Thursday, February 26, 2004
10:43 pm
Daniel J. Summers
Recently, there have been quite a few “groups” getting offended about things that other people do. Let me say up front that I have no problems with any individual person; however, I do not like the whole “group” concept, where a couple of loud-mouthed members of said group purport to speak for every member. That being said…
Some American Indians are upset about OutKast's performance at the Grammys - here's an article from CNN about it. OutKast has made their career being off-centre - a creative show like the one they put on at the Grammys shouldn't be that unexpected. I saw the show, and there was nothing offensive in it to me (other than the fact that I've heard “Hey Ya” so many times I'm sick of it).
Some Jews are upset about The Passion of the Christ - they feel that it will incite hate for Jews. First of all, the movie is historical. If the Jews didn't want this stuff being shown, they should've been nicer to Jesus 2,000 years ago. Secondly, the events portrayed in this film occurred 2,000 years ago - no one in their right mind would hold someone of Jewish descent responsible for something their ancestors did 2,000 years prior.
Some blacks are upset about a whites-only scholarship at a Rhode Island university - here's an article from CNN about that. I love this story. These kids set up a scholarship which is merit-based; you've really got to be sharp to be the recipient of this $250 grant. Then, they add one final caveat - you have to be white. This is a very creative way to show the lunacy of race-based preferences - although I fear the lesson will be lost in the hysteria of many.
The bottom line is this… In a free country such as this, you do not have the right to not be offended. Matters of morality are one thing, but none of these incidents are moral situations. These are a symptom of our group-minded, victim-mentality culture, where people aren't individuals, they're members of a group. These loud-mouths have complacent amplifiers in today's media, who broadcast their claims as fact, while often not applying common sense to the situation. I'm of Irish descent - am I offended when people make jokes about Irish people? Of course not. Thick skin is a wonderful thing - I wish these folks would grow some, and let the individuals decide for themselves whether they're going to be offended by something.
On a slightly different note… Thomas Sowell, a great columnist, occasionally writes a column he calls “Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene”. That title is a link to his latest one, but I've just got to share a couple of them here. (These are quoted verbatim from him.)
Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.
It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer “universal health care.”
Monday, February 2, 2004
7:05 pm
Daniel J. Summers
Just some reflections on the game that was…
The pre-game show was excellent. It was a very classy, very patriotic tribute to the Columbia astronauts who left us a year ago that day. The moonscape and the astronaut in the middle of the field was genius, and very well put together. Beyoncé did an outstanding job with the National Anthem - much better than recent efforts by her peers, such as Mariah Carey or Whitney Houston. It wasn't “The Beyoncé Show” featuring “The Star Spangled Banner,” it was “The Star Spangled Banner,” sung by Beyoncé. She should definitely be given repeat invitations for game-opening singing, as she did the song (and our nation) proud.
This has got to be the best Super Bowl in recent memory. Neither team was ever just waltzing away with the game, and for it to be decided in the final seconds by a field goal was priceless. Of course, that's how New England won a lot of their games this past year. Carolina did an amazing job, having the ball for much less of the time, but still coming back to tie the game with just over a minute left. I feel for Carolina's place-kicker, whose final kick-off was less than memorable, but he shouldn't be blamed for the loss. Both teams played hard, both made their share of little mistakes, and, as John Fox, Carolina's coach, said after the game, “It just came down to who had the ball last.” Great job to both the Panthers and the Patriots, and congratulations to New England for title #2 in 3 years.
And that half-time show…
Q: Was it good?
A: That's an awfully subjective question - beauty is often in the eye of the beholder.
Q: Was it inappropriate?
A: Absolutely.
The Super Bowl is not an adult program - families get together and watch these games with their kids. Notwithstanding the claimed unintentional flashing, the entertainment was not family-friendly.
Q: Should we expect any different from MTV?
A: Not really.
CBS was kidding themselves if they thought that MTV could come up with family-tolerable program, much less a family-friendly one. Have they even watched MTV lately? Evidently, MTV forgot to lend their sister network the bleeping and blurring machines that they wear out on a daily basis. This is one thing that makes the statements by CBS and MTV quite humorous - they're basically the same company. The NFL should probably try to get a contract with Disney (or some other organization that has their finger on the pulse of family values) for future shows. Sure, Disney puts out some filth, but they do know what's appropriate and when. How about a Hillary Duff / A*Teens half-time show?
Q: Was the flashing accidental?
A: I don't think we'll ever know the answer to that one.
Update Feb 4, 2004 - Okay, so it was intentional after all.
Monday, January 19, 2004
9:40 pm
Daniel J. Summers
Today is the day this year we set aside to remember the civil rights work of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. As I look at the landscape of civil rights today, we truly have come a long way in the 41 years since King's “I Have a Dream” speech. However, Dr. King's vision of a land where people are judged not on the color of their skin, but by the content of their character, has not yet come to fruition. Sure, we have all sorts of “minorities” in leadership positions in various organizations, and many of some of the highest paid individuals in our country, professional athletes, are not white. But, the very fact that we know these such things (and routinely hear them) is proof that, were he still here, I believe Dr. King would tell us that we've gotten it wrong.
Racial quotas, affirmative action, and other similar programs are “race-based” programs, meaning they use race as a major (and, in some cases, the only) factor in determining preferential treatment. Last year, the Supreme Court upheld that the University of Michigan Law School could give points towards admission for people who were not white. Oddly enough, there is one minority that does not get extra points under this system - people of Asian descent. In the strange world we live in, the Supreme Court said this was fair. And, as anyone who has done business with a government contract knows, preference is often given to “minority-owned businesses”, and these contracts often stipulate a percentage of employees that must be non-white.
My biggest problem with these sorts of policies is that they seem to be rooted in a victim mentality, a system set up by the descendants of an oppressed people to oppress the descendants of their once-oppressors. We hear noble phrases like “We're just leveling the playing field” and “We're making up for lost time,” but what is actually happening is a very subtle racism. Minorities are viewed as incapable of making it on their own, so the playing field is actually tilted in their direction. One of the reasons supporters of these sorts of programs cite is the lower level of education that is attained in poorer neighborhoods. But, trying to “balance” the results is attacking the problem from the wrong side. The answer is not feel-good social policies and lip service, while displaying a racist tone that tells minorities that they can't make it on their own.
The only way that Dr. King's dream will be fulfilled is for us as a nation to stop looking at race. Take it off college and work applications (notice it's rarely on resumes today). Take it out of government contracts, school student balancing programs, and other social programs. The only organization that should still care about race is the police, who are responsible for assembling physical descriptions to identify people. Although things are much better for minorities than they were 40 years ago, I believe the time has come (well, really, has long ago come) to eliminate this focus on race. America is the land of opportunity - people of every race, creed, and gender have the opportunity to make a better life for their families. We're long removed from the days of slavery, and we're decades removed from separate water fountains and back-of-the-bus policies.
Let's work together to make this a country where it doesn't matter what sort of racial makeup you have in a classroom - a country where the NAACP doesn't sit and count black actors on prime-time TV - a country where folks don't feel they even need an organization called NAACP - a country where we eliminate racism from our hearts, not just our actions. This is Dr. King's dream, and I believe it can be fulfilled in our lifetime.
Sunday, January 18, 2004
8:15 pm
Daniel J. Summers
Never Forget. It's been over 2 years - do you still remember? (Thanks to Neal Boortz for sharing this link.)
In my last entry, I linked to some of the resources for organizations that help women struggling with the issue of abortion. The Psalm 139 Project is a group that collects donations in order to buy ultrasound machines for crisis pregnancy centers across the country. If you're interested in putting your money behind the fight for the unborn, this is a great way to do it.
Sunday, December 28, 2003
4:40 pm
Daniel J. Summers
I received an interesting piece of mail the other day, and I thought I'd comment about it here. The mail was from AAA Women's Services (now known as Choices Chattanooga) in Chattanooga, TN. They were talking about a new clinic they've set up. The history of this organization is pretty impressive - they opened up across the street from the only walk-in abortion clinic in town, began ministering to hurting women in a way that most didn't expect, and over time, were able to raise enough money to buy out the clinic across the street. That clinic now houses the National Memorial for the Unborn, a site that allows the parents of aborted children a place to memorialize them.
But that brings me back to the new clinic, which is yet another very creative ministry that this organization has put together. For years, AAA's biggest tool in convincing mothers to keep their children has been the ultrasound - the numbers are in the 90% range of women who, once they see that precious life moving and breathing inside them, decide to keep their child alive. AAA has now opened this clinic in the downtown area, and offer not only “crisis pregnancy” counseling services, but prenatal care as well, along with more ultrasound equipment. In the first month of operation, 5 of the 6 women who came there seeking an abortion left with a changed mind.
As an aside, one great thing AAA does is that they don't abandon the mothers they help - they provide maternity clothes and baby clothes, can help with transportation to prenatal and well-baby checks, and are there to help train the new mothers or support them as they allow an adoptive family to love their child.
I've felt for years that abortion was wrong on all kinds of levels, and this belief was reinforced as I watched my two precious children grow in my wife. There's also a growing trend of young women who are keeping children rather than killing them. I heard one person say “you can't kill an entire generation of folks, and expect to have them grow up to be pro-choice.”
I'm wondering, though, if Roe v. Wade didn't miss the boat. 30 years or so ago when it was decided by the Supreme Court, there was nowhere near the body of medical research and history that we now have on the process. Moral obligations aside for the moment, consider the trauma to the woman's reproductive organs, the complications from these “routine procedures,” and the mental anguish many, many mothers of aborted children feel. Are abortions too dangerous to be performed?
Bringing morality back into the discussion - what about all we now know about “viability” and stages of development? Using technology we didn't have back then, we can see a heart beat begin before most women even know they're expecting. We can detect brain waves far earlier than anyone back in the early 1970's would have ever dreamed. If this is, in fact, a life (as those with common sense have been saying for years), is it right to allow the taking of this human life by another human?
Kathleen Parker wrote back in August about the two plaintiffs in the Supreme Court decision to legalize abortion, and their attempts to get those decisions vacated. This article, along with the various links off the other sites I've linked here, should give you plenty of reading on how abortion hurts not only the unborn children, but the women who kill them as well; and that, given our new awareness of the medical facts, this barbaric practice should be banned altogether.
Sunday, October 26, 2003
10:07 pm
Daniel J. Summers
I haven't disappeared - I guess I just don't have the time for a daily blog like some other folks do. :) I'm still around, and still have stuff to say, which I'll be saying here shortly. Sorry for the long delay…
Thursday, August 14, 2003
8:30 pm
Daniel J. Summers
As a resident of Montgomery, AL, I'm privy to the much to-do being made over the granite Ten Commandments monument that duly-elected Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court had placed in the capitol. A Federal judge has ordered it be removed, and Justice Moore is refusing. The stage is set for a pretty large showdown very soon. As you can probably tell from my links and my previous entries, I'm a pretty religious person. However, I'm going to approach this from a purely humanistic viewpoint.
The Ten Commandments were the foundation for Jewish law. These commandments are recorded today in our Holy Bible, and the first four reference God or holiness (no other gods, no graven images, God's name in vain, and keeping the Sabbath holy). The remaining six are good precepts even for those who do not subscribe to any form of religion. These are no different from other historical laws, such as the Code of Hammurabi, and other collections of laws.
Several of our founding documents reference concepts found in the religious commandments. The Constitution, Article I, Section 7, recognizes Sundays as a day apart (much like commandment 4). The Declaration of Independence, in the first paragraph, recognizes Nature's God, and in the second, recognize the Creator - both are capitalized and singular, in line with the 1st commandment. Furthermore, The Magna Carta, a body of English law upon which our Constitution was based (and, coincidentally, predates the 1611 KJV by nearly 400 years), contain references to the one and only God in the Preamble and section 1.
We have also been told as of late that we should accept all religions, including the ever-peaceful Muslims. The prevailing world view of many people is that there is good in everything - and, judging from recent rulings by various courts and the politically correct culture that has pervaded our country, this is the way the government should look at things.
Given that references to most of the overtly religious commandments are in our country's founding documents, and the fact that we are supposed to find the good in everything, I see no reason for this marker to be removed. Justice Moore's personal beliefs should not be brought into this argument. With the 1st Amendment to our Constitution (in the Bill of Rights) prohibiting government from preventing free exercise of religion, the Federal judge's ruling that it must be removed is un-Constitutional, and will be found as such if it is appealed.
Much has been made over the decision this week by the Episcopalian church's approval of its first openly gay bishop. A lot of the discussion I've seen on this has centered on how this may split the church. I don't see that, and here's why. The Bible is very clear about the qualifications of a minister (check out the books of 1st and 2nd Timothy if you've never read those.) The time that this became a big deal, in my opinion, was when this man was first approved as a deacon or priest. Should those who have responsibility of a congregation be held to any less of a standard that someone who has responsibility over those who lead congregations?
The Episcopal church, as an entity, has made its decision. Of course, as with many denominations, there are good folks who know what is right, and disagree with the leadership when they go astray. The biggest problem with this decision is that it sends the signal that certain precepts, in the Bible in black and white, can be discarded if they do not fit the way one feels. This bishop doesn't feel that the prohibition of homosexuality found in Leviticus and Romans really apply to us today. This is a very dangerous example, especially when it's being set by one that is recognized as a leader of a Protestant religion.
The Bible should serve as a guide, and a source that can tell us if our feelings are pulling us in the right direction. This exactly the thing that Paul talked about in Ephesians 4:22-23, when he says to put off the old nature, with its lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of our minds. If our feelings were a good guide for holy living, we wouldn't need the Holy Spirit to direct us. But, they aren't, and we do. I don't look down on the Episcopal church, either as a whole, or the people in it. I do pray that they will return to a more literal interpretation of the Scriptures, and that no one will take this action as a license to discard parts of the Bible they don't like.
This is my first entry. In it, I plan to use this forum to let anyone who may care know what's on my mind, my opinion about the topics of the day, and so forth. Stay tuned!