No one talks to our President-Elect like that!

Like Lee, I am not a member of the Obama fan club. However, something about Al-Qaeda demeaning our President-Elect makes me want to rally around him. I feel like with some issues - like protecting America - we are all in it together. We all have a common enemy. Who knew Al-Qaeda could promote such a sense of unity?

Obama wants college football playoff system

Like most Americans, Obama wants a college football playoff system.

However, hopefully Obama will rely on his status and influence as a private individual and will not use government power to accomplish this. The government has no business dictating the rules of a sports association, provided that the association breaks no criminal laws. Let's hope the President and/or Congress don't see fit to be the governing body of sports.

My fear about the next four years

Despite the person I didn't vote for being elected, on the bright side, we've shown that a minority can be elected President. Not only that, but the Cato Blog notes that

all 42 of our presidents have been of British, Irish, or Germanic descent. We’ve never had a president of southern or eastern European ancestry.

So, not only is he the first black President, but he is the first one not of British, Irish, or Germanic descent.

So, on Inauguration Day many people will be celebrating, but not everyday will be happy about it. I fear that those people will look like "the bad guys" for not celebrating during a historic moment.

Also, I fear that when Obama is in power, dissent will suddenly go out of style. I haven't seen anything yet to support this, and I don't want to blame liberals for something they haven't done yet. At the same time, this blog is where I share my thoughts, and hopefully I'll be proved wrong. Throughout the whole election we have heard this theme of unity, how we need to work together, etc. These are all important things (actually working together is overrated, I'm happier when government does less), but I fear that dissent against the President will be tolerated less in the name of "unity." Granted, there are constructive and divisive ways to criticize the President, and there are divisive people in politics. I just don't want people who dissent to be labeled as people trying to tear America apart. I have this idea that people see Obama as the guy who is going to fix and save America and dissenters are those who are standing in the way of his mission. And to be fair, I suppose some liberals felt the same way the last 8 years. Unfortunately, in both camps, the respectful dissenters and the not-so-respectful dissenters get lumped together.

Some post election thoughts

Many conservative Christians, or simply Christians who didn't vote for Obama, find themselves in a different situation than the past eight years. I think certain duties of the Christian, primarily praying for the President and showing a certain amount of respect for the President, have come easy during this administration, but we must remember to do the same for the next four. Also, we need to find the line between dissent and disrespect.

As I said before the election, hopefully the GOP can gain their bearings. They have only stood for slightly less government than the Democrats. Of course, no one talks about limited government anymore, it is all about what the government can do for us. Nevertheless, it will still be interesting how the party changes the next two to four years.

I voted

I placed my vote this morning in Colorado. I arrived at the polling place around 7:40 and left about 9:40. My experience took about 10 minutes longer because there was a jam in the ballot box. My wife voted around 11:45 or so and did not wait in a line at all.

Even though this election will likely turn out how I don't want it to, Election Day is still exciting.

Living in a swing state (Colorado) has its advantages and disadvantages. My experience in Colorado leaves me hating campaign commercials even more. When I lived in Oklahoma and Texas, I never saw a Presidential commercial; I have seen them all the time in these past two months or so. However, I have a lot more power than the voter living in a solid red or blue state. And that is what is wrong with the Electoral College. I'm not even saying that we need to abolish the Electoral College, but have states split votes like they do in Nebraska (I think that's the one that does it). By still having some sort of Electoral College, people will still believe their vote matters, as each single electoral vote can be decided by a few votes. If we did a strict popular vote, this would be less likely to happen.

A more exciting part of voting is getting to vote on the numerous amendments, as opposed to voting on candidates. Honestly, my voting on candidates tends to be more party line. But I like voting on amendments and referendums because I do not feel like the issues are so cut and dry along party lines. Sure, the parties each have their own recommendations on certain issues (although I never did find the Republican stances for the ballot issues), but I feel like I vote more independently of the parties on these issues and my limited government ideals can come into play more. (Case in point: Republicans back Amendment 47, a right to work law, but I opposed it based on libertarian economic ideals).

Anyway, we are blessed in this country to be able to vote. If a couple hour long wait is the worst we experience, we are in good shape.

The thing about low taxes

McCain and the Republican party have talked about taxes and spending, but I don't think they have been framing the debate very well. McCain has talked about how Obama will raise taxes and how McCain will lower taxes, and of course the former thing is evil and the latter is good. I think what he and many Republicans have failed to do is to really get to the essence of why this is a good thing.

Democrats and swing voters are well aware that no one really likes to pay higher taxes, Biden's comments to the contrary.

First of all, I like the idea of lower taxes for other people making more money than myself because I think higher taxes for others affect me indirectly. I don't want to go too much into detail into the theory what more liberal people dismiss as "trickle-down" economics, but I sincerely believe that higher taxes on the rich can affect productivity, and therefore job creation for myself and for my children. Now, this argument can be taken to the extreme. Of course if we tax the rich .5%, we won't get very much tax revenue, but the same goes when we tax at 99.5%, simply because productivity would grind to a halt. So, there is an optimal point somewhere in between, and I tend to think it may be in the teens.

Secondly, though, is that I believe that the tax rate and amount of spending is a representation of how we view the role of government. If we believe in lower taxes and less spending, both in overall amount and where it goes, of course we believe that government should have a limited role.

Unfortunately, McCain and Republicans running for office in Colorado focus on the lower taxes and less spending, but they don't focus on why this is so important. As far as average voter knows, they are in the pockets of the rich people. They have focused on my first point, the productivity argument, but not so much on the idea of why limited government is a good thing. McCain did touch a little bit on this in the final debate concerning health care, but he hasn't focused on the overall principles of limited government that resonate with more voters than we realize. It seemed like Reagan did focus on this. Even though Reagan supported a sizable military, he still talked about the idea of the government leaving people alone and believing in the sweat and ingenuity of the average American person. McCain, however, is just focusing on the possible results of this, which are lower taxes and less spending, not the higher principles behind them.

Hopefully, this likely election loss for the Republican Party will help them rediscover and effectively communicate the ideals of a government that does less. Instead of pushing for lite government, they are currently pushing for Obama-lite government.

My wife

I thought I would talk about my wife.

We have been married for 5 years, and I have grown to love her all the more over time. She has not only proved to be a great wife, but a great person as well. My wife has a huge heart, and she is full of love and compassion for me and for others. She has also been very loyal to me, and although there were many times I deeply hurt her and been a crummy husband, she stuck right by my side. She is someone who loves God very much and wants to raise godly children. She is a very good mom to our son. She not only makes sure that he is fed and healthy, but takes time to say little prayers with him and teach him little things. He is very blessed to have a mom who loves him so much. She is no doubt very beautiful on the outside, but also on the inside as well. While no one is perfect, I know that God is very happy with the person she has become, as I am. I don't know that many people who are as pure in heart as my wife. Sure, we all get mad and upset with people, but there is very little in her that holds animosity toward anyone.

It is said that when we meet God in heaven, that we are accountable to Him for how we treat our spouse (as well as other people). If our spouse is difficult, we get rewarded all the more if we are still loving to that person. I can't see myself getting that many rewards because I have it pretty easy. So many times I feel that I don't deserve her, but I know we were meant to be together since she is perfect for me. I do feel like she is my other half, that she brings sunshine into parts of my life that would otherwise be dark.

Anyway, I don't talk about my personal life very often, but I do want people to know what a wonderful wife I have. I can only hope that I remain thankful for the blessing God has given me and come close to treating her how she should be treated.

On the precipice of political punditry

I've been somewhat hesitant to comment on the current political election, simply because there are so many things that I do not like about political punditry. Typically it is about spin, damage control, and scoring points against the opposition. They take their usual sides on the latest news in the election with predictable responses. Nevertheless, it is the stuff going on, and it's the stuff I want to talk about; I will just try to be as fair and even-handed as possible.

The Conventions (yes, I'm a few weeks late, but here it goes)

I only heard bits and pieces of the DNC. I thought Michelle Obama did well in her speech, tying in Barack the man and Barack the leader.

Concerning Barack Obama's speech, he has great delivery, but I don't feel like he offers anything new. His ideas pretty much amount to more government spending and trying to do the impossible. I know my opinion may be no surprise from a conservative, but if a liberal wants to point out how his ideas differ from the general Democratic party, I'd be willing to hear them.

Concerning the RNC, to me, the highlight was McCain's speech. The first two nights of the convention were what I feared, which was a focus on keeping America safe. While that is no doubt important, the general American populace seems to be concerned about the economy. I was more satisfied when McCain addressed these issues. I don't know if he did so convincingly, but at least he touched on them. I think Palin did a good job pointing out the lack of experience for Obama. They spent too much time exploiting McCain's POW experience. Also, low taxes are not enough to sway swing voters leaning to the left. We all know Republicans like low taxes and they provide a benefit to the individual, but explain how low taxes and smaller government benefit the country as a whole. As far as average voter knows, low taxes have no benefit beyond the individual taxpayer.

On Unity and Getting Things Done:

I don't understand why being "United" is such a big deal. Unity is a nice ideal, but the reality is that Americans hold drastically different values from each other. With respect to the general populace, I don't see the concrete benefits. I suppose being a unifier is important if we want a leader who "gets things done." But as a limited government conservative, I am actually happier when government does less. Why is government passing more rules for our daily lives and spending more of our money a good thing? And besides, I get the impression that McCain has gone across the aisle more than Obama anyway, but that may not be true.

Palin:
I like Palin, and I think McCain's choice was brilliant from a political campaign perspective, and in general. To combat Obama's celebrity, McCain picked someone who is a rising star in her own right (well, she is now anyway).

McCain:
Concerning McCain in general, he has a record of agreeing with Bush, but I believe him to be a much more competent person. I was not excited about McCain during the primaries, but I like him more and more. I hold fewer reservations about McCain than many fellow conservatives. My complaints against McCain are more of a libertarian nature (his Campaign Finance Reform Act, wanting government to get involved in alternative fuels), as oppose to conservative.

Why I will ultimately vote they way I will:
When it comes down to myself, I vote based on issues, the reason I have aligned myself much more with the Republican Party than the Democratic. I am pro-life, anti-gun control, pro-free market, etc... Obama's stance on the abortion issue is nothing short of frightening. (Sorry, using Roe vs. Wade to argue against BAIPA does no favors to Roe vs. Wade. You are telling me to support abortion rights even though with them you can't distinguish from baby already born to baby in womb) So yeah, people can talk about the experience a leader has or does not have, and they can talk about how I can financial benefit, but for me, it has always been about the issues. The disturbing thing about the Colorado local elections (and the major election to some extent), is that it focuses so squarely on how much I pay at the pump, which I feel is a self-centered way at looking at the elections. Yes, gas prices can be indicative of a larger problem, and I'm fine with people looking at those issues, but many people look at it much more in a black-box fashion. Gas prices are high, I'll vote for whoever lowers them. The offices at stake are so much more important than that.

To the guy who thinks everyone should ride their bike to work, regardless of their situation

Just a quick note: I think if you can ride your bike to work, that's great. You get exercise, you reduce pollution, it cost less money, there are numerous benefits. Dan, I believe, rides his bike to work, and I think that's great. Especially if you happen to like the environment ( I get along with the environment okay, we are occasionally on speaking terms, every once in a while, I say hello).

So I'm at work and this lady is complaining about the radio stations she has to endure while she drives to work (i.e. crappy morning shows). A guy who rides his bike to work states "if you ride your bike to work you wouldn't have that problem." Did I mention the lady lives 35 miles away from work? Look, if you are dumbfounded why someone who lives 35 miles away from work doesn't ride their bike, you have a problem. We think it's great you ride your bike, we just think it's annoying when it gives you a superiority complex. I'm trying to decide if this guy just wants to insert the fact that he rides his bike to work into everyday conversation, or if he actually thinks this lady's life would be improved if she rode her bike to work. Let's see, 40 minute commute to work vs. 2 hours ( assuming average speed 20mph). You are asking her to sacrifice an extra 2.5 hours a day, for what? Not to mention, this is on an interstate highway. I'm not saying we have to take the fastest way to work, but if you triple your commute time, I'm going to give you a pass. Again, if you want to ride your bike to work, more power to you. Just don't try to randomly insert it into conversation. Also, if you happen to be one of the green types, I know protecting the environment, conservation, and the like are all about sacrifice. But you have to understand that sometimes people don't want to sacrifice 2.5 hours a day with their family.

It's not that we hate the poor...

Economic conservatives are criticized because of seemingly heartless opinions, for instance, the stance on the minimum wage. But I don't oppose the minimum wage simply because I hate poor people, or I don't care about the least of these... just the opposite.

The Political Calculations Blog writes

This chart confirms that for teenagers, those between the ages of 16 and 19 years old, all of the jobs that disappeared in 2007 were minimum wage jobs. In essence, a total of 94,000 hourly jobs disappeared for this age group overall. This figure is the net change of this age group losing some 118,000 minimum wage earning jobs and gaining some 24,000 jobs paying above this level.

This represents what we believe to be the effect of the higher minimum wage level increasing the barriers to entry for young people into the U.S. workforce. Since the minimum wage jobs that once were held by individuals in each age group have disappeared, total employment levels have declined as those who held them have been forced to pursue other activities.

Now consider this: The minimum wage was just reset on 24 July 2008 to $6.55 per hour, a 27.2% increase from where it was in early July 2007. Our best guess is that a lot of additional teenagers will be pursuing those other activities.

Meanwhile, the lack of employment opportunities for the least educated, least skilled and least experienced segment of the U.S. workforce will likely have costs far beyond the benefits gained by those who earn the higher minimum wage. The government might be able to make the minimum wage earning teenage worker disappear, but they didn't do anything to make the teenagers themselves disappear.

Now, with any economic research there are tons of variables, but the conclusions presented are intuitive, simply because of supply and demand. If something is not truly worth the price at which it is offered, we don't buy it. Why would an hourly worker be any different? Companies with inferior products price them lower to increase demand. Why wouldn't an unskilled laborer be the same? Why should an unskilled laborer not have the option to negotiate their wage without government interference? Is a job with a low wage worse than no job at all?

Many politicians realize that raising the minimum wage does no good, yet they support it to pay lip service to their constituents. Others think they have the companies in a bind. They know Safeway needs workers, so they think Safeway has no choice but to pay them the mandated wage. But Safeway can hire fewer workers, create more self checkout lines, or raise the prices of their goods, which has the most dramatic effect on the poor anyway.

Hat tip to the Market Power Blog.

The role of incentives

OSNews links to a blog entry titled "Why Free Software has poor usability, and how to improve it". Even if you are not a software developer, the article is interesting because it explores the roles of incentives in the overall quality of a product. Open Source software is developed mainly by volunteers, as opposed to Microsoft or Apple products that are developed by paid programmers and cost money.

Open source software is a noble idea, and there are many useful tools out there. However, getting paid motivates programmers to focus on aspects of software that make it more usable for the average person. Now, Microsoft is not a great example of this, simply because it does have many features of a monopoly. It is the software that everybody has and every hates. I think if distributors of Linux would focus more on the commercial market - and even keep the software open source - the computing world overall would be better off. Even if you aren't into software development and tools, one could probably see how the overall quality of a product could improve if someone has financial incentive.

Caring for the unborn after they are born.

I had talked about the topic of Conservatives supposedly not caring about babies after they are born, and Neil has this topic as well.

There is another thought about this argument, and I wonder what the point of it is. Let's say that I realize the liberals are right, that I should support more government programs, that I should vote Democrat, etc.... At the very best, these arguments would convince me to be pro-big government AND pro-life. So what's the point?

Cynicism and limited government

I was watching a Simpson's episode from the Season 2 DVD where Marge successfully bans violence from the Itchy and Scratchy cartoons. Her protests influence others to prevent Michelangelo's David from visiting Springfield. Marge regrets her actions and concedes "I guess one person can make a difference, but most of the time, they probably shouldn't." This statement resonated with me somewhat, and I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing.

As someone who generally favors limited government, I actually prefer it when politicians do less. When people talk about how they want to change the world and make the world a better place, part of me cringes, because usually what they mean is that they want to pass more laws, raise taxes, and spend more government money.

When I think about the people I went to college with, I think of those who got involved in a lot of activities such as student council and the like, and those who simply went to class, did their homework, and tried to have a little fun along the way.

I know that it is better to be involved with things and try to impact other people's lives, as opposed to being more self-absorbed and simply worrying about one's grades. However, the "involved" people are the ones more likely to get involved in politics and do the aforementioned things. The ones that are less involved are more likely to mind their own business and leave me alone.

I guess it all depends on how someone gets involved. It seems that government is typically the first route people take when trying to change society. But I think if people put the same amount of effort in non-governmental avenues, it could make more of an impact while keeping the average person's life free of rules and regulations. Also, when people talk about "changing society" and the like, I tend to associate it with liberal politics. And for some people, that's not a bad thing, but for those on the other side of the political spectrum, it is. I don't mean to bash Democrats or liberals, I am just saying how I feel. The idea of being compassionate and doing good is becoming less romanticized, as it is commonly associated with huge taxes and inefficient government programs. Doing good is losing its cool. Jesus has been replaced by a faceless bureaucrat. To explain how I feel to more liberal readers, think of how some self-righteous conservatives can turn people off from ideas such as "family values".

When it comes to changing society, I do believe there are times that government should be involved, but even then it should not be the only focus. Look at racism. Passing laws will not change people's heart, and it takes institutions such as the church to address the heart issue (unfortunately some of the church held people back). But just because it takes more than government doesn't mean government shouldn't be involved at all. People of all races should be treated equally by the government. The same thing with the abortion issue. Christians and others passionate about the issue should get involved in ministries that help out expecting mothers and help them to choose life. At the same time, I believe born and unborn people should be treated equally under the law.

Thoughts on capital punishment

Capital punishment is really an issue I'm not that passionate about, for whatever reason. Out of the things that keep me up at night, the thought that convicted killers get sentenced to death is not one of them. Maybe that makes me a bad person, at least in the eyes of those who are against capital punishment.

Probably the best argument against capital punishment is the fact that people are wrongly convicted. Libertarians for Life has the argument

If we imprison someone unjustly, we can repay our debt to that person to some extent and beg forgiveness. But how do we compensate the innocent dead? Given the fallibility of human beings, this is a fundamental ethical problem for capital punishment.

However, the Bible addresses this issue as pointed out at Neil's blog.

The Bible requires that accused criminals be justly convicted, and our system doesn’t take perjury very seriously. God loves justice. Here’s just one of many verses one could point to: Micah 6:8 He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God. (Keep in mind that when I say He loves justice that doesn’t just mean he loves it when the innocent aren’t punished. He also loves it when the guilty are held accountable. This can help rehabilitate the criminal, protect others from the criminal and deter others from becoming criminals.)

The Bible required two or more witnesses for the death penalty: Numbers 35:30 Anyone who kills a person is to be put to death as a murderer only on the testimony of witnesses. But no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.

So, if implemented correctly, this problem would be addressed, at least somewhat.

Neil addresses other possible Biblical arguments against capital punishment in the post.

The main issue I want to address, however, is the method of arguing by opponents of capital punishment, which views the death penalty as equivalent to murder. The saying goes "Why do we kill people to show that killing people is wrong?"

There are a couple issues with this rhetorical question.

1) The government has authority that the individual does not. After all, many people support the right of the government to tax us and take our money, but that doesn't mean we support stealing. The government has the right to hold us against our will should we commit a crime, yet that doesn't give individuals the right to kidnap.

We see this distinction in the Bible. God said "thou shalt not murder", yet God commanded the death penalty for certain crimes, and he supported war against other nations. To my recollection, God never commanded an individual to act separately from their government in taking life, or to be a vigilante and get revenge. Now granted, I don't want us stoning people for worshiping other gods or committing adultery, or wiping out entire nations. The point I am making, however, is God obviously saw a distinction between one individual murdering another individual, vs. the government imposing the death penalty or going to war against another government. I am not advocating the extent of Israel's power in domestic/foreign policy; Israel was a theocracy run by God through Moses. My point is that just because murder is wrong, doesn't automatically mean the death penalty is.

2) There is a difference between killing an innocent person and a guilty person. Or, to say it another way, opponents of capital punishment need to work on establishing their argument that there is no difference. Again, opponents just take this as a given and run with it. Now, I will say the burden of proof is on those who are for capital punishment in this area. Like the abortion issue, the burden is on those who support death.

The point is, "Why do we kill people to show that killing people is wrong?" is not an effective argument because it presumes a moral equivalence to murder and the death penalty, a presumption proponents of the death penalty do not share.

Balancing various ideals when it comes to Christianity and economics

At times, it seems like liberalism coincides more closely with Christianity than say, conservatism, because of caring for the least of these, feeding the poor and hungry, don't judge, etc... For a while, I myself was veering towards this idea, especially in my college years. However, when I saw how this ideal manifested itself in liberal politics, I got turned off of this. Basically, the idea that you wanted to help the poor automatically meant higher taxes and more government. If you even dared think that the top tax rate should be cut from 38% to 35%, then obviously you hated the poor. That, and my firm pro-life stance. I just couldn't buy a philosophy that was all about helping the "least of these", except when it came to abortion. It would be nice to adopt a philosophy that at least butted heads with the world's values every once in a while. If I was to become a liberal, it would be more of the Catholic type, yes, big government, but they would support the Catholic doctrine even when it clashed with the world's values.

The major obstacle for me embracing liberalism, Christian or any other, is that of the 10th commandment. "17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."" Now, when I talk to liberals, they say that they do not envy, they do not want to be rich, etc... and I believe them. But, the income redistribution system as a whole is envy, even if not everyone who supports the system is, in fact, coveting their neighbors stuff. The whole idea of progressivism/socialism is taking from the rich to give to the poor. Politicians appeal to the notion of class warfare, where he or she promises to tax the rich more and give more stuff to the poor. Folks, I cannot think of a more obvious instance of something that contradicts the 10th commandment.

So what does this mean? Have no welfare? Have no taxes? I realize the need for these programs. And I had the longest time trying to separate a system that has basic welfare vs. the system that we have now. I believe the the key to having an envy free society is a flat tax, a low income tax for everyone. By having a flax tax, there is no class warfare. There is no people voting to tax another group at no cost to themselves. By having a flat tax, we can still have democracy, where we choose how much to give, but we are all in it together. No more voting to raise our neighbors taxes and not our own.

I'm sure this idea sounds abhorrent to many, especially to those whose ideal government is much bigger than mine. But government spending needs some kind of check, and currently there is not much. There is no limit to how much government can spend when the majority choose what to do with the pockets of the minority.

So, when looking at Christianity and how it applies to economics and politics, I try to look at the entire Bible. Jesus advocated caring for the poor, but he never brought government into it (apparently Jesus' silence only counts when it comes to abortion and (supposedly) homosexuality). Paul discussed methods to take care of the poor, and he told churches to focus on those who truly needed it. The 10th commandment said don't try to take your neighbors' stuff. Even with the Mosaic law and Israel, that society looked very little like what is advocated now among the Christian Left, with tax rates much lower than what we have today, among other things that I'd like to get into later. In other words, I don't see a strong correlation between liberalism and what is taught in the Bible.

Should government protect us from ourselves?

Randy Barnett has a good post on payday Loan centers. His opinion is that we would be better off if they were closed down. I'm not a fan of payday loan places myself, but I'm hesitant to say that they should be outlawed.

Randy implies the comparison between crack cocaine and payday loans, and while that may seem dramatic, I think that's a fair comparison. And even if he didn't intend the comparison, I will. It made me realize that both topics are really part of a larger question. Should government protect us from ourselves? And to what degree?

It's many of the same issues with drugs as it is payday loans. Is it the proper role of government to prevent someone from doing something harmful to themselves? If that thing is outlawed, would the results be worse? For instance, is a black market of drugs more dangerous than the accessibility of legal drugs? Is somebody getting a loan from a sketchy character under the table worse than having Pay Day loans on every corner?

I posted on the issue of the Drug War in the past. While I still wrestle with the same issues, I'm inclined to not support the prohibition of payday loan centers, if for simply for the reason that it is hard to outlaw such a transaction. Giving a loan to a friend or casual acquaintance is quite easy. Yes, there is less contract work involved, but it is hard to monitor something as easy as loaning money. And yes, I do believe that if payday centers are outlawed, people may resort to worse measures, whether it is some shady character or somebody running up credit card debt. (There was a post on Market Power about this, but I can't find it at the moment)

Anyway, I don't know the answer to the question to what degree government should protect us from ourselves, but in this issue of payday loans, I don't think outlawing them is the way to go.

The new judgmentalism

For some reason today, it is acceptable to judge people based on how they eat. We respect their religious views, political beliefs, sexual preferences/habits, but if they get McDonald's for lunch or have a soda, many of us feel a need to express our disapproval.

The Evangelical Outpost had a post concerning the sin of gluttony. The article makes a good point in how gluttony is an oft-ignored sin, but I think it puts too much emphasis on comparing gluttony to sexual sin. While the roots of both sins may be similar (I'm honestly not good at understanding the psychological roots of sin), you cannot really treat them the same. As I commented there, and at Neil's site, which linked to the article, the area of sexuality has clearly defined boundaries, have sex only with your spouse (of a different sex) and don't lust after women (or men). Gluttony is not so clear-cut. God does not forbid eating a juicy cheeseburger. At the same time, God does not want us to abuse our bodies, so many times we have to do things in moderation.

I get annoyed at Subway commercials ( the ones that say I'll order the "make my butt look big" burger or something like that) and Kaiser Permanante commericals because they are all about making people feel bad for their choices, as opposed to encouraging them to make good choices. I feel that Christianity can easily jump on this bandwagon. "Not only is that cheeseburger unhealthy, it is a SIN."

Now, I don't know exactly the Christian way the sin can be approached, but I think it is important to realize that it is not a list of do's and dont's.

I also think that the writer of the article makes many good points and I don't think he makes any incorrect statements. When I read the article, however, it just made me think that people may not realize that moderation is really the key issue here, not a list of do's and dont's.

What I've been up to

Sorry I haven't been posting lately, but I suppose you get what you pay for.

I've been busy the past few weeks. I took a trip to San Francisco for work for about a week, then my wife and kid and I visited family in Oklahoma.

Right now I'm trying to decide on stuff to write about. I am deciding if I want to pursue political topics or take a break from it right now.

Also, this post is meant as a jump start. Sometimes I have lots of ideas rolling around in my head and it's hard to know where to start. I always feel that posting on how I don't know what to post is extremely lame, but sometimes it is a good way to get the juices flowing.

At what point is it division?

Several verses in the Bible speak of the importance of unity of all believers. The reality is that there are many different denominations and multiple points of debate within the body of Christ. But does this necessarily mean the body of Christ has to be divided? God wants us to be one, but I do not think he expects us all to believe the same in every area.

Concerning debate among Christians, for instance, in the blogosphere, at what point does that become division? I think it is important to have discussions with believers with some different opinions, but does it only stir up contention? Is it when friendly discussion is no longer so?

Just a few thoughts on my mind.

On implementing God's kingdom here on earth

Katherine Coble writes this concerning the Social Gospel:

As a Christian Libertarian, I find myself frequently a more vocal proponent of what some call “Social Gospel” and others call “Pinko Liberal Commie Collectivist Bull.” I believe that Christ has called his Church to minister to the Least of these, an umbrella which includes everyone from those stricken with AIDS to those who live next door to you and are too busy at work to mow their lawn. Where I differ from many folks is that I believe the Social Gospel is absoluletly not to be confused with political socialism and active redistribution of wealth through forced means such as taxation. We as a church are supposed to do the going us therefore into all the world on our own. But of course, I’ve said this before and there’s nothing new in that idea.

I agree. God is an all-powerful being, but he typically interacts with us through free will. He let Adam and Eve freely eat the apple, Christ freely died for us, and we freely accept Him or reject Him. Despite God having a hand in the world and our lives, he typically gives us choice and does not rule us by force (I'm not sure how it will work during the End of this Age, I think we will still have free will, but there will be no sin...).

To me, forcing people to be generous seems to go against how God typically works. In the Mosaic law God did order that people give a certain percentage of their tithe, but the New Testament model seems to indicate freewill giving that is from the heart.

This doesn't have to be a matter of whether or not someone has a right to spend my money, although there is a worthy conversation there. I just don't believe actions from force can truly change the world, only actions out of love. Private initiatives involve something of the heart, simply more than a deduction from our paycheck. I do believe in some welfare, but I see the role of government here as providing a safety net to prevent people from starving to death. I don't see the role of government as our way of ensuring God's kingdom here on earth.