RabidModerate.com

Why John McCain lost my vote.

noreply@blogger.com (Jarrett Green) — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 02:40:00 +0000

Finally, I have made my decision.

Though, it hasn't come easily.

For some back story, I rooted for Huckabee during the primary. Though I liked John McCain, Huckabee provided the sensible Christian bump I needed.

But he lost.

So I was stuck. I remained undecided, until Aug 29, when McCain announced Sarah Palin as his running mate. Something was up. Since then, the rhetoric coming from the right has been absolutely appalling. Palin's constant pandering to the lowest common denominator showed me one thing: McCain isn't in charge, and it was Republican BS as usual. Plays were taken straight out of Rove's book, dusted off, and reused without hesitation.

It's obvious to me that McCain has let this thing run away from him, and when he most likely loses on Nov. 4, I feel that it will haunt him for the rest of his life. 'If only I would have done it my way'.

It's obvious to me that when, during the primaries, the republican base hated McCain - he was too 'moderate' (which is why I liked him) - but have now made him a poster boy, that has something changed. The Republican base either changed their mind, or don't really care and will rally around whoever is the party candidate, or John McCain changed.

I believe it was the latter.

John McCain WAS a maverick until he called himself one, and slapped it on a business card.
John McCain WAS a leader until he made a seemingly hasty decision on Palin.
John McCain DID put "country first" until suspended his campaign to go to Washington, first making stops on Katie Couric, and gave a speech at the Clinton Global Initiative, arriving 22 hours later.
John McCain WAS bipartisan until he didn't pick Joe Lieberman as his VEEP.
John McCain WAS a different kind of politician until his campaign started with the insane "Pro-American", Palling around with Terrorists, Joe the Plumber nonsense.

John McCain was all of those things and more, until he won his party's nomination.

That's right, folks..

noreply@blogger.com (Jarrett Green) — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:14:00 +0000

The Golden Age..

noreply@blogger.com (Jarrett Green) — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:36:00 +0000

From Wired.com: (emphasis mine)

"Speaking at the Personal Democracy Forum in New York Monday, McCain deputy e-campaign director Mark Soohoo responded to a comment about McCain's self-professed computer illiteracy by saying that McCain is "aware of the internet."

Even though he doesn't use computers personally.

Other things John McCain is 'aware of':

1. 'Digital' Things
2. The Space Shuttle
3. the Euro
4. Escalators
5. VCRs
6. Pagers
7. ATMs
8. Grocery Self Checkout
9. Russia
10. His surroundings (as of 6/26/08)

The Hanoi Hilton Bump.

noreply@blogger.com (Jarrett Green) — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 01:58:00 +0000

In an amazingly surreal addition to this presidential race, John McCain's former captor in Vietnam told the BBC that he'd vote for McCain.

Tran Trong Duyet, told the BBC, "If I were American, I’d vote for John McCain, I think he’d make a very capable president. He’s done so much to improve relations between our two countries."

He also said that he and McCain used to argue over the war while McCain was imprisoned, but he now just wants to "leave the past behind".

Leave the past behind? I'm sure all McCain wants in to do is "be able to raise his arms above his shoulders".

Time Heals all wounds... unless those wounds develop into degenerative arthritis.

No Man's Land.

noreply@blogger.com (Jarrett Green) — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 05:52:00 +0000

There are billions of pages written each year by partisan ideologues. Tucked between their current take on the other side, is usually a rousting ‘pen is mightier’ call to arms. Heavy generals with names like Franken, and Hannity, Moore and Coulter, rally the troops with unflinching determination. Borders are fortified. Talking points are issued to the infantry, and the drums of political war are whipped into a furious rhythm. For those keeping score, that paragraph contained 9 metaphors. Suck it, Hemmingway.

And I’ve got more.

In the middle, in no-man’s-land, between the barbed wire and the firefight, lie the moderates. The centrists. Those, who in the words of the (depending on your political affiliation) sharp-tongued-liberal-devil -or- boy-saviour-sex-idol, John Stewart, are shouting: “Be reasonable, people!”. But they are never heard.

Moderates don’t have Generals. We don’t even have a standing army. We are political expats, defectors, and draft dodgers. Ours are those that watch from the no-man’s-land, reading every article, listening to the black, listening to the white, and come to the same observation - it’s all a big grey ball of mess.

This isn’t to say we aren’t committed. It’s also not to say we are indecisive. It’s only to say, there is currently no place for us. We are bastards & orphans. When a line is drawn between the partisan crazies - what side is worth taking? Unequivocally, neither.

Even if we wanted to take a side, they wouldn’t have us. Our unique ability to find truth and worth no matter on which side of the wire it lies, makes us an automatic enemy. Our willingness to defend that truth (even if it means defending the other side) in order to maintain an accurate discourse - is high treason.

So here we stand. The thinkers, the thought grapplers, the wrestlers of ideas, stuck between the partisan trenches, trying to moderate a political war through a rolled up newspaper to our mouths.

The power of email forwards and the inability to use common sense OR: Why America is aboslutely f****d.

noreply@blogger.com (Jarrett Green) — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 21:35:00 +0000

I received a political email forward today. I love/hate these things. Love because they are hilarious. Hate because they are a disheartening glimpse into the mind of the average American.

The forward (which I'm sure you can probably check out in next Month's issue of the Central Christian Observer), contained the following:

Just in case you have not seen this one......

Obama Explains National Anthem Stance
Hot on the heels of his explanation for why he no longer wears a flag pin,presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama was forced to explain why he doesn't follow protocol when the National Anthem is played. According to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171, During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart.

'As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides,' Obama said. 'There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing.' If that were our anthem, then I might salute it.'

WHAAAAAAAT!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this could possibly be our next president.
I, for one, am speechless .

For those who don't know me, I'm going to let you in on a little secret. I possess a super-power. I know what your thinking;

"Wait! But he's just a mild-mannered-owner-of-a-strategic-design-firm-specializing-in-interactive-and-new-media-based-results-oriented marketing-and-one-hell-of-a-designer."

You'd be right. But there's something else. something... super. I posses the ability to "think critically based on logic and common sense". You thought I was going to say 'fly' didn't you? No need to fly when you can "think critically based on logic and common sense". I even have an ability similar to 'spider-sense' but it's called "red flag sense". It's a small internal mechanism that allows me to detect bullshit. Using the latest in technology, you will now be able to experience my red flag sense as I do. Here's how it went down:

Hey, I should check my email.

Ahhh.. An email forward.

When I finally came to, I wiped the streams of now dried blood that came from my ears, and sat down to write this post.

My ability to "think critically based on logic and common sense" allowed me to discern the following.

1. The whole thing was a lie.

My ability to "perform a google search" gave me even more information:

1. The piece was written by satirical writer John Semmens and was posted on his internet column "Semi-News" (as in "Wish I could be on the staff of The Onion").

It should be obvious to even the casual glancer-of-emails that if any part of this was true, if a popular presidential candidate had said that the American flag was a symbol of oppresion, you would have heard about it in ummmm not an email forward. It should be even more obvious that if a DEMOCRATIC presidential candidate said that that the American flag was a symbol of oppresion, FoxNews would have started a new channel devoted entirely to 24 hour coverage of "FlagGate".

It should also be obvious that the writer has his tounge so far in his cheek, that it actually burst forth and impregnated itself into the cheek of the person sitting next to him, i.e. "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing."

To further the disheartening felt by the email, were the comments of those who had forwarded it along:

.............is this guy for real??????

Oh me.........for sure NOT voting for this one!!!

---AND---

Does this man not know the history of our national anthem………..or what??

Wearing the USA flag is taking sides------------if you want to be president of the US---whose side are you on anyway?????

This is ridiculous------folks had better think long and hard about this election!!

Folks had better think long and hard about believing everything that happens to make it into your inbox, and basing your decision on who should be the next most powerful person in the world based off of an email forward.

My ability to "think critically based on logic and common sense" isn't always super. In fact, most of the time it sucks. Most of the time, because I value Truth no matter what it is, I am put into the position of defending things that I normally have no business talking about. Muslims, Barak Obama. Because YOU can't help but not use the most basic of human thought processes, I end up having to point out the truth, subsequently defending something I may not agree with.

But I believe this is my "good fight".

It's also obvious that those that forwarded the email typed a quick message, and hit forward as soon as they finished reading. What they read fit into their current mindset regarding Obama, and so, they accepted what they read without a bit of thinking.

American's willingness and readiness to believe anything, immediately, as long as it fits what they already believe is why America is absolutely doomed.

On Love, War, and MLK.

noreply@blogger.com (Jarrett Green) — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 17:24:00 +0000

Yesterday, April 4th, was the day Martin Luther King was assassinated. I walked into a used bookstore a few years ago, around the time of MLK's birthday, and bought a few books they had on a special display. Since then, I've been intrigued by this man. Moreover, I've been intrigued about his legacy in the United States. A Giant of a man, and a pillar of Christianity, reduced to one speech. One radical revolutionary, reduced to a pretty neat guy.

Yesterday, NPR did story upon story, interview upon interview, and played speech upon speech. They did an outstanding job. I had listened to it thoughout the day, but on my way home around , they were wrapping up and played a recording of this quote from one of his sermons:

"Don't ever let anyone pull you so low as to hate them. We must use the weapon of love. We must have the compassion and understanding for those who hate us. We must realize so many people are taught to hate us that they are not totally responsible for their hate. But we stand in life at midnight; we are always on the threshold of a new dawn."

I hasn't left my mind. This sermon was given during the Vietnam war. It's an odd thing to live as a Christian during war. There is a great disparity between what I should think and feel as a Christian, and what I should as an American.

A question arose in my mind; Do you think love can conquer where war both can and cannot? And I'm not referring to flippant "Love not War" b.s., or being helpful, or being kind, but pure, true Christian love. Would it conquer in place of war? Could it conquer the same as war?

I would like to think the answer is 'yes. absolutely.' So what, then, do we do with war?

The Christian "Lifestyle"...

noreply@blogger.com (Jarrett Green) — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 07:35:00 +0000

I've been thinking a lot, lately, about Christianity as a lifestyle. Since the Mid 80s, Christianity has leapt from the pews on Sunday morning, and on to people's shirt sleeves. Literally. So is this good or bad?

It's both. Yep. That's what being a moderate is all about, folks. Seeing both sides clearly.

In the last 20 years, Christians have become more comfortable in their Christian skin. It's like dieting. I'm currently on the Atkins diet, and for those that care - it's working. But I've noticed that their is a huge market for taking something you used to have in in your pre-diet life, and making it diet friendly. But it's always a tasteless, crappier version of that thing. Ever try carb free bread? Ever licked cardboard? The hook is, you can have those things that used to pleasure you, guilt free. The same goes for new Christianity. There isn't anything from your 'old life' that you can't replace with a 'Christian' version. Music, books, movies, even mints. The Christian culture is everywhere. Somewhere in your zipcode, there is probably a Christian Bookstore - though the book part is a bit of a misnomer as most of them sell way more than books.

The problem with Christianity as lifestyle is simply this: Lifestyles are ephemeral. I could quit Atkins tomorrow. As easily as I picked it up. All I would do is swap one set of lifestyle rules and traits, back to the other. When I used to work with a youth group, I saw hundreds of kids surrounding themselves with the Christian lifestyle, but never truly having a relationship with Christ - the scary part is - they thought they did. Now as an adult, I see a huge number of adults doing the same. That's the other problem: Lifestyles can quickly and easily become Idolized. It's a natural progression that when your life is summed up by what you listen to in your car, read wear, where you go to school, etc., your faith becomes centered around those same things. Rather than Jesus. Jesus as a lifestyle sucks. Jesus as a lifestyle would never work. Jesus as a lifestyle... would end up killing you.

As a marketer, I understand the absolute necessity of brand focus. If your brand stands for everything, then it stands for nothing. I also understand the value of owning words in people's minds. Safe Car? Volvo. The Real Thing? Coke. Internet Video? Youtube. Search? Google. The Christian lifestyle ultimately dilutes the Christian message.

So is it all just a lifestyle to you?

This is a website about death.

noreply@blogger.com (Jarrett Green) — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:48:00 +0000

www.whenyouaredead.com

I would like to fight you, sir.

noreply@blogger.com (Jarrett Green) — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:10:00 +0000

So the building we moved into downtown is right next to a bar. Usually this not a problem as I'm home by 6. Sometimes though, I work into the wee hours, way beyond 'last call'. On one such night recently, I went outside and overheard a very small, drunk, and belligerent 20 something producing a diatribe against Barak Obama. No biggie there. I'm undecided as of yet. I did however laugh and say "Oh, he's not that bad", as his polemic was mostly wrong, and bordered on points like "Obama punches babies in the face". His response to me was classic:

"Hell, you hate America so much, you can just get the f*** out."

I was taken aback. I've never actually heard this phrase uttered toward me. Also, the logic trail of stating Obama isn't "that bad" to his conclusion that I "hate America" dumbfounded me for a second.

Fortunately, as I stated, the guy was considerably smaller than me, not to mention three sheets to the wind drunk. I got kind of mad. I hate when people (90% of the time on the conservative right) believe they can end a political argument by telling the other person to just get out of the country. So I did what any good American would do. I offered to fight him.

Me: laughingly "I don't know... I think I want YOU to get out of MY country. In fact. I'm willing to fight you for it."

Drunk: shifts uncomfortably

Me: "Yeah..... Let's do this. I will fight you. If I lose, I will leave the country. If you lose, you leave."

He brushed past me, but that was about it. The thing is: I was dead serious. I would have fought this guy. Why? Because I love barak obama? Hardly. It' because I can't stand the attitude and swagger that comes with a statement like "If you don't like what's going on just LEAVE". Their gall to believe that there is no black and white, and if you're not their color, you're not American.

So here's my open invitation. I will fight. A real fight - perhaps in a ring. I will fight anyone who is willing to put their citizenship on the line, wants people who aren't like them to leave the country, and - most importantly - is half my size.

"Truck Nuts"

noreply@blogger.com (Jarrett Green) — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:34:00 +0000

One of my least endearing, and probably most obvious, qualities is making snap judgements about people. A quick 3 minute conversation will, in my mind, tell me everything I need to know about you. In the interest of full confessional disclosure, I generally start with the idea that I will not like you, until you prove me otherwise. I know... I can be a jerk.

Sometimes though, I find my snap judgements to be completely -- 100% -- accurate. Take the case of "Truck Nuts".

Here's the scenario:

You and your family are driving along, singing your favorite worship songs and taking turns praying, when a giant beastly truck changes into your lane. That's when you see them. Giant, veiny, swinging testicles attached to the trail hitch. For a second they are mesmerizing. Swinging triumphantly in the wind, saying to the world "Here is me, my truck, and it's balls.... deal with it." The next second, you're queasy, and the kids are crying in the back seat because they could actually feel the second their innocence left them.

In this instance of snap judgement, a conversation doesn't even need to be had. If your giant truck has testicles, here is what I immediately know about you:

1.We probably couldn't be friends. Not in a mean way, but just, we probably have nothing in common. Your truck has anatomically correct genitalia; I drive a Saturn.

2. You are Republican. I'm willing to put money on this one.

3. You like Toby Keith.

4. You consider yourself "Country".

5. If they made them, you would put balls on everything.Toaster, television .. your own balls.

6. You own multiple guns. Not even just one. You probably even have one somewhere in your truck.

7. You use the phrase "Hell Yeah" a lot. Other variations could be juxtaposing everything to hell: "Colder n' Hell", "Drunker 'n hell" "Rednecker n' Hell"

8. You don't know what the word "juxtapose" means

9. You consider yourself a Christian

10. You have the uncanny ability to support the troops simply with vehicle magnets

11. You probably stopped reading this around #4, because it made you want to "kick my ass".

Though the more I think about it, if there were truck vaginas, I never would have posted this.

Probably the greatest words in a worship song ever.

noreply@blogger.com (Jarrett Green) — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:56:00 +0000

My wife were talking on the way home from church, about the trend that occurred in the early 90s away from 'impersonal' hymns to more personal worship songs. I lead a lot of personal songs during worship in our church. There are a few that I hold dear to me, and when I sing, it's not to lead others, but to sing it for myself.

My wife however made an amazing point. Sometimes, with those type of songs, 50% of the time, it's untrue. The whole, I will sacrifice myself daily, honoring you every moment of my life, loving only you always sort of lyrics, can at times be untrue. Not to say that they are platitudes, and not to say that at times the words can be completely true, but most of the time - it's hard.

Her point was this: She likes the songs about rather than to God, because at any give moment in her life, the words she sings will be real and true. The following is a new song we will be doing at wheatland. The beauty of it is (not just the fact that pretty Irish girls sing it in a amazing lilt), is that, at any moment in my life, in any situation, these words will remain 100% true, as our God is unfailing or unchanging.

How deep the Father's love for us,
How vast beyond all measure
That He should give His only Son
To make a wretch His treasure

How great the pain of searing loss,
The Father turns His face away
As wounds which mar the chosen One,
Bring many sons to glory

Behold the Man upon a cross,
My sin upon His shoulders
Ashamed I hear my mocking voice,
Call out among the scoffers

It was my sin that held Him there
Until it was accomplished
His dying breath has brought me life
I know that it is finished

I can not boast in anything
No gifts, no power, no wisdom
But I can boast in Jesus Christ
His death and resurrection

Why should I gain from His reward?
I cannot give an answer
But this I know with all my heart
His wounds have paid my ransom

Update to Below.

noreply@blogger.com (Jarrett Green) — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 02:47:00 +0000

True to her word, Joanna Walker Editor of the Observer, had a former contributer call me. Mary Brown, youth sponsor at Central. Her qualifications? She's "read the Koran..... Cover to cover."

This conversation did not go at all like the one with Walker. It ended with a hang-up. I "talk too fast" and "refute everything [she] says". Now, Mary made it clear she's no expert, however her answers would seem to make it sound otherwise. Everything was absolute:

me: "The Shia don't follow the pillars of Islam."
her: "I believe they do."

What can you say to that? I really was hoping for someone who could give me a rebuttal, rather than "I'll go look up this moon god thing for crying out loud."

By the way, Mary is deathly afraid of all Muslims:

"I have a very definite problem with mosques being built in the U.S." - Mosques that she said were all funded by Saudi Arabia.

"Why are they [the Saudis?] building all of these mosques over here?" Probably for the same reason my wife attended a Central funded/sponsored trip to Guatemala to build churches - "I don't think those are the same at all." Of course she doesn't.

"Something's going on in these mosques that disturbs me, something they don't want us to know about." When asked about examples, she said "I don't know, it's just a feeling. Like in WWII there were things going on, and nobody wanted to know what was going on."

"These people are not dedicating themselves in any way to our country."

"Nobody in their community is willing to stand up and say, 'what these people are doing is wrong'. Not after 9/11..." (bad scribble in my notes, sorry.)

"They want special treatment in schools"

"Do you want them building footbaths in airports?" I don't really know why I would care. Does it bother you that Jewish people ask for Kosher meals on flights? "[pause] I dunno".

I don't know what to say....

"The Muslim Problem..."

noreply@blogger.com (Jarrett Green) — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 17:23:00 +0000

Can Muslims be Good Americans? This was the headline to an 'Article' in the January 2008 issue of the Central Christian Observer. It's emphatic conclusion: No. Why? apparently because Muslims aren't Christians.

The 'article', in fact, is an email forward that has been in circulation since late 2005/ early 2006 according to Snopes.com, a site that along with debunking email forwards (i.e. Mr Rogers was a Sniper during Vietnam), also attempts to catalogue email forwards (and their contents) and their origins. The 'article' was published by Editor Joanne Walker, after it was forwarded to her by both both J. Parks, and D. Robinson, two members of Central Christian Church and two men whom she "respects greatly, and wouldn't send [her] anything false". This was the extent of the fact checking (a term that had to be explained to Ms. Walker) process.

The article was unedited. Walker claims that she, as editor, does not have the authority to edit articles.

The article poses the question 'Can Muslism be Good Americans?'

The follows with this:

Theologically - no.
Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon God of Arabia.

Religiously - no.
Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)

Scripturally - no.
Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Quran (Koran).

Geographically - no.
Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Socially - no.
Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.

Politically - no.
Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and Destruction of America, the great Satan.

Domestically - no.
Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).

Intellectually - no.
Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.

Philosophically - no.
Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Spiritually - no. Because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.

It then ends with "If you find yourself in agreement with the above, perhaps you will share this with your friends. The more who understand what we are up against, the better it will be for our country. The war is bigger than we know.(emphasis theirs)

An entire book could be written about this situation. First, the growing problem of some Christians to believe everything that hits their inbox. This problem isn't limited to Christians - otherwise sites like Snopes.com wouldn't exist - the problem however is definitely more of a detriment to the Christian faith however. If people want to believe that LIttle Mikey from the Life commercial died from a violent Pop Rocks + Diet coke explosion, or that Charles Manson had in his youth audtioned for the Monkees, nobody is really hurt. Perhaps a few folks are a little dumber, but not hurt.

Email Forward theology is on the rise. The Religion section on Snopes.com has over 40 emails catalogued (including one about former Sr. Pastor of Central, Joe Wright's prayer before the Kansas Legislature). This does not count all of the conservative/christian/political emails found in the politics section. 8 of the entires are marked true, or partially true. 2 are of indeterminate origin or veracity. 3 of undetermined or ambiguous veracity. The rest are false. George W. Bush took a half hour off from glad-handing supporters at a 'thank you' dinner to witness for Christ to a teenage boy? False. NASA scientists discovered a lost day in time. [The Day in the Bible when the Sun stood still]. False. By proclamation of Governor George W. Bush, 10 June 2000 was 'Jesus Day' in Texas.............. True. Look it up.

As Christians, pride is taken in our source of all knowledge and Truth. It seems, by either gullibility or sheer laziness, this sacred acceptance has been placed on emails forwarded to us by those we "respect greatly".

The second conclusion, is that a hidden racism/religious persecution towards people of the Muslim faith exists more than I thought in America. Or at least in Wichita, KS. Here are a few quotes from my conversation with editor Joanne Walker:

"These Asians have mosques and shrines and statues and things and it just doesn't feel right, because we were supposed to be a Christian nation."

"The Muslim problem is an issue not just in America but the world"

"They keep making their schools and people just feel like the enemy is growing from within."

But enough with her.

Let's move on to the 'Article' itself. There are two glaring problems:

1. Inaccuracies
2. Broken Logic/Rhetoric

Inaccuracies
----------

Theologically - no.
Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon God of Arabia.

Islam, like Judaism and Christianity, is an Abrahamic faith. Muslims believe they pray to the same God that Jews and Christians do - the God of Abraham - but that he listens to only them due to their belief in Mohammed as prophet. 'Allah' is not a NAME of God - i.e. Zeus or Luna (the roman moon god), but rather the Arabic word FOR God. If I was a Christian in Saudi Arabia, I'd call God 'Allah'.

Scripturally - no.
Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Quran (Koran).

Not completely true. Some sects like the Shia, do not hold "allegiance" the five pillars.

Politically - no.
Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and Destruction of America, the great Satan.

Mullah is a Persian term, i.e. Iran, quite akin to the jewish word, 'Rabbi'. Only in Iran do people legally have to submit to the mullah regime. Wikipedia states:

"The term is most often applied to Shi'i clerics, as Shi'a Islam is the predominant tradition in Iran. However, the term is very common in Urdu, spoken throughout northern India, and it is used throughout the Indian subcontinent for any Muslim clergy, Sunni or Shi'a. Muslim clergy in Russia and other former Soviet republics are also referred to as mullahs, regardless of whether they are Sunni or Shi'a.

The term is seldom used in Arabic-speaking areas, where its nearest equivalent is shaykh (implying formal Islamic training), imam (prayer leader; not to be confused with the Imams of the Shiite world), or `ālim (plural `ūlamā') (scholar; see ulema). In the Sunni world, the concept of "cleric" is of limited usefulness, as authority in the religious system is relatively decentralized.

The term is frequently used in English, although English-speaking Muslim clergy rarely call themselves mullahs. It was adopted from Urdu by the British rulers of India and subsequently came into more widespread use.

Mullahs have frequently been involved in politics, but only recently have they actually taken power. Islamists seized power in Iran in 1979, and later, in Afghanistan under the Taliban"

Philosophically - no.
Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Tell that to Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, one of our biggest supporters in post Invasion iraq. A FOX News article, claiming him to be 'Iraq's Most Influential Leader'. Here's an Expert.

"Al-Sistani struck again this week. His target: a provision in the new plan to have a legislature, to be elected in regional caucuses, select a transitional government that would hold power until democratic elections by the end of 2005.

According to two members of the Governing Council who met with al-Sistani this week, the cleric prefers that the legislature be elected in a general, nationwide vote, not through caucuses."

A high Muslim cleric trying to institute a general election for legislature rather than caucuses.

...Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic

Tell that to Turkey, Indonesia, Albania, Niger, and now Iraq and Afghanistan.

Spiritually - no. Because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.

#47 الودود 'Al-Wadud' "The Loving, The Kind One"

Broken Logic/Rhetoric
-----------------

Here is where this "article" really breaks down.

The article compares one part of the Group, by using standard from another part of the Group. Is A a good B based on C. Correct logic would be is A a good B based on B as a whole.

It's like saying "Is an apple a good fruit? No Because bananas have peels that keep them protected from...." Examples can simply be found in the headers:

Theologically
Scripturally
Religiously
Spiritually

These have nothing to do with being a good American, but rather being a good Christian (though Joanne Walker would like you to believe they are synonymous.) In fact, the logic works to proves that Christians or Jews can be good Americans:

Theologically - no.
Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon God of Arabia.

Christians Allegiance is to Christ.

Religiously - no.
Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)

Jesus said, "I am the Way the Truth and the Life, no one can get to the father except through me".

Geographically - no.
Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Jews and some Christians have an allegiance to Israel.

And so on.

The problem with 'articles' like this, is that the only purpose they seem to serve is to inflame an already sensitive relationship between Christians and Muslim. Incorrect information coupled with a 'call to arms' attitude, amplify a great mistrust, and lack of understanding love from Christians.

There 'war' referred to in the 'article' is not with muslims, but those in the great minority who have perverted it's teachings, the same war being fought against the Koreshes, McVeighs, and Phelps of our faith. Simple, healthy, skepticism and common sense could have stopped this Article from being published, but unfortunately it seems some Christians have neither.

Th Next Great Media Crusade.

noreply@blogger.com (Jarrett Green) — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 16:05:00 +0000

The email forwards are making the rounds. Soon a new movie, The Golden Compass, will be hitting theaters. It's based on a trilogy of books by Phillip Pullman called 'His Dark Materials'. Pullman, according to the forwards is a vowed atheist.

Like the Harry Potter freak-out of yesteryear, forwards are warning parent's not to let their children see the film. The reason is quite an alarming one; The movie has been dumbed down in hopes of fooling parents and children into reading the books - you know, the ones that will turn them into card carrying hedonists. In fact it is said when a young innocent Christian girl finishes the last word of the trilogy, she becomes impregnated.

I've never understood these crusades against reading materials. Do we believe that the truth that we hold so dear will not rise to the top? Are we pissed because people are better at telling their stories than we are at ours? We can't captivate our own children's minds?

I have a 1 and half year old son. I desperately want him to grow up to be a man of God. But there's a hiccup. I want HIM to grow up to be a man of God. I want HIM to choose. There are two kinds of faith. Wether one is better than the other, I'm not sure yet.

The first type, is picked up at birth. Born into a Christian family, raised in Christian schools, friends from youth group. For the most part (aside from the schools bit) This was how I came to know Christ. The simple fact is, if I had been born in Saudi Arabia, I would be Muslim. Now at some point, I had to 'accept' it all apparently. It's that last finishing nail Christian parents point to as the validity of their child's faith. But is it true? Could it have been inevitable? Like a children raised in homes that value sports, generally play sports?

It's a house of cards. And I think the fact that parent's sound the alarm bells so quickly and vehemently over 'anti-Christian' literature and movies, might prove it. If you're afraid reading Harry Potter, or Watching the Golden Compass, will bring your children's faith crashing down on their heads, then you have much bigger problems - a faith that's not their own.

The second type, to me, is more appealing. This faith has been tested, wrestled, disregarded at times. This faith has been through the grinder, spat on, brushed off and still holds up. This faith has been juxtaposed against everything the world has to offer, including the Golden Compass, and still comes out ahead. This faith has been worked over and over to the point that it finally metastasized.

It's not enough for me for my son to simply be a "Christian". What's more is for him to bludgeon his faith, leaving no corner unexplored, and no easy answer ignored, to finally produce a faith that will last a lifetime.

They say 80% of 'Christian' students never return to church after high school. Maybe they should have watched the Golden Compass.

The power of God bad theology.

noreply@blogger.com (Jarrett Green) — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 07:39:00 +0000

I'm an active reader and commenter on the Blog of a very successful (i.e. filthy rich) former wedding photographer, and photographic equipment inventor. It seems that a good majority of other readers are Christians.

This blogger regularly posts hot-button topics, in an openly admitted attempt at generating a lot of traffic through comment debates. A respectable maneuver for any serious blogger.

During some issue, which are always Christian in nature (though he is not, but knows our buttons are most easily pushed), an atheist lady mentioned her 6 year old daughter who has cardiomyopathy, and needs a heart transplant - SOON. One young christian posted his experience with healing and miracles, eyewitness accounts of limbs regrowing, nasal passages opening (uhh yeah) etc. along with an over all healthy percentage of healings to non-healings. So the next day, the obvious happened; The blogger offered to fly Christian healer guy across the country to heal this little girl. Christian healer guys accepts. Christian readers salivate over the thought of showing this atheist what's up. I know, I know - tale as old as time.

Healing seesion took place yesterday, with blogger guy and wife in tow. Blog is filled with comments about how amazing God's power will be manifested, etc.

Family takes girl (who is adorable by the way) to the Hospital for a check-up. Condition had worsened.

Roll out the email forward, coffee mug cliches!

"God has bigger plans than most of us can even ponder."
"...in His own time and His own way."
"Sometimes, God's answer is no. God's answer is not always "yes", but sometimes it is "...be still and wait."
"Many times praying is like planting a seed, when you plant a seed you have to water it for it to grow and flourish..."
"instead believe God is already doing a work on Julia's heart."
"Sometimes the prayer that God answers isn't the one we asked him to answer."
"i believe He does have a plan and though we can't understand, we still need to have faith. "
"She might not have been healed immediately, but that doesn't mean it won't happen"

Man they just kept coming. Finally blogger guy put a stop to it.

"Everybody- I need to say this. So many of you were saying that "Oh well, Julia's heart did not get healed, and this is

1) PROOF that God exists!" - or -
2) "He works according to his plan....
3) "She already has healed, she has come before Jesus"

Let's say I am a car salesman. And I say - this car is awesome! And I start the car and it goes bang with a puff of smoke and I say - "See, that's proof that the car is great! It blew up, and that is the way it should be!" "Just because the car doesn't run doesn't mean it won't run someday!" - would you believe me?"

I must say, I too was a bit ashamed of the one-off platitudes my fellow Christians threw this woman's way. We always have an answer for everything, and most of the time - they're dumb.

I felt like I needed to point out the fact that biblical miracles were not for believers -it's not a matter of faith and waiting. They were to prove Christ's power to those around him, who didn't believe, or were ignorant to who he was, empirically and IMMEDIATELY. It's not a matter of faith. Jesus sent out the disciples with the power to heal, to change people minds, to visibly SHOW them, "Look, here's what's going on". So in that context, Nate healing the heart of a child of an atheist, would have been the perfect use of a miracle.... So why didn't it happen?

I'm flustered, and it isn't helped by people's bad theology. So many times on this blog, I should go pull them all up, I read all of the "I believe that ... [insert some cutesy flowery saying with no biblical reference here]".... It's just somewhat ridiculous. It's time to put the cliche one-offs aside. Stop with the crappy email forwards and coffee mug answers. It doesn't help. It hurts - and is ABSOLUTELY MEANINGLESS.

Wrestle your faith to the ground and learn why you believe what you do. My faith in God isn't shaken, but my Faith in fellow 'Christians' is a bit.

I ❤ Huckabee?

noreply@blogger.com (Jarrett Green) — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:20:00 +0000

Perhaps it was the, although somewhat trite Chuck Norris Endorsement. Perhaps not. Although it still feels somewhat conciliative, Mike Huckabee has a good chance at my vote. Why? Ok it was the Chuck Norris thing.

NPR seems to love Huckabee. A "Progressive Conservative" they call him. Is Huckabee the Moderates' candidate? I think he might be, and people smarter than I seem to think so too.

Huckabee, an ordained minister (nothing supplements Gubernatorial paychecks like officiating weddings), will be the first to tell you he's a Christian, but he's just "not angry about it." Under the faith and politics section of his website, I found the following:

"Real faith makes us more humble and mindful, not of the faults of others, but of our own. It makes us less judgmental, as we see others with the same frailties we have."

"The First Amendment requires that expressions of faith be neither prohibited nor preferred."

Man I think I really like this guy. For far too long, bumper sticker Christianity has prostituted itself to politics, and mucked it up for the rest of us. Cut and dry (aka BORING and FRUITLESS) Churchy platitudes were responsible for Bush's second term in office.

I think Huckabee sees both sides of the equation - i.e. No to Abortion, but also No to leaving woman who have kept their child to fend for themselves. Mike's tag I've heard a couple of times has been "Life doesn't begin at conception and end at birth."

And here's a kicker:

"My faith is my life - it defines me. My faith doesn't influence my decisions, it drives them. For example, when it comes to the environment, I believe in being a good steward of the earth. "

Yeah. You read that right.

"The first thing I will do as President is send Congress my comprehensive plan for energy independence. We will achieve energy independence by the end of my second term."

Who doesn't want that?

Huckabee, and here's where my concession comes in, has a few non moderate stances. Namely overall support for the War in Iraq, the continuing operation of the Detention Facility at Guantanamo, and Opposing Same Sex Civil Unions, but what can you do? At this point, Huckabee is a good lead for me. We'll see how it goes. Maybe more Chuck will seal it for me.

[don't] Take me to Your Leader.

noreply@blogger.com (Jarrett Green) — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 06:18:00 +0000

It's getting hairy out there in the political world. Polls, debates, primaries, caucuses, kissing hands and shaking babies.

One thing I keep hearing is how both sides are clamoring for a leader (israelites 'we need a king!'). Well I'm not. I'm not desperate for someone to get in their and lead the country. At least, leading for the sake of leading. I'm not ready for complete health care overhauls, or amendments against this or that... yet.

I'm ready for someone to quietly go into office, and do a good job at running the country. You know, the day to day stuff. Make sure we are eating our veggies, and no one is trying to kill us. I'm ready for someone to actually go in and change the tone of discourse in Washington. Leaders get in the way. I want a worker. A public servant. Someone just to do his job, fix the stuff that shouldn't be broken in the first place, and head home in 4 years. Someone like that will do more for the future of this country than any 'leader' ever could.

Foolishness.

noreply@blogger.com (Jarrett Green) — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 03:33:00 +0000

I recently an article in NY Times Magazine entitled "The Evangelical Crackup" that featured local pastors' (including mine!!) thoughts on the state of Christianity in regards to Politics, left vs. right etc. Great article I thought.

They interviewed one pastor whose well, one of those. Christian and mad as hell about it. Uses the old "The Idea of the Cross is offensive to people" to be utterly obnoxious. Obviously, with this phrase in his back pocket, the more folks he pisses off (not mind you, by calling out sin, but by simply being an arrogant a-hole), the more jewels in Heaven he gets.

The idea of the Cross is offensive to people. I don't know about that. It wasn't to me. It wasn't to him. 1Cr 1:18 says that the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing. Foolishness. The Message of. What's the message? You're a sinner (with all that entails - maybe this is where he gets caught up in the message, "offending" people), and the Son of God, took the weight of your sins upon his back and died. I could see how that might seem foolish.

So if that message is foolishness to 'non-christians', what do we have left to offer them? If they don't or can't hear us, what do we have left? The actions of the cross.

Sacrifice?

noreply@blogger.com (Jarrett Green) — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 07:34:00 +0000

A while back one of my employees worked on some key art for the film "End of the Spear".I had heard of the story before because Elizabeth Elliot (a woman who is the was a part of the story that the film was based on) used to come to Central and talk to the youth group. Elizabeth's husband, along with 3 other men, were killed by a couple of very, very remote natives during the first attempt to establish contact with the tribe as missionaries. The wives then travel to the tribe and succeed in not only establishing contact and spreading God's Message, but becoming so incredibly close with the people whol killed their husbands. It's a remarkable story and one that has stuck with me over the years.

One line that caught me in the movie, and one that remember reading in one of Elliot's books was when the son of Steve Saint (a fellow missionary), concerned for his father's safety, asked his father if they were taking guns. He said they were. But they wouldn't use them on the tribal people. After his sone tearfully asked him why, Steve said "Because we're ready to go to heaven, but they are not."

Flash forward to today, and that line has been in my head a while. I struggle with being a Christian in America. I struggle to find a way to truly implement what Christ did. And I struggle with joining in with those who simply speak, and gripe, and fuss, but don't - ever - act as Christ did. What does this line mean today? It's obviously THE Christ-like attitude of self-sacrifice, But as we engage in War as a country, would we give up our lives so that our ENEMY could be free? Not free from the State, but free unto Christ? Would we sacrifice justice, and transcend our sense of who's right and wrong, on the off-chance that one person in Iran, or Afghanistan, or Iraq would come to Christ by our willingness to lay ourselves down? What would that look like? It's backwards. Christ is always backwards, upsidedown, not what you think.

A pit forms in my stomach when I picture myself in those missionaries shoes. They undoubtedly made the right decision. They decidedly "considered others better than themselves", and sacrificed their lives so that others may live in eternity. Sound familiar? So why does that kind of obediance and sacrifice scare me? Why does that pit rise? Would I make that sacrifice? Probably not. I'm a coward. I should though. And I envy those that achieve that completeness in the sacrificial message of Christ.

Do I, as an American, ever TRULY sacrifice? Never. Do you? Think about it.

Iraq + The Special Olympics : "Let me win, but if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt."

noreply@blogger.com (Jarrett Green) — Wed, 20 Dec 2006 05:01:00 +0000

Bush has apparently finally said "We're not winning, we're losing" in regards to a Iraq, in an interview with the Washington Post. I don't want to lose. I want to win. But I've always wondered - what exactly is winning? I'm mean literally. I really don't know, and don't think the President has ever fully explained it to the American people. Apparently it wasn't simply ousting Saddam, or holding free elections, or any of the other good has come out of the war - are we not winning simply becausewe haven't said what winning is? Is it all semantics?

I'd like a benchmark - when will I know we won? What should I look for? I too want our boys home, and want them back victorious - but I don't think ANYBODY has defined what that would look like. So as it stands victory means no more violence in Iraq and everybody has a pony. I'm not asking for timetables or deadlines, I simply want someone to tell me, "When you see x, y, and z, start getting your ticker tape ready."

Grudge Match...

noreply@blogger.com (Jarrett Green) — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 20:43:00 +0000

There was a short video story on MSNBC today about a young boy who's letter to Santa was marked "Return to Sender" by the Post Office. The letter was returned and the boy's Mother and Grandmother had a cow. Turns out the other two brothers' letters made it through, and Santa sent them one in return. It then dawned on me the lengths we go to continue the dumbest lie ever told. Ole' St. Nick. Think about it, to goes so far that every year, a government organization goes to great lengths to fabricate the idea of sending letters to the guy. Obviously, billions of kids + .39 stamps = xmas bonuses.

I've made it known to my wife that I don't like the idea of telling our son about Santa when he gets to that age (he's still a baby). Why? One, as a Christian, I think the idea of Santa hurts the true meaning of Christmas. I'm not even getting into all the "Jesus is the Reason for the Season" schtick (as I'm guessing even those people still do the Santa thing). But the point is, in a kid's mind, Jesus (especially a baby version) will NEVER be able to compete with Santa. . Think about which is more compelling, The story of a baby born in a barn 2,000 years ago, who came to give you eternal life, that you've never had physical contact with (explain THAT to a 5 year old), or the guy who shows up at the mall every year, asks you want you want for Christmas, has his elves in the north pole make it for you, and then on Christmas Eve flies around the world landing on your roof with his sleigh pulled my magic reindeer, one who's nose glows red so they can see in the snow, jumps down the chimney to give you a bright shiny Playstation 3? Jesus never had a chance against this guy. It was a sucker punch from the get-go. Where's the war on Christmas taking place? Well nowhere really, it's all BS, but a mild skirmish is happening, and we brought it on ourselves. But everyone believes that their kids "get it" and "understand", thanks to their brief, obligatory "And remember, Timmy, toys are fun but really, Christmas is about giving like Jesus did." Kids don't buy it. They are too busy HotWheeling around with their new iPod.

I guess I just don't understand where it all came from. Why do we dumb down, augment, and amend Christian holidays with Fat Men, and Giant Egg Laying Rabbits? Is Jesus not enough? Can he not hold an 8 year olds attention. Maybe we just suck as parents at telling his Story.

Surprised?

noreply@blogger.com (Jarrett Green) — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 15:12:00 +0000

I was talking to my dad a couple night ago over the Dallas Cowboys game (don't get me started...). He mentioned reading an article from the Eagle regarding Sam Brownback's presidential candidacy for '08 which stated a disdain, and perhaps fear, for having another "Born Again" President. I can understand my dad's frustration with the comment. "What's so wrong with that?!" he wondered. But I can also understand the Eagle's concerns. That's what being a moderate is all about :)

Primarily, should we as Christians be surprised when the world condemns us for being "Born Again", or looks at us weird, or anything? No. We shouldn't be, because Christ told us it would happen. He told us we would sound crazy to people who where "perishing", and we probably sound even crazier with all the weird lingo we make up and use with each other.

So then, should Christians wear this in proud defiance as a badge of honor? No at all. I think this trips some folks up. I've seen many people who were speaking the truth, but the let the whole "They'll hate me for it anyway" cloud their judgment and compassion. Meekness and humility should handle that awkward pride of being an "outcast" (among a majority of other outcasts?)

Secondly, Were the above not applicable, Christians in politics have in general not given much for the people to look forward to. The key is not in being a Christ-CENTERED politician, but a Christ-LIKE politician, one who's very character exudes that of Christ; not one who simply points to Christ as an example, but IS the example himself. If this were to happen, we might find that although the MESSAGE of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, the ACTIONS of it may not be.

Words I'm Tired of Hearing.

noreply@blogger.com (Jarrett Green) — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:19:00 +0000

The problem with heavily used words, is that, as its usage continues, people tend to forget why they use them, or what they mean. Most often this happens with Buzzwords. Especially in politics. A couple such words that I've heard a LOT as Nov. 7th rolls around are "Agenda", and "Indoctrinate or Indoctrine".

Christians tend to use the word indoctrinate when referring to "The Left", "The World", "The Secular Humanists", " The Doctors"... They image they conjur up is one of secret late night meetings held in front of a giant whiteboard where non-Christian folk hatch an immense comprehensive plan to "turn our children gay", "persecute the church", and fabricate lies like "Global Warming", "Evolution", and that the world is chock full of "Poor Ugly People". It's a harsh word to use. Honestly. My point is, there is no indoctrination. There is no seedy plan being hatched by any of those people to do any of those things. What there IS is a large majority of folks, believing what they believe and baed on a heartfelt conviction passing it along because they think it is true and beautiful. Sound familiar? I don't view Evangelism as indoctrination, or an agenda I possess. It is the natural byproduct of what I hold dear in my heart and mind. This is not all to say that what the left is "pushing" is correct, but I think it's much more beneficial (and 1000x more important) to our cause as Christians to understand with whom we are dealing - people just like us.

Republicans Have it Easy...

noreply@blogger.com (Jarrett Green) — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 22:50:00 +0000

As the hype of the mid-term elections (and looming 2008 Presidential race) begins to overshadow real news, a single insular observation might have Republicans breathing a little easier: It's quite unchallenging to please the Republican base.

While Democrats turn to giant ethereal issues such as universal healthcare, immigration reform, a national moral-boosting free puppy or kitten program, and other lofty reforms that would make even FDR feel a little overwhelmed, Republicans can tout much simpler agendas; No Gay Marriage. No Flag Burning. No Whatever-the-Democrats-Said. The Repbulican base, for the most part, feel completely satiated with their lives and the lives of those around them, as long as their level of comfort (both physically and emotionally) is maintained. That's why most Republican issues are generally and quite simply "No" issues. It's like sitting in a meeting. Everyone is trying to come up with something, some sort of solution or or new idea. Yeah they might suck, but they're giving it a go. And off to the left IM'ing someone on his phone is that one guy. You know, he hasn't contributed anything new to the discussion. He has no plans to engage with the others and help find a solution. He simply shoots down other's ideas. That's his entire agenda - "Hey thing that you said earlier? Yeah I'm against that..." If it sounds wierd, or gross, or different, or would require him to actually produce something, then he's against it. Even PRO agendas, Pro-Life,Pro-Family, are actually nice words for their ANTI agendas: Anti-Abortion, Anti-Gay-Marriage. Republicans are generally ANTI-Changing-Their-Status-Quo, and maintaining it by simply saying no to new ideas or change, is the easiest platform to take.