Equilibrium

Say I’m in a class and the assignment is to watch the awful movie Equilibrium* and then give an oral report on it. I goof off and only have time to watch the first 5 minutes of it until I have to leave for my class. I stand up in front of the class and summarize the movie by saying “Equilibrium is about how emotions are bad and everyone needs to stop having them.”

*Equilibrium is an awful movie set in the distant future, in which the government has outlawed all emotional response. The main character begins to deal with recurring emotions and ends up fighting the government to stop outlawing emotions…that’s the whole thing.

I feel like it’s becoming increasingly popular for post-grad, Seattleite, Philoso-hipsters to use that same logic in “combating” modern religion, specifically Christianity.

Today I read a tweet from one such writer that said, “I am no more interested in being governed by Leviticus than I am by Sharia.” My first thought was, “Geez, neither am I…”

Now, apart from the fact that these two guides differ greatly, It looks like he thinks that modern Christians are governed by the laws in Leviticus. Laws written specifically by Jews, for Jews of the time period.

I offered a reply, stating that even Jesus didn’t abide all the laws in Leviticus, i.e.: not condemning the prostitute, healing people on the Sabbath, etc., to which I got no reply.

I’m not trying to start a fight with atheists or agnostics here. I just think that using old testament Jewish law as a first line of attack on religion is a lot like watching the first 5 minutes of a movie, and then doing a report on it.

When God gives …

When God gives you a vision, or a goal that excites you, it’s unreasonable to expect everyone that you share it with to immediately match your level of excitement or enthusiasm.

I think that this can be a problem in some ministries and can frustrate or dishearten the person/people with the original vision or goal.

I’m learning that my faithfulness to God’s plan should not be dependent or even impacted based on how excited or enthusiastic I perceive other people to be. And more importantly, I shouldn’t doubt the dedication of other people to that goal, based on their level of enthusiasm in comparison to mine.

I’m responsible for the way I react to the goal God has given me, not for the way other people react to the goal God has given me.

Radiohead – Weird Fishes

Bob Burt

I’m extremely excited.

For those that know of Pensacola as a storehouse of world class musicians and instrument builders, it’s no surprise to hear the name Bob Burt. Beautiful amp and speaker cabinets, and phenomenal pedals are synonymous with his name. A few clicks through his website and any player would agree, his cabinets are truly works of art. Reminiscent of Fuchs, Pre-CBS Fender, Trainwreck, Trillium, and Andrew Marshall’s THD, these head and speaker cabinets are not only visual works of art, but are also backed by the knowledge of a seasoned discerning musician.

I haven’t even met the guy yet. I’ve played through his pedals and cabinets at Pensacola’s local vintage shop, Blues Angel Music, and every time I do, I’m amazed that this kind of talent resides in our small town. Bob, like John Langraff and Rick Hayes, has found a unique niche by building superior products for serious musicians while retaining full ownership and product integrity by doing everything themselves.

Needless to say, I’m extremely excited to meet and learn from Bob. In the coming weeks, I’ll write a follow up about my experience. In the mean time, check out his website and note the versatility in his designs. I’m incredibly grateful and can’t wait for the opportunity to meet him!

Bob’s Website

An issue

Ok, I understand that Rick Perry is no longer in any way a legitimate candidate, if he even ever was. But that doesn’t seem to stop people from ruminating over that campaign suicide he called a political ad. In all honesty, I have no credibility as a political analyst, but it doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to realize that anyone who thought they had a legitimate chance for the presidency would never say anything like what he said in his ad.

“I’m not ashamed to admit that I’m a Christian, but you don’t need to be in a pew every Sunday to know there’s something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school. As President, I’ll end Obama’s war on religion. And I’ll fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage. Faith made America strong. It can make her strong again.”

I mean, lets be honest, aside from Tap Out wearing Jar-heads, who cares about sexual preference in regard to military service? I would be willing to bet that there is a large portion of heterosexual men in the military that, when it comes to the bedroom, have some “unique” preferences that would be just as disgusting to some Christians as homosexuality.

Consider the fact that it’s certainly not untrue that a large portion of Americans do not hold out to have sex until marriage. So if “every sin is the same to God,” why are the Right not fighting for celibacy in the armed forces?

It comes down to the fact that it’s not because it’s wrong, it’s because it’s weird. Sexual preference has absolutely no bearing or influence on a persons ability to carry out responsibilities they signed up for in the military. Everyone receives the same training, and if you can’t cut it in combat, you get put somewhere else long before you have the opportunity to endanger another soldier’s life.

A friend said this: “Why on Earth, given the sacrifice involved w/ being in the military, would we want to limit who is allowed to serve based on gay/str8?”

Let me be clear, I’m not in any way advocating homosexuality. I believe, and the bible teaches, it’s a sin. But that doesn’t mean homosexuals shouldn’t have the same rights as heterosexuals. Not more rights, just equal rights. We don’t fight to restrain the rights and abilities of heterosexual sinners.

It’s a fact that if we, Christians and non-Christians, stopped debating the definition of words and started treating everyone the way we’d like to be treated, things would change for the better. You never saw Jesus fighting for equality. His message was, if nothing else, love. That doesn’t mean we don’t stand up for our beliefs, but it does mean that Christians should stop acting like children in time out, and start remembering that Jesus said the world would hate us. Repay hate with love and stop expecting the unsaved to act like the saved.

Our rights, as Christians, have not been infringed upon. Students can still pray in school and celebrate Christmas. Jesus didn’t say that the world would hate religion, He said the world would hate us, but to know that they hated Him first. When was the last time a legitimate Christian in the United States was legitimately persecuted for their beliefs?

And what if that happens? Not only does Jesus call those people blessed, but what did Paul say while sitting in a jail cell?

“I’ve learned the secret to being content in any and every situation…Whatever I have, wherever I am, I can make it through anything in the One who makes me who I am.”

I don’t remember the part when Paul picketed, or lobbied for political position or put faith in a candidate or got upset because lost people acted lost.

Great Advice

I received an email today, at work, that was titled: Some Belated Parental Advice to Protesters.

Among the semi-legitimate, stereotypical, “Solid-American-Citizen” rhetoric, were a few statements that were not only insulting to anyone that isn’t a cookie-cutter republican, but that were also downright untrue.

The 5 points that the email, from Marybeth Hicks (who’s Google homepage preview summarizes, verbatim, “In shocking detail and with investigative zeal, Marybeth Hicks exposes the Left’s cradle-to-grave campaign to undermine…) were these: Life isn’t fair (insert Mick Jagger lyric, literally), Nothing is free, Your word is your bond, A protest is not a party, and finally, There are reasons you haven’t found jobs.

It’s “columns” like these that, once circulated, not only alienate co-workers that don’t share the same “don’t rock the boat” views as their senders, but also perpetuate a stereotype that all republicans are incapable of legitimate research.

The following is taken directly from Hicks’ column, and is how she chose to end her parental advice to protesters:

“There are reasons you haven’t found jobs. The truth? Your tattooed necks, gouged ears, facial piercings and dirty dreadlocks are off-putting. Nonconformity for the sake of nonconformity is NOT a virtue.
Occupy reality: Only 4 percent of college graduates are out of work. If you are among that 4 percent, find a mirror and face the problem. It’s not them. It’s you.”

Seriously?

It seems like if she would have read a single legitimate interview, she’d know these people have jobs, and the majority of them don’t fit her description.

This is the uber-conservative mindset in a nutshell. “Nothing is wrong, get a shave and a haircut.”

While it’s true that some of the protesters are morons, and a lot of them are missing the goal of the whole movement, you can’t lump them all together as tattooed, pierced, jobless college drop-outs.

That’s like saying all Tea Partiers are steak eating, NRA card carrying, Baptist preacher/oil tycoons.

It’s just not true.

There is plenty of legitimacy in the desired effect of both the Occupy movement, and the Tea Party. But the Left doesn’t like their laundry aired out and the Right doesn’t like anyone touching their money. So it’s easy for the Left media to call Tea Partiers “greedy republicans” and for the Right to say to the protesters “It’s not them, it’s you.”

I try not to read partisan garbage like Hicks’ column, but it was send to me at work. This kind of publication is directly responsible for a majority of the partisan division in our country. I would wager that just as many Republican voters were hit hard by the financial crisis as Democratic voters.

Free Speech?

I read these tweets and reports of people claiming that SC Justice Michael Stallman’s ruling to essentially evict Occupy protesters is a “blatant violation of the 1st Amendment.”

It seems like if the vocal majority of Occupy supporters read the constitution, they might not feel as bad. Yes, the People have the right to peaceably assemble, but that right is by no means absolute. What I mean is, if I protest McDonald’s by picketing in a McDonald’s lobby, they have every right to have police evict me from that lobby.

The same rules that apply to our government may not apply to private persons, employers, establishments, etc… The fact that Zuccotti Park is a privately owned park and not a public one, should have send up a red flag in the mind of whoever decided to make that the Occupy home base.

As I’ve said before, I’m all for protesting grievances, but let’s be serious… You can’t call legitimate concern for a public’s well-being, infringement of rights.

We (sane public) saw the same thing happen in NOLA leading up to, and after Katrina. The local government enacted a voluntary evacuation two whole days before the storm made landfall. Mayor Nagin said, on air, that the damage would be catastrophic and that, “the storm surge most likely will topple our levee system.” One day before landfall, they ordered a mandatory evacuation, and while an estimated 1 million residents obeyed, 100,000 did not. I’m not referring to the elderly or the financially unable. Should the government bear responsibility for the ill-designed levee? Absolutely. But the able-bodied people that stayed ignored a mandatory evacuation and many suffered.

Not only is sanitation non-existent in Zuccotti Park, but it’s not even a publicly owned area. How can it be infringement of rights if it’s a privately owned park?

As I’ve said before, I support the act of protest for reform, but legitimate request deserve legitimate preparation.

Protest Wall Street, sure, but don’t do it on private property. Peaceably assemble, great, but do it in a place the Constitution actually supports.

It’s “knee-jerk” decisions like these that give the media the ability to paint protesters in a bad light. As a friend recently pointed out, there are plenty of smart people out there, backing the protest. That is true, let them make the big decisions like “where should we stay, who can/should talk to the camera, why the heck are we here?”