Ethics: Should Kids Fear Strangers?

On Friday we were having a discussion about whether you would trust a priest who asked you to watch his luggage at an airport, and the issue of social trust naturally came up. And after someone called to challenge my discussion of the harmful effects of fearing people all the time, I thought it would be a good discussion to ask whether it’s a good thing that we teach our children to fear strangers.

Jokes

A priest, a rabbi, and an atheist walk into a bar…

Knock, Knock…

How many blondes does it take to….

The world is full of jokes: good jokes, bad jokes, clean jokes, and dirty jokes. Today, on a request from callers Friday, I decided we would just share our best clean jokes on the air. And, as always, children are welcome to participate. They often have the best jokes, anyhow.

Links:
Jokes by category by AhaJokes.com

Various Current Events

Someone else's Alex by NY Times
Home not-so-sweet home by NY Times
"Don't ask don't tell" hits women more by NY Times
A legal case against OPEC by Christian Science Monitor
A surprising story on crime by George Will, Townhall.com
Response to CA gay marriage ruling by Findlaw.com
Congress rushes to fill oil loophole by Christian Science Monitor
10 concerns about Obama by Bill Bennett, National Review
Dunwoody to become first 4-star general by USA Today
Survey shows U.S. religious tolerance by NY Times
Americans non-dogmatic by The Pew Forum
Priest and luggage-watching by Christian Science Monitor
Kids protest gas prices after mom cancels cable by Fox News
Mormons distance selves from polygamists by Houston Chronicle
Bush administration to lift N. Korea sanctions by USA Today
AZ senate OKs budget plan by AZCentral.com
Justices reject death penalty for child rape by USA Today
Supreme Court strikes down D.C. gun ban by USA Today
D.C. handgun (read the case) by Findlaw.com
Child rape (read the case) by Findlaw.com
How can a black republican oppose Obama? by Townhall.com
Canadian court: Girl's grounding "too severe" by CNS News
Highway deaths down in 35 states by USA Today
PBS collaborator: "The George Carlin I knew" by NY Times
Controversy over judge's website by Findlaw.com

Wacky Wednesday--Cable/Satellite TV Is Bad

Note: Before reading the following arguments, please understand that they are not what I believe. On Wednesdays, I deliberately argue for wrong ideas, challenging my listeners to call and defend the obvious right answer, which is usually far harder than one would expect. This is a summary of what Wacky Andrew will be arguing, not a representation of what real Andrew believes.

~So many channels diluting the pool of advertising means there’s not enough funding to make really good shows.
~The same effect is seen on the talent pool. If there were 300 teams in MLB, the actual quality of the games would be terrible.
~They’re expensive.
~Channel surfing becomes a substitute for purposeful use of the TV. You watch it to find out what’s on rather than to actually watch something, the way you do when there’s only 5 channels.
~Because it isn’t broadcast, it’s not covered by the decency standards of the FCC.
~Too many different programs and programming niches mean that people are isolated from each other rather than brought into a common cultural landscape.
~To remain “informed” about current popular culture is such a time-intensive thing that it’s really an impossible task.
~Fewer outlets mean more selectivity in programming.
~So many channels to pick from, how can anyone even make an informed decision?
~What percentage of the total number do you actually watch?
~As culture fragments, subcultures become all there is, and counterculture just doesn’t exist.
~More options to watch mean more television gets watched, displacing other activities. Is this something we all need more of? Just the loss of time alone is huge.

Post-show thoughts: The concerns here are legitimate. Cable/Satellite do not come without a serious price. However, the possibility of having minority views aired, seeing shows unlikely to be approved by a risk-averse and massive network, and being able to view content that just isn't popular enough to justify network airing (sports, HGTV, Discovery, etc.) are some of the clear advantages of cable. In short, though it has come with a big price tag (in many senses), cable has also survived the one key test I always like to apply: what does a free market do with it? And since free markets reward competition and variety, cable works. That alone satisfies me, although I also recognize that many people are foolish in their use (abuse) of television and these problems are generally worsened by cable/satellite.

Wacky Wednesday--Debt is Good

Note: Before reading the following arguments, please understand that they are not what I believe. On Wednesdays, I deliberately argue for wrong ideas, challenging my listeners to call and defend the obvious right answer, which is usually far harder than one would expect. This is a summary of what Wacky Andrew will be arguing, not a representation of what real Andrew believes.

~It takes too long to save up before you buy things.
~Debt gives you a strong incentive to go to work everyday
~Let’s people who produce more than they spend do something useful with their money.
~It allows you to enjoy a lifestyle you haven’t earned yet, which is lots of fun.
~It must be good since everyone does it.
~It’s really important to have a nice car.
~Everyone should own their own home.
~Who doesn’t like to eat out at nice restaurants?
~I deserve a vacation.
~If everyone stopped their deficit spending, the economy would contract violently and collapse.
~The government has lots of it, how bad can it be?
~If there were no debt, there’d be no bankruptcy and no sense of forgiveness that comes from it.
~Sometimes you have to go into debt just to survive.
~Business investments require debt.
~It spurs the economy.
~Are we really to say that bankers are immoral?

Post-Show Thoughts: Debt is greed. In short, debt proves that you consume more than you produce and that you have chosen a lifestyle that you don't deserve. There's no other way to say it and be honest. And the vast majority of Americans are aptly so described. The simple fact that all people who have debt want to be debt-free and no people who are debt-free want to be in debt should indicate pretty clearly whether it's good to be in debt.

I would have a difficult time working in an industry where most of the people are buying something that is financially disadvantageous to them, such as mortgages, credit cards, or new cars. If a thing is bad to use/buy, then it is also bad to manufacture/sell. The reason stripping is bad is because watching strippers is bad. The reason it's bad to be a drug dealer is because cocaine and heroin are bad things to use. Speaking as someone who once had $25,000 in credit card debt and today is truly and totally debt-free, I can't imagine going into debt again for any reason other than as a business venture. And I'd be sure to do that in a way that did not make me personally liable.

The sheer relief of pressure from not owing anyone anything (except love) is impossible to communicate to you if you haven't experienced debt and the absence of it. But the amazing thing is how defensive people are about their financial stupidity. Amazing. You're more likely to get a positive response from criticizing someone's parenting than his spending habits. And the notion that our money behaviour is private and nobody else's business is just another way we use to cover up the foolishness or evil that revealing our behavior would show. There is a reason the Bible talks so much about money, the love of it, and the importance of not being driven by it.

If you have debt, here is a good place to start: Dave Ramsey

Proverbs 22:7
7The rich rules over the poor,
And the borrower becomes the lender's slave.
Proverbs 22:26
26Do not be among those who give pledges,
Among those who become guarantors for debts.
Romans 13:5-8
5Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake.
6For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.
7Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.
8Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.
Luke 6:34-35
34"If you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners in order to receive back the same amount.
35"But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men.
Matthew 6:21
Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

Theological Tuesday

~Bible Stories 21: Jonah (Jonah 1-4)
A resource on Jonah
Another resource on Jonah

~What should we do with the fact that the Old Testament made homosexuality a capital offense?

Key texts: Ezekiel 16:48-50, Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13, Acts 15:20,29, Rom 1:27, 1 Cor 6:9-11, 1 Tim 1:8-11, Jude 5-7.

Post-show thoughts: I'm still lost on this one. But it sure feels like I can't embrace the text as it declares homosexuality (and a bunch of other currently decriminalized behavior) to be capital offenses. Also, I surely can't embrace the full liberal position that these things are all just fine. the question I keep coming back to is whether my view would be any different if the capital sentence attached to this behavior weren't actually given in the Bible. And if my view wouldn't be changed by such a removal, then am I not practically acting as if it's not actually there already?

How do we maintain any consistency in saying that homosexuality is wrong, even wrong enough to be criminal if we could have our way, on the basis of these Old Testament (and somewhat weaker New Testament) passages without also going all the way to embracing that the correct punishment should be death? There is coherence in just embracing the behavior as the liberal churches do and being honest about rejecting these passages, and there is coherence in embracing these passages and calling for the execution of witches, adulterers, the incestuous, those who lie with animals, and homosexuals. The former don't mind jettisoning Scripture, and the latter don't mind jettisoning what looks like simple compassion and mercy. But there doesn't seem to be a Biblically plausible middle position, either. So I'm stuck. What to do...what to do? If I figure it out, I will gladly and loudly exposit my insight.

Ethics: Does Grammar Matter?

My dad was recently telling me about a guy he knows who is very good at what he does (I believe he’s an accountant or something in the financial/real estate field) from whom he’s received a half dozen or so emails. The thing is, his emails are riddled with spelling and grammar mistakes, and if my dad hadn’t already known the guy and known that he was really good at what he does, these emails would have convinced him to never do business with the guy. Question is, is the bias against bad grammar a useful one or simply a dangerous prejudice? Do you find yourself judging people on the basis of whether their speech or written communication conforms to the correct standards? What about the reverse question? Can having well grammar ever be handicapful in dealings wit peple, perhaps expecially them which dont?

Post-show Thoughts: Grammar is only capable of being a false negative for intelligence. In other words, someone might be very smart and have poor grammar, but someone will never be very stupid and have excellent grammar. It's surely not an indication of character, since one may smile and smile and still be a villain. Wearing a tie, having good breath, and speaking well can just as easily coexist with evil as with decency. I do worry, however, that in an age of IM, chat, and txtng (LOL), a certain superficiality of thought (OMG) is being cultivated because people aren't forced to develop the rigorous habits of mind and discourse which traditional grammar and rhetoric force upon them.

Also of note, people with poor grammar are almost always ashamed of it and may even become defensive when corrected because they have so regularly been treated as if stupid merely because of their poor grammar. Whether they're worried they may not actually be smart or simply frustrated that they are incorrectly appraised, this means that pointing out someone's grammar flaws is actually quite difficult if they have many of them. Those who have better grammar to begin with don't mind the correction because they are already fairly self-confident. So be loving in these matters. Still, I'd say that grammar is an 80% or so indicator of competence, intelligence, and education. Certainly not 100%, and certainly not of moral character.

Also remember, people who have poor grammar most likely were not taught it properly nor did they have it reinforced at home. This means that they are likely doing their best, even though it may not look like it.

Really Cool Website--and she's local: Grammar Girl

Television Mentors and Role Models

We’re always talking about the importance of television as a way of shaping people’s beliefs and morals, and I’m certainly a big believer in that concept. Sometimes (in the past, more so) these influences were for the better, and sometimes they are for the worst. So today I thought it would just be fun to talk about (perhaps admit) which characters on television were role models and heroes for us. Who did you want to be like? Whose thinking did you try to adopt? Even if yours weren’t ones you would advocate today or be proud of, it’s still important to recognize honestly who has influenced us in the past so we can be aware of how they might tend to continue influencing us in the future.

Post-show Thoughts:
When you start doing this, it becomes immediately obvious how useless and counterproductive the vast majority of today's television role models are compared with those of yesteryear. Particularly sad is the complete loss of the Western genre and all the fantastic masculine role models which sprang from it. Men, in particular, who are searching for their identity need strong images and icons to set their expectations both for themselves and that other people will have of them. Simply compare the likely results of a society whose male icons are Ward Cleaver, the Lone Ranger, Mike Brady, and the Rifleman compared with a society whose male icons are Homer Simpson, Jerry Seinfeld, Joey Tribiani, and Ted Bundy. If only the networks had chosen to run these high-quality shows from the old days when the writers went on strike, we would possibly have all begun to realize just what we're missing these days.

Bill asked an insightful question about how it could be that a society steeped in such strong male heroes could have so failed in parenting either as the Boomers or as the Boomers' parents. My explanation is two-fold. First, a society defined by images, even excellent ones, will always be inferior to one shaped by words. Second, the Boomers (or their parents) failed to control the quality of media content as it shifted from these strong, useful images to the modern ones. But I'm open to other thoughts if you have them. Post below.

Some of my own television mentors and role models:
Perry Mason, Hawkeye—M.A.S.H., Mr. Roarke—Fantasy Island, Hannibal—A-Team, MacGyver, Captain America, Spider-Man, Superman, Batman, Starsky and Hutch, ChiPs, Bill Cosby—Cosby Show, Thomas Magnum—Magnum PI, Steve Majors—Six Million Dollar Man, Simon Templar—The Saint, James West—Wild Wild West, Charlie Chan, Tarzan, Quincy, Kirk, Spock, Bones—Star Trek, Picard, Ryker—STNG, Cisco Kid, Zorro

Callers' Examples:
Rifleman, Gunsmoke, Paladin--Have Gun Will Travel, Grizzly Adams, Marion Cunningham--Happy Days, Mike Brady--Brady Bunch, Andy Taylor--Andy Griffith Show, Ward Cleaver--Leave it to Beaver, Clint Eastwood, Dragnet, Father Knows Best.

Gas Mileage Discussion

Okay, on Friday, we had a very in-depth discussion of MPG and the problem that most people don't think properly about it. Here are the two issues we discussed:

Buying premium versus regular gas:

I just got off the phone with my mechanic (Charles Matthews of Cornerstone Auto (602) 277-1549), and he clarified a few things for me. He said that mostly the improved MPG came in older gas-guzzler cars, and most cars today are not expected to improve MPG from upgrading the gas. However, pinging and knocking, if your car does that, may be fixed. And, obviously, some higher-performance cars require it. Otherwise, over the long haul, higher grades of gas have a tendency to keep the engine running better, meaning that MPG over a long time will not fall off, because the machine is simply "better lubricated," so to speak. These benefits come more from the additives than they do from the octane rating, much as if you were using an additional gas additive. That being the case, the brand of gas you buy makes a big difference, because not all gas brands have the same composition. He recommended you stay with good quality "top tier" gas brands, such as the ones listed on this page. Chevron puts additives in all grades of its gas that makes them all beneficial in this way.

I asked him if the MPG could ever be improved, and he said possibly, depending on the car. So, my advice is to try it and see. Because the percentage difference between the grades of gas is so small whereas the base price of regular unleaded is so high, there is a definite savings to be had from buying the premium gas IF MPG goes up. The short version is that the improvement in MPG needs to exceed the base price of gas times your current MPG divided by the price difference. So, for today, $4.10 * Current MPG/$0.20 will give you how much impovement you need to see to break even. For cars 20 MPG and under, it's 1 MPG, for cars 20-40 MPG, it's 2 MPG. When I try it this week, I'll let you know. However, I've already had some feedback from others.

Emjay wrote me, "I listened to your Friday night show about fuel economy right before I filled my tank. My car normally gets an average of 20.7 mpg, and I wanted to see if I could do better. I went ahead and used the higher grade fuel (.10 more per gallon), stopped doing jackrabbit take-offs and made a conscious effort to slow down and keep my speed steady. Over the weekend I drove both on the freeways and surface streets, and as of this morning my car is averaging 26.1 mpg! That means that on my tank of gas I will be able to drive 417.60 miles instead of the usual 331.20 – quite a difference. Thanks for your show. It’s always interesting, always informative and always makes me think. "

Of course I can't know whether her results are from better driving or from the mid-range gas, but there you go. One caller to the show said he sets his cruise (another MPG saver) on 60 and has increased his per-tank mileage from 300 to 350. Bill, my producer, says that going from regular to plus (mid-grade) made his Civic get 41.8 instead of 40, but he intends to try again to be sure. That would be saving him money, by the way, because he's only spending $0.10 more per gallon, not going to the super gas at +$0.20.

Which car's MPG matters more?

The freakiest thing we learned last week is that, quite contrary to your intuition, improving the gas mileage of a low-performing car has a disproportionate benefit to your finances compared with improving the gas mileage of a better-performing car. This is because the key number is cost per mile, which is simply the price of gas divided by your MPG. When a lower MPG (10-15 base, say) car improves even 1-2 MPG, it's going to save you more money than improving your higher MPG car (25-30 base, say).

Here are some of the numbers I crunched and my conclusions based on $4.15/gallon gas.
12-13 goes from $0.346 per mile to $0.319 per mile. 2.7 cents saving per mile
33-42 goes from $0.126 per mile to $0.099 per mile. 2.7 cents saving per mile
10-12 goes from $0.415 per mile to $0.346 per mile. 6.9 cents saving per mile
20-30 (you'd expect 24) goes from $0.208 per mile to $0.138 per mile. 6.9 cents saving per mile
30-60 (you'd expect 36) goes from $0.138 per mile to $0.069 per mile. 6.9 cents saving per mile

So, if you have two cars that you drive equally, you should focus on the one that gets the worst gas mileage. Even if you have a daily drive that you drive more, You should probably upgrade the other one, because it winds up saving you more, most likely, even if the improvement is modest.
15 mpg to 20 mpg = $0.277/mile to $0.208/mile = 6.9 cents per mile which is $69 per 1,000 miles.
To get the same savings on your daily driver that already gets 30 mpg ($0.138/mile):
Driving 1:1, you’d have to get 60.1 mpg ($0.069/mile)($0.069/mile dif)
Driving 2:1, you’d have to get 40.1 mpg ($0.104/mile)($0.035/mile dif)
Driving 3:1, you’d have to get 36.1 mpg ($0.115/mile)($0.023/mile dif)
Driving 4:1, you’d have to get 34.4 mpg ($0.121/mile)($0.017/mile dif)

So, if you're trying to decide which of your two cars to upgrade based on fuel costs, it's probably a better bet to upgrade the SUV/Minivan the wife drives around town than the economy or standard car the husband commutes to work in.

Feel free to post your own results so that others can benefit from the information or email them to me.

Bill just found this today (6/24/8). It's hilarious...and scary. Hypermilers by USA Today. Here's a thread I found with a bunch of suggestions at CleanMPG.com

More updates (7/3/08). Bill just got the first data back on his use of mid-grade gasoline. His 2008 Civic had previously gotten 41.8 MPG, and his first trial yielded 44.2 MPG. He intends to try premium next and also go back to regular afterward to see how it all compares. He also notes that the increase may be due to some of the hypermiling techniques, so we'll know more when he goes back to regular. But so far, great success! I just filled up with premium last week, but I've gone a whole week without even being near needing to refill so far. I'll report the numbers when I get them.

Here's two more links of interest.
Does rolling down windows vs AC save MPG?
10 Ways to Save Money on Gas

Various Current Events

Will gay rights trample religious freedom? by LA Times
Yes, we will have no bananas by NY Times
Update: Gun beats bomb in bank robbery by WXYZ.com
Bottled water prices hard to swallow by LA Times
Celebrities' real names by LA Times
China approves Gospel books for Olympics by Christian Post
Boy killed for his bike by Chicago Sun Times
CA gay marriage revives religious debate by LA Times
Court: Boss can't read email or texts by LA Times
Sue OPEC by LA Times
Sue OPEC by NY Times
Will $4 gas trump a 27 year ban? by NY Times
Scandanavian tax returns made public by USA Today
Obama aide on Winnie the Pooh by Telegraph.co.uk
Religious congregations: lowest mortality rate by Christian Post
Pro-life pharmacies defend objections by Christian Post
What Boumediene means by Findlaw.com
Tie Association calls it quits by Wall Street Journal
Renting toys, the Netflix way by Christian Science Monitor

Wacky Wednesday--All Sins Should Be Illegal

Note: Before reading the following arguments, please understand that they are not what I believe. On Wednesdays, I deliberately argue for wrong ideas, challenging my listeners to call and defend the obvious right answer, which is usually far harder than one would expect. This is a summary of what Wacky Andrew will be arguing, not a representation of what real Andrew believes.

~When God prohibits something, He always attaches a consequence.
~Name a sin which we’re better off keeping legal.
~Sins like murder, theft, and perjury are already the benchmark for making laws.
~For most people, the only ethical guide they have is what the law says.
~How many times have you heard someone say, “Yeah, but I didn’t break any laws?”
~When things are outlawed, people do them less.
~Prohibition wasn’t a failure, even though people think it was.
~For Christians, it shouldn’t matter, and for non-Christians, it’s the only way to teach people how to behave.
~Good parents add negative consequences to bad behaviors when a child doesn’t see how bad they are on their own merits.
~With more things being decriminalized, have we seen a flourishing in morality?

Wacky Wednesday--You Can’t Legislate Morality

Note: Before reading the following arguments, please understand that they are not what I believe. On Wednesdays, I deliberately argue for wrong ideas, challenging my listeners to call and defend the obvious right answer, which is usually far harder than one would expect. This is a summary of what Wacky Andrew will be arguing, not a representation of what real Andrew believes.

~Legislating morality is just another way of teaching someone that might makes right. Morality is just a personal opinion, not the basis of law.
~Morality presupposes religion, and there is no official religion of these United States.
~Furthermore, people have the expressly protected freedom to choose and act upon their religious beliefs.
~Hence legislating morality entails curtailing expressly protected religious liberties in the First Amendment.
~You can’t make people good by passing laws.
~It’s wrong to impose your personal beliefs on other people.
~Goodness is a matter of internal restraint, and external restraints cannot impart internal restraints.
~Look at something like the 18th Amendment. It’s failure should show you that people can’t be made good through the use of law.

Theological Tuesday

~Bible Stories 20: David and Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11-12)
~David Oliver of Care for the Family.
~Spencer has a question about the Bible.
~Learning the books of the Bible
~What should we do with the fact that the Old Testament made homosexuality a capital offense?
~Should Wheaton College have fired a teacher for getting a divorce?

Links:
David Oliver - Loveworklivelife.com

Ethics: AA and the Twelve Steps

Alcoholics Anonmyous has been in existence since 1935, and groups now operate in 180 countries and involve approximately 2 million members. The core of their system is a pair of lists called the Twelve Steps and the Twelve Traditions. The Twelve Steps are a series of stages for recovering from alcoholism and the Twelve Traditions govern how meetings of AA are conducted. Though AA has been around a long time, and has clearly succeeded in terms of number of participants, it has also come under a fair amount of criticism. So, we’ll discuss both the organization and also their beliefs to see how well AA fits with Christianity and also what might be learned from AA as an organization.

Post-show thoughts: I've had a few follow-up discussions with people about this, and I think my position is relatively unchanged. One thing that must be said is that your encounter with AA will depend heavily upon the particular group you are in, as is the case with any relatively autonomous small group of people. Nonetheless, there are some generalizations which seem to hold true. AA seems to help a lot of people stop drinking, which is the defined purpose of the organzation. AA is somewhat problematic in that it deliberately uses such a generic notion of God which explicitly avoids any mention of Jesus or His atonement, though many of their principles are rooted in Biblical teachings, including especially those of Jesus. Despite this, AA often winds up leading people to seek a fuller concept of God, and many become Christians. I find the twelve steps to be a marvelously beautiful ethical system which I would encourage anyone to follow, alcohol problems or not.

All that being said, probably my own major concern about AA (and keep in mind that I am a fairly strong supporter, call it 85%) is that their system is self-limiting. A major doctrinal tenet is that the alcoholic will always be an alcoholic and, more importantly, will always be defined by his alcoholism and therefore need AA. Anyone who leaves the group is considered to have reverted to drinking, which imitates the basic characteristic of any cult or cult-like group which is to define all non- or former-participants as being defective somehow. The reality is that people should be growing in Christ and eventually no longer need AA, even discovering in at many cases that they are no longer defined by their alcoholism. They still may not be free to drink at all. But though I am convinced AA (and groups like them) can be vital for getting people from point A to B, C, and D, they can become an impediment to getting them to points E, F, and G. And the reason for this limit in the second part is actually an essential element of the success at the first part.

So, it may not even be fair to ask AA to change how they do things. My concern is that some people may need to move forward from AA but be hindered by their oft-repeated belief that to leave AA can only be to move backward. As with any strict (perhaps legalistic) system, there is great benefit for the person who comes in having chaos in his life, but there can only be so much growth within a system so heavily dependent upon being a system.

As for criticisms that AA is a secret evangelizing society, this is silly. Anyone even slightly familiar with AA realizes that it is a spiritual/religious group. Whereas I might criticize AA for not being explicitly Christian enough, it's downright silly for the atheist to complain that they are dishonestly theistic. Of course they're theistic. It's right there in the Twelve Steps. (This is a criticism apparently quite important to the Orange-Papers webmaster.)

Links:
AA Home Page by Alcoholics Anonymous
AA by Wikipedia
Critique of AA (very hostile, but thorough) by Orange-Papers.org
AA alternatives by Deanesmay.com

Favorite Dad Memories and What He Taught You About God

Yesterday was Father’s Day, and I wanted to take some time just to focus on and honor the father’s in our lives by sharing our favorite memories of them. What activities did your dad do with you? Also, what did you learn about God from your father, either by teaching or by example?

Various Current Events

UCLA Study: Gay marriage good for economy by CBS News
Motorcycle emissions: The surprising facts by LA Times
Rules, religion collide in Amish cases by USA Today
2 counties halt weddings, gay or not by SFGate.com
In Europe, debate over Islam and virginity by NY Times
Spammers making money on fake drugs by LA Times
Will Obama show us his instruction manual? by Slate.com
Obama smoked cigarettes recently Blog, by ABC News
Justice Hillary Clinton? Opinion, by LA Times
SC to offer cross on car plates by NY Times
Aisle denial in Bakersfield Opinion, by LA Times
6 reasons pastors should blog by DesiringGod.org
Utah town may revise bikini ban by Findlaw.com
Judge raises constitutional issue in gay divorce by Findlaw.com
Obama advisor Johnson resigns amid criticism by LA Times
U.S. defends freedom to offend in speech by NY Times
Violence taught at Islamic school by MSNBC
Jolie "corrects" on relationship with Pitt by Fox News
Child abuse claims v. parent rights by Christian Science Monitor
DWP drops 400,000 balls into reservoir by LA Times
Transcript: Obama's Wesleyan address by WFSB.com
Man kills 7 in Tokyo by NY Times

Wacky Wednesday--Civil Disobedience Is Wrong

Note: Before reading the following arguments, please understand that they are not what I believe. On Wednesdays, I deliberately argue for wrong ideas, challenging my listeners to call and defend the obvious right answer, which is usually far harder than one would expect. This is a summary of what Wacky Andrew will be arguing, not a representation of what real Andrew believes.

~It’s disruptive and disturbing of the peace.
~We should persuade others with our reasons, and if we can’t persuade them, that should tell us something.
~It makes people dislike you.
~It brings dishonor to the name of Christ
~It dishonors the authorities, contrary to Romans 13, which says all authority comes from God.
~You can’t universalize the notion of lawbreaking. What if everyone broke the laws they disliked?
~You should negotiate longer, especially in a democracy where other peaceful means are open to you.
~If people didn’t obey the laws they disagreed with, there could be no laws at all.
~If the offense is in fact this unjust, doesn’t that obligate us to use force, not merely civil disobedience?
~Our kingdom is not of this world
~Jesus didn’t break the actual law (of the Romans), just the local religious rules.
~The Bible tells us to be at peace with our neighbors.
~The Bible tells us to obey authority, which is ultimately from God.

Links
Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau
Letter From A Birmingham Jail by Martin Luther King, Jr.
Statement by the Alabama Clergy To MLK (pdf, but small)
Civil Disobedience Objections Considered by Peter Suber
Index To Non-Violent Action at Activism.net
Civil Disobedience by Wikipedia

Wacky Wednesday--Women Should Be Pastors

Note: Before reading the following arguments, please understand that they are not what I believe. On Wednesdays, I deliberately argue for wrong ideas, challenging my listeners to call and defend the obvious right answer, which is usually far harder than one would expect. This is a summary of what Wacky Andrew will be arguing, not a representation of what real Andrew believes.

~Jesus talked to the Samaritan woman.
~Jesus valued women in His ministry.
~Jesus revealed Himself first to women after the resurrection. And the men didn’t believe them.
~These prohibitions were only so as to not offend those in the target ministry community who might respond adversely to female leaders.
~Women are essential in the Church. Just imagine what would happen to any given church without its women.
~The separation of the Temple courts came crashing down.
~Wasn’t Deborah a leader?
~Women can have every spiritual gift a man can have.
~Galatians 3:23 says there is no distinction between male and female.
~Discrimination is bad.
~We should err on the side of equality.
~Phoebe clearly had a position of leadership.
~Many women are named by Paul as excellent helpers.
~Phillip had four prophetess daughters.
~Jesus’s whole ministry was about including people who were marginalized.

Links:
Should women be pastors and elders? by Carm.org
Response to argument by Carm.org
Should women be pastors? by Sue Bohlin, Probe Ministries
Part 2 by Sue Bohlin
Why women should not be pastors by Brian Allison
What Bible says of women in ministry by GotQuestions.org
Should women be ordained ministers? by Dr. Lee Haines
Women pastors: Discussion site by Churchwomen.tripod.com
What does the Bible teach? by Baptist2Baptist.net

Theological Tuesday

~Bible Stories 19: Rahab, Jericho, Ai (Joshua 2, 5:13-7:26)
~What should we do with the fact that the Old Testament made homosexuality a capital offense?
~Why doesn’t the good atheist go to heaven?
~Should Wheaton College have fired a teacher for getting a divorce?
~What can we learn from reserveaspotinheaven.com?

Boy Scout Style Good Deeds

Part of the Boy Scout philosophy includes the idea that every day a scout should do a good deed or a “good turn” for someone else. Whether you think of it as being a good neighbor or just being a good person, the idea is fairly simple. But sometimes the difference between doing such little acts for other people and not doing them is simply not thinking of them. So, today I thought we would brainstorm and share some ideas for little good deeds you can do for other people, both anonymously and not. Feel free, especially, to share things that you’ve actually done for other people.

Bible References: Matt 5:13-16, Matt 22:36-40

Links:
ArkAlmighty.com
Blog: The Responsibility Project by ResponsibilityProject.com
Admirers deliver for mowing man by TampaBay.com
DoOneNiceThing.comGood Deeds by Inquiry.net

Andrew's Suggestions:
~Pay for the person behind you in line.
~Let people go ahead of you in line.
~Mowing your neighbor’s lawn.
~See the paper on the street and move it up near the garage door.
~Power washing your own house or driveway, offer it to your neighbor.
~Help someone with a flat tire. Call roadside assistance if necessary.
~Angel bags for the homeless
~Bake something and bring it to work
~Bake something for your neighbor, or just bring them some of it.
~Take someone to lunch or offer to buy someone lunch at work.
~Offer coffee when you go to get yours.
~Help a neighbor clean up the yard.
~Drop a bit of money on the ground and say to the person, you dropped this.
~Just give a total stranger a little money.
~Offering someone who comes to your door soliciting something a glass of water.
~Holding the door open for someone.
~Giving up your seat.
~Smile at people.
~Give someone a compliment on hair or clothing
~Start a conversation with someone while you’re out with the goal of making them feel good about something.
~Bring in the trash bins for your neighbors.
~Weed your neighbor’s lawn.
~Treat your server with tremendous respect. Or your checkout person.
~Thank a cleaning person for keeping everything looking so nice.
~Compliment the chef.
~Praise a teen for holding a menial summer job.
~Dump liquids on the ground rather than in the trash bag so that the person emptying it doesn’t have to lift the heavy bag and make a mess.
~Take carts back from the parking lot to the storage area.
~Always say thank you, especially to people you don’t have to, like the bus driver.
~Write a letter to a friend or relative.
~Feed an almost expired parking meter.
~Type up your notes from the sermon along with your thoughts as a way of telling the pastor someone is really taking his sermons seriously. Include anything you’ve done to change as a result of it, especially.
~Memorize a nice quick joke you can tell in the elevator.
~Become the candy fairy at work.
~Collect birthdays and be sure to do something on people’s birthdays.
~Keep your sarcastic comment to yourself one time.
~Help return stray dogs to their owners.

Caller Suggestions:
~Setephanie--Pray for friends and send them little notes (not emails) or call regularly.
~Ben--Opening doors for women.
~Glen--In checkout lines, cheering up and encouraging the cashier.
~Josh--Thanking people who work on the holidays.
~Donna--Over-tipping the waitress when you go out to eat.
~Sally--Doing anything to help the parents of small children, including babysitting.

Ethics: Omission and Commission

In ethics, we talk about committing sins of omission and sins of commission, which simply means the difference between sinning in what you neglect to do and sinning in what you actually do. Likewise, there are virtuous acts of omission and virtuous acts of commission, virtues acquired by avoiding the bad and by actively doing good. One might say that they pair up, things which are bad offer either the chance to practice sin by committing or virtue by omitting and things that are good offer the chance to practice sin by omitting or virtue by committing. But all these big words aside, which sort of thing matters more: avoiding wrong or doing right? Some people present Christian morality as if it is a series of prohibitions. Is this true? And what happens if you avoid all the “no-nos” but also don’t do any of the “yes-yesses?” Is that pleasing to God?

Free-For-All Friday

I just wanted to post this link because we talked about it on the air:
You Walk Wrong by New York Magazine

Teen Challenge of Arizona

Teen Challenge has been operating substance abuse recovery programs based on the Gospel of Jesus Christ here in Arizona for 41 years, and their success rate is an unheard of 86%. Commended by Governor Napolitano, President Bush, and many, many others, Teen Challenge is a unique and powerful program to help people get off drugs and get their lives together. If you really want to do something about the crime and devastation to families that drugs cause, Teen Challenge is organization to support. Join us today as we raise contributions for this outstanding Christian organization.

To donate during the show, call (602) 955-9600. To donate anytime, call (602) 271-4084 or visit the website by clicking here.

Various Current Events

What do you call a Terror(Jihad)ist? by NY Times
Asian values in Burma by LA Times
Proposition 13 works Opinion, by LA Times
Chavez decree tightens hold on intelligence by NY Times
Putin opponents vanish from TV by NY Times
China lists do and don'ts for foreigners by NY Times
Medal of honor awarded to solider by NY Times
Let the tax collection begin by NY Times
Great immigration panic Opinion, by NY Times
Voters will decide on gay marriage by LA Times
Violent video games: Myths & facts by Christian Science Monitor
Phoenix traffic camera changes considered by AZCentral.com
4th graders get to know day laborers by LA Daily News
CA valedictorian to be deported by Fox News
Mom fights church ban on autistic son by Christian Post
TN "Bible in schools" act awaits approval by Christian Post
French court rules on virginity by AZCentral.com

Wacky Wednesday--Gay Marriage Should Be Legal

Note: Before reading the following arguments, please understand that they are not what I believe. On Wednesdays, I deliberately argue for wrong ideas, challenging my listeners to call and defend the obvious right answer, which is usually far harder than one would expect. This is a summary of what Wacky Andrew will be arguing, not a representation of what real Andrew believes.

Note on today’s topics. This will be a slightly modified version of Wacky Wednesday. Rather than actually advocating these arguments, I will be presenting them with the goal of understanding the other side properly and then seeing how we can best respond to them.

~If two people love each other and want to commit to each other, they should be allowed to formalize their relationship for all of society.
~Publicly sanctioned relationships are stable and cultivate stability in the people who engage in them.
~It is unfair to deny gays the benefits of marriage such as medical visitation and authority, inheritance, health benefits from employment, tax breaks, and child-rearing safeguards.
~You can’t argue that homosexual relationships are unstable and promiscuous and then turn around and prevent them from forming stable monogamous ones.
~If you believe in civil unions, why would you want to keep gay relationships on a second-class citizen status?
~If children are involved, it is better for them to be in a two-parent home than a one-parent home.
~Many churches support the practice.
~This is no different than allowing people of different races to marry.
~Discrimination against people on the basis of sexual orientation is legally suspect.
~Gays want to be a part of legitimate society.
~Privacy is a long-settled Constitutional right.
~Given that you accept divorce, it’s disingenuous to say you think that gay marriage threatens the institution of marriage.
~Given that you accept contraception and place no legal obligation to reproduce or to even demonstrate fertility on straight marriages, it’s disingenuous to say that gay marriage is illegitimate for being no-procreative.
~If you accept civil unions, a reluctance to accept gay marriage makes no sense.
~How does Ellen and Rosie getting married even affect you?
~It’s an incredibly awkward thing to have a gay relationship without an official status, both for gays and for their friends and families.
~It’s kind.
~There are substantial benefits given to spouses both in the law and in the military.

Two Excellent Resources:
The Cultural Argument Against Gay Marriage by Randy Hicks
Men and Marriage (Must-read book, buy used for almost free) by George Gilder

Wacky Wednesday--Homosexuality Is Fine

Note: Before reading the following arguments, please understand that they are not what I believe. On Wednesdays, I deliberately argue for wrong ideas, challenging my listeners to call and defend the obvious right answer, which is usually far harder than one would expect. This is a summary of what Wacky Andrew will be arguing, not a representation of what real Andrew believes.

Note on today’s topics. This will be a slightly modified version of Wacky Wednesday. Rather than actually advocating these arguments, I will be presenting them with the goal of understanding the other side properly and then seeing how we can best respond to them.

~It’s not a choice.
~No one would choose to be an outcast like this.
~It’s probably genetic
~Even heterosexuals acknowledge that they never really chose to be straight.
~You can’t choose who you love.
~Many people who have tried to stop it or not act on it have failed.
~You shouldn’t have to suppress your sincere and deep desires.
~Why is gay love less love than straight love?
~Sexual behavior is private, and what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms is really none of your business.
~If you’re going to accept contraception, how can you oppose this?
~Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
~The only other reason people oppose it is because they think it’s gross.
~It’s good for straight men because it reduces the number of men competing for women.
~It occurs quite naturally in all societies which suffer diminished access to females such as in jail or onboard a ship.
~It occurs in nature among primates and other species.
~The New Testament never directly condemns homosexuality, and certainly Jesus did not do so Himself.
~Jesus came to minister to and rescue the outcast. Who is that more than the gay man of today, especially the gay man with AIDS?

Theological Tuesday

~Bible Stories 18: The Twelve Spies of Israel (Numbers 13-14)
~Is Christianity about being saved or about pleasing God?
~Why doesn’t the good atheist go to heaven?
~Should Wheaton College have fired a teacher for getting a divorce?
~What can we learn from reserveaspotinheaven.com?

Ethics: Global Warming

E. Calvin Beisner is the founder and national spokesman for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, and I wanted to have him on to discuss his recent articles on global warming with us. He is an expert in the area, and I figure he can help answer some of your questions and explain to us just how much we should be concerned about this issue. Keep in mind that there are six interconnected but different questions in this area.

1. Is the temperature of the Earth increasing, and how far will this continue?
2. What are the likely effects of this increase, good and bad?
3. Is there anything humans have done to substantially cause this situation?
4. Is there anything humans can do to substantially alleviate this situation?
5. How do proposed solutions measure ethically against other important considerations, such as size of government, economic liberty, and private property?
6. Are there any known alternatives for the use of resources which will have a better effect on human lives and well-being than efforts to fight global temperature?

How a person answers one will not necessarily tell you how he will answer another. And when people ask whether you believe in global warming, it’s important to clarify which of these questions is being asked. Lots of links below, be sure to visit the petition project.

Links:
We Get It project
Petition Project
E. Calvin Beisner's home page
Global warming and Evangelicals (PDF) by E. Calvin Beisner
Call to Truth (PDF) by E. Calvin Beisner
CornwallAlliance.org (Browse articles on left)
Climate Change: The Deniers by National Post
Copenhagen Consensus home page
Book: Taken by Storm by Christopher Essex, Ross McKitrick
Book: A Question of Balance by William Nordhaus
Book: Climate Confusion by Roy Spencer
Evangelical Climate Initiative by ChristiansandClimate.org
New sermon: Global warming by Christian Science Monitor
Evangelical call to action by ChristiansandClimate.org

What Do You Want To Learn Next?

It has been said that every person is either growing or dying; there is no standing still. Studies have confirmed the common sense that one of the best ways to prevent the onset and progression of various deteriorating conditions of the mind is to constantly be learning and stimulating it. But just in terms of making ourselves the most complete people we can become, I wonder what new thing you are learning right now and what new thing you want to learn next. Sometimes we can fall into the trap of thinking that education stops when you get a piece of parchment, but it shouldn’t, and new skills are a source of new joys and new insights into the perspectives life has to offer. So, even if you haven’t learned a new thing in a while, what new skill or interest area do you want to begin working on?