it. I want my brothers and sisters to see it. I want them to but I can't make them do it. I know (from stories from friends) that China isn't exactly free. I have church family members of my congregation in all parts of this world trying to serve and love. They and theirs are being shot, arrested all of it.
I can tell you exactly how many years I have been able to pull out my bible in a public place and not get shot at or beat up or thrown in jail or mocked...30 years (also my age if you didn't guess.) Oppressed...not so much.
I don't know how fragmented this is...good luck reading it.
Oh, and Reacher...
Next time let's just ask how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Please know the above isn't sarcastic...though reading it a day later, it seems that way.
Skippy, I didn't take your comments as sarcastic. I wasn't clear enough in what I meant by oppressed, which was far off from what Belived originally meant by it anyway.
I didn't mean that Christians in America are oppressed by the government. Not at all. I've been to East and I know what that kind of oppression is. I meant that we are oppressed as far as the nature of our society is. It doesn't exaclty lend to a Christian-friendly atmosphere. I am so thankful that our government has kept us free from the kind of oppression Christians face in other parts of the world.
And I by no means feel like we deserve anything. Rev. 20:4 "And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God." In fact, the Bible promises that we can expect the opposite of goodness in this world..."In this world you will have troubles..." and "blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness" but that we will only get our reward in heaven "for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
True freedom is really in one's heart.
Always hitting "Publish" before proofing my comment,
Sarah
This is a copy of what I said on Annie's site.
Sorry for my absence. Just when all of this hit the fan, my life shifted into overdrive. I've been busy. Still am.
I hate not being able to dedicate time to a complete response. And, I have steadfastly refused in the past to ever attempt a manifesto on abortion. (That's why you will never see me post a blog entry on the topic.)
Anyway, I think some of the dialogue has been honest and valuable, thus compelling me to add a small voice. I will probably stick to Annie's original issues, since to answer all of the comments here would take volumes.
I believe the 50,000 Clinton/Bush figure comes from the Alan Guttmacher Institute. Can't tell you for sure, and don't have time to research it now. The primary point is that Republican pro-life administrations have not resulted in fewer abortions. If you go to my blog and email me, I think I have a fact sheet I can send you. The Clinton administration reduced abortions partly because of education, but mostly because of economic relief for the poor. There is a strong correlation between poverty and abortion rates. When you neglect the poor, they have more abortions.
As for the abortion rates not changing with the law, that is based on global analysis of nations where abortions are illegal. Restricting abortion doesn't seem to affect rates much. Again, I'm sorry I can't dig up the reference at the moment, but I'm here aren't I? The assumption in the US is that were Roe to be overturned, the wealthy would still have access to safe abortions through blackmarket providers or off-shore and border crossing. The poor would have the choice of going to term or heading down the back alley. Unsafe illegal abortions would likely cause a rise of 10-15% in maternal deaths. Those who go to term deepen their own spiral of poverty, add more lives to the poor population, which increases demand for abortions. Poor people, who are uninsured, taking pregancies to term will add enormous cost ($10,000 or so per) to the healthcare system (which pro-lifers generally resist funding), which will toss more people into poverty, which will increase the demand for abortion even more. So, under some scenarios, illegal abortion could actually result in an aggregate GAIN in the abortion rate.
To the moral issue. Of course abortion as birth control is wrong, and it happens. No, we shouldn't approve. So, why not make it illegal on principle? Because of that pesky when-life-begins argument. If Bill Frist and George Bush can't agree, it's unlikely you're going to get the American people to come to a consensus. The other actions you mention: stealing, murder, etc. are rather unambiguous, and when they are not we don't usually resolve the differences by imposing a religious point of view.
Something I always find curious is the fact that infanticide was widely practiced in Jesus' lifetime. He had to be aware of it, probably even witnessed it. I understand that women would sometimes leave their babies at the side of the road to die. Yet, according to records we have, he never chose to speak about it. I'm sure he was disturbed by it, but I suspect he saw it as symptomatic of something bigger. It seems like no surprise to me that he chose to speak so often about the poor. Wealthy people probably didn't leave their babies in the ditch.
There's so much more to say, and I have argued these points badly; but it's all I have time for at the moment. I guess the primary point to me is that the issue is not as simple as most people believe it is.
Surely all of us here recognize that we are not going to shift someone to our way of thinking by tossing one evidence bomb or throwing an argument jab. I do value these relationships and the conversations.
At least that's the flag I'm waving.
I know I'm late to the frey here, but this is a good link to a good site. Both sides should use this site PRN--which is pretty much always.
http://www.factcheck.org/article330.html
Jim
Yes, Mrs. Tool and Jim have pointed out the 50,000 error. Well done. This is my reminder to not get pulled into an argument I don't want to make. I get sloppy. Me so sorry.
If we would all factcheck our favorite news and talk radio sources this well, the world would be a better place.
To extend the factchacking, Stassen's response to his error is an interesting read:
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/Stassen-Response.pdf
Although I would probably fall under the umbrella term "Religious Right" this flag offends me on many levels.
Most of them covered by the original post, but one of them not:
From a graphic design standpoint, this flag is a visual abomination, and someone dip it in water, roll it up, and snap it towel-like at whoever designed it until they confess their artistic sin.
Seriously, though, it's wretched. I dont think we have to worry about this making any headway.
And as a sidenote, this isn't the first time God & America have been intertwined... remember that song "Battle Hymn of the Republic?" (which I nevertheless enjoy, for reasons inexplicable to me)
If someone has certain religious beliefs in their mind or heart, this can't be seen as the problem - it is not the spirituality of the person that might be the problem, but instead perhaps their lack of charity (or lack of curiosity).
Instead, surely the problem is when charity is putatively "defined as country" or "defined by patriotism". In the name of what prophet or God can the place where one lives count as a criterion for how to love others? If our national border were to change, does the geography of our moral duty change? It is a sign of the pitible state of modern human intellect that "patriotism" rolls off our tongues so much more frequently and effortlessly than do words like "brotherly love".
This recommended:
""The Beloved Community: How Faith Shapes Social Justice, from the Civil Rights Movement to Today. By Charles Marsh
-Journal of the American Academy of Religion-
"The mutually reinforcing link between religious faith and social reform has a rich history in American life—the abolitionist and temperance movements of the nineteenth century being two prominent examples. Charles Marsh affirms as well that the Civil Rights movement of the twentieth century cannot be fully understood apart from the theological moorings and presuppositions that gave it life and vitality. He regards this movement, manifested in many permutations—Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Montgomery Bus Boycott, Clarence Jordan's Koinonia Farm, the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee [End Page 762] (SNCC), the Voice of Calvary Project of John Perkins, and the more recent Christian community development movement all—as part of a 'theological drama' in which there is 'a plotline that far exceeds the movement's significant political achievements' (6). The inspiration for the book is drawn from King's words to a congregation almost exactly one year after the beginning of the boycott: 'But we must remember as we boycott that a boycott is not an end within itself; the end is reconciliation; the end is redemption, the end is the creation of..."
http://muse.jhu.edu/cgi-bin/access.cgi?uri=/journals/journal_of_the_american_academy_of_religion/v074/74.3roberts_s.html
http://publicpolicynewsandresearch.blogspot.com/
Post a Comment