So I read this post by Eugene Cho yesterday, engaging the first speech given by the first African American Attorney General, Eric Holder. In his speech, Attorney General Holder said 3 things that really challenged me:

1st - Our country remains "voluntarily socially segregated."

2nd - “Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards,”

3rd - "On Saturdays and Sundays, America in the year 2009 does not, in some ways, differ significantly from the country that existed some 50 years ago. This is truly sad."

I hate that he is right. Had I still lived in CO and heard this, it would not have resonated with me. I would say that "there is still some segregation, but not to the extent Mr. Holder is accusing." I would probably even accuse him of playing the victim of the past and be frustrated by his pessimism of the present. But, I didn't think that or accuse him. It resonated with deep convictions in my soul.

I've lived in the Motor City metro area for 3 years now and have seen and heard things I thought to be archaic - things we all learned were ignorant and empty in our American History classes of our high school years. Areas where white people aren't wanted, areas where black people aren't welcome, subdivisions being 'infiltrated' by Indians who don't maintain the same standards of landscaping, the feeling that I should be afraid and suspicious of every black person I pass on my walk 3 blocks from my secure parking garage to my secure work building. I honestly hate the suspicion I feel when I gas up at the station across from my work, the one thought to be 'dangerous' - but then a white guy was car jacked at gun point by a black guy and all suspicions are validated - and then everyone was right. I have never seen an American city that looks so war torn, destroyed by the air raids of white flight and neighborhoods ghosted by ghetto indifference. I have never felt so far from living in America as I do in the Motor City, because it is not the America I want.

I want to believe in the dream and something that transcends all this racial history - a history I didn't help to write, but a future I long to be a part of. I never enslaved anyone, but I know my ancestors did. I've never hated someone for the color of their skin, but I know family members who do. Yet, perhaps I am a coward because I have not fashioned my life, or positioned my home or diversified my circle of friends to embody that which does resonate deeply within me. I work with mostly white corporate people, I live in a mostly white neighborhood and I have mostly white friends. Perhaps I am a coward. Too harsh? Maybe. I know I didn't move 60 miles outside of Detroit to get away from the African Americans that make up the majority of it's populations. We had family out there, found a great house (at a then great price - since lived to regret that) and it was far cheaper than where we were living. But, I could have moved to Detroit for those same reasons, not as close to family but far closer to work, far cheaper to live.

So now I feel like part of the problem - and I'm left challenged by Mr. Holder's speech and must work to be the change I want to see. I am not satisfied by the status quo in our culture and churches.

Related posts, "The King had a Dream," "The Down Side To Freedom of Speech [Part 1]," "A Church without a Box?"

K'Naan was on a local radio show getting interview the other day and I really appreciated his perspective on life and the situation of his country and his people. He was born and raised in Somalia, the land of poets, and now has found success here in America. Enjoy - unless you're already a K'Naan fan - but you can re:Enjoy them.

...for people like Sylvester Williams today. Regardless of your political view, today is a great moment in our countries history. Sylvester Williams used to pick cotton and lived through all the segregation and hatred in the South during the first half the 20th Century. I'm glad he lived long enough to see the moment when an African American is sworn in as the President of the United States. Today is a proud moment for all of us in the U.S.

I heard there are 25,000 law enforcement agents on hand...
I pray nothing ignorant or racist happens today...
I'm praying for our next President...
I'm thankful that God's hand is on history...

I assume most people have at least heard about the 'shoe throwing journalist' in Iraq, if not seen the footage, but it is a telling satire on America's standing in the world. But what I thought was most amazing about the footage is the crazy fast reaction time of George W. I thought it was really impressive.

And I guess it is also noteworthy how fast that journalist was able to take his shoe off and then launch it.

And I wonder where he is today?

I also appreciate how hindsight is 20/20 and that no one would have been able to predict the 8 years that followed debates like these...

My friend Justin Chandler inquired on my thoughts about the American auto industry and their need for a bailout, since I not only live in Michigan, but also work in the Motor City for General Motors. So here they are...

We live in a capitalist market, which means they deserve to fail.

But so did the Financial institutions we already bailed out?

The unions have long since outlasted their value and can be attributed for a significant piece of the problem. But for congressmen to say they make too much money working on an assembly line, that is ridiculous - since they make way too much money sitting in a chair. And their criticism of the CEO's and their corporate flying habits could not be more hypocritical - while true, they do the exact same thing with tax payers dollars.

We cannot afford to lose the national auto makers - the impact would be widespread and affect far more than people realize; From dealers and their service and parts departments to advertising agencies - from mom & pop software companies to large scale consulting firms - from parts suppliers to credit lending banks. Thousands of small business depend on the auto industry and they too would go bankrupt if they had to settle 50 cents on the dollar for money owed them by the auto makers.

Plus they're not asking for a bailout, they're asking for a bridge loan - which is different. But I totally agree with the scrutiny and ridicule they are enduring to get the loans. This is a great opportunity for them to restructure and fix all that has gone wrong over the past few decades. I only wish they had put the financial institutions through the same thing.

But in the end, I think the loans will happen, I need the loans to happen, our country needs the loans to happen and I just pray people smarter than me are in charge of the process.

Here's a previous post about all this bailout stuff.

Thanks to Eugene Cho for continuing to engage this conversation on his blog.

So this will have to fill in for my Part 2 of the 'Down Side To Freedom of Speech' post. Seems like every time I break a long post into parts, they end up heading in too many directions and I never finish them.

But I love the freedoms of our country. I love that I can be a follower of Jesus, openly pray and discuss my faith-filled worldview.

As such, I live in a country where everyone has the right to their own worldview, beliefs and lifestyle. So when the discussion of Prop 8 and Gay Rights as a whole is brought up, I sympathize with the Gay Rights movement. We don't have the same beliefs, so if they want to marry one another, who am I to stand in the way?

[I'm sure half of my readers will disagree, at least on some level - please feel free - I would appreciate others views - which is why I'm posting it on my blog. Just be nice!]

So I understand two people in love, living together and wanting to get married and be able to speak on one an others behalf in say, a hospital situation.

What I'm not comfortable with is a larger debate or concern I have. Our country was built on a separation of State & Church, to keep the State from dictating the Church or the reciprocal.

The reciprocal is my hang up - we (as a country) are constantly trying to keep 'religion' out of the government, schools, ect, ect. But religion is just a worldview. My religious beliefs are my worldview. There is no way for me to be unbiased on the grounds of religion or the government. I'm a Christian - that's how I see the world.

So the atheist, the agnostic, the scientist, the evolutionist, the secular humanist - their worldview has some how been accept and defined as nonreligious - therefore constitutionally sound. But they are just as biased in their beliefs as I am and have just as much potential to be closed minded, judgmental and all the other words my faith has come to be known for. Their worldview is driven by deep down convictions and though they would never use the term, they nonetheless have faith!

We all have theories about the beginning of all we know, about the meaning of our existence and about what happens when we cease to exist. And I stress theories. I call mine faith, they call theirs hypotheses or beliefs - but that is what all worldviews are composed of. Beliefs.

I can no more prove my theories then they can, and in this beautiful country, we both have that freedom and that right.

So what I never want is my worldview to be illegal. My faith is as scientific as the atheists or anyone else. And the State can no more be unbiased than the Church. Because the State is operated by people and people have worldviews. So the State must work to up hold a liberty and justice that falls on common ground. Otherwise, by forcing my faith-based worldview out, they allow another worldview to dominate.

Following last weeks post about the billboard apology, it got me thinking... wondering... questioning... and wanting your input.

So here it goes.

Should we as Christians be concerned with legislating our set of morals, in particular our definition of marriage?

What is the upside of doing so?

What is the downside of doing so?

Are we being so right that we actually become wrong?

If you believe legislating our definition is right, how do you at the same time speak love to those who will inevitably feel hatred from you?

If you don't believe in legislating the Christian definition, don't you fear losing a key foundation to life - the family unit?

What is so sacred or special about our definition of marriage? More pointed, why is divorce in the church as bad as outside of the church?

Are we kidding ourselves?

I guess the greater question I'm struggling with is, should we expect others to live by the morals we subscribe to, base on the teachings of Jesus?

If you are not a follower of Jesus, or call yourself a Christian - how did Prop 8 strike you and the 'religious' voice that is always attached to it?


This is the new Sean Penn movie, MILK - and adds to the conversation.

Thought John Piper raised some great challenges for us to think about in our current political scene.

What do you think?

After Prop 8 passed in California, banning same sex marriage, Mission Gathering put this billboard out as an apology for the actions of Christians.

Thoughts?

This is a re:post from the Out of Ur blog - great blog if you don't follow it. These are the thoughts of John Ortberg, one of the Out of Ur contributors. I thought it was a fitting follow to yesterday's post about anonymous hatred.

------------------------------------------------

“Seven Deadly Sins of Evangelicals and Politics.” ~John Ortberg (full article here).

Messianism. The sin of believing that a merely human person or system can usher in the eschaton. This is often tipped off by phrases like: “The most important election of our lifetime” (which one wasn’t?); or “God’s man for the hour.”

Selective Scripturization. The sin of using Scripture to reinforce whatever attitude toward the president you feel like holding, while shellacking it with a thin spiritual veneer. If the candidate you like holds office, you consistently point people toward Romans 13: “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.” If your candidate lost, you consistently point people to Acts 4:10 where Peter and John say to the Sanhedrin: “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God.” It’s just lucky for us the Bible is such a big book.

Easy Believism. This is the sin of believing the worst about a candidate you disagree with, because when you want them to lose you actually want to believe bad things about them. “Love is patient, love is kind,” Paul said. “Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices in the truth.” But in Paul’s day nobody ran for Caesar. There was no talk radio.

Episodism. The sin of being engaged in civic life only on a random basis. The real issues never go away, but we’re tempted to give them our attention only when the news about them is controversial, or simplistic, or emotionally charged. Sustained attention to vital but unsexy issues is not our strong suit.

Alarmism. A friend of mine used to work for an organization that claimed both Christian identity and a particular political orientation. They actually liked it when a president was elected of the opposite persuasion, because it meant they could raise a lot more money. It is in their financial interests to convince their constituents that the president is less sane than Jack Nicholson in The Shining. Alarmists on both sides of the spectrum make it sound like we’re electing a Bogeyman-in-Chief every four years. I sometimes think we should move the election up a few days to October 31.

One Issue-ism. Justifying our intolerance of complexity and nuance by collapsing a decision into a simplistic and superficial framework.

Pride. I couldn’t think of a snappy title for this one. But politics, after all, is largely about power. And power goes to the core of our issues of control and narcissism and need to be right and tendency to divide the human race into ‘us’ vs. ‘them.’

What might happen if the world were to see those of us who claim to be the church vote, and speak, and campaign, and respond to the results in a humble and repentant spirit?

------------------------------------------------

Thoughts?

Below is a comment I received over the weekend that is hilarious. Enjoy!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I came across this blog by chance. You enlightened 20-something, so called Christians, crack me up. "Wrestled with your decision" - You didn't wrestle with anything. Be honest your mind was made up long ago. It’s obvious with the orgasm you’re now posting about Obama. All that matters to you is that the "Black" guy won. You excuse “life” for “other issues”. Do you even have a clue what his issues are? Did you even research what the guy wrote in his book? He’s an admitted socialist. He’s pro gay marriage, pro infanticide on a botched abortion, he voted 44 times on legislation to raise taxes: His racist pastor, his ties and sympathies to terrorism, his hatred for the Jew whom you all claim to serve. – the fact are there. They’re in prin. They’re in his books & writings. Well I’m not going to try and convince you bunch of dopes just how blind you are. Because you want to be blind. You want to want to trade a real messiah for this one. I hope you get everything you deserve.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why so angry? It made me laugh and I continued to find humor in how some anonymous person who won't put a name to their thoughts is questioning the legitimacy of my faith. I didn't know I was having an orgasm for Obama either. I was just excited that our country has taken a huge leap in bridging the civil rights abuses of our past.

I guess by re:posting this comment I'm giving Mr A props he doesn't deserve and yes I assume he is guy - girls aren't that stupid. Right?

Mr A you should calm down, stop assuming you know me and stop pretending like random comments like this are accomplishing anything. No one needs your anonymous hatred.

This picture made me cry laughing - don't know if it does it for you, but it sure did for me.

So after much internal debate and questioning I'm headed to the voting booth to cast my vote. I have wrestled with not just the 'issues' we always talk about, but also the system as a whole.

I'm proud to say that I'm voting for a whole-life perspective and not just the typical pro-life approach. I believe there are a lot of issues that need to be address in our country, but with a clear conscience maintain that my faith and hope is in Jesus alone - not Obama or McCain's victory in this election.

So, here's to tomorrow as our country moves on with it's life and here's to the change we all want, though we don't agree on the approach.

...and thank God for it. I'm ready to move on with our lives here in the States and hopefully start to see change in the many issues brought to the foreground during the election process.

With the election in 2 days, I wanted to share some thoughts from a great article by Shane Claiborne on the God Politics blog. You should read the whole thing, but here are some good insights and questions for you:

• Jesus was far too slick to get boxed into any political camp.
• One of the ways the Religious Right went wrong was telling folks what to do rather than stirring people to think for themselves.
• The decision we make on November 4 is an important one — perhaps no more important than how we live on November 3 and November 5 — but important nonetheless.
• As a follower of the enemy-loving God, it is difficult to vote for a commander in chief of the largest military in the world, especially when no candidate seems to be preaching “blessed are the peacemakers” or creating a plan for turning swords into plows.
• No candidate or party fully embodies the values of God’s upside-down kingdom.
• Perhaps a good answer when folks ask if you are a Republican or Democrat is: “On what issue?”
• One way for people of so-called “privilege” to act in solidarity with the poor and marginalized is to ask folks in poverty who we should vote for. Another experiment for white folks in this election might be asking people of color who have suffered so much historically whether we should vote or who we should vote for — and to honor their struggle by submitting our voices with theirs.
  
• One way to look at voting is that it is damage control -– not so much voting for something as it is voting against something worse.

After hearing about the 'Letter from 2012 in Obama's America' from my #1 commenter Ryan Billings, I'm joining Jim Wallis and other bloggers of faith asking Dr Dobson to apologize for the ridiculousness of this letter.

Even though Ryan and I don't see eye to eye on issues of faith and politics, we have been friends since Jr. High and he has a way of keeping me grounded (and as a side note, he has yet to actually post something of his own, his blog is mad boring).

Anyway, let me be clear that I'm not a hater on Dr Dobson or Focus On The Family. I grew up in Colorado Springs and have many friends who worked there and have heard him speak numerous times.

However, this is the exact reason I hate Christians excersizing their voice in our Democracy. We have an unfortunate tendency to be just as polarizing and demonizing as those who don't share our faith. And the unfortunate part of doing it in the name of religion is that we further the divide between ourselves and the 'others' who don't agree with us. This letter comes across ignorant and offensive, and I'm a Christ follower. This letter paints us exactly how so many 'others' see us, as irrational, un-intelligent and blind fools following a religion.

That is not me, that is not my faith and this letter is wrong. So on behalf of Christians who seek a higher ground in America and political involvement, I'm sorry - we're not all this way.

I hooked up with Random House publishing to do another blog review of a book. I'm not going to lie, I love books and I love receiving free copies even more - so I usually take whatever they offer me.

This book sounded interesting and I would love if someone could actually write a book that laid out for His followers some clear direction - this one didn't do it for me.

• If you are a Christian and a Republican, you'll like the book as it adds a foundation for biblically interpreting where to stand on the 'issues'.

• If you're like me and feel that the Christian vote has been hijacked by the Republican Party, it will frustrate you as each interpretation seems to point to an elephant platform.

• And if you are a Christian Democrat, the book will flat out anger you.

In the end I felt deceived by the book. The book is supposed to be written from a nonpartisan perspective, but if it were written by two African-American Christian leaders, it would have been written quite differently. It should have been co-authored by people on both sides of the issues, working to collectively build a view of how Jesus might vote. In fact, that should have been the title, 'How Jesus Might Vote,' emphasizing the ambiguity of the issues we face in America and not pretending that one interpretation of scripture is the end-all, be-all for followers of Jesus.

If it could, we would not have the multitude of denominations in the Christian faith - would we?
And on that note, Random House may not like me reviewing its books - but they ask for honesty.

What I'm about to share is my journey and struggle to define my responsibility as a follower of Jesus and a citizen in a Democracy. This is NOT me telling you what you should or shouldn't feel or think. It simply my struggle, and if it helps you cool, if not cool. My fear is that Mr. Anonymous will show back up and regurgitate his Conservative-Republican-Always-Right comments on my thoughts (see what I mean here and here).

A good friend of mine sent me a post by Randy Alcorn and it wrestled with the Christian responsibility in our political system. The article was titled "Not Cool: Obama's Pro-Choice Stance, and Christians enabling him." It is a well written article that is well thought through and quite thought provoking.

The problem is it didn't convince me to vote, in fact it only made my mind more clear on exercising my right not to vote. And I know what you are thinking, I've seen the same commercials and have grown up in this country too. I know I should vote, or at least I know that I'm told I should vote.

Here is the piece that stuck out to me in the post, Randy Alcorn said, "We will stand before the judgment seat of Christ for our decisions, and a vote is a decision in which we assume responsibility for the known beliefs and moral positions of the candidate. This is not speculation, it is not a spin, it is demonstrable fact: Barack Obama IS committed to continuing the legalized killing of unborn children in this country."

Wait, if that is true then all those who voted the Christian vote in the past two elections, that being for the Christian, Republican, President George W. Bush, we have to take responsibility for his action on judgment day? I guess I better start tearing my sack cloth now and covering my self in ash. I was young and convinced by the Conservative Right that he was 'right.' I'm far less convinced now and even more 'un-convinced' that my participation the political realm as follower of the Way is worthwhile.

I love God and I love people too much to be partisan. I love people too much to seem on either side of the political spectrum. If I'm going draw a line in the sand it will not be over red or blue issues, donkey or elephant perspectives - it will be only on the issue of the man named Jesus. That is it.

So I got this free 'Obession' dvd in the mail (cool logo I thought) and like you probably would, thought, who sends out a free dvd? So I assumed it was either McCain stirring up some fear about the war on terror or some group of weirdo's with too much money. So I went to the website for the movie and one of the first things they address is how they've been accused of being politically tied - but they aren't. Or at least they say they aren't.

Regardless, I decided to watch it and it was actually really good. The point was to show the dangerous threat that exists with the Radicals of the Muslim faith, not Muslims as a whole.

The most interesting piece of the documentary are the parallels they show between the Nazi's and the Radical Muslims. For example, both used war propaganda to fear monger and essentially brainwash people to think that others are an imminent threat. Both Nazi's and Radical Muslims raise their kids to hate - but the Radical Muslims have a religious twist that makes it more dangerous. They showed videos of kids saying they would die a martyr’s death for Allah.

And then they showed actual footage of a Muslim leader who was sanctioned by Hitler himself to raise an army and wage war on the Jews of Israel. It was pretty crazy stuff. They also showed really disturbing footage of thousands of Muslims chanting, 'Death to America!'

Their point was that a lot of people didn't take the Nazi threat serious until it was too late. They even told the story of how Winston Churchill warned the world for years about the Nazi threat, but was never taken serious until WWI was a reality.

So at a minimum it was thought provoking and worth the watch - if you want my copy tell me and I'll send it to you.

I'm not saying we should take up arms, but I do believe that a time comes and order has to be restored through military force. Everyone knew that fighting in the World Wars was for a good thing, to bring down fascism - problem with a war on terror is that it is not centralized or one nation's desire for dominance. It is a messy and scary topic and the solution will be controversial at best.

What I'm about to say will sound more political than I mean it - I'm not arguing from a partisan perspective.

But something from the VP debate has been stuck in my head and I can't get it out. When Governor Palin said that people were chanting 'Drill Baby Drill' at their rallies I was confused. First I was confused as to why drilling for more oil on our land would be celebrated as a viable solution.

Maybe I'm missing something, and I'm prepared for someone to set me straight, but this just seems so obviously stupid. We as Americans have about 3% of the natural oil supply that could be drilled and yet consume 25% of the oil in the global market - why are we thinking this is a solution? Shouldn't the solution focus our resources on removing our dependencies from oil, not just foreign oil? I'm thinking yes!

And why would we spend the money and the time to build infrastructure to drill for oil on our land if we know it will only provide a short-term solution? Isn't our short-sightedness as a country what got us in this position in the first place? Not to mention the scarring and damage that will be done to our land.

Again, maybe it's me, but 'Drill Baby Drill' seems ridiculous.

I'm sure the S. African's that read my blog think we are a bunch of winey babies in America. And I know the European's have been paying too much for too long - they're probably thinking the same thing.

Thoughts?