The Iraqi Shoe Thrower

(Authors warning: There is a picture of a deceased child at the bottom of this post- a casualty of the Iraq war. It is a very small picture. I included it because it just might elicit the emotional response that might make someone want to throw their shoes at the person they feel is responsible for the death of a child.)

The shoe incident was a weird one. If you haven't seen it yet, here it is. It might have been laughable if I didn't understand the symbolism of what was happening. I remember as the United States military moved through Iraq "liberating" the country one area at a time the Iraqi people were slapping paintings of Saddam with their shoes. The news outlets explained to us that this was the ultimate act of defiance and disgust. I'm not sure there is an equivalent in our culture. So was calling someone a "dog" as this journalist did to Bush. "This is a gift from the Iraqis. This is the farewell kiss, you dog," he exclaimed. I don't think that guy should have thrown his shoes at Pres. Bush. But I think I understand why he did. The cartoon below pretty much sums it up for me.

The closest I've ever been to living in a country that was under attack was September 11th. I don't want that to happen again. We lost a lot of lives that day.

The whole Iraq mess it terrible. I don't pretend to have the right answer to this war. I do, however, believe that we were mis-led about the WMD's and Iraq's potential to really hurt us as a country. I don't know. However, I'm not sure this journalist was all that upset about why we went into Iraq, he was upset about what happened after we got there.

It's impossible to determine how many lives have been lost as a result of the war. At the writing of this entry, coalition deaths have totalled 4525. The attacks on 9/11, minus the terrorists, claimed 2,973 lives. This totals 7,498. While not all of these lives are American, for the purposes of this entry we'll consider them American losses. The estimated number of Iraqi deaths since the invasion in April of 2003 is staggering. The following is an excerpt from justforeignpolicy.org :

In a country such as Iraq, where sufficient reporting mechanisms do not exist, there is a scientifically accepted way to measure demographics including death rate: a cluster survey. Cluster surveys provide reliable demographic information the wake of natural disasters, wars and famines. Cluster surveys give us the data about deaths in Darfur, accepted for example by the U.S. government as one basis for its charge of genocide. They are used by U.N. agencies charged with disaster and famine relief.
In Iraq, there have been two scientifically rigorous cluster surveys conducted since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. The first, published in the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet (available in pdf), estimated that 100,000 excess Iraqi deaths had resulted from the invasion as of September 2004. The second survey, also published in The Lancet (available in pdf), updated that estimate through July 2006. Due to an escalating mortality rate, the researchers estimated that over 650,000 Iraqis had died who would not have died had the death rate remained at pre-invasion levels. Roughly 601,000 of those excess deaths were due to violence.
As with all statistical methods, the Lancet surveys come with a margin of error, as do opinion polls, for example. In the second survey, the researchers were 95 percent certain that there were between 426,000 and 794,000 excess violent deaths from March 2003 to July 2006. 601,000 is the most likely number of excess violent deaths. It is this number that our Estimator updates.
As of September 2007, a poll from the British polling firm Opinion Research Business contributed to our understanding of the Iraqi death toll, confirming the likelihood that over a million have died with an estimate of 1.2 million deaths."

I honestly don't know how reliable these numbers are. I really don't. But the cost of war for Americans has been different than it has been for the Iraqis. Here is an article that speaks to how some of the actions of the American gov't are viewed by the locals. I think I believe things are improving in Iraq, and I am hopeful that the Iraqi people in the future will enjoy the same freedoms I enjoy. I'm just really uncomfortable with the price the Iraqi's have paid in civilian lives. I'm uncomfortable, the reporter was pissed, and I'm not sure I blame him.

I know there are people that will read this that have loved ones in the US military. So do I. I'm not calling them cold-blooded killers, I just don't think we in the west ever have any understanding of what the Iraqi people have gone through. I think if my friends, neighbors, and relatives were being killed on a regular basis, I'd probably want to throw something at the leader of the country responsible too. I wanted to on 9/11. And I didn't know any of those people.

I imagine that the journalist that threw his shoes has seen things I'll likely never see. I decided NOT to post some of the more disturbing images I found of civilian casualties from the Iraq war. The girl in the picture below was 6 and is being washed in preparation for her burial. You can find the article with the picture by clicking on it. There are more pictures there too. Be forewarned- it is not a feel-good article.

God help me understand how many Iraqi lives are worth the safety and security of one American life. It seems like fuzzy math to me.

I'll take a number one, coffee medium/regular, french cruller and Boston cream...

Every New England-er has their "regular" order at Dunkin Donuts. They also have a back-up regular in case the regular doesn't work out for some reason. If you go to the same Dunks for a while, the person behind the counter even learns to recognize you and knows your order before you open your mouth to ask for it. It becomes pretty convenient. (I don't think this is possible at Stah-bucks. I found this one hilarious! And add it to the reasons to support this guy.)

For as long as I can remember, my regular has been #1. It's a coffee with 2 donuts. I used to get Hazelnut coffee back when they still brewed hazelnut flavored coffee beans. Now they use hazelnut flavored syrup which is not the same taste. The first tastes like Hazelnut coffee, the other tastes like coffee with Hazelnut syrup in it. Totally lame. So, now I simply order just a normal flavored coffee, medium/regular (which means with cream and sugar in New England but nowhere else), with my two favorite donuts- the Boston Creme and the French Cruller. Both are great donuts on their own (I actually think the French Cruller is my fav of the two) but for me, one is inadequate without the other. I am very particular about how I like my Boston Creme served to me. It's simple- place it in the bag carefully as to avoid the chocolate covering sticking to the inside of the bag and getting all over everything. (Ok, so they usually just throw it in the bag, but I fix it before any damage is done!) Eating the Boston Creme takes a bit of pre-planning too. The first bite should be over the hole where they put the creme filling in so the filling doesn't come squirting out said hole upon the first bite. That gets messy. The french cruller is simply a soft, flaky, sweet treat. And if you're lucky, you get it warm and it's a soft, flaky, warm, and gooey treat! Mmmmm...

There is a DD two blocks from my desk at work, and until recently I was going there daily for my #1. This particular DD is located inside an Exxon gas station on the corner of Park Drive and Boylston street in Boston. Many of you might recognize gas station as it uses it's land for a parking lot during Red Sox games. Things were going well until just before Halloween this year. I entered and asked for the usual.

"I'll take a number one, coffee medium/regular, with a Boston Creme and a French Cruller (pronounced cur'-ler)," I said.

"I'm sorry, we don't have French Crullers right now. We have replaced them with pumpkin donuts," replied Trevor from behind the counter. Poor Trevor. I really let him know how sad I was that of all the donuts they made chose replace my favorite. And I don't even like pumpkin flavored anything. This poor shmoe was just the messenger!

Fortunately for me, Trevor was a very customer service oriented kid and he spoke to his manager for me! Next time I was in there there was a small number of crullers specifically waiting for me! Woohoo!!! Unfortunately, I began to put on weight and had to cut down on my donut intake. I stopped going to DD's every morning. Instead, I began to walk up all of the stairs at work (44 flights a night) and only treat myself to DD on Fridays. I felt bad that Trevor had gotten me the crullers and then I stopped buying them all the time, but it was necessary to avoid gaining weight.

Well, this morning is Friday so I went down to DD's to get the regular. When I did, the kid (Isaiah) behind the counter told me the french crullers were considered "manager specials" and were not included in the #1 since they cost more. I looked at him, dumbfounded.

"No, their not," I replied.

"Yes, they are," he corrected me.

"Since when," I asked?

"They've always been. I didn't know it until recently when I got in trouble for selling them at the regular price."

"I think you need to re-check your facts," I insisted. "I've been ordering the same thing for over 20 years and the french cruller has never been anything other than a regular donut." I pointed at his co-worker, Zorah. "She sells them to me all the time! She knows!"

It was to no avail. I ended up getting a "Low fat" blueberry muffin instead. As it turns out, the muffin was far more fattening than my donut. 1 French Cruller has 150 calories. 1 "low fat" blueberry muffin has 400 calories, about 2.7 times the calories in the cruller. Aaaaahhhhhhhh!!!!
Someone at this DD has something against either me or the french cruller. I intend to do some serious investigating. Or do I?

This whole stupid situation has filled my night with a considerable amount of cognitive dissonance. On the one hand, I'm really upset by this little inconvenience. It's amazing how one little change in a 20 year old routine can mess with one's mind. On the other hand, I am very aware of how stupid my feelings are! This one little donut costs as much or more than millions of people in the world make in a day. It's shamful, really. I want to go in there and meet the manager and find out what this guy has against the cruller. He's probaby a communist! But I can't imagine how I could possible make a stink about something so dumb. I wonder what I'll do?

I'll keep you posted. I'm sure you'll be waiting with baited breath.

Wise-guy 5-year-old...

(Author's note: If for some reason you are reading this and don't know me or my family, we're about as white as it gets! That'll help understand the context of this post.)

Our son Joshua never ceases to amaze us with what comes out of his mouth. We have friends of many different races and nationalities. The following was a conversation that took place between our son Josh and a Korean friend of ours...

Josh: "Are you Chinese?"

Friend: "No, I'm Korean."

Josh: "You look Chinese."

Friend: "Well, I'm not, I'm Korean. Sometimes people make that mistake though."

Josh: "I think you're Chinese because you look Chinese. You must be Chinese!"

Friend: "Well, just because I look Chinese doesn't mean I am Chinese!"

Josh: "Oh. Well, I'm Chinese."

Friend: "No you're not."

Josh: "Yes I am. My mommy's Chinese, my daddy's Chinese, my sister's Chinese, and I'm Chinese."

Friend: "You don't look very Chinese."

Josh: "Just because I don't look Chinese doesn't mean I'm not Chinese."

End of conversation!

Stuff I Don't Get...

In my first entry titled Stuff I Don't Get... I explained that I had trouble understanding the logic behind Coors Light's advertising techniques. I'm detecting a pattern, because this post is also about advertising.

My first rant is in regards to the recent advertising campaign by Chrysler for the 2009 Dodge Ram. If you watch any sports at all, you've most likely seen commercials that show a sort of competition for people Driving Dodge Ram trucks. In order to see the content of the whole commercial, one must go to the website. This isn't the first time I've seen a commercial that tries to entice viewers to visit the website for a particular company. However, I don't think I've ever actually visited a site just to see the continuation of the commercial. This particular commercial effort however, seemed over-the-top so I decided to visit the site to see if the rest of it was just as stupid as I thought the teaser was. The teaser had these guys driving through an obstacle course that included trucks swinging like a pendulum and exploding buildings. (You can find these commercials at http://www.ramchallenge.com/.) I find these adds useless for many different reasons, but all of my pet-peeves for TV commercials boil down to this: I want you to show my why your product is of use to me. If it doesn't then you're not doing your job as an advertiser. Or you're simply clueless.

If you follow the above link, you'll note that the very first screen you come to is a large disclaimer which reads:

The following competition features actual contestants under the supervision of professional stunt drivers. Chrysler LLC, Dodge and its Agencies insist no one attempt to replicate the activity shown on this site.

I'm having a hard time understanding how that begins to make the case that I will find their trucks useful, but whatever. To summarize, there are these 8 guys broken up into teams of 2 according to their profession- 2 firefighters, 2 military men, 2 cowboys, and 2 contractors. Obviously, they are the manliest of men. The only manlier person is the host of the competition. I can't find any good way to describe him except that he looks like John Kruk's ugly brother- and even John Kruk would tell you that's not a compliment. He begins each stage of the 4-day competition by firing a sawed-off shotgun in the air. And he says "Never back down from a challenge" a lot. That's the catch-phrase for this ad campaign. The website is pretty impressive actually, and you need to watch a couple segments of video to see what I'm talking about. In short, it's a testosterone-laden 40 minutes of action movie/reality TV directed by Hollywood director/producer Tony Scott. During the race, the drivers take the trucks up and down steep inclines/declines, through a "wall of fire", avoid old cars and trucks swinging from cranes, over a bridge the drivers have to build themselves, and through an obstacle course while towing a good sized trailer among other things. In the grand finale, they drive their trucks through what appears to be an old ghost-town. As they drive by, or in some cases through these buildings they explode. I guess it's all in a days work. Or not.

Here's what I don't get...

1) Exactly who are they marketing these trucks to? Obviously they think cowboys, firefighters, military men, and contractors would find this stuff to be impressive. In fact, I think driving a truck through a course they had set up would be a lot of fun. But it's not likely to be something that will happen to me...or MOST OF THE WORLD. If they're trying to sell a lot of trucks, why don't they try to have a larger target audience?

2) How many millions of dollars did it take to produce this online commercial that most people won't ever see? I'm sure Tony Scott didn't do it for free. As far as quality goes, it's first-rate. It reminded me a lot of "24," right down to the letters that flashed across the screen. I'd like to see a Congressman ask the guys at Chrysler who gave the OK for this commercial if they really think it was the best use of their advertising budget.

Here's the weird thing- I just bought a new truck. I've taken some ribbing for it as it's kind of large and rather redneckish. (It even has a NASCAR sticker on the back window. I'll be removing that the first time I have a chance!) I'll be sure NOT to lend it to people who teased me when they need a truck. Especially those who returned my last truck with a large dent in it! I used the "truck" part of my old truck all the time. It wasn't just a vehicle to get me around. I used it for landscaping, picking up stuff at Home Depot for home projects, towing the occasional trailer, helping friends move, etc... If I didn't have a truck, I'd have to get used to it. I like owning a truck. I got a new truck because my family has outgrown my old truck and I'd like to be able to take them all with me. The new truck is a 1994 with 56,500 miles on it, reasonably priced, and in almost mint condition. It's the only truck I've ever seen with an automatic sliding rear window. I like this truck. But when looking for a new truck I never asked myself, "Can it go through a wall of fire? Will I be able to successfully navigate a gauntlet of swinging cars? Will I be able to jump through an old building just before it explodes? I hope so. I might need to some day." Because that happens to a lot of people, right?

I've rambled on this long enough... I just don't see why anyone would buy a truck due to this expensive add.

My second "I don't get it" isn't as big of a deal. It's about the Snuggie. This is just plain silly. Some will find a use for this, but please, I'm begging you, do NOT take it to any sporting event. You'll need to pause the video when the family is at the sporting event to see how silly they look. I can't imagine bringing one of these things to a curling event let alone a Patriots game.

Well, that's it for this rant. Sometimes I'm just a goof.

A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

I recently posted this picture in one of my albums on Facebook. It is one of my all time favorites, and it is by far the best picture I've ever taken. A few people have commented on the picture and I figured that since there's a story with it too, I thought this might be a good time to tell it.

Joy and I have never really "decided" to get pregnant. We were thinking about it and decided to kind of let nature take its course. Nature found the course within two weeks of us deciding to give nature its freedom. I was pretty excited. Joy was a bit unsure, as she really likes to plan everything. All of the sudden, when she was pregnant, she began to realize not everything is plan-able. Like when her friend Melissa came over and found the positive pregnancy test in our next to the TV in our bedroom. Then again, maybe she didn't really "find" it- perhaps that was planned.

We had been pregnant before. In April of 1998 Joy began to wonder if she was pregnant because she had been feeling funny in a new way. She went to the doctor and found out that she was pregnant four and a half months into our marriage. I was naive and thrilled. Joy was neither. There were tears of fear. "How are we going to handle a baby," she asked me? I didn't know but I wasn't too concerned. A few days later we were in the emergency room experiencing a miscarriage. We didn't know how to feel. Joy had begun to warm up to the idea, and I had begun to look at things realistically. At any rate, we had been aware of the pregnancy for about 2 weeks when it ended. We've always wondered what that child would have been like, but felt that we weren't ready for a baby at that time, so that took a little of the pain out of the loss. This time around, we were both sure of our desire to have a child.

It was April of 2002 and we were excited. We began to wonder what sex the baby was, and Joy insisted that we find out as soon as we could so she could plan for the arrival. We found out it was a boy. It would be the first boy in our branch of the Scott family tree. There was just my brother and me to carry on the family name so this was a bit of a relief- to have the pressure off. Whew! That summer we went to my cousin Amber's wedding to Ryan in VA. For some reason, Joy and I ended up in different locations during that trip, (Joy was at her parents home in MD, and I was back in MA preparing for new student orientation,) and I remember the devastating phone call late at night.

"Jeff I think its happening again," she said through tears.

"What's happening again," I asked?

"I'm bleeding pretty bad."

"Oh. You are? How bad?"

"Pretty bad. It's pretty steady..."

Joy was at her parents home in Maryland and I remember that it was pretty early in the morning when she called. I didn't know what to say. I was hundreds of miles away and just wanted to be with her. How do you hold your wife from that far away? Joy went to see a doctor the next day. I was waiting with the phone by my side for an update. Based on how Joy was describing things, it wasn't good. I was already preparing for the worst. I was trying to decide how we would handle this. Would we have a burial? I mean, there would actually be remains. It was tough- painful just to consider.

The phone call came and it sounded like a miracle. They still heard a heartbeat which meant the baby was still alive! Eventually we found out that a blood vessel between the uterine wall and the placenta had ruptured and caused the bleed. There was no idea how much blood Joy lost or if it had affected the baby, but the doctors seemed very optimistic. Apparently a blood vessel had ruptured between the uterine wall and the placenta. The result was the bleeding and a golf-ball sized blood clot. While it didn't sound pretty, it wasn't something all that uncommon. But they also said that from that point on, Joy was considered a "high risk" pregnancy. She took it easy for the next few weeks and eventually, the bleeding subsided and stopped. A couple of months later she began to experience preterm labor. It was October, and as much as we wanted to meet our son, now named Joshua Charles, the doctor told us that it was too early to let him be born. Joy was placed on bed-rest and spent some time in the hospital. When we returned home she spent quite a bit of time in bed. Most of that time was working on the phone and on computer, but I guess technically, she was in bed.

On January 18, 2003, we went over to the home of some friends, Brent and Edie Richardson, for dinner. Joy was rather large by that time and was due in about two weeks. While we were eating we all joked about whether or not there was something in the roast beef that might make Joy go into labor. Apparently there was. As we got into the car Joy looked at me and said "Jeff, I think my water just broke. Yeah, I'm sure it did!" When we got home I called the Doctor and she told us to head in to the hospital to be sure. I'm told that it is normal for the husband to start freaking out at that point. However, this isn't what happened. Joy went into an absolute frenzy. Mrs. "I have it all planned out" began to yell orders and was a little bit freaked out. I just stood there and watched. It was classic. I wanted to take it all in. I think I was even laughing at her. Eventually she took a wrong step and kicked a fireplace grate that was waiting to go down to storage with her shin. That slowed her down. As I was consoling her I pointed out how she was acting and we both had a good laugh. Off to the hospital.

The nurses at Tufts New England Medical Center confirmed that A) her water had broken, and B) I was not beating her. With these two important facts in hand, they put us into a room. The only problem was, she wasn't in labor. They gave us the choice of starting labor with pitocin or going to bed and seeing if it started naturally. We chose to try to sleep. We had the TV turned on to Rocky III. At one point, a TV journalist in the movie asked Mr. T if he had any predictions for "the fight". "Pain" was his answer. (Thanks to the beauty of Youtube, I found the clip.) Joy and I both laughed because we thought that it might be an appropriate answer for us too. Off to sleep...or not.

With all of the anticipation we didn't really sleep all that well. Nor did Joy's labor begin. When we woke up, Joy started the meds to begin labor and we were off. I don't remember how long labor was, I only remember that it began slowly and Joy was of the mind to tough it out without any medication. She decided later that there was no way she was going to go through this without meds! The anesthesiologist came in, kicked me out, and gave Joy an epidural. I was not happy with him for kicking me out of the room. I had never heard of that before. But I left anyways.

The delivery was difficult for Joy for a few different reasons. First, she was really tired. She hadn't slept much the night before, then she had taken some nausea medicine to counteract the side-effects of the pitosin. The nausea meds made her sleepy. Second, Joy could no longer feel anything due to the epidural and couldn't tell where or when to push. Third, the sweet over-night nurse gave way to a not-as-sweet nurse with a strong personality and no nonsense demeanor. She was a bit more difficult to work with and kind of made Joy feel like it was her fault that the delivery was taking so long. However, it was evident that this nurse was on the ball and could tell when things were taking longer than they should have. Baby Joshua eventually crowned, but remained crowned for an extended period of time. This nurse then began to get visibly frustrated with the doctor (and resident, and medical student) and wondered when he was going to take the necessary steps to speed up the process. Eventually he did and Joshua was born! It was a very exciting moment for all in the room. My excitement was full of joy. The doctor's and everyone else's excitement was full of concern for the baby. I didn't even notice that Josh wasn't pink and screaming. He was whitish gray turning blue. (See the picture to the left.) The doctor hurried me through the cord-cutting process and rushed Joshua to the receiving table where about 6 members of the medical staff was waiting for him. They began to work feverishly to get him to breath. They did everything they could- rub-downs, little spankings, cleared his airway, and eventually a shot in the leg to get him to breath. Nothing worked well, as you can see the shot had little effect.

Joy got to hold him for about 20 seconds before they rushed him to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). When he was finally in the NICU, they placed him under an oxygen hood as seen above. He began to gain strength and was screaming by the time I got up to the NICU for a short visit. It certainly wasn't the birth experience we were hoping for. Joy was a mess, and I had no clue what was going on. As far as I knew it was normal. Well, I understood that rushing a baby out of the delivery room to the NICU is not normal. But I was sure it had happened before.

It wasn't long before Josh was acting like a healthy little baby boy. They told us that he would probably have to stay in the NICU for about 24 hours, but he was in Joy's room by that evening and we were on our way home in two days. All seemed well! I returned to work and Joy began to settle in with Josh. She took some announcement pictures to send out to our friends. These included some of the only pictures you'll ever see of Josh with a pacifier. He never really liked them.
It is likely that you can't tell from these pictures, but Josh was pretty jaundiced. We didn't really notice for a couple of reasons. One, we never had another baby to compare him to. Two, the lighting in our apartment wasn't the best and we couldn't really tell. However, when we took him in for his first check-up with his new pediatrician, we could tell in the brighter light. We knew even before the doctor told us that we were going back to the hospital. When we got there we were told Josh had a bilirubin level of 19. That's very high. The medical staff said that we were right on the border of blood transfusion levels. Fortunately, it never came to that.

They put this really ugly mask on Joshua and placed him under some really bright, warm lights for what they call phototherapy. We were really disappointed that we couldn't hold him that much, and we all wanted to be the one to hold him for feedings. For obvious reasons, Joy had the opportunity to do this more than the rest of us, but we all got our turn.


There was a lot of down-time in the hospital. After all, he was simply laying there under lights. It's not like we were playing with him. So I began to play with our camera instead. I don't have a lot of knowledge about lighting or anything like that, but the camera automatically adjusted to make up for the bright lights of the "jaundice machine." I was able to take some fantastic pictures including the one of Joy looking over her baby boy. I feel like that picture is the kind that tells a silent story. The kind of story that only the person looking at the picture knows. We could probably give that picture to a group of writers and they'd be able to come up with some great stories about what the circumstances may have been surrounding the picture. In fact, by simply telling the actual story, I may be detracting from the picture.

The fact is, even with his high levels of jaundice, Josh was probably the healthiest baby in the NICU. There were some very sick and very little babies in that wing of the hospital. There were parents in there that were hurting much more than us. There were babies whose 5-plus month-long stay in the NICU made our little 1 week sojourn look like some sort of weird vacation. Hey, Josh was laying around getting phototherapy for crying out loud! We actually had it pretty good and we knew it. We were fortunate, and not everybody there was as fortunate as we were. We knew that some of the little ones there were actually fighting for their lives, and the parents were helpless. We had the nerve to complain that we were missing the NFL playoffs. Yes, Joy too. After a week long stay we returned home for good.

Josh has grown in every way since that time almost 6 years ago. He was able to meet his great-grandpa Nease before he passed away. This picture is one of the last pictures of grandpa smiling. He looks a lot better in this picture than he actually was.

He also met his great-grandma Scott and Mama, his great-grandma Poole.











































So, as you can see, Joshua has turned out just fine. He's tall for his age, very smart, has a GREAT imagination (thanks to Auntie Merritt and friends for this video), and he is a terrific big brother. His little sister, Jordan, adores him (thanks to Uncle Jeremy for this video). She is however, another story for another day.

Oh, Brother...

In the spring of 2005, I left my position as a Resident Director at Eastern Nazarene College. The time had come. In fact, it was probably past time. I started the job search for another position in student affairs. There were no real hits for a while, and then I received an email from the Director of Student Activities at Emerson College about a new position they were hiring for there. I knew three things about Emerson. 1) It is a Communication Arts school. 2) My cousin attended there. 3) It was a very liberal college- even for Boston. And for some reason, I knew immediately that I was going to be offered the position. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't nonchalant about the interview process, but I believed that if God was in the business of placing His people in learning situations, this was the learning situation for me.

I remember about a month after taking the position walking along the street with the president of the Student Government Association. She was (and I assume still is) a hard-core Democrat. (TANGENT ALERT!!! I found a "type" of person I didn't know existed while I was at Emerson- gay conservatives. It took me a while to understand how that was possible.) I think we were talking about Bush's defeat of Kerry. She began to get a bit angry as she spoke about Bush. I remember telling her that one reason I had difficulty listening to Democrats was because they were always so angry. I tried to express to her that it would be easier for people like me to listen to people like her if they didn't get so angry all the time. After a while it sounded like whining.) I'm sure she's glad I shared my wisdom with her.

Indeed Emerson College was a learning experience for me. I'm glad that I spent a short year-and-a-half there. I consider myself a moderate now, but if I'm honest, I think I'd have to admit to leaning further to the left politically. I finally began to hear and understand why liberals got so angry, and you know what? I find myself getting angry a lot now. My latest issue- "Obama is the Antichrist." My brother played the role of a sounding board yesterday and convinced me NOT to blog about it. I'm glad he did. My last blog was about as negative as I want to be. In fact, it was probably too negative. I kinda wish I hadn't written it. But it's out there now. A couple of weeks ago I blogged about homosexuality. I wasn't angry for that one, but the topic was important to me. The blog was heartfelt. My brother said he was proud of me, a comment for which I was grateful. I felt that I had made myself pretty vulnerable. There was kind of a pride for me for "putting it all on the line" so to speak. Whatever...

Yesterday my brother shared with me that he preached a difficult sermon this past Sunday. He expressed that some of his parishioners may have struggled a bit with what he said. I realized something then. Preachers are in the habit of making themselves vulnerable on a weekly basis. Sometimes more. I know this because there is not a Sunday that goes by that I don't critique almost every word that comes out of my pastors mouth when he's preaching. It simply comes with the territory. I usually keep my critical thoughts between my wife and me. I'm not one to tell my pastor how or what to preach. That's up to God. Fortunately, I believe my pastor really understands the gospel and preaches it well. He doesn't know it, but it's even worse for my brother when I'm listening to him preach. I mean hey, he's my little brother, I've been judging his every move his whole life. I mean, it's my God-given right as the older brother to guide and teach him the correct way to do things! It's a hard habit to break. So when he's preaching, I'm not only critiquing his sermon, I'm critiquing his delivery, his hair, his motions, etc... Alright, I'm not that bad, but simply said, I critique my brother differently than other preachers.

He sent me the link to the podcast of his sermon. Everyone is doing that now. I'm not just bragging on my bro when I say that it's one of the best messages I've heard in a long time. My brother is not an orator, so I'm not talking about the delivery, nor do I really care about the delivery. My brother is an unashamed and humble disciple of Christ and that is all he wants to be. He believes God called him into the ministry, and that's the only reason he's done it. Apparently the people in his church believe God has called him too, because they voted him into the pulpit. As a preachers kid, I understand that most sermons are "run of the mill" with a message from God, but nothing earth shattering or too difficult to hear. But there are also sermons that God lays on a pastors heart which are more difficult to deliver and more difficult to hear. It seems that these are the Sundays where the pastor "just doesn't have it" or was too "judgmental". I imagine these Sundays are very difficult for pastors. But they have to preach those messages! They are God's mouthpiece to their congregation. To ignore the direction of the Holy Spirit would place the minister in a state of sin. You all remember the Jonah story. It's a different setting and message, but Jonah wanted to avoid delivering it.

Jeremy's message this past Sunday was about the Christian perspective on life. Politics was mentioned several times. It really hit home for me because I'm afraid I've been guilty of focusing on the negative in this race. Actually, it wasn't even that I was focusing on the negative aspects of the candidates, but I've been very negative towards my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. Simply put, as a disciple of Christ, he simply commands my obedience. He does not command that I offer my opinion on everything. This sermon is worth listening to. I hope you do. It's about half an hour long with a very important message for followers of Christ. In fact, I'm begging you...

Newly Discovered Text!!!! The Gospel of Ben Stein, some other dude, and SNOPES.com

I have most of my friends categorized into three email groups:

1) Friends who forward EVERYTHING. Emails from these friends are quickly deleted if the subject line includes "FWD" or indicates that the message within is likely nonsense that ends with something like "Send this to ten of your friends including yourself, and the Tamba Bay Rays will beat the Red Sox to move on to the World Series this year." I'm not superstitious and none of that stuff ever works. I trash it immediately.

2) Friends who only forward things to me that are either funny or true. For me this is generally family members or close friends. They all know me pretty well and only include me in the forward if they think I'll appreciate it. They're not trying to "inform" me or prove some point. They're just trying to make me smile or share information they know I care about. Most of the time they're right.

3) Friends who never forward anything. The only emails I receive from them are relevant to some aspect of my relationship with them. The first time I receive a forward from them it usually begins with "I don't usually forward things but..." I open it, knowing that as soon as I do this particular friend will no longer be in category 3. I will make a quick decision to place their name into category 1 or 2. This process usually works well. It was a bit more challenging for me over the past few days.

(Before I continue, it is very important that I make one thing very clear. I'm about to get very negative, sarcastic, and even condemning of an email I received from a friend. I am NOT upset with my friend. They were duped. I don't like to be duped, and I don't like it when it happens to my friends. So if you're one of the friends who sent this to me, or if you've sent it to others, don't feel bad. This isn't aimed at you, it's aimed at the "author" of the email.)

In the span of about 10 days or so I received the same forwarded email from two different people in my church community. These people were in category 3, people that I often receive emails from on various issues. They are both good friends. I have cut and pasted the email below. You may think you have received this email before (as I did). But you may find that it is a bit different. At any rate, please read the whole thing as the last portion of this post will be difficult to follow if you have not.

The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday Morning Commentary.

My confession:

I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees, Christmas trees.. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are: Christmas trees.

It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, 'Merry Christmas' to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu . If people want a creche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.

I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to. In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.

Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her 'How could God let something like this happen?' (regarding Katrina) Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, 'I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?'

In light of recent events... terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves. Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.'

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.

Are you laughing yet?

Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.

Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us. Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not then just discard it... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.

My Best Regards, Honestly and respectfully,

Ben Stein

As I mentioned earlier, I thought I had seen this email before but as I re-read it this time I was pretty sure it was different- longer in fact- than the last time. The portion I had received previously was Mr. Stein's commentary about Christmas. When I received the original "FWD" I checked snopes.com to see if it was actually legitimately Ben Stein's commentary. It was. I was appreciative of his candid remarks. (I always check snopes.com for things like these. Without exception! I hope you do too.) But this time around there were some issues for me.

When Ben Stein first issued these remarks, it was on TV. Specifically CBS Sunday Morning where he sometimes offers commentary. (This particular commentary begun with a short rant about how he didn't know who Nick and Jessica Simpson were and felt old.) The email even stated in the first line where the comments were from. Problem is, this most recent email ended with,

"My Best Regards, Honestly and respectfully [typo NOT added],


Ben Stein"

I've never before heard someone on the TV offer commentary that ended with "My Best Regards, Honestly and respectfully...". Not once. Nor have I ever heard someone try to guilt me into forwarding on their commentary with some magical Tivo as if my relationship with God depended on it. Ben Stein's original message had obviously been changed. I was miffed. I checked snopes again to see where the changes began. Snopes had updated their information, but the whole email was still listed as "true."

The addition to the email began mid-sentence where the new "author" deleted the names "Nick and Jessica" and relaced them with "these celebrities" in an effort to set up the rest of the email. The rest of the addition begins with the words, "In the light of the many jokes we send..." What follows is several quotes, many of which are defensive, about the state of affairs in the world and how they relate to the role of God in America. As far as I can tell the quotes were not made up, and snopes confirms the statements. What bothered me was the fact that somebody had the audacity to add stuff to Ben Stein's original comments which were good enough to stand on their own merrit! Further, Mr. Stein's point was not the same point as the author of the second half of the more recent email.

Stein's point was offered as an opinion and was, I thought, fair- I don't mind if people say to me, a Jew, "Merry Christmas!" People who find "Merry Christmas" to be offensive need to get over it." The second author's point was well intended, but uninformed- God is allowing bad things to happen to us because we have kicked him out of schools, etc... I immediately began to write a "reply to all" email to inform everyone that they had been duped. As usual, I began to get a bit long-winded and had to stop to go pick up my kids from their day care. I'm glad I did because I had some time to think more about this email.

While they don't clearly state that they are a Christian, I think it's pretty clear that whoever provided the "editing" professes faith in Christ. And as always, they've done a disservice to my savior. I get their point, but they had no right to change the commentary. Especially not in the name of God. Further, I'm not sure what kind of God they're serving.

One of my friends said that it was food for thought. Well, I thought about it, and here's what I think:

"Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her 'How could God let something like this happen?' (regarding Katrina) Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, 'I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?' "

I think Billy Graham is wonderful. I have a ton of respect for him as an evangelist and theologian. One of the reason I believe this is because I never heard him say things like this. I don't think what Anne is all that profound or insightful in this circumstance. Am I to assume that if every single United States citizen was a believer in God- Baptist even- then Katrina wouldn't have happened? No Anne, "we" haven't all demanded that God get out of our government. And even if we had, Jesus reminded us that God doesn't neglect people simply because they don't follow His will. Consider Mattew 5:45, "...He [God] causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."

"In light of recent events... terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK."

Again, "we" is a bit broad, don't you think? Besides, people who read the Bible and believe in God kill all of the time. Think Crusades, Inquisition, and abortion clinic bombings/shootings for starters. Clearly it didn't start with Madeleine O'Hare. Jesus believed in God and he was murdered. So did Stephen, Peter, Paul, Andrew, ...you get my point.

"Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK."

You're not honestly saying that Dr Spock is responsible for his son's suicide are you? I hope not because his son didn't commit suicide. His 22-year-old grandson who suffered from schizophrenia did in 1983. (Source: Wikipedia and snopes.com) But I've never heard that spanking gives children schizophrenia. In general, experts do know what they're talking about. I'm sure there are millions of children that were never spanked that will live long and prosper. Like me, for instance. As for Dr. Spock, I did a little research on him. I think he and Jesus would have gotten along well.

"Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves. Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.'"

Gosh, you sound an aweful lot like Jeremiah Wright. If I remember the sound bite correctly, I think he said something like "The chickens have come home to roost!" Is that what you're trying to say?

"Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.

Are you laughing yet?"

No, I'm not laughing. Especially since you have added you're own bit of uninformed commentary to Mr. Stein's opinion. Apparently stretching the truth is not lying. You're lucky, because if it was I might have to spank you.

"Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.

Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us. Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not then just discard it... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in."

Funny how while I think I get your point, and might even agree with your intent I still wouldn't pass this on if my life depended on it. How dare you tell me that not forwarding a doctored email suggests I'm ashamed of my faith?

My Best Regards, Honestly and respectfully,

Ben Stein

It really strikes me that 1) This is no longer Ben Stein, 2) "honest" isn't a word that comes to mind after reading this, and 3) I didn't exactly feel respected either. You forgot to capitalize the "r".

Which could stand for repulsive.

It was then that something did occured to me. This is how some of the Bible was written.

I used to think that all of the books of the Bible were placed in order by age. That is, Genesis was the oldest and Revelation was the newest. This is not the case. In fact, many scholars believe that Job is the oldest book in the Bible, not Genesis. Revelation is the most recent, authored around 95 BC. The early church of Christ did not have the New Testament. Instead they were told stories, an oral history, of Jesus. They were told over and over again, until they were eventually written down. Paul's ministry and letters pre-date our recorded gospels. Mark is generally accepted as the earlies gospel and it is widely accepted that much of the information in Matthew and Luke was taken from Mark. I was gonna try to explain all of this, but I won't because I don't know enough about it. If you care, find some books that talk about it. Or check that peer-reviewed source (choke, cough...) known as Wikipedia. That'll do. My point is, there wasn't a scribe watching Jesus and then writing down everything he did (as they did with Mohammed. Oh yeah, that's a different religion. I'm sorry.) There are a lot of differences in the Gospel accounts of Jesus's life, and sometimes things got lost (or added) in translation during the years where the Bible was copied by hand.

Obviously I'm in no way comoparing the Bible to an email. Brotha pleez. Far from it. I believe that the ancient scribes and such had better intentions and were much better informed than the email author (particularly in light of Holy Spirit inspiration and direction), but I just couldn't help but wonder about how much different our gospels today might be from the original author's words and intent. This is the stuff of dissertations. Maybe someday...

"H" The Modern Scarlet Letter

Several of my friends have offered their opinions on homosexuality in their blogs. When my response to one of those blogs became longer than the blog itself, I decided to post it in my own blog. As is typical for me, this will be long. In fact, I can't imagine having another blog post be as long as this one. Perhaps someday I'll learn how to make short points, but for now, I'm unable. I hope you can excuse this. Four warnings:

1. I take forever to get to my point.
2. Even when (more like if) I get to my point, I do not come to a conclusion on this topic. So if you're looking for one, please don't be surprised.
   
3. A message to my gay friends that may be reading this: At this point in my walk through wisdom, not coming to a conclusion is the best that I can offer for you. I have a tremendous amount of love for you, and not just because the Bible tells me to love you. I also have a tremendous amount of respect for your courage. I've never had to fight a battle like you are fighting and I've never been rejected like you've been rejected. I do not consider myself any "gooder" than you. This issues has rocked my faith like no other.
4. I say things here that will probably upset every reader at some point- gays, Christians, gay Christians, fundamentalists- I try not to discriminate. But, I am not intending to upset you, I'm only sharing my journey with you. I have no malicious intent, and at no time to I claim that I'm correct and you are wrong. These are just my thoughts.
   

Homosexuality is the most difficult issue for me to discuss. I just don't get it. I've said before, one of my biggest obstacles to understanding this topic is that I'm not gay. I never have been and I never will be. It's very similar to having never been black. I'll never truly know what it's like to live as a black man in America since I've never been black in my life. I didn't always understand this. I used to think I could identify with homosexuals because I know what it is like to struggle with my own sexual temptations. The problem is, a homosexual is not simply struggling with the desire to have sex with someone of the same sex. They are not fighting for the right to get married because they want to have sex. People do not need to be married to have sex. People, both gay and straight, have extra-marital sex all the time. Sexual intimacy is probably last on the list of reasons homosexuals have for seeking marital rights. In fact, the fact that we focus so much on the sexual act probably says more about a Christian heterosexual's motivation for marraige than it does the homosexual's motivation for marriage. Sexual intimacy should be the last reason people get married. In healthy marriages, sexual intimacy is a blessed bonus.*

I guess the best way for me to understand how homosexuals feel is to consider that the circumstances were reversed. What if homosexuality was the norm and heterosexuality was illegal and considered sin and an abomination? What would that mean for me? Simply put, that would suck. Yet that's the reality for thousands of people. So what now?

Homosexuality has forced me to examine my values- where they come from and how they guide me. My values come from my upbringing and my faith. It is very possible that if I had been brought up in a different family, I would be of a different faith. However, I was brought up in a Christian, conservative home with Biblically based, Judeo-Christian values. Difficulty arises when many people use the Bible to support opposite sides of the same issue. Why do some people think the Bible says one thing, and other people think the Bible says other things? Apparently, the Bible isn't as clear as some people think it is. Frankly, sometimes the Bible is as clear as mud for me, but it's still sacred to me. Further, while the Bible can be as clear as mud, the Kingdom of God doesn't seem that difficult to understand.

I am reminded that according to the Bible, Jesus said more than once that he was sending a gift to help his followers in with faith. This gift was the Holy Spirit; it was not the Bible. The Bible is a blessed and sacred collections of Holy Spirit driven writings of various kinds (songs, poems, letters, etc...). It is a book about God's relationship with creation. It is a story about how God has interacted with man throughout history. I do not view it as a collection of do's and don'ts. I find more value in viewing the Bible for what it shows me, not what it tells me. For instance, you don't have to be a Christian to recognize the lyrics to the song Jesus Loves Me.

Jesus loves me this I know,
For the Bible tells me so...

I'm of the mind to change one little word so that it would be sung,

Jesus loves me this I know,
For the Bible SHOWS me so...

It's a small change, but it changes my perspective tremendously. It shows me how God has interacted with humanity in the past and informs me about how I might expect God to interact with me today.

Disagreements about what the scriptures mean is nothing new. The new testament is fraught with documented theological disagreements. (Think Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, and Herodians.) The Bible also shows several instances where two or more Christian leaders (think Peter and Paul) disagree vehemently about certain issues (think ministering to gentiles and Jews). The early church leaders were trying to figure out some very important issues without the benefit of the New Testament. They had their scriptures, but relied heavily on the guidance of the Holy Spirit. They weren't just "we agree to disagree" issues either. They were just as significant as out discussions about homosexuality. If the early Christians couldn't see clearly on some of the issues of their day simply by using the scriptures, who am I to say that the Bible is "clear" on issues of my day? I won't. And I'll always err on the side of Grace.

Understanding this, I try to approach the issue of homosexuality (and violence, and abortion, and whatever) by referring to the Bible, but also relying heavily on the guidance of the Holy Spirit to help me understand how to approach certain situations. Fact is, I won't know for sure until I take my last earthly breath. In doing this, I have felt free to consider God's motivation for delineating certain sins. For instance, why did God give the Hebrews the ten commandments? If you killed somebody before Moses received the ten commandments was it not a sin? Was it OK with God because hey, He hadn't given humanity the Ten Commandments yet? No. "In the beginning was the Word..." God's law has always been God's law. Unfortunately, it seems that we as a race were so incapable of maintaining diligence in adhering to God's natural law, we were so far fallen from what God wanted us to be that it became necessary to spell out how we were to live. Then we fell into the trap of adhering to a list of "sins" or "not sins" even to the point of categorizing sins. Nothing beneficial comes from this categorizing, and it detracts from the meaning of life. We're either creating a holiness hierarchy or trying to determine what we can get away with to avoid God's wrath rather participating in creation as God meant for us to. We're either striving for holiness, or we're not. We're either living in the Spirit or we're not. So what's my point?

I don't believe that God sat down one day and tried to find a list of the ten best rules for us. (Actually, Mosaic law had a lot more than 10 laws.) They weren't just rules for the sake of having rules. They were logical and critical fundamentals for progressive participation in God's ongoing creation. It was as if God was saying "Hey Hebrews! If you want to participate successfully in life, you'll need to adhere to these 10 basic things..." The end result is a holy relationship with God and each other which sustains life. The end result is not an eternal party with wings and harps. God's law is the necessary glue with keeps the creative process in place.

So what does this have to do with homosexuality? Well, it kind of explains my worldview. It explains where I'm coming from when I consider whether something is wholesome in God's eyes.

Let me be clear about something. I believe that most gay people actually are gay. They're not faking it. They mean it. Most of them didn't want to be gay. Coming out was a difficult process for most of my gay friends. They risked everything for it. They knew they would hurt people when they came out. I believe that most of them were born gay. It is real, and it is seldom a choice. There is a list of people that I believe are gay, yet for some reason have not come out yet. I will not be surprised when it happens. I didn't always feel this way, but I do now. (And so does my church leadership. They have stated that they believe homosexuality is rarely a choice. This will surprise many members of the Church of the Nazarene.)

I guess I just need to know where homosexuality fits into the Holy Creative Blueprint. One of the issues in this debate is that of whether or not people are born gay. This quickly moves towards the question of whether or not God makes people gay. One of my gay friends once asked me "Do you think God put gay people on the earth to control the population?" He wasn't being cynical. He really wanted to know what I thought. At the time, I didn't know how to answer him. Fortunately, I don't have a problem admitting when I don't have an answer. But it bothered me that I didn't have an answer. Let's assume that homosexuality is a sinful state. (Remember, I consider homosexuality to be a state of being, not a simple sinful act.) If I believe that people are born gay- which I do- and if I believe that God creates people, then this means that God creates them in a sinful state. This is many people's reason for believing that people are not born gay. God wouldn't create sin. As I see it, this leaves me with two options:

1. Homosexuality is not sinful.
2. God does not create babies.

At this point, my homosexual friends have hope, and some of my conservative, fundamental friends are cringing, thinking of that "knit me together in the womb" verse (Psalm 139:13), and getting ready to surf away to somewhere else on the www. One choice will make my gay friends happy, but neither choice is likely to make some of my other friends happy. What to do?

I choose option 2. (Now before my gay friends get upset with me, please remember that I promised I wouldn't come to a conclusion and I haven't. I'll get back to dealing with #1 in a moment.) I don't just choose option 2 to avoid choosing option 1 because the Bible is clear enough about homosexuality. I choose option 2 because there are other reasons I have trouble accepting that God is a baby making factory. I have trouble accepting a God that over-populates impoverished nations. I have trouble accepting that God creates babies that suffer. I have trouble accepting that a grown man can rape his 11 year old daughter and God would create the baby as a result of incest. I don't believe God is that cruel. That seems a bit sadistic. I don't believe God is sadistic.

I do believe that God sometimes intervenes in pregnancies. I do not know when or why, but I believe that it is possible. I believe that God values all lives, even the lives of babies born with challenges. Further, I believe that God doesn't just value the lives, but God can use lives to bring unlimited joy into this world regardless of mental capacity or physical agility. (I'll leave the abortion debate for another blog.) But I don't believe God creates most of the babies that are born into this world. In fact, as far as I know, there was only 1 Immaculate Conception. I believe God created a wonderful and good process of creation in the beginning- whenever that was- and gave us the magnificent privilege of participating in that process in many ways including procreation. So in essence, while I believe that God is the designer of the process, mommies and daddies create. And sometimes, mommies and daddies create a baby that is gay.**

So let me get back to the void I left by not choosing option 1. Is homosexuality sinful? I'm afraid the best I can do is offer a hearty "I don't know." How's that for not pleasing anyone? I simply don't know. But I do believe that putting your sexuality- hetero or homo- in front of seeking God's desire for a holy relationship with you is wrong. Our desire for intimacy with God needs to trump our desire for intimacy with anyone else. Our life's motto should be "God First" (not "Country First" as some have recently claimed.) And we cannot be putting God first as long as we are denying fundamental rights to our neighbor. So would I define marriage as strictly between a man and a woman. Well, yes (I think) and no (I think).

From a faith perspective, I once again try to consider what part marriage plays in Holy Creation. (I'm not sure I should be capitalizing that, but it seemed appropriate.) In as much as the creative process necessitates procreation, it is rather important that mommies and daddies have the tools to get the job done. Sounds a bit simplistic, I know, but it also seems kind of elementary. I'm very hesitant to consider gay marriage in the church. Probably beyond hesitant. It doesn't seem to fit well into the creative process. BUT...

I believe that many of the statements regarding homosexuality are also culturally relevant for the time in which they were written. At the time that the Old Testament scriptures were written the Hebrews were concerned with their very survival as a people. Homosexual activity was a direct threat to the survival of the Hebrew nation in that it could not result in offspring. Clearly this is not an issue now, and this argument it illogical. But at one time it was logical and essential for the survival of a people.

A few quicker thoughts on the topic:

• It is entirely hypocritical for the Church to vilify homosexual marriage when we can't even make heterosexual marriage work. Consider:

  "...data showed that the highest divorce rates were found in the Bible Belt. "Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama and Oklahoma round out the Top Five in frequency of divorce...the divorce rates in these conservative states are roughly 50 percent above the national average" of 4.2/1000 people.

  	11 southern states (AL, AR, AZ, FL, GA, MS, NC, NM, OK, SC and TX averaged 5.1/1000 people. (LA data is not available; TX data is for 1997).
  	Nine states in the Northeast (CT, MA, ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT) averaged only 3.5/1000 people."

(Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm)

According to the same source, the state with the lowest occurrence of divorce is Massachusetts, the first state in the nation to allow gay marriage. It is high time that we began to openly discuss sexuality in our faith communities. I think we'd do well to re-examine the spiritual term "sexual temptation" which can, I think, ignore the biological sex drive that we all have, and stigmatize those who have pre-marital sex.

• The United States of America is not a theocracy and nor should it be. A state passing a law legalizing gay marriage does not mean that religious institutions must perform gay marriages. Some of the commercials that I've seen in favor of Prop. 8 in California have been filled with naive claims about the loss of religious freedoms at best, lies at worst.
• Christians, both gay and straight, really need to understand what marriage is in the Kingdom of God, remembering that according to Jesus as recorded in Matthew 22, "...at the resurrection people will neither marry or be given in marriage," instead we'll be in service to God. I'm not sure how this totally fits into this conversation, only to say that we really need to be sure we know what we're defending. If you can't imagine giving up your spouse for anyone, even God, then perhaps the Kingdom of God isn't for you.
• I really have a difficult time defending homosexuality when bi-sexuality is so pervasive as well. What am I supposed to make of that?
• I don't see any good reason a gay person shouldn't be able to visit their significant other in the hospital, get good health care, etc...
• I think we'd do well to re-examine the spiritual term "sexual temptation" which can, I think, ignore the biological sex drive that we all have, and stigmatize those who have pre-marital sex. It would serve us well to understand the ebb and flow of sex drives so that we can expect them and know how to deal with them when they flame! "Sexual temptation" is far too narrow of an understanding about what is really going on.
• We've all heard the term "Love the sinner, hate the sin." Even if you believe homosexuality is a sin, this is a terrible way to approach the topic considering homosexuality is a state of being, not an act. So in essence, by hating the "sin", by definition, you're hating the "sinner." "H" the modern scarlet letter.
  

Like I said, I don't really come to a conclusion and am still "dealing" with this issue. I just don't know, and I'll err on the side of grace.


*In fact, people don't usually cheat on their spouse simply out of a desire to have sex with someone else. They are driven to a different person to fill an emotional void in their marriage relationship. This is a different topic for a different day.

**I know this leads us to the question, "Then is homosexuality genetic?" I don't know, but I do know gay people that don't have any gay relatives. At any rate, as far as morality goes I don't think it matters if it's genetic or not. Alcoholism is genetic and nobody seems to think that changes the moral issue any.