Controversy @ MindSay

*sigh*

Being a Christian does not mean I'm better than you. Ever.

Means I acknowledged that I wasn't good enough.

Being a Christian does not mean I'm against legalizing abortion.

I'm opposed to the concept of abortion, sure. I think most people are.

But I do think that people are going to be irresponsible.

And I do think that women get pregnant even if sex wasn't their choice.

And I think that if abortion isn't legalized somewhere, people who are desperate will find a method that isn't legal.

And I'm pretty sure that if abortion is illegal, you can't have standards set for abortion clinics. I'm very definite about this one - you're working with a particularly sensitive area of someone's anatomy, and there's a lot that can go wrong. This needs to be made safe, or at least, a lot safer, and we can't do that if the entire concept is outlawed.

But, I also think Obama's wrong, and I honestly think that this issue (along with the concept of gay marriage) is one that should be decided at the state level. Not, definitely not at the federal level.

Being a Christian doesn't mean that I think that a particular candidate is the one who should be in power, simply because he's also a Christian.

The job of our leaders is to be just, to be fair, to keep the promises they've made, to always work for the good of their people.

One of the greatest points of our nation's creation was that it was not designed as a safe haven for Christians and for people who follow the God of the Bible, but instead was intended to be a place of religious freedom. Our Constitutional right is, for every American citizen, to believe what we choose to believe. Our officials have the job of upholding that freedom.

Being a Christian doesn't mean I have a bone to pick with homosexuality.

I am of the rather matter-of-fact opinion that God made some people gay.

I'll acknowledge that it's a minority, but where I went to school, being brunette made me the minority. Choosing numbers as a basis for morality is a mite silly, dontcha think?

I honestly think that if you can't serve God with your orientation, then neither can I with mine.

I do think the Bible's pretty clear on promiscuity, that your sexuality is a gift from God with a purpose in mind, and a few other thoughts on that*. I think that abusing this particular gift is against God's plan, but I don't think it matters what your orientation is.

On a somewhat unrelated note, I don't think my gay friends are at all more promiscuous than my straight friends. I do, however, think they're more vocal, but that might just be the ones I hang out with.

Being a Christian doesn't mean I dislike atheists, pagans, agnostics, muslims, puppies, the Schwann man, zebras, cacti, strawberry push-ups, calamari, or daisies.

If I dislike you, it's because you annoy me. It's got nothing to do with your beliefs. :P

Sorry. Needed the silly note. Seriously, Christ came and changed everything. We're not called to wipe out, attack, or deliberately make life harder for people who don't believe in him. We've got two missions: love, and serve.

We are told to 'make disciples'. Okay, yes. This is true. But, among my friendly (and aggressively friendly) Bible-thumpers, has anyone encountered the phrase, "People will never care how much you know, until they know how much you care?"

Honestly, some of the churches I've encountered seem far more concerned with filling a quota than offering a hand, or even knowing a person. We have the ability to help, what are we doing? We're in a fallen world, and our record has been trashed by people believing more than caring. I don't care if you're not the one who trashed it - if someone else littered in your park, you would still pick it up.

Being a Christian doesn't mean it's my job to run your life.

For the record, my sisters are pretty good about bringing me up on when I'm getting overbearing in their lives. I can get a little hurt and defensive about this at times, but I do appreciate this. I can have the opinion that some particular pursuit is destructive (say, heroin), but at some point I'm pretty sure I remember one of the New Testament writers telling us that it's a bit ridiculous to expect someone who doesn't follow God...to follow God's law.

The analogy I've used would be that if my British friend came over to the States and started getting visibly annoyed with me because I break some of England's laws. Yes, at one point, we were under England - but we declared ourselves separate some time ago. If I elected to move to England and somehow gain citizenship, then it would be appropriate for my Brit friend to be annoyed with me for breaking English law, and call my attention to it.

Being a Christian doesn't mean I'm a vegetarian.

'nuff said.


A number of people, including a bunch of the people I know, have started using the term "Christ-follower" to describe themselves. I like it. It's a reminder of what we're supposed to be, that this particular term has a purpose, beyond going to church or, as BK says, "checking the box". But I think it's also us wanting to get away from what Christians have done in the past. Because we've done some horrible things to people and to humanity. Sometimes trying to convince everyone to follow God. Sometimes trying to use God for our own purposes.

We've done some good things, too. Schools, a fair amount of the early roots of medicine, taking down music so that it could be read again later, all things that the church did.

We don't want you to think that we're lukewarm in our faith, just checking the box. We don't want you to think that we're going to force you to convert the minute you let your guard down. We want you to see the way we live, and see Christ, and understand this is who we follow.

But, oh, we screw up. I know how I want to live, and how I want to carry on my relationships, and I'm still so, so far below the standard I desire, the image I want to project. And so I have to ask your forgiveness.

I seriously considered taking on the name of "Christ-follower". But, for me, that's not right. Because I'm still not ready to give up on saving the name of "Christian". And, yeah, there's been a tremendous wreck through history of what's been done under that name. And, yeah, I recognize that I'm just one person, with a pretty spotty record, lacking a degree in Bible study, missions, theology, or anything else that would indicate I've spent some pretty college credits on learning about this.

 

So, I'm a Christian.

 

That means that I believe in Christ. Christian, by definition, "Little Christ." I believe he's the son of God, and to make this paragraph a lot shorter, I believe in the Bible. I do believe that there are parts of the Bible we have today that were not in the originals, or that were difficult to translate from Hebrew to English, but I don't believe that those parts cancel out the great truth of God's love, what he said we were worth, our sin, or what he did for us.

 

That means that I want God as the first love in my life. First love, greatest leader, and my foundation. Means that I spend time getting to know the Bible because otherwise I think it's very easy to get led off track by well-meaning teachers. Means that my goal is to live a life that makes God look good. I mess up. A lot. I haven't given up yet.

 

This isn't supposed to be a theological discussion. This is just...I'm tired of what we act like, and what people think we are, and I wish I had a way to fix it all. This is some stuff I've been thinking about for a little while, and it needed to be said. I suppose, to conclude, this is what I believe.

I finally heard back from that guy with the literary magazine (see Chapter 59) and he is still going to publish the piece about me. So, since that's pretty good news for me, I figured I'd focus today's post on the woes of a different author.  I'm an equal opportunity pessimist.  I say why focus on the good when you can harp eternally on the bad?

Let's dive right in: has everyone heard of poor Sherry Jones and her (as yet unpublished) book The Jewel of Medina?

The novel is about the young (as in statutory rape young) bride of the prophet Muhammad, who some may remember from such controversies as the Danish cartoons, which depicted Muslim masses as mindlessly violence-prone, which led Muslim masses to act mindlessly violence-prone. You may also remember him as the founder of one of the largest (and of late, most misunderstood) religions in the world.

Well, the book's [former] publisher, Random House, sent the book to an assistant history professor in Texas, asking for a blurb for the book's jacket, and the professor requested her name not be associated in any way with the work.  This because she found its history and research to be sorely lacking.  As she said in an interview with the Chronicle of Higher Education, "[Jones] distorted the past to sell a book, and I didn't want to be part of this distortion of Islamic sacred history."

Seems reasonable, right?  She is one person, and she doesn't want to be associated with the book, so she's not going to offer a blurb. What's wrong with that?

Well, Random House then sent the book to other historians and received much of the same response.  And has since canceled publication, citing, "publication of this book might be offensive to some in the Muslim community" and "could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment."

Now, I may think that second part is a bit racist, but I can't argue with their business decision.  Random House is looking out for its best interest.  Apparently others view things differently, however, as some people are claiming the violation of 1st Amendment rights.

Wow, I couldn't disagree more.  Whose rights have been violated?  Jones is still allowed to publish the work.  She can find another publisher (and is in fact actively seeking one) or she can self-publish it, or even turn it into an e-book and stick it up on the Web.  That may not get her as much money as she may have hoped to receive, but it will get her words read by others. Which means that it will uphold her right to free speech.

But nowhere in the 1st Amendment does it say that book publishers have to publish a book that they believe will be a poor business move.  Let's face it -- historians discredited the book.  I don't know how many historians saw it, or just what they said about it, but they've clearly had a negative reaction to it.  So, Random House doesn't think it has a hit on its hands.  And to the contrary, it could cause the type of controversy they don't want (as opposed to the kind Dan Brown got, which I'm sure they'd love).

Personally (since this is my blog and you've chosen to read my egotistical take on matters I know little about), I think the whole prophet portrayal thing is silly.  The whole controversy over the Danish cartoons (and a subsequent brilliant commentary by the television show South Park) stems from the idea that you can't depict an image of said prophet, even though, as far as I am aware, that is never mentioned in the Qur'an, and in fact wealthy Muslims used to show off their status with elaborate statues of the man.  Plus, there was the whole fact that the people who depicted the prophet in those cartoons weren't followers of the religion and wouldn't be held to that rule even if such a rule existed. 

But this is different. First, it's not about the prophet himself, and second, no one as of yet has protested.  Instead, Random House is protecting its best interest -- not this woman, but its own company and reputation -- and it has every right and responsibility to do that.  Radio host Don Imus was within his rights to mock some nappy-headed hoes, but that doesn't mean his radio station, when faced with nervous sponsors threatening to leave and take their advertising dollars with them, was obligated to keep the shedded snakeskin-faced cowboy employed. 

What I think is craziest about the whole thing is not that people think Random House should publish this book even if the company doesn't want to (where was this active crowd when I was getting rejected by agents?) but how fast the story has gotten blown out of proportion.  The historian who first rejected the blurb request is now receiving, as she puts it, about three angry e-mail messages per hour of people suggesting she is aiding terrorism and recommending that she be fired.  Seriously?  So should she have just blindly approved the book and lied in her glowing blurb regarding it?  Just because it has something to do with Islam?  Otherwise she's no better than a terrorist?  Isn't she technically on the side of justice, valiently soldering on in this War on Terror by ensuring that all Islamic-based writings, which are of course inherently in support of the evil-doers threatening our free-wheeling way of life, get squashed before they can serve as steroids for those Kamikaze bastards? 

But the craziness doesn't end there.  The book's author is now facing rumors that her story is nothing more than soft-core pornography.  Huh?  How in the bloody blazes did that happen?  OH, I see the problem now: Muslim sympathizers like the history professor are coming between America and its shared love of reading and not-quite-explicate sex.  Now I get it.   

But even better than her book's de-evolution from a work of historical fiction to a script for a late-night Cinemax movie is her reaction to these reactions: "Isn't the university supposed to support the dissemination and free exchange of ideas?"  Hey, don't start blaming the university now, which didn't cause any of this and would have no control over it anyway.  That's like blaming a glass for spilling liquid after you dropped it on the floor.  It's not there fault scholars are accusing your book of possessing historical inaccuracies, and it's not their fault that you called the professor "irresponsible" for not supporting your book that scholars are accusing of possessing historical innaccuracies. 

It's as that professor said, seemingly foreshadowing her own fate: "You can't fool with sacred history and not expect there will be consequences."

Ah, the cutthroat world of book publishing.  Remind me again why I want to work in it?   

Perhaps this can shed some more light on the controversy. Is it really hate speech?

 

Down Wright Hateful?

 

 

I'm just sayin'... 

I don't know if I would ever take it...there has been so much controversy surrounding drugs like Hoodia. I wonder what the long term effects will do to one's body. How much of it can you take before you feel sick?

Seeing as how Hoodia is made from cactus, it can't be that bad, right? I mean, all natural things have a natural purpose in this world. Stifling hunger seems like a good idea. I can do the same thing with a cup of coffee, decaf even. It would even be a good thing if I was in the dessert lost and had to eat it to make sure I survived and didn't feel like I was dying of hunger.

Does anyone else feel that the fight between Rosie and Trump is a bit reminiscent of junior high school? Maybe we should put them in a gym and see if a rousing dodge ball match can settle the dispute. But given a second thought, the idea of Ro and Do in gym shorts is nothing short of repulsive. Can that idea!

First of all, can we at least admit that Miss USA is a BEAUTY PAGEANT? Enough of this "scholarship" and "representative" nonsense. I've been the recipient of a few scholarships in my time, and none of them involved a swimsuit competition. And let's face it, Miss USA isn't representative of me or anyone I know. She's no more special than a pretty face and a sweet bikini briefly flashing across the camera during an MTV Spring Break special. If you want to participate in a contest that judges you primarily on your outward appearance, be my guest. But at least have the cajones to call it what it is. BEAUTY PAGEANT.

Secondly, and correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't each Miss USA contestant required to sign a contract outlining what's expected of her should she win? It would be interesting to read that contract and discover exactly what's expected of these young women. I'd lay money that "Girls Gone Wild" behavior isn't encouraged.

Personally I don't give a rat what she does. As previously mentioned, I don't consider her representative of myself or my peers, and her behavior has no direct impact on my own life. However, I can say with a fair amount of certainty that if I sign a contract, and I break the terms of said contract, I'm probably not going to get excused by Donald Trump (or anyone else) and given a second chance. More likely, I'd be firmly reminded of the terms of the contract, and then receive an appropriate penalty. What did Miss USA receive? Thirty days in the hole and a creepy hug from the lecherous Trump. (Story continued below picture...)



For those who are defending her with the excuse that "she's not the only person" to ever engage in such activities, let me ask you this: Should we stop punishing criminals since they aren't alone in their lawlessness? Her crimes weren't violent, but she still broke the law by engaging in underage drinking. And we have yet to hear official results on any drug tests she may be subject to.

And lastly, a few words for Mr. Trump. We all know Rosie is outspoken, and we've known it for a long time. I don't always agree with her, but she has just as much right to speak her mind as the rest of us do. You've always been skilled at making  yourself look like an ass, but this time we can see that you not only look like one, but you actually are one. Your name-calling, frivolously litigious, homophobic, threatening, ridiculously juvenile comments are akin to the playground intimidator we all knew in 4th grade. (And you think she's the bully? Pot. Kettle. Black.) If you hadn't counter-protested so much, this would've been on the back burner by now. Maybe Rosie was correct in her assumption that this was a publicity stunt. You're certainly doing nothing to refute that allegation. In fact, I'd venture to say that you're only strengthening the case against you.

Here's a bit of friendly advice. Take a Valium, have a shot of Crown Royal, do some yoga, whatever it takes to loosen up. You're taking this WAAAAAY too seriously. Oh yeah, and lay off the spray-on tanner. Trust me, it's not working for you.