tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67290987503007630112023-06-24T05:10:48.792-04:00Biblical ConservatismGod may not be a Democrat or a Republican, but He is a Conservative!Christopher Bastedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09206117404977772937noreply@blogger.comBlogger534125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6729098750300763011.post-49244948666974374762015-05-21T11:14:00.000-04:002015-05-21T11:22:24.173-04:00If You Can't Speak the Truth in Love...As a Christian, I interact not only with non-Christians who I don't agree with, but often many Christians whose actions get my blood boiling.<br />
<br />
This may come as a shock to some of you, but I'm not talking about liberal Christians. <br />
<br />
I'm talking about those who are super conservative -- to the point where they exceed the boundaries of Scripture. I'm talking about people who have turned into modern Pharisees in the name of Jesus. You might call them Fundamentalists. <br />
<br />
It probably comes of no shock to most of my readers that I spend a lot of time having debates on social media. I talk with people of faith (Christian, Jewish, and others), atheists and agnostics. I talk with a variety of denominations of Christian (Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians, as well as many Evangelicals and Pentecostals). The ones who often bother me the most are those who use shame and anger and threats of Hell to attempt to win converts. <br />
<br />
I see two problems with this attitude.<br />
<br />
One, it rarely works.<br />
<br />
I've met many people and listened to them share their testimony of how they became a Christian and not once have I ever heard someone say:<br />
<br />
"I went to a baseball game and there was a guy standing outside hollering scriptures from the King James Bible to no one in particular at the top of his lungs and it convicted me to repent and turn to Jesus." <br />
<br />
Not once have I heard a testimony saying:<br />
<br />
"I was going to a clinic to have an abortion and a crowd of people were screaming at me and calling me a baby killer and saying I'd go to Hell. It made me change my mind about having an abortion."<br />
<br />
Here's what I *have* heard many times: <br />
<br />
"I was living a bad life of using drugs. Most people wrote me off. But one person, my friend Steve, never stopped loving on me. While it was clear that he didn't approve of my actions, Steve still showed me the love of Jesus through his actions. After a while I realized that, not only was my life a mess, but I wanted to have what Steve had. I went to see Steve and he prayed with me that very night. That was the day I gave my life to Christ."<br />
<br />
I've also heard:<br />
<br />
"I was pregnant out of wedlock and I was so scared. Some friends told me I should just have an abortion and be done with it. But my one friend Sally suggested an alternative. She told me about a great place called <a href="http://www.compasscare.info/who-we-are/center-near-you/">Compass Care</a> that gave women in my situation a free ultrasound and counseling to help me in this tough time. They didn't make me feel condemned. They just showed me love and compassion. When they gave me that ultrasound and I heard that heartbeat I knew I couldn't have that abortion. I'm glad I didn't. I can imagine my life without my little baby girl."<br />
<br />
The difference between the first two examples and the second two is compassion and love. The same goal, but done in the way Jesus would do it. Through love and compassion...through a personal relationship. As St. Thomas of Assisi famously said, "Preach the Gospel always. When necessary, use words."<br />
<br />
THIS type of evangelism WORKS. This is what saves souls and saves the unborn. <br />
<br />
The second problem with the Pharisee attitude is that the person who uses these unloving tactics is that in many cases, the goal ISN'T to save the person. <br />
<br />
It's all about demonstrating their own righteousness. It's all about being holier than you. And that doesn't advance the goal of Christ.<br />
<br />
Remember the Pharisees in the Bible accused JESUS of not being good enough. It's not a new phenomenon.<br />
<br />
That brings me to my thesis. (This next statement is directed towards Christians, ONLY): <br />
<br />
If you can't speak the truth <em>in love</em>, DON'T SPEAK AT ALL. <br />
<br />
I'm not asking you to deny the truth. I'm not asking you to gloss over the truth. I am asking you to separate the person from the action. Love the person while despising the sin. Tell them what you disagree with in a LOVING WAY.<br />
<br />
My sister is living with her boyfriend out of wedlock. I don't approve of that action, and she knows it. I still love her very much. I had a dear friend in high school (who I have since grown apart mostly based on geography) who lives a homosexual lifestyle. I loved him like a brother. He knew I didn't approve of his actions. Never hid that. But I wanted to be able to influence him for Jesus in whatever way I could. So I told him what I thought and also told him that I didn't connect him with the actions and that I still loved him as a person.<br />
<br />
If you can't do that, it's probably better if you go into your prayer closet and simply PRAY for the person or people in question. Because if you fail to speak the truth <em>IN LOVE</em>, you're more likely to push someone AWAY from Jesus than to lead them closer. <br />
<br />
Again, if you can't speak the truth <em>in love</em>, don't speak at all. Ultimately, that will do more to advance the Kingdom of Heaven than speaking without love ever will.Christopher Bastedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09206117404977772937noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6729098750300763011.post-29517646357573819612015-05-13T12:36:00.001-04:002015-05-13T13:03:57.641-04:00Dear Patriots Fans: Your team cheated, quit making excuses<em>As we've been known to do from time to time here at Biblical Conservatism, we're going to take a little break from theology and politics and talk about sports. Enjoy!</em><br />
<br />
Dear New England Patriots Fans,<br />
<br />
The hammer has been dropped by the NFL and your star player is suspended for four games. You know, because he had, at best, knowledge of cheating by your team if not direct participation. Your team has been fined $1 million and lost a draft pick. <br />
<br />
And what do you, Pats Fan, have to say about this?<br />
<br />
"Haters gonna hate." <br />
<br />
I'm sorry, but no. The above phrase suggests that people are just picking on your beloved team -- and evidence has already shown that this is simply not the case -- and maybe that these allegations are just a matter of jealousy. (Sorry but no, it's because they cheated.)<br />
<br />
Remember -- eleven of twelve balls brought to the AFC Championship game by the Patriots were deflated. If it was one or maybe even two of twelve were deflated, one could believe that it was some sort of an accident. If all twelve were deflated, one could at least conceive a possibility that it was a matter of some sort of improper storage conditions that caused a more or less equal drop in air pressure.<br />
<br />
But eleven out of twelve just doesn't sound like a mistake or an accident, ok? Clearly there was some attempt at cheating. Even if it didn't impact the result of the game, it's still not ok to cheat. Period.<br />
<br />
The bottom line is this: just take your medicine here. Bills fans didn't say "haters gonna hate" (or the 1994 equivalent) when OJ Simpson was arrested. Falcons fans didn't say "haters gonna hate" (or the 2007 equivalent) when the Michael Vick dog fighting allegations came out. <br />
<br />
(And those involved JUST ONE player, not the whole team.)<br />
<br />
Patriots Fan, it's time to just say "yep, my team cheated." Quit making excuses and turning a blind eye. It's ok. We've all had issues with our teams. <br />
<br />
My Syracuse University basketball team had to remove itself from the NCAA Tournament due to academic violations and accept some vacated wins for their coach and a suspension for Jim Boeheim. New York Giants fans had to accept that Barry Bonds was proven to be cheating when he broke Hank Aaron's All-Time Home Run record and Mark McGwire's Single Season Home Run record. Fans of Tiger Woods had to accept that their favorite golfer was a womanizer. Fans of Lance Armstrong and his wonderful comeback story had to accept that he had a little help from the Juice. <br />
<br />
Heck, even YANKEE FANS (<a href="http://biblicalconservatism.blogspot.com/2013/06/yankee-fan-rhetoric-101.html">who I have no love for</a> as a group, by the way) haven't tried to explain away the years of steroid abuse by slugger Alex Rodriguez or even far more popular players like Roger Clemens and Andy Petite. <br />
<br />
Forgiving your team or favorite players is one thing. Making excuses is another. Don't make excuses.<br />
<br />
The Patriots aren't being picked on. Nobody is "hating" on your team. They cheated. They're getting the criticism they deserve.<br />
<br />
Sincerely,<br />
<br />
Every other person on the planet who follows sports<br />
<br />
PS: If the Patriots do well in the 2015-16 season, you do not get to say you "overcame adversity." )<br />
(That phrase is reserved for people combating circumstances <em>beyond their control -- </em>not ones they caused -- you know, by cheating.) <br />
<br />
Seriously. Just don't, ok? <br />
<br />
(I don't want to have to write another one of these in nine months.)Christopher Bastedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09206117404977772937noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6729098750300763011.post-91069934827041515342015-05-06T12:35:00.002-04:002015-05-06T12:35:27.063-04:00Screw Evidence, Let's Protest (and Maybe Riot) over Freddie GrayI'm sure by now we're all aware of what's happened in Baltimore. At least some of what happened, anyway. <br />
<br />
We know that Freddie Gray was arrested for possession of a weapon. We know he was put in a police car. We know that <em>something </em>happened in the car on the way to the police station. The police report is that a "medical emergency" occurred while driving. <br />
<br />
This could mean a host of things, friends -- everything from a legitimate case of policy brutality to a handcuffed and seat belted person having experiencing a seizure and their body jerking in the wrong way or the previous occurring when hitting speed bumps.<br />
<br />
Look -- I'm just throwing up speculation because we don't actually KNOW ALL THE FACTS. <br />
<br />
Of course, this hasn't stopped race-baiting and rioting/protesting.<br />
<br />
It doesn't actually *matter* what happened, because the Drive-By Media is spinning tails about an illegal police "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rough_ride_(police_practice)">rough ride</a>" and basically *assuming* that there was some sort of police brutality. There's actually no evidence that this happened.<br />
<br />
The point is we simply DON'T KNOW YET. <br /><br />Yes, charges were filed against the police officers involved. By the way, here's a picture of said officers. (Tell me if anything jumps out at you.)<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-e3crjIFd0uA/VUo-nZxHDxI/AAAAAAAAA2Y/jdxHFq99Ye4/s1600/635661064061924582-baltiPOLICE.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-e3crjIFd0uA/VUo-nZxHDxI/AAAAAAAAA2Y/jdxHFq99Ye4/s1600/635661064061924582-baltiPOLICE.jpg" height="240" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Hint: top right, bottom left and bottom right</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
Wait a minute...three of those six are black people themselves! I wonder how THAT will be spun as racism. (It will be. Don't worry.)<br />
<br />None of this matters. We're given lines like "Black lives matter!" -- but apparently police lives, public property, and public safety DON'T matter. <br /><br />History doesn't matter either, apparently: George Zimmerman was found not guilty and evidence showed that Trayvon Martin was dealing out a severe beating to Zimmerman before he was shot, clearly demonstrating self-defense. Michael Brown was resisting arrest, attacking Officer Darren Wilson and allegedly attempting to take the officer's gun. "Hands up, don't shoot" never happened. Eric Garner was resisting arrest and police officers used necessary force to restrain him and, at most, things went wrong. (So far, we still don't know.)<br />
<br />
We will, I am certain, hear all about what a gentle, sweet person Freddie Gray was, probably including his finest 4th grade picture. We won't, I'm guessing, hear much about his criminal record as long as his arm. We also won't hear about the fact that Freddie Gray had a <a href="http://allenbwest.com/2015/04/bombshell-is-this-the-truth-about-freddie-gray-spinal-injury/">history of back injuries</a> and that he had recently had back surgery -- possibly as recently as ten days before he lead police on a 45 minute chase. We probably won't even hear about the report from another suspect in police custody who was riding in the van with Freddie Gray that Gray was, in fact, throwing *himself* around the van and possibly injured himself. <br /><br />Frankly, I have to ask whether or not these officers were charged in an attempt to soothe the rioters, rather than dealing with the fact that these rioters SHOULD NOT BE RIOTING. Because rioting should not be okay in our society. <br /><br />For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL: Protesting is not the same thing as rioting. Protesting is peaceful and does not damage any property. I've been part of protests. We didn't loot stores. We just wore tri-corner hats and talked about how we are "Taxed Enough Already" (TEA Party. Get it?)<br />
<br />
The Left doesn't give a rats rear end about the truth of the story. It's all about the narrative -- and the narrative has to be "Police are evil and black people are still being oppressed. (It's still 1955 in Mississippi.)" Neighborhood Liberals everywhere are wringing their hands and worrying and talking about "White Privilege" and feeling guilty that black people have to deal with such police harassment. (Actually, it turns out police are really only a problem, to people who, you know, BREAK THE LAW when we look at evidence instead of just allegations.)<br />
<br />
Truly, it doesn't matter. People *feel* like they're oppressed (even if they aren't oppressed in reality), so therefore they can also break the law, damage property, attack police, etc. <br />
<br />
It doesn't matter what the truth is, because according to the Left, it's ok to protest and/or riot. Because of what *might* have happened.<br />
<br />
(But only if you ignore all that pesky evidence...)Christopher Bastedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09206117404977772937noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6729098750300763011.post-4756619689073841202015-04-28T12:19:00.000-04:002015-04-28T12:19:50.126-04:00Debunking the Gender-Wage GapYou've heard it over and over: "Women make $0.78 on the dollar to their male counterparts." <br />
<br />
Actually, no, not really. Guys, that lady sitting next to you who started the same time as you, has the same education and same experience as you, doesn't make $.78 for every $1 you make. <br />
<br />
The problem is that the statistics on "wage gaps" do not compare apples to apples within what employees earn. It's not that two doctors at the same hospital with the same experience, one male and one female, who started at the same time, make different amounts. Male Dr. Dorian and female Dr. Reed who started at the same time are making about the same money (adjusting for job performance). <br />
<br />
What's really going on is that Bob the Engineer (a more male-dominated field) makes more than Jane the Social Worker (a more female-dominated field) and so forth -- not because of gender but because Engineers make more money than social workers. <br />
<br />
(Please, spare me the speeches about why Job A should make more than Job B based on some meta level theory of importance to society.)<br />
<br />
Important to note is <em>this is a choice. </em>Men aren't being blocked from Social Work and women aren't being blocked from Engineering; in fact in some cases there are larger opportunities for men in female dominated fields and women in male dominated fields. (Want an example? Google "the need for more male elementary school teachers.")<br />
<br />
There are other factors as well. Despite the Left's attempt to eliminate concepts of natural gender tendencies, there are still certain instincts that are strong in men and women. (Could it be because that's how God created us?) Let's look at parents, specifically. Men still tend to be more focused on working to provide for their families. Studies have shown that men tend to work longer hours to succeed, while women tend to leave at 5 pm to go home and care for their families. (There is 100% nothing wrong with either choice, btw.)<br />
<br />
There's also the matter of time of to have children.<br />
<br />
As I have mentioned, my wife and I are expecting our first child in July. In my department there is a woman who is about my age who is also expecting a child. Both of us will undoubtedly be taking time off when each of our children are born. Here's the difference, written right into our company policies:<br />
<br />
As a new mother, she will be given <em>ten weeks of</em> <em>paid time off. </em>Doesn't even come out of vacation time. That's the company policy on maternity leave. The company policy on <em>paternity</em> leave is that new fathers may either a) take whatever available vacation time they wish starting when their spouse or significant other goes into labor b) take unpaid time off as part of the Family and Medical Leave Act or c) a combination of A and B.<br />
<br />
Look, I'm fine with that, ok? I believe in families and I appreciate that my company is willing to do such for a new mother. <br />
<br />
What I'm saying is a woman who choses to take that time of say 3 times (to have 3 children). If this woman and I start at the same time, but she takes 30 weeks off to have her kids meanwhile I take my vacation time for the birth of my three kids I'll have worked 60% of a year longer than said person.<br />
And that leaves out the fact that some jobs will let a mother take a full YEAR off and returning to their position at the same pay. (Meanwhile their male counterpart worked that year.)<br />
<br />
Add in the fact that <em>typically</em> fathers are more willing to stay late, come in early, etc -- while <em>typically</em> mothers are the ones who head home right on time to care for their children.<br />
<br />
AGAIN NOTHING IS WRONG WITH THESE DIFFERENCES!<br />
<br />
The bottom line is this: liberal talking points generally miss out of the details that make something NOT about racism/sexism/literally anyone being oppressed. (I guess they don't fit on a bumper sticker.)<br />
<br />
Gender wage gap? MYTH BUSTED.Christopher Bastedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09206117404977772937noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6729098750300763011.post-18927242325371870462015-04-21T12:58:00.000-04:002015-04-21T12:58:36.821-04:00Nobody is "Hiding" that Jesus went to Hell: An Open Letter to Ed SimonDear Ed Simon,<br />
<br />
Seriously, have you ever actually <em>been </em>to church or read the Bible?<br />
I ask this because of your recent claim on Salon.com that Christians don't understand or teach the doctrine that Jesus went to Hell after his crucifixion prior to his Resurrection. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.salon.com/2015/04/09/jesus_went_to_hell_the_christian_history_churches_would_rather_not_acknowledge_partner/">Jesus went to hell: The Christian history churches would rather not acknowledge </a><br />
<br />
It's not actually a secret. Let me ask you something: do you know WHY Jesus died on the cross? It was to pay the penalty for the sins of mankind. Literally, Jesus bore the sins of all mankind on himself. <br />
<br />
If you read the Old Testament, you will find that the entire reason for animal sacrifices was to pay the penalties for sins already committed (both known and unknown) by a person. The animal's death took the place of the person who had committed the sin. <br />
<br />
When Jesus died on the cross, he was dying for all humanity's sin -- both that had already happened and that would happen until the end of time. Every bit of it. That means Jesus literally died with that sin on him. In the eyes of the Father, Jesus literally died a sinner. As Romans 6:23 tells us, "The wages of sin is death." <br />
<br />
Now, there is a deep theological question as to when the moment of atonement happened from Christ's Passion and Resurrection. I'm inclined to believe it was at the moment Jesus died, because Christ's penultimate words from the cross were "It is finished." Also he said to the repentant thief who was crucified with Him, "surely I say that today you will be with Me in Paradise."<br />
<br />
That being said, Jesus would have gone to Sheol. We don't know which <em>part </em>of Sheol. (It may or may not have included Hell.)<br />
<br />
The Old Testament and New Testament speak both of what we would today call Hell as well as a place called Abraham's Bosom located in Sheol. The latter is surmised to be a place of comfort and rest where the righteous went at death prior to Jesus' once and for all sacrifice on the cross and Jesus went to Heaven "to prepare a place for us." It is believed by many theologians that Jesus brought Abraham's Bosom, and it's residents, to Heaven to reside in the Father's house -- possibly while He was in Sheol. <br />
Was Jesus subject to the punishments of Hell? I don't know the answer to that. I'm inclined to think that the very name of Jesus and His presence took Hell hostage -- but that's just speculation. <br />
<br />
The difference between Jesus and anyone else in Hell is that death couldn't keep Him. after 3 days he rose again, glorified and spotless and making sinners into His saints and creating a path for all mankind to abide with him in Paradise. <br />
<br />
So yes, Ed Simon. We all know Jesus went to Hell (well Sheol, anyway). It's not news and it's certainly not a secret. It's just not an important doctrine. That's like saying the church doesn't want you to know about King David's son Shephatiah. Really, Shephatiah just wasn't that important compared to some of his brothers.<br />
<br />
But since you're so big on "breaking news" from the Bible that you think the Church is trying to hide...I've got your breaking news story here!<br />
<br />
Wait for it...<br />
<br />
Keep waiting...<br />
<br />
It's totally worth it...<br />
<br />
JESUS WAS A JEW!<br />
<br />
Oh. Sorry. That's also common knowledge. <br />
<br />
My bad. Christopher Bastedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09206117404977772937noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6729098750300763011.post-4464446875593257142015-04-14T12:36:00.000-04:002015-04-14T12:36:02.709-04:00Brace Yourselves -- We're All About to Be Accused of Being Sexist.<div style="text-align: left;">
We're back to the fictional War on Women as we prepare for another Presidential Election -- this time with a woman as the presumptive Democratic Nominee in Hillary Clinton.<br />
<br />
The latest came on Tuesday, April 7th when Kentucky Senator Rand Paul announced his candidacy for President when Planned Parenthood chose to describe Senator Paul as "anti-woman" because of his Pro-Life stance.<br />
<br />
I've written about this before on Biblical Conservatism back in 2013. To quote from one such article:<br />
<br />
<em>People have the right to do pretty much any LEGAL thing in their own homes. If you want to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, participate in any form of consensual activity between adults in your own home, as long as it does not harm another human being, I do not have the Constitutional right to stop you.</em><br />
<br />
<em>That being said, abortion does not fall under that criteria of "does not harm another human being." It is doing the highest form of harm to another human being...destroying him or her. Clichés about "a woman's body" are a false premise...it's actually NOT her body. It's that baby's body!"<br /><br /> - </em><a href="http://biblicalconservatism.blogspot.com/2013/05/liberal-rhetoric-101-false-premise.html"><em>Liberal Rhetoric 101: The False Premise</em></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
This was just the beginning. Then, Rand Paul was accused of being "anti-woman" because he verbally rebuked a liberal reporter <em>who happened to be female</em> because -- get this -- she asked him the same stupid abortion questions about "exceptions" and Paul turns it around and asks the reporter to go ask Democratic Chairman Debby Wasserman-Shultz.<br />
<br />
Look -- the narrative is in place and it's coming. We've spent the better part of eight years being told how racists we conservatives are for having the audacity to disagree with poor President Obama. Now that Hillary Clinton is the presumptive Democratic Nominee, we're about to be called sexists instead. <br />
<br />
(Because you cannot disagree with a liberal based on their policies, ever.)<br />
<br />
Liberals are not creative. Their playbook is shorter than Coach Herman Boone in "Remember the Titans." It will be the same routine we've listened to about race. <br />
<br />
First we will all be, without an ounce of evidence, told that we clearly must be sexist by opposing Hillary. Then after a while we'll be told how we're sexist without even knowing it. Finally we'll start hearing stories of "Male Privilege." <br />
<br />
It's not hard to read. We will forever hear these lines when it's the "first" anything. We already had the first black President -- that was the template. When we do get the first female President, we'll all be accused of sexism. When we get the first Latino President, we'll be back to be racists. When we someday get the first gay President, we'll all be homophobes and hear about "Straight Privilege." The first modern unmarried President we'll hear about "Married Privilege." It won't stop.<br />
<br />
Of course there is a caveat: Absolutely zero of this will apply if one of these firsts is a Republican. If we elect Ted Cruz, no such leniency will be given to the "First Latino President." <br />
<br />
And well meaning <a href="http://biblicalconservatism.blogspot.com/p/biblical-conservative-dictionary.html">Neighborhood Liberals</a> won't see the problem. <br />
<br />
You've been warned. </div>
Christopher Bastedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09206117404977772937noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6729098750300763011.post-13800277090104583712015-04-07T12:47:00.003-04:002015-04-07T12:47:48.434-04:00On the Indiana Religious Freedom Law<div style="text-align: left;">
Last week the news cycle was absolutely dominated by the state of Indiana's newly passed Religious Freedom Act. There's been panic on both sides of the argument based on whatever news story their source of choice (which generally complies with their personal leaning, whether right or left) instead of -- and I know this is crazy -- actually reading the law. <br />
<br />
Before I continue, I'm just going to leave this link here:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/27/text-indianas-religious-freedom-law/70539772/">Here it is: The text of Indiana's ‘religious freedom’ law</a><br />
<br />
Please don't continue until you take the necessary five minutes (at most) to read the law. <br />
<br />
Did you read it? <em>No?</em> GO BACK AND READ IT. <br /><br />Do it now. <br /><br />I'm serious. <br /><br />OK did you FINALLY read the law? <br /><br />Good. Now we can continue.<br />
<br />
Like many of you, I've spent the past few week in deep discussion with friends on both sides of the issue. Some see it as a necessary protection for us Christians and other people of faith. On the other side, I've heard more than a few people attempt to compare this law to Jim Crow in the segregated South. A quick aside about that:<br />
<br />
No person has been denied service <em>in general</em> from any business because of their sexual orientation, nor does the law allow that to occur. Rather it presents a scenario where a business can decline to participate in <em>an event</em> (in this case the wedding ceremony of two same-sex partners) because of a moral objection -- which still to me seems like a reasonable choice that a person should have the right to make without being forced to either a) participate against their morals or b) close down their business.<br />
<br />
I'm going to give an example which is admittedly a far more extreme scenario -- chosen specifically because I want to craft a scenario that all reasonable people, liberal and conservative, can understand how <em>they personally</em> would react -- to help people understand the thinking of someone refusing an event (so please skip the comments calling me a bigot for comparing homosexuals to Nazis): <br />
<br />
A photographer being asked to be the photographer at the big Ku Klux Klan rally or a baker being asked to bake a Swastika shaped cake for the Illinois Nazi Bridge Rally. (Look that last part up kids so you can see how clever I am.) If I were that photographer I would absolutely, unequivocally say no to photographing the Klan rally and if I was that baker I would decline to bake the Swastika cake because I am morally opposed to the actions of both the Ku Klux Klan and the National Socialist Party (that's "Nazis" for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL). <br />
<br />
Frankly nobody would call me a bigot for that -- mostly because it's acceptable to 99.9% of Americans (at least) to find the Klan and the Nazis immoral. Now if Joe the Nazi or Bubba the Klansman want to come in and buy a birthday cake or a dozen chocolate chip cookies from my display case, I'd sell them those things without question because their money is green and I'm in business to sell those things. What's the difference? One is turning participation <em>in a specific event</em>. The other is refusing to sell to a <em>person</em> because of who they are. <br />
<br />
Nobody would get mad if I refused those jobs. But if you really boil it down, it's not much different than saying no to being the baker, florist or photographer at a same-sex wedding. It's an event. It involves some level a direct participation in an event. One should be allowed to say no to being part of an event if they morally feel they should.<br />
<br />
More importantly, when you read the law, (you know, that link above that you promised to read?) it states that a business may use religious objects <em>as a defense in court</em>. It doesn't say it will be accepted. I liken it to a claim of self defense when someone is on trail for murder. It can be argued, but you have to prove it for it to be accepted. The reality is that people may initially <em>try </em>to use this law as an excuse to discriminate -- but ultimately the certain high level of failure of this defense will ensure that this claim is used only when appropriate. <br />
<br />
Thankfully I'm lucky that I have a couple of politically informed friends who are able to discuss such issues in a rhetorical manner in an effort to discover the truth behind the talking points. A few legitimate issues did come up, such as:</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<ul>
<li><div style="text-align: left;">
What is the line between refusing an event and refusing to serve a person?</div>
</li>
<li><div style="text-align: left;">
What is an event? Is a gay couple going out to dinner an event? </div>
</li>
<li><div style="text-align: left;">
Can we make an accommodation only for small Mom and Pop businesses? </div>
</li>
<li><div style="text-align: left;">
What about larger businesses? Can a major grocery store chain refuse to be the wedding cake provider because the CEO or some member of the board has a moral objection?</div>
</li>
<li>Is there room for reasonable accommodations to be made for individual employees at a major business like we offer for workers with disabilities, so that the consumer can still purchase the item/service they desire but the individual with the objection can be excused from participation?</li>
<li>What are the limits of these accommodations? Can a devout Catholic refuse to complete a customer's check out at the grocery store because he is a box of condoms? Can a devout Vegan refuse to complete checkout of a customer because he has a box of steaks?</li>
<li>How to we ensure these protections for businesses aren't allowed to turn into legitimate segregation?</li>
</ul>
With these in mind, I suggest the following proposal for a religious liberty protection law.<br />
<br />
<em>1. It is prohibited for any business, regardless of size, that is open to the general public, to refuse sale to any person normal day to day service or product within the confines of the business' location based on their </em><em>race, age, gender, sexual orientation, political affiliation, religion, etc.</em><em></em><br />
<em>A. Day to day business is defined as any normal service or product available at that store as a stock item, menu item, or standardized service offered within the location. </em><br />
<em></em><br />
<em>B. Open to the general public is defined as a business available to all people, or all people who have attained a certain age (such as bars and casinos), or to all people who meet a singular criteria of membership as set out by said organization (such as an athletic club for women or a fraternal organization for men).</em><br />
<em></em><br />
<em>C. Non-profit organizations, certified religious organizations, and private membership organizations such as fraternal organizations are exempted from the above, regardless of size, as required by law.</em><br />
<em></em><br />
<em>2. It is prohibited for any business with ten or more employees to refuse any standard off-site service (such as catering, decoration, etc.) that they would otherwise provide to any person or group based on their race, age, gender, sexual orientation, political affiliation, etc.</em><br />
<em></em><br />
<em>3. Businesses under ten employees may refuse to take part in an off-site event (such as catering, decorating, etc.) based on personal objections to such event including but not limited to religious beliefs, political beliefs, or secular moral beliefs.</em><br />
<em></em><br />
<em>4. Businesses with under ten employees may refuse to incorporate certain symbols, images, uniforms, etc. into the design of products or on images that they are contracted to create -- but may not refuse to serve said person because of the customer's </em><em>race, age, gender, sexual orientation, political affiliation, religion, etc</em><em>. <br /><br />A. For example, a photographer may refuse to photograph an individual wearing their Ku Klux Klan robe and a baker may refuse to put a Swastika on a cake. However, the same photographer may not refuse to photograph said individual wearing clothing other than the objectionable uniform. Likewise, the baker must still bake the customer a cake that lacks the objectionable symbol.</em><br />
<em></em><br />
<em>5. Businesses with ten or more employees shall, to the best of their ability, provide reasonable accommodations to individual employees on a case by case basis to employees who offer personal objections to a task or assignment.</em><br />
<em></em><br />
<em>A. Reasonable accommodations is defined by accommodating the employee in a way that does not interfere with the moment to moment service received by customers. For example, a reasonable accommodation would be a Vegan employee requesting to not be station at the grocery store deli counter and instead requesting to be stationed elsewhere. An unreasonable request would be a Vegan cashier refusing to cash out a customer purchasing steaks and requesting that a new cashier be called in to complete that customer's order.</em><br />
<br />
Nice and simple. Takes up less than one page. Replete with reasonable compromises and accommodations to protect the rights of EVERYONE, not just select interest groups. Nobody is getting everything they want -- but everyone's rights are protected.<br />
<br />
Nobody is stopping that same-sex couple from having a wedding with a cake and a photographer -- but Mom and Pop bakery (owned by people of faith) can have the right to not be a part of that wedding. That said, the aforementioned same-sex couple is still welcome to come into the bakery and purchase some delicious goodies on display in the case and order their friend's birthday cake without being refused service. <br />
<br />
Joe the Vegan and Fred the Hindu can both ask not to be stationed in the deli at the big supermarket chain while customers can order their honey roasted ham and smoked turkey breast without any delay and also have their purchase checked out by a cashier as normal.<br />
<br />
Yes, somebody may still find their feelings are hurt, and in short, that's too bad. The Constitution exists to protect the rights of all -- not the feelings of all -- even if the person exercises said rights to be politically incorrect. <br /><br />As a country, we must be sure to tread the oh-so thin line between personal freedom and discrimination. I believe the above law does just that. <br /><br /><em>What do you think? Do we need to add a detail or two? Did something get missed? Discussion is always welcome in the comments or on the </em><a href="https://www.facebook.com/BiblicalConservatism"><em>Biblical Conservatism Facebook Page</em></a><em>.</em> Christopher Bastedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09206117404977772937noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6729098750300763011.post-6823655418143242182015-03-30T12:24:00.000-04:002015-03-31T12:17:54.627-04:00Liberal Fit Over Ted Cruz Demonstrates Their FearLast week, Senator Ted Cruz, a Presidential Candidate, announced that he was signing up for Obamacare after his wife left her job at Goldman Sachs (likely to work on his campaign). <br />
<br />
In response, the Left has had a massive hissy fit. They're calling Cruz a hypocrite, they're snidely laughing about it, they're calling it a passive endorsement of the law by it's greatest critic. <br />
<br />
Add to that we get the usual hypocrisy from the Left in questioning Cruz's citizenship because he was physically born outside the United States. (1) It's yet another example of the Liberal motto: "It's cute when *we* do it!" When conservatives questioned President Obama's citizenship it was "unpatriotic" and "racist" and any other ad hominem that liberals could find to discredit anyone who dared to question the President's citizenship, which was at least more questionable that Cruz's, but ultimately his citizenship was proven (and could've been a much smaller issue if the Narcissist-in-Chief had gotten past his inability to understand anyone questioning him in any way much faster). Now that the situations are reversed, liberals break out that motto..."It's cute when *we* do it!" and do exactly what they complained about Republicans doing about Obama. <br />
<br />
Then of course there's my personal favorite claim: "Senator Cruz isn't experienced enough to be President!" (I nearly spit coffee on my computer when I read THAT.) Considering Senator Cruz has served in the United States Senate exactly the same length as President Obama served when he announced his candidacy. Prior to that, Senator Cruz spent five years as the Texas Solicitor General and previous to that spent eight years as Deputy Attorney General under President George W. Bush. <br />
<br />
(Somehow, liberals believe that 4 years in the U.S. Senate plus seven years of voting "present" in the Illinois State Senate equates more experience than eight years in the U.S. Attorney General's office, five years as Texas Solicitor General and 4 years in the U.S. Senate. Because reasons.)<br />
We also get the usual Left-Wing false arrogance. A conservative comes out and Activist Liberals start the narrative of "I hope they do run (insert conservative here)! They'll be so easy to beat! Now if they were smart they'd run (insert wimpy RINO here)...that person is a "serious candidate" who would really frighten us." <br />
<br />
Friends, please remember that the last two "serious candidates" that Democrats claimed to be "genuinely concerned by" lost. Believe it or not, Activist Liberals are not known to be the most honest people out there. The people they pretend to laugh at are the individuals they would really be worried about -- the people they call "serious candidates" are the Democrat Lite RINOs.<br />
<br />
Remember your history -- 35 years ago liberals said that Ronald Reagan wasn't a "serious candidate." How'd that work out, again? Pretty well? Yeah, that's how I remembered it as well. <br />
<br />
2016 is a year absolutely packed with strong conservatives. Yes, we've got Florida Governor Jeb Bush trying to get in on the race -- but we can do better. Let the Democrats go backwards with Hillary, we're moving forward. We have far better choices. We've got Senator Cruz along with Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin, and several other conservative rock stars. <br /><br />When the Left tells you that they're afraid of Jeb Bush or whatever other bland moderate Republican whose turn it is and who is supposedly a "serious candidate" -- I beg you, don't listen. They told us that about John McCain and Mitt Romney -- and then proceeded to do everything in their power to discredit those two as soon as they were the nominee. <br /><br />So let's put up a real conservative then sit back and watch (a Republican in the White House). <br />
----------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
(1) It has been long established that physical location of birth does not effect a person's citizenship or their qualification to be President. George Romney was born while traveling abroad in Mexico with his missionary parents (who were both citizens). John McCain was born at Coco Solo Naval Base in Panama. The bottom line is this: as long as you would have otherwise been an American citizen by birth, it doesn't matter if that birth happens on American soil. Christopher Bastedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09206117404977772937noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6729098750300763011.post-28207193974888452042015-03-25T12:38:00.001-04:002015-03-25T12:38:26.247-04:00Coming BackHello again my friends! It's been quite a long time...<br />
<br />
When last we spoke, I was taking a hiatus for my wedding in November of 2013. I spent the following year and a half enjoying married life, changing jobs, and most happily, preparing to become a father this summer. <br />
<br />
Yet as the 2016 election approaches and liberals begin to go bat-poop crazy over any sign of conservatism out of one side of their mouths and try to convince Republicans that (insert wimpy, unexciting moderate Republican here) would be a more "serious" candidate and would "really concern Democrats" (which, as we learned three years ago means "someone who can be beaten by the Democratic nominee) out of the other; I find myself missing blogging. <br />
<br />
So, I will happily announce my return to the blogosphere. I'm not going to commit to a specific frequency although I'm going to aim for weekly. <br /><br />Let's get back to it and have some fun!Christopher Bastedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09206117404977772937noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6729098750300763011.post-21411734250512722852013-08-12T09:21:00.000-04:002013-08-12T09:21:44.791-04:00Pre-Marital HiatusAs I posted a couple of months ago, I am getting married! Because we're crazy (in love) we have set our wedding date as November 23, 2013. That being said, I am now left without much free time and one thing that must necessarily be cut -- to make room for tasting cakes, meeting with DJs, and general planning -- is blogging.<br />
<br />
For this reason, I am putting Biblical Conservatism on break until after my nuptials. I hope to return sometime in December or January, but until then I will be taking a break from blogging.<br />
<br />
If you are wondering, the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/BiblicalConservatism">Biblical Conservatism Facebook Page</a> will remain active as best I can manage, so please feel free to interact with me there! <br />
<br />
Should anything of particularly pressing need come up, I'll come back with a post. Otherwise, I'll see you in six months or so!Christopher Bastedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09206117404977772937noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6729098750300763011.post-18818299055462446772013-07-25T11:38:00.000-04:002013-07-25T11:38:15.979-04:00Guest Post - How Being Anti-Abortion Is Like Being Anti-Slavery: An appeal to the Pro-Life movement <i>As I mentioned Tuesday, I was going to be the day I announced a hiatus from blogging
to give more time to preparing for my upcoming wedding...then my good
friend and fellow blogger <a href="http://jcfreak73.blogspot.com/">The JC_Freak</a> posted two great articles for his blog on the subject of abortion. Today I am happy to feature the second.</i><br />
<br />
<i>As
a strongly pro-life individual, I am always pleased to pass along a
simple, well articulated statement of how to properly debate with a Pro-Choicer. </i><br />
<br />
<br />
I am not the kind of person who is frustrated when my opponent makes a
point that I am not prepared for. My reaction is usually, "Huh. I should
research that." But what really grinds my gears is when an ally makes a
really bad point.<br />
<br />
I'm sure as fellow pro-lifers you can empathize with that. Here we are, trying to stop people from <i>killing babies</i>,
and somehow we are treated as horrible people. With a vast majority of
the media on one side, all they have to do is quote any pro-life
advocate that misspeaks, or when a stupid person who happens to be
pro-life... well speaks. This is why it is incredibly important for us
to really focus on messaging, because there are millions of lives that
count on us communicating our message well.<br />
<br />
So I propose a two piece plan. First of all, we need to associate
ourselves with a historical movement which was not only successful, but
recognized as a good thing by the general public, as well as one that we
have a legitimate association with. And lo and behold this isn't that
difficult: slavery.<br />
<br />
So similarities between Pro-Life and Abolitionism:<br />
<ul>
<li><b>Both have to do with human rights.</b> At the end of the day,
that is all that we are fighting for: that the rights of a particular
group of humans is recognized and respected. And not just the right to
speak or anything like that, but the right to be treated as human
beings.<br /><br />
</li>
<li><b>Both have to confront dehumanization.</b> I want to make it
perfectly clear that I do not think that being Pro-Choice is anything
like being Pro-Slavery. Abortion and slavery are very different
institutions, and thus the defences for them are very different. That
said, since both abolition and Pro-life are based on recognizing a
group's humanity, opposition to us must include why that group isn't
fully human. This means that we can look to how such dehumanization was
combated in the 19th century, and see if any of it is translatable. And
of course maintain the campaign of showing people how these children
really are children through pictures and other such means.</li>
<li><b>Both are religiously motivated.</b> I am not ashamed of this, but
it is important to point out how religion plays a role in this debate.
It is because the issue which really divides the two sides is whether or
not an unborn child is human, and defining what a human is outside of
religious circles is difficult. Indeed, the very notion of human rights
was founded by religious circles, and it is questionable whether the
concept can really survive when societies shift to secularism. But
philosophy aside, when we are accused about being overly religious, we
can look back and point out how important religion was to the
abolitionists.<br /><br />
</li>
<li><b>Both are driven by an uncompromising ethic.</b> It is as
difficult to compromise on the killing of children as it is to
compromise on men, women, and children living in chains. Which means
that we should be the first who are appalled by sex-trafficking,
bigotry, and all denials of humanity that exist around the world. Don't
let the liberals own those issues. Those should be our issues.<br /><br />
</li>
<li><b>Both are movements championed by the Republican Party. </b>Just saying. </li>
</ul>
<div>
Right now the Pro-Choice movement gets a lot of distance by connecting
itself to the feminist movement. We really should be using the same kind
of rhetoric since we are really grounded in the same tradition as the
abolitionists. So let us celebrate that heritage and proclaim it. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
The second piece of the plan is to stay on message. We are about human
rights. The unborn child has rights. That's it. Any objection, and I
mean "any", can and should be answered from that basic viewpoint. </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #660000;">PC:</span> What about in the case of rape?<br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">PL:</span> Does that justify killing the offspring?</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #660000;">PC:</span> What if the mother's life were in danger?<br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">PL:</span> Yes, she also has the right to
life. We don't ignore the women, and therefore there is not simple
answer, but such a question should recognize that both lives are equally
precious.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #660000;">PC:</span> It is the woman's body?<br />
<span style="color: #38761d;">PL: </span>There are two person's bodies in question here. Both should be respected</blockquote>
Just this simple rule would prevent us from saying anything dumb.
Nothing more needs to be said. The argument stands for itself. If the
conversation shifts to why is the child human, than that is exactly
where we want it to go! Focus all of our energy on that one point. The
Pro-Life movement stands or falls on that point. Therefore let it!<br />
<br />
Thank you.<br />
<br />
<i>The JC_Freak's blog can be read at http://jcfreak73.blogspot.com/</i> <i>each week. </i>Christopher Bastedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09206117404977772937noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6729098750300763011.post-70848584692182248912013-07-23T10:40:00.000-04:002013-07-23T10:40:49.851-04:00Guest Post - Abortion Is Not About Equality: An appeal to the Pro-Choice movement <i>Today was going to be the day I announced a hiatus from blogging to give more time to preparing for my upcoming wedding...then my good friend and fellow blogger <a href="http://jcfreak73.blogspot.com/">The JC_Freak</a> posted two great articles for his blog on the subject of abortion. Today I am happy to feature the first.</i><br />
<i></i><br />
<br />
<i>As a strongly pro-life individual, I am always pleased to pass along a simple, well articulated statement of what the Pro-Life movement really believes. </i><br />
<br />
OK, a couple of caveats. I don't want to be deceitful, so I'll come
right out and say that I am Pro-Life and I am sure that affects how I
view Pro-Choice rhetoric. But, to any Pro-Choice person out there,
please don't reject my point here until I have actually stated it,
because I may not be saying what you think I will be saying.<br />
<br />
First of all, I completely acknowledge that it is proper to understand
the Pro-Choice movement as defending rights, specifically women's
rights. What I reject is the idea that just because we are dealing with
women's rights that we are therefore dealing with equality. In reality,
we are dealing with a moral issue that happens to only directly affect
women.<br />
<br />
Here is where I think you (that is pro-choice people) have a point. In
most contexts, a person has the right to decide what medial procedures
will and will not be done to them. The government should not have the
right to say that a smoker who develops lung cancer should just deal
with the cancer because it is the natural consequences of their choices.
In fact, I think we pro-lifers actually undercut our message when our
arguments seem to ignore this.<br />
<br />
However, there are other notable exceptions to this: suicide and drugs
for instance. I would also include prostitution here, though it isn't a
medical procedure. But it is still true that there are exceptions to the
idea that we are allowed to do whatever we want with our own bodies. It
is also important to note that the above activities are illegal for
both men and for women. It is not gender specific.<br />
<br />
And, quite frankly, neither is the illegality of abortion. The fact that
it only influences woman is a consequence of biology, not patriarchy.
Any Pro-Life person would equally abhor a man killing a fetus if he were
pregnant; it just only happens in <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110216/" target="_blank">movies</a>.
The morality of the thing falls on our belief that the fetus is a human
being and thus should have human rights. I want the full rights and
privileges of the mother to be maintained <i>in tension with</i> the full rights and privileges of the child.<br />
<br />
But here is the Pro-Life position, and I'll wrap it up really tight so
that there is no confusion: fetuses are children. To me, the distinction
between a fetus and a newborn is no different than a newborn and a
toddler. Morally they are equivalent. So in a nutshell, we want human
rights for fetuses. That is it. Period.<br />
<br />
I regret that making abortion illegal will force a long term medical
situation on the mother, and that is not shallow regret. I really regret
it. It is a horrible thing to force on someone, especially since
pregnancy shouldn't be something horrible. It is the most beautiful
thing in the world, and I hate the fact that it can become something
ugly in a woman's life because it was forced on her. That is appalling
to me. But so is killing children.<br />
<br />
And that is what we are against: killing children whether by men or
women. This particular means is only biologically available to women, so
naturally restricting it would only affect women. Thus, it is
legitimately a matter of women's rights: how should the mother's rights
and the child's rights be resolved when they are in direct conflict?
That is a very difficult question, but it has nothing to do with mean at
all, and thus has nothing to do with equality or inequality. I believe
that equality is a very important thing, and tying abortion into the
category of equality both waters down the word, and can hinder
legislation that is truly about equality under the law between men and
women. This issue is a separate issue, and should be kept separate.<br />
<br />
Thank you for your consideration.<br />
<br />
<i>The JC_Freak's blog can be read at http://jcfreak73.blogspot.com/</i> <i>each week. </i>Christopher Bastedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09206117404977772937noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6729098750300763011.post-85669675420937313992013-07-18T11:35:00.002-04:002013-07-18T11:35:25.490-04:00If Zimmerman hadn't shot...<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PngybBKdrbg/UeRK7WX5gKI/AAAAAAAAA0Q/JqViLApQs_0/s1600/62b0f6371c4f47d397403a7b2d0b007c.0.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PngybBKdrbg/UeRK7WX5gKI/AAAAAAAAA0Q/JqViLApQs_0/s1600/62b0f6371c4f47d397403a7b2d0b007c.0.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Just hypothesizing here...</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Can anyone legitimately, honestly tell me this isn't precisely what would have happened if George Zimmerman had not defended himself?Christopher Bastedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09206117404977772937noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6729098750300763011.post-24469690998224324082013-07-16T10:36:00.001-04:002013-07-16T10:36:53.837-04:00Reactions to Zimmerman VerdictOn Saturday night, a jury in Florida pronounced George Zimmerman not guilty on all charges.<br />
<br />
The reactions are pretty much expected from the Left -- "FLORIDA IS CLEARLY RACIST!" Of course, the individuals in question seem to only get their news from MSNBC and CNN -- who continue to feature increasingly younger photos of Trayvon Martin to continue to promote the falsehood that Trayvon was an innocent, 13 year old boy and not a 17 year old pseudo gang-banger. (I'm still waiting for a picture of Travon in a diaper or swaddled in an infant-sized blue blanket.)<br />
<br />
The evidence -- which has been largely ignored by the Drive-By Media -- shows a story where Zimmerman was getting the living tar beat out of him by Trayvon and then shot in self defense. The Drive-By Media also ignored the fact that innocent little Trayvon was suspended from school three times for infractions including being found with drug paraphernalia and a bag with marijuana residue, once for vandalism and being caught with presumably stolen women's jewelry, and once for truancy. He was also reported to attempted to assault a bus driver. Not exactly the bright eyed little boy presented as having freshly outgrown playing with action figures.<br />
<br />
Despite frequent race-baiting by the Left, it looks like George Zimmerman's story was actually true -- Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and after Trayvon had beaten Zimmerman thoroughly, Zimmerman fired his gun to save his life. The simple fact that Zimmerman had suffered severe trauma to the back of his head and a broken nose while Trayvon Martin's only injuries were bruised and bloody knuckles and a gunshot would means that the forensics back up Zimmerman's story.<br />
<br />
I strongly suspect that if Zimmerman was a black man and Trayvon a white boy -- despite the way the Left race-baits -- there would be no trial. The Media would have actually...oh I don't know...REPORTED the forensic evidence months ago...there would have been a very different reaction from those who claim racism. Then again, people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton will always jump to claim racism to ensure their own continued relevancy. <br />
<br />
The reality of the situation is that -- surprisingly -- a jury of George Zimmerman's peers found him not guilty on all charges and accepted that Zimmerman did act in self-defense rather than racism. In short, justice was served.<br />
<br />
Now the Drive-By Media is dying to make this into a race-riot in line with the Rodney King story in 1991 -- because if we don't keep the race-baiting going in a case that had no racial overtones, how will Democrats get elected?Christopher Bastedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09206117404977772937noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6729098750300763011.post-57178624770001698092013-07-11T09:17:00.000-04:002013-07-11T09:17:52.465-04:00Liberal Rhetoric 101: Get Things Done!"Those obstructionist Republicans -- they won't let President Obama get things done!"<br />
<br />
This common cry from the Left...blaming the lack of progress in our nation on Republicans who won't just go along with President Obama's agenda...because it would so totally work if we just let him do it!<br />
<br />
Let's set aside for a moment the fact that a) President Obama had two years in his first term with no opposition and got to pass 100% of his agenda and it didn't solve our nation's problems and b) the American people purposely elected divided government and deal with the crux of the issue -- the Founding Fathers intended government to move slowly. <br />
<br />
This is why new laws must pass through both the House and Senate (both at the committee level and then at a full body vote), and in the latter body can be stopped in it's tracks by a filibuster requiring a 60 vote super-majority to break. Then, the President must sign the bill to make it a law. If the President vetoes the law it requires a 2/3 majority of both the House and Senate to override the veto. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL just <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Otbml6WIQPo">click here</a> for a more appropriate explanation.)<br />
<br />
It was SUPPOSED to be hard to pass a new law. The President isn't supposed to get his laws passed immediately because the President says so. Actually, many of our founders didn't even believe the President should set the agenda AT ALL but rather that this right fell to Congress. For this reason, the first six Presidents of the United States only used the veto 8 times over the course of a total of 40 years (this included John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams who did not use the veto AT ALL). These six Presidents made all their vetoes on Constitutional grounds ONLY...believing that the bills past were Unconstitutional. It wasn't until President <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes#Andrew_Jackson">Andrew Jackson</a> did we see Presidents veto duly passed bills because they simply opposed them. (In fact, the first 14 Presidents only exercised the veto 19 times in the first 68 years of the Constitution.)<br />
<br />
The point of this lovely history lesson? The Founders WERE NOT worried about "getting things done." They recognized that if the nation rams through laws it's very possible the nation ends up with unenforceable, impossible laws that end up causing more problems than they solve -- if they solve any at all (see: Obamacare).<br />
<br />
Furthermore, the system of checks and balances created in the Constitution actual means there will be deadlock to ensure that the American people actually WANT the laws put into place rather than one party ramming through their agenda. If there wasn't the system of checks and balances there would be an upheaval of our society's laws each time the balance of power shifted in Washington.<br />
<br />
In addition, allowing the party in power to just "get stuff done" and ram through their agenda would lead to the tyranny of the majority. If the majority decided to vote away the rights of men to wear red shirts, then that would become the law of the land until a new majority voted to change that law. After all, that would be letting that party "get things done" right? Outlawing red shirts on men is in fact a thing that got done.<br />
<br />
No party has a right to ram through their agenda, regardless of whether or not they claim that it would so totally work. That is not how the Constitution was written and how our nation was founded. Liberals can whine and moan about poor President Obama being obstructed and stopped from getting things done, that's the way the Constitution was written. Liberals should feel free to deal with it.Christopher Bastedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09206117404977772937noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6729098750300763011.post-15638184201170155112013-07-09T10:39:00.001-04:002013-07-09T10:39:49.261-04:00Liberal Rhetoric 101: Ignorance"Republicans are obstructionists! They won't let poor President Obama GET THINGS DONE!"<br />
<br />
<br />
When you spend time on Twitter, you will hear this sort of line from the typical liberal. The source? Usually getting 100% of news from MSNBC, CNN or the Daily Show. Whether it is unitentional or willful, many liberals simply are unaware that a) Congress is not required to pass a President's agenda b) our Constitution provides a system of Checks and Balances to ensure that a President DOESN'T have pure control over government therefore c) Republicans are within their Constitutional authority to reject the President's agenda.<br />
<br />
Of course, the same liberals saw zero problem with minority Democrats during the first six years of the Bush Administration blocking President Bush's judicial appointees. This was perfectly fine! It was within the system checks and balances that the Founding Fathers intended in the Constitution!<br />
<br />
While this is of course hypocritical, the typical liberal is actually completely unaware of this phenomenon! In most cases it's not at all willful hypocrisy but rather hypocrisy through ignorance.MSNBC or CNN is spoon-feeding them today that it's obstructionist for the GOP to stop President Obama's agenda, just as they spoon-fed those same liberals that it's perfectly Constitutional for the Democratic minority in the aughts to obstruct then President Bush. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, "the aughts" are 2000-2009.)<br />
<br />
I will never forget seeing a famous liberal whose entertainment value I enjoy aside from politics lambasting Harry Reid for "giving up" to GOP "obstructionism" during battles over the last year or so. He was apparently blissfully unaware that poor, put upon President Obama was getting about 75% of what he wanted from the GOP who were, in fact, bending over backwards to compromise. <br />
<br />
It is my opinion that this individual was literally unaware of this reality because, as he posts on his Twitter regularly, his news source is MSNBC. He is blissfully unaware of the reality of government, and will likely happily support the next Democratic minority in obstructing the next Republican President (when these two circumstances next occur simultaneously).<br />
<br />
How do we deal with these liberals? That's a tough question. Most are <a href="http://biblicalconservatism.blogspot.com/p/biblical-conservative-dictionary.html">Neighborhood Liberals</a>, so don't forget your gentle kid gloves. Those who are <a href="http://biblicalconservatism.blogspot.com/p/biblical-conservative-dictionary.html">Activist Liberals</a> are basically a lost cause in this case (as in many cases). Your best bet if it's an open, willing person is to present the alternative view and present the simple facts of the issue. It may work, it may not. Ultimately, as Rush Limbaugh has stated on many occasions, nothing can overcome willful ignorance.Christopher Bastedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09206117404977772937noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6729098750300763011.post-25249366202833433082013-06-20T09:24:00.000-04:002013-06-20T09:26:54.187-04:00The Biblical Father-of-TheYearThis past Sunday was Father's Day, and as I often do, I found myself reflecting on the fathers of the Bible. The Earthly ones, I mean, not God the Father.<br />
<br />
There are some notably good fathers in the Bible like Abraham, David, Job, Asa King of Judah (who has the distinction of being the only faithful King in Israel or Judah who both served the Lord and also raised a son who also served the Lord) to name a few.<br />
<br />
There is one who stands out to me above the fold...and he is a father who isn't given a lot of credit in sermons and Biblical examples. His name is Joseph. His wife is better known, and his adopted son is the center of our faith.<br />
<br />
Of course, I mean Joseph of Nazareth, husband of Mary and adopted father of Jesus Christ.<br />
<br />
Consider Joseph for a moment. You have a man who has found the woman he wants to marry. He does everything right. He doesn't have sex with her until they are married. He is betrothed to her (that's engaged, for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL) and was presumably in the process of preparing a home for the two of them as Jewish tradition dictated at the time.<br />
<br />
Then he finds out that Mary, who again, HE HASN'T HAD SEX WITH, is pregnant.<span style="font-size: x-small;">*</span> It's clearly not his child. Joseph has two obvious choices in the eyes of the people around him: divorce Mary quietly (likely by sending her away to a distant relative to live out her days in disgrace) or have her stoned to death. Joseph was a kind man who apparently loved Mary and did not want to disgrace her -- much less kill her -- and planned to use the former option.<br />
<br />
Then Joseph was informed, by an angel, that Mary's child was the Son of God and that he was conceived by the Holy Spirit. He still could have chosen to send Mary away, but instead chose to marry her as planned and raise Jesus as his own child. After the birth of Jesus, Mary and Joseph had four sons (James, Joses, Judas and Simon) and an indeterminate number of daughters.<br />
<br />
Before Jesus was even born, Joseph made some sacrifices. He married Mary and likely subjected himself to significant ridicule by his peers. He also refrained from exercising his marital rights with Mary until after Jesus was born (that's "have sex with Mary" for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL). <span style="font-size: x-small;">**</span><br />
<br />
After Jesus was born, Joseph had to protect his adopted son from an evil King before he could settle down to life. Joseph was then charged to teach Jesus, along with his four natural sons, his trade of carpentry. I'm sure it wasn't easy to raise the Son of God. Yes, he was without sin and therefore would have been perfectly obedient to Joseph -- but his other four boys were not perfect and subject to the usual issues of childhood. I'm sure there was some rivalry against Jesus from the other brothers ("Sure, Dad, we're not perfect like Jesus...the best son ever!")<br />
<br />
Joseph, knowing that Jesus wasn't his natural son, took on the difficult and trying task of raising Jesus as his own. He is perhaps the best known adopted father in history. I know (second hand) what it takes to be an adopted father of a child in general. I have an adopted sister and my fiancee has an adopted brother -- so I have witnessed my dad with my sister and have heard stories from my future father-in-law about his experiences.<br />
<br />
Yet Joseph did what God asked him to do. He raised Jesus. He taught him to build tables and chairs, boats, carts, whatever. He handled Jesus' problems with His brothers. He cared for Jesus as his own, while knowing all along that this child was in fact HIS God.<br />
<br />
So, this week after Father's Day, I'd like to salute Joseph of Nazareth. I look forward to meeting him someday in Heaven. Mary gets all the credit and PR -- and well she should -- but Joseph deserves a nod as well. He raised our Lord as his own child. As human Biblical fathers go, I'd say Joseph gets the top spot. <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div>
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">* If the child was indeed his, given his betrothal to Mary and according
common practice in Joseph's time, it would not have been considered sin. Many historians report that a betrothed couple in Israel were considered married and allowed to have sex, although they did not live together.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">** Despite what the Catholic Church teaches, the Bible says Joseph "did not know (Mary) till she had brought forth her firstborn Son." Translation: He did not know (have sex with) Mary UNTIL JESUS WAS BORN. It did not say he never had sex with her.</span>Christopher Bastedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09206117404977772937noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6729098750300763011.post-24338797497051183672013-06-18T11:36:00.000-04:002013-06-18T11:36:20.662-04:00Bloomberg Announces Water Gun Restrictions<i>DISCLAIMER: This post is <u>entirely fictitious</u>.</i><br />
<br />
It was a normal summer day in suburban Queens. Neighbors Timmy Thompson and Georgie Green decided to engage in that great American pastime, the water gun fight. Timmy came armed with a standard air-pressure based water gun, but Georgie came with a <a href="http://www.hasbro.com/nerf/en_US/shop/browse/Nerf/Super-Soaker/_/N-1rZgtZ69/Ne-2l">NERF Super-Soaker</a> equipped with a <a href="http://www.hasbro.com/nerf/en_US/shop/details.cfm?R=6652AAB1-5056-9047-F5D4-28B581F9C915:en_US">Hydro-Pack</a>. Georgie's equipment gave him a full 100 ounces of water with which to drench Timmy, while poor Timmy had a miserable 5 ounces that required refilling regularly.<br />
<br />
During one of these refilling stops, Georgie accidentally hit Timmy in the eye, causing some irritation. Although Timmy insisted he was just fine, his mom made him go to the doctor, where he was required to put <a href="http://www.visine.com/">Visine Eye Drops</a> in his eye twice a day for a week.<br />
<br />
It could have ended there, except for Timmy's mother works in the office of Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the story of Timmy and Georgie's water gun fight. In his ongoing effort to help protect the health of New Yorkers through government, the Mayor proposed new regulations.<br />
<br />
"There is no reason that someone would need a water gun that holds 100 ounces of water or even 30 ounces of water! Therefore, my office is presenting a bill to the City Council limiting the capacity of water weapons to 7 ounces and making the sale of high capacity water projectile weapons illegal."<br />
<br />
When asked to comment, Roger Simpson of the National Water Gun Association (NWGA) stated,<br />
<br />
"The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution specifically protects our Right to Bear Arms. It doesn't specify firearms, melee weapons, hand weapons including blade weapons, or even water weapons. All are protected. Americans of all ages have the right to protect themselves against a water attack with whatever size water container they desire from a 2 ounce water pistol to a garden hose and everything in between."<br />
<br />
While neither gave an official comment, both President Obama and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo are said to support Bloomberg's bill.<br />
<br />
Georgie was quoted as saying, "Seriously dude, it was a water gun fight. Timmy's fine."<br />
<br />
Timmy, in response stated, "Georgie's right. I'm fine. My mom totes overreacted. Also, tell Georgie I demand a rematch." <br />
<br />
<br />
<i>No water guns were harmed in the writing of this post.</i>Christopher Bastedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09206117404977772937noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6729098750300763011.post-57640516033094164422013-06-12T10:47:00.000-04:002013-06-12T10:47:29.336-04:00Reflections on the Restoration of Jesus ChristUsually on Biblical Conservatism I stay away from my private life...save for talking about my work experience to support my expertise. However today, as I embark toward the happiest day of my life, I am going to reflect upon how the Lord has restored to me joy and companionship.<br />
<br />
Let me explain. <br />
<br />
Four years ago I went through the difficulty and heartbreak of divorce.While I wanted to give God the chance to restore the marriage and to honor the promise we made to God. She refused. If one won't, two can't. She ran away. I was devastated.<br />
<br />
God, my family, and some terrific friends including my church family got me through it. God fully healed me and about two years I began to date again. I had a couple of relationships that didn't last long because we weren't the right fit for each other.<br />
<br />
Then, seven months ago, I met Kristin, and she is amazing. From day one, everything fit wonderfully. She was strong enough to put up with me while being kind and sweet to truly make me feel loved. Even her family is amazing. Oh, and she has a dog, and I always wanted a dog. It didn't take me long to realize that I had met THE ONE.<br />
<br />
Saturday, I asked Kristin to marry me and she said yes!<br />
<br />
Today I stand recognizing that God is the wonderful God of restoration. I went from heartbreak at the end of an unhappy marriage and divorce to the joy that only God can grant. Not only did he restore the joy to my heart, He brought a woman into my life who is an infinitely better match for me and who shares my love of the Lord, my commitment to marriage. I went from in-laws who, at best, I had nothing in common with to of in-laws whose company I truly enjoy and who I truly connect with. I went from heartbreak to the joy of the Lord.<br />
<br />
So here I am, realizing that finally, after thirty years of life and a heartbreaking divorce, I've met the mother of my future children. I find myself realizing that our God is not only the God of second chances but the God of even better. It's not enough to give me a second chance at marriage and happiness, He chose to give me better on all levels. Today, I am truly happy, and I thank the Lord for bringing Kristin into my life.<br />
<br />
I close with this: God is good! Christopher Bastedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09206117404977772937noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6729098750300763011.post-73029602349876996492013-06-06T09:33:00.001-04:002013-06-06T09:33:21.185-04:00Liberal Rhetoric 101: Protesting (for things unsolvable by protests)I was in New York City a few weeks ago and I saw a ridiculous sight: two individuals, one with a guitar the other with a sign proclaiming that they were "Occupying for a Job."<br />
<br />
I desperately wanted to say something. I didn't for two reasons. One, my hosts (relatives) on the trip were with us on this day and they are liberals who actually identified with the protesters. Two, my girlfriend probably would have been very annoyed at me if I had gotten into a political debate with two hippies outside the Federal building when we had only one day for sightseeing. <br />
<br />
<br />
The sheer ridiculousness of this "protest for a job" continues to make my head hurt today -- weeks after it happened. You see, I am thirty years old. I've been gamefully employed for sixteen of those years. From 14-19 I held three jobs for differing lengths of time in places like restaurants and retail stores. When in college I held a job at a local restaurant near college and a total of three separate summer jobs over the years while home from school. In the eight years since graduating college I've held different professional jobs, including working for my current job for going on four years.<br />
<br />
The thing is I did not obtain any of the aforementioned jobs by protesting. I applied and interviewed for those jobs, convincing those prospective employers that I was the right person to hire. BECAUSE THAT'S HOW YOU GET A JOB! You don't stand outside a landmark and sing Vietnam War era folk tunes.<br />
<br />
A better known example of this was the Occupy Wall Street movement. These individuals spent weeks protesting the fact that "evil individuals" dared to keep the money that said "evil individuals" actually earned and owned. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, it didn't work...BECAUSE IT DOESN'T BELONG TO THEM and PROTESTING DOESN'T CHANGE IT!)<br />
<br />
Yet liberals seem to want to protest...apparently for the heck of it...basically because they believe protesting somehow solves everything. It's ridiculous, I realize at least most of you do (Palm Beach County residents aside), because money is not gained by protesting and neither is a job.<br />
<br />
This isn't to say there is no reason to hold a protest. There is a history of legitimate protests in our nation that actually served a purpose. The Boston Tea Party was a protest, and I think you might say it served a big purpose. College students in the 1960s lead a protest movement which ultimately changed the tied of American opinion and ended the Vietnam War. Dr. Martin Luther King (a Republican for those who don't know history) lead a series of protests that helped lead to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. <br />
<br />
The difference between these protests and "Occupying for a Job" were directed towards actions of government, rather than the perfectly legal actions of private citizens in not giving those individuals a job or keeping their own fiscal property. (That's "money" for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL.) Government doesn't actually have the RIGHT to confiscate the fiscal property (again, "money," for Palm Beach) nor can it force an employer to give someone a job.<br />
<br />
Protesting for the sake of protesting serves no purpose. It's efforting after something at best, trying to be the center of attention at worst. Liberals love to protest to say they are "doing something about" whatever. It's about making a useless effort that shows they care. Ridiculous? Of course. Then again, they ARE liberals, aren't they? Caring without actually do anything is the name of the game.Christopher Bastedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09206117404977772937noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6729098750300763011.post-65017338350770556342013-06-04T10:44:00.001-04:002013-06-04T10:44:53.587-04:00Yankee Fan Rhetoric 101Once in a while, here at Biblical Conservatism, we like to take a break from politics and have a bit of fun. Today, we're going to do just that.<br />
<br />
If you've read Biblical Conservatism over the past two plus years, you know that in addition to fighting for Conservative values and loving the Lord Jesus Christ, I'm also a die-hard New York Mets fan. Because of that, I often have to deal with Yankee fans and their obnoxiousness. This is especially true this past week, since my Mets swept the Yankees in a 4 game series (BOOYA) and my subsequent interactions with Yankee fans came back to the below routine.<br />
<br />
My best friend is a Yankee fan (albeit not an obnoxious one -- dude this post isn't directed at you). Several other friends are Yankee fans. I've had to hear their usual responses whenever the Yankees are criticized:<br />
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-L31DbVdcKT8/UZpTVO-lbAI/AAAAAAAAAzY/U4_Hkpnz_Qo/s1600/528498_508755779187277_1087484335_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="204" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-L31DbVdcKT8/UZpTVO-lbAI/AAAAAAAAAzY/U4_Hkpnz_Qo/s320/528498_508755779187277_1087484335_n.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: black;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-g_eMDyHqUgM/UZpTUwJv52I/AAAAAAAAAzc/TbeQl5Xg8Os/s1600/531848_509315362464652_1303892090_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: white;">Oh, and don't forget my favorite Yankee line:</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-g_eMDyHqUgM/UZpTUwJv52I/AAAAAAAAAzc/TbeQl5Xg8Os/s1600/531848_509315362464652_1303892090_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-L6MxuKwrl4M/UZpTU1JmkuI/AAAAAAAAAzg/Q1yxzY7GdeI/s1600/536884_509566775772844_1869542153_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-L6MxuKwrl4M/UZpTU1JmkuI/AAAAAAAAAzg/Q1yxzY7GdeI/s1600/536884_509566775772844_1869542153_n.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
Which leads me to ask, along with Mr. Condescending Willy Wonka:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-g_eMDyHqUgM/UZpTUwJv52I/AAAAAAAAAzc/TbeQl5Xg8Os/s1600/531848_509315362464652_1303892090_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="179" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-g_eMDyHqUgM/UZpTUwJv52I/AAAAAAAAAzc/TbeQl5Xg8Os/s320/531848_509315362464652_1303892090_n.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Yankee fans love to discuss those 27 Rings. They also like to mention how the next closest team (the St. Louis Cardinals) has a mere 11 Championships.<br />
<br />
They don't particularly like to mention that 4 of those rings where when Babe Ruth played, 6 were when Lou Gehrig played, 9 where when Joe DiMaggio played and 7 while Mickey Mantle played (there is some crossover). That means 20 of the 27 titles were won BEFORE 1962. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means 20 of those titles are over 50 years old.) <br />
<br />
Speaking of 50 years old, when 20 of those 27 titles were won, Major League Baseball only consisted of 16 teams. Now, Major League Baseball has 32 teams. <br />
<br />
Now to the last 50 years and the 7 championships the Yankees have won since Expansion. Seven is fairly impressive for 50 years, but it's not as impressive as that 27 they love to talk about. It is the most in the last 50 years, but not by a whole lot. The St. Louis Cardinals have won five rings in the last 50 years. The Oakland Athletics and Los Angeles Dodgers have won four each and the Cincinnati Reds have won three.<br />
<br />
What about the last ten years? Considering that's the time frame when a lot of the active players were playing? Well, in the last ten years, the mighty Yankees have won only one championship. In that same decade, the San Francisco Giants, St. Louis Cardinals and Boston Red Sox have each won two.Why does this matter? Well, just in case you were confused, neither Babe Ruth, nor Lou Gehrig, nor Joe DiMaggio, nor Mickey Mantle, nor Yogi Berra, nor Reggie Jackson are currently on the team's roster, so their accomplishments mean precisely squat here in 2013, thus those "27 Rings" mean precisely squat.<br />
<br />
What about the (correct) accusation that the Yankees buy championships? Many a Yankee fan has told me that "you can't discount the Yankees championships before free agency...they didn't buy THOSE players!"<br />
<br />
For one, the Yankees bought LOTS of players before Free Agency entered in 1976. They just didn't buy those players from other teams:<br />
<br />
Famously, the Yankees bought Babe Ruth from the Boston Red Sox for $100,000 (adjusted for inflation that's over $1.3 Million). They bought Joe DiMaggio from the minor league San Francisco Seals (over $400,000 adjusted for inflation). They bought Roger Maris from the Kansas City Athletics. These are just a few examples. <br />
<br />
Let's also not confuse the ability to retain talent as free agents with "not buying players." Just because you are a player's original team, it doesn't mean that signing them for a ten year, $189 Million contract isn't buying a team. (If you don't think so, ask Billy Beane, who would have found his team in better shape if he could have afforded to resign Johnny Damon and Jason Giambi?) Ultimately, spending money on the best players (whether they are currently on your roster or not), to win is buying a ballclub.<br />
<br />
A friend of mine likes to argue that the Yankees HAVE the money, therefore he has no problem with them USING the money. While that may be a fair enough assessment (ignoring of course the reality that a good deal of that money comes from selling different color Yankee hats to gang members as symbols of allegiance -- not to mention people who buy a Yankee hat because P. Diddy wears one and they don't give a rip about baseball), it misses the fact that baseball is hurt in the competitive market of Entertainment.<br />
<br />
Baseball competition in a financial sense is not just the Yankees vs. the Red Sox and the Reds vs. the Marlins. It's Major League Baseball (MLB) competing for the entertainment dollar of Americans. They compete at different times with the National Basketball Association (NBA), the National Football League (NFL), the National Hockey League (NHL) and other less popular (in America) professional sports like soccer and lacrosse. MLB also is in competition with movies, live theater, Six Flags and Disney World and other amusement parks, Chuck E. Cheese, concerts, and so many other choices that Americans make on where to spend their entertainment dollars.<br />
<br />
I think part of the reason the NFL is so popular (among other reasons) is the fact that no matter how poorly your team played last year, the parity due to the salary cap means that same team could win the Super Bowl this year. In MLB it takes a long time for a team to build up a solid enough team to compete with the financial powerhouses...and it lasts for one or two years before those developed players are lost to free agency since teams like the Tampa Rays can't afford to spend to keep their players like the Yankees can. The lack of parity means that fans in Tampa often will choose to spend their money on tickets to see the Buccaneers in stead of the Rays because the Bucs could become a winning team THIS YEAR. The Yankees overspending hurts the rest of baseball.<br />
<br />
Which brings us to the final line that Yankee Fans will bring up once confronted with the above statements: "You're just jealous!" Actually, no. No I am not jealous. It turns out that expecting a championship every year and not getting it and thus being disappointed at not winning is in fact NOT as enjoyable as winning one every couple of decades or so, because the specialness is ruined.<br />
<br />
Let me give you an example. My grandmother makes, by far, the World's most delicious lasagna. I have tried many other people's attempts at that dish and Gram's is THE BEST. She has offered to give me the recipe. I've declined. Why, you may ask? Because I want enjoying her lasagna to be a special experience.<br />
<br />
I feel the same way about my teams winning championships. In 2003 the Syracuse Orangemen won the NCAA Basketball National Championship. It was one of the top ten best days of my life. I spent fourteen years of my life loving that team and following it passionately. Those fourteen years, including one heartbreaking NCAA Finals loss in 1996, all lead up to winning that title in 2003. Since then, I've seen the Orange succeed to various degrees including winning the Big East Conference twice and going to the Final Four this past season. Every year, the farther we get the greater my hope arises, but no win. They are an elite team, and it is likely they will win the title again...and that day it will again be very, very special. To date, I've waited ten years to see a second title.<br />
<br />
Championships are meant to be special and certainly not annually expected. Not only does the specialness of winning become depleted by constantly winning, it makes the fans of said team huge jerks about it.<br />
<br />
With your average Yankee fan, your best bet is to either a) walk away or b) distract them somehow. Throwing a tennis ball often works, as the Yankee fan will immediately go to retrieve it...jogging back sputtering about 27 Championships. Also showing them some sort of a shiny object helps. Ultimately, if you choose to have Yankee fans in your life, I suppose it's your own fault that you have to deal with them.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>This post is designed to be humorous and not to be taken seriously AT ALL. If you are a Yankee fan, I sincerely hope you recognize the fun meant in this post. If you do not, you may want to reconsider how seriously you take your sports fandom. No Yankee fans or Yankee players were harmed in the writing of this post.</i></span>Christopher Bastedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09206117404977772937noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6729098750300763011.post-86096935082013047992013-05-30T10:37:00.001-04:002013-05-30T10:37:54.498-04:00Liberal Rhetoric 101: Double Standards<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TS0aG45e1qE/UYE_vAq4JUI/AAAAAAAAAx4/f-FAv6PvKYw/s1600/947237_560429043988654_1797337761_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="332" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TS0aG45e1qE/UYE_vAq4JUI/AAAAAAAAAx4/f-FAv6PvKYw/s400/947237_560429043988654_1797337761_n.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
You can't talk about your faith in Jesus Christ in public, but you can definitely tell everyone about your private sex life and be celebrated for it. <br />
<br />
You can't tell a woman that it's wrong for her to destroy her unborn child in the womb, but it's perfectly fine to tell people they shouldn't smoke tobacco, drink sugary beverages, and eat trans-fats (which only hurts themselves). <br />
<br />
Don't you dare criticize someone's religious faith...unless they're Christians or Jews. Then go for it!<br />
<br />
When there is a slow response by FEMA to Hurricane Katrina, it's totally George W. Bush's fault! When there's a slow response by FEMA to Hurricane Sandy, you can't blame Barack Obama!<br />
<br />
Bill Clinton commits perjury but it's just fine because he lied about sex (under oath). Newt Gingrich has an extramarital affair but doesn't lie about it under oath, and he has to resign.<br />
<br />
The 1% are evil! (Except for Steve Jobs, Michael Moore, Alec Baldwin, Matt Damon...) <br />
<br />
Celebrate Diversity! (Except for conservatism, Christianity, or white people in general.)<br />
<br />
There are so many examples of liberal double standards, spoken by politicians and college professors, repeated by Drive-By Media, regurgitated by liberals everywhere. Oh, there's always some excuse...often accusing conservatives of being the hypocrite to deflect their own hypocrisy. <br />
<br />
Ultimately, the answer is to reject the premise that "one hypocrite in a camp means you can't say a word, even if you're not the hypocrite." Perhaps Newt Gingrich should have had to resign...but so should have Bill Clinton (especially since he committed a crime -- perjury -- and Gingrich was only morally wrong in his actions). If you don't want to hear people talk about their sexual orientation in public, don't complain when Tim Tebow praises the name of Jesus Christ. Either all religions are fair game for criticism or none are. It's that simple.<br />
<br />
As always, the answer is to break down the ridiculousness of the premise and force your liberal opponent to debate with one standard. When that is required, few liberals can even hang in the debate.Christopher Bastedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09206117404977772937noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6729098750300763011.post-29330078416251993812013-05-28T09:23:00.001-04:002013-05-28T09:23:35.198-04:00Twitter Files: The Definition of Socialism<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
It seems one of Biblical Conservatism's <a href="http://biblicalconservatism.blogspot.com/2013/05/no-jeff-jesus-was-not-socialist.html">recent posts</a> has sprung an interesting series of responses on Twitter. Ultimately, the problem is that too many liberals don't actually KNOW the definition of Socialism!<br />
<br />
For the record, Wikipedia definines socialism as follows:<br />
<br />
<i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism"><b>Socialism</b></a> is an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_system" title="Economic system">economic system</a> characterised by <a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_ownership" title="Social ownership">social ownership</a> of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production" title="Means of production">means of production</a> and co-operative management of the economy.</i><br />
<br />
Seems pretty clear, doesn't it? Socialism<i> </i>is specifically an economic system, and in our modern society it colloquially means a system of government. Which brings us to our mystery tweeter, who will be referred to here as Boo-Boo Bear (Boo-Boo's real name and handle have been whited out):<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-It4-T70Gi3c/UYvLRLpeK8I/AAAAAAAAAys/4YEQHS8PABU/s1600/Boo+Boo+Tweets.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-It4-T70Gi3c/UYvLRLpeK8I/AAAAAAAAAys/4YEQHS8PABU/s400/Boo+Boo+Tweets.JPG" width="232" /></a></div>
<br />
So much is wrong with what Boo-Boo had to say. For one, he never actually backed up my thesis in the original argument which stated specifically that JESUS was not a Socialist, but rather that Christ's actions were privately charitable by distributing both miraculous which were His to give and tangible gifts that were donated to Him also therefore His to give.<br />
<br />
As far as the Church at Antioch, I believe Boo-Boo is missing out on the important theological message of Acts 2:44-45 and is instead reworking it into a political theory. First, the text of the passage:<br />
<br />
<div class="passage version-NKJV result-text-style-normal text-html ">
<i><span class="text Acts-2-44" id="en-NKJV-26994"><sup class="versenum">44 </sup>Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, </span> <span class="text Acts-2-45" id="en-NKJV-26995"><sup class="versenum">45 </sup>and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need. - <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+2%3A44-45&version=NKJV">Acts 2:44-45 (NKJV)</a></span></i><br />
<br />
<span class="text Acts-2-45" id="en-NKJV-26995">Two major issues with relating Acts 2:44-45 with Socialism. One, and this is perhaps the most important, the believers in Antioch were not FORCED to share their goods with each other. There was no government authority requiring it of them. It was 100% Voluntary. </span><br />
<br />
<span class="text Acts-2-45" id="en-NKJV-26995">Secondly, (now we will enter not into the realm of fact but the realm of </span><span class="text Acts-2-45" id="en-NKJV-26995">theological theory) I believe the early church was not applying some form of pre-Marx Marxism, but a different, very familiar concept: <i>family</i>. </span><br />
<span class="text Acts-2-45" id="en-NKJV-26995"><br /></span>
<span class="text Acts-2-45" id="en-NKJV-26995">Throughout the New Testament, Christians referred to themselves as "brethren" and "brothers." I believe the actions of the Church in Antioch was acting as a family, caring for each other and sharing their possessions. </span><br />
<br />
<span class="text Acts-2-45" id="en-NKJV-26995">Those who have read my blog have heard me mention my good friend and fellow blogger <a href="http://jcfreak73.blogspot.com/">the JC_Freak</a>. We attend church together and lead a Bible Study together. He and his wife are two of my dearest friends. I refer to his son as my nephew. If the Lord someday blesses me with children, they will call him and his wife Aunt and Uncle. In every way but genetics, he is my brother. I consider him, his wife, and his son my family in precisely the same way I consider my parents and two sisters family. The only thing missing is a genetic relationship.</span><br />
<span class="text Acts-2-45" id="en-NKJV-26995"><br /></span>
<span class="text Acts-2-45" id="en-NKJV-26995">Much like the Church at Antioch, we often share possessions. For example he still has my copy of "Moneyball" which he borrowed. (Dude, I want that back.) When his car needs serviced, he often hangs out at my apartment, even if I'm not at home, because it's close to the garage. When my car was in the shop in October, he and his wife loaned me one of their cars for a couple days. We've shared countless meals together and have supported each other through the most difficult times in our lives.</span><br />
<span class="text Acts-2-45" id="en-NKJV-26995"><br /></span>
<span class="text Acts-2-45" id="en-NKJV-26995">This is the model of the Christian church that Antioch modeled. Not socialism. FAMILY. <br /><br />The difference, in a nutshell is simple: Treating people like family is a choice. Socialism is a government requirement. No, Boo-Boo, Jesus did not promote Socialism. Jesus promoted Christians treating each other as FAMILY.</span><br />
<span class="text Acts-2-45" id="en-NKJV-26995"></span></div>
Christopher Bastedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09206117404977772937noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6729098750300763011.post-72444748555877454472013-05-23T12:39:00.001-04:002013-05-23T12:39:52.068-04:00Liberal Rhetoric 101: The False Premise"I would never get an abortion myself, but a woman's body is her own business."<br />
<br />
This is the classic, most prevalent liberal false premise. It is used to tell conservatives they don't have a right to argue against abortion, because it's essentially none of their business. They can feel free to not have an abortion themselves, of course, but they can't tell others what they can't do because of privacy, or something.<br />
<br />
Don't get me wrong...privacy is important. People have the right to do pretty much any LEGAL thing in their own homes. If you want to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, participate in any form of consensual activity between adults in your own home, as long as it does not harm another human being, I do not have the Constitutional right to stop you.<br />
<br />
That being said, abortion does not fall under that criteria of "does not harm another human being." It is doing the highest form of harm to another human being...destroying him or her. Cliches about "a woman's body" are a false premise...it's actually NOT her body. It's that baby's body!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-NAg6D2jbjyE/UVCF-CIiQaI/AAAAAAAAAwA/RNX5p9aKbD0/s1600/New+Image.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-NAg6D2jbjyE/UVCF-CIiQaI/AAAAAAAAAwA/RNX5p9aKbD0/s320/New+Image.PNG" width="260" /> </a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Let's take the "privacy" premise to it's next logical conclusion: if it's a matter of "privacy" to allow a woman to destroy her unborn child in the womb, it logically would also be a matter of "privacy" to allow a woman to destroy her BORN child. What's the difference? </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Liberals will tell you that the unborn child is unable to survive without the mother, and this is true. You know who else is unable to survive without his parents? My two year-old nephew. He can't find himself, dress himself, change his own diaper, protect himself. Without his parents to care for him he would not survive. So if we applied the same logic that defends abortion, it'd be a matter of privacy if someone murdered him. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
"OF COURSE NOT!" I hear you shout at your screen, "HE'S A LIVING, BREATHING HUMAN BEING!" You're right, he is a living, breathing human being, and if I anyone attempted to do my nephew harm you better believe I would move heaven and earth to stop them...and if they succeeded may God have mercy on their soul.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Now for my real question: Why is it different if the child is in the womb? My answer is that it is not. I can hear liberals responding (probably "Jeff") that that I can't tell a woman what to do with her body, or privacy, or the Supreme Court, or some other such deflection to avoid discussing the real question: IS THAT BABY A HUMAN BEING. If it is a person (which I argue that it is indeed a person) then you cannot destroy it for your own convienence. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Liberals cannot debate this issue on a true premise. The only true premise to debate abortion on is this: Is that unborn child a person. If it is a person, then, like all people, it is endowed by his or her creator with certain unalienable rights, among those are <b>LIFE, </b>liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is the real question. If it isn't human, it's okay to destroy it, if it is, then it is a living, breathing human being then it is absolutely, unequivocally not okay to destroy it -- any more than it would be okay to destroy a living breathing two year-old human being -- with the sole exception being if the mother's life is in danger and it becomes necessary to save the more viable life (which in most cases would be the mother). </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
If you want to argue that the unborn child is not a person based on medical and/or scientific fact, be my guest. I'll have that discussion. Few liberals will. Liberals would rather deflect the reality on the false premise of "privacy" or "a woman's body is her own business" or perhaps on the back of what "the Supreme Court says." The bottom line, as demonstrated by the Kermit Gosnell trial, is a question of the humanity of that child. Any other premise of this debate is a false premise.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Liberals would love to debate this issue on any other subject. They won't debate it on the premise of protection of human life. It completely shuts down the rest of their arguments.</div>
<br />Christopher Bastedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09206117404977772937noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6729098750300763011.post-88199466336103381462013-05-21T12:33:00.002-04:002013-05-21T12:33:51.475-04:00Liberal Rhetoric 101: Teachers Should Earn More!<br />
Liberals and "moderates" especially love to give lip-service to the idea of cutting spending, but never want to give up anything they deem REALLY, SUPER-DUPER IMPORTANT. Because if you can name something really, super-duper important, then the money grows on trees to pay for it. School spending is one of the most prevalent examples.<br />
<br />
My sister is a middle school Biology teacher. She has bought into the idea that the problem with schools failing is that we're just not spending enough money. If we just threw enough money at the problem, it would go away! Apparently if every student had an iPad and every classroom had a SMART Board, such problems as poor teachers with tenure, lack of parental involvement, and students who don't know how to read would just magically disappear.<br />
<br />
Of course, they wouldn't disappear. Good teachers can teach with equal success with a chalk board and a 15 year-old textbook, especially in areas like History and English, where the material simply doesn't change that much. <i>Romeo and Juliet</i> hasn't changed since 1998. Neither have the events of the American Revolution. The Battle of Bunker Hill was still the first battle.<br />
<br />
Similar to that is the attitude that "teachers don't make enough" based on the intangible "value to society." This mentality suggests that we should pay teachers like we pay business executives, because they're "more valuable to society." Except...<br />
<br />
Except companies like Apple, Inc had nearly $156 Billion in gross revenue last year. They sell products that people want or need at a high market value. They have over $156 Billion coming in annually, making it possible for them to compete to hire the best and brightest in our country by offering them high salaries. <br />
<br />
Public schools, not to put too fine a point on it, bring in $0 in gross revenue each year. (Yes, they're nonprofit organizations. Just bear with me.) The employers of public schools are taxpayers. The Median Income of American Taxpayers is just over $32,000 a year. The median teacher's salary is right around $52,000 a year. That means the average teacher earns more than his or her (average) employer, the taxpayer!<br />
<br />
Find a private employee who makes more than his or her employer in total compensation? It doesn't exist in the Real World. The idea that teachers should make more than a professional athlete or a movie star misses the reality of the latter two occupations: The athlete and movie star earn MILLIONS OF DOLLARS for their employer and those employers both have millions and earn millions more from that person's work.<br />
<br />
While a teacher's work may indeed have greater societal value in an abstract way, that does not change the reality that the employers of teachers (again, taxpayers) do not have the funds to pay based on that abstract societal value, while the employers of athletes and movie stars do. Furthermore, the employers of athletes and movie stars will get immediate, real world returns on their investment that will in fact exceed the initial investment. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, that means athletes and movie stars make lots and lots of money for the people who own teams and make movies.)<br />
<br />
Teachers don't directly make money for their employers (taxpayers) so their compensation will necessarily be based on what their employers (taxpayers) can AFFORD to pay them. Considering only 7 states (5 of which are controlled by Republicans in both Governorship and Legislature for the record and the other 2 only have mixed control) do not have a budget deficit, clearly the money DOESN'T EXIST to pay more. <br />
<br />
At the end of the day, it's not how much money an employee "should" make, it's how much their employees CAN pay. No amount of calling teachers really, super-duper important will make that money appear. Christopher Bastedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09206117404977772937noreply@blogger.com0