Surveys: U.S. Religious Activists Have ‘Widely Divergent’ Views

As much as I like some of the content on ChristianPost.com, today we have another article (see this post for another) which is too vague to be useful, other than to draw gross conclusions that can only be divisive, rather than edifying. I really hate it when news organizations (the mainstream/conservative/liberal/everyone press) don’t reference the actual questions. The phrasing of the questions is crucial!

For example, “Nearly half of conservatives (48 percent) believe scripture to be the literal word of God”. What was the question? Did they use “inerrant” or “literal” or some other word in the question? Did they ask the polled individual what they meant by that word?

In my denomination, The Church of the Nazarene, inerrancy is only applied to salvation¹. So, if I answered, “the bible is inerrant in regards to salvation alone,” would that be a yes or no? Then it would be up to the poller to decide.

In regards to abortion, what are “most cases”? What kind of cases are people thinking about when they hear the question? I almost wrote that I was one of the 54%, because I read “some”. Imagine if “some” had heard “some” rather than “most”.

I guess I’m not a “conservative”. I think there needs be a lot of separation between state and church. I do not believe that because my faith helps me make decisions, that I should be banned from stating such. Nor do I think most people, if they truly thought about it, would want to squelch such (yes, there are a bunch of loud, obnoxious ones who would disagree with me).

I will say that this article notes the imbalance within the Christian community. Yes, helping your fellow man is a vital part of the Christian ethos and scripture. However, coercion by one’s government is not part of the deal. The Roman Catholic tradition has a great balance between what has become two sides, but Roman Catholics as a practical matter are having just the same issues.

The tradition, even in the Protestant Church (such as John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, and the “grandparent” of my denomination), is there. It is the rhetoric, and the American desire for a “simple”, “black-and-white” answer that is creating this insanity, along with the quick response medium of the internet (to which, of course, I’m contributing).

It is also the church, as a whole, that is at fault in the responses to this poll. What is the church teaching? Is it teaching? Is it helping its people wrestle with the faith? It IS okay to wrestle with the faith! That’s what the church fathers did!

This also does bring back to mind this article at the (evil) FoxNews: Has Christian America Come to an End?

hattip: Douglas Karr

1. Less Television and Computer Gaming May Keep Children Slimmer. Granted, this is kind of a “duh,” however, the reason may not be what you think.
2. An Email Free Day
3. I Need a Virtual Break, No, Really.

What I find interesting in the last article is the term “secular sabbath”. Despite being, from my point of view, a contradiction in terms, the concept is valid. In fact, I am pondering avoiding my computer all Sunday. I might even avoid television and gaming (okay, granted I don’t do much gaming).

This somewhat flies in the face of popular “wisdom” that the up-and-coming generation is “wired” for multi-tasking. Just something else to ponder.

hattip to:The Point

Some day, the lawmakers may figure out an efficient way to fix the A.M.T. permanently and make up for the billions in revenue it brings in. That will not happen this year, but Wednesday afternoon’s vote was still good news for millions.

How about the Flat Tax?

A quick aside: whether it’s “mine” or the “government’s”, it is still God’s.

However, in 800 Dollar Gold in Plain English ( archived copy ), Jerry Bowyer adds a little more to the discussion. His primary point is that the theories being pushed in support of returning to a gold (or silver or whatever) are not nearly as robust as they seem, especially in light of recent history. Some of his comments echo mine in Me and Ron Paul, but mine were more gut feel than anything else.

Of course, the problem with Jerry Bowyer’s commentary is that begs the question, what to do? Who knows? However, I think the major point is that we cannot blindly assume that what seems to have worked in the past actually did, and that it will work for the future.

That all being said, the U.S. trade deficit is definitely an issue. We can’t keep sending money out (whether to China for our manufactured goods, or Mexico, Venezuela, or the Middle East for our oil). A lot of countries have been putting money back into the U.S., because we have historically had a stable currency. That is not the case now.

On the other hand, maybe this is a good thing for domestic manufacturing, especially with all the toy recalls recently. Perhaps companies will finally look at the U.S. as a valid source. The U.S. must continue to excel in changing things for the better. As long as we do, it will all work out in the end.

Mr. Breton’s point that banks would have to have tangible (read gold or whatever standard) assets to exchange for paper currency, means that banks would be less likely to loan money to any one (including me). Of course, such a path, would send the tax and spend politicians (please note that this is regardless of party affiliation) into a tizzy. Also, companies such as MasterCard, Visa, Sears, BancAmerica, and so on would no longer be quite so willing to give credit cards to pets or dead people.

This is sounding better and better.

And I’m quite serious about it.

Nevermind…everyone should just see Gattaca.

The article: MIT reinvents the wheel with foldable, stackable car ( archived copy )

Hat Tip to: Slashdot

The first time I heard this was in 2004. In fact, I emailed this article to myself, and have kept in my email since then (packrat that I am). Al Neuharth, founder of USAToday wrote back on 11 Nov 2004 (archived copy) that the MSM bias is its trouble, along with its intent to bury us in ads.

Ron Rosenbaum just wrote an article, Shocking Inside DC Scandal Rumor: A Media Ethics, that isn’t nearly as surprising as he thinks. This happens all the time.

However, where the real damage occurs is locally. The Spokesman-Review is “downsizing” (archived copy). Their ad revenues have fallen. Go back to the man who had the foresight to add color to the newspaper (Al Neuharth).

The recent debacle at the New Republic regarding their less than stellar vetting of an “on the ground” soldier in Iraq, doesn’t help the situation. The MSM’s only hope is quicker and thorough vetting (Yes, that seems to be an oxymoron, but a way must be found.). Also, content that is more neutral and fact-based. This cannot be done be cutting back staff. This cannot be done by more ad revenue (Ads turn people away, remember?).

Do I have an answer? I wish. I just know that, “that’s the way we’ve always done it,” will kill off the MSM.

I recently received an email from Naymz, a place to “claim” your names on the internet, regarding the services of Trufina. Trufina is a website/service that seeks to be your identity clearinghouse. They seek to gather all your personae and provide 3^RD party “authentication” so people are assured that it is you. You can even have them run a criminal background check on you so that you can present a clean record to an employer.

Immediately, some people are going to scream, “invasion of privacy!” Since you are the one giving up the information, it isn’t an invasion. “Don’t trust the man!” Frankly, since I would be the one providing the information, I trust them slightly more than the government (granted, that isn’t saying much). The government gathers a lot of information about me I wish they wouldn’t, and I don’t even know what information they actually have about me. I don’t know what is false, what is true, or what isn’t their business to know about me.

The advantage that a private corporate clearinghouse has is that as I would be the one providing the information, is that I know what they have. I, according to their website and privacy policy, can choose with whom to share based upon preset profiles. Companies that partner with Trufina would tell Trufina exactly what information they require for a transaction.

Trufina is not the only clearinghouse. There is OpenID. There is one being pushed by Sun. There was the (failed) Microsoft Passport, which is now primarily a Microsoft identity clearinghouse. For once, in Microsoft‘s case, they were actually thinking ahead, but too far ahead.

This will be needed in the future. For the internet to sooner become what it will become eventually, some sort of identity system (or multiple systems) will need to be in play. As larger and larger transactions are processed over the internet, identity verification will become crucial. The only way we will determine what form that takes is by participating in it, rather than moaning about it.

As to Trufina, I like what they offer. Their pricing is decent, but never provides a time line what your money buys for how long. Their About Us page leaves a lot to be desired. As you go digging you find more, but the key is to not make people dig to find basic information, like why I should trust them.

I’m going to wait a bit, yet. I know this is coming, hence my Naymz profile. There are a number of networking/social sites that verify based on connections, which in many ways is better. For one-time transactions or employment applications, I think Trufina and those that follow and preceded it will be the wave of the future.

Full Reprint Below

While I agree with Ron Paul’s sentiments regarding limited government, I would strongly urge anyone to think very carefully about not legislating morality. That’s what legislation is: enforced (or coerced) morality. Who pays what taxes, for example, is morality, hence so many arguments about estate taxes and marriage penalties. I am not saying the government has not overstepped its intended boundaries, but such hyperbole without thought has consequences. Questions such as income redistribution are a morality issue, as is marriage.

When he first gets booed in his speech is when he talks about how gold and silver should be the currency of the land, and I’ve had this discussion before. Here is what I came up with then:

U.S. paper currency, along with the Federal Reserve Bank was created during the Civil War (or The War Between the States) to allow for a better interaction between locals on a financial level. Paper currency existed before that, too (including Colonial times). Each bank (which could the one down the block, a different one at the edge of town, or the State (not Federal Bank) issued it’s OWN money, which was actually a certificate for gold or silver stored at the bank. However, one bank would often (especially if across governmental lines, whether city, county, and definitely state) not recognize the legitimacy of the certificate from the other bank.

This created roadblocks to prosperity, especially if one had to buy stuff from a non-local source. The Federal Reserve system created a consistent methodology to allow currency to change hands with greater ease. The Central Bank only printed and issued money to a bank for a maximum of 60% of its gold, establishing a baseline of both gold value, and paper currency value. This system of reserves (gold, but later, silver) was in place until the 1960′s.

The founder’s did have concerns, very great concerns, that multiple currencies would inhibit commerce (and it did), but were unable to convince the states to go along with a common system.

Now as to the value of gold versus paper, it’s a straw man to me. I don’t value gold as a currency. I see its value, these days, as being a great electrical conductor. What has made it valuable in the human psyche is that we can decorate ourselves with it. And that is what made it valuable in the past, and still. It is what you can do with it. ALL currency is a simplified barter system. If I think that my product is worth 1oz of gold, but you think its worth .5oz, that is no different than my thinking that its worth $500, and you thinking it’s worth $250.

It is all based upon perceived value.

Many that believe themselves in the same camp as Ron Paul state that the federal government has no say right to make money, while Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution says, in part:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Now all that being said, perhaps he meant returning to a gold/silver based backed system of paper and coins. Honestly, no matter what the currency is, no matter by what it is backed, it is all a matter of perceived value. The value of our currency is perception as well, hence his annoyance at the falling dollar. However, depending on the industry, that can be a good thing, except when you’ve outsourced everything, which is a another result of freedom.

Continuing past this, he makes valid (an in my opinion correct) point that there is a habit of looking to Washington,D.C. to fix the problem, and that habit has to be broken. However, the current batch of Republicans will not support that. How does he think they get elected?

He then attacks, rightly, the U.N., and for liberals (whether R’s or D’s) who look to the U.N. to justify (the U.S. gives too much money to actually look for real help from the U.N.) their more “progressive” desires. I also believe that there is validity to his implied point that we obey laws (or someone tries) that the U.N. has passed, without having any granted (by its members nations) power to it to do so.

However, we agreed to the WTO independently of the U.N., as a treaty I believe, obligating ourselves to it as a matter of trade. Now, Ron Paul could say let’s withdrawal from it, but the President (other than signing the bill) has no authority to do so. I am also not sure that the WTO has been effective, whether against or for the U.S., so this could just be another windmill to tilt at (please correct me if I’m wrong). I could probably be persuaded to get out of it purely on reducing government bureaucracy.

If he would stick to freedom (yes, I understand that he views the U.N. and the WTO as anathemas to freedom), where he shines, he would do much better. He is absolutely correct that far too many people rely more on the government than themselves. It will take at least 3 faithful and stalwart generations to break one generation’s failure (see Amit Shlaes abridged speech at Hillsdale)

He then goes on to the “Just War” theory, about which no one should speak, unless they speak of which “Just War” theory. The “Just War” theory has evolved from righteous war to no war at all. Depending on which version of the “Just War” theory you are using, and what you use as a rationale, any war could be just. It always boils down to which is a worse evil, the status quo, or a war (and its aftermath, which is the trust test anyways, not the war itself). As to WMDs (which he referred to as nonexistent), I believe we have a long way to go before we realize the (in)validity of multiple “intelligence” agencies (UK, French, German, Russian, and US all thought Iraq had them). However, I do think we rushed into that one. Maybe. Saddam was a very smart nut case (bad combo), and thus very unpredictable. Kim Il Sung, on the other hand, just throws a temper tantrum, gets his quiet money (or whatever vice he wants to fulfill), and goes and hides for a while, although perhaps the same “intelligence” that guided the Israeli Air Force to attack a site in Syria, and which guided the thoughts of WMDs in Iraq, made the same mistake again (although bureaucrats rarely take risks of repeating the same mistake, they prefer doing nothing) in regards to North Korean nuclear material in Syria.

Now his “declaring war” is kind of weird. Congress declared war by passing the resolution authorizing it. So his reasoning that we either wouldn’t be at war (so no troops lost), or we wouldn’t be arguing about it is off. Regardless of what our history books now say, we have declared war many times, and have still had plenty of protest anyways, especially in regards to continuing it. That is part of the process.

The last booing was at this point, and booing does not add to the discussion, nor do Ron Paul’s comments, frankly. The question before us is which is more evil, abandoning those in Iraq (the justification, or lack thereof, of the war is no longer relevant), or finishing the job (which, granted, still needs to be completely defined, which is part of the problem as well).

Now all THAT being said, I hope he stays in the race, in hopes that the Republican party will repent of their Democrat tendencies.

Sorry about going on so long. I think I’m done now.

Not only can’t you buy one, but the government says it’s currently illegal for automakers to sell these green cars outside of the special states. Under terms of the Clean Air Act—in the kind of delicious irony only our government can pull off…

Someone is bound to say that it is the Bush Administration’s fault, and it is, only because they didn’t cut red tape that other already put up. Still this is just wacked, but as it says above, “only our government can pull [it] off…”

As John Sayles’ role in the movie Matewan suggests, big businesses have used clergy as cheerleaders before, but this news item from The Economist hints at something worse.

The article: Praying for Gain: A fad for piety infiltrates the realm of Mammon

I am completely at a loss for what this, “something worse”, that Mr. Volck refers to is. Is he worried that there are two companies that provide chaplain services? Is that his issue? If it is, then perhaps he is unaware of the restrictions that these to companies put upon those whose services they tender. These chaplains are to stay away from denominational arguments (whether for or against), and to provide purely for the spiritual needs of the employees. Is he worried that a company dares to make a profit on provide such services? Where is that particular line drawn?

Is he worried about the reason companies are doing this? Such as, increased worker productivity? Does that mean my company can no longer provide donuts every other Friday? Or company parties? There is nothing wrong with that.

The one thing that may concern him is the equating of the corporate chaplain to the village priest, which, frankly, was probably an ignorant and definitely stupid thing for the writer at the Economist to write. I would hazard a guess that the writer was trying to relate it to earlier times in history, but who has no real experience with a village priest.

The author does state (although I’m not sure the statement is an accurate reflection of reality) that these chaplains are providing spiritual support for people who are feeling cut off from their roots (if they had any). However, the “boom” according to the article has been since 9/11. That should give all people pause. 9/11 caused a lot of people to reflect on their lives. Most denominations saw a huge influx of attenders immediately after 9/11, but those numbers quickly fell. However, even in those churches who are otherwise experiencing negative growth, the post-9/11 increase in attendees has been noticeable.

Another thing that Mr. Volck could be concerned with is the possibility that people will equate their faith with the company, therefore become religiously zealous about their company. While, I suppose, that could be an issue, I suspect that it is not, especially when the chaplain is not a true employee of the company.

Perhaps the scary part for Mr. Volck is that is is corporations that recognize the value of religion and supporting it, while society and government as a whole (think the bureaucrats, not the politicians) has become somewhat hostile to religion.

I don’t know Mr. Volck, and I’m throwing all this out there because he didn’t make his concerns known. I hope that he will note his concerns at some point, but I can’t help but feel that his concern is the seeming melding of faith with “evil” corporations. However, if the chaplain is a true Christian, and serves the employees in true Christian love, I suspect that the Enrons and other horrible shenanigans will be greatly reduced, and the companies will cease being emotionless, profit-only, organizations, as a whole.

Perhaps I’m being optimistic, but I’m allowed to be every once in a while, just to get out of the rut.

Escape Wisconsin: Fraters Libertas

How TO: Make Minnesota Grow Faster « SCSUScholars

Cheese Headcases « OpinionJournal

I have no problem believing that there are artificial and manipulated “miracles,” any more than I have believing in genuine miracles and other supernatural phenomena. In the same way, I believe in the existence of fallen angels, demonization, and exorcism as much as I believe that there are some mental and psychological disorders that should be treated with medication and therapy. In other words, I believe in discernment. The mere existence of cubic zirconium in a jewelry store does not mean that genuine diamonds do not exist.

In his column, Hearing the ‘Music of the Spheres’, Steve Beard makes an eloquent point about discernment.

That is the word I was looking for in regards to politics (funny, I’ve been using the word a lot, reading it a lot, but it takes someone else putting it in writing for me to make a connection). That’s what we need. Not just from our politicians (oh, and honesty, straight-forwardness, and a lack of dissembling would also help), but from the media, and we the consumers of politics and media circuses.

If we could not rant and rave, not patronize the Micheal Moore’s and Ann Coulter’s of the world, and just think, we would be better off.

Take health-care for instance. Somebody has to pay for it. Remember, the government doesn’t, you do. You pay taxes, therefore you pay for it. The hated insurance companies? If we weren’t so risk averse, no insurance company would exist. The Democrats are correct, insurance companies and health care companies successfully lobby Republicans. The Republicans are correct that Government (“single payer”) health care is a monster in the wings. Think back to the media induced “scandal” of government procurement during the Reagan years. The infamous $10,000 hammer, for example. Or the bomber (i.e., a big huge flying thing that carries lots of other big things long distances) that did not have the payload capacity to carry the paperwork required to make it (and that is the paperwork for EACH plane built).

Have you ever looked at a hospital bill, only to find that you were charged $5 for two acetaminophen, when you could buy a bottle of 150 capsules at the corner drugstore? Imagine how much those will cost when the government issues them.

A few questions to think about. If single-payer health care is so great, why do Canadians (who can afford it) go the States to get surgery? If Cuba is such a great country, with great health care, and the state owns the media, why do people keep fleeing? Mr. Moore’s failure to think critically regarding the “quickness” of Cuban health care, to me, proved that he can create conflict, but doesn’t see how he is used. Of course, the Cuban health care system worked quickly, are you kidding? Psychological victory. Michael Moore was USED!

The reason why other countries have “cheap” pharmaceuticals? Because WE subsidize them. Since the pharmaceutical companies can’t recover their costs elsewhere, and because we in the States love lawsuits, our pharmaceuticals are obscenely priced. It is not price controls that are needed, it is everyone else’s price controls that need to be removed!

Speaking of lawsuits, imagine trying to sue the government for shoddy health care. Veterans have been having, to our shame, poor success in that area. Also, imagine trying to get unorthodox treatments approved through the government system. I’ve experienced the private system, and it is bad enough.

Privacy. All those privacy advocacy groups would be run out of business. Now the government will know everything. Yep, that’s good. Right? Forget those stupid cameras watching everything, forget the warrantless searches, the government WILL know your very DNA.

The short answer? There isn’t one. The easy answer? There isn’t one. If a politician, media hack (and they’re almost all hacks, at least the national ones), or political hack says there is one? Run away with your hand on your wallet.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

The first piece is an interview with James Shikwati, a Kenyan economics expert.

The second piece is a more in depth review, which is, frankly, quite depressing.

So where does this leave us? As much as we want to, and we should want to, help others, this should give us pause in how we help others. I am not advocating abolishing compassionate assistance, but this is no different than welfare here in the States. I will have to say that much of the same criticism that has been leveled at welfare, should also be leveled here.

It is not whether we should help them, because that is not in question at all, but how they who are being helped may be best enabled to no longer need assistance. For by freeing them from that need, the chains will fall from their feet and arms, and they will be able to go forth with heads held high with hope

That’s too bad. The smelter is owned by the Don Roe Company, which proudly states on their main web page:

Our commitment to producing these materials in a safe and environmentally responsible manner is demonstrated through pioneering techniques that make our international operations more innovative, efficient and environmentally sound.

The Don Roe Company purchased the smelter, thereby inheriting a pre-existing mess, from the Peru government run company. The Don Roe Company is based in the United States. The United States based ministry should have started locally. It is much easier to get leverage against a public traded company, as bad news (especially bad PR, such as this) lowers stock prices, but one can still put pressure on privately owned companies, such as the Don Roe Company, as well.

A public relations campaign pointing out the contradiction between their “commitment” and the reality in Peru could work wonders. As the press loves printing bad news, it wouldn’t take much to get a few flames started. Also, as La Oroya produces copper and zinc (which is, honestly, one of the nastiest things to produce. It always comes with lead), one can talk to their customers, whom I am sure all have “environmentally-friendly” statements, and point out that their supplier(s) are operating in a method contrary to their statements. By including their customers in a public relations campaign, one can create even further pressure.

I am an amateur in all of this. My primary purpose in writing this, granted no one will probably ever read it, is to show that being blinded by local versus global is a bad thing, as it can limit your impact.

I would also like to point out that the article only seems to hint at the improvements that the Don Roe company is making. The focus of the article was the impact the ministries can have (even crossing continental and national boundaries) when they work together. And while I will not spend the time check the veracity of this, please read the Don Roe Company’s statement about what they are doing to improve both the La Oroya operation, and the surrounding community.

I appeal again to the leaders of the media industry to advise producers to safeguard the common good, to uphold the truth, to protect individual human dignity and promote respect for the needs of the family.

What I find interesting is to whom he is speaking. The leaders of the Mainstream Media go after Halliburton, Enron, Exxon, etcetera, however, they are just as guilty (perhaps more so as they are so quick to, and viciously, attack others) of pure corporate greed, as they don’t care what is sent out, by whom it is consumed, and the effect upon society.

Almost, that makes me think that we need the government and the FCC. Almost.

There’s a stereotypical assumption among Christians in the nonprofit world that capitalism means greed or selfishness, and “therefore has got to be bad,” says Nash, founder and managing partner of Piper Cove Asset Management LLC. Using goals to measure progress—standard practice in the business world—is seen as “cold-blooded and materialistic.”

I can’t say I’m particularly shocked. It does seem to many people outside of business that this is the case. Especially with high profile failures in morals, ethics, and leadership, of a number of “leaders” (leaders used generously) in the business community. The sensationalist treatment by the media certainly doesn’t help.

It’s too bad, really. Business, in the form of truly free capitalism, provides a good grounding for a successful and free society. The company I work for is a great example. They care for their employees, understanding that they are the reason the company is successful, and even in business. Of course we have metrics, and honestly, it is a good thing. As long as the leadership of an organization isn’t the browbeating time, learning where one falls short and where one excels helps the employee and the company.

The funny part is that Christians are lumped together with “evil” capitalistic Republicans, and yet, if this description of Christians in non-profits is true, many Christians actually belong in the “left” because of their view of business.

Without a doubt, a business exists to make money. That is its purpose. The purpose of a Christian non-profit is to fulfill its mission. By swapping money for mission, a business becomes a non-profit. And yes, it is as simple as that.

Disconcerting as it is, I am almost in agreement with Gaddafi.  The stock and futures markets are based on rumors and fear.

As much as everyone wanted to blame the oil companies for the high price of gas, it was the fears of the futures traders that was truly, and remains, the real reason behind the oil prices remaining at their high level.  Oil production remains at high levels, but oil prices continue to rise (and fall).

I’m not sure that I agree with him in the entirety that the entire global financial “market” is based on fear.  However, the World Bank and the IMF certainly have plenty of critics on their basis for loaning money.

While Gaddafi is correct that fear in many ways rules finances, it also rules most other things in life.  Most people operate on some basis of fear.

I’ve gone back and tagged/categorized older articles, in addition to newer articles as they come up.

In a way, this is a zeitgeist, that seeks to gather together the peculiar afflictions of technology, from my point of view.