One of the areas in which I believe we, as a society, have deteriorated recently is care for the customer. Everything now is about improving profit margins, with customer service often being compromised. If we call on the telephone, we get a machine that takes us through many menu items. Often you have to enter your customer number or some other identifying number before the machine will let you continue. Then what’s the first thing they ask you if eventually you connect with an actual person? Of course it’s the number you punched in!
Stores are trying to save money by having fewer sales clerks. Some companies have their customer service reps in another country, thus taking away jobs from Americans. With customer service or technical service in another country, you have to deal with unfamiliar accents as well. I do have to say that when I’ve dealt with Dell’s technical service people in India, they have been very good and capable, but I still don’t like the fact that jobs are being taken away from Americans.
Historically, industry has not always treated employees well. That’s why labor unions were organized. Today things are much better in some respects, but new ways of giving employees less than a fair deal have arisen. Some companies, especially in retail, avoid giving benefits by hiring employees as part-timers and having them work fewer hours. This is especially bad because these employees are typically on the low end of the pay scale, close to minimum wage, yet they are prevented from working 40 hours. Plus they have no medical benefits! How can anybody live on such meager take-home pay?
There was a program recently on CNBC that looked at the success of Costco. Their employee turnover rate is very low compared to the rest of retail. Why? Costco pays its employees well and provides benefits. Does that hurt profit margins? Apparently not, because Costco is doing quite well despite its relatively small markups. They are saving money with less employee turnover in a number of ways. First, they are better able to hire higher quality and more productive employees, and second, there is less training and disruption with lower employee turnover, thus saving money.
Morally and ethically, companies have responsibilities to at least five constituencies.
(1) Provide a fair return on investment to stockholders;
(2) Provide a safe and good quality product to its customers at a fair price;
(3) Provide a good and safe work environment to its employees, pay a fair wage, provide medical benefits, and don’t discriminate;
(4) Pay its vendors on time;
(5) Serve the community and the country by hiring Americans, manufacturing here in the U.S., buying from local and U.S. vendors, obeying laws, not polluting, and paying its fair share of taxes.
When these get out of balance, such as too much emphasis on #1 and not enough attention on the rest, you have a problem. Because so many items are manufactured in China these days – thanks in large part to Wal-Mart – #5 isn’t being served and the customer, while paying less, often gets a poor quality product that won’t last as long. That is false economy, and I believe the American people are being ripped off as a result. Moreover, some unsafe products have come out of China because stores haven’t even bothered to do any testing or quality control. So #2 isn’t being served and people have been hurt as a result.
Friday, April 27, 2012
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Post-Christian Society
The Apostle Paul wrote in Galatians 6:7b: You reap whatever you sow. Another way of putting it is: “You will always harvest what you plant.” (from the NLT) We are seeing that happen today. What am I referring to? I’m saying that as we become more and more post-Christian, the restraining influence of Christianity diminishes and society becomes more violent, dishonest, and immoral.
If you aren’t brought up within a moral framework but rather on the loose standards of today’s society, you won’t have much of a guideline for your behavior. If you aren’t guided by something bigger than you (God), then you “do your own thing” which we see happening at the very end of the Book of Judges in the Bible in Judges 21:25: In those days there was no king in Israel; all the people did what was right in their own eyes. (NRSV) They didn’t have the restraining influence of a strong leader, so Israelite society was not as God wanted it to be.
Christianity isn’t just a code of conduct, but Bible-based Christianity does provide guidelines for living that come from God, who created us and knows what’s best for us. Our society used to be guided by what’s called the Judeo-Christian ethic, but that is giving way to relativism, situational ethics, and political correctness. As a result, society is becoming ruder, cruder, ethically-challenged. We’ve had Ponzi schemes that have even ripped off charities, a roughly 50% divorce rate, a large percentage of babies born of unmarried mothers, much prime time TV not suitable for children, a serious drug problem that leads to a serious crime problem, and we still have anti-Semitism and other forms of prejudice.
Because of sinful humankind, American society was never close to biblical ideals, but I suspect it may have been a little more morally upright and maybe even more honest than we see now. To be fair, there have also been some improvements in the quality of life due to laws being enacted, societal pressure, or other factors. We have less drunk driving, no smoking in public places, workplaces pretty much free of profanity and sexual harassment (some are better than others), better opportunities for women and minorities, more fuel efficient and less polluting cars, leash laws, to name a few improvements.
My suggestion is that you and your children attend church and Sunday school regularly to get a better grounding when it comes to proper behavior. You’ll be amazed at how your life will change for the better the closer you get to God. Isn’t it time for a fresh start?
If you aren’t brought up within a moral framework but rather on the loose standards of today’s society, you won’t have much of a guideline for your behavior. If you aren’t guided by something bigger than you (God), then you “do your own thing” which we see happening at the very end of the Book of Judges in the Bible in Judges 21:25: In those days there was no king in Israel; all the people did what was right in their own eyes. (NRSV) They didn’t have the restraining influence of a strong leader, so Israelite society was not as God wanted it to be.
Christianity isn’t just a code of conduct, but Bible-based Christianity does provide guidelines for living that come from God, who created us and knows what’s best for us. Our society used to be guided by what’s called the Judeo-Christian ethic, but that is giving way to relativism, situational ethics, and political correctness. As a result, society is becoming ruder, cruder, ethically-challenged. We’ve had Ponzi schemes that have even ripped off charities, a roughly 50% divorce rate, a large percentage of babies born of unmarried mothers, much prime time TV not suitable for children, a serious drug problem that leads to a serious crime problem, and we still have anti-Semitism and other forms of prejudice.
Because of sinful humankind, American society was never close to biblical ideals, but I suspect it may have been a little more morally upright and maybe even more honest than we see now. To be fair, there have also been some improvements in the quality of life due to laws being enacted, societal pressure, or other factors. We have less drunk driving, no smoking in public places, workplaces pretty much free of profanity and sexual harassment (some are better than others), better opportunities for women and minorities, more fuel efficient and less polluting cars, leash laws, to name a few improvements.
My suggestion is that you and your children attend church and Sunday school regularly to get a better grounding when it comes to proper behavior. You’ll be amazed at how your life will change for the better the closer you get to God. Isn’t it time for a fresh start?
Monday, April 16, 2012
Women’s Issues Part 2
In an earlier post I discussed the two events which have triggered discussions on some women’s issues: our obsession with looks, and women who stay at home to raise their children and choose not to pursue a career. In that post I criticized liberals for being rather narrow-minded because they claim to want freedom for women, but only if women make the “right” choices consistent with liberal doctrine. If a woman chooses to stay at home, that’s not in keeping with liberal orthodoxy and that woman – such as Ann Romney – is criticized for “not working a day in her life.”
Liberals aren’t the only ones who want to keep women in their place, however you might define “place.” Some conservative/fundamentalist Christians have used certain biblical passages against women. Admittedly, some biblical passages can be interpreted in various ways. However, I believe interpretations that suppress women are in error. In studying the Bible, you have to look at passages in context. Biblical passages should be analyzed and understood in at least five ways:
First, the passage should be understood in its immediate context. What comes before and what comes after the passage gives the reader the immediate context and helps to interpret the passage more accurately. Taking a passage stand-alone without its context can result in an erroneous interpretation.
Second, the passage should be understood in overall biblical context, that is, what the rest of the Bible says on a subject. If the passage your are studying is the only place in the Bible that seems to say so-and-so, then you might question your understand of its meaning. If your understanding of the passage actually contradicts what is said elsewhere in the Bible, then your interpretation is wrong.
Third, for Christians the passages should be understood in light of the teachings of Jesus Christ, also employing church tradition (the traditional interpretation of a passage), reason, and experience.
Fourth, a biblical passage should be understood in the context of the culture, society, and religious practices of the day. That includes both Israelite/Jewish and Greco-Roman.
Fifth, a biblical passage can sometimes be better understood by looking at the original language and understanding the nuances of the words used. Since most people don’t know biblical Hebrew or Koine Greek, we have to depend on commentaries or footnotes in study Bibles to help us with that.
Getting back to women’s issues, men have used various passages written by the Apostle Paul to suppress women. However, when these passages are analyzed using the five steps I described above, a different interpretation emerges (as I see it – of course some will disagree with me).
Liberals aren’t the only ones who want to keep women in their place, however you might define “place.” Some conservative/fundamentalist Christians have used certain biblical passages against women. Admittedly, some biblical passages can be interpreted in various ways. However, I believe interpretations that suppress women are in error. In studying the Bible, you have to look at passages in context. Biblical passages should be analyzed and understood in at least five ways:
First, the passage should be understood in its immediate context. What comes before and what comes after the passage gives the reader the immediate context and helps to interpret the passage more accurately. Taking a passage stand-alone without its context can result in an erroneous interpretation.
Second, the passage should be understood in overall biblical context, that is, what the rest of the Bible says on a subject. If the passage your are studying is the only place in the Bible that seems to say so-and-so, then you might question your understand of its meaning. If your understanding of the passage actually contradicts what is said elsewhere in the Bible, then your interpretation is wrong.
Third, for Christians the passages should be understood in light of the teachings of Jesus Christ, also employing church tradition (the traditional interpretation of a passage), reason, and experience.
Fourth, a biblical passage should be understood in the context of the culture, society, and religious practices of the day. That includes both Israelite/Jewish and Greco-Roman.
Fifth, a biblical passage can sometimes be better understood by looking at the original language and understanding the nuances of the words used. Since most people don’t know biblical Hebrew or Koine Greek, we have to depend on commentaries or footnotes in study Bibles to help us with that.
Getting back to women’s issues, men have used various passages written by the Apostle Paul to suppress women. However, when these passages are analyzed using the five steps I described above, a different interpretation emerges (as I see it – of course some will disagree with me).
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Women’s Issues
Two things have happened recently that have to do with women. One is Ashley Judd’s criticism of society’s attitude towards women’s looks. The other was a comment made by a strategist for the Democratic Party and a pundit, Hillary Rosen. She made the statement that Mitt Romney’s wife “hasn’t worked a day in her life.” Let me start with the Rosen remark.
Being a Democrat, I presume Rosen is also a liberal. One thing about liberals, as I see it, is that they are all about free choice – as long as you make the “right” choice according to their way of thinking. If you don’t, you are vilified. Mrs. Romney obviously didn’t make the “right” choice, and thus “wasted” her life by raising her family and not pursuing a career, which apparently would lead to more fulfillment. When you understand where liberals are coming from, Rosen’s comment makes perfect sense.
Rosen made two mistakes. First, she criticized a candidate’s wife, which is not appropriate. Second, she let her liberal bias show in a very mean-spirited way. To her, what she said was consistent with liberal orthodoxy going back to the earlier days of the women’s liberation movement, when women were denounced for being stay-at-home moms. What she wasn’t expecting was the firestorm of criticism, even from her fellow liberals.
As far as I’m concerned, and some will disagree with me, the ideal is for women to stay home and raise the kids. Bringing up kids is never easy, and it seems these days the job is even more challenging. Of course my ideal isn’t always possible. With the cost of living so high, many women have to work outside the home. Some, of course, choose to pursue a career and raise a family, which is their choice and should be respected.
Regarding Ashley Judd’s complaint that people are obsessed with women’s appearance, I think she might have overreacted. As a celebrity, men and women are constantly in the spotlight. Since quite a few celebrities have plastic surgery, it is natural to ask the question if a person’s appearance changed.
However, her main point is valid: people are obsessed with looks, especially women’s looks. It isn’t just men she’s criticizing either, but women too. Unfortunately we as a society have made women into objects, and often beauty is valued more than character or other attributes. On the other hand, most people want to make the most of what they have, and so women get their hair done, put on at least some makeup, and dress well. Some work out or jog. Men also try to dress for success, keep their hair trimmed, shave in the morning, and may also work out or jog. So there’s nothing wrong with trying to look your best. I think the problem comes when looks become an obsession.
Being a Democrat, I presume Rosen is also a liberal. One thing about liberals, as I see it, is that they are all about free choice – as long as you make the “right” choice according to their way of thinking. If you don’t, you are vilified. Mrs. Romney obviously didn’t make the “right” choice, and thus “wasted” her life by raising her family and not pursuing a career, which apparently would lead to more fulfillment. When you understand where liberals are coming from, Rosen’s comment makes perfect sense.
Rosen made two mistakes. First, she criticized a candidate’s wife, which is not appropriate. Second, she let her liberal bias show in a very mean-spirited way. To her, what she said was consistent with liberal orthodoxy going back to the earlier days of the women’s liberation movement, when women were denounced for being stay-at-home moms. What she wasn’t expecting was the firestorm of criticism, even from her fellow liberals.
As far as I’m concerned, and some will disagree with me, the ideal is for women to stay home and raise the kids. Bringing up kids is never easy, and it seems these days the job is even more challenging. Of course my ideal isn’t always possible. With the cost of living so high, many women have to work outside the home. Some, of course, choose to pursue a career and raise a family, which is their choice and should be respected.
Regarding Ashley Judd’s complaint that people are obsessed with women’s appearance, I think she might have overreacted. As a celebrity, men and women are constantly in the spotlight. Since quite a few celebrities have plastic surgery, it is natural to ask the question if a person’s appearance changed.
However, her main point is valid: people are obsessed with looks, especially women’s looks. It isn’t just men she’s criticizing either, but women too. Unfortunately we as a society have made women into objects, and often beauty is valued more than character or other attributes. On the other hand, most people want to make the most of what they have, and so women get their hair done, put on at least some makeup, and dress well. Some work out or jog. Men also try to dress for success, keep their hair trimmed, shave in the morning, and may also work out or jog. So there’s nothing wrong with trying to look your best. I think the problem comes when looks become an obsession.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Recent Killing of an African-American in Florida
Recently a black teen-ager was shot and killed by a self-appointed neighborhood watch guard in Florida. From what I’ve seen in the media, this young man was just walking through a neighborhood, and not engaging in any “suspicious” behavior. As a matter of fact, he was talking on his mobile phone to his girlfriend. The shooter, Zimmerman, called 911 and was told not to approach the boy, but Zimmerman followed him and eventually shot him. Zimmerman claims he felt he was in danger and invoked his right to self defense under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law.
This unfortunate incident brings up a whole series of legal, ethical, and moral issues, including racial profiling. Let me express some thoughts on these matters.
Racial Profiling
If the young man hadn’t been black, I suspect he wouldn’t have been followed or shot. Zimmerman was engaging in racial profiling in targeting this young man, which is fairly easy for anybody to do.
Let’s say you live in a predominantly white neighborhood and you see several black men wearing hoodies walking down your street. Be honest, now. What’s the first thing that comes to mind? I think it would be the question, “What are they doing in this neighborhood?” That would be followed by the thought, “I’ll bet they are up to no good.”
Now let’s say you see several young black men wearing suits and carrying Bibles walking down your street. What would you think then? I suspect you’d say to yourself, “They must be Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses. I’ll pretend I’m not home.” You may want to avoid their proselytizing, but you wouldn’t suspect them of any potential wrongdoing. If they walked up to your front door, I doubt if you would call 911.
So profiling is a little more complex than we might think. It involves dress, behavior, and other factors, but shouldn’t be the basis for shooting someone.
When Self Defense Is Justified
So when is shooting in self-defense permissible? Obviously talking a life should be a last resort. Let me give an example of a case in which shooting a perpetrator is justified in my opinion.
A month or two ago, I saw on the news the story of a young mother who heard men outside her house. She was alone with her kids, and it was obvious these guys were trying to break in. She called 911, and then got her shotgun ready. Before the police got there, the men broke into her house. She confronted them with shotgun in hand, but they didn’t leave. So she opened fire, killing one or two of them as I recall.
Compare that to the case in Florida where the boy was outside, walking briskly through the neighborhood, and was minding his own business. To me, Zimmerman was not at all being threatened nor was there any clear and present danger like the young mother. I believe self defense is justified when somebody breaks into your house, tries to hijack your vehicle with you in it, or tries to mug you on the street, and they don’t flee when you threaten them with a weapon.
I believe the Constitution gives citizens the right to bear arms for at least three reasons:
(1) First, to be able to rise up in armed rebellion against an oppressive government, similar to the way the colonies did against England.
(2) For self defense when your life is in danger.
(3) For hunting animals for food.
Should Zimmerman Be Arrested?
I believe he should have been arrested because he went well beyond the limitations of Florida’s Stand Your Ground law. I’m glad the local police chief resigned, because his reluctance to arrest Zimmerman and let the judicial system do its thing just fanned the fires of anger, especially in the black community. It is the Grand Jury’s job to determine if this case should be prosecuted, not the police chief’s.
This incident (and a number of others) also points out that we still have a long way to go with respect to racial relations, and I’m talking about both sides. As Bill Cosby has repeatedly pointed out, the African-American community has to take responsibility for cleaning up its act. The white community has to stop stereotyping and practicing other forms of bias.
This unfortunate incident brings up a whole series of legal, ethical, and moral issues, including racial profiling. Let me express some thoughts on these matters.
Racial Profiling
If the young man hadn’t been black, I suspect he wouldn’t have been followed or shot. Zimmerman was engaging in racial profiling in targeting this young man, which is fairly easy for anybody to do.
Let’s say you live in a predominantly white neighborhood and you see several black men wearing hoodies walking down your street. Be honest, now. What’s the first thing that comes to mind? I think it would be the question, “What are they doing in this neighborhood?” That would be followed by the thought, “I’ll bet they are up to no good.”
Now let’s say you see several young black men wearing suits and carrying Bibles walking down your street. What would you think then? I suspect you’d say to yourself, “They must be Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses. I’ll pretend I’m not home.” You may want to avoid their proselytizing, but you wouldn’t suspect them of any potential wrongdoing. If they walked up to your front door, I doubt if you would call 911.
So profiling is a little more complex than we might think. It involves dress, behavior, and other factors, but shouldn’t be the basis for shooting someone.
When Self Defense Is Justified
So when is shooting in self-defense permissible? Obviously talking a life should be a last resort. Let me give an example of a case in which shooting a perpetrator is justified in my opinion.
A month or two ago, I saw on the news the story of a young mother who heard men outside her house. She was alone with her kids, and it was obvious these guys were trying to break in. She called 911, and then got her shotgun ready. Before the police got there, the men broke into her house. She confronted them with shotgun in hand, but they didn’t leave. So she opened fire, killing one or two of them as I recall.
Compare that to the case in Florida where the boy was outside, walking briskly through the neighborhood, and was minding his own business. To me, Zimmerman was not at all being threatened nor was there any clear and present danger like the young mother. I believe self defense is justified when somebody breaks into your house, tries to hijack your vehicle with you in it, or tries to mug you on the street, and they don’t flee when you threaten them with a weapon.
I believe the Constitution gives citizens the right to bear arms for at least three reasons:
(1) First, to be able to rise up in armed rebellion against an oppressive government, similar to the way the colonies did against England.
(2) For self defense when your life is in danger.
(3) For hunting animals for food.
Should Zimmerman Be Arrested?
I believe he should have been arrested because he went well beyond the limitations of Florida’s Stand Your Ground law. I’m glad the local police chief resigned, because his reluctance to arrest Zimmerman and let the judicial system do its thing just fanned the fires of anger, especially in the black community. It is the Grand Jury’s job to determine if this case should be prosecuted, not the police chief’s.
This incident (and a number of others) also points out that we still have a long way to go with respect to racial relations, and I’m talking about both sides. As Bill Cosby has repeatedly pointed out, the African-American community has to take responsibility for cleaning up its act. The white community has to stop stereotyping and practicing other forms of bias.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Faith vs. Religion
You may wonder what I mean by “Faith vs. Religion” in the title of this post. Aren’t they the same thing, sort of? Not necessarily. A religion is usually made up of a set of institutionalized religious practices and observances, rules of conduct and entrenched traditions. In a religion, some kind of faith is involved, but often that faith is placed on the effectiveness of religious practices, rules, observances, and traditions in appeasing or finding favor with a deity.
Christianity is a religion, of course, but more importantly it is a relationship with God based on our faith in a Savior. Because we have a Savior, we believe we don’t have to earn our way into God’s favor by scrupulously following religious observances, keeping traditions, and doing other works. We believe God reconciled us to himself through Jesus, and our response is to love God, keep his commandments, love our neighbor, do good works, and serve and worship God. Any worship or religious practices Christians do should be the result of that love, not to gain favor with God.
The Apostle Paul, addressed faith vs. works-based religion in Ephesians 2:8-9:
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — not by works, so that no one can boast. NIV
In that important passage Paul explains that we don’t earn the right to be in relationship with God through any works we do, so we can’t boast about it. It is given to us only by God’s grace (unmerited favor) when we place our trust in Jesus, whom we believe is the way, the truth and the life.
Sadly, there are Christian leaders who add rules, regulations and “necessary” observances to God’s Word, laying burdens on believers. When pastors or churches do that, they are changing Christianity from a faith-based relationship with God (sola fide) to a works-based religion. Christians should think about whether our traditions and religious observances have more importance to us than our relationship with God.
So I believe true Christian religion must uphold God’s truth and not man’s ideas of what is necessary for salvation. True Christian religion is about trusting God, and being in relationship with him. Religious practices have their place, and worship is especially important. But for Christians, the motivation behind any religious practices or good works must be to honor God, and not on any self-sufficiency we think we have.
I believe God is more interested in us living out our faith than what our religious practices are. We read in Proverbs 21:3: To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice. Hosea 6:6 says something similar: For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.
The Bible teaches that God loves all of us, but we must respond to God’s love by placing our faith in him, and then living out our faith. Most importantly, we must be in relationship with God, and that love bond is our motivation to worship and be obedient to God’s call to serve. As we continue through Lent, we Christians should ask the Lord to increase our faith, reveal where we need to change, and what God would have us to do for his Kingdom.
Christianity is a religion, of course, but more importantly it is a relationship with God based on our faith in a Savior. Because we have a Savior, we believe we don’t have to earn our way into God’s favor by scrupulously following religious observances, keeping traditions, and doing other works. We believe God reconciled us to himself through Jesus, and our response is to love God, keep his commandments, love our neighbor, do good works, and serve and worship God. Any worship or religious practices Christians do should be the result of that love, not to gain favor with God.
The Apostle Paul, addressed faith vs. works-based religion in Ephesians 2:8-9:
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — not by works, so that no one can boast. NIV
In that important passage Paul explains that we don’t earn the right to be in relationship with God through any works we do, so we can’t boast about it. It is given to us only by God’s grace (unmerited favor) when we place our trust in Jesus, whom we believe is the way, the truth and the life.
Sadly, there are Christian leaders who add rules, regulations and “necessary” observances to God’s Word, laying burdens on believers. When pastors or churches do that, they are changing Christianity from a faith-based relationship with God (sola fide) to a works-based religion. Christians should think about whether our traditions and religious observances have more importance to us than our relationship with God.
So I believe true Christian religion must uphold God’s truth and not man’s ideas of what is necessary for salvation. True Christian religion is about trusting God, and being in relationship with him. Religious practices have their place, and worship is especially important. But for Christians, the motivation behind any religious practices or good works must be to honor God, and not on any self-sufficiency we think we have.
I believe God is more interested in us living out our faith than what our religious practices are. We read in Proverbs 21:3: To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice. Hosea 6:6 says something similar: For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.
The Bible teaches that God loves all of us, but we must respond to God’s love by placing our faith in him, and then living out our faith. Most importantly, we must be in relationship with God, and that love bond is our motivation to worship and be obedient to God’s call to serve. As we continue through Lent, we Christians should ask the Lord to increase our faith, reveal where we need to change, and what God would have us to do for his Kingdom.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
PC or JC?
Can you be PC and still follow JC? In other words, can you be politically correct and still be a follower of Christ? I think it is difficult, because in my opinion political correctness is pretty much anti-Christian and anti-faith.
PC seems to target any expressions of Christian faith. Seeing a cross, crèche, or some other religious symbol “offends” some people and PC demands that the offensive items be removed from public display. PC preaches diversity and inclusiveness, but only as the PC mavens define them. Diversity and inclusiveness work only for those groups which are politically correct, and everybody else is excluded.
To give you an example of the PC double-standard, let’s take a look at the recent flap over Rush Limbaugh’s recent on-air rant. What he said was rude, crude, and socially unacceptable. Although he was exercising his constitutional right of free speech, he could have made his point in a more dignified manner. The media and various PC types criticized him for days on the cable news networks.
Yet Bill Maher says sexist things against women, and says all kinds of other offensive things, but you rarely hear a peep out of the media. Why? Maher is a liberal, and much of his offensive talk is against Christians and people of faith. Because he is a liberal and targets Christians, he is ipso facto politically correct and gets a free pass.
Can you be PC and still follow JC? I think not, although sadly many mainline Protestant clergy are try to do just that. In my denomination, we have people at our annual conference who monitor all speakers and count the number of times they use the masculine pronoun when referring to God. In seminary you get points taken off your papers if you use the masculine pronoun. That’s how ridiculous it’s gotten.
It’s interesting to note that these same PC mainline churches area losing members. I wonder why? I suspect it’s because they are conforming to the world, and being politically correct is more important to them than being biblically correct. They waste time on silly PC things rather than doing what churches are supposed to do: make disciples.
Political correctness has such a grip on the media, academia, government, and even some churches that I don’t know how we are going to get free of the “thought police.” We need to pray for our country, that true free speech, freedom of religious expression, and freedom of opinion will once again be allowed.
PC seems to target any expressions of Christian faith. Seeing a cross, crèche, or some other religious symbol “offends” some people and PC demands that the offensive items be removed from public display. PC preaches diversity and inclusiveness, but only as the PC mavens define them. Diversity and inclusiveness work only for those groups which are politically correct, and everybody else is excluded.
To give you an example of the PC double-standard, let’s take a look at the recent flap over Rush Limbaugh’s recent on-air rant. What he said was rude, crude, and socially unacceptable. Although he was exercising his constitutional right of free speech, he could have made his point in a more dignified manner. The media and various PC types criticized him for days on the cable news networks.
Yet Bill Maher says sexist things against women, and says all kinds of other offensive things, but you rarely hear a peep out of the media. Why? Maher is a liberal, and much of his offensive talk is against Christians and people of faith. Because he is a liberal and targets Christians, he is ipso facto politically correct and gets a free pass.
Can you be PC and still follow JC? I think not, although sadly many mainline Protestant clergy are try to do just that. In my denomination, we have people at our annual conference who monitor all speakers and count the number of times they use the masculine pronoun when referring to God. In seminary you get points taken off your papers if you use the masculine pronoun. That’s how ridiculous it’s gotten.
It’s interesting to note that these same PC mainline churches area losing members. I wonder why? I suspect it’s because they are conforming to the world, and being politically correct is more important to them than being biblically correct. They waste time on silly PC things rather than doing what churches are supposed to do: make disciples.
Political correctness has such a grip on the media, academia, government, and even some churches that I don’t know how we are going to get free of the “thought police.” We need to pray for our country, that true free speech, freedom of religious expression, and freedom of opinion will once again be allowed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
