Chicago Tribune Says Having Kids Causes Global Warming

This article made my jaw drop.

I really appreciated this response at GetReligion.org.  There are some pretty good comments after the article as well.

Religion, Stereotyping and Sin

I was reading the Chicago Tribune online today and read an article about a man who killed his pregnant daughter, son-in-law and grandson by burning down their apartment. He said he did this because his daughter married without his blessing. Besides killing his daughter and her family, he also put several other families out on the streets as the whole building was destroyed. The family is one of Indian immigrants.

I clicked on the discussion board to see what people were saying about this tragedy. I was appalled at the racial prejudice and stereotyping that I read. The people who commented on this tragedy had lots to say about the religion of the man who committed these murders. They had lots to say about immigration. They contended that people of Hindu and Muslim background should not be allowed into America.

Now you listen to me.

The fact that the perpetrator of murder in this story was a Hindu is besides the point. Murder is not a Hindu problem or a Muslim problem. It is not even a Caucasian problem. Murder is a sin problem.

Sin leads to rebellion against God and against his absolute moral law. Murder has been in existence in this world since the Cain murdered his brother Abel. It didn’t take long for murder to enter the human heart and will; it came to pass with the second generation of humanity.

Murder is usually seen as the measure of evil, and “Well, at least I’ve never killed anyone” has become the justification of many to say that they deserve to go to heaven (regardless of their real relationship to God). Jesus said that if you hate somebody you have already committed murder in your heart.

Sin is the root of evil and suffering.

The only way to escape the sinful human nature is to be born again by giving over your life to God and receiving Christ as Savior. Because of the work of Christ, we can be free from the reign of these things in our lives.

Public School Book Banning

Today in the Chicago Tribune there was an article about what constitutes appropriate literature in the public school system. Parents of Kinzie Elementary School students were protesting the inclusion of the book The Chocolate Wars as mandatory reading for the seventh grade. Their argument is that the book is filled with profanity, sexual themes and bad morals, and therefore is bad reading for their kids.

The defense of the school board is that the book talks about relevant themes that the kids are going to face, and therefore they have no problem with it. I think what bothered me more though was that on the message board almost everybody was saying, “They’re going to learn about that stuff sooner or later, if they don’t know about it already,” and “They already watch garbage on TV so why not read this book?”

Listen.

First of all, just because somebody is bound to learn about gang violence and sex “sooner or later” doesn’t mean that they should be reading about it in the seventh grade.

Secondly, it’s setting our kids up for failure if we think that it’s okay for them to experience these things as part of everyday growing up. Solving your problems with violence is not healthy. And despite popular believe, neither is sex outside of marriage.

Thirdly, the question of what our kids are watching on TV does not have relevance to what is okay for them to be reading in the classroom.

But ultimately what it boils down to is what is okay for a seventh grader to read? What is good classroom reading, and what is unacceptable?

To get to the bottom of this issue, I looked up the school’s vision and mission statements. They read that their goal is to teach kids to be responsible and contributing members of society.

Now let’s take a look at what the book is about. A school is infested with gang violence while the teachers stand by and watch; kids discuss adult themes; kids resort to violence to solve their problems; the only moral character in the book is portrayed as a weakling; ultimately the main character cops out and decides it’s not worth standing up for what he believes in.

With this in mind, does this book line up with the school’s mission and vision statements?

No it does not.

Should it be read in the school?

No it should not.

Happy Constitution Day: Separation of Church and State

Today (September 17, 2007) is Constitution Day. On this day in 1787, the Constitution of the United States of America was signed. Today battles are raging between people over the constitutionality of religious freedoms and liberties.

Now you listen to me.

The First Amendment reads as such:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Maybe it is just that I am reading this through Canadian eyes, but doesn’t this say that the government has no right to make laws regarding people’s religious practices?

And if so, then why are people bickering about having a cross placed on a hill and stuff like that, as if the government has any authority to restrict someone’s religious expression by placing it there?

Reading this amendment, the first in the United States Bill of Rights, I see that it is saying that the government cannot make a law about religion at all, whether it be to establish a state religion or restricting someone from religious expression in any way.

If this is true, then no judge can tell anyone that they are not allowed to speak about religious things in school, or in the workplace, on public streets or anywhere else. This would be in violation of the First Amendment because they will be making a law regarding religion.

Case in point: Some whom I will leave unnamed recently went downtown to preach the gospel. He was told by security guards that he was not allowed to preach on government property, even though it was outside in a public square. He was told he was only allowed to preach on the sidewalk. This is restricting the right to free speech. If the government is not allowed to make laws regarding religion, they cannot tell this man that he cannot preach in a certain place, government property or not.

According to the First Amendment, the government has no right whatsoever to restrict religious expression in any way. They simply have no say. Separation of church and state is a myth. People are taking something Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter over the very wording of the Constitution of the United States of America.

When will it end?

Responsibility

Mary Winkler is out of jail. That irks me. It’s not even the fact that she killed her preacher husband that bothers me so much as she gave every excuse in the book why she was justified in doing it. And she only served 67 days.

Listen.

This country has a serious problem with accepting responsibility. This is a textbook case.

Mary Winkler claims that her husband was abusive and overcritical. According to those who knew the couple, there were no visible signs of anything wrong (but this doesn’t necessarily mean that nothing was going on behind closed doors). Still the claim stands. So Winkler says that one day she snapped. She took a shotgun and pointed it at her husband, claiming that she only wanted to talk to him. She denies any premeditation. As if you really point a gun at someone just to get them to talk to you. She also denied pulling the trigger.

She claimed that the gun went off accidentally (so it wasn’t her fault). She claimed that she was under stress from a variety of things involving her husband and alleged psychological abuse and financial troubles (so it wasn’t her fault). In the end she was found guilty, not of first-degree murder, but voluntary manslaughter. She was sentenced to 210 days, and with time already served awaiting trial, the balance was 67 days spent in custody after her conviction. This time was spent not in prison but in a mental hospital.

It baffles me that someone can kill a person and get off so easily, as if you’re ever justified in taking a life. There may or may not have been abuse in the home, but there are options other than murder. The sheer excuse-making to justify the act is ridiculous.

It’s about time people start fessing up and taking responsibility for their actions. Don’t make excuses about it. Don’t justify it, as if you had a good reason to do something immoral, so you are the exception to the rule that the act was in fact wrong.

Grow up.