Sunday Thought, February 1, 2015: Secular Family Values

My daughter pointed me to an article the other day, How secular family values stack up, by Phil Zuckerman. Mr. Zuckerman is professor of sociology at Pitzer College. Pitzer is a private residential liberal arts college in California. And this pretty much sums up Mr. Zuckerman; California college, liberal arts, and sociology. Digging deeper we see his research interests as secularity, atheism, apostasy and Scandinavian culture. His bibliography seem to all deal with secular and atheist themes, save for one which is entitled, Sex and religion. The last one confused me until I noted he coauthored it with two other people, so it may not have been his baby. It's also probably my age, but I remember having to capitalize titles to articles and stories. I guess we truly live in a world where rules mean so little when the basic rules of grammar and language are thrown out the window right along with faith.

I want to make sure we all understand the word "secular" before I continue.  I think you'll find it interesting.  I broke out and defined the synonym "profane," and from this I also broke out the synonym "impious."  I do this to illustrate how our initial impression of a word's meaning can be significantly different than the kinder, gentler, meaning used by an author.  Having said this, I do not know Mr. Zuckerman's personal beliefs, I can only state what I find when I look him up online and then take what he says with a grain of salt when I see that his information may be slanted toward a particular agenda.

sec·u·lar

ˈsekyələr/

adjective

adjective: secular

1. 1.

   denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.

   "secular buildings"

   synonyms:

   nonreligious, areligious, lay, temporal, worldly, earthly, profane; formallaic "secular music"

   antonyms:

   holy, religious

2. 2.

   CHRISTIAN CHURCH

   (of clergy) not subject to or bound by religious rule; not belonging to or living in a monastic or other order.

-- Google

pro·fane

prəˈfān/

adjective

1. 1.

   relating or devoted to that which is not sacred or biblical; secular rather than religious.

   "a talk that tackled topics both sacred and profane"

   synonyms:

   secular, lay, nonreligious, temporal; formallaic "subjects both sacred and profane"
2. 2.

   (of a person or their behavior) not respectful of orthodox religious practice; irreverent.

   "desecration of the temple by profane adolescents"

   synonyms:

   irreverent, irreligious, ungodly, godless, unbelieving, impious, disrespectful, sacrilegious "a profane man"

   • verb

1. 1.

   treat (something sacred) with irreverence or disrespect.

   "it was a serious matter to profane a tomb"

   synonyms:

   desecrate, violate, defile, treat sacrilegiously "invaders profaned our sacred temples"

-- Google

im·pi·ous

ˈimpēəs,imˈpīəs/

adjective

1. not showing respect or reverence, especially for a god.

   "the emperor's impious attacks on the Church"

   synonyms:

   godless, ungodly, unholy, irreligious, sinful, wicked, immoral, unrighteous,sacrilegious, heretical, profane, blasphemous, irreverent; More

   • (of a person or act) wicked.

     "impious villains"

-- Google

I have no doubt that the majority of secularists in the world are practicing good moral life philosophies.  I do have to question a conclusion that abolishing the death penalty has any bearing on murder rates decreasing.  What they're saying is, murder only occurs if a person knows they will die for doing it; they're linking murder to suicide?  Maybe its just me, but this seems a bit odd, even for Scandinavia, though I fully see how someone against the death penalty would stretch for this to prove their point.  My problem with "experts" is they expect, not only the "liberal arts" students to drink the Kool Aid they mix, but they expect the rest of us that actually have a brain to drink it as well.

Herein lays my problem with articles by people that have a political or philosophical agenda instead of just reporting both sides, and the bigger picture.  You can make an argument for anything if you play with the numbers.  Political parties are the real "experts" at this, but we see through their BS every day, like when they say unemployment is getting better but don't take into account the PhD working at McDonalds, or the fact that many maxed out their benefits and are now on welfare or back home living with mom.  The numbers only work if you cover all the bases; otherwise you look like another self-serving idiot spewing the party line.

Are all secular people atheists?  No.  I know secular folks that take exception of being labeled atheists.  I also know spiritual folks that take exception to being labeled secular.  It is pretty obvious why when you look at the definitions and see the secular have to accept being defined as "profane" which would then define you as being irreverent, impious, and disrespectful, which would take us to the final definition of being sinful, wicked, and immoral.  Way to go atheists!  Does anyone pay attention to definitions before they bandy them about?  I will be looking closer from now on.

So I think the findings of Mr. Zuckerman fly in the face of definitions dealing with "secular," and this is probably because the world is changing.  Godless doesn't mean evil.  It might mean damned to hell for a period, but that is for the God they don't believe in to judge, not me.  I think if you live a righteous, secular life, this will carry much weight at judgment.  But that leaves the lingering question:  If you die never believing when you die, that's it, do you die and that's it?  Is the afterlife only available for those that believe in it.  I wouldn't think it necessarily requires you to have religion inasmuch as it requires you to have faith.  Maybe, but an afterlife would open up a whole nuther can o' beans for the secular, wouldn't it?

I have a feeling if you attend this type of college, and don't toe the party line, you probably won't get very good grades.  Free thinking and free will are becoming frowned upon any more.  They want the social robot that dutifully goosesteps humanity through the 21st century.  That may be fine if you want to follow the rest of the lemmings into the sea.  I prefer to look to the heavens and wonder if there might not be a greater power that wishes more for us.

I really don't care if you follow secular philosophy toward life, if this is your cup of tea, so be it.  I just care that consider living your life thinking for yourself; making decisions based on what you want, not what some college says you must believe in order to graduate.  Thinking for yourself means hearing both sides of issue and not just believing what the "expert" says because he has a title.   Professors are supposed to teach facts, not party lines.   Joseph Mengele was a learned man, a doctor, he had a title and, oh... and I think he was secular.  Does this make being secular wrong?  Absolutely not.  Do Christians care if you're secular?  Absolutely, and it's because we care about your immortal soul.  However, if you don't feel you have one, it is a choice, your choice, and not necessarily the wrong one.

As long as there is free thought there will always be alternative arguments; the other side of the coin.  It is what makes us human and keeps us free.



Editor's Note:  

Before you go getting your panties in a bunch, it is essential to understand that this is just an opinion site and, as such, can be subjected to scrutiny by anyone with a differing opinion.  It doesn't make either opinion any more right or wrong than the other.  An opinion, presented in this context, is a way of inciting others to think and, hopefully, to form opinions of their own, if they haven't already done so.

It is my fervent hope that we keep open and active minds when reading opinions and then engaging in peaceful, constructive, discussion and debate in an arena of mutual respect concerning the opinions put forth.  After over twenty years as a military intelligence analyst, planner, and briefer, I have come to believe engaging each other in this manner and in this arena is the way we will learn tolerance and respect for differing beliefs, cultures, and viewpoints.

We all fall from grace, some more often than others; it is part of being human.  God's test for us is what we do afterward, and what we learn from the experience.
  

Pastor Frank Anthony Villari

Pastor Tony is founder of the Congregation for Religious Tolerance and author/editor of "The Path," the Congregation's official blogsite.    

The Mississippi State Book... the Bible?

If the United States are willing to turn their backs on the Bible in favor of sucking up to a minority, then why shouldn't a state, willing to stand up for God in these godless times, be able to stand for the Bible?  Mississippi seems to have grabbed the reins, and now that it has, the floodgates of dissent are open.  It doesn't take much anymore.  Where in God's good name were these people while Christians and the Bible have been bashed and persecuted of late?  And still Mississippi reaches for the mantel of guardian; protector of American Christian faith.  Has any other state stepped forward to claim the good book as theirs?  I think not.

I have been told Mississippi has probably produced more authors, secular and Christian, than any other state in the Union.  Yet, this state seems to have forgotten to designate a state book.  59% of Mississippi residents consider themselves "very religious," so it comes as no surprise that the Bible has been offered up as the tome to fill the state book void; and, why not?  It encompasses all the moral values most of the south touts on a regular basis.

I find this whole controversy very entertaining.  First off, the representatives proposing the two bills are Democrats.  They must have realized the blowback they're going to get over this whole affair from their own, far left, liberal base.  Second, they have strong bipartisan support for the bill.  Bipartisan support!   Do we dare still entertain the thought that the two parties can get together on some issue?  Mississippi seems to think so. Third is the significance of another, historical, Mississippi controversy; the overwhelming voter support in 2001, about 85%,  to keep the Confederate symbol, the battle flag, on the Mississippi state flag.  This in a state rife with African-American voters that either found nothing wrong with the flag, or thought there are more important things in this state to worry about, like equality, education, the poor, and the state economy.

"I think it's more important to pay attention to the education system in Mississippi than the flag," said one African-American resident of Vicksburg, which was besieged by Union forces in one of the pivotal battles of the Civil War. 

Another resident argued the people were trying to use the flag debate to solve racism — a problem that would not be erased by a mere vote. 

"I don't think the flag is the concern," the man said. "I'm concerned more with the hearts and minds of people. A piece of cloth with stars on it ain't going to change nothing."

ABC News, "Mississippi Votes to Keep Controversial Flag"

I begin to see Mississippi as a state that cares more about the majority voice of the state voters than about controversy and dissention from other states.  Mississippi has been ranked the poorest state in the Union, yet is also listed as the state whose population gives more to charity than any other.  If the Confederate battle flag could withstand pressure exerted by the state's regional NAACP, and another state's Bar Association, and still wave proudly at the end, it should be able to easily weather this squall.  But, you can bet your bottom dollar the atheists, ACLU, Islam, and probably the California Bar Association will have volumes to say against the idea.  One atheist organization is already weighing in.  Check out this article from Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/01/14/miss-lawmakers-want-bible-to-become-official-state-book/.

Another very good article, by political writer David Dallas, gives a very nice take on the whole discussion:
http://msbusiness.com/blog/2015/01/13/david-dallas-bible-belongs-mississippi/.  

Mr. Dallas humorously hooks the reader from the start:

"If only [Mark] Twain and Jesus were both sitting next to one another in the balcony of our Mississippi State House.  The two of them would be absolutely amazed by a recent legislative proposal to make the Bible the state book of Mississippi.

God forgive us our complete lack of humility and our self-seeking attempt to turn God's Holy Word into an idol.  We may all burn for this one." 

I thoroughly enjoyed his article, and I think he is spot on, but I would have to disagree with Mr. Dallas on a couple of points.  One, I'm sick of asking forgiveness for being a Christian, and I certainly won't apologize to God for it.  I mean... really?  Also, I am tired of having our faith ridiculed folks not unable to win a case in court that can't be overturned upon appeal.  I advocate tolerance, but my patience has always been an issue.  The ACLU seems like the Al Sharpton of the legal profession.  I think they make money by stirring controversy, divisiveness, and hatred.  That pretty much sums up my view of the NAACP as well.  As far as the atheists, I don't think they make money at it.  No, I will not ask forgiveness for a complete lack of humility in this case.  I will not apologize for Christianity on this.

Mr. Dallas makes a case for the self-seeking attempt of certain legislators "to turn God's Holy Word into an idol."  And his point is what?  Don't all Christians hold that book up like a person shield from God?  We already swear oath upon it and venerate it as "God's Holy Word," so I have issue with why having this as our state book would be seen as anything less than a declaration of faith.  The legislators might burn in hell for their reasoning, but each of us must answer to our own Master for what we do and believe, for only our own Master has the right to pass this judgment upon us.  I think mine will allow me to stand with a bit of dignity here.
  

At the end of his article, Mr. Dallas lists many good and famous books by Mississippi authors which we might be better served choosing as the state book.  But picking one of those would be like picking a soft, fluffy, wad of cotton from the next boll and simply moving on down the row.  How boring.  Where is the famous Mississippi rebelliousness in that?

I wait with bated breath the unfolding of this current drama, though I think the drama will, in the end, be a poorly disguised comedy, with a moral.  Such fun!

God bless America, and God bless the great state of Mississippi!



Editor's Note:  

Before you go getting your panties in a bunch, it is essential to understand that this is just an opinion site and, as such, can be subjected to scrutiny by anyone with a differing opinion.  It doesn't make either opinion any more right or wrong than the other.  An opinion, presented in this context, is a way of inciting others to think and, hopefully, to form opinions of their own, if they haven't already done so.

It is my fervent hope that we keep open and active minds when reading opinions and then engaging in peaceful, constructive, discussion and debate in an arena of mutual respect concerning the opinions put forth.  After over twenty years as a military intelligence analyst, planner, and briefer, I have come to believe engaging each other in this manner and in this arena is the way we will learn tolerance and respect for differing beliefs, cultures, and viewpoints.

We all fall from grace, some more often than others; it is part of being human.  God's test for us is what we do afterward, and what we learn from the experience.
  

Pastor Frank Anthony Villari

Pastor Tony is founder of the Congregation for Religious Tolerance and author/editor of "The Path," the Congregation's official blogsite.    

Guest Post: Late Term Abortion aka Partial Birth Abortion

''It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish. I feel the greatest destroyer of peace today is 'Abortion', because it is a war against the child... A direct killing of the innocent child, 'Murder' by the mother herself... And if we can accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?...“The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father's role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts--a child--as a competitor, an intrusion and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the dependent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters. And, in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners...If a mother can kill her own child - what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me - there is nothing between.''

-- Mother Teresa

The following post is provided courtesy of a good friend, TM.  TM wishes to remain anonymous for personal reasons, and I will respect this.  I will say that TM is a female who has worked in or around the medical field for 42 years.  For 17 of those she was employed by world renowned Institutional Review Board (IRB) and attended Review Board meetings for all 17 of those years.

Note:  Since 1982, approval of an IRB has been a legal requirement by the U.S. government prior to any medical and/or scientific research, regarding the use of "investigational" drugs or devices, which can be conducted on human research subjects.

Prior to her retirement, TM was a National Certified IRB Professional (CIP) and held that certification for 6 years.

TM shares my concern for children and we have had many discussions concerning abortion issues.  We see eye to eye on many, and disagree on a few.  This is one abortion issue we see eye to eye on.  Immediately following her post I will continue commentary and opinion.  That being said, I will preface the post with a cautionary note:

CAUTIONARY NOTE:  WHAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO READ MIGHT BE LESS THAN PLEASANT FOR SOME.  I HAVE ANNOTATED THE PARAGRAPH IN BLUE.  READING IT IS ENTIRELY YOUR CHOICE.

--------------------------------------------------

Late Term Abortion aka Partial Birth Abortion

For the past several years every time there is an election, one person will throw out to the public that their opponent voted “against a woman’s right to choose,” or that they are "anti-woman,” and other such non-sense all because said opponent is against “late term abortion” aka “partial-birth abortion.”

The issue here is not about abortion, as was originally mapped out in Roe vs Wade and subsequently made possible for a woman to have an abortion inside of the first 4-5 months of gestation, rather it is about whether or not American law should permit what is now referred to as “late term abortion,” but was originally referred to as “partial birth abortion.”

Partial birth abortion (late term abortion) means that a woman can wait right up until minutes before she would naturally go into labor to give birth to have her abortion.  

What it entails is the following:

A woman decides she does not want to have her baby (for whatever reason).  She goes in for a procedure to terminate the pregnancy before she would naturally have “gone into labor.”  She is chemically induced to force the beginning of labor and eject the fetus (yes, the “baby” is not a baby until it takes its first breath in accordance with medical/scientific jargon ~ it is a “fetus”).  The fetus then proceeds to make its way down the birth canal and “be born.”  The doctor is sitting there waiting for the head to begin to crown.  He/she then places his/her hand on the head to prevent it from exiting the vagina and possibly taking its first breath.  (Once the first breath is taken, then legally, it would now be murder.)  A scalpel is then used to stab the fetus in the neck just below the scull and sever its spinal cord.  This ensures it will be “born dead.”  This is called “late term abortion.”

There are various films available showing this procedure.  I have personally seen one and strongly feel that the American people need to be informed as to what many Americans are criticizing Congress and the Senate about every time that a vote comes to the floor and it is “voted down.”

Solution:  Take the vote to the general populace.  Do not leave such an important issue in the hands of an inept governmental body that is expected to vote on behalf of the people.  They constantly prove they are not our friends.

 

How:  Hold a special election where the only issue on the ballot is “late term abortion.”  It would be nice if only legalized citizens with appropriate I.D. were allowed to vote since the outcome directly affects continuing to pay for illegal aliens to take advantage of this procedure at our expense.  It would also be good if they could view a video of what they are voting for, after all a picture is worth a thousand words.  In lieu of that, a simple paragraph of what the procedure entails, such as was stated above, should be presented and signed prior to voting.

Since this is such an important issue, no one should be allowed to cast their vote unless they fully understand what they are voting for.  Once the American People have seen for themselves what all of the controversy is about, then they can make a collective decision whether or not to allow the passing of such a law in the U.S.

Keep in mind:  Concerning stem cell research; it is a scientific fact that fetal cells are far more effective than embryonic cells.  The scientific definition of a fetus is that the unborn child is viable (i.e., able to survive outside of the mother’s womb).  An embryo is not able to survive.  An embryo is a group of cells (or “blob” if you wish) that once outside of the mother’s body, is not viable and stops dividing and multiplying.  In layman’s terms, it dies.

Unknown to the American Public at large is the fact that there are companies who have paid millions (conservatively speaking) in the advancement of stem cell research.  The success of their research, and subsequent “treatments,” depend on how “mature” the fetal cells are that they use in the process.

Again, such an important issue needs to be placed on an open ballot to the general populace.  Should the general populace agree that the “end justifies the means” and that such a procedure should be allowed by law and paid for by their tax dollars, then once and for all the issue is not debatable, and it should be made into American law.

No more controversy.  No more name calling.  The issue has been voted on by the American people and they have spoken. 

END OF GUEST POST

-------------------------------------------------

There is something about nationally sanctioned murdering of children that is just wrong, and I fail to see how a this nation of bleeding hearts lets it continue.  More insulting to any moral argument is that it continues at the behest of large corporations that stand to reap the financial benefits of these immoral acts.  Dr. Mengele would be proud to know that we continue his horrific scientific experiments at the expense of our souls.

“I feel the greatest destroyer of peace today is 'Abortion', because it is a war against the child... A direct killing of the innocent child, 'Murder' by the mother herself... And if we can accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love... And we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts...”

-- Mother Teresa

I have seen the video clip taken before a birth via C-section, of a small hand and arm emerging from the mother's womb to grasp the finger of the surgeon.  To watch this clip (attached) it is hard to conceive of any intelligent society that would define life as something taking its first breath much less condone this murderous practice.

I found the item below while cruising the net in search of the "Hand of Hope" article which has been the topic of much debate.  I think this follow-up article is so much more important than the controversy.  See this Snopes.com page, Hand of Hope, and then read the follow-up, below.

"On August 19, 1999, photographer Michael Clancy shot the 'Fetal Hand Grasp' — his picture of a 21-week-old fetus grasping a doctor's finger during innovative surgery to correct spina bifida. Nearly four months later, on Dec. 2, Samuel Armas was 'born famous. 

The photo, which first appeared in USA Today on Sept. 7, 1999, quickly spread across the globe as proof of development in the womb and was later cited during congressional debates on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which passed in 2000. 

'It's just a miracle picture, a miracle moment,' Clancy told FOXNews.com. "It shows the earliest human interaction ever recorded.' 

Samuel, now 9 and living in Villa Rica, Ga., said the photo likely gave countless 'babies their right to live' and forced many others to debate their beliefs on abortion, something he's proud of. 

'It's very important to me,' Samuel said of the photograph. 'A lot of babies would've lost their lives if that didn't happen.' Julie Armas, Samuel's mother, said her eldest son has a 'very strong sense of right and wrong' and understands the impact of his unconventional first baby photo."

Story source; Fox News, Joshua Rhett Miller, May 6, 2009

What would Jesus think? 

Editor's Note:  

Before you go getting your panties in a bunch, it is essential to understand that this is just an opinion site and, as such, can be subjected to scrutiny by anyone with a differing opinion.  It doesn't make either opinion any more right or wrong than the other.  An opinion, presented in this context, is a way of inciting others to think and, hopefully, to form opinions of their own, if they haven't already done so.

It is my fervent hope that we keep open and active minds when reading opinions and then engaging in peaceful, constructive, discussion and debate in an arena of mutual respect concerning the opinions put forth.  After over twenty years as a military intelligence analyst, planner, and briefer, I have come to believe engaging each other in this manner and in this arena is the way we will learn tolerance and respect for differing beliefs, cultures, and viewpoints.

We all fall from grace, some more often than others; it is part of being human.  God's test for us is what we do afterward, and what we learn from the experience.
  

Pastor Frank Anthony Villari

Pastor Tony is founder of the Congregation for Religious Tolerance and author/editor of "The Path," the Congregation's official blogsite.  

Valentine's Day - February 14, 2015

How Do I Love Thee? Let me count the ways.

I love thee to the depth and breadth and height

My soul can reach, when feeling out of sight

For the ends of Being an ideal Grace. 

I love thee to the level of everyday's 

Most quiet need, by sun and candlelight. 

I love thee freely, as men strive for Right; 

I love thee purely, as they turn from Praise. 

I love thee with the passion put to use 

In my old griefs, and with my childhood's faith. 

I love thee with a love I seemed to lose 

With my lost saints,- I love thee with the Breath, 

Smiles, tears, of all my life!- and, if God choose, 

I shall but love thee better after death. 

-- Elizabeth Barrett Browning

Last year I wrote my first ode to love with A Poetic Definition for Valentine's Day.  Valentine's Day is an important day to all hopeless romantics, and I'm very happy to count myself among them.  I happen to love women, but I think whomever you love, this is the day to show and celebrate it.

St. Valentine legends are too numerous and colorful for me to cover in any detail, suffice to say there are at least two that explain Cupid, amethyst, hearts, and love associated with this saint. But, regardless of legend, the Feast of St. Valentine is a Christian celebratory day to commemorate the death of another martyr of Christendom. As with Christmas it will be interesting for everyone to see how many secular, non-Christians, partake in the commemoration and try to detract from the Christian aspect of it. Hypocrisy will abound, I'm sure. But, why not? Like Christmas this is a day to celebrate life and love, and Christians should welcome all to partake and allow God to sort out the bullshit down the road.

I think St. Valentine would fit into the controversial culture of today, exempli gratia: One legend says the Roman Emperor Claudius II, a pagan, had banned marriage for his soldiers thinking unmarried men made a better army. St. Valentine would perform weddings for these soldiers in secret which led to his demise. Today, the saint would have been in his cups performing weddings for the LGBTTQQIAAP (et al) community which we continue to haggle the legalities of, ad nauseam, across this great nation.

Regardless of how it came about, the day has become a celebration of love, and for lining competing gangsters up against garage walls and machine gunning them to death. Ah, those were the good old days of Al Capone and "Bugs" Moran, and of course, Bonnie Elizabeth Parker and Clyde Chestnut Barrow. If there were ever two people that would have celebrated the day, with love, Bonnie and Clyde were them, as there was absolutely no love lost between Capone and Moran.

As for the rest of us, love will certainly be in the air.  Wine will flow, dinners will be served, suits and gowns will grace the finest eateries in the seediest of boroughs as men and women, boys and girls, and every combination in between and then some, woo that one special person, or so, in the hope of finding true love.  

Gee, somehow the romance of the day just gets lost in the modern translation, but I'm sure everyone will find a translation that suits their desires.

"DON'T MISS LOVE.  It's an incredible gift.  I love to think that the day you're born, you're given the world as your birthday present.  It frightens me to think that so few people even bother to open up the ribbon!  Rip it open!  Tear off the top!  It's just full of love and magic and joy and wonder and pain and tears.  All of these things are your gift for being human."

-- Leo Buscaglia (1924-1998), teacher, writer, lecturer

Who you love is not as important as that you love.  More and more people are sidestepping marriage in favor of living together, life partners.  More and more people are having children out of wedlock.  More and more people want to celebrate the vows of holy matrimony, and can't.  I have talked to more people lately that recognize gays seem to be the ones interested in holy matrimony, marriage in the church.  They will settle for a civil service, but they would really like the blessing of God, and why not?  Is their love any less true than others? At times I think straight couples could take a lesson from the gay handbook on a loving relationship.

 As an interfaith minister, I report to no church.  There is no negative aspect to this.  The positive is that I answer only to God.  My faith holds that mainstream Christianity has wandered off their path; they have become lost in hypocrisy and replaced the tolerance, love, forgiveness, and the sweet reasonableness of the Christ with their own interpretation to forward their own agenda.  Because of this, gay relationships are damned and not deserved of a holy matrimony.  My path does not allow this blatant hypocrisy.  Love will not be held back by hypocrisy and true love by Christians deserves the witness of their God.

“Find the person who will love you because of your differences and not in spite of them and you have found a lover for life.”

-- Leo Buscaglia

As for those that "live in sin," let's be honest.  Love is love.  God would rather you do the right thing, and hopefully you will decide this in future.  But if you love, the love of forever, is this not important as well?  The strong love of forever is an elusive commodity, and many want to make sure they get it right before mucking it up after making promises before God and friends.  I think this can be tolerated.

If you do nothing else the Valentin's Day, love.  If you don't have that one special person, do not feel that love has passed you by, love abounds around you.  Become one with the day and celebrate love.  There was a time when I had no "significant other" in my life.  I wanted to buy some roses.  There was a checker at my local supermarket that was not having a good day, so I bought a bouquet and gave them to her.  She smiled and asked why I was giving them to her.  I told her the smile she had at that moment was so much prettier than her day was allowing, and I wished her a happy Valentine's Day.  If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with?  Sometimes this is a good thing.

Love is patient and sweet; love does not envy; love is not upset neither puffed up.

Love does not commit what is shameful, neither does it seek its own; it is not provoked, neither does it entertain evil thoughts,

Rejoices not in evil, but rejoices in the truth,

Endures all things, believes all things, hopes all, bears all.

Love never fails; for prophecies shall cease, tongues shall be silenced and knowledge will be nothing;

For we know partially and we prophesy partially,

But when perfection shall come, then that which is partial shall be nothing.

When I was a child, I was speaking as a child, I was led as a child, I was thinking as a child, but when I became a man, I ceased these childish things.

Now we see as in a mirror, in an allegory, but then face-to-face. Now I know partially, but then I shall know as I am known.

For there are these three things that endure: Faith, Hope and Love, but the greatest of these is Love.

1 Corinthians 13:4-13

Editor's Note:

Before you go getting your panties in a bunch, it is essential to understand that this is just an opinion site and, as such, can be subjected to scrutiny by anyone with a differing opinion.  It doesn't make either opinion any more right or wrong than the other.  An opinion, presented in this context, is a way of inciting others to think and, hopefully, to form opinions of their own, if they haven't already done so.

It is my fervent hope that we keep open and active minds when reading opinions and then engaging in peaceful, constructive, discussion and debate in an arena of mutual respect concerning the opinions put forth.  After over twenty years as a military intelligence analyst, planner, and briefer, I have come to believe engaging each other in this manner and in this arena is the way we will learn tolerance and respect for differing beliefs, cultures, and viewpoints.

We all fall from grace, some more often than others; it is part of being human.  God's test for us is what we do afterward, and what we learn from the experience.

Pastor Frank Anthony Villari

Pastor Tony is founder of the Congregation for Religious Tolerance and author/editor of "The Path," the Congregation's official blogsite.    

Is Pope Francis a Socialist?

Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these. There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them. They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Egalitarianism (from French égal, meaning "equal")—or, rarely, equalitarianism or equalism—is a trend of thought that favors equality for all people. Egalitarian doctrines maintain that all humans are equal in fundamental worth or social status, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the term has two distinct definitions in modern English. It is defined either as a political doctrine that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights or as a social philosophy advocating the removal of economic inequalities among people or the decentralization of power. Some sources define egalitarianism as the point of view that equality reflects the natural state of humanity.

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism

I scared myself for a moment.  I read the definition of "socialism" and thought I had an issue with my own usage.  Well, yes and no.  I use it correctly when I say the current administration in this country is hell bent on turning us toward a socialist/communist form of government.  Where I err is defending Pope Francis.

People slam Pope Francis for having socialist ideals.  I found Francis, like Christ, would like to see everyone taken care of, especially the poor.  But, this is not socialism, and those that accuse him of believing in socialist ideology may be in error.  Pope Francis is actually espousing the values of "egalitarianism."

Reading the two definitions one might argue that there is not much difference between socialism and egalitarianism.  Take a closer look.  Socialism deals with social, cooperative, common, and state ownership of enterprises, whereas egalitarianism, even as a political doctrine, deals primarily with how people are treated.

I think we constantly confuse these.  Truth be known, conservative and liberals also differ greatly where socialism is concerned.  Conservatives want everything liberals want, but they differ on how to go about paying for it.  I think they can both camps are onboard with egalitarian philosophy that "equality reflects the natural state of humanity," but, once again, they differ in how to go about achieving it.  

I know my thoughts on socialist and egalitarian differences are simplistic, the subject can quickly become as boring as waiting for California blackworms make love, but I'll set my thoughts down anyway so you can mull them over.  Egalitarianism and socialism have two common problems:  Economic sustainability and getting the majority of the poor to climb aboard and give up their entitlement attitudes.  In the truly socialist or communist state everyone is poor and everyone is expected to work.  The only people that have money and position are the politicians, and corruption is rampant.  The problem, which history has proven out, is there comes a point when money runs out and people get tired of working their butts off and getting nowhere while watching their leaders and the criminal element get ahead and live the good life.  The endpoint is usually presented as revolution, collapse of society, collapse of the economy, or any/all of the above.

.So, is Pope Francis a socialist?  I don't think so.  The pope just wants what Jesus wanted, and why wouldn't he?  Like Jesus he is a man of Christian faith and follows the precepts of scripture.  To accuse him of following his faith would be like accusing a quarterback of playing football.  I don't think the pope is a socialist any more than I think most people are.  But I do believe we all have some identification with egalitarian philosophy.  Where we differ is how to go about it.



Editor's Note:  

Before you go getting your panties in a bunch, it is essential to understand that this is just an opinion site and, as such, can be subjected to scrutiny by anyone with a differing opinion.  It doesn't make either opinion any more right or wrong than the other.  An opinion, presented in this context, is a way of inciting others to think and, hopefully, to form opinions of their own, if they haven't already done so.

It is my fervent hope that we keep open and active minds when reading opinions and then engaging in peaceful, constructive, discussion and debate in an arena of mutual respect concerning the opinions put forth.  After over twenty years as a military intelligence analyst, planner, and briefer, I have come to believe engaging each other in this manner and in this arena is the way we will learn tolerance and respect for differing beliefs, cultures, and viewpoints.

We all fall from grace, some more often than others; it is part of being human.  God's test for us is what we do afterward, and what we learn from the experience.
  

Pastor Frank Anthony Villari

Pastor Tony is founder of the Congregation for Religious Tolerance and author/editor of "The Path," the Congregation's official blogsite. 

Sunday Thought, January 25, 2015: Criticism

crit·i·cize

ˈkridəˌsīz/

verb

1. 1.

   indicate the faults of (someone or something) in a disapproving way.

   "states criticized the failure to provide an adequate and permanent compensation"

   synonyms:

   find fault with, censure, denounce, condemn, attack, lambaste, pillory,rail against, inveigh against, arraign, cast aspersions on, pour scorn on, disparage, denigrate, give bad press to, run down; More
2. 2.

   form and express a sophisticated judgment of (a literary or artistic work).

   "a literary text may be criticized on two grounds: the semantic and the expressive"
3. Google Definition

Have you ever considered the definition of "criticize?"  Take a moment and read it over.

We all do it, criticize, and the majority of us excuse it by falling back on definition number two, when we're so very guilty of definition number one.  Okay, the majority of us that are being honest will admit we do it for this reason.  The rest of us delude ourselves into thinking we're taking some imaginary "high road" by being judgmental asses and fall back on the kinder, gentler, second definition.  But let's consider the two distinct parts of this second definition - "form and express," and "sophisticated judgment."  Those who know me know where I'm going with this, as it isn't nuclear physics.

Most of us can't form or express any sort of meaningful thought.  I blame this, regularly, on our poor educational system.  Nowadays, if we somehow manage to get a cogent thought out of our pie hole, it is rife with "colorful metaphors," the expletives we feel are necessary due to our inability to communicate intelligently.

Spock: Your use of language has altered since our arrival. It is currently laced with, shall we say, more colorful metaphors, "double dumb-ass on you" and so forth.
Kirk: Oh, you mean the profanity?
Spock: Yes.
Kirk: Well that's simply the way they talk here. Nobody pays any attention to you unless you swear every other word.

-- Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

I run into this quite often in comments to things people post, not necessarily the cursing as much as the inability to communicate intelligently.  I have failed at this, myself, even though I have strived to be more tolerant.  This intolerance usually materializes when I get into pissing matches with sacks of hammers.  It especially grinds on me when the sack of hammers is a person I consider to be intelligent.  I keep forgetting that a sheepskin, or three, from an institution of higher learning is no guarantee of having any sense.  I have met few folks with doctorates that make any sense when it comes to life, politics, or faith.  It doesn't mean they aren't out there, I just haven't run across them or their ego keeps that degree so "in my face" that I don't recognize them.  I think there comes a point when you have to get over yourself.  What it seems to indicate is,  whether you're rich or poor, educated or not, we all have the same human failings just as we all have the same ability to overcome  them.

“I haven't any right to criticize books, and I don't do it except when I hate them. I often want to criticize Jane Austen, but her books madden me so that I can't conceal my frenzy from the reader; and therefore I have to stop every time I begin. Every time I read Pride and Prejudice I want to dig her up and beat her over the skull with her own shin-bone.” 

-- Mark Twain

I've noticed two things about people that are critical, since I've had my blog and been posting online; their comments are either paragraphs long or one line with no support.  If it takes you more than a paragraph to criticize, you are trying too hard to explain your critique.  That's like having to explain a joke, when the joke just wasn't any good to begin with.  On the other hand, if it takes less than a good sentence you probably don't have a leg to stand on and probably shouldn't have jumped into the fray.  I run into this when someone critiques my post and I find out they don't post much, or not at all.  In other words, they're quick to critique but don't have the big brass ones to put their own opinions out there for the world to see.  This is like the drama critic that gets stage fright.  Those that can, do.  And those that can't, critique.  We do this, or we run into this, all the time.

"Those that can't do, teach.  And those who can't teach, teach gym."

-- Woody Allen, "Annie Hall": screenplay 

As far as "sophisticated judgment," any good scientist knows, whether good or bad, validity comes with repeatable results.  The most recent example of poor judgment can be seen in painting all of Islam with the terrorist label.  "Well, he's a Muslim!  Of course he's a terrorist!"  And the reasoning for the condemnation would be quotes from the Qur'an used as support when there are just as many quotes that contradict them, kind of like these same people do with the Bible.  Sophisticated judgment would dictate we look at both sides of an issue, talk to all of those involved, educate ourselves in the subject, and actually sound like something other than a hate mongering bigot or a braying jackass.  

We may, in time, find out Muslims are all terrorists bent on world domination, contrary to their scripture.  But, we shouldn't condemn them all until we know for sure.  It is just bad form.  But, not taking the low road seems to require being something more than human.  Many of us just can't wrap our minds around being something better than what we are.  Where Christians are concerned, many ask the question, but few can actually act on, "What would Jesus do?"  I suppose that would be contingent on how you interpret the Bible.

If you must be critical, be constructive.  For the love of God, please don't try to be creative.  Don't look for reasons to critique.  I hate it when someone asks me to critique something because I might like it at first glance and then find a reason not to when I start to delve deeper.  It's the same reason I try not to look at the ingredients on the bag of Oreos or Cheetos.  I just really don't need to know anything more than I like it.

“Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body; it calls attention to the development of an unhealthy state of things. If it is heeded in time, danger may be averted; if it is suppressed, a fatal distemper may develop."

-- Winston Churchill

There are times when you need to dig deeper whether you want to or not; politics, religion, and law all come to mind. Of course these would be the three taboo subjects for any friendly "debate," primarily because the criticism can be emotionally charged because everyone thinks they're right. These are the times we all need to agree to disagree. These subjects deserve some degree of emotion but, at the end of the day, you all need to shake hands and understand whatever may have been said in the spirit of the first definition of criticism, may have been laced with a bit more emotion than was needed. In this spirit of debate we all can come back to the table down the road for another round and keep the lines of communication open, and constructive.

Of course, I could be wrong in all this.  But, then, maybe I'm just too critical. 

“Any fool can criticize, complain, and condemn—and most fools do. But it takes character and self-control to be understanding and forgiving.” 

-- Dale Carnegie (1888-1955), "How to Win Friends and Influence People"

Note from Pastor Tony, the founder of the Congregation for Religious Tolerance, as well as the author and editor of "The Path," the Congregation's official blogsite:  

Before you go getting your panties in a bunch, it is essential to understand that this is just an opinion site and, as such, can be subjected to scrutiny by anyone with a differing opinion.  It doesn't make either opinion any more right or wrong than the other.  An opinion, presented in this context, is a way of inciting others to think and, hopefully, to form opinions of their own, if they haven't already done so.

It is my fervent hope that we keep open and active minds when reading opinions and then engaging in peaceful, constructive, discussion and debate in an arena of mutual respect concerning the opinions put forth.  After over twenty years as a military intelligence analyst, planner, and briefer, I have come to believe engaging each other in this manner and in this arena is the way we will learn tolerance and respect for differing beliefs, cultures, and viewpoints.

We all fall from grace, some more often than others; it is part of being human.  God's test for us is what we do afterward, and what we learn from the experience.
  

Frank Anthony Villari, Pastor