danno's world

Whatever Happened to the Value of Life?

2009-10-27T13:36:00.000-07:00

Tommorow (Oct 28) President Obama is scheduled to sign into law the The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act making it a federal crime to assault someone because of their sexual orientation, disability or gender identity. And while Congress is clearly at liberty to enact such legislation, I'm left to ask, "Why?" Not that I in anyway support or advocate violence against someone who leads a homosexual life or has a homosexual orientation, but why is such a special category even necessary? Should not all life be treated equally and with the utmost of value before the law?

Granted, I acknowledge that my convictions on this matter are rooted in the biblical perspective that together men and women are created in the image of God and that in and of itself makes each and every one of us of equally infinite value regardless of our behavior. As humans we simply deserve to be treated with dignity and respect regardless of our race, creed, gender or whatever. But laws like this would suggest to me that not all human life is to be considered equal anymore.

Why shouldn't a crime committed against a heterosexual woman by her husband or lover be considered just as heinous as an assault against a homosexual because of his/her sexual orientation? Perhaps I'm wrong here, but what legislation such as this demonstrates is that we have really trivialized many crimes; when a husband murders his wife it's often referred to as a "crime of passion." What difference should it make if she was murdered with or without passion; does that make it any less of a crime? A human life has been violated, and that more than anything else is the crime! Why doesn't that seem to matter as much anymore?

And what will happen should a homosexual kill a heterosexual because of his/her sexual orientation? Will the courts value the heterosexual victim's life as much as the homosexual's? Will they stand equal before the law if/when roles are reversed?

Somewhere in this effort to make a more just and equitable society, we really seem to be missing what should be some basic truths about the value of humanity. If as a nation we truly believe that all people have been created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among those life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then why don't we let our laws reflect this core principle?

More on the Facts

2009-09-24T08:47:00.001-07:00

Yesterday I posted some thoughts in regard to the study the Pew Research Center published earlier this month regarding bias in the media. Interestingly, just yesterday, the Sacred Heart University Polling Institute released its third survey on "Trust and Satisfaction with the National News Media." Now admittedly, I know absolutely nothing about Sacred Heart University and the credibility of the polls it has conducted, but the statistics included in their study mirror those of the Pew Research Center.

There were, however, a few statistics unique to this survey that caught my eye. According to this survey, 90% of American believe the media helped get Barack Obama elected as president. Whether or not that is true is clearly subject to debate, but again, perception may speak louder than the facts.

But what appears to be especially damning for the media is that this research shows 45.9% of Americans have permanently stopped watching a news organization, print or electronic, because of the perceived bias. That's not to say that they've stopped watching the news altogether; rather, they may have simply switched sources. As I mentioned yesterday, news organizations will probably have no one to blame but themselves for their own demise.

The last statistic that jumped out at me is that Fox News is both the most trusted news source (30% of respondents) AND the least trusted (26.2%). Apparently you either love Fox or hate it. Unfortunately I cannot offer much in the way of commentary here because I subscribe only to basic cable and don't receive the 24 hour news channels like Fox, CNN, MSNBC or whatever, so I must really be missing out on the fireworks. Then again, with two young kids, I really don't have the time to sit and watch the news anymore. And in all honesty I find the Wiggles and Curious George much more entertaining.

As I said above, I have no idea how reliable Sacred Heart University is with their research, but if you want to read the study for yourself, here's the link to the press release about this survey: http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-23-2009/0005099743&EDATE=

p.s. On Saturday Sept 26 I came across this article on the demise of journalism, of all things written by a journalist: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200910/media

"Just the facts, ma'am."

2009-09-23T08:50:00.000-07:00

That was the line made famous by Detective Joe Friday in the TV series Dragnet. And perhaps this is becoming the cry of the American public. There was a fascinating study released earlier this month from the Pew Research Center regarding the public's opinion of accuracy in the media--a story that ironically was not covered by most of the media.

The basic finding of the study is that most Americans, 63% to be precise, believe the media gets the facts wrong in their stories while only 29% believe they are accurate. That is in stark contrast to 1985 when 55% of American believed most media stories were accurate and only 34% believed they were inaccurate. The other statistic that jumped out at me is that 60% of Americans believe that news organizations clearly have a political bias--though the numbers are split on which way that bias leans.

Now I realize this is an opinion poll and opinion does not always equate with objective reality. But perception is powerful, and perhaps most media outlets would be wise to wake up and realize that a majority American don't trust or believe what they're saying, and maybe that is why viewership is declining for most network news programs and explains why newspapers are watching their subscriptions dry up. If and when news agencies or media outlets are forced to close up shop, they'll have no one to blame but themselves and their failure to deliver a quality or valued product: the facts.

At the same time I realize that it is virtually impossible for there not to be bias in the news. No one is ever truly objective. But it would be nice if news organizations at least made an effort to present just the facts and let the public make up its mind for itself. Unfortunately, there appears to be a blurring between the news and editorials, and in the end this seems to undermine any credibility journalists have. Then again, I'm not sure that "reporters" like Bill O'Reilly or Rachel Maddow are or ever were real journalists. Regardless, I'm growing increasingly tired of the hyperbole and blatant disregard for the facts that so many in the news seem to be guilty of--liberals and conservatives alike. Please get over yourselves and do your job!

And should you question my own biases in reporting on this story, feel free to check out the study yourself on the Pew Research Center's web site: http://people-press.org/report/543/.

An Open Letter to President Carter

2009-09-17T06:09:00.001-07:00

Dear President Carter,

In the past few days you have said on at least two different occasions that racism is behind the criticism of President Obama, and you base your opinion on the fact that you grew up in the South and witnessed racism at its worst. In your most recent comments at Emory University you said, "When a radical fringe element of demonstrators and others begin to attack the president of the United States as an animal or as a reincarnation of Adolf Hitler or when they wave signs in the air that said we should have buried Obama with Kennedy, those kinds of things are beyond the bounds." I would agree.

But I must point out to you that this sort of activity has not only been directed at President Obama. During his eight years as President, there were repeated demonstrations in which the participants held up signs equating President Bush with Adolph Hitler, signs with a bullet hole in his forehead while others hung him in effigy and burned his image. If you question this, please feel free to check out the images at: http://www.zombietime.com/beach_impeach_iv/ and http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/ and http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621. I must warn you the images are graphic.

And even though I was not a supporter of President George W. Bush, like you, I would argue that such signs or behaviors "are beyond the bounds." Yet as a former president, why were you silent when one of your peers was attacked in this way? I would assume that race played no part for these protesters. They disagreed with and were outraged with President Bush and his policies, and as Americans they are certainly free to disagree and voice their opposition, regardless of how repugnant their message or behavior may be.

With that said, I acknowledge that I would be a fool to think that race is not an issue for some in their opposition to President Obama. And like you, I agree that racism is an insidious evil that plagues humanity; there is no excuse for it. And anyone who threatens the life of the President, whether racially motivated or not, should be investigated and face the appropriate punishment if found guilty. As the President, Barack Obama rightly deserves the respect that is inherent in the office, and as someone created in the image of God, he deserves to be held in the highest regard.

However, for many of us, race plays absolutely no part in our opposition to President Obama or his policies, and to suggest that it does is disingenuous. Is it not possible for reasonable people to disagree on philosophical or moral grounds? Is it not possible that many of us object to the growing presence of government in our lives and fear that the ever-growing federal deficit will eventually crush us? Is it not possible for people to object to or call out the President for the untruths he continues to repeat in regard to his health care proposals, as we should with any politician regardless of his/her political affiliation?

For years I have respected and admired the work you have done in our nation and in our world. Having read a handful of the books you have written, I genuinely appreciate how you have let your faith form your political convictions instead of the other way around and how you have not used your faith as a political tool of convenience. I wish there were more politicians like you. I truly believe you are a man of deep character and that you are willing to stand up for what you believe to be right regardless of the personal cost. Your most recent statements make that clear.

But in this instance I would ask you to reconsider your statements and publicly acknowledge that race is not the only factor to be considered in this conversation. I fail to understand how we can move toward President Obama's goal of becoming a post-racial nation if each and every time we have a disagreement over substance someone plays the race card. Could we perhaps focus on the content first, and then, should those who disagree with the President be found wanting, confront them with the possibility that they may be harboring racist attitudes? Instead of assuming the worst about someone's motives, would you please give them the benefit of the doubt? I would greatly appreciate that.

Respectfully,

Dan Berkland

The Religious Wrong

2009-09-15T07:57:00.000-07:00

This morning, as I normally do, I spent some time surfing the net as I ate my breakfast; it's my way to connect with the world. Unfortunately, it didn't take long for me to stumble across a story that made me lose my appetite.

As I was perusing CNN.com, I read a story about a fundamentalist Baptist preacher in Tempe, Arizona who recently preached a sermon on why God wants him to hate President Barack Obama and why God hates President Obama. If you have not heard of Pastor Steven Anderson, consider yourself blessed. In the past several months he's become an internet sensation by posting several incendiary sermons on YouTube for all the world to see and hear. I had not heard of him until a few weeks ago when a friend sent me a link to one of his sermons as a joke, and at the time I didn't know if I should laugh or cry because it was so absurd. But this most recent rant of his makes me angry, very angry.

Before I go any further, I need to make two things very clear. First, I too am a pastor of a Baptist church, but please don't lump me in with someone like Anderson. While by most standards I am a conservative, I have some serious disagreements with the "Religious Right" and "fundamentalists" and I do all that I can to avoid being associated with them.

Secondly, like many other Americans I too am becoming increasingly frustrated with President Obama and his philosophy on the role of government, and I can understand why many people are opposed to him and his policies. But, and this is huge, I do not "hate" our president and none of my opposition is racially motivated. I really don't care whether President Obama is black, white, green, blue or whatever. My issues with him, as with most politicians, are deeply philosophical; I tend to be libertarian in many of my views and object to the idea of increasing the size and scope of our government. Admittedly, my convictions are not explicitly biblical, but then again the Scriptures are surprisingly silent on the form of government a nation should have. That's another topic for another day.

But back to Pastor Anderson. I tried to listen to his message to understand what he was saying, to make sure he wasn't being misrepresented, but quite honestly I couldn't stomach it. And sadly, this is one of the few times when I think the word "hate" can legitimately be used. The vitriol that he spewed is some of the most disturbing I have ever heard, especially from a pastor. Yet I must remind myself that, despite my disgust, I do not have the right to judge Pastor Anderson. God alone will serve as his Judge.

Even so, I feel compelled to respond because this is exactly the sort of garbage that undermines the good name of Jesus Christ, and the millions of his followers throughout the world who seek to love God with their all their heart, mind and soul and love their neighbor as themselves.

First, regardless of whatever a Christian may think of President Obama or any president, our first obligation is to pray for and honor those God has place in authority (see Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17). And Christians would be wise to remember that Paul and Peter wrote these instructions in an empire ruled by an autocrat who many considered to be divine. So regardless of whether we agree with him or disagree with him, like him or dislike him, we have the responsibility to pray for the President and honor the position of authority he holds. I realize that may be difficult for some or many, but just because it's difficult doesn't mean that we can avoid it.

Secondly, the Scriptures make it very clear that a Christian's speech should be beneficial for those who listen and worth listening to (see Ephesians 4:29 and Colossians 4:6). Perhaps I've missed something here, but I fail to see how instilling hatred towards our President would qualify as beneficial. Are we free to disagree and express our opinions? Certainly, and we should. But there is a manner in which this can be done that is far more constructive. Perhaps if we took these sorts of commands more seriously, we'd see how egregious it is for a pastor or any Christian to say something like this. This should rank up there with Pat Robertson calling for the assassination of Hugo Chavez back in 2005. There are just some things that should never come from the mouth of a Christian.

Lastly, I think Christians would be wise to remember which kingdom it is we serve. Jesus ultimately calls us to work for a kingdom that is not of this world and is not based on power, which stands in direct contrast to the political kingdoms of our day. Yet for some strange reason, countless Christians have confused the kingdom of God with the conservative socio-political agenda, and they are two very different realms. This is not to say that Christians shouldn't be involved in politics. Hardly! Rather, I think we might be wise to re-direct a huge amount of the time and energy that is invested in fighting political battles and building earthly kingdoms toward directly building the kingdom of God to see what a difference that could make for our world. Jesus called his followers to be salt and light, to radically transform this world, but perhaps many have been going about this the wrong way for the past 30 years or so.

My hope and my prayer is that God might speak to Pastor Anderson and provide him with the necessary discernment before he opens his mouth and harms the church again in this way. Is it any wonder why so many people think Christians are intolerant, bigoted idiots?

p.s. I gave serious thought to including a link to Pastor Andeson's message in my blog so you could listen to it yourself, but I just could not do that in good conscience. If you'd like a sample of his preaching, you can Google his name or search for him on YouTube. You will be appalled at what you hear.

Be Still My Beating Heart...

2009-09-09T19:51:00.001-07:00

This morning I did something that thousands of other Americans will do today: I went to see a doctor. In this particular instance it was not my regular doctor, but an ear-nose-throat specialist I was referred to because of some problems I've been having in my right ear for more than a year. But my specific ailment really isn't the issue. The fact is I got to see the doctor of my choice in a relatively timely manner, and I know that my insurance will cover at least 90% of the cost of today's appointment. In short, I'm very happy with the health insurance my family has. And the last thing I want is to lose our current coverage.

My wife is fortunate enough to work at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN, and we've decided to carry our family health insurance through her because nothing else comes close to the coverage they offer at an unbeatable price. I'm not saying it's cheap because it still costs us several hundreds of dollars a month. But compared to the other plans we've had through different employers and the premiums we've had to pay, we're well aware of just how good we really have it. Yet I wonder if we will be able to keep it.

Because of my parental responsibilities, I was not able to watch the President's address to Congress and the nation last night regarding health care. So I acknowledge that I am not aware of all that he said. Nonetheless, I have had the opportunity to read some excerpts from his speech, and I honestly wish I could say that I don't have concerns. In fact, while I don't like to admit to this, I feel an overwhelming sense of fear building up within me in regard to this matter.

Part of what has triggered this fear is the subtle changes in what the President now says about whatever health plan he's supporting. In a review of his speech, Calvin Woodward and Erica Werner of the Associated Press point out that the President has backed away from his bold assertion he made throughout the summer that, "If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period." Instead in his address last night he said, "Nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have." While it is true that nothing will require you or your employer to change the coverage, nothing will prevent them from dumping their insurance plans in favor of a government-run nightmare (http://www.startribune.com/politics/58201107.html?page=2&c=y). As many experts (and not just critics) have pointed out, the proposed 8% payroll tax penalty on employers for failing to provide health insurance to employees will be cheaper for many than the actual cost of providing insurance, so it doesn't take much to connect the dots in that scenario.

Now in my case, I'd hope that Mayo Clinic would opt to continue to provide private coverage to it's employees, but obviously there is no guarantee they will. I know in the midst of the current economic downturn Mayo is looking to cut or control costs just like every other business as they should. And what would prevent them from considering reducing their own health care costs this way in future recessions? To the best of my knowledge absolutely nothing.

Admittedly, I realize when compared to the 30 million Americans who cannot afford health insurance I'm spoiled. I cannot deny that. But in some ways I can relate to them. There was a time in my life when I could not afford health insurance nor could my employer afford to offer it to me. For 3.5 years I hoped and prayed that nothing serious would happen to me, and thankfully, nothing did (amazing when you consider I worked as a carpet installer at the time--a profession prone to injury). But there were times when I probably should have gone to see a doctor but chose not to because I didn't want to have to fork out the money. And thinking back on that period, I remember all too well the constant low-level anxiety that I carried with me knowing one big medical bill could mess me up for years to come.

I can also sympathize with those who are concerned about the rising costs of health care. As I mentioned above, my wife and I pay hundreds of dollars each month for our coverage and I wish that were not so. At the same time considering the service we get in return, I am more than satisfied because we're fortunate enough to receive our care at a world-class facility that delivers some of the most cost-effective care in the world. Though I readily acknowledge not all are as fortunate as we are, and that is why I recognize that something must be done.

But I come back to a fundamental question: why should those who are more than happy with the health care provided by their employer face the possibility of losing that some day in favor a government-run, bureaucratic nightmare that virtually everyone outside of the President's entourage predicts will only increase costs and most likely result in lesser quality care? Are there not other alternatives that can reform costs and still provide quality care? There certainly seem to be a lot of other ideas floating around out there that would suggest so (e.g. http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/09/health-care-reform-insurance-opinions-contributors-doctors.html). I don't like to live in fear, but the more I listen to what is coming out of Washington D.C., the more I have to work to calm my beating heart.

Parents, not the President

2009-09-04T06:41:00.000-07:00

In the past few days there has been a huge uproar about President Obama's plan to address students across the nation on Tuesday, September 8. According to the White House, the intent of the President's speech is to encourage students to work hard and stay in school. And in this instance I'm willing to give the President the benefit of the doubt, that he does not intend to use this a policy speech. Even so, he has so much political baggage I can understand why many may question or doubt his intentions.

At the same time, this isn't the first time that a president has addressed students across the nation. If I remember correctly, both Reagan and Bush 41 did so. But regardless of the president's political affiliation, there is something about this just seems Orwellian to me. Perhaps it is a practice that should stop. I realize that might sound strange coming from someone who was a social studies/secondary education major in college, but I fear that we may be making the students pawns in our political battles and they will end up as the ultimate casualties.

My biggest concern, however, is really just how effective will this speech be in helping kids achieve their educational goals or the goals their parents have set for them. I have no doubt that the President may inspire some kids to reach for goals they may have never dreamed of, but the reality is that the buzz of his speech will last for a few days and then many of these students will simply go back to their old habits because they don't have the parental support they need to succeed in school. And that is real crux of the matter.

Study after study has demonstrated that one of the greatest influences of a student's success in school is the support he/she receives from his/her parents. A recent study by the Harvard Graduate School of Education again confirms that this is true regardless of a student's age, race or socio-economic status. If parents want their children to work hard and succeed in school that is not the President's responsibility, it's theirs.

And this is something I know from experience. As I mentioned above, I was a education major in college. And while it is true that I never taught professionally, I did student teach for one semester and conducted parent-teacher conferences that fall. What stunned me was the parents I most needed to talk with, those with children struggling, either didn't show up or really didn't seem interested. Passing history wasn't going to get Johnny a job. At the same time I think more than 90% of the parents of my A and B students showed up and took a genuine interest in what was taking place in the classroom, even if it was "just history."

Based on the research and my own experience, I'm convinced that the President might be much wiser to address parents in a Tuesday evening prime-time speech, encouraging them to get involved in and be responsible for their kid's education. In the end that at least has the potential to be a lot more effective and a lot less politically charged.

Oh well, life will go on...

2009-09-02T09:18:00.000-07:00

Well, the inevitable hit this past weekend, I turned 40. Thankfully, it wasn't really all that traumatic. For some strange reason, I think I had a harder time turning 35 because that's when my metabolism started to go in reverse. But even so this milestone birthday gave me reason to sit back an reflect on a number of things.

It only seemed natural that I start by wondering what regrets I might have about the first 40 years. And while there are a number of stupid things I wish I could go back and do over, there are really two or three that jumped out at me.

First, I wish I had started camping up in the Boundary Waters in my late teens or early 20's. I didn't take my first trip up there until I was 30, but I guess late is better than never. In the 11 trips I've done up there since, I've come to discover just how refreshing the BWCA is for my mind, body and spirit. I can't think of many other places where I feel as close to God as I do there. I guess it doesn't hurt that I've caught most of my biggest fish up there, but even so, there is something so serene about the wilderness that I can't imagine what my life would be like without it. I hope and pray that I can continue to make my annual spring trip up there for the next 30+ years. A few years ago one of the members of our group was a 70 year old man who stilled portaged his own canoe, so I've got something to shoot for.

My other greatest regret is not learning how to forgive sooner. Unfortunately, I have let myself hold on to grudges or hurts for far too long and made myself a prisoner of my own resentments and seriously damaged some close relationships. My wife Bridget will often ask me, "In the scope of eternity, just how important is this?" And I wish that were a perspective that I kept before me each and every day. I know the havoc that unforgiveness can wreak on someone physically, emotionally, spiritually and relationally, but that knowledge has not always translated itself into action. If there is one area that I'd like to transformed in my life it is the ability and willingness to be a more grace-filled individual. I am constantly reminded of the apostle Paul's words, "Forgive just as the Lord forgave you" (Colossians 3:13).

But looking back is really only half of the story. At 40, I've still got at least 37 years to look forward to, at least according the most recent statistics from the CDC. Admittedly, many of the things that I can look forward to aren't all that encouraging: a slow but steady deterioration of the brain, prostate issues, an ever-slowing metabolism, and a myriad of other health problems. That's inevitable. But I don't have to let those sorts of things define my life. So as I think about the next 35-40 years, I really hope that I can do the following:

1. Invest even more time in my family. I have truly been blessed with an amazing wife and great kids. And while I have been a less-than-perfect husband and dad, I realize one of the things I really do look forward to is time with Bridget, Zoë and Ezra. In many ways they will be my ultimate legacy. Most people will forget or choose not to remember what I've done at Oasis or whatever other church I may serve. And while working for God's kingdom is of utmost importance, I've come to realize that if I'm not caring for or providing for my family, it really is a vanity of vanities. I think it was Lee Iococca who originally said, "I've never heard anyone laying on their deathbed say, 'Gee, I wish I had spent more time in the office.'"

2. Just enjoy the people around me even more. I tend to be a task-driven, structured sort of person; success is measured by production, which means that I don't always enjoy or appreciate the people that God has brought into my life. And that has been to my detriment. Yet as I look at the friends, co-workers and colleagues that God has brought into my life, I'm beginning to realize what a fool I'd be if I didn't simply enjoy those friendships. Perhaps, I'm finally feeling comfortable with being the Gen-X slacker that I really am, but the truth is I'll never be able to finish all of the projects that I think I need to get done or there will always be another problem to tackle. So instead of being so focused on the goal, I need to learn to enjoy the process all the more. I'm beginning to realize that vacation is all the more satisfying if you can enjoy the journey to your destination.

3. Grow in wisdom. They say wisdom comes with age, and I'd like to think that at 40 I've accumulated some wisdom. And instead of lamenting that I wish I had known then what I know now, I hope that I can truly learn from both my successes and failures. I think it was Einstein who defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. My hope is that I'm finally tired enough of making some of the same stupid mistakes over and over and over and over that I'll finally learn to do things differently. Then again, breaking old habits is one of the most challenging things to do. I guess I can only hope and pray.

If nothing else, I constantly remind myself that age is really a state of mind, and as long as I think that I'm 26, there isn't much that I won't try. My body might tell me what a fool I was, but I don't want to grow old before my time. Cheers to all!

An Honest Debate, Please!

2009-08-13T18:08:00.000-07:00

It was Pontius Pilate who famously asked, "What is truth?" And while it was quite likely a cynical question, it's the same question that I've been asking myself as I trudge through the quagmire of the various news reports regarding the different versions of health care reform that are being debated in Washington D.C. Virtually everyone with a vested interest in this matter is working diligently to create soundbites that will help sway the direction of the debate. But in doing so they appear to be more than willing to bend the truth, if not tell outright lies, and use all sorts of rhetoric and hyperbole to frame the discussion, making it all the more difficult for the public to come to a well informed opinion on the matter. Granted, most of these people are politicians or lobbyists, so I would be naive to think that they wouldn't engage in such tactics. Yet I think it's time for the American public to stand up and scream, "Enough!"

Before I go any further, though, I need to be up front about one conviction: I do believe something needs to be done to help those who are either uninsured or under-insured. Perhaps it hasn't reached a crisis level yet, but regardless, the Scriptures make it quite clear that as a follower of Jesus Christ I have an obligation to be concerned about those in need and do all that is within my power to assist them with obtaining the basic necessities of life. I am to love my neighbor as myself and faith without works is dead.

And while no one can determine exactly how many people are uninsured in the United States, the fact that there are millions of people who cannot even afford basic health care is something that should weigh on the heart and conscience of every Christian. Granted, we may not agree on how to best address this problem, but that is exactly why we need this honest dialogue as a nation. Something must be done. But before we allocate billions of tax dollars to any solution and potentially create additional government bureaucracy, we deserve to know the truth about the costs, the scope of who is covered and the services provided, and therein lies my greatest concern: no one appears to want to shoot straight with the American public on these matters.

On July 22 President Obama hosted a prime-time news conference to present his health care proposal to the American people. But a quick check of the facts that he cited in portions of his presentation make it very clear he isn't telling the truth or at least the whole truth. For instance, he boldly asserted that his plan will be paid for. Yet multiple sources, including the Congressional Budget Office, argue there is no way this is possible. His plan will add hundreds of billions of dollars to the federal deficit. This was simply one of several other inaccuracies in his news conference. If you're interested in checking out the rest, let me suggest that you read the analysis done by the non-partisan group FactCheck at http://factcheck.org/2009/07/obamas-health-care-news-conference/.

But President Obama isn't the only one having difficulty in dealing with the truth. Several Republicans, such as former Alaska governor Sarah Palin and former New York lieutenant governor Betsy McCaughey, have publicly stated that the President's plan includes "death panels" that will instruct the elderly or terminally ill on how they can die so as to save tax payers' dollars. While it is true that the President's plan allows for patients to consult with their doctors about end-of-life issues, multiple sources make it clear that nothing in the legislation will encourage or require that seniors or the terminally ill be forced to terminate their own life prematurely. And like the President, this is simply one of many lies or half-truths put forth by the other side of the debate. For additional examples, read the related articles on FactCheck.org.

And quite frankly, until we start dealing with the truth, I don't know how we will ever responsibly resolve this issue. I realize I would be naive to expect any politician to speak the truth plainly. Nevertheless, I am growing increasingly tired of the blatant disregard for the truth that plagues so many of our politicians and their related special interest groups. They only seem to share in Pilate's cynicism. "What is truth?" Apparently they believe it is what they make it. God help us; we're in trouble!

How Can We Bridge the God Divide?

2009-08-12T11:12:00.000-07:00

Not long ago I read The Unlikely Disciple: A Sinner's Semester at America's Most Holy University by Kevin Roose. If you've not heard of the book, in 2007 Roose, who was then a sophomore at Brown University, one of America's most liberal universities, decided to enroll for a semester at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University. Through a chance meeting with a group of Liberty students a few months earlier, Roose realized that many of his peers are Christians with whom he has had little interaction and even less understanding. So in a genuine effort to better understand his peers and expand his own education, he convinced the administration at Brown and his reluctant parents to let him "study abroad" for a semester at Liberty--something that even as an evangelical I'm not sure I could do. But what follows is an entertaining and thought provoking study of the "God-divide."

Admittedly, having been raised by Quaker parents who once worked for Ralph Nader, Kevin was nervous and apprehensive about what he might find. Even so, he was committed not to mock the school or level and unfounded accusations--he felt that would be far too easy. Instead, he decided to fully immerse himself in the Liberty culture by joining a number of student groups and eventually the choir at Thomas Road Baptist Church, the congregation the late Dr. Jerry Falwell led. Roose even managed to secure an interview with Dr. Falwell for the school's newspaper, which turned out to be the last in-person interview Falwell would give prior to his death. And despite whatever misgivings he may have had with Dr. Falwell and the many challenges of living as a stranger in a strange land, Roose managed to maintain his cover for the entire semester.

And while he did encounter the stereotypical evangelical positions on hot-button issues such as abortion, homosexuality and "liberals," he was shocked by how "normal" the students at Liberty are. They're concerned about their grades, paying for school, dating prospects, playing video games, finding a job after graduation and many of the other typical things that weigh on a college student. What surprised him most, however, was the love and acceptance he received from his classmates, even after he revealed his purpose for attending Liberty. He writes in his book's acknowledgments, "I never thought that the world's largest evangelical university would feel like home...But by experience your warmth, your vigorous generosity of spirit, and your deep complexity, I was ultimately convinced--not that you were right, necessarily, but that I was wrong."

And of all that I read in the book, that is what struck me most: a non-Christian is taken aback by the love, grace and mercy shown to him by Christ's followers. And I have to ask myself, "Why isn't that more the norm?" Perhaps had they known who Roose really was they would have treated him differently, but I hope not. Yet therein lies the challenge. Christ calls his followers to live as the salt of the earth, as the light of the world and to love those we would otherwise consider our enemies. Granted, many of us "know" this, but how well do we live this out on a daily basis? Is it something we take seriously, or do we see it as optional? If you met someone like Kevin Roose on the street, at the mall, at school or even in your church, would he experience the same kind of love, warmth and generosity of spirit he received from his classmates at Liberty, or would he instead be turned away by the resentment, anger and judgmental attitudes that Christians can be prone to demonstrate, especially toward non-Christians?

By all accounts, Roose is still not a follower of Jesus Christ. At the same time, however, he acknowledges that he now prays regularly for himself and on behalf of others, is open to the idea of attending a local church, owns several different translations of the bible and is reading meditations on the letters of the apostle John. And let me stress that while I realize such activities do not make Roose a Christian, they certainly appear to be steps in the right direction. He is open to seeking God and exploring what it means to be a follower of Jesus Christ because he met a group of people who took seriously our obligation to love God fully and our neighbor as ourselves. If that isn't the power of love, then I don't know what is.