Archive for May, 2005

The Runaway Bride Indicted in Georgia?

Thursday, May 26th, 2005

USA Today reports that Jennifer Wilbanks was indicted on Wednesday by Georgian authorities on charges that she told police a phony story about being kidnapped and sexually assaulted.

I understand that Georgia’s law enforcement got involved in the case prior to Jennifer’s call to authorities. What I want to know is which “authorities” exactly did she call when in Albuquerque?

If she called Georgian authorities while in Albuquerque, then it seems they might have a reason to indict her. However, if she called “authorities” local to Albuquerque, which local coverage states, then I’m not sure what the issue is.

Could it be that Georgian authorities want to indict her for their search efforts prior to her phony phone call? I believe that is ridiculous. Jennifer has every right to privacy and can skip town if she so chooses. How has she willfully deceived Georgian authorities?

If anybody has reason to indict, it would be the Albuquerque Police Department and the local FBI. It appears for a window of four hours after her phone call, she willfully lied to them. According to the article, however,

“APD says they have no plans to charge Wilbanks with a crime. They say the incident didn’t incur any extra cost to the department.”

Sure, Georgian authorities probably used considerable resources during the time of her disappearance, but that’s their job. But I ask again, what was her crime…leaving THE STATE without telling THE STATE? Stop wasting your judicial resources, Georgia.

Tags: [, , , , , ]

What Happens When I Die? An Evangelical Christian’s Perspective

Thursday, May 26th, 2005

I recently cross-posted “I am a Christian” to a bulletin board I occassionally go to. A responder asked a few questions about Christianity, primarily,

“What I would like to ask you, and I am not saying you’re a theology expert, but you’re definitely well informed, is what do you really honestly think will happen to me when I die? I get angry, sad, happy, I love, I regret, I can be good, I can be bad (but not, I hope evil?), I can do good or bad, I can be kind or selfish, friendly or sullen. Personally, I like to believe that I am more ‘good’ than bad. Will this count for nothing because I haven’t ‘accepted Jesus’ (no insult intended with the inverted commas)?”

What my bulletin board friend asks is the crux of the issue - big questions like “Why am I here on earth?” and “What happens when I die?” I felt my response to him deserved posting here as well, so here I go…

DISCLAIMER: I’d caution you to not equate “religion” with the what it means to be a Christian, because the essense of what it means to be a Christian is not wrapped up in “religion” but a simple faith and a belief that a personal relationship can exist between you and God. Religion as an institution can distort the truth because “religion” is based on humankind’s fallible institutionalization of a particular belief. Here I am discussing a simple faith and personal relationship between you and God.

I will try to answer these questions from my layperson’s conservative evangelical Christian perspective. I will preface my response by saying that I do believe in a literal heaven and hell. In fact, I’d encourage you to read Heaven by Randy Alcorn. The book offers a detailed perspective about what heaven might be like - contrasted with the impersonal clouds and harps depicted in popular culture.

Before reading the rest of this post, I want to encourage you to look at the basic steps for what it means to become a Christian.

(more…)

Darth Vader’s Employer: Robert “KKK” Byrd

Friday, May 20th, 2005

Wow, I should have known all along that Robert Byrd was the Emperor in the Star Wars movies. For those of you new to the Star Wars scene, Chancellor Palpatine becomes Darth Sidious, a Sith master and the eventual evil Emperor. The venomous and withered persona of Byrd’s portrayal strikingly resembles his true image. I just hope lightning doesn’t shoot from his fingers during his recent unprecedented Democratic filibustering of 16 Bush appellate choices.

Robert Byrd as the Emperor in Star Wars

Robert “KKK” Byrd as Star Wars Emperor

Tags: [, , , ]

I am a Christian

Thursday, May 19th, 2005
I AM A CHRISTIAN
By Maya Angelou

When I say… “I am a Christian”
I’m not shouting “I’m clean livin.”
I’m whispering “I was lost,”
Now I’m found and forgiven.

When I say…”I am a Christian”
I don’t speak of this with pride.
I’m confessing that I stumble
and need CHRIST to be my guide.

When I say… “I am a Christian”
I’m not trying to be strong.
I’m professing that I’m weak
and need HIS strength to carry on…

When I say… “I am a Christian”
I’m not bragging of success.
I’m admitting I have failed
and need God to clean my mess.

When I say… “I am a Christian”
I’m not claiming to be perfect,
My flaws are far too visible
but, God believes I am worth it.

When I say… “I am a Christian”
I still feel the sting of pain,
I have my share of heartaches
So I call upon His name.

When I say… “I am a Christian”
I’m not holier than thou,
I’m just a simple sinner
who received God’s good grace, somehow.

Tags: [, , ]

Separation of Politics and State?

Thursday, May 19th, 2005

U.S. Bill of Rights

No two issues are more uncomfortable to discuss in social circles than one’s views on religion and one’s views on politics. There’s a USA Today article that addresses how state measures are being introduced to whitewash political expression in academic settings. The argument is that students with conservative views on liberal campuses are being discriminated against by their professors. Results of this bias seem to include unfair grading. Although I consider myself a religious and political conservative and surely feel (and have experienced) this discrimination exists in the realm of academia, I am concerned that these measures will limit the freedom of speech we so embrace. Teachers who use their classes as their own bully pulpit should be disciplined on the homefront, not through state legislation.
(more…)

It’s Not Newsweek’s Fault

Tuesday, May 17th, 2005

Afghans desecrating the U.S. flag

Why is there so much news coverage regarding an “erroneous” Newsweek story that apparently sparked violence in Afghanistan? How can someone screw up a report mentioning that U.S. interrogators at Guantanamo Bay desecrated the Koran (Q’uran) by flushing it down a toilet? The respected reporters apparently checked and doublechecked with their anonymous Pentagon source, yet the source eventually backed down. Could the story actually be true, yet Newsweek printed a retraction due to political correctness?

Does anyone honestly think that the United States may not have used a similar interrogation tactic in the past? Sorry, but political correctness simply doesn’t work when interrogating enemies of the United States. To remedy any uncertainty, I propose that if a source is unwilling to be identified, then the media should not be allowed to run stories with anonymous sources. Anonymous sources have been used much too often in an effort to out-scoop the competition.

Nevertheless, how can the United States be so up in arms about this event, yet we don’t react whatsoever when these other countries purposefully burn our flag or burn effigies of our political figures? In fact, the folks over at the USS Neverdock decries those who are up in arms about this, yet barely flinch when the Bible is desecrated.

What I find interesting is that the United States does its best not to offend other countries, particularly regarding the Muslim religion, yet the media has no problem straying from political correctness when it comes to Christianity.

I understand that things our country says and does affects the actions of others, but this event seems earily similar to the apologists who say that the United States is partly to blame for 9/11.

If the Afghans decide to get all upset and get violent and kill people, then they should be held accountable for their actions. I’ve been offended when the media has lambasted Christians, yet I don’t go around killing people and blaming it on the news media…

Own up to your actions, people of Afghanistan.

Tags: [, , , , , , ]

For Love or Money?

Wednesday, May 4th, 2005

The folks over at Family Scholars yesterday cited the Daily Collegian’s May 1st opinion piece, “The debauchery of marriage.”

What I find interesting is that the author of the article says:

“It was an extremely selfish act on her [Jennifer Wilbanks] part and, more over, very insulting to the rest of us for having to read this dribble on the front page of the New York Times.”

I believe the author gets it wrong. She blames Jennifer for being selfish? Wouldn’t it be better that she makes up her mind about her commitment now than after she gets married? I do not fault runaway brides’ decisions, only their timing (and in this case, Jennifer’s 4 hour lie that wasted investigative resources).

The author continues:

“With 50 percent of marriages ending in divorce in this country, it is obvious to say that marriage no longer symbolizes what it used to. In a way, if the goal is to make a marriage last forever, it would be better to marry for political reasons or wealth than for love. At least then there is a tangible reason for the union.”

Marriage for “love” is not universally embraced as a reason to marry. Nonetheless, the author seems to imply that marrying for money or political reasons would result in a greater success rate. I reject that inference, and here’s why…

A person’s motives for marriage are far less important variables to determine a marriage’s likelihood for success than a person’s level of commitment.

I blame America’s divorce rates on our culture’s severe level of entitlement, egocentrism and “me-first” thinking. It is precisely this culture that encourages couples to quit because “what’s best for my own immediate happiness” is considered the most important goal, even within a marriage.

That’s a recipe for disaster. Marriage in itself is the antithesis of what society screams at us. Focusing on your spouse’s needs moreso than your own needs might be seen as preposterous, yet I believe that’s a key ingredient to a successful marriage. It’s more about “How can I ensure my spouse’s happiness?” rather than, “How can I make sure I am always happy in this marriage?” That’s not an easy task because I think its easier (and more fun) to be selfish rather than selfless.

A feeling of happiness is transitory; not to say that marriages are only full of unhappy people who never have their own person needs met. On the contrary, if we first concern ourselves with our spouse’s happiness, then our own happiness is likely to be met as a natural consequence.

I would recommend that every couple read The Five Love Languages: How to Express Heartfelt Commitment to Your Mate (Gary Chapman).

Tags: [, , , , , , ]