Holy Fool

When the world trade center fell on 9/11 it happened in New York (lower Manhattan specifically); yet it was a symbolic attack on the entirety of our nation, on our way of life.  The whole nation was affected deeply.

The argument thrown out against the building of the Islamic center near (not right on) the world trade center site, is that it is ‘too close’ and will cause division and pain.

My thoughts are these:

If the 9/11 attacks were indeed an attack against not just these specific buildings or even New York City (and lower Manhattan) but an attack on the whole of America then how do we define too close?  There are some people in Idaho, or Ohio perhaps that were affected just as dramatically by the attack; what is to keep an Islamic center from being built in their neighborhood?  The answer is nothing, because we have a ‘civil’ not a religious government that can make no determination on building permits based on the religion of the inhabitants no matter where that is.  If it is permissible to build the center, the government can’t and shouldn’t stop it.

This type of ‘too close to home’ argument simply doesn’t hold water when you take into account the breadth of effect the attacks had on the nation.  To argue on one hand that the entirety of our nation needs take offense while arguing that this is a specific and local issue to the trade center area is incongruous and presents us with an inconsistency in their position.

Also, what is too close to home?  The building, or the inhabitants, or the inhabitant‘s religion?  There is nothing these particular Muslims had to do with the 9/11 attacks, and as Americans they are just as much victims of the attack as a white, Christian man in Kansas like myself.  There were over 50 Muslim victims (not terrorists) on 9/11, by what right do we deny their families access to a memorial space within their own tradition?  With what right do we deny them a building permit then, or pressure them to move?  The only answer is to ask the state and our culture as a whole to institutionalize religious discrimination against Muslims (which is wrong by the way).

What I find ultimately ironic is that the fringe conservatives are utilizing the same tactics as fringe liberals.

Example: Town A has a park.  Each year they put up a nativity set and a star at Christmas.  ACLU sues the city because some atheist or non-christian might be offended as they drive by the public space.

All of a sudden we have a whole lot of fringe conservatives that embrace political correctness like it is a three for one Glenn Beck book sale.  And not only are they embracing political correctness, it is a campaign against their holy grail of ‘private land ownership rights’.  They don’t want a private Islamic center built on private land because they might be offended?  They might as well just be saying, “we don’t mind if people get offended, as long as it’s not us.“  Give me a break!

There has sure been a lot of people all rankled over the fact that President Obama was honored with the Nobel Peace Prize. Usually the Nobel prize is given to a person after they have done something rather remarkable in their given field. This year, for instance, three men each shared the nobel prize in Physics for their achievements in the capture and transmission of light particles. The award wasn't given to them because of some future achievement, it was a reward for hard work. In contrast Obama hasn't even finished a single year of his presidency, his stratospheric demeanor of hope has been seemingly brought back down by the realities of two ongoing wars, a shaky economy, and a democratic congress that is more concerned with re-election in conservative states than in effecting a rash of progressively liberal legislation.

So the question then is, why in the world does he deserve a Nobel Prize? The answer is, he doesn't. But then neither do the physicists, chemists, doctors, and authors that receive one. They did not receive the prize because they deserved it, they received it because the academy which judges the potential recipient's showed grace. All of the men and woman involved are all very talented in some way, and would continue to be so even if they had not been awarded; however they were each chosen for whatever reasons to be highlighted with gift of the award. There is no way to apply for the award, to fill in a series of check boxes that prove your merit and ensure that you will get one. The Nobel prize's are as close as we can get in our human systems to reflecting the nature of grace.

Grace ticks people off, especially when we live in a legalistic mindset that is always judging our position relative to those around us. The minute someone receives grace, that we don't believe should, we react in that sinful way that is called envy. People are furious because Obama is clearly the recipient of grace, and in their minds grace is not free, it must be earned at a price. This is the kind of thinking that kept the pharisees ignorant of Jesus' words. They were envious of the grace that God was enacting through Jesus and his followers upon a people that did not 'deserve' it.

So, if this whole Obama/Peace Prize thing has you so riled up, just ask yourself what you are so mad about. Grace is by it's nature seemingly unfair to those outside of it's bounds. That's what makes God's grace so wonderful for those that have accepted it's gift, and seemingly so foolish for those that would rather try and earn their way into heaven via some kind of bell-curve grading process.

Posted via email from David's posterous

Just in case you haven't read the torrent of emails flooding your inbox.  President Obama plans to speak to YOUR children via a televized speech next Tuesday.  I mean, what in the world!  Just look at the picture above, would you allow this man to speak to your children?  I would personally prefer my children be left alone in a room full of ravenous chihuahua's and basted in the juices of left over spam cans....

Just who does this guy think he is?  The leader of the free world or something??!!

Just look at that picture... Free candy! He probably got it by taxing all of the middle class kids when they left the candy shop...  And who knows what kind of horrors await our children with this guy just rolling around our schools all willy-nilly.  Like he actually had any authority over our public education system or something....

"Hey everybody!  Get on board my free candy express!  Free candy for all the poor kids!!!"  I mean really, this is enough to make general Jack Ripper roll over in his grave... It's probably flouridated candy too.

This guy is a menace to society!  It can't be said enough....

It's time for us all to pack our bags and move to the Holy Land of Alaska....

I am pretty sure that if Jesus had to come today he would have been an Alaskan.  And when the Alaska breaks from the U.S. we can institute the Bible as the constitution, just as the founders of our country intended to do if it wasn't for those Frenchy lobbyists...

Be vigilant!  He's coming for your Children!!!!

(in case you missed the point, this has been a work of satire.)

HT: (Minneapolis Star Tribune)

The legislation, also known as the Matthew Shepard Act, would assist federal officials in their prosecution of hate crimes that target victims because of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, sexual identity or disability.

Yet some conservative religious groups, such as the Liberty Council and Traditional Values Coalition, have labeled the act as “dangerous legislation” that will threaten freedom of speech and freedom of religion – even though the legislation is clear that to be prosecuted under this law the hate crime must involve acts of violence. They go further in their claims stating that the act, if passed, will punish people for what they think.

That isn’t true. Criminals will be punished for committing acts of violence and the Justice Department will have more authority to do their jobs. Isn’t this common ground that all of us – no matter our political persuasion and religious beliefs – can share

Why should Christians complain when the political system they have been seeking to influence and control turns in a way that (in their perception) threatens them?  Is democracy only democracy when the Christians get to decide the rules?  Since when do we oppose the protection of the least of these?  When will we finally let go of desiring to bind and control the powers of this world and simply get busy following the command of Jesus to love one another as he has loved us?