I have always considered myself to be just another “Joe” on the street. Nothing special, nothing terrific, just an average Joe. I have always fought against this feeling of elitism that creeps in from time to time as I look around me and see how people live, what they do, and what they say. Not so much that I feel elitist, but that as differences appear, I fight the fear that I might become elitist. As much as I don’t want to admit it, education does bring about differences and distinctions between people. Often the distinctions make a huge difference in the institutions we find ourselves apart of and to which we are beholden. It can be embarrassing, and makes one wonder why certain people percolate to positions of influence and authority when they do nothing but cause derision or harm to their cause. Is it that they just yell more? Is it that they find people who are even less aware or rational or sensible then themselves, thus a following?
I fight an attitude of elitism. I know from where I came. I know that wisdom is born out of experience more than from education. Experience knows no boundaries between rich and poor, educated and uneducated. Wisdom is often found in what the prevailing culture believes to be most unlikely places. I know, perhaps because of my education, that I am not really just an “average Joe.” If I look at our population, those with undergraduate college degrees comprise around 30% of the population (depending on which statistic one considers valid). Those with graduate degrees comprise around 5%, and those with Ph.D.’s around 3% of the population. So, what does this mean?
comments? e-mail me

I wonder about the state of the Church. Of course, many have wondered about the state of the Church since the Church began. Nothing new, nothing different, but yet another person wondering why the Church shoots itself in the foot constantly. The Church, which is a broad and undistinguished term for all the people who belong to the institution, comprised of different sects and institutions. More accurately, I suppose, the Church, no matter what should be, is really the institutions made up of the leaders and those who yell the loudest and longest. I think most people just sit on the sidelines and get riled every now and then. The leaders run the institution, whether the Roman church or a Congregational church. Anyway, there you have it.
The Church is a fallible institution because it is made up of fallible people. An institution that is destined to fail in so many ways, yet through this institution God has chosen to make His appeal. Like the Hebrews of old (and even now), God chose a people to bless and to demonstrate to the world what it is to be a people under the hand of God. Wonderful. Nevertheless, the people always rebelled and could never find it within themselves to trust God. They new better. They wanted their own way, and God allowed it. They got what they asked for. Today, under the “New Covenant” of grace, the Church takes upon itself the position of being God’s representative. God chose this structure to make know what it is to live under His grace. But, like ancient Israel, we do not trust. We seem to think we know what is best for ourselves, and really for God, too. Perfection cannot be expected from the Church, even though many parts of the Church like to think they are in perfection. Self-righteousness has always been with us.
However, many within the Church do absolutely stupid things that do nothing but cause harm to the cause of Christ.
comments? e-mail me

More stuff from the court ruling prompted by another Focus on the Family e-mail update about gay marriage and public opinion.
“Most Americans Oppose Gay “Marriage,” Gallup Poll Says
By Steve Jordahl, correspondent
“A majority of Americans still thinks marriage should be
limited to a man and a woman. A recent Gallup Poll found
55 percent of Americans oppose same-sex “marriage”, while
only 39 percent said gay relationships should be given the
same rights and privileges as traditional marriage.
Jan LaRue, legal policy director at Concerned Women for
America, said this issue is a matter of common sense.
“This is morally repugnant to most thinking people,” LaRue
said. “Thankfully, the majority will prevail as to
preserving marriage to a man and a woman.”
They are depending on majority opinion for their justification of establishing laws that impinge upon the equal treatment of one group of people. By using majority opinion, they run the risk of majority opinion turning against their issue, their understanding of things, their desired morality and laws. If we look at additional studies, at least the results of which I have read from numerous sources, the trending majority opinion is against their desired end, so why continue to lift up that argument to justify their position.
As politicized Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christians, when the rubber hits the road, they don’t care about majority public opinion. They are simply using this argument now because it supports their position. They believe that God will support their campaigns and their positions, so therefore they will win. If their positions (which they consider God’s positions) are not supported by majority opinion, it is simply proof that our culture has rejected God’s ways, to our own destruction. If majority opinion does not support their positions, then they will discard majority opinion as a justification in a New York minute.
They continue to attempt to insinuate that anyone who is moral, sane, and intelligent will obviously support their position that marriage is only between one woman and one man, as the past 3,000 years of history supports. All one has to do is look at history beyond the past 200 years to see that most marriages really looked very little like marriages today, but they still attempt to demand that history support their position of one woman and one man freely marrying out of love.
Frankly, I really don’t care whether gay people are allowed to bind their relationship under the same name, “marriage,” as straight people, but within the civil arena gay couples whom so desire should have the same civil rights and responsibilities as straight couples who desire to legalize their relationships. This will become the prevailing policy because it is just, even just before God. Taking this position does not mean that anyone has to agree with homosexuality or stop advocating that homosexuals change. It simply means that a group who desires the same goals and morals supported by “straight marriage,” has the same civil rights and responsibilities of other groups who desire the same thing – to legalize their relationships and desire to bound one to another.
comments? e-mail me

I’m working through my thoughts on the Supreme Court judgment concerning Texas vs. Lawrence. It is unjust, I think, that sodomy laws are applied to homosexuals and not heterosexuals. It is dangerous, however, to formulate and enact civil policy and laws based on emotion or to justify based on individual wants or thoughts. I understand that there are many who believe any kind of homosexual expression is immoral, and for the sake of social stability that the people’s representatives have the right to enact laws that support the public’s notion of morality. The problem is that the majority in a pure democracy can enact laws that do unjustly discriminate – it is the tyranny of the majority. Another example of the tyranny of the majority is the treatment of blacks in this country, or laws that prohibited inter-racial relationships and marriage. We live not in a pure democracy; we live in a republic where elected representatives legislated on behalf of their constituents. This offers some protection to the whims of change and the fickleness of public opinion – the tyranny of the majority. Within our system, the courts offer a counter-balance to the legislature, which can still enact on behalf of the public, unjust laws.
However, the Constitution has nothing to say about sodomy laws, whether homosexual or heterosexual. To find a Constitutional right to acts of sodomy is not plausible, it is establishing law centered on the morality held by the nine justices of the Supreme Court. I agree, I think, with Justice Thomas’ statement that if he were a legislature, he would overturn the law, but as a justice, he would not because under this issue as it stands it is the responsibility of the legislature make law, not the Supreme Court. It is not the responsibility of the Supreme Court, or the court system in general, to create rights where rights were not honestly established in the Constitution. I think a more correct justification for overturning the Texas law would have been through equal protection under the law, as Justice O’Connor cited, rather than a right to privacy. Does a legislature have the right and with the support of public to pass laws establishing moral behavior. Yes, we do it all the time. Honestly, we do, that is what law is.
While I benefit from the ruling, I think it would have been better to continue our advocacy with the public in order to change their attitudes, which would eventually be reflected in legislation and the overturning of unjust laws. Having a court force the issue on an unwilling public is not the best way to honestly cause change in peoples’ individual beliefs and feelings. The problem is that sometimes with some issues the length of time to cause the change in public attitudes, and thus laws, to end unjust laws unequally applied to all is the defining issue. If the Supreme Court had not acted concerning race laws, we may still have states with laws denying blacks equal access and equal treatment under the law. So, here we are with sodomy laws and the Court’s ruling.
More to come, and possibly a total change of opinion. The fact is we pass laws to regulate morality all the time. To deny that is ridiculous. Is appealing to the courts for redress the best course to take? It may be the most expedient, but is it the best? I’m not sure at this point.
comments? e-mail me

Since the Religious Right lost concerning their position on sodomy laws due to the recent Supreme Court ruling, they are now attempting to refocus on their arguments that the homosexual “lifestyle” is horribly unhealthy and that homosexuality should be opposed and prohibited because of the mental and physical health of homosexuals themselves. Never mind that the exact same problems exist with heterosexuals. Statistically, I have no idea which group has the greater instances per capita. Anyway, here is an e-mail update from Focus on the Family.

Texas Case Spotlights 'Gay-on-Gay' Domestic Violence
By Terry Phillips, correspondent
SUMMARY: What is the greatest danger to gays; being the
victim of a so-called "hate crime" or the victim of
violence from a partner?
The recent murder of a Texas woman by her lesbian lover
has again raised the issue of gay-on-gay domestic
violence. It's the secret homosexuals don't like to
confront.
It's not that homosexuals don't know that violence against
one another is a major problem; they just don't want it to
become common knowledge, according to Robert Knight,
director of the Culture and Family Institute in
Washington, D.C.
"Homosexual activists are worried people who don't agree
with their political agenda may seize upon this and say,
'See, this is another reason to dissuade people from
getting involved in homosexuality,' " Knight said.
The statistics prove it to be a very compelling reason.
" 'We believe as many as 650,000 gay men may be victims of
domestic violence each year in the United States,'
according to two homosexual activists who wrote a book
several inches thick on the subject," reports Gary Glenn,
president of the American Family Association in Michigan.
Other data suggests lesbian domestic violence is at least
equal in extent.
"There is a book called 'Violent Betrayal,' by Claire
Renzetti, in which she documents women are four times more
likely to be victims of domestic violence in a lesbian
household than in a married household," Knight said.
But the huge disparity is in the reality of a gay being
victimized by a partner, rather than by a gay-basher.
Glenn concluded that if mainstream media want to be
effective rather than politically correct, they would
shine the light on the semi-secret of homosexual violence
against one another.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: We suggest the following resource as
an aid for those wanting to get out of the gay lifestyle
-- or for those who know someone who might: "Helping
People Step Out of Homosexuality," By Frank Worthen.
http://www.family.org/resources/itempg.cfm?itemid=3520&refcd=CE03FCZL&tvar=no

comments? e-mail me