Thursday, May 28, 2009

FOX TV

I watched the movie accompanying the last episode of Prison Break last night. Prison Break like many of the shows that Fox creates is ending far before I'm ready. I don't understand why Fox kills all of their good shows. It was time for Prison Break to end but I can't believe Terminator: The Sarah Conner Cronicals was taken off the air. In a glimmer of hope, I heard SciFi might be picking the show up but I'm not crossing my fingers. Out of all of the stations out there, its interesting that I only watch two of them. My shows are as follows:

FOX - 24
FOX - Prison Break
FOX - Terminator: the Sarah Conner Cronicals
NBC - Chuck
NBC - Heroes
NBC - The Office

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Definitions

I was listening to the radio tonight and I heard some pretty good advice. They were speaking on the economic downturn and how we should react. One good point they made is to simplify our standard of living so we are ready for hard times but also so we are ready to help others in need. Marcie and I have talked a lot about paying off car and school debt quickly but also knocking a good portion of the house payment out. Also, they said to rejoice in the Lord and again rejoice. It would be hard not to be materialistic in America today so this is an opportunity to put God first and learn to depend on Him.

Here are a few definitions they shared that I thought were pretty good.

  • Faith is refusal to panic.
  • Humility isn't thinking less of yourself. Humility is thinking of yourself less.
I really liked the faith one since that really calls for change. When things are going right, its easy to say you have faith. It is only when things are in crisis mode that we can really see our faith and only then can others around us know it is there.

Celebrity Jeopardy

Thursday, May 14, 2009

BSF next year

Sam had Eric send the N Raleigh BSF a note asking to transfer me there. Please pray that that will go through if that is where God wants me to be next year.

My thoughts on Miss California

Did it cost her the win?
Based on the online rant afterwards, I can not assume all the judges were unbiased therefore at least one of the judges would have given her unfairly low marks based on her response. I don't know if she would have won but I can say that after giving her opinion, that chance was removed.

Should she have kept her crown?
My simple answer is no. The rule states that she is not allowed to be in photos nude or partially nude unless approved by the pageant before hand. Unlike Miss Rode Island, her photos were not approved before hand thus there was a breach in the contract that she signed. Technically she should have lost the crown however it is the judges right to allow her to retain the crown.

Had she not made the gay comment, would she have kept it?
Probably so. Miss America seems willing to forgive infractions as long as the contestant is both repentant and willing to change.

Did Trump have the option of taking it away from her politically?
Not really. It is already assumed that she was persecuted for her religious belief therefore if she not only lost her chance to win because of her belief but also was stripped of her crown, you are looking at a lawsuit at worst case and at best case, you would see a boycott of the pageant by most all of the major religious groups.

Did Perez wonder if he would be invited back?
No, since Trump couldn't take her crown away, he also is forced to invite Perez back even though his online rant seriously tarnished the reputation of the judges of the pageant.

Is she a Christian?
I can not say one way or another. Modesty are Christian attributes I would hope growing Christian women would strive for. Her photos and choice to get a boob job before strutting in her bikini on stage were not modest but they were 2 years prior (photos were at least). God can do a lot in two years so who knows where she is now. She had two options on stage.
Option 1: say man and woman and lose the pageant
Option 2: say gay marriage is OK and loose her reputation with her family, friends, and faith.

What are my thoughts on gay marriage?
I believe many of the problems in America are a direct result of decline in the core family unit. Through out history, strong family units have done nothing but benefit society. As the institution of marriage becomes more and more of a joke, we've seen problems compounded. In strait relationships, you're looking at a 50/50 chance of the marriage lasting often leaving kids with out a role model in their lives. Mothers become single mothers working overtime to provide for their family's basic needs. She simply does not have time to instill the values she's learned over time now is she able to watch her kids and discipline them as needed. What we lack is strong male leadership in the home. Guys have been told they need to stop being oppressive by being leaders and we're listening. You see more "Peter Pan men" now then ever before. We desire fun with no consequence in our late twenties and even into our thirties. Yes I believe marriage as defined in the Bible as between a man and a woman is the right way but I don't think that will fix the already rampant decline in the family unit. That is simply one more step away from an already distant definition.
Too late to fix the nation? Maybe
Too late to help the couples in our church? Certainly not!

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

Religious hate speech called out... sort of

Here is a clear example of "hate speech" in the class room as described by many. The only difference here is that it isn't Miss California saying marriage should be between a man and woman. Had those 20 comments been said about the Muslim religion or about the homosexual lifestyle, all 20 would be deemed wrong.

On the bright side, this case can be used in defense of a preacher who is being sued for expository preaching of God's word on controversial topics. Pastor Davey believes we're getting close to the day when every preacher who believes the Bible is 100% fact will spend at least some time in jail through out his career. Hopefully this will prolong that day.

You can find the original news story HERE but I also copied it below.

SANTA ANA, Calif. — A federal judge ruled that a public high school history teacher violated the First Amendment when he called creationism "superstitious nonsense" during a classroom lecture.

U.S. District Judge James Selna issued the ruling Friday after a 16-month legal battle between student Chad Farnan and his former teacher, James Corbett.

Farnan sued in U.S. District Court in 2007, alleging that Corbett violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment by making repeated comments in class that were hostile to Christian beliefs.

The lawsuit cited more than 20 statements made by Corbett during one day of class, all of which were recorded by Farnan, to support allegations of a broader teaching method that "favors irreligion over religion" and made Christian students feel uncomfortable.

During the course of the litigation, the judge found that most of the statements cited in the court papers did not violate the First Amendment because they did not refer directly to religion or were appropriate in the context of the classroom lecture.

But Selna ruled Friday that one comment, where Corbett referred to creationism as "religious, superstitious nonsense," did violate Farnan's constitutional rights.

Farnan is not interested in monetary damages, said his attorney, Jennifer Monk of the Murrieta-based Christian legal group Advocates for Faith & Freedom.

Instead, he plans to ask the court to prohibit Corbett from making similar comments in the future. Farnan's family would also like to see the school district offer teacher training and monitor Corbett's classroom for future violations, Monk said.

There are no plans to appeal the judge's rulings on the other statements listed in the litigation, she said.

"They lost, he violated the establishment clause," she told The Associated Press in a phone interview. "From our perspective, whether he violated it with one statement or with 19 statements is irrelevant."

In making his decision, Selna wrote that he tried to balance Farnan's and Corbett's rights.

"The court's ruling today reflects the constitutionally permissible need for expansive discussion even if a given topic may be offensive to a particular religion," the judge wrote.

"The decision also reflects that there are boundaries. ... The ruling today protects Farnan, but also protects teachers like Corbett in carrying out their teaching duties."

Corbett, a 20-year teaching veteran, remains at Capistrano Valley High School.

Farnan is now a junior at the school, but quit Corbett's Advanced Placement European history class after his teacher made the comments.

The establishment clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from making any law establishing religion. The clause has been interpreted by U.S. courts to also prohibit government employees from displaying religious hostility.

Selna said that although Corbett was only found to have violated the establishment clause in a single instance, he could not excuse or overlook the behavior.

In a ruling last month, the judge dismissed all but two of the statements Farnan complained about, including Corbett's comment that "when you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth."

Also dismissed in April were comments such as, "Conservatives don't want women to avoid pregnancies — that's interfering with God's work" and "When you pray for divine intervention, you're hoping that the spaghetti monster will help you get what you want."

On Friday, Selna also dismissed one of the two remaining statements, saying that Corbett may have been attempting to quote Mark Twain when he said religion was "invented when the first con man met the first fool."

Corbett has declined to comment throughout the litigation. His attorney, Dan Spradlin, did not immediately return a message left Monday by The Associated Press.

Spradlin has said, however, that Corbett made the remark about creationism during a classroom discussion about a 1993 case in which a former Capistrano Valley High science teacher sued the school district because it required instruction in evolution.

Spradlin has said Corbett was simply expressing his own opinion that the former teacher shouldn't have presented his religious views to students.

Farnan's family released a statement Friday calling the judge's ruling a vindication of the teen's constitutional rights.

The Capistrano Unified School District, which paid for Corbett's attorney, was found not liable for Corbett's classroom conduct.