I Made a Decision about Worship Today

Be prepared: this post may tend to ramble more than usual.

Since I was born (probably) until I moved away from home at age almost 25, I attended a Church of the Nazarene congregation with my mother. My father rarely went, usually only on Easter and maybe at the end of Vacation Bible School. But that isn’t what my decision is about.

The Church of the Nazarene is a small denomination, and from what I understand it is in the Wesleyan tradition, descended from the Methodists, although I really don’t know what Methodists are all about. I have attended a few Southern Baptist services, and they were very similar to the Nazarene services of my youth.

However, from the 5th grade (age 10) on, I attended a private school associated with the Church of Christ. This group has as its core teaching that the Bible, and specifically the New Testament, reveals all we need to know and should pay attention to regarding Christianity, including the pattern of worship services and church organization. In fact, anything that is not mentioned as being part of Christian worship in the New Testament is not done in any congregation of the Church of Christ. All this I learned while attending school and the daily chapel services.

While doing a crossword puzzle today at lunchtime, I came across a clue regarding a person associated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS, the Mormons). I looked it up on Wikipedia (because it really is pretty good at lists of things), and that led me to reading about an offshoot of the LDS–apparently a single congregation in Hannibal, MO–that calls itself the Church of Christ. That led me to look at the disambiguation page for “Church of Christ”, and to read a bit about the one I was familiar with.

I apologize for all the parentheticals in the following paragraph. I did warn you.

I learned that this group had its origin in the so-called “Restoration Movement” in 19th century America. I already knew that it had previously split into the Church of Christ I knew–which does not allow anything in a service that is not mentioned in the New Testament, including musical instruments–and the Christian Church (whose congregations may sometimes be called Independent Christian Churches)–which takes the position that any worship practice not specifically forbidden in the New Testament should not be forbidden in congregations. Therefore, musical instruments are allowed, but someone who shares the core beliefs of the Christian Church (and the Church of Christ, theologically speaking) could start a new congregation that did not use musical instruments, or that offered a choice between full-strength and watered-down wine, because it was the custom in the 1st century to mix water and wine for a meal.

All this led me to consider my own beliefs, including my political philosophy. I tend to be rather libertarian politically, and believe that if one’s actions do not harm other people, the government has no business punishing those actions. Of course, harm is not restricted to the physical or the immediate, but that is a different discussion and I need to give it more thought.

Similarly, I believe what the Church of Christ members taught me, that as Christians we are free to do anything, but we are required to do what is motivated out of love for others, to help bring them to, or strengthen them in, Christ. Therefore, thanks to my Church of Christ education, I have decided that when I start attending church regularly again, I shall attend a Christian Church congregation.

I welcome your thoughtful comments and discussion.

World Cup: It’s Gonna Gitcha!

World Cup Fever–Catch It!

World Cup Fever has gripped Teh Twitterz, and it’s an epidemic. While some are delirious with excitement over the countries they love, hate, or love to hate, others are suffering the malaise of being bombarded with information they just couldn’t care less about. Even more than usual.

And while some client applications give users the ability to “mute” or filter out tweets containing certain hashtags, there are almost as many hashtags for the tournament as there are fans. Not only that, but many times people get so excited, they forget to use any tags at all! In short, if one wanted to bury his head in the sand (yes, I still use the ancient convention of male pronouns for unknown-sex individuals) and not see any tweets related to the FIFA World Cup, he would need to avoid Twitter entirely until it’s over.

The disdain some have for the game has led to some amusing tweets, though. For instance:

Today in the world's most popular sport, Iran and Nigeria played to a 0-0 tie. People ACTUALLY take off work for this snooze fest of a game.
— Dan Joseph (@DanJoseph78) June 16, 2014

Or this:

This —> @irishspy: @wayward_okie It would be much more exciting if random balls contained plastic explosives.
— ●|||||||● SUSAN (@wayward_okie) June 18, 2014

Your humble blogger is content to watch the happenings of the tournament via Twitter, and listen to the guys a couple cubes over as they talk about their streams and why one is nearly a full minute behind the other. What’s up with that, ESPN?

Go Team USA! (I guess. sigh)

Don’t Talk About That!

I am so tired of hearing that.

Different people care about different things. That’s part of what makes us, well, different.

You may not care that young Barry Soetoro ate dog meat, but his campaign is attacking Mitt Romney for transporting the family dog in a protected carrier on the roof of a crowded car.

You may not care what Obama’s position on same-sex marriage is.

You may not care about an alleged attempted bribe of someone who was perceived as capable of harming a Presidential campaign 4 or 5 years ago.

But some people do.

In fact, some of those people may not even be hurting badly because of the economy. They may be wondering why all you rugged individualists are whining about lost jobs, rather than going out and making your own job. (I expect that you are.)

My point is that if the left wins by creating distractions and playing up picayunish “sins” of their opponents, then it’s obvious that people respond to that nonsense. Maybe it wouldn’t be so bad for the right to engage in a little of it. Or a lot.

That’s why I will not be telling people, “Don’t talk about that.”

Viewing the Brain the Right Way

Cross-posted from The Landmark Report (see link in previous post).

On Thursday, the online specialist journal Current Biology published a study that indicates the brains of Big Government proponents ("lefties") and the brains of Limited Government proponents ("righties") are actually physiologically different. Most of the other pieces I've found about this study are either re-postings of the pretty neutral Agence France Presse article, or lefties' trumpeting it as proof that righties are irrationally fearful and agressive. This article will attempt to present the right perspective.

The study's authors cautioned that it did not show a causal relationship. They don't know whether the affected areas were larger, and therefore cause lefty or righty behavior, or whether environment encouraged certain behavior, causing growth in those areas. Keep that in mind.

The stories state that lefties tend to show more mass in an area of the brain that "monitors uncertainty and conflict." The study says this means it is "conceivable" that lefties "have a higher capacity to tolerate uncertainty and conflicts…." Well, duh. The lefty universe is a mass of conflict. I often hear and read fellow righties wonder how lefties can possibly reconcile all the conflicting, seemingly hypocritical positions they claim to support. I've done it myself. This study seems to indicate how that is possible. Lefties may recognize that there is conflict, but they don't mind.

Tolerating uncertainty can be seen in the recent "budget battle", and the fact that the Democrat-controlled Congress refused to draft, let alone pass, a budget for FY 2011. What can be more uncertain than a whole nation not knowing whether its federal bureaucracies will be funded to continue intruding on our lives?

The righties in the study show more mass in an area of the brain that "processes emotions related to fear." This leads to righties' being "more sensitive to disgust" and "more sensitive to threatening facial expressions." Those who lean right also tend to "respond to threatening situations with more aggression". This explains a whole laundry list of things.

The lefties are interpreting the first statement to mean that righties are driven by fear. Just the opposite is true. Righties have greater capacity to process fear and related emotions, and come up with a rational solution to counter the perceived threat. Also, righties will be less hesitant to implement such a solution or respond with aggression. I submit that since lefties have lesser capacity in this area, they are the ones who are more subject to acting irrationally out of fear.

It also offers insight into why certain wealthy families produce left-leaning progeny. After all, if a family is wealthy enough, they can hire bodyguards, accountants, and attorneys to handle their responses to threats for them. It helps explain the arguments surrounding ownership and use of firearms. It sheds light on the current administration's promotion of outreach and apology to those who would see us dead. The sensitivity to disgust manifests itself in righties' vs. lefties' reactions to political corruption and sex scandals.

One last point is that if, in fact, it is a habit of behavior that causes growth in the relevant brain region, it explains why Marxism was not developed until the Industrial Age. Up until that time, people were too busy doing the things it took to live. With industrialization came more and greater labor-saving devices, and more time devoted to leisure, as well as greater political stability and fewer attacks to fend off, at least in Europe and North America. This gave people the time to embrace less focused, more conflicting ideas. It opened our minds to the manipulation of those who would wield power over us.

DOMA: My 2¢ Worth

Edited and reposted from my Posterous, since people still seem to be getting it wrong.

I firmly believe that a homosexual relationship should not be called "marriage". It may be a commitment; it may last longer than many heterosexual marriages. I may yet be convinced otherwise. But for now, I wish to stick with tradition.

Nevertheless, I firmly believe that the definition of "marriage" is beyond the power of the US Congress. As of this writing, as it has been for decades (if not centuries), the individual States issue marriage licenses. The counties record marriages, but the State sets the criteria for licensing. My true belief is that civil government really has no business in marriage at all, but that's the way it is now--tradition.

It is ultimately up to each individual to decide whether they agree with one or another definition. Having made that decision, they can then decide to live in a State whose definition they agree with. So if, say, Vermont wants to define a woman-woman-dog relationship as a marriage, the people who want to take advantage of that definition (and their dogs) can move to Vermont.

In short, I believe the DOMA is unconstitutional, even if I agree with its intent. Therefore, I agree with the decision for the US DOJ to stop defending it against Constitutional challenges.

A Patriot by Any Name Should Still be Free

I grow increasingly disturbed by discussion regarding "conservative" and "libertarian" as two different things. I see them as the same thing. We want maximum freedom for the individual, and the most limited government that can protect us and our freedom.

The distinction I see is between the secular libertarians (SL), who say, "I should be allowed to do whatever I want, as long as I don't hurt anyone else", and the (for want of a better word) god-fearing libertarians (GL), who say, "I should be allowed to do whatever I want, and I want to never do anything that God would not want me to do." I was taught that God's direction for us is to have as our main motivation our love for him, and by extension for all other people.

Let's look at marijuana as an example. The SL says it is not wrong to use marijuana, even habitually, if it hurts no other people. The GL says that it does indeed hurt other people. If the user is married or has children, the spouse and children may not be getting the best from the user. Even if the user is unmarried, the effects of that use may hurt his parents or siblings, or in extreme cases the rest of society. In these cases, the motivation is clearly not love for others. Therefore, both the SL and the GL would argue against government proscription of marijuana use, but the GL would promote self-directed abstinence.

Of course, the same goes for alcohol, or video games, or involvement in social media, or any behavior that can become addictive.

Collectivists Live by Projection

I've touched on this idea in this space before. Here now are a couple of short posts I sent to Posterous, combined into one place for linking purposes.

---

Collectivists live by projection.

If they are violent, they accuse Constitutionalists of violence. If they are racist, they accuse me of racism. If they want to shut down free speech, they accuse me of wanting to shut them up. (I want them to say exactly what they believe.)

If they are blindly following some Marxist leader, like George Soros, John Podesta, or Andy Stern, they accuse me of having no intelligence of my own and blindly following someone like Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbaugh. On the contrary: O'Reilly is not conservative enough for me; Rush and Glenn simply echo my beliefs. Sometimes, even they do not go far enough. (See my post with my "precinct card.")

I believe in the Constitution, and I will oppose you even if I don't hear one national voice with my viewpoint! In fact, if the current few voices are silenced, you will hear the voice of MILLIONS against you!

---

(Part 2)

As I write this, Rush Limbaugh is finishing up his coverage of the story of a woman with cancer who was on Medicaid, scheduled for a transplant. The Social Security Administration contacted her, offering disability benefits for her 3-year-old son. She accepted, and the disability payments caused her to be ineligible for Medicaid. They've canceled her coverage, and the hospital will not do the transplant because of liability issues.

Earlier this morning Fox News featured a short bit about effective tax rates going up in 2011, including a mention of the Death Tax phase-out (so that the estate tax rate is 0 this year) expiring at the end of the year. Estates of decedents who die in 2011 could face a tax rate of 55%--that is, the State Bureaucratic Apparatus will take OVER HALF of what someone has EARNED during his or her LIFETIME. That is on top of whatever taxes were paid on that money when it was earned.

All this reminds me of Alan Grayson's placard presentation, claiming the Republicans want you to die quickly. It's obvious that it is in fact the COLLECTIVISTS who want that. In effect they're saying, if you're going to die in the next couple of years, and you want to preserve your estate, you had better die in 2010--in a word, quickly. If you have a chance to get a transplant to extend your life a bit, but you're going to be on public assistance for the rest of your life, anyway, we'd rather you don't get the transplant, and die quickly.

When a collectivist accuses a conservative of something odious and despicable, it's nearly always projection.

To Those Who Insist on Compromise

No!

The first memories I have of being told that compromise is the best way to get things done are from Sesame Street. The children's "educational" program. On public television. Run by progressives, I must assume.

Compromise is the best way for progressives to get bits of their agenda done. That's why they push it so much.

Now is not the time for compromise. Now is the time to stand up for what we believe; to defeat the progressive agenda; not to allow "a little bit more"; to insist on doing what's right.

How Did Fox Miss This?

From the World Wide Words newsletter, a "Sic!" item:

CNN's Political Ticker reported on 28 November 2009 about a basketball
game that President Obama attended in support of his brother-in-law
Craig Robinson: "Robinson, who coaches the Oregon State Beavers,
was cheered on by the President, who snacked on popcorn, the First
Lady, Sasha, Malia and the girls' grandmother Marian Robinson."
Thanks to Joel Gardner for that unsettling image.

With an appetite like that, one wonders how he stays so thin

The Test of Tolerance

The following quote was tweeted by a fine educator:

“The test of courage comes when we are in the minority. The test of tolerance comes when we are in the majority.”--Ralph W. Sockman

If conservatives are indeed in the minority, as the collectivists claim, the majority's "test of tolerance" has been failed time and time again.

Intolerance of George W. Bush. Intolerance of Dick Cheney. Intolerance of Rush Limbaugh. Intolerance of Carrie Prejean. The list goes on.

A correspondent tells me of a recent election where he/she, upon leaving the polling place, picked up a pamphlet from a table staffed by Republicans. There was, of course, a Democrat-staffed table there as well. Two of the Democrats accosted him/her, demanding that they be given equal time. They could not tolerate someone who had his/her mind made up, that did not agree with them.

Collectivists and statists realize that when given a choice, and an opportunity to think, most people reject their views. They know that they will never be able to control the masses if any other opinion exists. That is why they cannot tolerate the individualists' opinions, and will do everything they can to heap ridicule upon us.

I do not actually believe that conservatives are the minority. I believe that individualism and self-reliance are part of human nature, just as is the willingness to work to make one's own life, and the lives of his children, better. I thank God that I was born in a time and place where we can do just that, and I will do everything I can to preserve that for myself and the next generation. That is my test of courage.