Don't criticize my social media posts. You have no idea what you are doing!

I want my social media to work like my face-to-face life.  It doesn't!  So, that leaves me with this reality.  I can't stand how others think they have the right to criticize what I post.

This is supposed to be my space.  I can post what I want.  I can limit who sees it, etc., but frankly, I find going through that process to be bothersome...and why would I care about limiting the audience anyway.  It is my space to do with as I please.  I can share fun stories, pictures, videos, and more of my life, or whatever.  I can share interesting articles I find.  I can share interesting data, or satire, or other funny things I see.  I can even share "fake news".  Of course, sharing any news results in this outcome to some extent, but that's another post.  This is supposed to work like the public space, yes?  If I go out to dinner with three friends and we have a conversation, I might mention that I saw something in an article.  You don't attack me for what I'm reading or where the article came from (most people don't share that information or even necessarily remember it when relaying the information).  No, you confront the claim on its merits.  Period.  Not so online.  People are quite annoying with their little fact check posts or condescending nonsense trying to demonstrate how superior they are by attacking the source, not the information.  Frankly, I'm over it.

Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, my friends.  They aren't criticizing something based on the merits, they are just attacking the source.  The technology industry is bad enough, with their ridiculous fact check statements.  It is hilarious (sort of) that I can post a 10 minute video and Facebook will flag it as false.  You click on the flag and it says a certain statement made in the video is false.  Said statement constitutes about 5 seconds of the 10 minute video and has little bearing on the point being made, but Facebook posts the false claim nonetheless...because it isn't about addressing the merits.  They know most people won't ever read the attached "why" statement.  So, they will just see the false flag and move on, or worse, call out the poster.  This is the technology companies way to propagate fake news and misleading information.  It is the same thing the newspapers have done forever.  Don't tell the whole truth!  Use adjectives to manipulate the reader!  Cherry pick information (removing context as an example) to intentionally mislead.  If you think the news industry doesn't do this, you need to read more...and not the news.  These are age old tricks of the media and technology companies and fact checkers have proven themselves very worthy of carrying this mantle.  Share just enough truth to get away with manipulating the audience into ignoring the plethora of additional facts.

Everyone has their preferred sources of information.  The reality is that they are all biased or unreliable in some way.  A think tank is biased in favor of their party or political position, intentionally so.  A political organization or party is the same.  A news organization is biased (regardless of their claims to the contrary).  For instance, you might hear that MSNBC is a mouthpiece for the Democrat party (it is), that CNN is just the orange man bad network, or sometimes called Conspiracy News Network, or you might hear that FoxNews leans right, supports Republicans, or my favorite, is a neo-conservative mouthpiece (it is).  A commentator is always espousing a point of view, but of course they use legitimate information in order to do so.  Even journal articles, the end all be all of the scientific method, aren't always reliable.  Some claim peer review can help mitigate this, and it sometimes does, but it also sometimes stifles legitimate research that doesn't fit the narrative the journal and its reviewers wish to present (yes, this is a thing).  Even then, bias statements, methodologies, and data manipulation all have to be considered when looking at the article and its claims.  For instance, if no bias statement is included, my first inclination is to place the information lower on the scale.  

All information has to be evaluated, not based on the source alone, but on the information presented.  One can argue there is a hierarchy of reliable sources.  I wouldn't disagree.  But that is only a part of the evaluation process.  The information must also be considered, whether you like the source or not.  The data, the methodology, the biases all come into play when considering information.  Unfortunately, people are generally too lazy to actually do this, so they find themselves little short cuts they like to assist them.  For instance, was the journal peer reviewed?  Is this news source one I like and trust? (Don't trust any of them!)  Is this political organization one I tribally identify with?  This leads people down a lazy road of being able to dismiss any information that doesn't fall within the arbitrary criteria they've established for considering a source.  Criticize the source and make yourself feel better and superior to those who posted from it, and the world can move on without you having your information or your tribalism challenged.  This is the social media world.

Examples I've seen include things like "that source isn't legitimate (reliable, truthful, reputable, etc. [pick your adjective]" or "you should post the actual article/study rather than that video/article/source" [not always possible since they are sometimes behind pay walls] or "here's a fact check on that with link included [so not interested in a conversation, just want to be right]" or "you need to take that down because Facebook flagged it as false [Facebook and I are superior to you and you should do what I say]" or "that's a commentator, so it is just opinion [of course it is, care to consider someone's opinion?] or "I don't like that source because it is political [as opposed to a source that is political that agrees with you]".

All of these complaints are ridiculous.  Even a broken clock is right twice a day, so whether you personally feel a source is reputable is irrelevant.  These statements contribute nothing, but rather they are simply attacking the source.  It is legitimate to use the veracity of a source in your overall argument, it is lazy to dismiss the entirety of the information solely because of the source.  If we did that, we wouldn't have interstate highways, since that brainchild came from Eisenhower who got the idea from the roads built by the Nazis.    Next, who cares if a site is political.  How is that different from information put out by a think tank or a political party?  It isn't.  Complaining that a source is political doesn't invalidate the information, it just shines light on bias (and everything has bias).  Posting someone else's fact check is neither desired, nor particularly bright.  It is a lazy way to engage.  If that is all you have to offer, you might as well not bother engaging at all.  Fine, you don't like the post or the source.  Don't engage, but no...you have your fact checker (and they are God, are they not? Since you feel they are so much more trustworthy than your supposed friend you are using them to attack).  No, fact check articles can be used solely to support a portion of a discussion or article, not as a lazy method of dismissing your friend's post.  Finally, asking someone to take something down because it is false is condescending and rude.  You don't know why they posted it in the first place.  By pointing out that it isn't a good source demonstrates you assume the individual posting it is either too stupid to realize that or has fallen for some sort of imagined false information.  You don't know that and to assume it from the start is condescending nonsense.  

You would never have a face-to-face discussion with your friend that went like it does on Facebook.  You are in a restaurant having a good discussion and a bit of information is brought up. You would consider the information and agree or refute that information based solely on its merits.  You may ask questions to glean a greater understanding.  In the end, you and your friend are closer for it.  You wouldn't rudely declare that "this friend" is smarter than me and should be included in the conversation.  You might say a friend said x, y, or z, but having a face-to-face like one "talks" on Facebook would result in a punch to the nose, or at the least, you wouldn't be friends for long.  Also, during the discussion, you wouldn't call up another friend and then hand me the phone so they can berate my stupidity and then sit and watch as I become a target for your preferred friend.  This happens all the time on shared forums like Facebook.  It is a feature!  To me, it is a distraction and designed to create division.  I don't think being attacked by people I don't know is virtuous, rather, it lowers my opinion of the person I am following, particularly if they don't defend me when the attack turns ad hominem, as it always does when people you don't know are involved.  

As far as I'm concerned, technology companies who put fact checks and false flags on their posts are behaving as if they are standing around the afore mentioned restaurant and come running over when you bring something up to make sure that those seated with you are aware your information needs correcting in some way!  How big brother of them.  It is atrocious.  They are either a platform or a publisher.  If they are a platform, then they are the public square and shouldn't censor anyone or anything.  If they are a publisher, then they are liable for what is posted and should censor, just as I can do with my posts.  But the way it is now is nothing short of thought police.  The fact that these thought police aren't government makes them feel good about their right to censor my first amendment right.  It is our platform, we can do what we want because we are a private company.  Really?  According to that logic, we all need to return to the days of segregated businesses.

It is bad enough the technology industry, politicians, and celebrity busy bodies believe they have the right to tell people what they can and can't say or post, but when your friends do it?  Well, people who do this to their friends online aren't "helping them".  They are annoying, lazy, condescending, and frankly rude.

Fake news today, yesterday, everyday!

Fake news is nothing new! AND...it is not from the left or right, or from new media or the internet, but instead, has always been with us! Below are quotes from Thomas Jefferson, the first President to despise the press...

1. "The most effectual engines for [pacifying a nation] are the public papers... [A despotic] government always [keeps] a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, [invent] and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper.”
2. “I deplore... the putrid state into which our newspapers have passed and the malignity, the vulgarity, and mendacious spirit of those who write for them... These ordures are rapidly depraving the public taste and lessening its relish for sound food.”
3. "From forty years' experience of the wretched guess-work of the newspapers of what is not done in open daylight, and of their falsehood even as to that, I rarely think them worth reading, and almost never worth notice.”
4. “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.”
5. “As for what is not true, you will always find abundance in the newspapers.”
6. “A coalition of sentiments is not for the interest of printers… [T]he printers can never leave us in a state of perfect rest and union of opinion. They would be no longer useful and would have to go to the plough.”
7. "I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens who, reading newspapers, live and die in the belief that they have known something of what has been passing in the world in their time…”
8. “A truth now and then projecting into the ocean of newspaper lies serves like headlands to correct our course. Indeed, my scepticism as to everything I see in a newspaper makes me indifferent whether I ever see one.”
9. “The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.”
10. “From a very early period of my life, I had laid it down as a rule of conduct, never to write a word for the public papers.”

All these quotes from Thomas Jefferson don't even show some of the worst abuses by the media in history, but only to those of his time. I find it very interesting that I do find myself knowing more from books and even podcasts than I learn from newspapers. The myth that this institution is somehow a wonderful group of people who want to inform their readers came in the post WWII period of the 20th century and has somehow persisted. It was never true and certainly isn't true today. Fake news IS the news.

Gun Deaths Dwarf Terrorist Deaths? Really?

According to the President in this interview, Americans are killing each other faster than terrorists kill people.  It is an interesting statement. The President chose his words here very carefully.  They are: "We know that the number of deaths from gun related incidents dwarfs those from terrorist incidents around the world" (I think I quoted that right but you can listen to it yourself).

Okay, in this extremely and carefully worded statement, he is absolutely correct.  He is also, and I believe knowingly, completely misleading.  He equates all gun deaths in the United States to terrorist gun deaths.  That's suicides, accidental shootings, etc.  That doesn't pass the BS meter for me.  All terrorist gun deaths are murder.  Every single one of them.  So, if we are going to compare apples to apples, then we can only compare gun deaths in the United States that are murder.

It is true that the oft stated average of 32,000 gun related deaths per year would outstrip terrorism related deaths.  However, that is not the apples to apples comparison that is needed.  As I stated, an apples to apples comparison would be deaths due to homicide.  When that is factored in, the President's statement in this interview, while entirely true, falls apart.

Terrorism related homicides from 2006 to 2014 totaled 161,834, averaging 17,982.  This number is well below that 32,000 total I mentioned.  It is even low enough that one could use the very descriptive word of dwarfs.  However, gun related homicides in the U.S. from 2006 to 2013 totaled 94,071, or an average of 11,759.  The recently released 2014 number by the CDC has a number around 11,200, so that is consistent with the average.  This clearly shows that the apples to apples comparison of deaths due to homicide, or intentionally killing someone with a gun does not dwarf homicidal rates of terrorist actions, it isn't even larger.

That doesn't mean there are a tragically large number of firearms related homicides and even tragically larger number of firearms related deaths.  To me, this post is about perception and this President is all about how he can make something look (my opinion).  I am certain the President, or at least those who write his talking points are smart enough to understand the distinction between a homicide and something else, but they clearly don't think most Americans are smart enough to pick up on that difference.  If we want to discuss guns and gun violence, so be it, but we should at least be honest in our characterizations of the facts.  This is NOT an honest way of dealing with the facts.  It is intentionally designed to "inform" Americans of something we supposedly don't know, that we kill more people with guns than terrorists kill people.  Well, it isn't true and the President knows it.  This is why he has specifically worded the statement he makes.  This kind of "specificity of language" is used all the times by politicians to lie by telling the truth.  There are lies, damn lies, and statstics.  Isn't that the quote?  Nonetheless, if we don't call the politicians and policy makers out on their BS, then we choose to allow them to pull the wool over the eyes of the people they claim to represent.

Abortion debate is shifting?

An interesting day politically speaking. Between Rand Paul and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the debate on abortion is being reframed.

Essentially, as chair of the DNC, Schultz came out and said there should be no restrictions on abortion whatsoever, after Paul asked reporters to ask her if she supported aborting a 7 lb. baby still in the womb.

He responded back that we need to determine when life begins and it can't simply be at birth, as the DNC chair clearly has decided. Because, essentially, that means that the only difference between a 1-2 lb. baby in the neonatal unit who has been born and the 7-9 lb. baby who is days or weeks from being born is the actual birth. The one who is born has the "right" to life, but the one is is unborn does not.

Whether I agree with Rand Paul is irrelevant. He makes an excellent point. The only true role of government, imo, is to set up rules to determine outcomes when rights collide. When rights don't collide, there is no issue, so government ONLY needs to inject itself when rights are at odds with each other. In the case of an abortion, it isn't simply a woman's right to control her body that is in play, but also the right to life of the child inside that is in play. Therefore, since two unalienable rights are in play, this is EXACTLY where government should place itself. The problem lies in that society can't agree. From the Catholic Church who says life starts at conception to the DNC chair who says life starts at birth. That's a 40 week difference of opinion.

The Declaration of Independence recognized early the "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". The Constitution clearly grants its protection to those "born and naturalized". However, the Constitution isn't the final arbiter of rights, according to the Declaration. Rather, something else determines whether a right is unalienable because these supposed rights predate the Constitution and are not determined by government, but exist regardless of government. Whatever you believe that something else to be (God, nature, whatever), almost everyone has agreed that the right to life is one of those unalienable rights.

Therefore, when life begins is the struggle. It isn't for many people of faith because they believe it isn't their choice to determine that and so they often stick with conception. It isn't for those who simply feel life starts when something is born and not before. I do find this an interesting opinion because it is inconsistently applied when the same people supporting this position also support criminal charges against criminals who harmed or killed a fetus. This suggests life isn't the point for that group, but rather whether or not a child is wanted is the point. If it is wanted, well, it deserves protection, even in the womb, but if it isn't wanted or it is inconvenient, well, there's no protection there unless it manages to get born. Welcome to ancient Sparta if that is the case, because that mindset is essentially the same as the Spartan practice.

I don't have the answer. I've never supported abortion of perfectly healthy fetuses, or abortion as a form of birth control. However, I've recognized the possibility of exceptions. Deformity, rape, incest, severe defect. An argument can be made (in terms of rights, not religion) that there is a balance to be had between the two positions. At any rate, I have seen the location of what constitutes acceptable debate on this issue shift today, and if nothing else happens with his candidacy, I commend Rand Paul for that.

The Price of Doing Business?

So, the question on everyone's mind is...does a religious business owner have the right to refuse to participate in an activity that violates their religious principles???

Do they?  I have to wonder.  I have avoided this topic for two reasons.  One, I don't have the answer, and two, people's responses to this have largely been driven by emotion and hatred for their oppoents (on both sides) rather than logic and well thought out arguments.  Generally, today, if someone wants to sell a particular product, they are happy to sell it to anybody who is willing to pay for it.  Can someone refuse service to another because they are of a different race, creed, religion, or ethnicity?  Um...no.  So, the immediate question is whether or not refusing service is discriminatory.  Ever been to a restaurant on a beach and seen a sign that reads "no shoes, no shirt, no service".  Are they allowed to make that choice?  Isn't it discriminatory of them to single out the beach crowd that way?

Obviously, anytime someone refuses to serve another, the opportunists in the media and in politics will take that opportunity to declare that refusal as racist, sexist, or discriminatory in some way.  Does it actually make that refusal discriminatory?  Maybe, but maybe not.  Regardless, screaming discrimination so often has simply cheapened what it really means to be discriminated against, in my opinion.  This is particularly true when people get upset about a law that may or may not allow for discrimination, but where no  actual discrimination due to that law has yet been documented.

Let's consider the question as I see it.  Can a business refuse service...EVER!  Obviously they can.  If this is the case; therefore, under what circumstances are they allowed to refuse service and it not be considered discriminatory?  One might argue that they can refuse service in a way that can be equally applied to everybody, regardless race, ethnicity, sex, religion, or sexual preference.  So, in that case, the no shirt, no shoes rule would be equally applied no matter who walked in.  I could easily accept this definition, as I'm sure could most people.  However, there is a finer distinction at play in the argument going on right now.  Does a person of religious faith, be it Christian, Muslim, or alien worshiper...whatever faith, have the right to refuse service to someone because that service would require that person of faith to participate in an activity that violates their religious principles?

To answer this, I have to consider the question more broadly than simply the Christian shop owner not wanting to make a cake for a gay wedding.  After all, the real question is much broader than that.

So, we, as a society (at least amongst the political elite and the media) seem to be declaring that a person of faith can't refuse service to any person simply because the service would require that they participate in an activity that would violate their beliefs and/or conscience.  So, can any business refuse service for any reason based on the activity they would be supporting violating their beliefs or principles or conscience?  I don't know!  I would argue they can't choose not to provide service because of the nature of the person who walked in the door.  However, what about refusing service because of the nature of the event the person is requesting the service for?  This is why we must have an honest discussion, not rooted in disdain for one's opponent about this topic.

Here's my questions for consideration.  If the above is true and no business has the right to refuse service because they disagree with the activity being carried out, then what about these cases?

Can a Christian shop owner who believes marriage is between two people refuse wedding services to a fundamentalist Mormon who is participating in a multiple marriage?
Can a Jewish shop owner refuse service because the requested service might result in unkosher activity?
Can an African American shop owner refuse service to a member of the KKK because of the detestable nature of the activity that service will support?
Can a gay shop owner refuse service to Westboro Baptist Church because they want that shop owner to make something that expresses their detestable beliefs about gays?

The above examples are the exact same thing that is being argued about now.  They are examples of people who may choose to refuse service because of the nature of the event or activity in question, not because of the nature of the person making the request.  At what point can a business legitimately say an activity violates their beliefs and/or conscience and they have the right as a business owner not to participate?  Ever?  If the answer is never, then we are essentially saying that to own a business, or run a shop, or provide service of any kind means that you must check your religion and/or conscience at the door the day you open up shop.  If that is what we are declaring as a society, so be it.  But can we have that conversation without the unmitigated gall, on both sides, of assuming we are right and the other side is wrong and therefore having the "conversation" consist of name calling and little else?

Freedom in America!

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”--William Pitt

Ironic that a British Prime Minister so closely tied to the American Revolutionary period would have made such a clear statement on what the United States fought for during the Revolution.  Make no mistake, he remains correct today, just as our founders were correct.  It is not Islam, Republicans, Democrats, that radical preacher in the news, immigrants (legal or illegal), guns, or any other thing the politicians and the media want to make you afraid of that you have to fear.  It is the government you have to fear.  Daniel Webster describes it like this: "Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."  Also, while there is no evidence that Jefferson ever actually said it, it has been attributed to him for a very long time.  Regardless, the sentiment is a fair one whomever said it.  "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny."

Sure, there are real threats out there, but, Jefferson said it best: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."  In essence, liberty is more important than the fear, so we need to realize that with liberty comes the ability of crazy people to kill you.  That fear is no excuse to abandon liberty as we have done with the TSA, DHS, and shutting down the people's mall in Washington with security gates whenever there's an event. Benjamin Franklin described this a different way, but the essence is the same: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."  I'll stick with Ben on this one.

So, tyranny is defined in today's legal dictionary this way: The violation of those laws which regulate the division and the exercises of the sovereign power of the state. It is a violation of its constitution.  The violation of the Constitution?  Any act carried out by Congress where no Constitutional authority (delegation) exists is unconstitutional.  This is true regardless of whether the Supreme Court says it is.  The Supreme Court after all, sides with the federal government 90% of the time whenever expansion of federal power is the issue.  Really?  The federal government is right that often?  I think not.

Now, the road towards tyranny is not a short one and it is not from one party or one President.  It has slowly corrupted every aspect of American government and politics.  Each successive President has expanded the "imperial" presidency by trying to usurp Congress or get around the law, particularly through the use of executive orders, to further their ends, it has culminated in the ridiculousness of Bush and Obama's executive orders used to get around Congress and their complete contempt (it seems to me) for the rule of law and the Constitution.  However, it was Congress who gave Obama the right to detain people indefinitely, it was Congress who passed the Patriot Act under Bush, it was Congress who created the Department of Homeland Security, it was Congress who established the TSA, it was Congress who set up special courts to try terrorists at Guantanamo, and it was Congress who decided they could stick their nose into whatever suited them, regardless of whether the Constitution delegated that power to them.

These are recent examples, but they are the worst for one simple reason.  They aren't temporary.  In the past, the people and government of the U.S. have "lost their head" for a little while when under imminent threat.  The suspension of Habeus Corpus and the trouncing of freedom of press and speech rights during the Civil War.  The treatment of German Americans during the first world war.  The Japanese internment during WW II.  The trouncing of rights during the McCarthy era.  All examples of government tyranny and overreach.  All of these examples were eventually turned back and sanity restored, once the "threat" that brought them about was removed.  However, these new laws and loss of sanity have no end in sight.  Terrorism isn't a threat we can eventually eliminate or defeat.  Unless one plans to nuke every single terrorist camp identified, which would essentially end the world anyway.  Therefore, if the threat of terrorism has no end, then the government has no reason to restore sanity.  So, these losses of liberty aren't temporary while the threat is dealt with, but permanent changes to the American way of life.  Therefore, I submit freedom is dead and that maybe the terrorists have won the war long before the final battles are fought because we have chosen security over freedom, just as Franklin warned us against.

Criticizing fathers?! Really?!

It seems that New York radio hosts Boomer Esiason, Craig Carton and Mike Francesa took to the airwaves this week to criticize New York Mets second baseman Daniel Murphy for missing the first two games of the season in order to be there for the birth of his first child.  There were several issues here that I take umbrage with.  First, they felt he should have not taken the time off.  Second, they felt he should have insisted on having a C-Section before opening day.  Third, they felt he is a rich baseball player and could just hire a nanny.  Finally, they felt he was letting his team down.  I am a father of two and so am very opinionated about this issue, so keep that in mind if you believe something differently.  However, it seems that many agree with me...CNN here and ESPNW here.

Should he have not taken time off?  To suggest this is inexcusable to me.  Men have a responsibility to their families that takes precedence over everything else.  A man should be there for his wife, children, etc. whenever possible.  To make special efforts for the big moments is particularly important, especially if you are a man who must travel a lot for his job, as Major League baseball players are.    Society today pushes images of manliness that are not accurate and allow people the misconception that somehow men shouldn't take paternity leave.  This fallacy leads to this kind of criticism.  In addition, MLB and the player's union have negotiated that players can have three days for paternity leave.  If it is in the contract, then the Mets and MLB certainly aren't going to complain.  It is shocking to me that any man who is also a father and takes that responsibility seriously would say that there is something wrong with being present at the birth of your child.  Any child, not just your first, but your first might be even more important.

The second statement made was that Murphy should have gotten his wife to have a C-section before opening day.  This was in conjunction with the idea that certainly he could have made it back before the second game since there was a day off in between.  First of all, clearly these men are ignorant about C-sections.  They are more invasive, more risky, and require a longer period of recovery.  In my opinion, they should only be performed when necessary and never simply for convenience sake.  At any rate, insisting on a C-section just so he can make it to work on opening day would have been the irresponsible choice.  Boomer Esiason said he would have done something like that.  That makes him an idiot and irresponsible, not Murphy.  Boomer also isn't looking at it with an apples to apples comparison.  Even if I were to accept the idea that he shouldn't be at the birth of his child because he has work responsibilities, which I don't, then Boomer was a football player who played 16 games.  Murphy is a baseball player who plays 162.  The importance factor of the individual games played is dramatically different.  In fact, most baseball players average something around 150 games a year.  Very few these days, relatively speaking, actually play all 162 games.

The third complaint was that he should be able to hire someone to help out since he's so rich.  Well, maybe he is rich and can afford it, but when did being rich mean you stopped being human, or stopped being a father?  It doesn't.  This argument is so ludicrous it almost isn't worth addressing.  However, they clearly believed it when they said it, so I'll address it.  The responsibilities of a father do not end when you hire a nanny, a maid, a cook, or any service to assist you with domestic duties.  One of the more important aspects of fatherhood is being there.  Three days to be there for the birth of your child is reasonable even for a rich man.  Would these guys be asking Warren Buffett not to take time to be present at the birth of his children?  I think not.

Fourth, the believed his behavior was letting his team down.  Well, I have two points on this.  One, the primary team in a man's life is the one that exists at home, not any team that exists on a ball field, in an office, etc.  Two, if his team felt he was letting them down by attending the birth of his child, then they should be ashamed of themselves.  I've already shown above the relative importance of any game in baseball, but an additional consideration is that no one person on a baseball team in indispensable or irreplaceable.  Sure, you may lose some defensive or offensive production based on an individual player, but over a 162 game season, you expect to lose almost every player on the team for at least 2-5 games due to various reasons, including nothing more nefarious than the coach deciding someone needs a day off.

Finally, these guys need to get a life.  They are New York radio show hosts who have a New York audience and they are talking about a New York team and player.  There's a reason the rest of the baseball world doesn't care for the New York teams and perhaps the lack of simple honor and class on display by these three radio hosts is one of the reasons.  In essence, they are saying that every baseball game is so important that no player should miss one for any reason.  In the end, they aren't really complaining about him going to be there for the birth of his child.  They are complaining that they lost the first two games and using this guy as a scapegoat to explain why.  It really is that simple.  When did sportscasters become as bad as shock media to pick on someone's personal life and drag their family into the equation simply because they're upset they lost a couple of games.  Here's a hint.  The Mets are awful and will remain awful whether Murphy is out there or not.  Focus on that rather than picking on a man for making the correct and responsible decision to be with his wife for the birth of their child and sticking around to be with her for several days after.  I don't know when she was released from the hospital with the child, but I believe he should have stayed with her until she was, regardless of what these idiots might think.  We have enough trouble with men being responsible and taking on the role of father as it is, we don't need stupidity from the media continuing to foster an irresponsible image of manhood and fatherhood.

Thinking about Christians and sin

I have been thinking about something for a while now.  It seems to me that a LOT of Christians have missed the point of something.  I see how Christians respond to sinners (and by sinners I really mean everyone) and a lot of the time they do so with the best of intentions.  In fact, I typically see four types of responses to sinners.  There are the two extremes and then there are the sort of middle of the road responses.  Are any of these the way God wants us to respond?  So often, people justify their positions with certain stories or verses.  How do they play a role in helping to determine how Christians should respond to sinners?

So, the four ways I've commonly seen demonstrated are listed below from one extreme to the other.  I will examine each of them to consider whether they are appropriate responses.

1. The love at any cost response:  I call this the love at any cost response because it always errs on the side of love, at least that is what it claims to do.  Let's take a closer look.  These are the people you tend to say we must love the sinner no matter what.  They are afraid of upsetting or offending people and frankly they don't believe they should.  They believe that to offend someone might might drive them away from God.  They make excuses for sin to the point of accepting it as a fine and correct choice in people's lives.  They often point to stories like the woman at the well or the woman caught in adultery to justify accepting sin into their midst.  They know that only Jesus changes hearts and minds and so they choose to let Him do all the work, refusing to say that sin is wrong in order to avoid offense, but believing God will help people see the truth anyway.  In extreme cases, they make so many excuses for sin that they no longer believe sinful things to be sinful.  This is a destructive attitude, in my opinion, which I'll explain below.

2. The love and truth response:  I call this the love and truth response because this method is similar to the love at any cost response except that it adds in a factor of truth telling.   These people also believe that only Jesus changes hearts and they also believe that Christians need to come alongside sinners and love them.  However, they don't make excuses for sin, but rather speak the truth in love.  What this really means is that Christians who go out into the community or witness to non-believers never really talk about sin other than to express how their life of sin has been changed by Christ.  However, when asked or pushed to respond, they do believe in absolutes and do not excuse sin, but rather will clearly state what they believe God has declared sin and why.  They know that we must love all people just as God loves them.  This includes welcoming them into the church just as Jesus welcomed sinners.  However, they believe it must also include a willingness to speak the truth.  In other words, you will hear the Bible preached from the pulpits without apology or excuses but it is never done in the "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" way.

3. The fear response:  This response is probably the most common, in my opinion.  These are the people who really believe in the adage of love the sinner and hate the sin.  However, they are often confused and fearful of accepting sinners because they are afraid themselves.  It is easy to fear what you don't understand, but it is also easy to fear that which tempts you.  An addict may choose to cut family and friends who are users and addicts out of their lives because it is a source of temptation to them and they are afraid that the influence of those could cause them to stumble in their recovery.  This is where many of these people fall.  They are sinners themselves and they recognize that, but they fear sin as a source of temptation and so they fail to properly love other sinners and often drive sinners away without intending to do so.  They may be right when it comes to the truth, but they have a hard time with the love, at least when it comes to their church.  They are comfortable and don't want to upset the cart, so to speak.  They may choose to love by going out into the community and serving, but they fail to welcome those they serve into their congregation.

4. The hate response:  This should speak for itself, but it is born out of misunderstanding and misinterpreting the scriptures.  They clearly have confused the concept of love the sinner and hate the sin to an abhorrent degree.  This is so true that the love the sinner part drops off entirely and you basically end up intermingling the hate the sin with the sinner themselves.  Therefore, since God said there are things He hates, if your sin is of that variety, you are condemned and unloved.  This viewpoint is destructive and damaging to sinners, Christians, and Christianity.

How do we reconcile which of these is right or if any of these are right?  I mention these four because they are what I've observed in my over 4 decades of churchgoing.  I think they are an accurate representation of what is out there, but I concede there may be other examples not listed.  At any rate, I believe one of the best ways to understand how God wants Christians to respond to sinners is to look at how Christ responded to them.  This also requires me to think like a parent.  Why is that?  Well, the relationship that humans have with God is often described as one that is similar to the relationship that children have with their parents.  It is an appropriate way to look at things and is extremely useful for understanding how Christians should interact with the world.  Parents should be particularly adept at gaining this understanding.

At any rate, 1 and 4 (to me) are the extremes.  These are models that just shouldn't be followed or accepted, in my opinion.

No. 1 is the first extreme and they shout love your neighbor, but completely ignore biblical truth, even to the point of saying that people can just do whatever they want.  Well, people can do whatever they want.  Christians can't.  By choosing Christ, we choose to be like Christ and He said to love your neighbor as yourself.  However, this group tells stories like the woman at the well and the woman caught in adultery and leave off the end.  "Go and sin no more", Christ said.  He did not condemn them, but he also spoke the truth to them.  He is saying that He loves them no matter what, but that they also should strive to change their lives.

Now, looking at this from the parent/child relationship, there is a lot more to this than meets the eye.  Parents love their children.  Proper parental love requires discipline and rules.  Without discipline and rules, children do not learn how to be good adults and good members of society.  Without discipline and rules, you raise entitled spoiled brats.  That is what the church is when no. 1 is followed.  A parent who doesn't discipline their child and doesn't maintain clear boundaries through rules is not doing their child any favors, but instead is ultimately harming their child's ability to interact in the world around them.  Is the church doing anyone any favors by saying: "come in, we're glad you're here, but you don't have to follow any of those rules because we want to make you feel welcome"?  I don't believe it is.  I believe this is a very dangerous way of responding to sinners.  It teaches them that they can do whatever they want, that God does not hold them responsible and it increases the sin they commit.  Why would it do that you ask?  Well, God, through Paul, specifically states that if you lead your brother into sin, then you too are guilty of it.  By never telling the truth, never stating that there are in fact absolutes and rules to be followed, we tell sinners, not that God loves them despite their sin, but rather that sin is okay.  It isn't and that attitude will inevitably lead Christians who hold it to lead their brothers and sisters into sin, thus making them equally guilty and increasing their sin.

No. 4 is at the other end of the spectrum and, to me, is the worst and most extreme.  These are people like the Westboro Baptist Church folks and they, fortunately, are the exception.  I think they don't know what love is at all and so I question whether they have love in their hearts.  However, that isn't for me to decide because God knows their hearts and He is the judge.  This group often spouts 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 out of context and bang the rest of us over the heads with it.  It goes like this: "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."  I get it, these are all clearly stated sins.  We are all also guilty of at least one of them, if not more.  So how can any of us get to God under the legalistic interpretations of these folks?  The answer is that we can't.  Fortunately, Christ died on the cross for our sins.  What this group constantly leaves out is the end of this verse.  It is verge 11: "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."  This is the most important part of this passage and shows sinners that God loved them so much that he sent Christ through whom we are justified.  Without Christ there is no salvation.  Without Christ, these people would be correct.  Fortunately, we have Christ.

From the parent/child relationship standpoint, this is the abusive parent, who raises their child to hate their parents and the world around them.

Next is no. 3, the fear response.  These people want to do the right thing, but they are stuck in the rules.  They are not so legalistic that they've turned to hate, but they are stuck in legalism and tradition to the point where things that don't fit their expectations are outside what they want to be exposed to.  They are fearful of that which is different and afraid that they might be tainted by those differences.  I don't think they are malicious, although they come off that way sometimes.  I think they epitomize the adage that the road to hell is paved with good intentions in many ways.  They reach out to their communities, they give to charities, but these are all things they can do without ever getting their hands dirty.  When it comes to welcoming "those people" into their church, they fail miserably.  They have rules for appropriate attire, etc. that are very off putting and aren't really biblical.  Christ didn't tell the lepers he healed to go change into more appropriate robes before he'd heal them.  That isn't how he responded to sinners.  The fear response is driven by fear.  I think these people are largely afraid of the temptations they fear they may surround themselves with if they got their hands dirty or went into the trenches.  They are comfortable where they are and with who they are and fear prevents them from moving beyond that comfort zone.  They are the disciples who stayed in the boat, afraid of the storm while Peter jumped out to walk on water.  Sure, fear overcame Peter as well, but he was the only one who made the effort, the others just cowed in the comfort of the boat while the storm raged around them.

In terms of the parent/child relationship, this is not as bad as the hateful parent but it can still be destructive.  These parents are the overprotective type who never allow their children to experience the world around them as it truly is.  They are so afraid that something might happen, that they forget that children need to learn and need to learn to take care of themselves.  These children grow up, not knowing how to take care of themselves and end up dependent on others, perhaps even in destructive relationships because they lack the ability to distinguish clear boundaries.

Finally, we come to No. 2.  To me, this is the most balanced approach to sinners.  We are to take care of the orphans and widows, feed the hungry, care for the sick, etc. etc.  These people do this as much as the other groups do.  However, they don't sugar coat things like the first group and they step out in faith like Peter rather than cowering in the boat like the others.  There is no comparison between these folks and no. 4.  This is the group that often finds itself caught in the middle.  They believe there must be some standards and they preach that in their churches, but they also believe that God accepts people where they are, that he loves them for who they are.  This is the most difficult way to react because it requires both loving people and speaking what you believe to be true.  This balancing act most exemplifies Christ, in my opinion.  It attempts to show the woman caught in adultery the same love Christ did while also expressing the wrongness of adultery.  It is tough to do and is even tougher to do consistently.  Often times, these people strive to follow this response, but end up in no. 1 or no. 3 simply because the balancing act required is so hard.

In terms of the parent/child relationship, this represents parents who understand that their children need discipline and rules, but also know that children need to learn through making mistakes.  They aren't helicopter parents who hover over like no. 3, but they don't make so few rules that the children have no structure and guidance like no. 1.  This kind of parenting is also a balancing act and is very hard to maintain consistency.  If a child breaks something after being told that breaking it might be a result if they continue to act that way, then it is very hard to allow the breaking of the object to teach the lesson and not say I told you so.

In the end, Christ changes hearts.  The church needs to respond to sinners by coming alongside them and loving them.  Providing for them, taking care of them, loving them, sheltering them, etc.  However, the church also needs to respond by never sugarcoating the truth of the Bible.  Paul states that we have freedom in Christ and so we do.  He also states that we need to choose to refrain from behaviors that might cause our brothers and sisters in Christ or even non-believers to stumble.  Therefore, we must follow the set of rules spelled out for us because we do not know what consequences our actions might have on those around us.  The rules aren't for non-Christians, but they are there for us to know how God intends His followers to live.  This is the conundrum.  We have to balance what we know to be true with the love we are called to show through Christ with the sacrifice that Christ made for us all.  I believe responding to sinners in a manner consistent with no. 2 is the best way to achieve this.  Any ideas on another alternative?

Is Hobby Lobby attacking women?

One would think, based on the media coverage and the signs of protestors and the statements of "those in the know" that Hobby Lobby was some kind of awful company hell bent on destroying the rights of women.  I was just wondering if that were true, so I actually bothered to look into it.  What would it take for Hobby Lobby to be attacking the rights of women?  Would it take them not providing birth control to their female employees?  How about not providing health insurance?  What about telling their employees how to live their lives.  Okay, well, if they did all three of these things, then I'd agree they are violating the rights of their female employees.  So...

Are they denying their employees health insurance?  Nope

Are they denying their employees birth control through that insurance?  Nope...they just aren't providing abortifacient forms...but ALL other forms are provided.

Are they telling their female employees how to live their lives?  Outside of work, they have no right to do this and clearly are not doing this.

So what are they doing?  Well, they are a privately owned company founded with a basis in the Christian faith who do not believe in providing funding for certain forms of birth control because the owners believe those forms cause abortions and therefore end life.  This is actually not an uncommon belief in society, and it is the whole reason for this case.

I won't get into the merits of whether a corporation has religious freedom per se.  However, the administration has chosen to arbitrarily hand out exemptions to this rule as political favors, but can't see fit to do so for religious liberty reasons?  That seems odd.  Over religious liberty, they'll take it to court.  All right.  What else?  Right, this is not a publicly traded company that sells stock, etc.  It is a privately held corporation.  That means that there is one owner, not a bunch of stock holders.  One might not find this to be a huge difference, but I do.  Corporate personhood is an arguable legal concept, but there is a huge difference to me between a corporation that sells stock and is publicly traded and is therefore clearly not
operating under anything other than secular rules and a company that is privately owned and those owners believe the company they own and run should be operating under certain guiding principles.  In other words, one is clearly a property right for the private owners and the other is not.  Therefore, I'd lean in the direction of erring on the side of the property rights of the owners of a privately held company who are claiming a religious freedom exemption.  

So, to be clear...Hobby Lobby has provided many forms of birth control through their insurance policy for a long time. Obamacare is forcing it to provide abortifacient forms of birth control for the first time. Abortifacients aren't birth control (preventing fertilization) but rather end the pregnancy (abortion). Hobby Lobby has not provided this one type of birth control option in the past because it is against the moral standard of the private owners (this is not a publicly owned company). Hobby Lobby in no way says their employees can't have an abortion or use an abortifacient, they just won't pay for it. The government wants to force them to provide this option which potentially would mean that they would have to participate in an activity that they consider, based on religious grounds, to be morally repugnant.

Okay, so, according to the left, because they only provide non abortifacient forms of birth control, this makes Hobby Lobby an abhorrent company hell bent on attacking women? This is the same kind of logic that lets the left pat themselves on the back for forcing hundreds of thousands of people who were happy with their insurance into being forced to purchase insurance they didn't want and that was more expensive. Regardless of your feelings about abortion or whether owners of private companies have religious freedom rights, the protestors and left wing policy spinners aren't defending women or women's rights. Sounds to me like this isn't about women at all! Rather, it is about some people's irrational belief that all forms of birth control and abortion should be freely available.