If you have followed the Miss California vs. Perez Hilton saga, you probably won’t be surprised to know how frustrated I am with all of it. I could go on and on about the things I think need said, but Dennis Prager hits the nail on the head many times over in this debate on Larry King Live:
Whose argument to you find most compelling?
Today, public school children all over the nation will take time to celebrate Earth Day. They will plant seeds in potting soil in the hopes that their budding tree will grow big and strong and, one day, replace the ones cut down by money-hungry corporations. They will create “artwork” using items that would normally be discarded and sitting in a landfill somewhere. They will sit in school-wide assemblies and have adults warn them of all the things that we should be doing to in order to prevent an impending environmental crisis. They will hear of hybrid cars, carbon footprints, and climate change. They will learn that it is our moral imperative to reduce, reuse, recycle.
And on this day when teachers work to instill in them a deep respect for Mother Earth, many students will continue to show disregard for their fellow human beings.
They will take the styrofoam lunch tray from the cafeteria workers and think about how best to discard it for the good of nature, but — just like every other day — they will neglect to utter even a word of gratitude to the person who got up early this morning to begin preparing the lunch they are about to eat. They will brainstorm creative ways to reuse their plastic grocery bags, but they will still be deeply reluctant to be kind and give one of their pencils to a kid who forgot to bring his. They will wonder with disappointment why their family doesn’t drive a hybrid car, but they won’t give a second thought to the fact that Dad just worked a 10-hour shift and still made time to drive them to soccer practice in that evil, gas-guzzling Chevy Cavalier.
I am a public school teacher, and my class will be taking part in some of today’s Earth Day activities. And even though I want my students to appreciate the environment, I want them to appreciate their parents even more. While I want them to look for ways to reuse resources, I much prefer that they look for ways to show kindness. I want them to step over that piece of garbage on the floor to go help out a classmate pick up the books she just dropped all over the hallway. Instead of using their words to express outrage over environmental pollution, I wish I saw more students express outrage over the polluted language used in the hallways between classes.
For me, celebrating nature and preserving the environment is nowhere near as important as teaching kids to live lives of goodness. We celebrate Earth Day, but we don’t have a day set aside to celebrate kindness, generosity, or gratitude.
And I think that’s a travesty.
When exactly the mainstream television news outlets lose their minds?
As I think back on my childhood, I very vividly remember school days that began with a generous bowl of Lucky Charms and the calming sounds of Joan Lunden and Charlie Gibson on Good Morning America echoing through the house. Breakfast would vary on occasion — some days we’d eat bacon and eggs and on other days my mom made waffles — but the television was always tuned to Good Morning America. It was the American way.
Now I get the sickening feeling that the very show I watched every day as a kid has become nothing more than an pseudo-intellectualized version of the Jerry Springer Show. Take a moment to see what passes as relevant news on GMA now:
I’m just counting down the days until some college professor or coked-up movie star calls me a bigot when I say that I don’t believe that an adult woman has the right to marry an inanimate French landmark.
What do you think:
• Did Good Morning America legitimize this “new sexual orientation” by airing this piece? If not, then what was the point?
• What are your thoughts on the sexologist saying that an objectum sexual’s love is “no more and no less of value than other romantic relationships”? Who are we to judge, right?
I have been out of the church graphic design business for quite a while now, but I recently had the chance to get back to my roots and create some graphics for my current church (pastored by Heidi’s dad). Thanks to the opportunity I had to work with two of the top designers in the industry, I’ve picked up a few tricks along the way. Here are some of the highlights:
Key graphic for one of the messages of the current series, “I AM”:
Standard-issue promotion slides that rotate on-screen before service:
I fully admit that this next slide is a complete plagiarism of CCV’s Class 100 graphic. In the epic battle of innovation vs. duplication, duplication inevitably gets a win from time to time. I figured the gods of design would forgive me as long as I copied the best.
I am especially proud of this last graphic because its an original piece by my beautiful wife. She’s come a long way in her ability to visualize and create things in Photoshop, and I felt that this design deserved some public recognition.
After a long journey of disconnected solitude, I have decided to jump on the Twitter bandwagon and go for a little ride. Those who have gone before me frequently and fervently sing Twitter’s praises — almost as if the little bird in the logo was the very dove that brought the olive branch back to Noah’s ark. By all accounts, I must prepare for the miraculous.
To be quite honest, I’m doing this for one purpose alone — to experiment and see if this technology truly does make me more connected with others. I am very much a face-to-face kind of guy and I have a hard time seeing how Twitter will give me anything even resembling the sort of connectedness that I get in a personal friendship.
Since its unfair for me to say I don’t like Twitter when I have never actually used it, I figure its worth a test drive. If you want to follow my 140-character-or-less musings, my Twitter name is MichaelSGray
You’ve got to admit, the title intrigues you; it mysteriously draws you in and makes you want to keep reading, right? Well, that’s because you have a sick mind and a twisted sense of entertainment. But don’t feel too guilty, I fell for it too when I originally watched the video below on Jon’s blog.
I love it when blog posts, books, magazines, and/or speeches challenge public perceptions of reality — when they cause people to think a second time about a long-held assumption, or look at an issue in a completely different light than ever before. This speech by Dirty Jobs host Mike Rowe does just that. It’s a lesson on finding out just how wrong we can be, even when we feel most confident that we are right.
On a completely different note, what do you think of my new, wider layout? I realize the header image needs to change and I’ll get to it when I can. I just got tired of having to resize all my linked videos to make them fit my post.
This evening, Heidi and I walked to our community park to let Harrison play around a bit (his new favorite thing is going down slides). We also wanted to take an opportunity to get out of the house and enjoy some of this beautiful Phoenix weather. Unfortunately for us, our trip of fun and family time was contaminated by a particular behavior that I believe has gotten out of hand in America: public cursing.
The playground at our park is within earshot of the basketball court where a dozen or more kids — I’d say between the ages of 8 and 18 — were hanging out and shooting hoops. It was not difficult for Heidi and me to hear most of their conversations, and I’ll be honest in saying that I was shocked with a lot of what I heard. The language these kids used was disgusting, and they had no reservations about making their voices heard, despite the proximity of younger kids and other families.
I tried my best to ignore the language and to focus on enjoying the time with my family, and I was doing pretty well — that is until I heard the word “nigger”.
I hate that word.
My ears perked up and I listened more intently to what was going on. Just for the sake of clarity, it’s important to note that all of the kids in the group were black, so this was not a matter of a person from one race referring to someone of another race using a hateful term. The word was uttered at least a dozen times inside a minute and was said in the same casual, conversational tone you might expect to hear from people at the local grocery store. No one was being picked on, no one was trying to start a fight, they just used the word as if it were a punctuation mark — and they punctuated loudly.
Harrison is not old enough to understand or repeat the words he hears (and I doubt seriously that he heard them anyway), but I decided after hearing it a dozen times that we were done. I don’t want my child exposed to foul language no matter what his age and “the n-word” threw me over the top. I gave very serious thought to going over and expressing my opinion about them using that word with such abandon, but I am a product of modern American society, and society basically says that a middle-aged white man better never utter the n-word around a black person, even if he’s asking them to stop using it because he finds it so vile. I fear now that I missed an opportunity to stand up for what is right out of concern for how I might have been perceived.
As we walked home, I told Heidi how bothered I am by the fact that by far the place I hear the n-word the most is from the mouths of black people. I know of no one in my circle of acquaintances that ever uses that word, and I can’t tell you the last time I’ve witnessed a person of any other race say it publicly. Sadly, I do hear it all through the black culture — especially in rap/hip-hop music — and it’s disturbing for me to think that the primary reason that word is still a part of our lexicon is because many of the very people to whom the term is so offensive have nurtured it and allowed it to become a common and acceptable part of their everyday language.
Well I say shame on them.
This post is in response to a gentleman who commented on a previous post of mine. As many of you know, Mormonism intrigues me. I’m fascinated with its interesting and uniquely American history. I share almost identical social values with Mormons. I supported Mitt Romney in the run-off for the presidential election. I grew up in the epicenter of LDS influence. My family has strong Mormon roots. I have known many Mormons and would gratefully call them my friends. Despite all these things, I still have serious objections to LDS theology and take particular issue with the claim that Mormonism is just another Christian religion.
Before reading my response, please take a few moments to read Mr. Madden’s original comment. As always, I welcome additional thoughts from either side of this issue.
Mr. Madden,
Thanks for taking to time to read my post and for feeling free to comment so honestly. I always appreciate people who challenge me to defend my beliefs further because it truly makes me think more deeply and more completely through where I stand on the issues I blog about.
Let me start by saying that I try very hard not to disrespect those with whom I disagree. Though you found deep offense to some of the things I wrote, please know that I am saying nothing with the intent to offend, just in a spirit of openness about what I believe about Mormonism. I think you would agree that – mixed in with the things you found offensive – I also made some very kind comments about Mormons. If you will agree to take no offense where no offense is intended, I’ll agree not to be offended that you think my thoughts make me sound “kind of ignorant and not-really-very-well-educated” 
.
You challenged me to “come up with a definition of ‘Christian’ that leaves Latter-day Saints out, but manages to include all the other denominations that [I] would consider to be Christians.” For the sake of simplicity I’m going to forgo all the theological citations and links to various Reformed creeds and confessions, and give you a very tangible reason why our two religions cannot both claim the name of Christianity. Ironically, the answer is found at the very point of Mormonism’s conception.
In Joseph Smith’s first vision, he asked “the Personage” of Jesus Christ which Christian denomination he should join – which one was right. The following answer comes directly from Smith’s account as listed on www.lds.org:
“I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
In one hand, Mormons hold to Smith’s founding prophecy that theirs is the one true church and that all others are corrupt abominations; in the other hand they hold the olive branch of Christian brotherhood. If Christians consent to Mormonism’s plea for acceptance, then we must give equal consent to the belief that all our creeds and practices are disgusting in God’s sight. By accepting Mormonism, Christianity must reject the very faith that they practice. Basically, this whole issue boils down to the fact that Mormons are seeking the acceptance of the very people they have deemed to be unacceptable.
I think the real challenge before us is for Mormons to come up with a definition of Christian that leaves Latter-day Saints in, but also manages to include all the other denominations that Joseph Smith was told were an abomination in God’s sight. Is any Mormon ready to claim that Smith’s founding revelation was wrong? If not, then I’m not sure it’s fair to characterize Christians as the ones who are not accepting.
I am writing this post to express my feelings on a particular spiritual issue that has been festering away inside me for years. In many ways, I imagine that what I have to say will generate some pretty strong opposition, and I welcome any challenges or thoughts you may have about this post. For what it’s worth, I have heard probably a hundred sermons on this topic and none of them have brought me to a resolution that makes me comfortable.
I dare say that just about every person who has been to church more than three times in his life is familiar with the story of the prodigal son found in Luke 15:11-32. To sum it up for you, a son goes to his father demanding his inheritance early, squanders it all on whores and partying, goes flat broke, realizes that he never had it better than when he was back home, returns to his father, and receives the celebration of a lifetime when he walks through the door. This is an incredible parable that Jesus tells to illustrate the fact that, no matter what happened in a person’s past, God is waiting with open arms to accept him and forgive him.
But the story doesn’t just end there.
The prodigal son had an older brother who stayed behind and continued to work faithfully for his father while the younger son was livin’ la vida loca with the large inheritance he so selfishly demanded. After the younger son returned, this is what Jesus says went down:
25 “Now his older son was in the field; as he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 So he summoned one of the servants and asked what these things meant. 27 ‘Your brother is here,’ he told him, ‘and your father has slaughtered the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.’
28 “Then he became angry and didn’t want to go in. So his father came out and pleaded with him. 29 But he replied to his father, ‘Look, I have been slaving many years for you, and I have never disobeyed your orders, yet you never gave me a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours came, who has devoured your assets with prostitutes, you slaughtered the fattened calf for him.’
I gotta be honest, I feel for the guy; on some levels I really relate to him. This parable is used over and over again in churches as a reminder that we as Christians need to be about the business of reconciling others to Christ, and I am completely on board with that. Where my biggest hang-up arrives is in the fact that this ungrateful punk already knew the life his father could provide and left it anyway.
I can see how the church would rejoice when a non-believer comes to Christ — no matter his or her background — but it kills me to think of the church equally celebrating the return of a believer who knew God before making the deliberate decision to live for the world. In my mind, this sort of person is welcome to return to grace, but not by way of a ticker-tape parade. It seems to me that stories like these typically end up as tear-jerking video highlights or moving on-stage testimonials, while the stories of faithful Christians who struggle each day to deny themselves are ignored completely.
I know that my disdain for the prodigal son is probably a bit off-base theologically, but its difficult for me to celebrate the deliberate disobedience of someone who I believe should know better. I have seen this story happen over and over again since I was in college, and it only gets more difficult to deal with each time I witness it. I guess if I had to boil my thoughts down to its simplest form it would be this: I’m not bothered with the forgiveness in this passage, but I am bothered with the fanfare.
What do you think?
