1. Security Maxims - I once oversaw the Security group in my company. All of these strike me as true.
2. Talk to the TSA - Also known as "Line yourself up for a luggage and body cavity search by the TSA."
3. How to land a 747 - I plan to study this before my trip to India.
4. Why Choose a Credit Union Over a Bank [Banking] - Really need to look into doing this.
5. Sherry Jones Reacts to UK Jewel of Medina Firebombing - "Religion of Peace" indeed. Not that ideologues of all stripes aren't prone to firebombing.
6. Politeness Fail - This demonstrates so much of what's so wrong with the world.
7. Sci Fi Channel Turns to the Dark Side with More Reality Shows... - *SIGH*
8. Height - This is extremely cool.
9. Vintage Poison Labels - This is also extremely cool.
10. Banned Book Week - kt literary - Read a book that someone doesn't want you to today.

Filed under :: Big Business :: Hi-Tech :: Homeland Security :: Job Jollies :: Media - Books :: Media - TV :: Potpourri :: Religion :: Religion - Me :: Science :: Travel :: ZT & PC
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (0) · Pings (0) · TR/G

"So who are you going to vote for between McCain and Obama?" Katherine asks us.

I always try to be careful about dealing with ideology and my daughter. Yes, on the religious side of ideology, we all go to church and pray and all that -- but whenever questions of other religions, denominations, faiths (or lack thereof) come up, I am always very careful not to say anything that assert without any more basis than my gut hunch that what I (or even "we") believe is Obviously and Manifestly True, whilst those who think otherwise are Godless Heathen Destined to the Fiery Furnace Unless They Repent. "Some people," I will say, "think X. Mommy and Daddy (or even just Daddy if it's not something that the two of us agree on) believe Y. But what's important is that you try to figure out the truth yourself."

I labor under no illusions that Katherine is liable to set off on a bold course all her own, religiously or politically, at age 8. As I recall my own youth, my own political opinions were a direct reflection of what my parents believed (I could mimic their assertions as to the major presidential candidates to the letter, though I had no idea what I was talking about). Ditto for religion, which was even more of an unchallenged constant than politics. Listening to kids echoing political talking points to each other is both fascinating and sad, as it's all right what they've been told, or heard, at home.

But that's kids. Parents are all-wise (except where they aren't in certain, oppressive ways), and so what they believe and articulate they do so as the Font of All Wisdom. Plus, parents are the only ones whose ideological beliefs, as adults, are actively and regularly to them, most often just as background dialog in the household.

So when Katherine asks us who we are voting for, the impulse to say, "Why, Barack Obama, of course, as any intelligent, compassionate, patriotic American would" is quickly forced down. I don't want her taking my political opinions as some Absolute Received Truth. I'm not that egotistical ... and she's hardly a worthwhile rhetorical conquest. And if she were to just start echoing that statement, without comprehending and engaging with the reasons why, she'd be no more informed than too many of the electorate around us.

We were driving to karate when this came up, so Margie and I talked with her a bit about elections -- and how you vote is actually a private thing, and not something you can insist on others telling you about (and why that's a good thing). And, that said, we asked if she wanted to tell us how she would vote, and why. She opined she'd vote for Obama, because of the war and not wanting people to die. Which, as an eight-year-old, is at least as sophisticated a response as 85% of the populace (of either party).

So, since she's told her choice, we told ours. We said (individually) we were both going to probably vote for Obama, but we wouldn't know for certain until Election Day. But we could also respect people who disagreed with that choice, and that the important thing was not how Mommy and Daddy were going to vote, or who struck her as a nicer person or anything like that, but how she thought that a candidate would act as a leader, how he or she would make decisions and what sort of decisions they were likely to make, based on what they said and what they'd done in the past.

To be honest, it matters far less to me that Katherine grows up to believe exactly as I do, than that she believes based on her own reasoning and examination of the issues. She shouldn't rely on us -- or anyone else -- to tell her where she should place her faith (political or otherwise), but on herself. Guided by my own sage counsel, perhaps, but ultimately taking responsibility to make a stand.

That would make me very happy about the job I've done as a parent.

Filed under :: Parenting :: Politics & Law :: Religion - Me
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (0) · Pings (1) · TR/G

Some conservative Christians are so enamored of Palin, they not only now want McCain to win, they want him to win and then quickly die.

Antiabortion militant and all-round theocratic activist Jay Rogers of Florida, whose blog is called The Forerunner, writes:

Pray for John McCain’s salvation and speedy death. (Google The Forerunner’s articles on Imprecatory Prayer if you think this is harsh.)

And then there is this guy, a self-described Christian Reconstructionist whose blog handle is Ixion, and is apparently from Tennessee:

McCain’s VP choice, Sarah Palin, suddenly made me want to vote for him, as long as the LORD smites him while he’s in office. She’s consistently conservative on all the issues, and if she’s good enough for The Forerunner, she’s good enough for me. The Forerunner agrees with me that McCain must be smitten, as well, so I’m obviously not alone in my viewpoints.

And more similar, awful sentiments follow that.

Now, these folks are obviously (I hope obviously) on the lunatic fringe of Christianity (your opinion of the size of that fringe may vary). As someone who wears a Christian hat on his head, I find this reprehensible, irreconcilable with Christ's teaching, and disgusting. I'll even call it evil.

That said, and the "Power of Imprecatory Prayer" aside (is God going to listen to your Imprecatory Prayer more than he listens to the folks praying for or against any other candidate or candidate's health this season? If so, why?), this calls up once again the specter of how important the VP selection is this year. That's true for both candidates -- between McCain's age/health and the number of racist lunatics with guns who might come after Obama, the odds of either man fulfilling a four year term are lower than at any recent time I can think of.

So it's not beyond the pale to consider what such a succession would mean, or even decide that if, God forbid, something were to happen, the successor is someone whom you'd like to see in the Oval Office even more than the guy on the presidential side of the ticket. I suspect most conservative Christians who are swooning over Palin have given that at least a little thought; it's a bit morbid, but it's human nature.

I'm not a huge Joe Biden fan, but I think he would do a decent job as President (at least given the last 8 years as a comparision). That said, even if I really thought Obama were a clod, I would never dream of hoping (let alone praying) he would die so that Biden could step in. That's just plain wrong in my book.

I will say that if McCain/Palin wins, I'll be praying for McCain's good health for a looooong time. Though my hopes are I won't have to (I won't say my prayers because I think praying for a political outcome is not much better than praying for a sporting event -- it doesn't fit either of the Great Commandments in my book).

(via Les)

Filed under :: Elections 2008 :: Religion :: Religion - Me
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (0) · Pings (0) · TR/G

Things keep looking worse and worse concerning Hurricane Gustav. If you want to help out, may I recommend:

Donate to the American Red Cross 

Donate to the Episcopal Relief and Development Fund 

or donate to some other relief organization of your choice.

Filed under :: Religion - Me :: Weather
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (1) · Pings (0) · TR/G

Well, no. Nothing so profound as that, believe me.

I mentioned a post or so below about having an noteworthy dream on Friday night/Saturday morning. I'd been tossing and turning most of the night, despite the a/c trying to catch up with the house having been closed up, and a fan in the room that was intermittently, not steadily, breezy. Some time after the last hour-long bout bout of spinning clockwise multiple times (in 90-degree increments), around 3:30a or so, I recall one dream ...

It must have actually been pretty close to when I woke up about 7ish, since I rarely remember dreams except those sorts, and even then, body chemistry tends to foil remembering dreams (the brain stops manufacturing as much of the neurochemical that's associated with short-term memory during much of the sleep cycle, which is why you can wake up with a dream right on your lips and ... stutter and falter trying to tell it to someone within a few minutes; something like that).

I don't even actually remember much about it (see above). There was a guy on a park bench, kind of disreputable-looking, wrinkled suit, kind of crazy gray hair. He was talking to people (sometimes me) as they walked up to him, mostly kind of wild and ranty, but also (it struck me) saying some profound things (don't ask what they were, it was just an impression, like you have in dreams). And I was cranky and grouchy, and enough of the woes of the previous day (mostly job-email-related) were preying on my mind that they were seeping into the dreaming (making me again think it was shortly before I fully awoke). 

And then the guy turned and looked at me and said, "It's not about the challenges, or whether you overcome them. It's about how you face them. So you might as well face them happy."

So I woke up. And I was smiling, and not at all stressed. Which was suddenly unexpected and quite nice.

And I made a minor resolution (to go with this very minor epiphany) to try and smile more, and grouch less, not in some Pollyanna-like way, nor shirking off the myriad things I had to do (and still have to do), but because the things will get done (or not) whether I'm smiling and relaxed or frowning and tense, and the former sounds much more agreeable than the latter.

So -- no big Road to Damascus moment or anything like that. No solicitation for funds to get a personal copy of the new book I'm not writing (Daveanetics). Nothing earth-changing or even likely lifechanging. Just a dream that hit me a bit more notably than most such, which makes it suitable grist for the blogging mill.

Now, of course, we'll see how well that resolution lasts as the week progresses.  But it made the flight home, and the day today, a bit nicer. :-)

Filed under :: Personal :: Religion - Me
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (2) · Pings (0) · TR/G

A bit of this and that.

1. Dave Johnson: The Spying Started Before September... - Even before 9/11 provided the justification, the Bush Administration was pushing telcos to allow warrentless wiretaps on their say-so -- and punishing ones that refused to do it.
2. ArsTechnica.com reports that the new FISA law is worse... - Everybody, myself included, focused on the telcomm immunity issue. But review of the law indicates it's actually worse than folks thought, de facto legitimating any sort of surveillance the feds want to do through weak approvals, lengthy periods before which they have to seek approval, and fuzzy lines as to what the justification needs to be. Which raises the question of whether the Democratic leadership is stupid, compromised, blackmailed, concerned over looking weak on "terror," or so confident that they will win in November that they don't think it bears worrying about (see "stupid").
3. Stuck for a story seed? - A random story seed generator. Noted for future reference.
4. Christine Wicker: Full-Quiver Theology - Everyone kind of pokes fun (or rages) at the Catholic Church for its anti-birth control rules. But here are some fine evangelical non-Catholics who are here to tell you that if you aren't having as many babies as you can, as soon as you can, and raising them to do the same, you're pretty much going straight to hell. And they aren't just fringe lunatics playing to revival tents in Oklahoma, either.
5. ACR: Anglican Communion Redux: The Irish Primate on... - Anglicanism built an amazing "big tent" philosophy out of a number of internal debates in the past. Richard Hooker was a key player in emphasizing the role of reason, inclusiveness, and toleration (and was a major influence on John Locke, in turn an influence on our Founding Fathers), and his "via media" has served Anglicanism well in the centuries since his time. A shame so many seem so eager to toss it out now. 
6. Obama Will Go Outdoors To Accept Nomination - And the fact that Mile High Stadium looks like a giant diaphragm will cause some folks to consider him anti-Christian and pro-baby-killing.
7. Giving Religious Pamphlets to Minors - Excuse me. I had better not catch you handing out religious literature to my kid, unless you've talked with me about it first. That's a good way to get a bloody nose, it is. Think I'm not that kind of guy? Think again.
8. That’s no moon… oh, wait, yes it is. - Something to remember about eyewitness anything, let alone UFO reports.

Filed under :: Homeland Security :: Parenting :: Potpourri :: Religion :: Religion - Episcopal Church :: Religion - Me :: Writing and Language :: ZT & PC
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (4) · Pings (0) · TR/G

This is the most positive thing about religion -- and religion and politics -- I've seen in a long time: James Dobson Doesn't Speak For Me 

Dr. James Dobson recently attacked Barack Obama for a 2006 speech that Obama gave on his Christian faith. Does he speak for you?

James Dobson doesn't speak for me.

He doesn't speak for me when he uses religion as a wedge to divide;

He doesn't speak for me when he speaks as the final arbiter on the meaning of the Bible;

James Dobson doesn't speak for me when he uses the beliefs of others as a line of attack;

He doesn't speak for me when he denigrates his neighbor's views when they don't line up with his;

He doesn't speak for me when he seeks to confine the values of my faith to two or three issues alone;

What does speak for me is David's psalm celebrating how good and pleasant it is when we come together in unity;

Micah speaks for me in reminding us that the Lord requires us to act justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with Him;

The prophet Isaiah speaks for me in his call for all to come and reason together and also to seek justice, encourage the oppressed and to defend the cause of the vulnerable;

The book of Nehemiah speaks for me in its example to work with our neighbors, not against them, to restore what was broken in our communities;

The book of Matthew speaks for me in saying to bless those that curse you and pray for those who persecute you;

The words of the apostle Paul speak for me in saying that words spoken and deeds done without love amount to nothing.

The apostle John speaks for me in reminding us of Jesus' command to love one another. The world will know His disciples by that love.

These words speak for me. But when James Dobson attacks Barack Obama, James Dobson doesn't speak for me.

Me, neither. If it needs to be said.

There's also a great point-by-point debunking of Dobson's attacks on Obama's speech.

The site is put together by "a coalition of pastors and other Christians" (speaking for themselves, not for their congregations or denominations). You can electronically "sign" the statement, too.

Good stuff.

Filed under :: Elections 2008 :: Religion :: Religion - Me
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (2) · Pings (0) · TR/G

"Manipulative, apostate, champion of spiritual bondage, revisionist, destructive and in error" since 1995!

Filed under :: Religion - Episcopal Church :: Religion - Me
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (3) · Pings (0) · TR/G

Or, at least, I wouldn't make for a True Christian VP choice, in case Obama or McCain were to call me up and make an offer.

What qualifications are embodied in a truly Christian candidate for the Vice Presidency? Quite simply, the candidate will demonstrate actions and hold the beliefs personified by all of us who proclaim the name of Jesus Christ as Savior: ...

Wow. Not many beliefs (or actions) that all Christians would agree upon. Which, of course, doesn't mean that Christianity is a broad set of beliefs and traditions, but that there are a lot of "Christians" who aren't True Christians®.

So what are the beliefs and actions of True Christians®? One might think that they encompass what someone -- hmmm, was it actually Jesus himself -- identified as the Greatest Commandments, i.e., to love God and to love our neighbors. One would, of course, be wrong.

... the need to be re-born in Christ and the affirmation of historic Christianity, having a demonstrable and proven record of support for traditional Christian morality.

As a side note, Anglicanism in general, and the Episcopal Church in particular, use the model of the "three-legged stool" in terms of discerning morality, the three legs being Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. I.e., what the church believes that God revealed in the Bible, what the believers of the past two thousand years have discerned from that and from the influence of the Holy Spirit, and what each individual today brings to the table via the Brains God Gave 'Em.

Many evangelical and "conservative" churches ding Episcopalians for this, claiming that only Scripture is valid -- but, when pressed, they'll fall back instead on "tradition" and "historic" and so forth, seeming to claim that what people have thought God commands for thousands of years somehow intrinsically trumps what someone today might think God commands. 

We'll leave aside the whole demand on being "re-born" -- though that excludes a substantial number of ostensible Christians whose faith tradition doesn't do the whole "born again" thang.

So, okay, "historic" and "traditional" Christianity will be what we follow. Does that mean Catholicism? After all, Roman Catholics have the best claim to "historic" and "traditional" Christianity. No, I suspect not -- to paraphrase Orwell, all Traditions are Equal, but Some are more Equal than Others. Which probably means their English cousins, the Anglicans, are right out, too. *Sigh*

A life of dedicated Christian service to the public is demonstrated by the following:

Interesting. The whole "faith" vs "works" thing is also a big debate with Christianity, which most evangelicals claiming (when it's just a theological question) that faith trumps works -- even though the New Testament makes clear that one without the other doesn't hold a lot of water.

Still, let's assume that these folks are enlightened enough to consider that particular works ("a life of dedicated Christian service to the public") may very well reflect a presumptive faith that they'd consider Truly Christian®

Support for traditional marriage. As a Christian, the candidate for Vice President must affirm that marriage is an institution created by God and defined as a union between one man and one woman. …

Really?  Now, I can see a particular faith tradition making an internal decision about what is, or is not, a true marriage. But surely different religious traditions have different opinions about what constitutes marriage.  Even within Christianity there are different rules about and surrounding marriage -- though I guess the implication is that True Christians® have a unitary marital policy. 

I'm also, by that same token, intrigued by the whole concept of "traditional marriage." Whose traditions? Going back how far? The traditions of 19th Century United States? 18th Century Japan? 12th Century France?   2nd Century Rome? Solomaic Israel? Heck, God certainly seems to bless (in the latter case) marriage between on man and multiple women. When did He change his mind?

But even if we arbitrarily consider things in the context of Modern (Yet Traditional) Christianity, are we talking marriage as my wife and I know it? As my parents understood it? My grandparents? Whose traditions are we talking about. Is any "union" between a man and a woman considered a marriage as created by God? Really? And is divorce allowed under God's created institution, and on what basis would anyone actually say yes to that as a True Christian®?

For that matter, was marriage actually instituted by God? Certainly there have been a lot of marriages that were identified as such in regions and times when, presumably, Christianity (since that's the God we're probably talking about) was not yet known -- or even where the Christian message was available, but not adhered to. Were those actual marriages? Is a Buddhist wedding an actual marriage?  Are/were marriages between folks who aren't True Christians® actually marriages, if they were not in alignment with what True Christians® believe God intended?

Support for the Right to Life, proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, without exception.

I'm really interested in the implications of a Right to Life "without exception." Presumably that means someone who would see abortion made illlegal. But how would a True Christian® think of capital punishment? Certainly it's something seriously talked about in the Bible as an appropriate punishment for a variety of violations of the the Law. And what of war? Is killing others in wartime -- a violation of their Right to Life -- an exception to that right?

Does Christianity actually teach or support a Right to Life? Christ's mandate to love your neighbor would certainly seem to say so -- but I'll be the first to admit that most societal implementations of Christianity have included multiple "exceptions" to that right. 

Regardless of the more careful reading of all of this, it's clear that the obvious statement being made by the representatives of True Christianity® is that a True Christian® can be recognized as being (a) against gay marriage and (b) against abortion rights. I don't know that I know of where Christ actually identified True Christianity® that way, but I'm clearly not a Truly Christian®-enough person to make that judgment.

DAVE: I have bad news, dear. I'm not a True Christian®.

MARGIE: For so many reasons ... [pauses a moment]  Says who?

DAVE: True Christians®

MARGIE: Ah. Well, yeah, the fact that Les likes you probably rules you out right there.

So, sorry Barack, John ... I guess I'm out of the running to be your running mate. Though I am available for any other Cabinet-level position you think I can handle, despite my spiritual shortcomings. Just say the word ...

Filed under :: Elections 2008 :: Religion :: Religion - Me
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (10) · Pings (0) · TR/G

So when ever I talk about the Episcopal Church, it seems like I'm dwelling on the divisions within it from controversies over gays and women and whatever. And that raises the bigger issue of divisions between various Christian sects/denominations. While there may be some cynically pragmatic reasons why it's maybe just as well that Christian unity is more of a distant goal and slogan than a reality, it is one of the directives that Christians -- as informed by Jesus in the Bible -- ought to be striving for.

Our rector now posts his sermons on a blog at our church, and a couple of weeks ago he included this quote:

The great labor of ecumenism has barely managed to dent the walls of separation that keep the divided Christian denominations from a genuinely common life… Protestant and Catholic, East and West, Christians remain divided –- and seem by and large content with their separation.

I started writing a response to the blog/sermon, but it got long enough in thought that I decided to post it here instead.

Why is it, in the face of calls by their founder to be "one" that Christians seem to be divided into so many sects and denominations and groups and subgroups. It's such a recognized phenomenon that it's made its way into the (ostensibly) world's funniest religious joke:

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump. I ran over and said: "Stop. Don't do it."

"Why shouldn't I?" he asked.

"Well, there's so much to live for!"

"Like what?"

"Are you religious?"

He said: "Yes."

I said: "Me too. Are you Christian or Buddhist?"

"Christian."

"Me too. Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

"Protestant."

"Me too. Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

"Baptist."

"Wow. Me too. Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"

"Baptist Church of God."

"Me too. Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"

"Reformed Baptist Church of God."

"Me too. Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?"

He said: "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915."

I said: "Die, heretic scum," and pushed him off.

(Alternate versions here, here, here, and elsewhere around the Net.)

Part of it is, I think, tribalism. We like to herd together with birds of a feather. Even within a given parish (take my own), you end up with folks banding together by service time, by participation in different groups, by the choir folks vs the "contemporary music" people, by the women vs the men, etc.

But that's only a part of it. When you look at the rhetoric that gets thrown about disagreeing between Christian groups -- heck, just the things that are said (on both sides, though I have my preference) in the current Episcopal divisions -- it's not just herding, but downright hostility, even hatred. Which, for folks who've been told in no uncertain terms, to love one another, is pretty (as they used to say in the old days) scandalous.

It seems to me, watching these sorts of contentions, is that a lot of people aren't interested in being One, they're interested in being Right. Or, more importantly, in being the Winners, the ones whose beliefs are proven and vindicated by other folks agreeing with (or giving in to) them. They may want unity, but it's a unity on their terms, by their rules. They want to win the debate, to be acknowledged as right in every jot and tittle of theological controversy, rather than in working together to further what they're supposed to be doing in God's name -- feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc. They are more interested in asserting what the "Good News" is ("Now pay special attention under section three, paragraph twelve, clause 47/a, where it clearly states that ...") than in sharing it.

It's a matter of pride, in other words. And, yeah, I can be that way sometimes, too. Though I try to hold it in check.

Too, I think ecumenism and a "common life" is misperceived. Too much emphasis is given on coming up with a fully agreed-upon theology and formal; recognition of each others' flavors of priesthood and hierarchy and so forth. Too much emphasis is placed on uniformity vs unity. Arguments over ordaining women, or married priests, or bishops vs presbyters vs congregational control, which flavor of creed to adhere to or whether the eucharist is symbolic, transubstantiational, or consubstantiational, all miss the point; trying to settle them is like trying to convince everyone in a big crowd what restaurant go to -- and what to order there. The goal in the latter is not that everyone eat mushu pork, but that everyone go out for a good time. 

From my way of thinking (and, yes, I'm cognizant that I'm dancing around a bit of hypocrisy here, but bear with me), God didn't make everyone the same, so why do we have to come up with a laundry list of identical and identically interpreted rules in order to work and live together? Wasn't over-adherence to rules something that Christ himself is recorded as condemning? I'm willing to live with a little ambiguity, mystery, and disagreement over the specifics of God's will -- because I think the general guidelines are pretty clear. "In essentials unity, in non-essentials freedom, in all things love." I'm less interested in folks' theology than in what they do with it.

Or, looked at another way, I can be good neighbors, coworkers, even friends, with people with whom I disagree in one or more particulars (religious, political, recreational, aesthetic, etc.). Heck, Margie and I don't agree on everything, but we seem to get along together pretty well. 

The "non-essentials" aren't unimportant -- but they aren't (by definition) essential to be in agreement about. The trick, of course, is that what is "essential." My own opinion is that the "essentials" in Christianity need to boil down to the actual dictates by Christ as to what the most important commandments are, to wit, loving God and loving our neighbors. Most of the creedal and theological differences between Christian denominations -- let alone the organizational and ritual differences --  have only tangential importance to those commandments. 

But, of course, they aren't something you can win at, play power games with, easily condemn people for, or otherwise use as a club for being holier-than-Them. Perhaps that's why they have such a hard time catching on.

But until they do, or until people act more on them than in hurling vitriol over which direction to cross themselves, or what sort of paraphernalia to have up on the altar, or what version of the song book is being used, or who's married to whom -- it seems unlikely we'll ever have much in the way of unity within Christianity.

Filed under :: Religion :: Religion - Episcopal Church :: Religion - Me :: Religion - My Parish
Link · Print · Edit · Comments (2) · Pings (0) · TR/G