Posted by: Joel | July 16, 2009

Taxes 101

What’s more effective and moral:

A parent who uses negative reinforcement to stop his child from acting out, or a parent who attempts to use positive reinforcement (though negative reinforcement will be needed at times)?

A boss who puts restrictions on his employees and adds rules, or a boss who gives bonuses and raises for employees who do more than is required of them?

A teacher who consistently marks down the grades of students for the smallest mishaps, or a teacher who adds points when the student does more than expected of him?

In most cases, though negative reinforcement is needed to “motivate” those who just don’t care, positive reinforcement works far better. When people realize they can get a deal for doing something, they’ll almost always do that “something.” So when it comes to health care, under a capitalistic system, doesn’t it make far more sense to offer substantial tax breaks to employers who offer health care for full time employees?

Doesn’t it make far more sense to offer even bigger tax breaks to those who give health insurance to part-time employees? Doesn’t it make sense to offer tax breaks to people who pay for their own insurance (which, by the way, contributes to the economy)? Doesn’t it make more sense to offer even bigger tax breaks for those who add supplemental insurance? Doesn’t it make more sense to offer a tax break to employers who pay double the minimum wage for their employees (and make sure the tax break supplements the money lost on payroll)?

Read More…

Posted by: Joel | June 16, 2009

More Fun with Modern Sayings

I went over three modern sayings in a previous post that are popular to say, but just don’t make any sense. After writing it, a few more have come to mind.

1)   “What someone does in his/her personal life doesn’t affect me.”

To a certain extent, such libertine sentiment is true. What type of food a person chooses to eat doesn’t affect me. What kind of drapes a person puts up in his home doesn’t affect me. But often times so-called private actions can lead to public consequences, which does affect me.

This whole privacy matter generally deals with privacy in the bedroom. For instance, how many liberal protestors who advocate homosexual rights based on “My personal life isn’t the government’s business,” but quickly turn around and want to place limits on how big my “carbon footprint” is, or dictate if I can smoke or not, or even dictate how much electricity I can use? There’s a double-standard – they’re willing to let the government intervene on those issues, but not on sexual issues.

Regardless, what goes on in the bedroom can affect me by affecting society. What we do is often reflected upon our children. As I pointed out in a previous post, sexual immorality tends to go hand-in-hand with other forms of immorality. Thus, if one is engaging in sexually immoral acts in the bedroom, then one is more apt to perform immoral acts in public.

The connection to public corruption, however, is almost irrelevant. Though it may not be the government’s business what goes on in the bedroom or in a person’s personal life, as a human being I have an obligation to point out immorality when I see it. I have an obligation to point out what is wrong (in a loving way) in the way someone is acting. By being human, a person’s personal life is my business.

  Read More…

Posted by: Joel | June 16, 2009

NoH8

There’s a big grassroots movement right now against California’s Proposition 8 (banning homosexual marriages) called “NoH8.” 

I find this group very interesting. For one, I’m assuming that their end goal is to change California’s constitution. But what bothers me is the automatic assumption that if you’re against homosexual marriage or against the homosexual lifestyle, you somehow hate homosexuals. This baffles me. 

I’m hate promiscuity – as are many other Americans (including homosexuals). Does this mean I hate people who are promiscuous? I hate alcoholism. Does this mean I hate alcoholics? I hate drugs. Does this mean I hate drug addicts? Just because I hate the action does not mean I hate the person involved in the action. The reason for this is that what we do does not always define who we are. 

So I can disagree with a lifestyle choice and think that choice is wrong, but still not hate the person who made the choice. 

Unfortunately, however, the hope of civil discourse is thin. If you disagree with a lifestyle, then you are automatically branded as a “hater.” I can’t disagree with homosexual marriages without likewise being called a hater. Thus, any hope of a “civil discourse” on the matter is impossible; any opposing views are pushed into the same category as “racism” and other social taboos and subsequently shut out. It’s the attitude of, “Let’s discuss this…unless you disagree with me.” 

Thus, the whole “No H8″ rhetoric is disingenuous. Being against homosexual marriage is not the same at hating homosexuals.

Posted by: Joel | June 15, 2009

Seriously?

I generally avoid celebrity gossip because I just don’t care. There are bigger things in this world to deal with than what celebrity is doing what. However, as I was flipping through the channels I came across a story about how some Heidi Montag (apparently on some MTV show) is going to pose for Playboy. Now, usually this isn’t a shocker…except that this is apparently the same Heidi Montag that claims to be a Christian and a positive role model for young children (and wants to be like Mother Theresa…the “modern version” [look at the 57 second mark]). 

Now, a few things after watching the video:

* Their claims of being Christians are, I hope, intentionally false. I hope it’s just a ploy.

* How many Christians might actually be duped into supporting these two nut-jobs simply because they claim Christ? 

* Christians are called to be modest; posing for Playboy simply isn’t modest (neither is prancing around in a bikini on stage…sorry Carrie Prejean)

* Christians are supposed to be self-sacrificial, not Hollywood elitists who want to be pampered 

My guess is that this is all one big joke. They’re claiming Christianity as a marketing ploy. If they aren’t…then whatever church they’re going to need to exercise some proper church discipline. 

Looking that stuff up wasted about 20 minutes of my life that I’ll never get back…what an empty culture.

Posted by: Joel | June 14, 2009

Moral Equivalency

When asked what the biggest hurdle to the Middle East peace process was, Jimmy Carter said it was the Jewish settlements in the West Bank. I have to ask – did Carter fall down and hit his head somewhere between 1980 and the present day? 

Let’s look at a few facts:

* The biggest obstacle is most likely the fact that Hamas – the biggest governmental party for the Palestinians – does not recognize Israel as a legitimate nation

* It is the express intent of such terrorist organizations to “drive the Jews into the sea,” not back to the pre-1967 borders

* Like it or not, Israel won those lands in a battle against 6 different Arab nations. They didn’t take it from the nation of Palestine, because such a nation did not exist. Rather, those lands were owned by Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. There was no Palestinian government (or solidarity movement). It is the equivalent of saying the US needs to return the Southwestern portion of the United states to Mexico, or make it its own nation, even though we won that land in a war

* All land is taken from someone. The land of Israel is no different. It is currently owned by the Jews. Before that, the British. Before that, the Ottoman Empire. Before that, the Muslim armies under Saladin. Before that, the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem. Before that, the French. Before that, the Muslim armies. Before that, the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire. Before that, the Roman Empire. Before that, the Jews. And the list goes on and on. Multiple nations have staked claim in Israel. To say that it belongs to the Palestinians – a bedouin people who decided to settle there – is quite absurd. 

* Israel often takes harsh actions against the Palestinians because the Palestinians are known for blowing Israelis up

* Even if we say the terrorism is a response to what Israel has done, does that make it right? Israel targets military targets surrounded by civilians, which inevitably leads to collateral damage. The Palestinians target civilian targets – the death of Israeli citizens aren’t collateral damage, they are the targets

* The Israelis have shown they wanted peace and want a co-existence with the Palestinians. The Palestinians have shown they want peace by the eradication of the Jewish government

Regardless of one’s religion or views of Biblical eschatology, from a purely rational point of view, Israel is in the right. Israeli settlements may hinder the peace process, but they are a far cry from the biggest obstacle. Every time Israel has done something to move toward peace, it has been met with rocket launches and bombs…and silence from those who want “peace” in Israel. Carter, Obama, Clinton…all of them are silent when rockets fall in Israel or busses are blown up. But the moment those Jews build a house on land they won in a war, well that’s just the biggest obstacle to peace. 

A nation with leaders such as these, leaders who are blind and don’t understand the first thing about justice, is a nation that will not survive, nor does it have a right to survive.

Posted by: Joel | June 10, 2009

Fun With Modern Sayings

Today I was thinking about modern sayings and how they really don’t make a lot of sense. We hear them all the time, either as bumper stickers or responses to common problems, but when put under analysis, these sayings are actually illogical.

1)   “Violence doesn’t solve anything/Violence isn’t the answer.”

Is it true that violence doesn’t solve anything? This attempts to bring up the sentiment that it’s good for people to work out their differences in a civilized manner. Certainly if all parties involved in a dispute are civilized, then violence makes little to no sense; violence between civilized persons would only seek to exacerbate the problem rather than solve it.

If, however, one person is civilized and the other person is uncivilized or unwilling to work out the differences, sometimes violence is the answer. If you witness a man beating up and robbing an old lady and you can’t reason with him, violence is the answer. Violence (physically apprehending the perpetrator would be a minimal use of violence, but violence nonetheless) does actually solve this problem. Violence solves the problem of the man beating up the old lady.

If we didn’t believe violence was ever the answer then we wouldn’t have police. Even the most ardent leftists in our country want police (the same cannot be said for the ardent on the right, who are Anarchists, but they are few and far between). But if violence is “never the answer” or “doesn’t solve anything,” then why have police? They have to use violence in order to apprehend an uncooperative suspect.

A better saying would be, “Violence should be the last resort.” This still shows that violence is never preferable, but is sometimes necessary in order to get the job done.

Read More…

Posted by: Joel | June 9, 2009

From Virtue to Vice (part 3)

We now come to the 7 Vices, which have become virtues in the modern day. These are the things that traditionally have been viewed as the seven major categories for sin; though there are multiple sins, they can generally fit within one of these seven categories (and all fall under pride).

Read More…

Posted by: Joel | June 8, 2009

From Virtue to Vice (part 2)

Before explaining the Christian virtues (completing the 7 Virtues), I’d like to point out that my friend Quincy Jones makes an accurate observation on my last post. When I say that prudence is similar to patience, a better word to use would be “wisdom.” Prudence indicates wisdom – which includes patience – but using wisdom to determine the best course of action. This is a far better term to use.

My other friend, Nelson Fonseca, pointed out that all of these virtues are likewise found in the fruits of the Spirit. This is something I wanted to address in my next segment, which will demonstrate how all humans can live under the four classical virtues and some can live under the three Christian virtues, but it takes the Holy Spirit to perfect our lives. Until we are in a relationship with Christ, who then sends the Spirit upon us, we will struggle with the virtues.

Likewise, as if to accentuate my point that our culture has taken the virtues and turned them into vices, Fox News ran an interview with Eve Mauro who spoke about how she lost her virginity around the age of 18 because “…All my friends had lost theirs, so I had to keep up my rep.” In order to keep up her reputation, she had to violate all four of the virtues in giving her virginity away to some random dance instructor. Had she lived a virtuous life then her reputation with her friends would have been dismal.

With that said…

Read More…

Posted by: Joel | June 7, 2009

From Virtue to Vice (Part 1)

Lately, conservative voices have been talking about how we’ve lost our “societal values” in the West. President Obama, alternatively, has announced how America has no right to promote its values overseas. What I’m struggling with on both sides, however, is the idea of using the word “values.”

The word “value” carries within it almost a subjective application; it is what one finds important for one’s own life. “Values” are what we as individuals, families, and communities hold to, but these are subject to change. We view “values” in terms of their usefulness; do they aid in achieving the end(s) that we want? We place different “values” on different objects; what is valuable to one may not be valuable to another. Thus, the very word “values” tends to lend itself toward a subjective stance.

This might be because “virtue” is almost an archaic word in the English language. We’ve made the two synonymous, but this is hardly the case. In Latin (where we get the two terms), “values” comes from the word valere, which can mean to be in good health or to be strong. The word for “virtue” is virtus, which means to be of strong character, or to have worth. In other words, to be “virtuous” in Latin means to be of worth. To have “values” simply means to adhere to the virtus.

Inherent within both claims is an objective and subjective claim. Virtue is the objective standard to which all humans are to strive. All humans are to attempt to be virtuous and lead lives in accordance with virtue. When our lives match up with virtue, then we are displaying our values, or the subjective aspect of our lives. How we apply the virtues will depend on the culture we are in. Thus, virtues are the objective and absolute source of morality whereas values are the manifestations of those realities within our personal lives.

So when we focus solely on “values” without an objective or absolute standard, we really remove the purpose of values. What this has led to, unfortunately, is a value-based society with hardly any virtues. If anything, we have taken the 4 Classical virtues and 3 Christian virtues and turned them into vices. These 7 virtues, three of which anyone can follow, are both truthful, and Scripturally supported.

If we want to redeem our culture then we must return to these seven virtues (or at least the 4 Classical virtues). Though there are more virtues than the 7, the 7 are the main virtues and in some way all other virtues are tied back to these 7. But what are they, why they are good, what is their scriptural support, and how are they now vices?

Read More…

Posted by: Joel | June 6, 2009

America: The Christian Nation

Many Christians in America have an idea that they want to preserve some type of “Christian America.” They generally point to America’s past as a “Christian nation” and to some Christian golden age in America. 

While such sentiments are nice, they are also misguided and false. I want to look at both the positive points and negative points in trying to return America to a “Christian Nation”:

Positive:

1) It calls for a higher ethical view - when people call America back to be a “Christian nation,” it is a call for better morals. Like it or not, loose morality concerning sexuality does harm a society. It holds a greater potential to break up the nuclear family, which leads to other negative side effects. It lowers self-control as it promotes the idea of, “Get what you want when you want it.” How often are the corrupt in society often linked to dubious sexual deeds? These connections are not a coincidence (though sexual immorality doesn’t always lead to other types of morality); when there is a moral failing in one aspect of life, other parts are to follow.

Read More…

Older Posts »

Categories