Month: March 2012

The Unchained Woman – WSJ.com

~ brandon ~ Leave a comment

A husband has to be fairly affluent for his wife to be able to afford to stay home: “Only a few households can afford to give up a good second income.”

via The Unchained Woman – WSJ.com.

I found this article somewhat fascinating.  Mainly because my wife has not worked outside our home since our 1st son was born, 11 years ago.  I’ve never made more than $60,000 per year (between two jobs–pastoring and AF Reserve), which I don’t consider ‘affluent.’  We’ve lived in the suburbs of Chicago and currently Colorado Springs.  Not the cheapest places in America to live (though not as pricey as New York, admittedly).

How have we done it?  Through choices.  We prioritized her staying home and made choices to make that possible.  Living with one income, for most of us, has more to do with choices than income.  Some examples:  we don’t have cable, we rarely eat out, we buy generic, we shop at thrift stores (like Salvation Army & Goodwill), and we don’t belong to a gym.  We strive to avoid debt.  We’ve never been in debt, by God’s grace, and other than a home mortgage, work to avoid debt.

Two incomes may, at times, be necessary.  However, doesn’t the ‘necessity’ of dual income marriages say more about our choices and priorities than about how much money we need to live?

Let’s Change Hearts and Minds and Laws, Too – The Gospel Coalition Blog

~ brandon ~ Leave a comment

Let’s Change Hearts and Minds and Laws, Too – The Gospel Coalition Blog.

via Let’s Change Hearts and Minds and Laws, Too – The Gospel Coalition Blog.

This helpful article got me thinking about culture and political engagement.   I agree that we should be politically engaged to “reform our civic institutions from within while faithfully articulating the grounds for legislation in ways that are cheerful, reasonable, and kind.”  After all, if our civic institutions are actually causing harm (which, I would argue, many of them are) how can we love our neighbor without addressing that harm?

Yet, it seems that our culture didn’t arrive where we are overnight.  It took time for the foundations to be eroded to arrive at the point we are at now.  One only needs to look at the news to see that America is a different place than it was just a few generations ago.

To that end, I think one of the most loving tasks we can undertake is the training of disciples.  Beyond spiritual disciplines and foundational truth, we need to challenge one another to think–and to think in Biblical terms.  Developing a culture of thinking Christians might just kill two birds with one stone.

On the one hand, thinking helps ‘win hearts and minds.’  Ultimately salvation is a sovereign work of God, but he uses us as tools in that work.  Addressing others winsomely, showing the rationale behind our conclusions may help them see that the church isn’t trying to rain on their parade, but to love them.  On the other hand, thinking Christians, engaged in the political process, can’t help but improve the condition of our culture.

In the end, though, the one take away to remember is this:

The way forward, politically at least, is to work to reform our civic institutions from within while faithfully articulating the grounds for legislation in ways that are cheerful, reasonable, and kind. (emphasis mine)

Whatever our political leanings, let us strive to be cheerful, reasonable and kind in all of our conversation.

Even more adventures in missing the point

~ brandon ~ Leave a comment

Why should an employer’s right to reject birth-control coverage trump a society’s collective imperative to reduce unintended pregnancy? Should employers be allowed to withhold a polio vaccine or cataract surgery or safe working conditions on similar “moral” grounds?

via Erika Christakis: What Got Lost in Birth-Control Debate | TIME Ideas | TIME.com.

Yet another example of missing the point on the current religious liberty debate.  Note how Ms. Christakis puts the question:  ‘why should an employer’s right to reject birth-control . . .’  Is this an ’employer’s right’ or is this a constitutionally guaranteed freedom?  Phrasing it this way, she makes her objection appear reasonable by ignoring the religious liberty elephant in the room.

Note, also, the disingenuous comparison to polio and cataracts.  So, getting pregnant, which, if I recall, requires a conscious choice to engage in a specific act, is morally equivalent to contracting polio or having cataracts?  I don’t think so.  Further, are the consequences of pregnancy at all similar to polio or cataracts?  As a parent of three (who has, admittedly, never been pregnant) I’d much rather have kids than polio.  I’d also much rather have kids than cataracts.  In fact, I consider kids a blessing–even though they require significant sacrifice and cost–while I consider polio and cataracts more akin to a curse.

Listen, let’s have a public debate.  I’m all for it.  Let’s discuss the ins and outs, the pros and cons.  But, first, let’s be crystal clear about what the debate is really about.  It’s not about birth control.  It’s about whether the government can violate the 1st Amendment.

More Adventures in Missing the Point

~ brandon ~ Leave a comment

Case No. 4: Sad Loud Man in a Small Room Rush Limbaugh The Recap: “Slut,” “prostitute,” “she wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex,” “we want you to post the videos online so we can all watch,” etc.What We Learned: Taxpayers are billed across the board for private insurance plans; women who use birth control pills are not taxpayers; women whose insurance covers birth control pills are sluts and prostitutes; taxpayers enjoy watching movies about sluts and prostitutes.So, Are Women People? They’re more like really expensive blow-up dolls.

via Subject for Debate: Are Women People? | TIME Ideas | TIME.com.

Um, Ms. Winter?  It’s not about birth control, it is about religious freedom.  As with so many others, she ignore the elephant in the room.  Further on in the article she goes after Rick Santorum for calling his wife ‘his rock.’  In Ms. Winter’s world this is some kind of derogatory accusation.

Um, Ms. Winter?  Where I come from, being called someone’s ‘rock,’ is not ‘apparently a compliment,’ it is a compliment.  In fact, Scripture is replete with references to God being Israel’s ‘rock.’  Isn’t it possible that Mr. Santorum was actually praising his wife?  Maybe, just maybe, he was telling the world that she is a source of strength to him.

Adventures in Missing the Point, Part II

~ brandon ~ Leave a comment

On Tuesday, Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner (D-Cleveland) will introduce a bill aimed at cracking down on prescription drugs like Viagra that treat erectile dysfunction. Turner’s legislation would make men jump through certain hoops — such as psychological screenings — before they could obtain the meds. The bill follows FDA recommendations to determine the underlying causes of erectile dysfunction — but that’s certainly not the only reason Turner is putting the measure forward.

via Ohio Senate Bill Offers Male Lawmakers A Taste Of Their Own Medicine | TPM2012.

According to Turner:

“All across the country, including in Ohio, I thought since men are certainly paying great attention to women’s health that we should definitely return the favor,” Turner told TPM. Her bill is one of several pieces of legislation offered over the past several weeks by women lawmakers eager to prove a point about the raging contraception debate.

No, Ms. Turner, men aren’t ‘paying great attention to women’s health.’  Men and women, are paying attention to the Administration’s attempts to violate our 1st Amendment rights.

Yet again, some are intent on obfuscating the real issue.  The issue isn’t ‘women’s health.’  The issue is religious liberty.

Adventures in missing the point!

~ brandon ~ Leave a comment

Rush Limbaugh slut comment reveals a double standard on sex – CSMonitor.com.

If I understand his argument right, Rush’s use of the term ‘slut’ reveals a double standard whereby women are promiscuous and men are ‘taking what’s rightfully ours.’  Perhaps, but maybe, just maybe, you’ve misunderstood the entire argument.

First, Rush said nothing about men, that I’m aware of.  So, this is an argument from silence.  Perhaps Rush would be just as harsh with men who are promiscuous.  It seems dubious to accuse of a double standard when, in fact, no double standard was evident.  Just because I say, “A=B,” doesn’t mean that “B ≠ C.”

Second, the author appears to be avoiding the actual context.  It seems Rush was attempting to be absurd.  Based Ms. Fluke’s testimony, he attempted to illustrate (very poorly, IMHO) some flaws in our thinking about this issue.  As I’ve written before, his choice of words was quite poor.  But, how does intentional absurdity reveal the double standard this guy speaks of?

Finally, this seems to be another attempt to ignore the real issue.  As an Evangelical Pastor, I believe extramarital sex is a sin.  But, this current debate about contraception has nothing to do with extramarital (nor even marital) sex.  It has everything to do with the First Amendment.

The real issue is whether or not the government is able to compel religious institutions to violate their religious convictions.  If so, then the Bill of Rights really means whatever the government says it means.  In which case, it means nothing at all.

I don’t expect those who do not hold to my convictions to live and act as I do.  I do expect the freedom to live and operate any ministry to which God calls me, according to my religious convictions and with no government interference.

Exclusive: Kirk Cameron Responds to Critics, ‘Hate Speech’ – ABC News

~ brandon ~ Leave a comment

“Obviously, Cameron has the right to recite his anti-gay talking points,” Graddick added, “just like fair-minded Americans have the right to tell him that his views are harmful and have no place in modern America.”

via Exclusive: Kirk Cameron Responds to Critics, ‘Hate Speech’ – ABC News.

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with Mr. Cameron on homosexuality, every American should cringe at Mr. Graddick’s comment.  By the way, Mr. Graddick represents GLAAD.  So, it is safe to say that GLAAD believes in free speech, only to the extent it conflicts with their opinions.  Once you voice a dissenting opinion, then your views ‘have no place in modern American.’

Wow, really?  Isn’t the whole concept of free speech supposed to mean that everyone can speak their peace?  Especially if your views are in the minority or are offensive?  I mean, I think the KKK is immoral, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have a right to speech in modern America.

“After all, if freedom of speech means anything, it means a willingness to stand and let people say things with which we disagree, and which do weary us considerably.”  Zechariah Chafee

 

Filmgoer takes stand on costly snacks, sues AMC Livonia theater | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

~ brandon ~ Leave a comment

Filmgoer takes stand on costly snacks, sues AMC Livonia theater | Detroit Free Press | freep.com.

So, how does suing the company (thus increasing their overhead) result in lower prices?  Only if there is something illegal going on, which is highly unlikely.  The outcome will be either no change in prices or higher prices to cover higher costs of litigation.

Why not just forgo the snacks or bring your own?