In chapters 8 and 9 of this epistle to the Corinthians, Paul communicates the importance of giving. For this article, I have chosen to break away from my usual format in order to write a brief commentary, examining each verse. This is being done in order to make the scriptures the primary focus, since this happens to be one of those subjects that people have varied opinions about. By examining the scriptures, it is my hope that we might come to some agreement about what the New Testament teaches concerning giving.

If we can acknowledge the Bible to be correct in every area irrespective of our own prejudices, then we are in a position to allow God’s word to transform our thinking, fashioning it to that of the Christ ideal. Submitting to God must involve the willingness to abandon our own opinions when it is apparent that they are in conflict with God’s. My prayer is that all who read this article and any that may follow do so with an attitude of humility. I do not claim that my commentary is perfect in any way, yet I am fairly settled on the observations I have made, and at present do not see any reason to assume that my analysis could portray any significant deviation from what seems to be a rather direct message. Nevertheless, I welcome any reasonable alternate conclusions, knowing full well the opportunity for error when one undertakes the task of commenting on an entire chapter of scripture.

Giving as a Grace

1Now, brethren, we wish to make known to you the grace of God which has been given in the churches of Macedonia, 2that in a great ordeal of affliction their abundance of joy and their deep poverty overflowed in the wealth of their liberality. 3For I testify that according to their ability, and beyond their ability, they gave of their own accord, 4begging us with much urging for the favor of participation in the support of the saints,5and this, not as we had expected, but they first gave themselves to the Lord and to us by the will of God.

Notice how this chapter begins. Paul opens by communicating his desire to reveal to the Corinthians the grace of God that was given to the Philippians or the “churches of Macedonia”. The verses following the first verse indicate the attributes of the grace he was referring to. Despite being very poor, the Philippians were very liberal in their giving – even giving beyond their natural ability to give. How is this possible? It is only possible because of the grace of God – his ability to do for them what they could not do for ourselves. Another attribute of this grace is demonstrated in their desire to give, such that they literally begged for the opportunity to support other Christians. Let that soak in. How many poverty-stricken Christians do you know who are so excited about giving that they are pleading for the chance to do so? In fact, I would venture to say that most poor Christians limit their giving because of their financial struggles. Yet these people considered it a favor to be able to participate in the offering. Here is an important question: Why did they even have to beg to give in the first place? We cannot say for sure, but perhaps it was because the apostles did not want to accept an offering from people who experienced such dire lack. It would not be out of the ordinary today for someone to make excuses for poor people who “are not able” to give.

6So we urged Titus that as he had previously made a beginning, so he would also complete in you this gracious work as well. 7But just as you abound in everything, in faith and utterance and knowledge and in all earnestness and in the love we inspired in you, see that you abound in this gracious work also.

Verse 6 apparently indicates that Titus was instructed to teach the Corinthians about the principles of giving in order to bring into fruition the grace of God pertaining to giving – the potential of which could have only be realized through sound teaching. As a result of this teaching, the churches were expected to give abundantly.

Love is an Act before it is a Fact

8I am not speaking this as a command, but as proving through the earnestness of others the sincerity of your love also.

Wow. Did you hear that? Prove the sincerity of their love? That is hard statement. In other words, “If you really love God and you love the saints, prove it!” Many people would read that and think, “But aren’t we supposed to give from our hearts? Why is Paul so direct? Isn’t this arm twisting?” Love demands action; it isn’t optional (1 John 3:18). That Paul would have the gall to strongly suggest that the Corinthians actualize their love by giving should in no way be perceived as manipulation.

God’s Riches at Christ’s Expense

9For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, so that you through His poverty might become rich.

Now before I attempt to explain this verse, let me ask a question: What is the subject under discussion her? The obvious answer is money, right? I mean we are talking about the grace of God that enables people to give of their substance to the work of God. Yet so many people will, because of their religious programming, read this verse and conclude that it means something far different than the context makes clear. Jesus was made poor. Spiritually poor? No, he was poor in the sense that he did not have much monetary substance when he walked the earth as a man. So then, through his poverty we have the ability to become rich. But that’s just talking about spiritual wealth, right? No! The concept of immaterial blessing has not once entered the conversation, and if Paul were to bring it up out of the blue it would make absolutely no sense whatsoever. Paul is speaking of a redemptive blessing afforded to believers through substitution. Just like he was made sin for us so that we might become the righteousness of God in Christ, he was made poor so that we might live lives of abundance. Isn’t that what the scripture says?

Giving as a Benefit

10I give my opinion in this matter, for this is to your advantage, who were the first to begin a year ago not only to do this, but also to desire to do it. 11But now finish doing it also, so that just as there was the readiness to desire it, so there may be also the completion of it by your ability. 12For if the readiness is present, it is acceptable according to what a person has, not according to what he does not have.

Notice what Paul wrote in verse 10. He said that it was advantageous for the Corinthians to give. Most people do not think this way. They think that once something is given, it is gone; therefore, how could there be any advantage to give? Such thinking is very contrary to the concept of giving as it is outlined in the scriptures.

Verses 11 and 12 speak of the completion of their desire to give, suggesting that they had previously received light on the subject and are now being asked to follow through and prove the fruit of what they already know to be true. In verse 12, Paul seems to preempt the attitude of someone who might be tempted not to give because of personal lack by saying, “For if readiness in present, it is acceptable according to what a person has, not according to what he does not have.”

10I give my opinion in this matter, for this is to your advantage, who were the first to begin a year ago not only to do this, but also to desire to do it. 11But now finish doing it also, so that just as there was the readiness to desire it, so there may be also the completion of it by your ability. 12For if the readiness is present, it is acceptable according to what a person has, not according to what he does not have.

Responsibility is not a Bad Word

13For this is not for the ease of others and for your affliction, but by way of equality– 14at this present time your abundance being a supply for their need, so that their abundance also may become a supply for your need, that there may be equality;15as it is written, “HE WHO gathered MUCH DID NOT HAVE TOO MUCH, AND HE WHO gathered LITTLE HAD NO LACK.”

Notice the sense of mutual responsibility being communicated here.  Where responsibility is clearly defined there can never any be any doubt as to whether that responsibility must be met. Here again, it must be understood that Paul’s forwardness in conveying this responsibility should not be perceived as manipulative; nor should it be viewed as contradictory to the idea of giving from one’s heart.

Accountability as Honor

16But thanks be to God who puts the same earnestness on your behalf in the heart of Titus. 17For he not only accepted our appeal, but being himself very earnest, he has gone to you of his own accord. 18We have sent along with him the brother whose fame in the things of the gospel has spread through all the churches; 19and not only this, but he has also been appointed by the churches to travel with us in this gracious work, which is being administered by us for the glory of the Lord Himself, and to show our readiness, 20taking precaution so that no one will discredit us in our administration of this generous gift; 21for we have regard for what is honorable, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men.

Again, Paul goes back to discussing Titus, the one he previously said would help instruct them in order to bring into full maturity the revelation concerning giving. Here Paul speaks of the fact that Titus and an unnamed minister have been appointed by the churches to travel for the furtherance of the Gospel. This seems to suggest that the churches are financially supporting them in this endeavor. This being the case, coupled with the fact that they are coming to receive an offering from the Corinthians (as is made more clear in chapter 9) is reason enough for Paul to emphasize the integrity with which they conduct themselves. Perhaps this was said in order to disarm the argument that these ministers intended to deal unscrupulously with the funds they were to receive from the church.

In this episode, machines called “exocomps” have been proven to be very handy in fixing problems on a mining station. Data, however, has determined that he believes the exocomps are alive - and that it is wrong to force them to labour on the station. A problem eventually occurs where Picard and LaForge are trapped on the station and it becomes possible to send the exocoms out into space and blow them up to free the trapped officers. The following situation takes place:

Commander Riker is the utilitarian and the consequentialist - he wants to do the greatest good, even if it means sacrificing others. He believes it is “less evil” to sacrifice the exocomps for the trapped officers than to pursue a more ethically pure path. Data (often personified as a pure logical being), however, acknowledges that it is unethical to sacrifice any innocent life by force, and is required to make a choice - insubordination to his superiors or acting to preserve innocent life.  Eventually, they argue and determine that it is best to try and ask the exocomps if they would freely try and save the trapped officers.

In axiomatic thinking - which is the type of thinking we are dealing with here - the examples don’t exist to prove or dispove the theory, but to illustrate it. Empiricism presumes that a theory is only as good as its ability to work in consequence - but this ignores the possibility of any knowledge, ethics or morality outside of human experience (such as Christianity) and even ability (such as communism or anarchism). In other words, because no human is capable of performing the ethically pure action of saving the exocomps, it does not “disprove” or “nullify” the ethical principle. In the same way, just because humans are incapable of keeping God’s law and living up to his moral standard in practice, it does not mean that God’s law is nullified or unbinding. We are still judged by this standard, even though it is “unrealistic.”

This example illustrates my point to some degree. It is wrong, and always wrong, to sacrifice innocent life as part of a “greater good.” It does not suddenly become less wrong because of a given situation or for given consequences (”reality”).Morality is above reality - reality must be derived from the purity of reason, logic and morality - not the other way around. Even though Data’s actions are impractical, radical and unrealistic (only he, as personified logic, can chose to save the exocomps - no human was willing or able to do it) they are correct. Ethics is not on a sliding scale based on how able we are to work them out or how “realistic” they are. The failing is not with the theory or the ethical axiom - it is with humanity’s inability to adhere to the greater principle.

U.S. Shifts Focus in Credit Bailout to the Consumer

The Treasury Department on Wednesday officially abandoned the original strategy behind its $700 billion effort to rescue the financial system, as administration officials acknowledged that banks and financial institutions were as unwilling as ever to lend to consumers.
…
The program, still in the planning stages, would for the first time use bailout funds specifically to help consumers instead of banks, savings and loans and Wall Street firms.

The End of Wall Street’s Boom

Politics
Evangelicals and the 2008 vote - a map by Christianity Today

Catholics making a stand on abortion

Stossel writes about the road to serfdom.

More
Teenagers and TV sex (abstract to an article published in the journal Pediatrics)

How to Get Your Email Inbox to Zero Every Day

Raped 13 year old girl stoned for adultery in Somalia

I have to note this at the start because, sadly, many readers struggle with separating abstract positions from specific persons (”how dare you say that about my grandfather who…” ). Secondly, they have difficulty separating tradition, ideology and propaganda from historical reality (”We were good and we were fighting evil…”).

The Premise
My only major assumption from which I am deriving my argument is that the State is not a morally neutral entity. Every single person, family or organisation that comes into contact with the state is either a victim or a collaborator with an entity that is wholly and entirely premised on theft, murder, lies and subjugation. If you have problems with this premise, then you might have problems with this piece. Please take the time to view these resources (1, 2, 3, 4) to give this argument a fair shake, as it will not be dealt with here.

Veterans are Primarily Victims
Veterans have similar ambiguity about their situation. Many are victims of the state - they were threatened with jail, fines even death unless they killed other men they otherwise would have no conflict with whatsoever. They were/are forced to commit crimes against others in order to prevent crimes being committed against them by the state. Many who sign up willingly are also victims - as these have been deceived by the state in order to engage in a cause that they might originally believe to be just, but only much later might realise was wrong.

Veterans, for the vast majority, are victims and should be remembered in the same way we remember those affected by murder, genocide and persecution. But we must also remember who did this to them - we must remember who is responsible for so many widows, fatherless children and a legacy of lost life - namely, the State.

It is one of the greatest ironies that it is the state which pushes for the celebration of veterans. The state wants us to remember “the sacrifice” of these men (as though most went to war willingly or without being deceived) and not the fact that many of these victims were in fact sacrificed.

There is No Moral Legitimacy in Aggressive War
I have reflected on this recently, as I have become good friends with a German my age here in England. We have remarked several times about how we would be on opposite sides of a conflict, quite possibly trying to kill each other if, by chance, we happened to be living in the 1940’s. I want only the best for my good friend - and how many men, who otherwise might be friends, whose wives would be friends, whose children would grow up together - wantonly killed one another under either the threat of aggression against them by their own nations or because their government led them to believe that their fight was one for the greater good.

There is no morality present in the philosophy of  “the end justifies the means” - that by committing evil, we can bring about good. It is morally bankrupt. Morality is absolute and unchanging. It is not subject to men - it is above them. Any “morality” that can be bent, broken or adjusted based on the relative morals of society or by the designs and strategies of men is not morality whatsoever.

Soldiers Give Us Freedom?
Lastly, there is a tremendously erroneous idea propagated as part of this subject - that soldiers are somehow responsible for “our freedom.” In many instances, nothing is further from the truth.

The soldier, by his very nature, is contrary to freedom - his job exists to destroy property and life, as well as subjugate the freedom of individuals. Consider that if freedom comes from the military, then it is no better than mob-rule and might-makes-right. Is this a moral philosophy?

We do not gain our freedom from the military or as a gift of a benevolent state - as though our freedom were a welfare check or a gun.  We obtain our freedom, as Thomas Jefferson eloquently wrote, from “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Freedom is a gift from God, and choice and responsibility are given to men from His hand. Nature speaks of the greatness of God to do this and also testifies, in how He ordered it, to the fact of freedom as the inherent state of all men.

Aggressive war is a crime - a blasphemy against God’s order and purpose for men. This is what should be remembered. Offensive war (or pre-emptive, to use the new term) is sin and cannot bring about good, which only comes from God (James 1:17). In fact, the same passage reaffirms the moral objectivity of God and the absoluteness of his order: “with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.” If we dare to view wars and veterans in the same light, than we have to re-evaluate our support for wars, the way we remember veterans and the legitimacy and morality of our current authorities.

Secondary Education
For those of you who have read the Harry Potter series, you’re already familiar with secondary school in the UK. Students are required to attend this for 4 years.  At the end of this time, students take their Standard Grade exams (once called O-levels) in 7-9 subject areas. Once the student completes these, he is able to enter the workforce similar to a US citizen who have receive a high school diploma. In the rest of the UK, the equivalent of Standard Grade is the GCSE.  Secondary schools have an optional 2 years which begin at this point.  Most students stay at least another year as it is required for university-level education (1 for Scotland or 2 for the rest of the UK). Starting in the fourth year of secondary school (but not generally until the fifth), students are allowed to take “Higher” courses.  In the UK, these are known as AS-levels.  These courses are roughly equivalent to most intro-level college courses in the US. Students focus their efforts here If a student stays for the sixth year, he takes “Advanced Higher” and/or additional Highers. Advanced Highers are generally equivalent in the UK to A-levels. Students staying this far do so for university admissions, however the quality of education at this level is closer to that of a (good) junior college in the US as it provides a solid base for specialization in the university. Students who do not go on to university in these optional years work towards their Higher National Certificate and/or Higher National Diploma. These are scaled slightly under the bachelor’s degree and are roughly equivalent to an associate’s degree in the US.

Qualifications
With all of that said, there is still more regarding education.  In the UK, education’s main goal is marketable skills.  Because of this, there is a unified structure of qualification levels (SCQF in Scotland, NQF in the rest of the UK).  I will be following the Scottish structure, but the national one follows it closely.  Once students reach their fourth year of secondary school, they begin to gain points on the SCQF. This is a general scale for depth of education, so that basic secondary education is low and graduate degrees are high. There is also a second scale (Scottish Vocational Qualifications or SVQ) which more broadly indicates the level of competence one ought to have. SVQ is a vocational scale utilized more often in apprenticeships than in education. Because of the way secondary school is structured in that it provides means for apprenticeships to begin while still in school, the two scales do correlate weakly.  By the time a student reaches SCQF level 3, he is expected to be competent in basic, routine work (SVQ 1).  By the time a student has completed the mandatory part of secondary school (Standard Grades), he will be on SCQF level4 (or sometimes level 5) and this should also correlate to SVQ 2 (is able to perform a broad range of skills).  A student who stays in secondary school through the 2 optional years should be on the SCQF level 7 (sometimes 6) and is expected to have competency as a supervisor (SVQ 3).  A student who graduates from a university with a regular degree is considered SCQF level 9 (Honours degree is level 10).  The upper SCQF levels (11 and 12) are for Master’s and doctoral degrees (respectively). Additionally, there are two levels of the SVQ which can be awarded: management (SVQ 4) and senior management (SVQ 5).

First of all - a note to all you conservatives who voted for McCain and also Bush in 2004 - I am blaming you. This is what a voting philosophy of the lesser of two evils has gotten you. You marginalised and mocked the one man who even held a glimmer of old-right economic values and fiscal conservatism. Take a moment to consider the so-called “conservative” candidates you’ve supported as the lesser of two evils since Ronald Regan:

• John McCain
• George W. Bush
• George W. Bush
• Bob Dole
• George Bush
• George Bush

Are you now surprised that America, which generally supports you when you campaign for things like balanced budgets, lower taxes, private property rights, civil liberties, families and free-enterprise, has now elected the party of one of the most unpopular congresses in modern US history? You have allowed your party to be completely subjugated by a neo-conservative group of right-wing socialists - and this is what you deserve - a taste of your own medicine. I washed my hands of the GOP five years ago, partly because I saw this coming - it was an inevitable correction in the political marketplace.

Any changes that Obama now makes using expanded executive power is your fault. You gave George W. Bush unprecedented power in the executive to do all manner of unconstitutional things - now, the man you most fear inherits that power. You had the mandate to reverse the power of the executive branch and you expanded it more than ever - and Obama will now wield that with a vengeance.

In fact, you have set a precedent for using a congressional majority to vest power in the executive, because by circumventing the legislative branch, political agendas can now go through faster and with more force. Welcome to the Obama administration, because of the power you gave George W. Bush, expect the next 40 years of the left-wing agenda to come to pass in eight.

I suspect this includes:

Wage and price controls - When the economy continues to go sour after the bailout fix has run out, including massive inflation, Obama will use his expanded executive power to control wages and prices. There will be record unemployment, increased poverty and shortages of gas, food, healthcare and other essentials.

More wars -  towards the end of the Obama administration, I expect him to send in troops or air strikes in some new country - probably Pakistan or Iran. Who knows, if the economy gets bad enough, Obama might very well start WWIII with Russia by sending troops to “protect democracy” in Eastern Europe.

Universal Healthcare - This will still take congress’s approval, but Obama will get some form of universal healthcare - putting the final nail in the coffin of what used to be the greatest and most innovative system in the world.

More Federal Control in Education - Again conservatives, this is your fault. You encouraged Bush to dramatically increase federal involvement in education. Now enjoy Obama using this new power to expand the role of the Department of Education.

I am glad that Obama has won. I can’t imagine what another four years of neo-conservative power-mongering would bring. Hopefully conservatives find a moment to humbly reflect in all of this - and repent of just how far they’ve fallen. Their zeal for power overshadowed their traditions and principles.

It might take another new-deal and depression for them to get it - but so be it. This may not be the candidate you directly voted for all these years, but he is the unintended consequence of every vote for a right-wing, neo-conservative socialist as the lesser of two evils. Conservatives: you deserve Barack Obama.

A Lack of Faith?
Why is the legacy of tithing, via language, still present in churches which claim to have nothing to do with the practice? I have no easy answer, nor do I want to take what some might consider an obvious answer of nefarious motives. At the same time, I have to wonder if there is a lack of faith at the heart of the problem.

There is no question that church staff and churches in general, are some of the most underfunded operations in existence. For the work that these people do, they have to bear a lot of struggle and risk because their beneficiaries will not pay for the service that they provide. I have tremendous respect for any pastor who leaves a stable vocation for the sake of the gospel to go into what is a known financial mine-field. Because this is the case, I have no doubt that it is difficult to teach proper application of what God’s Word says about giving - perhaps the financial difficulties are so great that church leaders are willing to take money given in an erroneous understanding of giving, and be silent about it, as a consequentiallist action. In other words, it is ultimately correct that the believer give - therefore, why he gives (even if he feels under compulsion from an unbiblical tithing rule), is not as important.

Imagine if a person came up to a pastor on a Sunday morning and said - “I am ready to commit my life to Jesus,” but then followed with, “because I heard that Jesus can fix my marriage, get me a new car and help me pay my mortgage.” The man is coming to Jesus, but his motives are wrong. Is it correct that the pastor just run with this, even though this man has no idea why he actually needs Jesus? No. If the pastor goes through the sinner’s prayer with this guy, it’s not going to mean anything to him- a waste of words and time. But if the pastor explains why he actually needs Jesus, he risks losing this man’s enthusiasm. But any good pastor would risk it, because he knows that it is correct and because motives matter, not the form of results. By the same token, giving is important, but not gifts which are given with unbiblical motives such as obligations, tithes and leader’s approval.

God himself rejects those sacrifices and offerings which are given to him out of incorrect motives.

Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: “Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices and eat meat. For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices. But this is what I commanded them, saying, ‘Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be My people. And walk in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well with you’ (Jeremiah 7:21-23).

Biblical Principles Encourage Pure Motives in Giving and Receiving
Stress about paying the bills is something everyone deals with - but this does not justify circumventing our responsibilities to both give and receive biblically. I believe, by the way, that the bible teaches a proportional giving model - giving as one is able, regardless of such pharisaisms as percentages, gross versus net and so on. Giving is another way to worship God and articulate faith. It’s also a way to live out biblical principles of supporting the work of the gospel and those who minister. It’s an essential and indispensable part of the Christian lifestyle, and in the same way it is given, so should it be received.

Clearly there is a mutual struggle with giving among both those who give and those who receive. For those who give, to do so freely and without compulsion takes maturity, wisdom and a willingness to articulate faith with money. However, it is clearly not a walk in the park for those who receive, who must be willing to correct, rebuke even reject money which is given with an unbiblical attitude.

The Supreme Court in 2011 nullified all Federal Communications Commission restrictions on obscene speech or visual content in radio and television broadcasts. As a result, television programs at all hours of the day contain explicit portrayals of sexual acts.

I didn’t know that the only thing holding back hard-core pornography on the television was the FCC. I guess we all really want to watch porn all day - as this is what these people think the market would ask for, if left to it’s own devices. Thank goodness for the wise, powerful and all-moral FCC.

A Taliban-like oppression has taken over in Iraq, and hundreds of thousands of “American sympathizers” have been labeled as traitors, imprisoned, tortured, and killed. The number put to death may soon reach the millions.

Leaving Iraq of course will lead to a new holocaust in the country.

President Obama directed U.S. intelligence services to cease all wiretapping of alleged terrorist phone calls unless they first obtained a warrant for each case… Since 2009, terrorist bombs have exploded in two large and two small U.S. cities, killing hundreds, and the entire country is fearful, for no place seems safe.

Oh no! Now government has to get a warrant for wiretaps! Because of this four bombs have gone off - if only we had given the government more of our civil liberties!

In mid-2010, Iran launched a nuclear bomb that exploded in the middle of Tel Aviv, destroying much of that city

Which of these countries will have nukes in 2012: Iran or Israel? Hint: one of them already has them, and has made multiple threats to use them against ther other? Hint: it’s not Iran.

As a result, those evangelical publishers could no longer distribute any of their books through any of these bookstore chains. Any Christian publisher that dares to print works critical of homosexual behavior faces the same fate. As a result, several Christian publishers have gone out of business.

Ahh! Christian publishers, many of which publish heresy anyway, are out of business? How is the church going to make money? Next we’ll find out that president Obama was stealing from the collection plate too?

A coming scandal?

Red Sex, Blue Sex - Why do so many evangelical teen-agers become pregnant?

The George Wallace We Forgot

Socialism, Sarah Palin style: 

For her part, Sarah Palin, who has lately taken to calling Obama “Barack the Wealth Spreader,” seems to be something of a suspect character herself.

She is, at the very least, a fellow-traveller of what might be called socialism with an Alaskan face. The state that she governs has no income or sales tax. Instead, it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields. The proceeds finance the government’s activities and enable it to issue a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state. One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor is that she added an extra twelve hundred dollars to this year’s check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269.

A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that “we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.”

Perhaps there is some meaningful distinction between spreading the wealth and sharing it (“collectively,” no less), but finding it would require the analytic skills of Karl the Marxist.

LA TImes will not release Video that may show Obama supporting terrorists

The Behavioral Revolution

An Obama speechwriter says she’s voting for McCain… 

Not only has this party belittled working people in this campaign from Joe the Plumber to the bitter comments, it has also been part of tearing down two female candidates. At first, certain Democrats and the press called Senator Clinton “dishonest.” They went after her cleavage. They said her experience as First Lady consisted of having tea parties. There was no outrage over “Bros before Hoes” or “Iron My Shirt.” Did Senator Clinton make mistakes? Of course. She’s human.

But here we are about a week out and it’s déjà vu all over again… Governor Palin and I don’t agree on a lot of things, mostly social issues. But I have grown to appreciate the Governor…

I was dead wrong about the surge and thought it would be a disaster. Senator John McCain led when many of us were ready to quit. Yet we march on as if nothing has changed, wedded to an old plan, and that too is a long way from the Democratic Party.

I can no longer justify what this party has done and can’t dismiss the treatment of women and working people as just part of the new kind of politics. It’s wrong and someone has to say that…

My beliefs regarding “proper” marriage are that:
1) People ought to refrain from sex until marriage.
2) Marriage should be only between one man and one woman.
3) Marriage should be a nearly* unbreakable commitment.
4) Parents should have a wide latitude of authority and responsibility in rearing their children, with some basic criteria for sufficient care and reasonable discipline.
5) It will make a far better home for their children if the parents are highly committed to one another.
“nearly” meaning only broken in case of clear abuse or unfaithfulness.

Separating the civil and religious concepts of “marriage”:
Despite this “conservative” view on marriage, it is my belief that government ought to get out of the marriage business. “Marriage” as a term has long held religious connotations, and in my opinion it is undesirable and even dangerous for government to be responsible for forming or recognizing religious distinctions. Personally, I feel that the concept of marriage has been massively cheapened in our culture. By allowing government to define marriage, we have also allowed government to define divorce and for it to heavily influence how a marriage should look. When I got married, I made an unbreakable commitment to my wife. No matter what happens in our lives, I will sacrificially make decisions for her best interest. This is the commitment I think “Biblical marriage” calls for from a man. Biblically, I don’t think gay marriage is appropriate (another discussion), and definitely don’t think things like a marriage of convenience for the sake of citizenship or tax benefits makes sense. The problem is that as soon as we equate “religious marriage” with legal rights, protections, or perks people will “fake it” to get those benefits.

The concept of “separation of church and state” is a political theory, and not the law in the US. That said, I do think separation is a good idea for the protection of religion. Allowing government to define religion has only weakened that definition. Far better if government did NOT define marriage, but allowed religious organization to produce their own definitions. A religious group can then base its definition on its holy books, and not have to worry about a civil government infringing on their definition. Properly, religious organizations should already be doing this, rather than allowing the government to define what ought to be a highly sacred agreement between two parties. What would be far better would be to split marriage into legal “civil union” system and a religious “marriage” system. Such a system would allow a single man to form a “civil union” with his elderly mother, making her his “partner” as considered by insurance companies, medical decisions, and for property ownership. Two brothers would be able to for a “civil union” if they wanted to merge their finances. If I wanted to sponser my buddy in Mexico becoming a US citizen, I could form a “civil union” to help him get citizenship (though likely with a “pre-nup” protecting my financial assets). This system would be preferable for both the religious and the non-religious citizen.

As a result, I support a civil union that:
1) Allows any two non-minors citizens to form a legal bond with pre-determined exit clauses.
2) Allows those entering into the bond to establish rules for mutual property ownership / death benefits.
3) Allows those entering the contract to file taxes jointly.

I also support laws that ensure that biological parents have the right to raise their children (with possible court supervision if the parents disagree or are determined to be unfit) and a responsibility to support their children (again with court enforcement in case of disagreement or improper conduct).

Opposing gay marriage:
Given the above, one might suppose that I support gay marriage. In fact, these positions do not make limiting the legal expectations of “marriage” to people of opposite genders legally or logically unsupportable. The above claim of making “civil unions” as a not a morally based institution really only makes sense if no limits are applied (as described above) or when restricted to people with biological children. Any other position is not “ignoring morality”, but rather imposing a new set of moral imperatives. If we allow “gay marriage”, but do not also allow the marriage of close relations and complete strangers seeking a tax or immigration benefit, we are implying that “legal marriage” is more than just a contractual state. Why shouldn’t I be allowed to file taxes jointly with any random person I choose to file with? Why should I not be allowed to change my “next of kin” list at will, or choose to add my elderly mother to my insurance policy as my partner? Sure, this is the way things HAVE been done, and is an entirely legal way to do them, but does it make sense from a non-moral position? I fully support “special” legal protections for the biological parents of a child, and the expectation that they will financially support their child. I support allowing churches to refuse to marry couples that are same sex, or couples that have pre-marital sex, or even couples that have tattoos if they choose. That’s freedom of religion. I see no reason though to restrict tax filing methods or “next of kin” modifications at will though.

Any “just add gays” kind of approach that does not make “civil unions” an unrestricted contract between ANY two adults is STILL making moral judgments (against cousins or siblings). If we are basing the legal definition of marriage on our personal morality, I am in opposition of gay marriage. A legal contract shouldn’t carry any expectation of a “sexual relationship” anyway. Prohibiting a “civil union” made entirely for tax purposes or to gain citizenship is again imposing one’s morality on others. The fact that others believe that sibling marriages are wrong, disgusting, or even harmful to society doesn’t change my opinion, because I believe the same things are true about gay marriage. Either we agree not to enforce personal morality by law (civil unions for any pair of people), or we wait until they have a majority that agrees with their personal morality before we change the laws. We either agree that the legal contract does NOT impose morality, or we all fight for OUR definition of “proper” marriage. Nobody is likely to change what I think marriage ought to be here, and I’m not going to try to change what others think it should be. Either we agree not to impose morality (and therefore allow close family members to form “civil unions” to protect property or for tax purposes), or we agree to impose “majority morality” (in which case I continue to vote against gay marriage until I’m in the minority).

Note regarding terms:
I do think it would be valuable to use a separate term for the government contract to clarify that we aren’t telling religions what to do, but words aren’t what I’m arguing about. What I am saying is that we need to make it clear that the legal arrangement is separate from the religious arrangement. There are two main reasons why religious groups strongly oppose “gay marriage”. The first is that they believe (as I do) that gay partnerships are undesirable for society. That said, most religious people I have spoken with do not wish to forcibly prevent such partnerships. The second reason they oppose “gay marriage” is that they are concerned about the increasing dilution of the term “marriage”. 50 years ago, it was expected that a marriage would be more or less permanent, and that it would only be broken as a result of good cause (abuse or unfaithfulness). Today, we have a high divorce rate which I (and others) believe it hurting children and society. By splitting the terms, we can allow religious groups to define “marriage” as they see fit while not restricting legal relationships between consenting adults.

My intent is to make VERY clear the distinction between the religious ritual and the legal contract. Look through this thread for the people who support “marriage” for gays but not for siblings. There is no legitimate reason for this aside from the moral judgment of the poster. The term “marriage” implies a relationship that should not be needed for a purely contractual arrangement. If you agree that any two consenting adults should be allowed to “marry(1)” and that a religious body should be fully allowed to define its own terms for who it will “marry(2)”, we are probably fundamentally in agreement. I still think that separate terms for marry(1) and marry(2) though would help others understand the distinction better though, and am unwilling to support marry(1) for same sex couples so long as ANY other restrictions are placed on it.

Iraq Inches Closer to Security Pact With U.S.

The draft also includes provisions on another knotty issue — whether American soldiers would have immunity from Iraqi law. Senior Iraqi officials said the draft language would give Americans immunity from Iraqi law when they were on military operations but would not apply if they were off duty….

Many Iraqi members of Parliament say that the proposed immunity provisions, which the United States supports, are too broad, and that they want American troops to be subject to Iraqi law for all their actions. The Americans say that their troops must have immunity when on military missions….

“The heart of the matter is the jurisdiction over the searching of all cargos that are shipped to Iraq or from Iraq,” said Ali Adeeb, a close ally of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. “There is the possibility that the cargo contains weapons that may hurt Iraq, although the American side committed that no weapons of mass destruction would be sent to Iraq.”….

Adding to the volatility, attacks against Christians have increased in the past two weeks and nearly 1,900 Christian families have fled their homes in fear, said Abdul Qadir al-Obaidi, the Iraqi minister of defense.

Palin is the mom in Bobby’s World?

A few weeks ago, the truth was revealed that artificial inflation of certain stocks would eventually hurt the market….and the conspiracy to hide this on Wikipedia.

Bloomberg gets the rule changes to stay in power, voters aren’t happy. 

Thirty years of warmer temperatures go poof

Gap narrows between rich and poor, but the UK is still bad. And, oddly enough, if you look at the Gini coefficient scores, the US is worse. 

Vote al Qaeda, Vote McCain