Natasha's Senior Recital

You may have seen this on MySpace. If you go there, it will only direct you back here though. :) There are invitations out there to the following effect, but you don't need a printed invitation to come....

NATASHA'S SENIOR RECITAL

Friday, April 7, 2006

7:30 p.m.

BBC Nicholson Hall

(light reception to follow)

So, you'll hear much more about this in the time to come. She's a great singer, not to mention anointed by the Lord for it. Hopefully we'll see you there. (There's no need to RSVP.)

Next Opinion

I think Jesus submitted Himself to people.

Freedom of Religion

Abdul Rahman is currently under arrest in Afghanistan because he is a Christian. CNN reports that the Afghan consitution is based on Sharia, Islamic law. It is my understanding that Sharia requires adherence to the Islam faith. CNN reports, "apostates can receive the death penalty." Again, this is the law in Afghanistan.

Western nations (led, of course, by the US) are stating that any democracy should permit religious freedom among its people. Here are my next couple of opinions:

1) If Afghanistan submits itself to Sharia, then the country is a theocracy, not a democracy.

2) If Afghanistan submits itself to Sharia, then there is only freedom of religion enough to exist as Suni or Shiite. Anyone else is apostate.

Am I missing something here? Why do we in the West assume that this is a political thing? Politically, we're expecting a nation to go against its constitution, something at which we would balk if the tables were turned. Nevertheless, the country is ruled by Islam, a faith. Why does it surprise us, then, that the issues in a theocracy are faith-based?

One Clarification

I look up to Redfox, so I need to clarify something for him and all people like him. Permanent residency in Canada does not revoke my American citizenship. I am not a Canadian citizen yet. Even if I were, I'd be able to remain an American. Think about my PR card like a green card. It just means I can live and move around freely in Canada without having to get new permits and visas every time I turn around.

Redfox is a humble and precious man of God. I also know he will always keep me humble. :)

It's Official

I am a permanent resident of Canada.

Something that Sucks About Work

Next opinion: working sucks. I like my job, and I'm grateful to be in ministry. However, actually having to have a job is not fun when it dictates your personal life. When I was younger and immature (note, not necessarily more immature) I never had to answer to anyone if I planned on volunteering with a ministry. Now that I have a "real" job, I do. Grr.

Okay, now that's off my chest....

North American Persecution or Cry for Equality?

Read this.

Now, what do you think? Is this a form of North American persecution from people who are going to conservative Christian campuses to stir things up? Or, is it a legitimate cry of equality from people who haven't been counseled through their feelings of abandonment from conservative Christians?

It's interesting to me that every place on the list is a conservative Christian college EXCEPT BYU and West Point.

Another Opinion/Confession

This post comes from an inner battle that has taken place for almost three years. In high school I was pro-life, ready to debate anyone who wanted to. This position was taken largely because I assumed that Christians had no choice in the matter. Then I realized that the Lord has allowed several abortions to take place, allowing women to make their own choices. It was a fact that women were choosing to have abortions, and I felt that Christians should not hold non-Christians to the same standard of living as they choose to live. Though I personally felt abortions were murder, I have been politically pro-choice up until two weeks ago. (Obviously, this is news to most people who read this. You don't even say the words "pro-choice" in a conservative place like BBC, for fear of condemnation, weeping, and gnashing of teeth.)

My reasoning for the pro-choice decision went something like this:
1) Women are having abortions, like it or not.
2) Women have had abortions for centuries, like it or not.
3) It is only recently that we have the opportunity to provide safe and healthy means for women who are choosing to abort anyway.
4) We should, therefore, provide safe and healthy means for women who are choosing to abort.
5) Meanwhile, we can hopefully counsel women away from abortion, helping them understand the emotional and physical damage they're about to undergo.

Then two weeks ago it hit me: I wasn't providing safety and health as much as I was enabling something I think is cruel and wrong. Studies show that women suffer enormous trauma before, during, and after abortions (especially during and after). We don't hear about this because women hide their deepest trauma when they don't feel safe to share it and heal from it. Abortion is also eliminating a life with a heartbeat, unique DNA, etc. Providing private, sanitary places for women to do almost irreversible damage to themselves and certainly irreversible damage to their babies is doing NOTHING to make the situation better.

Here's my reasoning now:
1) Women are having abortions now, like it or not.
2) Women have always had abortions, like it or not.
3) Women have not always had private, sanitary clinics in which to abort their babies.
4) The presence of clinics simply makes an ancient process very private and sanitary.
5) The presence of clinics does not lessen the murder rate or female degradation and trauma.
6) The presence of clinics simply makes abortion an easier choice in which one does not have to consider things like murder rate, degradation, or trauma if one so chooses.
7) Thus, the presence of legal clinics is enabling murder, degradation, and trauma.
8) Women will still choose to abort their babies, whether or not it's legal.
9) Some women will choose to carry the baby to term, if they consider the consequences of abortion without clinics.
10) Laws should be put in place to remove abortion clinics and illegalize abortion.

In a timely manner the US is brewing over the South Dakota decision to defy Roe v. Wade. Opponents of the pro-lifers say that women, their doctors, and their families should be able to make personal health care decisions without government interference (from the president of Planned Parenthood president, Cecile Richards). Someone who thinks a responsible health care decision is to eliminate the life of one's baby, to disrupt the natural pregnancy cycle and throw the reproductive system into disarray, to put one's life at risk to eliminate another life, and to ask for the emotional depression that comes after eliminating the life of one's own child (similar to losing a wanted baby, but often worse, according to studies I did for an ATS paper last spring), desperately needs SOMEONE to interfere. Maybe the government shouldn't dictate health decisions, but abortion isn't a decision for health and wellness.

In other words, I'm pro-life now, politically and in my convictions. One last word, if you're still reading: forget about all the exceptions. I'm not stupid; I understand that there have been/will be cases to prove me wrong. My point isn't to overgeneralize an issue to the exclusion of case-by-case consideration. So, save us the defensive response to throw up all the exceptions that we all know exist.

Next Opinion

It should not matter whether we "get something" out of worship.

1) We don't usually mean that we're getting nothing out of worship. We usually mean that the music, preaching, and meeting with the group of Christians did not have a particular result. Generally, we mean that we didn't really worship at all.

2) Worship isn't about us. When we make it about God, we tend to "get" something, yes, but that usually doesn't come because we wanted to get something out of it. God blesses when He is glorified and can move freely among His people. (Yes, I know that no one can limit God if He wants to move. Does He really want to move where He's not welcome?)

3) Is God really not worth worshiping if we "get nothing" out of it?

Opinion #1

I am not a fan of Sean Hannity. Generally, I'm not a fan of Rush Limbaugh either, but I'm afraid he's right about Mr. Hannity when he says he's rash. Messrs. Hannity and Limbaugh are like me in that we all generalize and judge. If the two of them are fair game on each other, why not join the political pundits?

1) Mr. Hannity attacked Hilary Clinton on his radio show last evening for her recent involvement in the port security issues in the US right now. He said that she was only interested for political reasons and had no historical basis for her sudden interest in homeland security. He cited her silence when communist nations controlled both ends of the Panama Canal after the US relinquished control of the canal under Bill Clinton. Another democrat was called for his opinion but was not allowed to give it. When the democrat began talking about Ms. Clinton's participation in port security bills since 9-11, Mr. Hannity balked, accusing the democrat of changing the issue. While Mr. Hannity has a point in questioning Ms. Clinton's prior silence, his guest was correct when he said that was before 9-11 when the world didn't take such extreme measures to avoid terrorism. Regardless of the past issues, Ms. Clinton is a completely different politician now than she was in 1996 as the First Lady. Mr. Hannity was just picking at an easy target.

2) Mr. Hannity also attacked a guest on his show who mentioned his preference to call in the police force and firefighters in the event of a similar attack on his home city, San Francisco. "What are the Marines going to be able to do after an attack?" asked the caller. Good point. Mr. Hannity took that as an attack on the US Armed Forces and President Bush. The guest was as surprised as I was that the comment could be taken as such. Were the Marines there to stop an attack, I could see Mr. Hannity's point. Otherwise, the police force and firefighters have done a lot in crisis situations and will be valuable to the city.

The moral: Too much talk radio on a long drive from Bangor will get you fired up and mad at people who put issues where there aren't really issues and who put principles before people.

I'm Not Ignoring Missy Silver - Nickerson

If you've watched, MSN asked me for my opinion. Here's why I haven't responded:

1) Many people have been asking my opinion about things lately. It's like a drawn-out version of AP's "Who Wants to Know My Opinion?" I've considered doing a bunch of these on the blog, but I'm still thinking about it.

2) There are some issues about which my opinion would incite a riot. Worship is one of them. (Trust me, it's coming. It just needs to come in a gentle, understanding way instead of an I-know-it-all way. I don't, so there's no point in lying about it.)

3) I'm having too much fun reading everyone else's opinions.

Today's opinion: 4:00 a.m. is MUCH too early to wake up, even for a cheap flight back to the east coast.