Based on exhaustive research of the last 7 email forwards I’ve received, I’ve come up with this empirically-proven scientifically-tested taxonomy of email forwards, and I’ve already checked on Snopes and it’s true!
Fear (pathogens, technology, pedophiles, and Muslims):
Using your cell phone while refueling can cause an explosion.
Anger (liberals, government, and liberals in government):
Obama wants to make it illegal for preachers to preach against homosexuality. And he hates your religion. And your mom. And apple pie.
Fear + Anger:
Obama has a goat-head tattoo and sleeps on a pentagram surrounded by candles made from the fat of his human victims, and anyone who preaches against homosexuality will be forced to refuel their car while reciting the Koran into a cell phone.
Pity (usually involving children or animals):
Little 4-year old Cindy Lu has a gigantic tumor and asked her mommy “why is God making me die?” Forward this to all of your friends and pray to God to spare Cindy Lu.
Faith (usually involving prayer or deus ex machina):
An atheist professor challenged his students to prove there was a God, and was immediately struck by lightning and died.
Pity + Faith:
Cindy Lu adopted a puppy and the puppy turned out to be an angel and shot lightning at the tumor and saved her life!
OR
God skipped the whole tumor thing and struck Cindy Lu dead with lightning before she could fulfill her life’s ambition to become an atheist professor.
Humor (usually involving children, animals, or foreigners doing foreign things):
Cindy Lu drew a funny picture and gave it to her teacher and boy was her mommy embarrassed!
Glurge:
Jesus died for you which led someone to pose for a stock photograph for you with their arms outstretched in front of a sunset, because, really, life is precious so be sure to tell the people you love that you love them before God takes them to heaven with a tumor or lightning bolt.
Humor + Faith + Glurge:
Jesus died for you and boy were you embarrassed!
Humor + Pity + Faith + Anger + Fear + Glurge:
Cindy Lu, a 4-year old atheist professor, was diagnosed with terminal cancer. She prayed to God and God was like, “why don’t you pray to Obama, you commie-loving Muslim lesbian atheist?” But Obama made her recite the Koran on her cell phone while pumping gas with her arms outstretched against the sunset because Jesus loves you more than anything and if this was a funny email you would forward it to your friends and don’t you love America enough to send this to everyone you know?
I was really ready to focus on something other than social justice for a while, but last week I received a call from a woman from another church who had read that I was developing a curriculum on social justice for the North Alabama Conference.
After asking me to define social justice, she asked, “but doesn’t that mean getting involved in politics?”
Yes, I replied.
“But won’t that jeopardize the church’s tax-exempt status?”
Well, I said, my first answer is no, because precedent indicates that churches can be politically active as long as they don’t endorse candidates. My second answer is, so what? Even if we lose our tax-exempt status we still have an obligation to preach the gospel.
“Well, I have a copy of the IRS tax code right here,” she said.
Ding.
In other words, she called in order to have an argument. So, I obliged. For the next hour and a half.
“...and it says that a church can be classified as a 501(c)(3) organization as long as ‘no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation.’”
First of all, I replied, there’s a lot of leeway in that statement. “Substantial part” would be what - 5%? And do you honestly think any judge in America is going to tell an African-American church that they can’t preach about civil rights, or affirmative action, or the historical importance of having a black president? Is any judge in America going to tell a conservative church they can’t campaign against abortion?
But I’m grateful to her, because I guess if she hadn’t called, I wouldn’t be sitting here on a Saturday working on a curriculum to educate Alabamians about social justice. A large number of United Methodists get more of their political theology from Glenn Beck and Mark Tooley than they do from John Wesley. So here is a draft of the Social Justice FAQ (which will go at the end of the document).
These questions are abstracted from that conversation. I’ll post a rhetorical analysis of the questions themselves at the end of this document.
I appreciate any feedback that helps me refine the document:
——————————————
Social Justice FAQ: Doesn’t social justice mean getting involved in politics? What about the separation of church and state?
Women’s suffrage, Civil Rights, the abolition of slavery, and child labor laws were all the result of churches “getting involved” in politics. It is hard to imagine how many of these movements would have ever grown without the involvement of religious leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr., Sojourner Truth, William Wilberforce, and John Wesley. The first Methodist social creed was written in 1908 as a direct response to the crisis of child labor in the United States. Churches have always been involved in politics, because preaching the gospel inevitably means creating political conflict. When Paul visited Ephesus (Acts 19:20-41) and preached against idolatry, the city’s idol-makers tried to stir up the city against him for economic reasons.
Many churches, especially mainline Protestant churches, try to be “neutral” on political issues for fear of alienating some members or creating conflict. Even during these historical crises and shifts in culture, some Christians insisted that churches should, “stay out” of the Civil Rights movement, or of child labor legislation. What would have happened if they had?
The separation of church and state does not mean the separation of religion and politics. Separation of church and state avoids excessive government entanglement in religion, and allows religious groups to operate freely without persecution. The separation of church and state has allowed religion to thrive in the United States (while state-sponsored churches have declined in Europe), and has allowed a rich tradition of churches who promote civic engagement among their members.
Because we live in a [representative democracy], churches not only can but should be involved in politics. Since we the people make the decisions, we the people are accountable to God for how our cities, states, and nation run.
Won’t being involved in politics jeopardize churches’ tax-exempt status?
As a 501c(3) organization, a church can weigh in on matters of social policy and particular political issues, but it cannot campaign for or against any candidates themselves (Rossoti v. Branch Ministries, D.D.C. 1999). A list of the kinds of activities a church can engage in is available from the IRS at http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=170946,00.html.
The IRS even allows the publication of “voter guides,” which often include lists of issues and a summary of a candidates’ position on those issues. The IRS code states that “...certain “voter education” activities, including preparation and distribution of certain voter guides, conducted in a non-partisan manner may not constitute prohibited political activities under section 501(c)(3) of the Code.” (page 2, http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-07-41.pdf).
The same rule even says that candidates may participate in a public forum or debate as part of a voter education event. Churches may allow candidates to speak at their functions and may participate in voter registration drives. Focus on the Family has provided a summary of church political activities permitted under the 501(c)(3) rules here: http://www.citizenlink.org/pdfs/PastorsGuidelines_summary.pdf. Obviously, the same rules apply to churches of any political persuasion.
Won’t being involved in political activity cause divisions in the church?
Maybe.
In 1844, disputes over slavery led to a schism in the Methodist church. The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, split into their own denomination. They removed from their General Rules the rule against owning slaves. So there are certainly precedents for denominations and even individual churches splitting over contentious issues.
But there are also churches and denominational bodies who are more united in how they engage the larger world. Conservative churches who protest abortion clinics and African-American churches who demonstrate against racism do not seem to worry about whether their activities divide the church.
Being politically neutral has not helped mainline Protestant churches grow in the last few decades. It has not helped them attract young people to church or lead people to Christ. Although we in the U.S. often describe ourselves in terms of “liberal” or “conservative,” there are often social justice issues that cross political boundaries. The environmentalism and creation care movement has seen churches across the political spectrum unite on important environmental issues.
Both “liberal” and “conservative” United Methodist churches have been struggling with declining membership in the last few decades. Ignoring social justice will not reverse that trend, and instead will simply make the church more irrelevant to a new generation.
Shouldn’t we just preach Christ, and Christ alone? Isn’t the real message of Christianity about saving souls?
Jesus kicked off his ministry with a political statement: ‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.’ You can read the whole story in Luke 4:16-30.
The “year of the Lord’s favor” is a reference to the Jubilee year, when all debts were canceled and all slaves were freed (Leviticus 25:8-13). This commandment was supposed to be carried out every 50 years, but had long been neglected. Jesus was saying that his ministry was the fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah, that God would reset the clock and bring justice to the world. (Some people say that Jesus never preached against slavery, but I believe his first sermon made explicit where he stood on the subject.)
Even before Jesus was born, people knew the messiah would bring social justice. Listen to his mother, Mary’s song from Luke 1:52-53: “He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty.”
Jesus talked more about the “Kingdom of God” than anything else. The Kingdom was not just a place we go when we die - it was the reign of God on earth. The language he uses is firmly in line with all the language of the prophets. When Jesus preaches his famous prophecy about the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25, he describes very clearly the kind of behavior he expects from his followers.
The people who heard his message would have known, when he talked about judging sheep and goats, that he was also referring to Ezekiel 34:17-19. This is one of the clearest examples in the Bible about God’s interest in environmental justice: “When you drink of clear water, must you foul the rest with your feet? And must my sheep eat what you have trodden with your feet, and drink what you have fouled with your feet?” So when Jesus talked about feeding the hungry, he wasn’t just telling his audience to be charitable; by using the language of Ezekiel he was also reminding them that they should be stewards of the earth.
So, preaching Christ means preaching social justice. There is no way to split one from the other. Evangelism, missions of mercy, and social justice go hand-in-hand
I understand that Jesus says we should individually help the poor, but he doesn’t say anywhere the government should. Isn’t it enough for Christians to help the poor individually?
Jesus also never said that there should be a separation of church and state, or that democracies are better than dictatorships. Making this kind of distinction between individuals and government puts modern ideas and words back into Jesus’ mouth. Roman Emperors and Judean Kings had no concept of things like “democracy” or “the consent of the governed.”
Amos told the nation of Israel that they were experts at acting individually religious, but that all their worship was worthless as long as they continued to oppress the poor. He called on the nation to let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream (5:24). Is this a command directed at individuals? At governments? At whole societies?
God repeatedly holds entire cities and nations accountable for their treatment of the poor. Ezekiel 16:49 says “This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.” God punishes the firstborn of every family in Egypt for Pharoah’s reluctance to let the Hebrews free from slavery. The prophets accuse whole societies of idolatry and injustice to the poor. If God holds nations accountable for the actions of their rulers or even of a majority, would God not hold every [voting member of a republic] accountable for their nation’s actions?
In addition, as shown above in his reference to the sheep and goats, Jesus frequently cites the prophets in addressing how whole communities should behave. He assumed that his listeners would be Biblically literate enough to make the connection between the prophets’ words and his own. Jesus did not just come to save souls - he came to save the world.
Historical examples show us that it is impossible to address some injustices as individuals. As a slave owner in the 1800’s, you might be kind to your slaves and still believe you were doing what the gospel required of you. But even a slave owner who freed their slaves could not end slavery without government action. As a factory-owner in the 1900’s, you might refuse to hire children. But you could not end child labor through your hiring practices.
Some obstacles that keep people poor - lack of health care, poor education, bad neighborhoods, lack of access to healthy food, human traficking - can only be overcome by community or government action. Of course, others can only be overcome by individual action. The answer is for the church not to put all its emphasis either on individual or collective action.
I understand social justice for life and death issues like slavery and child labor, but what about others? How do you decide which issues are important?
One incredulous woman told me that she understood that slavery, women’s suffrage, and child labor were important. These historical issues were “life and death” issues. But she did not consider Alabama Constitutional reform, grocery taxes, and other such issues “life and death,” and thought the church should stay out of them.
For privileged and comfortable people, slavery, child labor, Civil Rights, and women’s suffrage were not “life and death” issues, either. Slave owners had a vested interest in saying that the church should stay out of politics. After all, they would argue, they treated their slaves well. 100 years later, white opponents of civil rights could claim - rightly - that white churches would drive some members away if they preached against segregation. Here in Birmingham, some of those churches never recovered from their principled stand. Earlier in this century, wealthy factory owners actually claimed that keeping children out of the workplace would deprive poor families of important income and drive up the cost of labor. All of these examples point to the fact that everywhere that churches preach social justice, they will encounter resistance from people who want to keep things as they are. People who benefit from injustice have all they need - money, political power, health care, a supply of cheap labor - and they don’t want the power of the gospel disrupting their lives.
For those who live in privilege, grocery tax legislation, Alabama Constitutional reform, public transportation, gambling, environmental justice, health care reform, and American foreign policy are not “life and death” issues. But for those who are struggling in poverty, those whose lives are affected by climate change or industrial pollution, those who do not have access to health care, these are “life and death” issues. Oppressed people long to hear the words of Jesus, that today is the day they will be set free.
Every injustice that keeps people poor, or voiceless, or that treats people as something less than human beings created in the image of God is an issue worth addressing in church. God is still at work in our world, freeing prisoners, giving people second chances, and transforming lives. God will continue to work, with or without your church. The question for your church is simply, “Will you get on board with what God is doing in the world?”
——————————————-
I think it’s worth pointing out that each of these questions is really intended to undercut the idea of preaching social justice. Let’s unmask the rhetoric operating in each question:
a) there is no need for it because the issues are not important enough (to me),
b) there is no Biblical mandate for using government or collective action to address justice; individuals should handle it on their own,
c) the issues may be important but avoiding conflict and retaining members is more important,
d) preaching social justice will divert attention from the more important task of saving souls,
e) preaching social justice is somehow against the law or will result in negative legal consequences
Folks, that’s really all they got. Learn to recognize when someone deploys these rhetorical strategies. They are pretty easy to refute if you know your Bible.
In contrast to the Alabama political commercials I posted the other day, there is this locally-produced comedy-news show, View of the City, which shows a different side of Alabama.
It is expensive to be poor. This article does a great job of describing what many middle-class people simply don’t understand - there are hidden costs to being poor, and hidden privileges to living in middle-class neighborhoods.
I can get in my car and drive to the grocery store. Actually, I could bike or walk to two or three, which are within a mile of my house. I can even comparison shop and get the best deal among them, if I want to. I can pop open my laptop, use my wifi internet connection, and comparison shop between stores before I ever leave my house. If my car breaks down, I have a number of friends who will actually hand me their keys while my car is in the shop. Being middle-class has its privileges.
Bryant Myers, former VP of WorldVision, in his book Walking with the Poor, observes that there are many kinds of poverty. You can be dollar-poor, which means you don’t have much income, savings, or material resources. You can be relationship-poor, meaning you don’t have access to friends and family who can help you. You can be politically poor, meaning you don’t have a voice or a way of changing your community. You can be spiritually poor.
He also observes that a person tends to be rich or poor in more than one area. People who are wealthy tend to also have wealthy contacts. People who are dollar poor tend to be poor in other ways. They may be alienated from their family. They may not know how to navigate the systems of funding available for poor people.
He also makes an observation that sounds at first like a cliche - people can be non-poor in wealth, but be devastatingly poor spiritually. These non-poor (in terms of wealth) tend to have non-poor friends, and do not typically hang out with poor people. Therefore they tend to be blind to poverty and ignorant both of their own privilege and of the poverty that may be next door.
To those of you who have been dialogue partners on this blog about social justice and poverty, I sincerely ask: how many people do you know who are actually in poverty? You don’t have to share. Just make a list. Folks who use food stamps (SNAP), public transportation because they can’t afford a car, or who are homeless? Because when someone suggests to me that hunger shouldn’t be a problem because there are food stamps, and that removing sales taxes on groceries won’t help because food stamps are tax free, I’m wondering what planet you live on. If hunger isn’t a problem, why are nonprofits struggling to keep up with increased demand for food pantries and hot meals? Why are people who are eligible for food stamps not applying for or receiving them? (I recommend this recent Talk of the Nation piece on food stamps).
When people argue that the church should not be involved in social justice, they often take one of three approaches: either poverty is not a problem (i.e., “people in America are better off than anywhere else” and Americans aren’t really poor) or it’s an intractable problem (i.e., “he who does not work does not eat”, as if most poverty is caused by laziness) or it’s simply part of the game (i.e., “the freedom to fail”). I honestly do not think that anyone who is actively involved in ministry with poor people can offer these arguments with any integrity. Nor do I think that anyone who has regular contact with poor people can argue that inequality does not play a huge role in poverty.
I think one way to break down the barriers that keep people poor is to work on making poverty less expensive. Provide public transportaion, public parks and libraries, funding for the arts in schools so kids are motivated to stay in school, safe and affordable housing. Address inequality in lending and the stagnation of real wages. Develop a single-payer health care system, or simply let people buy into Medicare. Create economic incentives to save for education and housing (these programs already exist), as well as incentives for preventative health care.
In reality, I already enjoy many of those incentives because I live a privileged life. I live in a great part of town, with great parks and libraries, a town that is pedestrian-friendly. Being middle-class has its privileges. But being poor is expensive.
This is a documentary based on the transcripts from the 1901 Alabama Constitutional Convention. The institutionalized racism these delegates created has crippled our state for a hundred years.
Since Glenn Beck keeps ranting about left-leaning Christians* who use the word “social justice” to advance their agenda, I thought I’d also point out a few other groups who have infiltrated the church, many of whom use the Bible to support their agendas:
These people are inside your church! Some of them are clergy! Scary!
——————————————————-
*He didn’t actually say “left-leaning” - he said “communist” and “Nazi.” That’s part of what makes this particularly dishonest. He knows very well what he’s talking about: Christians who support healthcare reform and justice for the poor because they believe in the Biblical mandate to love their neighbor with more than superficial charity.
I really hope he keeps talking about this. The more he talks the more transparent he becomes.
Edit (3-13-2010): Credit where credit is due: Lewis Archer was the first person I heard the phrase “self-avowed, practicing evangelical” from. Now I think I want a bumper sticker with that phrase.
I realized some time ago that if I spent my energy smacking down every instance of bad theology I encountered, I’d be playing Whack-a-Mole the rest of my life. The assertions are too frequent, too outrageous to deal with them seriously on a regular basis. For example, I think it’s pretty clear that Fred Phelps is pretty wrong about who God is. His church’s music video “God Hates the World” is a flat contradiction of one of the most basic tenets of Christian faith, found in John 3:16.
I feel a little awkward even linking to the above video - as though by the very act of posting it I’m raising it in the global consciousness, when that’s actually the last thing I want to do.
It’s much the same with Pat Robertson’s and Rush Limbaugh’s comments. Should I even acknowledge that they exist? Or, like the braying and barking of barnyard animals, should I just consider their words background noise? Their breath vibrates vocal tissue, and the fleshy movements of their tongues give shape to their exhalations. Commenting on the supposed meaning of those noises, I feel a bit like I’ve called attention to the fact that someone farted.
The difference, of course, is that flatulence cannot always be helped.
Still, giving them attention almost lends them credibility in the eyes of their followers. I would prefer to let them talk themselves into irrelevance if it were not for the fact that in recent years they seem to have gained an even larger audience.
The Bible acknowledges this dilemma. The book of Proverbs is ostensibly written to teach “wisdom.” The idea is that by examining its aphorisms, readers can come to a greater sense of who God is and what God’s wisdom looks like. But some of those aphorisms are contradictory because wisdom involves the recognition of paradox. Here is the relevant passage:
Do not answer fools according to their folly,
or you will be a fool yourself.
Answer fools according to their folly,
or they will be wise in their own eyes. Proverbs 26:4-5
So what’s the answer? Do you answer a fool according to their folly? Or do you let them blather on? Do you descend to the level of folly? Or do you upbraid the fool in the hopes that he or his hearers will see wisdom? Does Socrates spend time arguing with idiots? Or does he seek out conversation with peers? The wisdom here may be that dealing with fools is a no-win situation. If you answer them, you become a fool. If you don’t answer them, they think they are wise. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. It’s just damned foolishness.
There are a couple of other aphorisms that follow these that may be appropriate:
The legs of a disabled person hang limp;
so does a proverb in the mouth of a fool. (v. 7)
Like a thornbush brandished by the hand of a drunkard
is a proverb in the mouth of a fool. (v. 9)
In other words, even these proverbs, aphorisms of the wise, can be misapplied by fools. It is not the sayings themselves that indicate wisdom, but the context in which they are applied.
It is like binding a stone in a sling
to give honour [or a television or radio program?] to a fool. (v. 8)
My addition may sound cheeky, but the fact is that giving honor to someone in the ancient world often meant giving them time and space for a speech. To give a fool honor, or money, or a forum to spew their vomit, creates a situation in which someone is going to get hurt.
Like a dog that returns to its vomit
is a fool who reverts to his folly. (v. 11)
Just in case you thought my use of the word “vomit” or “fart” was harsh or un-Biblical.
Do you see persons wise in their own eyes?
There is more hope for fools than for them. (v. 12)
And that’s really the problem, isn’t it? Because I can recognize fools, does that make me wise? Or does it take one to know one? I also have a forum in which to use my words. I have a pulpit and an audience. I pray that God will help me to use it wisely, that I will not be like a drunkard with a thornbush, or a fool shooting his sling into a crowd, or a dog that returns to its vomit. The desert fathers and mothers used to pray, “Oh Lord, him today, me tomorrow.” I hope that when (not if) I mishandle my words, I only look like an idiot, and that it won’t cause others to get hurt.
This agitation on the subject of extreme poverty comes mainly from mothers, school teachers, students, churchgoers. When it comes from spoiled rotten rich rock stars it gets more attention, but it’s much harder to take — particularly when those rock stars are Irish. We know that’s an absurdity. But so is a child dying of a tiny mosquito bite in the 21st century.
Love thy neighbour is not advice — it’s a command.
Monday Morning (Belated) Bible Haiku: Genesis 15 and the Covenant of Caanan
Covenant problem:
People already live here.
No land for you yet.
I don’t mean for this haiku to sound flip. The problem with this story is that the land promised to Abraham already has people living on it. How you deal theologically with the subsequent story from Exodus to Samuel depends on whether you think God is okay with genocide or not, and whether you think Joshua and Judges represent the history of a conquering people or are a re-interpretation of some other social struggle, a myth of Israelite national identity.
It’s a problem for the modern world, as well. I heard an Israeli settler justify his occupation of Palestinian land with this chapter from the Bible. He believes that God has given the land “from the Nile to the Euphrates” to Jewish people. One of our group pointed out that that meant from Cairo to Baghdad. Our speaker’s opinion was that it might sound crazy now, but God had ordained it, and if Israelis didn’t take the land now, someone would attack them and they would be forced to. He believed God had already punished his people with the holocaust for not returning to Zion. How can you argue with that kind of logic? Manifest Destiny. We either act barbarically toward our neighbors, or God will act barbarically toward us.
Now I wish I had pointed out: Abraham’s descendants already occupy from the land from the Nile to the Euphrates. The challenge for the other part of the covenant is whether the children of Abraham will bless the world or tear it apart (Gen 12:2-3).
That the people suffer, none can deny;—that they are afflicted in a more than ordinary manner. Thousands and tens of thousands are at this day deeply afflicted through want of business. It is true that this want is in some measure removed in some large and opulent towns. But it is also true, that this is far, very far, from being the general case of the kingdom. Nothing is more sure than that thousands of people in the west of England, throughout Cornwall in particular, in the north, and even in the midland counties, are totally unemployed. Hence those who formerly wanted nothing, are now in want of all things.
A conversation at Tuesday morning Bible study about my electric car conversion plans:
“So how much experience do you have working on cars?”
“My skill at automobile mechanics is surpassed only by my knowledge of electricity.”
“Then I don’t see how this plan could possible fail!”
Just for motivation, here is Bill Nye the Science Guy’s rant on human transportation. It starts at about 4:25
After watching Who Killed the Electric Car?, listening to politicos argue about the problem of the war in Iraq, and hearing both Obama and McCain talk about “sending money to countries who don’t like us very much” and advocating for energy independence, I tuned in to Marketplace the other night and heard that in the middle of this economic crisis, oil companies posted another quarter of record profits.
So now it’s personal. I am tired of government collusion with auto industries and oil companies, the wasted infrastructure, the fact that 30,000 people die every year in auto accidents, and the bait-and-switch publicity for hydrogen fuel cells and hybrid cars which keep true energy independence always at some mysterious date in the future.
I declare war on oil.
My first weapon in this war is my bicycle. I can bike nearly everywhere I need to go in a given week. So far this week I have biked, walked, or run approximately 12 miles and driven 20. I found that I can run to my weekly breakfast Bible study, and if I don’t gorge myself on bacon and eggs I don’t even have to throw up on he the run home. Likewise I can walk to church most Sundays, and I can bike on most office days. Since I typically drive when I visit hospitals (and I will obviously drive for long trips), the 1:2 mileage ratio will be a difficult one to flip. But I’m going to try to get my commuter mileage to 50% alternative transportation by December.
When I tell people about commuting by bike, they generally have two objections. First, you’ll get hot and sweaty. Second, it’s dangerous. But I figure those 18-year-olds waking up in the desert know plenty about hot, sweaty, and dangerous. So I’m going to support our troops by cutting my dependence on oil. See, I’ve just realized we are at war, and it’s time American citizens like me get serious about it.
My next weapon in my war on oil is still in the R&D stage. Automakers are dragging their feet in producing electric vehicles since they don’t profit as much from the eternal maintenance schedule of internal combustion engines. So instead of waiting on them to produce a sub $30,000 car with reasonable specs, I’m seriously thinking of taking matters into my own hands. I don’t want to wait 3 to 10 years for electric vehicles to come within my price range. I’m thinking I could build my own for less. This may be a challenge, since I’m about as qualified to be a mechanic as I am an electrician. If I get well into the research and decide it’s a no-go, I could always look at driving something that looks like it came out of Star Wars.
We’ll see. I expect this will be a long war of attrition, but I’m hoping to recruit allies.
Via boingboing.net, I found this parody of the old “Wassup?” commercial. One of the things we’re investigating in our ICE group is the relationship between humor and truth-telling.
I realized some time ago that if I spent my energy smacking down every instance of bad theology I encountered, I’d be playing Whack-a-Mole the rest of my life. The assertions are too frequent, too outrageous to deal with them seriously on a regular basis. For example, I think it’s pretty clear that Fred Phelps is pretty wrong about who God is. His church’s 