However you spell it and whatever you call it, seems to me some people still get it all mixed around or even backwards.  In any case, even though the Thanksgiving turkey is yet to be carved, Merry Christmas!

So what’s tickled my mind today?  An article online (hardly a “news” story) about Humanists and their campaign for a Godless holiday.  But before I continue, I need one person in particular (yes, you) to accept that while this disclaimer is about you, the point of the article has nothing whatsoever to do with you or anything we’ve discussed.  That’s all.  I’d have written this even if we had never talked about altruism.  And thanks for clarifying the definition.  Now, let’s move on.

Interestingly enough, I learned that Humanists consider themselves nontheists as opposed to atheists.  Subtle differences and worth noting.  Atheism allows for religious beliefs or practices but excludes the belief in God or gods.  Nontheists disallow any religious belief or practice.  That’s my spin on the definitions so if I’ve missed something or it needs correcting, please feel free.

So according to this campaign, one should be good for goodness sake and can do so without having any focus on the religious significance of the holiday.  To their point, they accept that individuals can be good without having a belief-based moral code to guide that goodness.  I can agree with that in part and would even offer in support that there are many who hold to a belief system—even Christianity—who fail to pass the “good” test from time to time.  I’m no exception.  It could be hard to argue to a Humanist that they need my religious values in order to be good when I fail to be good by that same standard.  Ah, am I crazy?

No, it’s a valid point that one can easily argue and support.  But being “good” is not the point of Christianity and if anyone believes it is, then they’ve missed the point and do not really understand the faith.  But that’s a point for another day.

What gets me on this campaign is that I expect “Christmas Christians” to take offense and to argue the “Reason for the Season” point.  The debate will continue as Christmas lights are put up, trees trimmed, stockings hung—and even through the nightmarish shopping experiences on Black Friday.  Wait, what’s the reason for the season?

Christmas as observed by a vast majority here in the West is so commercial and secular that it has already become something of a God-less event.  Take away the pagan trappings and you have…

What do we have?

Nothing anyone would recognize as Christmas, that’s for sure.

So to the humanists, a doff of the Santa cap to you for making the American Christmas event what it really has become anyway.  You have created a campaign that allows for a holiday celebration focusing on merriment, goodness, cheer, etc., without the hypocritical “reason for the season” focus that brings people into churches for the second time that year besides Easter (unless there was a funeral or wedding).  For even with the Christian focus, do we spend more than an hour and a half on average in recognition of the birth of Christ?  And even if we do, how does it compare with the time invested in decorating, shopping, food preparation, TV or movies, eating, partying, and other secular holiday activities?

Am I anti-Christmas?  No.

But I do believe that it’s possible for Christians to get too wrapped around the axle about a holiday that:

• Is unapologetically commercial in nature
• Is not Biblical (as in never mentioned as a day to be celebrated like some days are)
• Is arbitrary as to the date (and is celebrated on different days around the world)
• Is tied heavily to the Winter Solstice
• Is tied to tree worship
• Is tied to veneration of Saint Nicholas, the Bishop of Myra known for gift giving
• Is tied to the mythical Santa Claus and magical elves

Perhaps it’s time for Christians to divorce their religious beliefs from the day as well.  Other than the name, there is nothing Christ-like about the day or the celebrations that cannot be honored or observed any other day of the year.  For that matter, as radical as it may sound (as if nothing else presented here is radical), don’t Christians observe Christmas and Easter every time they gather in worship?  Where would the faith be if Jesus had not been born (Christmas) or died on the cross (Easter)?  Christians proclaim their belief in both events simply by being a Christian.  There should be no need for a specific day to proclaim it—just as we really shouldn’t need a single day a year to stop and give thanks.

MORE:

http://news.aol.com/article/humanists-launch-first-ever-national/780222

Jorge Steven Lopez Mercado

Jorge Steven Lopez Mercado

This post is about him but is also an attempt to bring some balance to what some may find to be a gay-hostile position on hate crime legislation regarding the GLBT community.

Earlier this month, gay 19-year-old Jorge (hor-hay) was brutally attacked and killed by a gay-hating individual, Juan A. Martinez Matos, 26.  The incident occurred in Puerto Rico.  Juan not only killed Jorge, but he also beheaded him, dismembered him, and burned the body.  Afterwards, the body was dumped along an interior road on the island.

There is no excuse for such an action and while Juan claims he acted in self-defense, one has to admit that the word “overkill” applies here and then some.  In an interview with the Spanish-language Telemundo, Juan claims “What happened happened because I defended myself. I cut him and beheaded him and I accept it as a man.”

It’s clear from the rest of the CNN article, as reported, that this is doubtless a hate crime against Jorge due to his sexuality.  There is no level of self-defense that could call for what happened to this young man.

So back to the title of this post.  One hate crime is two too many.

Yes, I can count.  But here’s the point.  Whether this was a hate-based crime or not, the killing of another person is crime enough.  To then decapitate, dismember, and burn the body is a whole other matter.  For law enforcement to add “hate” as a crime or motive does little other than to give those in the GLBT community a false sense of justice.

This crime should never have happened.  Jorge should still be alive today and free to live as he wishes without the threat of physical harm from haters.  That’s not up for argument here nor are his choices.  His choices are his and his alone to make.

No, but for clarification of the point, what I argued a while back is that adding hate crime protection does not “protect” anything or anybody.  It only gives law enforcement one more book to throw at the perpetrator.  It provided nothing for Jorge and can only give the GLBT community a sense of justice-having-been-served if and when Juan is convicted and sentenced.

My problem with it is that if I were in charge of Juan’s sentencing, he would probably spend the next 50 years or so in prison for what he did.  Being able to give him another 5 or 10 years because it was hate motivated would mean little in the overall picture.

Sadly, once in prison, Juan could be held up as a hero for the killing.  On the other hand, he may find himself in need of protection—turning to another inmate who has tired of his current “girlfriend”.

My heartfelt condolences to the Mercado family!

May justice be served and peace come to your family.

MORE:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/19/puerto.rico.gay.slaying/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/18/puerto.rico.gay.teen.slain/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/22/hate.crimes/index.html

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2009/11/19/man-charged-with-murder-of-gay-puerto-rico-teen/

Additional Note:

In balancing points, let’s recap a few of my views.  First, Castity/Chaz Bono is NOT a celebrity and her/his gender reassignment is not newsworthy.  I felt it was comment worthy because of the lack of news value it has.  I also felt it was worthy of comment because the actions taken seem to belie the point Chaz made about gender being between the ears, not between the legs.

As for Ian McKellan, consider the uproar if a straight person started defacing books containing a gay perspective—especially if these books were in a public space such as a hotel room where the books are clearly not the personal property of the room’s occupant.  There is no doubt that this expression of dissent with the publish view would be seen as a hate crime or homophobic.  Yet Sir Ian does so apparently with impunity and boasts of it in the news.  There is a double standard here between the straight and non-straight communities!

If he disagrees with the Book, have it removed before he arrives—as the article suggests hoteliers do in his case.

I may not agree with the Mormon faith but when I’m at a Marriott, I still respect the items in the room including the Book of Mormon as NOT MINE.  I leave it alone.  And if I ever get to the point that I feel it’s too objectionable, I will either ask that it be removed or I can stay elsewhere.

Respect!

Sometimes, people take things too far.

There are times when humor is humor for humor’s sake.  And there are times that an ad is an ad for advertising’s sake.  The point of advertising is to present a message about a product or service in such a way so as to drive a desire for that product or service by as wide a group as possible–thereby bringing in sales and profit.

Happy Pick-Your-Holiday!

I first saw the Gap ad last night during that fantastic Colts win over the Patriots (35-34)!  I had to ask my wife to hold a point she was trying to make as I enjoyed the ad and waited to confirm my guess at it being a Gap ad. 

I was right.  I thought that it was one of the coolest ads yet for this trend-setting brand.  It had all the trademarks of their ad style and was very catchy.  I was captivated.  And a day later, I could remember who the ad was for.  (Consider that benchmark when you watch Superbowl ads.)

Now, the American Family Association wants a boycott of Gap over the ad campaign because it censors “Christmas”. 

My goodness!  It’s just an ad!  Give it a break! 

And for the record, the Gap ad DOES mention Christmas! 

So here’s a clue, AFA:  Christmas is so fraught with paganism and commercialism that for you to not object to the modern Western concept of Christmas itself is a mystery to me.  Passing on that obvious low-hanging fruit, you should leave Gap alone and focus on more important issues.  In going after such trivial matters you set yourself up as a target to be mocked and you minimize whatever good work it is that you do. 

By the way, your boycott manifesto says it’s effective November 1st but it’s dated November 11th.  Huh???  Is this a retroactive boycott?  Does that mean people are supposed to return stuff that they bought before you published this?

MORE:

http://www.stylelist.com/2009/11/16/gap-holiday-ad-causes-religious-controversy/?icid=main|main|dl3|link4|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stylelist.com%2F2009%2F11%2F16%2Fgap-holiday-ad-causes-religious-controversy%2F

http://www.stylelist.com/2009/11/16/gap-gets-glee-ful-for-new-holiday-ad/

http://www.cheerfactory.com/?cid=gaphomepage

Video alone:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVMPWlWDvsI

A Parable of Trebord

The doctor says that the patient has an illness which is always fatal if left untreated.  The problem is that the patient’s family has been through this before.  They saw the pain caused to loved ones when a misdiagnosis led to unneccessary treatment—and that patient died.  No-one wants to be responsible for that again.

Could they get a better diagnosis?  A second opinion?  Sure.  But the loved one seems so healthy.  Why bother?  It’s not that bad.  No, they’ll pass on the treatment.  Can’t go through that pain again.  It’s better to let the loved one get by with the illness left untreated. 

The fatal illness.

The fatal illness which will still take away the loved one and still impact those left behind.  The difference is that this fatal illness will continue to affect those around him for as long as the patient lives and then some.  How?  It’s an infectious disease and has already sickened or killed others in its wake.  He is a Typhoid Mary in their midst and they seem apathetic to the whole matter.

So be it.  Their lot is the same in the end.

The following was shared with me recently and I wanted to share it with all of you as well:

Why Can’t I Own a Canadian?

October 2002

Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a east coast resident, which was posted on the Internet. It’s funny, as well as informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? – Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted fan,
Jim

I hope my friend doesn’t mind but for literary sake, I’ll refer to him as “Bill”—which is not anything close to his real name but shorter than “my friend”.

So Bill, thanks for sharing this.  I found it amusing to start with.  You see, it shows the shallowness of some Christian thinking and I agree in part with the subtle point Jim is making in this letter.  Whether the letter is real or not, the point is still valid in some ways.  Christians do a good job of picking out or picking on one or two points in the Bible.  It becomes a banner under which a Crusade is fought.  Not cool.

According to some accounts, there are 613 Jewish laws or Mitzvot.  And for some reason, Christians pick 10 of them—no, 11—no 12 of them to hold up today as standards.  There are the Ten Commandments that most have heard of and few can recite.  Then there’s the one pastors love about tithing—and they say it’s not about the money.  And then there’s the one about homosexuality.  The other 601 simply don’t matter anymore to the Christian.  And that’s how we get to Jim’s letter.

So why can’t I own a Canadian?  I was going to be first in line for Shania Twain.  I’d settle for Alanis Morrisette but either way, my wife would have a problem with it.  Besides, there’s that 9th commandment.  Oh well.  Who needs to own anyone anyway!

Back to the point:

Jim, the problem with Dr Laura’s position and your assertions is that the Law is not understood and taken in context.  These laws were not given to the world, but rather to the Jews as a nation.  These were to be their laws within the borders of the land which God gave them.  He never told Moses to go enforce these laws for the Egyptians or Babylonians, but these laws prescribed how the Jew should act or behave if traveling in those lands or in dealing with those people.  These are not laws that necessarily transfer to other countries, peoples, lands, etc.

The laws give us insight into God’s character though and tell us what he finds acceptable and pleasing.  If one chooses to love God and to serve him—if ones focus is to please God—how better to do so than to understand how he feels about human interactions.

Some laws were ceremonial, others had to do with righteousness, while other laws have to do with health and hygiene.  Regarding the latter, there were laws regarding touching dead things, dealing with mold and mildew, and eating certain foods.  Relative to today’s food hygiene standards, I doubt many of us would want to have eaten shellfish or pork back then anyway.   And would we have E.Coli outbreaks today if we followed kosher guidelines for slaughtering an animal?

Lives would be more peaceful and healthy if we followed the ancient guidelines but today, we know better.  We risk eating shellfish and even then, raw!  We eat meat with the blood still in it (rare) and wonder at our health problems.  We have relationships with people at inappropriate times and in inappropriate ways and struggle to stop AIDS and STDs.  Indeed, there are people engaging in acts with animals—and society worries about getting H1N1 from eating pork???  What are they getting transmitted sexually???

I don’t accept that these laws apply to Christians today unless one chooses to live under them.  Not sure why they would.  However, knowing and doing what is right based on these laws is another thing.

In the New Testament, Jesus tells us to love our neighbor as ourself.  And he challenges us to change our thinking as to who that neighbor is.  He tells us to do to others as we would have them do to us.  Paul tells us to consider others better than ourselves, or rather, do not think of ourselves as being better than others.

Frankly, if we do these things, what commandments do we need?  Do we need to be told not to murder?  Who would we hate to the point of murder if we loved our neighbor as ourself?

As for the homosexuality issue, if God says something is an abomination, then that’s what He says.  Not me.  But I’m in no position to contradict him.  One of my best friends EVER is gay and I care about him and love him.  Do I agree with some of his actions or choices?  No.  Do I accept him?  Yes.  So let’s consider this:  I have heterosexual friends where I can say the same things—some of their actions and choices I disagree with also.  And if you knew me better, you would probably disagree with some of my actions and choices.

But this friend of mine—the gay one, not “Bill”—is also a Christian.  Is he headed to Hell because of his lifestyle?  I don’t think so.  You see, even if I thought so, I cannot pronounce judgment on him and I have no idea what his relationship with God is.  I stand in judgment over no-one.  Based on what scripture tells me, I believe he is saved and will be with Christ one day. 

But based on what scripture says, I also have to believe that his lifestyle is not in keeping with God’s perfect plan for humanity.

A few more points:

The Bible teaches that if we break one law, we break them all.  No sin is better or worse than another.

The Bible says that ALL have sinned and fall short.  That’s why Jesus came.

The Bible says that Jesus died for “whomsoever would believe would be saved”.

And the Bible teaches that for the Christian, there is no condemnation, but it also teaches that we are no longer under the Law.

MORE:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp

http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/WhyCantIOwnACanadian_10-02.html

http://cavmom.wordpress.com/2007/10/05/why-cant-i-own-a-canadian/

LATEST:  http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/12/arkansas.anchor.slain/index.html

Justice has been partly served to the man responsible for the brutal assault and murder of Anne Pressly.   Now that Curtis Lavelle Vance has been convicted, there should be no debate as to whether he is guilty or not.  That debate occurred in the jury room with convincing and unquestionable evidence.  Those present with more information and knowledge of the case than you or I made the decision.  From what I know, it was the right decision.

Now comes sentencing.  It can be life in prison or the death sentence.  Neither will bring back Anne.  Neither will erase the trauma from the hearts and minds of the friends and family members—or even those present in court—who had to deal with the grisly details of this barbaric crime.

The death sentence comes all too quietly and peacefully for a man like Vance.  Look at John Allen Muhammad for example.  Quietly he falls asleep and is gone.  Far from the wrenching nightmare Anne suffered, being awoken from a sound sleep to be attacked in such a heinous way.  Should Vance be allowed to slumber into eternity?

In prison, it’s possible he would live out his life in constant guilt and remembrance of what he did.  Then again, prisons have their own justice system.  His days could be equally numbered.

Let’s see how justice is fully served.

MORE:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/11/arkansas.anchor.slain/index.html

http://news.aol.com/article/curtis-lavelle-vance-convicted-of/477501?icid=main|main|dl1|link2|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fcurtis-lavelle-vance-convicted-of%2F477501

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/10/virginia.sniper.execution/index.html

“Gay” and “Happy” have not been in the same area of a thesaurus for quite some time.  Apparently, Ian McKellan, while gay, is not happy.  At least, not happy with the Bible.  The PopEater article below tells of how he rips out the page in the Bible containing Leviticus 18:22.  He says that it’s not something he does proudly ”but it’s a choice between removing that page and throwing away the whole Bible.”

This is the danger of humanity today.  Rip out the bits you don’t like—make it what you want it to be.  Or rewrite it to say or mean what you want it to.  Funny thing—the Bible has been around longer than you and will continue to persist no matter how many pages you can tear out in your lifetime.

In fact, your tearing out of the pages is an acknowledgment that you cannot change what it says or what that means with regard to your choices.  Ignoring the Bible never made the activity in question right.  Removing an offensive page never changed the Word one bit.  And sadly, when you face the Author, you’ll still have to answer for those choices.

MORE:

POPEATER LINK

Are you looking for up-to-the-minute information about the trial?  You won’t find it because media is not allowed into the courtroom and tweeting “ist verboten”.  However, that doesn’t stop an good reporter from stepping out of the courtroom from time to time to tweet.

Get near-time Twitter updates from Fox News’ Jill Monier right here:

http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/generic/community/FOX13_News_Tweets

or from Little Rock’s KATV News (Where Anne worked) here:

http://twitter.com/KATVNews

According to a news post on CBS News, Curtis Lavelle Vance said that he used a wooden-handled garden tool to beat Anne Pressly to death after she woke up and found him in her room.  His trial is set to begin today.  At question is whether the “confession” was obtained from Vance improperly.

Improperly?  OK, so we have the presumption of innocence until proven guilty but the article gives every reason to believe that the statement was made freely and that the person responsible for this terrible crime has been caught and will be held responsible for it.

The better question is whether a person who could commit this crime and in this manner is mentally fit to stand trial.  I’m not suggesting that he should be let off, but certainly, his level of reason and sanity is questionable.

The trial is expected to run a week which means by this time next week, perhaps we’ll have some better answers.  The evidence will be out and a verdict should be reached by then.  Let’s wait and see.

MORE:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/07/crimesider/entry5368759.shtml

http://www.katv.com/news/stories/1109/674183.html

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g_tZGnycBt2OFC1yBRi421uBcYTQD9BNARCG2

http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/dpp/news/local/110109_anne_pressly_murder_trial_to_begin

A while back, I wrote about Chastity Bono and her journey to manhood as “Chaz” Bono.  Her decision to become male was the least newsworthy event that week but I couldn’t pass up on commenting about it.  And maybe for her and the GLBT community, that was the point.

Well, Chaz is in the news again, garnering some prominence on CNN with a status update on “his” progress.  Wow!  Newsworthy?  Again, No!  Comment worthy?  Of course.

So here’s what Chaz had to say (in part):

“I always felt like the male from the time I was a child,” he said. “There wasn’t much feminine about me.”

“I believe that gender is something between your ears, not between your legs. That is something I discovered in the early ’90s. It was just a long process of being comfortable enough to do something about it.”

Really?  Why do anything about it?  If gender is really “between your ears”, then by your own admission, you were already a male.  You would medically and surgically alter what you received genetically to fit a mental image of who and what you are.  Pray that you don’t one day wake up and realize that you are indeed a female.  It’s not like changing shoes.  And I know, the process is long and involves evaluations before this can be done.  That’s not to say that things won’t change later.

I know someone who claims to be suffering from gender dysphoria and my challenge to this person was that the mental state is what needed to change, not the physical state.  Amazing thing, Chastity, that you were willing to take male hormones and have your body altered to become what you felt in your mind you should be—but were apparently unwilling to keep your body and to instead take female hormones to better become what you already were.

I am no more an expert on the subject than you are, but clearly, if it’s in the head, isn’t that the easier place to start with a change?

MORE:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/10/30/chaz.bono.man/index.html

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20286040,00.html?cnn=yes

http://trebord.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/chastity-a-lost-virtue/