Ack! Who hijacked my church???

Today I finally got around to writing an e-mail to the author of this article from the official United Church of Christ site. (Yeah, I'm UCC. Wanna make something of it? ;o)) I've been meaning to write this all week, but tonight was the first night I could actually do it. I know, I'm pathetic. :o/ Still, this is a letter I felt I needed to write, and subsequently share with whomever hasn't given up on reading this blog that hardly ever posts. :o)

Hello there! I am a member of [church name and location removed to protect my congregation from being associated with me ;o)] (not far from St. Louis, MO). I am writing you in regard to the January 24th article you wrote for ucc.org, in which you took Dr. James Dobson to task over the recent Spongebob Squarepants controversy.

I'm afraid I must take issue with your characterization of Dr. Dobson's original statements. In your article, you state "...James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, [accused] that the popular SpongeBob and other well-known cartoon characters are crossing 'a moral line' by stressing tolerance in a national We Are Family Foundation-sponsored video that will be distributed to U.S. schools on March 11, 2005." On the contrary, he wasn't "accusing" any of the fictional characters in the video of anything (it would be ridiculous to accuse a cartoon character of wrongdoing), nor was he taking issue with "stressing tolerance" per se.

Rather, as Dobson later clarified, "...while the video is harmless on its own, I believe the agenda behind it is sinister. My brief comments at the FRC gathering were intended to express concern not about SpongeBob or Big Bird or any of their other cartoon friends, but about the way in which those childhood symbols are apparently being hijacked to promote an agenda that involves teaching homosexual propaganda to children."

In other words, he wasn't taking issue with Spongebob, or with the video's message of tolerance, but instead he was taking issue with the cartoon characters and the benign message of tolerance being used to legitemize the We Are Family Foundation itself, and the other, less-benign messages it has promoted. As Dobson wrote, "I want to be clear: the We Are Family Foundation — the organization that sponsored the video featuring SpongeBob and the other characters was, until this flap occurred, making available a variety of explicitly pro-homosexual materials on its Web site. It has since endeavored to hide that fact (more on this later), but my concerns are as legitimate today as they were when I first expressed them in January."

I recognize that there is a tension between loving the sinner and hating his sin, and accepting a person and condoning his actions. Further, it is difficult to work out the balance between "accepting a person as they are" and "believers conforming to the image of Christ". I fully believe that it is important to love people unconditionally, and to accept all who seek Christ into our church unreservedly. Further, I would say that Doctor Dobson agrees with me: "Let me say it again for emphasis: Every individual is entitled to respect and human dignity, including those with whom we disagree strongly. The problem is not with acceptance or kindness, certainly. But kids should not be taught that homosexuality is just another "lifestyle," or that it is morally equivalent to heterosexuality. Scripture teaches that all overt sexual activity outside the bonds of marriage is sinful and harmful. Children should not be taught otherwise by their teachers, and certainly not if their parents are unaware of the instruction."

Homosexuality is not a worse sin than any others in the eyes of God, and certainly isn't an "unforgivable sin". That being said, we must not, in the name of tolerating the individual, pretend that sin isn't sin. After all, we don't say "you can be in Christ and continue unrepentently lying, or coveting, or stealing, or committing adultery". We aren't doing our Christian friends coming from a homosexual lifestyle any favors by pretending that calling homosexuality a sin is "a Leviticus thing". And we certainly aren't doing our Church any favors by jumping on the bandwagon of lambasting a fellow Christian who spoke out from concern for our nation's children, especially when in doing so we seem to be attempting to promote our own agenda (e.g. statements like "Meanwhile, the UCC's recently released 30-second paid television commercial - produced to underscore the denomination's belief that Jesus didn't turn anyone away - has been rejected by two major television networks for being 'too controversial.'"). That ends up just sounding like sour grapes and inter-denominational sniping, which undercuts our message of tolerance and diversity of ideas, doesn't it?

In closing, I would like to say that your article disappointed me. Not only did you seem to be jumping on the dogpile as a means of tooting our UCC horn, but I didn't believe it was up to professional standards. The article was high on innuendo, and low on fact-checking and point-supporting (Dr. Dobson's original statements and his rebuttals to the press have been readily available on the Web all week long). I don't say these things out of anger or mean-spiritedness, but rather in a spirit of constructive criticism. You seem to have a God-given talent for writing. My only wish is that you would hone that gift, and use it in the spirit of truth.

Thank you so much for your time!

p.s. I forgot to ask: in your article, you state that Dobson espouses "often-outrageous viewpoints". Could you please delineate some of his viewpoints that you find particularly outrageous? I'm curious to see which ones bothered you the most. After all, Jesus said a lot of things whch people in the 1st Century found (and for that matter, find today) "outrageous". Being "outrageous" does not immediately disqualify a statement from being true, is all I'm saying. :o)

p.p.s. All quotes from Dr. Dobson were taken from this site: http://www.family.org/docstudy/newsletters/a0035339.cfm"

Yikes, it *has* been awhile...

...since I last posted. And sadly, I still don't have anything I really feel like blogging about. Still, I should blog something, so...

Happy Decemberween from Los Bros Chaps!!! :oD

More blogging to come as I feel like it.

Sorry Libs Gave Me This Idea

Apparently, there are a bunch of Kerry supporters who feel the need to apologize to the rest of the world for their inability to "re-defeat Bush" in the recent election. (Hat tip to Jim Treacher, via IMAO.)

Which is fine, really. They need to get their collective hissy fits out of their systems, and this is a fairly harmless way to do so. Sure, it speaks volumes of the elitism, smugness, and self-importance of these people that they took it upon themselves to apologize to the World as a whole on behalf of us cretinous, Bible-thumping fools who just weren't smart enough to support John Kerry, but what the hey. If this is in any way cathartic to these folks, more power to 'em.

And besides, it inspired me to make an apology pic of my own. Enjoy, won't you?

Edit: the pic is big enough to throw my blog's format off. Blah. Okay, putting it up as a link now.

Click here to see!!!

Conservative, Not (Necessarily) Republican

Jonah Goldberg has a good piece on NRO today that pretty well matches the way I look at things. In it, he identifies himself as a political Conservative first, and a supporter of Republicans only inasmuch as they support conservative policies and principles.

This is where I've been coming from for about 12 years now. Like Goldberg, I'd like to see Democratic candidates move toward the center and espouse more conservative positions than they currently do (such as on the issues of gun control, the sanctity of life, and national security, among others). I'm not saying that I expect all candidates to have the same cookie-cutter positions on these issues; after all, not everyone within the same political philosophy agrees 100% on what the correct position is.

However, it shouldn't be the case that these issues polarize the parties to the degree that they do. After all, there are a lot of people who identify themselves as Democrats who are pro-gun, pro-life, pro-defense types, but who are also pro-union. Shouldn't there be room within the "official" party structure for candidates who better reflect the positions of constituencies comprised of such people?

Mind you, I'm not pro-union, but my Dad is, and so are a lot of people in the area in which I live. And in 4 out of 5 cases, these people will vote for a Democrat every time, even if they are conservative on "social" issues, just because "Democrats are for the working man". Sure, you can argue that such people ought to be educated on the economic harm that a lot of modern labor unions do. Until they come to that conclusion themselves, though, shouldn't they be able to vote for a candidate of their preferred party without compromising their principles?

Yes, I realize that such a move on the part of Democrats would result in more Democrats being elected. This, in my opinion, is a good thing; not so much because I'm pro-Democrat as I am concerned about what happens to what will likely happen to the Republican party if they don't have viable competition: stagnation and an inevitable creep towards the Left.

I'd much rather see the continued championing of Conservative ideas in our government than I would see the Republicans set up a dynasty. Yes, Republicans espouse positions congruent with my own far more often than Democrats do. However, I'll vote for a Zell Miller long before I vote for a Lincoln Chaffee or an Olympia Snowe. Conservatism is much more important to me than Party.

Keyes Projected to Lose in Illinois

According to story posted on citizenlink.org, Alan Keyes will probably lose to Barack Obama by a large margin. Unfortunately, Keyes came off as a carpetbagger who moved to Illinois solely for the purpose of running against Obama, and didn't have much time to establish himself as anything other than a Republican alternative to Obama. I don't know if he would have done better if he would have had the opportunity to establish what he stands for to the voters of Illinois, but it certainly couldn't have hurt his election bid.

Oh well, better luck next time, IL GOP.

UPDATE (12:16 AM, Wed. 11/3)
It's over, Obama has definitively won. Now it's time for the IL GOP to get serious and develop some candidates that have a chance of winning. :o/

Back From The (Blog) Dead

Hello, everyone. Yes, I know I've been gone for something like a month. I am sincerely sorry for neglecting you all, but this past month has been quite busy, and I've been generally burned out on things political.

Nonetheless...


Please do the same. You still have time, and your vote defintely counts!!! I would recommend you vote for Bush, mind you, but by all means vote your conscience. :o)

Are We Living In A Climate Of Fear?

Yes, another re-post of a Chaos Central entry. I hate to do this without putting up more original content here, but yeesh, it's been since last Monday since I posted anything. It's a wonder I have any readers at all!! :o(

Anyway, here it is. To all of my faithful readers, thank you for your patronage!!! I'm trying to get inspired to write more stuff for here. Please bear with me!!! :o)

Stanley Kurts wrote an interesting article that appears on National Review Online today. In it, he recounts how he posted a question on NRO's "The Corner" blog: is the phenomenon of vandalism and/or threat to homes and vehicles that display Bush/Cheney '04 stickers really all that common?


There is a climate of fear. Again and again, Corner readers say they've been scared off of posting bumper stickers by visions of having their cars keyed or their windows smashed. A typical comment: "Putting a Bush-Cheney sticker on my car would be like adding a bulls-eye that says, 'Please vandalize my truck.'" A reader from Arlington, Va., who lives just a few blocks from national Bush-Cheney headquarters, says he was not afraid to use bumper stickers in 1996 or 2000, but wouldn't do so this year. Bush lawn signs are feared, not only as an invitation to vandalism, but because they might permanently alienate neighbors. A man whose wife was handicapped and dependent on neighbors in case of emergency was wary of starting a neighborhood "war" with a sign. This was a common worry among Bush supporters, even in less dire circumstances."


Kurtz concludes that there is a certain degree of threat out there. And frankly, I don't doubt it's true, having seen firsthand the type of intimidation that labor unions can exert not only on members, but on the communities they work in. However, I haven't personally seen signs stolen/burnt/defaced, etc., and I haven't seen cars with Bush/Cheney stickers keyed or otherwise vandalized, either. Mind you, that may be more a function of my living in the midwest than anything else.

How about you, have you seen evidence of this phenomenon firsthand? I'm interested to get some perspective from other areas of the country.

More Evidence That California Is Insane

Okay, this is a re-post of an editorial I posted today on Chaos Central. I figured I should put up some sort of update, given that the lovely and gracious La Shawn Barber has seen fit to not only link me, but to point out said link. Besides, this is a topic about which I definitely have strong feelings.

I followed a link on Michelle Malkin's site that details how Oakland city officials have caved in to demands by wrong-headed Latino activists who foolishly think that illegal immigrants have the right to live in this country.



"Oakland police officers have stopped setting up roadblocks to check whether drivers are under the influence because of a rash of complaints from the Latino community and City Council President Ignacio De La Fuente.

The checkpoints, which allow officers to demand licenses and proof of insurance, are an effective way to get drunken drivers off Oakland's streets, city leaders agree. But the checks also have ensnared dozens of illegal immigrants who are not licensed to drive yet otherwise obey the law."

Umm, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the fact that these are illegal immigrants indicate that these people don't "otherwise obey the law"??? Sure, they might not be overtly stealing, murdering, or committing other acts of mayhem, but their very presence in this country breaks the law.


"'These checkpoints make people's lives miserable, not make them safer,' said Jesus Rodriguez of Oakland Community Organizations, which filed most of the complaints about the checkpoints. 'I've watched while the police have towed away cars (full) of groceries, leaving children crying on the sidewalk.'"

Boo hoo, Mr. Rodriguez. You're breakin' my friggin' heart. It doesn't change the fact that the people involved were living in this country illegally.


"While officers have some discretion, the cars of unlicensed drivers are usually towed. To get their cars back, owners must pay $125, plus any storage fees. That is a significant burden to many illegal immigrants, Rodriguez said."

Again, boo friggin' hoo. What about the tremendous burden illegal immigrants put on our healthcare system? Not to mention the tremendous financial burden they put on the welfare system. And it totally ignores the point that I've made before, and will make again: they're illegal immigrants; they're not supposed to be in this country.


Call me hard-hearted, but I don't have any sympathy for illegal immigrants whatsoever. The acceptance of illegals in this country is an affront to everyone who went to the trouble to immigrate to America legally. They are not citizens of this country, and do not deserve to be treated as such. End of story.

The thing that scares me in all of this is that yahoos like Rodriguez can publicly demand "rights" for illegal immigrants, and no one calls them on the fact that he's talking about people who according to existing law should be immediately deported. Why does it scare me? If it can happen in California, it can happen here. And I fear it'll happen sooner, rather than later.