Thursday, February 3, 2011

How Christians Should Treat Homosexuals


 This should be an  interesting conversation today. But here we go. I come from a strong Christian background, both my parents were deacons, and we attended church up to 3 times a week. I believe that the bible is the word of God, but I also believe that for Christians we should have a particular emphasis on the examples, words, and teachings of Christ. We are not called Leviticans, or Mosesists. We are called Christians due to our belief in the teachings, and saving grace of Jesus Christ. In that vein there are a lot of beliefs thats we as a culture and nation have that are not rooted in scripture, or if they are... they are rooted in Leviticus which is Old Testament LAW. The problem with that as I see it , is Jesus came to save us from sin, and redeem us from THE LAW, because ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and according to Levitical Law we should all be off sacrificing animals or should be somewhere getting stoned to death. 

     Now, before we go on, this is not a defense of "sin" or "sinning" this is me looking at our actions as a society  and seeing how they measure up to the actions, words, and examples of Christ.  Read this with an open spirit, and be careful to read not what you want to read, but what is actually here.

     Whether it was the story of the Samaritan  the adulteress, or the tax collector. Jesus always spoke up for the despised within his community. Samaritans were despised within the Jewish community. Both Samaritan and Jewish leaders forbade contact with one another, so the story of the good Samaritan is not just a story of helping your fellow man, it is a story of Jesus assigning a positive role to one of the despised. Tax collectors were considered sell outs and sinners, in biblical times they were the Uncle Toms of the community. Those who had sold their souls to the Romans to impose taxation on their own people. Yet in still read the story of Zacchaeus, and see how Jesus treated this tax collector who his fellow Jews called "a sinner". He spent the night at his house, he treated him with love and respect.. Lets take a look at the sinner, the adulteress. She lived in sin, and was dragged to Jesus feet, and the crowd was going to stone her. They told Jesus she was caught in the act and by Mosaic Law she should be killed, and they asked Jesus opinion.  He said the famous "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" line, and the crowd dispersed. Then he told the woman... "go and sin no more". His saving the woman was no predicated on the fact that she sin no more. Jesus did not demand that she sin no more before he offered his grace, and mercy. He did not demand proof, or demand that she join a 4 step program. Nor did he issue similar demands on the tax collector. His grace and mercy is not dependent upon our ability to stop sinning. Which is a relief because ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. 

     We, in our sin are redeemed by Christ who through grace saves us, in spite of our sin, not because of our march toward perfection. I would argue that Christ spent more time with sinners, and spent more time talking about how to treat "the worst" of society, than he did hanging around those who were the "purest" according to Mosaic law. We have this idea that certain sins are worse than other sins, and most of that has no scriptural basis, but is more based upon own our moral code. If you examine the bible and see what really ticks off Jesus he mentions treating children badly in Luke 17:2, and when he went "Hulk Hogan" on people who were defiling and scamming in the house of God. So really, if you are one of these fake preachers bilking the congregation, or someone who abuses children, you are more likely to be on the LIST than any other "sinner".

     Jesus never told his disciples to persecute those undesirables or even sinners, or even those who had lied in order to put him to death, when people did gather to stone the adulteress, he stopped them, and then told her to sin no more, he did not make her ceasing of the sin a prerequisite to his grace. So I find it uncomfortable as a black man in western civilization when Christians find reasons to persecute those who we deem as living in sin. Jesus never gave us a mandate to persecute, we need to learn to differentiate between the word of God, and the moral hang ups of western civilization.

     Now, I am not saying I advocate for sin.I am not saying lets have a big Sin-a-Palooza, what I am saying is that through example in word and deed I believe that Jesus gave us a guide on how he wants the "least of us" and the "undesirables" treated in society. I believe that if you call yourself a Christian you can believe that God does not like sin, without feeling as if HE gave you a mandate to be THE HAMMER OF GOD, and go forth an exact his wrath on sinners. I missed that part of the bible, the part where Jesus commanded His disciples that while they were out preaching they should wreak havoc on homosexuals . I missed the part where He told His disciples to not heal the sick if they were gay, or to not feed the poor if they were bi-sexual.

In fact one of the few direct Commandments from the mouth of Jesus are found in the gospel of Mark. Here a teacher of The Law asks Jesus which commandment is the most important. Jesus replies:

29And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
 30And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
 31And the second is like, namely this, Thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

Now, if you want. you can go on persecuting, hating and angrily attempting to limit the rights of the LGBT community. But me, my arms to short to box with God, and my closet's got too many skeletons labeled pride, lust, and lies for me to happily throw stones. I'm going to thank God for sending Jesus to save me despite my sins, and love my neighbors the best way I can. 

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Myth's in Politics Part 2: Black support for Obama

     Welcome Hooligan-istas to the second installment of Political MythBusters. In our first installment we tackled and busted the myth that Republicans advocated small government. Well in this installment I plan on tackling a myth that seems to have become just as accepted into political "common knowledge", one that annoys me even more than the GOP=Small Government Myth. Today's myth:
That Black People Supported Barack Obama because he was Black. This is an insidious myth that undervalues the political intelligence of African-Americans. It makes African-Americans seem as if they will support any black candidate regardless of how terrible or spectacular they are. We know this to be untrue.

     There have been many black political candidates/personalities that African-Americans did not and do not support. Just to name a few: Alan Keys, Armstrong Williams, Clarence Thomas, Condeleezza Rice and Micheal Steele. Black people have an understanding of politics, and do not support candidates they feel do not support their interest, and don't support candidates who they do not think can win. So there is a mature process in which African-Americans respect, and transfer their vote. African-Americans do not want to see it wasted, or misused and being black is no indicator of whether or not you will gain the automatic support of the black community. Black people have been very conscious of those within our community that do not have our communities best interests at heart. There is a plethora of terminology dedicated to naming these people: Toms, Coons, House Negroes, Stepin Fetchit, so on and so forth. So just having common skin color is no indication of cultural support, there also has to be a congruence of interests.

     Additionally, the numbers do not hold this Myth to be true. While it is true that African-Americans did support Barack Obama, the numbers were not statistically overwhelming if you compare them to other Democratic candidates. In 1996 Bill Clinton received 84% of the African-American Vote. In 2000 Al Gore won 90% of the African-American Vote. In 2004 John Kerry received 88% of the black vote, and in 2008 Obama won 95% of the black vote. If you look at the numbers as a trend its clear to see that with the exception of Kerry (as an anomaly who didn't excite the African American base as much as the previous 2 Democratic contenders) the percentage of the African American vote was steadily treading upward for democrats. Clinton received 83% and 84 %, Gore 90% which is a 6% jump. If Kerry would of held the trend the jump to Obama's 95% is true to the trend, as it is, the 5% boost is still not the 6% boost that Gore received after Clinton's term was up.

     Simply put, Black people support democrats, there hasn't been a Presidential Democratic candidate who hasn't received at least 80% since before Jimmy Carter. Three Candidates in the last 7 cycles received 90% plus, Walter Mondale , Al Gore, and Barack Obama. While it is true that black voter turnout rose to a record high 13% of the total voting electorate, there has been a constant trend upward for the part 5 voting cycles. 8% in 1992, 10% in 1996 & 2000, 11% in 2004, and peaking at 13%. That looks like natural growth over time. And yes, I will agree that there was an excitement about Barack Obama because he was black, but that was not the primary factor in him getting support from the black community. Looking at the amount of money the Obama campaign poured into voter registration, I wonder if a similar amount would of been utilized by other candidate would we have seen a similar jump in voter turnout.

     In conclusion, don't underestimate a section of the electorate based on one set of exit poll numbers. People saw that Obama had received 95% of the black vote and some just assumed it was due to race. (which is borderline racist in and of itself) People and pundits didn't take into account trending over time or the fact that black opponents had come and gone in the past with little or no black support. Cynthia McKinney was in the race as a third party candidate and received little attention from black voters. Did some black voters vote for Obama strictly along racial lines, I'm sure they did. Is that number larger than those Catholics who were excited about Kennedy, and voted along religious lines? I think that underestimating the political electorate is a mistake, even that part of the electorate that until recently has been delegated to the margins.

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

The Biggest Myth in Politics Part 1

  I want a new Television Show this spring. I'll be the host, and I will call it Political Myth Busters. Because there are a lot of political myths that become accepted as common knowledge regardless of those pesky things called facts. It is a vicious cycle. A random blogger/pundit/plumber starts a myth, Faux News reports the myth as gospel, Politicians cite the reports, Faux News covers the politician saying the myth, and BOOM it's a fact. It's why people still believe Obama is a Muslim, and 9-11 was carried out by Saddam Hussein.  

     So, to do my part to clean up the political myths out there I will tackle one myth from time to time, and drag it out into the light. Today I will tackle the myth: "Conservatives want small government." I hear this all the time, from the news, from pundits, from liberals, from conservatives, but it's just not true. Their actions do not connect to this purported belief system. Large Enormous Military, large privatized jails, building walls and manning the southern border, invade Iraq, Afghanistan, rattling sabers at Iran, nationwide Supreme Court ban against abortion, No Child Left Behind (which federalize K-12 education NATIONWIDE), the huge growth of the TSA, and the creation of Homeland Security,  the list goes on and on. 

     Republican only want a small government when democrats are in power. They want large government when they are in power, or it's an issue they agree with. What can be more bigger than ensuring that every pregnant woman carries their child to term, the logistics of the enforcement alone would be enormous. The proof is in the pudding the government got to it's largest point under George W. Bush. Conservatives didn't start talking about deficits, and securing a future for our youth, and limiting the scope and size of government until Obama got into office. Need more proof?? Two Words: PATRIOT ACT. It expanded the size of government, the scope of it's powers, and it's ability to intrude into the live of United States Citizens in an unprecedented manner. Due to the courts limiting our ability to sue cell phone carriers, we may never know how many were effected, or the scope of the damage done.

     But this one thing is sure, when the Republicans had control of both the branches of congress, as well as the Presidency, they did not shrink government, or make it more unobtrusive, nor did they "get government out of our way".  Nor were they running around saying "government isn't the solution to the problem, government IS THE PROBLEM", nor were there Tea Parties spouting everywhere, fed up with government waste and spending. They  hid it behind "the war on terrorism" and wrapped it in the Flag. Make no mistake Republicans do not want smaller government, they want smaller "Democratic run" government, they want a smaller "liberal" government, they want a smaller "progressive" government. They want a government that cannot function when a Democrat is in office, hence the filibusters, and the delaying tactics utilized at unprecedented levels, hell they even tried to make the United States Census seem like some shadowy liberal plot.

     A famous quote that many Conservatives pull out when they are discussing "smaller government" is a quip by noted conservative Economist, Grover Norquist. 
"I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."

Just seems to be whenever the Republicans are in office that bathtub is the size of the Pacific. Don't believe the hype. Do Republicans Really Want a smaller government? This myth.... is BUSTED.