Will any man with a wife, a mother, a sister, or a daughter, in our great state of Nebraska, write to Speaker Hilgers about the disbandment of the "Mother's Room" in the State Capitol building?

Will any man with a wife, a mother, a sister, or a daughter, in our great state of Nebraska, write to Speaker Hilgers about the disbandment of the "Mother's Room" in the State Capitol building?
***
In 2019 Senator Cavanaugh set about to secure a "Mother's Room" at the State Capitol Building. Prior to that point, mothers needing to express milk while visiting or working in our Capitol, did so in an empty stall in a public bathroom.

Leadership of the Legislature at the time told Senator Cavanaugh that no public funds would be expended for such a purpose, and so Senator Cavanaugh found a private donor to cover the expense -- The expense of providing a clean, safe, private place, for Mothers to perform a unique Life-Giving activity while in The People's House.

Last week Senator Cavanaugh, during open Floor Debate on Redistricting, let the People of Nebraska know that the Chairman of the Legislature's Executive Board, Senator Dan Hughes, had unilaterally decided to disband the Mother's Room, to provide office space for a gentleman, in relation to an ongoing  HVAC renovation in the building.

Senator Cavanaugh argued that there are many rooms in the building appropriate for an office, even during the building's renovation. Senator Hughes did not relent.

Senator Cavanaugh elected to vacate her office last week - the office of a sitting Senator - to provide an appropriate space for the gentleman currently occupying the Mother's Room. Senator Cavanaugh office sits empty even now, with Senator Hughes refusing to relent and restore the Mother's Room.
**
Senator Cavanaugh in open Floor Debate on Redistricting this afternoon, accused the Pro-Life Senators on the floor of hypocrisy in failing to speak up on the mic in support of mothers in the Capitol. I agree.

The "pod" currently available to mothers in a public mail room, has neither a sink with running water for mother's hygienic needs, nor a refrigeration unit for storage of a mother's milk. It is not acceptable to Senator Cavanaugh or me.

The situation at the State Legislature is gross and wrong. I wish decent people would say something about it to the people with the power to change things.
***
Speaker of the Legislature, Mike Hilgers - mhilgers@leg.ne.gov

Chairman of the Executive Board, Dan Hughes - dhughes@leg.ne.gov

Senator Machaela Cavanaugh - mcavanaugh@leg.ne.gov

Transcript for the Public Hearing on LB709 - Provide for a place to express breast milk in the State Capitol - https://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/106/PDF/Transcripts/Government/2019-03-15.pdf

Every woman Senator co-sponsored LB709 when it was brought in the 106th Legislature.  Senators in the Body now that were Co-Sponsors are silent in the record of the First Special Session. - https://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/106/PDF/Intro/LB709.pdf

Good morning Senator Clements,

Good morning Senator Clements,

My name is James Woody, I reside in Senator Pansing-Brooks's district.

I write you this morning, Senator, in direct response to your remarks on the mic yesterday morning during floor discussion on LR 466.

I have posted this open electronic letter on both my personal blog(1) and my social media.
**
Senator Clements,

I tell a story to nearly anyone who will listen about the most underhanded thing I've ever witnessed happen at the Unicameral in all these 8 years I've spent watching this body's proceedings: How when, after the resignation in disgrace of Senator Bill Kitner, the leadership of the Legislature came to a deliberated agreement to seat his just-appointed replacement onto the powerful Appropriations Committee. And how that replacement senator's very first act in the Unicameral was to demonstrate an utter and blatant disrespect of the long-standing non-partisan budget deliberation process, by sneaking in a budget provision defunding Planned Parenthood into the Appropriation Committee's main budget offering to the Body(2), without telling anyone what they had done or intended for -- because that Senator was dishonest.

And Senator, last year after a certain member of your body chose to gang up with Senator Erdman, Murman, and Lowe, to cowardly torpedo a bill of Senator Cavanagh's off the Consent Calendar(3) - again without telling anyone, particularly Senator Cavanagh herself, beforehand - I didn't accept that senator's mealy mouthed apology afterward on the floor for their actions -- because that Senator was a bully.

And Senator, yesterday morning when a certain member of your body stood and mumbled into the mic that they "didn't agree with the Court's opinion in 'Bostock'"(4), offering no justification whatsoever for their own opinion - legal, philosophical, theological, or otherwise - against a 33 page textbook textualist opinion(5) from competent lawyer and Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, an opinion replete with sound legal arguments and thoroughly cited caselaw evidence for all the decision's holdings - I didn't take that their remarks seriously -- because that Senator was ignorant.
*
Yesterday morning you, Senator Clements, said on the mic that you considered Senator Ernie Chambers to be a friend. I do not know if the Senator reciprocates that emotion or not, but I do know that when Senator Chambers speaks into the Legislative Record that: "Christians are dishonest. Christians are bullies. Christians are ignorant of the Law." - it's your face, Senator Clements, that comes to my mind's eye.

I admonish you to do better. People like me - that believe in integrity, believe in justice, believe in knowledge and the rule of law - we are watching you and the actions you take on our behalf in the State Legislature. Ignore us at your own electoral peril.

James Woody
*address redacted*

References:

(1) blog address

(2) Planned Parenthood defunding provision - https://journalstar.com/legislature/womens-health-funding-issue-draws-filibuster-on-budget-bill/article_c9f10436-b795-5f18-9551-038de5042545.html

(3) Cavanaugh consent calendar LB 533- https://omaha.com/news/state_and_regional/capitol-digest-another-contentious-debate-looms-on-nebraska-business-tax-incentive-bill/article_c8694102-eb12-5a0f-b399-818436b3185b.html

(4) LR 466, "Provide the Legislature affirm the United States Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County which determined that an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964" - http://update.legislature.ne.gov/?p=28519

(5) "Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia" - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf

*untitled*

Earlier this week I said I wasn't ready to "add my voice to the rage saturation" going on in social media.  Since then I've been listening a lot, I've been thinking a a lot, and I would like now to try and add something reasoned to our shared conversation.
**
On a Sunday morning 3 or 4 years ago I was sitting in a Southern Baptist Church listening to a sermon.  As a person who engages in the serious study and practice of rhetoric, sermons are something I listen to very, very closely - they are weekly case studies for me in practical linguistics.  The preacher was talking about homosexuality, and of the proper posture of 'the church/christians' towards it.  He said: "Because we [meaning 'us in the room, people who think and believe like us', who in this particular case were white conservative evangelical people] , because we have a biblical understanding of the world - what the Bible says is right is right, what the Bible says is wrong is wrong - because we have a binary view on certain things, we are set up to be the targets of claims [from the Left] of being intolerant. *They call us bigots* because of our biblical worldview."

From my pew about 40 feet away I could feel his righteous rage at rhetorically being called a bigot because of his worldview and beliefs, which are an integral part of who he is, of his identity.

This week there was a scandal in my state of Nebraska regarding our Governor - who is a white conservative catholic man - and comments he made during a discussion with black clergy in Omaha, a discussion which was in response to the killing of an unarmed black man by a known white racist, a killing in which the City Attorney initially declined to file charges.  During a heated back and forth exchange the Governor at one point addressed the black clergy as "you people" which lead to the clergy walking out of the meeting in disgust.  I'll link to the audio below but I want to analyze what was said because I feel it's vital for understanding some of the complex dynamics at play.

What the Governor was trying to do was to find a shared value amongst the discussion participants when he asked "What do we all want?  I want safety.  I assume you want safety.  Do you want safety?" This of course is in the context of the rioting and looting happening in the city.

A member of the clergy firmly pushed back on that and responded "Yes, we want safety, but we are not talking about the same thing.  When we say 'safety' what we are talking about is that it is safe for us to exist, to not be perpetually terrorized by those who are supposed to be our protectors.  When you say 'safety' you're talking about the ability to keep your lawns neatly manicured."

This is what prompted the Governor's exasperated "Where were you people when ..." the governor was trying to get some piece of legislation that he felt responsive to the clergy's concerns, passed into law through the state legislature.

The Governor was deeply offended by the suggestion, the mere idea, that he might be casually racist in failing to understand the lived reality for people of color in this country when it comes to the very basic ideal of what "safety" IS for them.  Which might then imply that his particular worldview, one in which he believes that it is right and proper to be "color blind to race", could in fact be directly responsible for part of the suffering of others.
***
It is my view that these two examples are part of a very complex problem facing our society right now.

How do we respond to behavior that is actively damaging to people in marginalized communities, when that behavior goes to the core of how the person doing the behavior, defines their identity?

I see two possible paths forward:

1) The loving, empathetic way.  To reach out to people where they are, and through questioning and gentle persuasion, attempt to move that person away from ignorance and closer towards love.

2) The Navy Boot Camp Way.  To stand at attention, and with outstretched arm, point directly at the person and declare: "You are wrong shipmate. Fix yourself."

I would offer the observation that path #1 seems to be the default for many of the decent, secular people I know.  And perhaps also people like the Governor and the preacher, conservative religious people.  Path #2 seems to be the default for some activists in Civil Rights/Human Rights advocacy space, such as the much bemoaned SJW's.

I don't know what the correct path is.  Although I do realize that there is a third way, a way whose implications terrify me.

3) To treat people who hold worldviews incompatible with a free and liberal society, as un-teachable.  To collectively turn our backs on them, and instead spend our time rallying up those allies in society, who do understand how to live a loving life toward others in a world that is incredibly diverse, to actions that increase the overall level of justice in our society.

I don't want to believe that I live in a world where it's possible for people that want to be decent, that try to be decent, that fully believe they *are* being not only decent but good - to have chosen a worldview that functionally cuts them off from fully participating in our society.
*
I'm going to keep working in this problem space because I think it's imperative if we are to create a more just society together.  I'm going to keep listening and I'm going to keep thinking.  And if anyone who reads this would like to talk to me, I stand ready to engage with you.  Hit me up.

Omaha Community Meeting Audio | 6/1/2020 | Omaha, NE.
[The controversial part with the Governor begins at timestamp 1:01:00, and the clergy walked out about 4 mins later]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y9uEQxrZ0U&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR0UbygRgStTojp5zhTl1y1wmJ0wWnoj4Dr0dbD-uTBYyeswY4YiuLFIOp4  

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" - Who watches the Watchmen?

Who watches the Watchmen?  This eternal question of power and government could not be more important for the safety and freedom of the American People than today.

In a Police Department it is the Office of Internal Affairs (IA) who 'watches the watchmen'. They are responsible for ensuring that the department-as-a-whole complies with all applicable rules, regulations, and laws, from the Chief of Police down through the ranks to the newest Rookie.  If someone breaks the rules then Internal Affairs is tasked with holding them accountable, and as a consequence, a strong and objective IA can be - very broadly speaking - generally disliked by both the rank and file and the brass.  Human Nature does not like being held accountable because it's uncomfortable and embarrassing.  But when an IA Office becomes corrupted, when they look the other way from wrongdoing for their friends or creatively misconstrue facts to punish enemies, it is the Public that ultimately suffers.  Bad Officers who abuse their powers are allowed to continue menacing the Public, and The Little Guy suffers for it.

In our State and Federal Governments it is the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) who is responsible for investigating allegations of fraud, waste, and abuse by government officials.  This office has always been rife with controversy because it lives on the knife edge of the balance of powers between the branches of government.  Legislatures enact the laws that give the OIG it's oversight authority and the OIG reports to them, but it is the Executive who actually hires and pays the OIG and who physically holds the information that the OIG must access to perform their investigatory duties. --  I don't think I can over-stress just how important the office is to normal people, people who don't have the power to independently protect themselves from a rogue government that might allow dangerous situations to manifest that endanger ordinary peoples lives (Flint MI water crises), or allow unjust procedures to exist that endanger people's liberty (Ferguson MO Police Department).  It is vital to our own well-being that OIGs remain un-politicized, non-partisan, and robustly protected.

There's a lot of politically un-plugged people in America today.  A minority of the public actually votes, which I believe is a sign of a crumbling Democracy, and even fewer people actually pay attention to bills, laws, and court rulings.  Outside the privilege that some are born with, it is the OIGs who provide that security which allows those people not to pay attention, not to care what the government does, because the OIG does that for them.

But right now this Presidential Administration is gutting OIGs across the face of the federal government.  It is true that an Executive has the authority to fire an OIG, but it is not completely an absolute power.  In the legislation that creates those offices, some OIGs can only be fired "For Cause", which is to say there has to be some rational reason for the firing.  Sometimes the generic "Lost the Confidence of the Executive" will suffice, but this is not always the case.  If an OIG is being fired to cover up wrongdoing, that is an Obstruction of Justice. It is the willful misuse of Government Power for Personal Gain.  It is antithetical to the principles of Democracy.

I urge my politically un-plugged countrymen and women to do some research into these recent OIG firings by this Administration.  Because in America it *IS* possible that *YOUR* drinking water can be contaminated and you wouldn't know it, or that the COVID-19 tests the government procured don't actually work, or that evidence won't actually be required to put you into jail or take your property from you, or that dams, bridges, and other infrastructure, can be allowed to deteriorate to the point of catastrophic failure and kill you.  This is not fear-mongering, these things have happened and are happening right now.

If any of this sparks concern in you, you are welcome to reach out to me with questions or for more information.

"The Watchfulness of the Citizen is the Salvation of the State" - Hartley Burr Alexander

Do you take me for a Redneck?

The attached article came across my desk this morning, but my wife and I were just discussing Rednecks last night:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/11/redneck-revolt-guns-anti-racism-fascism-far-left

I self-identify as ethnically Redneck.  I grew up in the woods shooting guns(1) and fishing, riding four-wheelers and driving tractors, drinking beer.  Mostly stuff I still very much enjoy doing today.  But...

I don't know if other people see me as Redneck or not.

I value hard work and personal accountability - I believe all honest labor is virtuous.  I believe freedom isn't free, and I honor the spilled blood of *all* the reactionaries whose sacrifices have allowed our society to progress to where we are today.  I don't think a Fancy Degree from some Ivy League School makes you one bit better than me with my GED and college drop-out status.  I grow my beard, that God gave me, like a man was meant to.  And yes, I own an American Flag and 12-ga shotgun, both of which I keep in good repair.

And yet...

My United States naval service provided me an opportunity to live for six years in two different European countries - democratic socialist countries - and opportunity to better understand what it really means to be a minority in society dominated by someone else's culture.  This means I can see with my own eyes the people in this country who are excluded from mainstream society, people now excluded that have been excluded for decades and for centuries.  It also means that I do not as readily accept the "Communist Boogeyman" arguments that Right-wing media so often peddle to my Redneck brethren.  And although I don't think the labels of "Leftist" or a "Socialist" come anywhere near defining me, I'm not afraid of being labeled as such when I stick up for Organized Labor, or to assert that the our country is doing a piss-poor job of taking care of our sick and impoverished, of treating the people in our prisons humanely, or that "Late stage capitalism" isn't working out all that great for most people - These positions may make me a pariah among the Rednecks I grew up with, although in total honestly, I'm not completely sure.

My experience at University studying Engineering provided me with new skill sets in math and science, and taught me how "vigorous research" is performed in an academic setting.  This means I'm not intimidated when Experts or The Media break out their flashy interactive graphs and damned statistics to lie to me for their stockholders' and advertisers' benefit - I can work through issues for myself because I know how to read and how to use a library.  And so while the Liberal Elites don't intimidate me, I don't think I have the visceral hatred of them that many of my fellow Rednecks do.

I am very proud of where I'm from.  But I now live 600 miles to the North and have no plans of "going home" to live anytime soon.  That's because the Arch-Conservative(2) Policies of Oklahoma's government over the past 30 years of my life, combined with the knock-on effects of Bill Clinton's NAFTA, and the Housing Bubble's Burst in 2008 - which led to the largest redistribution of wealth in our nation's history to the rich from the middle class and poor - these things have destroyed my home.

Fort Smith used to be a manufacturing powerhouse where any man could get a decent job if he were willing to work hard at Rheem/Ruud, PREDCO, Baldor, or any of the Furniture Plants.  Those high paying jobs are now gone, probably forever, and all of that manufacturing equipment now lies in Mexico being operated by people who make a few dollars an hour with no healthcare or retirement benefits.  The Public School System of Oklahoma is in shambles, as evidenced by the Teacher Strike last year (oh, and the GOP in the Legislature has since voted to pull back most if not all of the concessions the Teachers were formerly granted).  Public Healthcare is a nightmare there with so many unemployed turning to alcohol and methamphetamine to cope, and the politicians couldn't care less (although promises of "Cracking down on the Druggies" will win some Sheriff's races for you).  My home is a shell of the place it once was.

I still see myself as Redneck, but maybe the Navy turned me Pirate.  Maybe some Rebel Blood once watered my Cherokee roots, and that's the source of my dissent with the American Status Quo.  Or maybe this Redneck just got lucky enough, to get educated enough, to crawl out from under my would-be Corporate Masters.

If you'd like to get to know this Redneck better, my family has an Open Dinner Table.  Hit me up, we'll break some bread, trade some stories, and hopefully both be better equipped to understand our neighbors better.

***

(1) I tend to prefer using the nomenclature I learned in the Navy of "weapon", although firearm, sidearm, long arm, and shotgun are perfectly descriptive and equally acceptable terms for personal weapons.  "Guns" fire 2,700# rounds 24 nautical miles from aboard the deck of warships.

(2) Arch-Conservatism dominates in Oklahoma in both the political and popular-religious spheres.  It is a firmly held belief of mine that the two of these reinforce one another, by design.  If I'm right, it means the solution to the woes of my home may be neigh un-fixable... unless the Rednecks Revolt taking back both their government and their religion from The Powers That Be.

The people who want the Citizenship Question on the Ballot are totally not-racist towards Brown People

This 20 minute podcast from Slate does a very good job of explaining what's going on with the Census Question, and explains the "smoking gun" evidence that was very recently found in the hard-drives of a deceased GOP Political Operative.
***
Deceased GOP Operative: "So, uh, *TrumpAdministration/RepublicanLeadership*.  Um, you know, if you do *THIS*, then it is *STATISTICALLY GUARANTEED* to help Conservatives and WhitePeople get greater representation in Congress and hurt MexicanAmericanCitizens' representation in Congress.  As a bonus it will piss off the Liberals.  Oh, and uh, when you inevitably get sued for this, make certain you *DON'T* say that I came up with it or what it will do.  Instead you say "We, the Federal Government, we need the citizenship question on the census so that we can better enforce the Voting Rights Act."[1]
***
This is not an exaggeration.  It's not hyperbole.  It's not my opinion.  It's what the record reflects.

When the Trump Administration and GOP originally decided to put the Citizenship Question on the Census, they did so to hurt Hispanic Citizen's representation in Congress.  And then the government lied about it, under oath, on the record.  But because this evidence only came out after Oral Arguments were held before SCOTUS, it is yet to be seen what influence this new evidence will have on the case.
&&&
[1] The Conservatives that support this Census Citizenship Question measure and supported the Robert's Court gutting of the Voting Rights Act in 2013 [a], they insist that they aren't racists... And that's probably right, even if it requires applying a somewhat tortured definition of "racism".

For example, I used to live next to a Christian Separatist compound called Elohim City [b].  The flavor of Christianity that they follow is called "Christian Identity" (CI) [c].  They believe the biblical "Curse of Ham" [d][e] cast upon Noah's son is where black people originated.  Following from there they assert that the Bible teaches that black people are "mud people" and that white, christian people should not inter-marry with them.  These CI folks don't lynch black people to my knowledge.  Being kind, Southern Folk, I can imagine that they would help a solitary black motorist who broke down on the road.  But ... if that black motorist has a white woman riding shotgun with him, then that couple is an Abomination Before God and should be shunned, you know, kinda like how some conservative evangelicals see gay-people.

So, if your bar for racism is: "I am not lynching people."  Then yeah, CI people are totally not-racist against black people - they just have firmly held religious beliefs.  And the conservatives that want to rob Hispanic American Citizens of their rightful representation in Congress, since they aren't actually laying any white hands on those brown bodies, it could be that they're not racist either.

But then again if that's *really* your bar for racism, you just might need to "have a little talk with Jesus."

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/06/republican-files-census-citizenship-question-redistricting-gerrymandering-hofeller.html

[a] Robert's Court overturns a key provision of the VRA
https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/the-voting-rights-act

[b] Elohim City
http://thislandpress.com/2012/04/15/whos-afraid-of-elohim-city/

[c] Christian Identity
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christian-Identity

[d] Curse of Ham
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham

[e] Resolution unsuccessfully denouncing the Curse of Ham at the 2017 Southern Baptist Convention
https://baptistnews.com/article/curse-ham-black-baptists-question-place-sbc/#.XPfIq4hKiUk

To Argue, or not to Argue? Is that the question?

The other day I was asked how effective I was at changing the minds of the people I call RepubliChristians.  How well I perform at convincing them that they are wrong about things and that I am right.  I'd like to explore that a bit, because I believe the question was asked in Good Faith, and propriety in argumentation is a very important thing me.

In my rural public high school I was blessed to have the privilege of participating in debate class. Two debating disciplines were available to students: Cross-Examination Debate (Policy Debate) and Lincoln-Douglas Debate (Values Debate).  The year I won my Class 2A Lincoln-Douglas Debate State Championship the question was "Resolved: the intervention of one nation in the domestic affairs of another nation is morally justified." [As an aside, this was 17 years before Russia interfered in the United State's 2016 domestic elections, but when I read the Mueller Report today, it covers ground that I've already put a significant amount of intellectual work into] Students participating in L/D debate construct two cases addressing the question utilizing concepts from Philosophy, one case supporting the resolution, one case opposed.  Then, at competitions after a coin-flip to determine who takes which side, we argue those cases one-on-one against another debater before a judge.

That experience changed my life.  It taught me how to construct an argument: What do I value? What criteria do I apply for Judgement? What evidence do I offer to support my position?  It taught me to think critically, to look at both sides of an issue and ask Good Faith questions.  It taught me to covet precision in my speech.

Making a Good Argument is a feat of skill - and so is something that can be learned.  A good argument is logically consistent, unambiguous, and supported by evidence.  But a good argument is only persuasive to participants who will engage with it in Good Faith.

It is my personal view that RepubliChristians do not operate on Good Faith - they are religio-political ideologues who presuppose the answers to big questions being asked of our society.  They are the 4 out of 5 white evangelicals who are followers of President Donald Trump, himself the counter-archetype of one who makes Good Arguments.  President Trump perpetually makes claims that are logically inconsistent, vastly ambiguous, and don't even attempt to be supported by evidence.  Critically, this means that when he says something he actually says nothing.  Because what he says is *nothing*, his followers can take him to mean *anything*.  This is a situation that cannot be refuted with Good Arguments, because the only response to nonsense is to call it such and those who will accept nonsense as reason will not be swayed by rational arguments.

And so I stand on my social media soapbox and scream into that black nothingness the truth of reality as I see it.  Not to convince the RepubliChristians to change their views, but to call out to Faceless Non-Voters of our society and alert them that RepubliChristians exist, they *do* vote ... and they are driving national policy towards racist, hateful, misogynistic ends that are very much real, because that's what they think the right thing is to do and they have Bible verses to "prove" it.

I understand that voicing the utterance "White Evangelical Christians are an existential threat to our liberal democracy" is pretty much the flip side to the GOP's "Hurr durr durr Democrat Party Communists hate America!!" argument.  I don't like having to say it.  But it is consistent with what I see, and I believe I would be derelict in my duty as a citizen to sit in silence and let the RepubliChristians run this country unchallenged.  The stakes for my neighbors is too high.

*untitled*

This post is my response to this:
https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/i-still-believe-every-child-is-precious-also-it-will-take-us-years-to-find-the-kids-we-stole-at-the-border

As a proud son of the Cherokee Indian Nation, by natural right, I claim heritage to the forced familial separation visited upon my ancestors' in our native lands and in the foreign lands that we were forced to journey to.  Native Children were forcibly separated from their Native Parents at the hands of The Religious People - White Christian Hands - fully sanctioned and empowered by the government of their time.

Forced Family Separation upon the brown bodies of the Cherokee People was an act of terrorism then, and Forced Family Separation upon the brown bodies at the Southern Border is an act of terrorism now.

I make my plea for human decency, a supplication for the foreclosure of Forced Family Separation from the toolbox of our Federal Immigration Policy enforcement tools - to the non-christian, non-voting, people of goodwill in this country.  To the so-called "Religious NONES"; You can repudiate this disgraceful stain upon our modern republic in 2020 if you capitalize on your privilege and vote.

Understanding the big picture of immigration in America is difficult - it takes an investment of time, it requires reading, it is hard work.  The Christian-nationalist and White-nationalist propagandized narratives of MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! are much more easily consumed, as fascism usually is.

If you have questions about: the "Flores Consent Decree", the Executive Orders and Policy Documents implementing "zero tolerance" and Forced Family Separation at the border, the litigation in a number of our Federal Courts concerning those EO's, the policy handbooks that govern DHS and ORR, the transcripts of depositions given by Administration Officials related to their interpretation of our immigration statues and regulations, the dire situation of our country's back-logged Immigration Courts System - I stand willing to share what I know with you.

I have no desire to persuade The Religious People who support "no tolerance" to change their view.  White evangelical christians like the President's personal pastor, Ralph Drollnger, who use scripture to justify torture and terror - let them have their beliefs.

But to the NONE's of a like mind to myself, I urge you to stand up to Ignorance, stand up to Bigotry, and be counted among those who care For The Least Of These.  Join me.
*****
"Tiny Horrors: A Chilling Reminder of How Cruel Assimilation Was—And Is" - Indian Country Today, 01Jan2013
https://newsmaven.io/indiancountrytoday/archive/tiny-horrors-a-chilling-reminder-of-how-cruel-assimilation-was-and-is-VLKL7I26wUSj4LmZL_YDvw/

"Indian Country remembers the trauma of children taken from their parents" - Indian Country Today, 19Jun2018
https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-06-19/indian-country-remembers-trauma-children-taken-their-parents

"Unaccompanied Minors and the Flores Settlement Agreement: What to Know", Nat'l Conference of State Legislatures, 30Oct2018
http://www.ncsl.org/blog/2018/10/30/unaccompanied-minors-and-the-flores-settlement-agreement-what-to-know.aspx

"Behind The Departure Of Homeland Security Secretary Nielsen", NPR, 07Apr2019
https://www.npr.org/2019/04/07/710882966/behind-the-departure-of-homeland-security-secretary-nielsen

"The President Who Doesn't Read", The Atlantic, 05Jan2018
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/americas-first-post-text-president/549794/

"Why America’s ‘nones’ don’t identify with a religion", Pew Research Center, 08Aug2018
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/08/why-americas-nones-dont-identify-with-a-religion/

"Inside the White House Bible Study group", BBC News, 08Apr2018
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43534724

"Free Bible Studies" from Capitol Ministries, the official Bible Study Group of the Whitehouse
https://capmin.org/bible-studies/

In which I mourn my friend.

There was once a teacher from the Public Education System whom I respected greatly.

He was the one primarily responsible for piquing my lifelong interest in math and civics.  He pushed the ideal that any problem that can be modeled by mathematics can be studied, can be understood, can be acted upon within the bounds of the problem domain.  He believed that being educated in the functional structure of government empowered a person to be a good citizen, to engage positively in the democratic process.  Not a practicing Christian of any specific denomination, he was a decent person and believed in the existence of God just like everyone else where I grew up.  Not highly political, he leaned Democrat and valued the hard workers of America be they cowboys, nurses, or assembly line workers.

Long after I left school, in his own middle age, he hit a speed bump in the road of life developing an addiction to prescription painkillers.  After a brief season of chemical induced crazy, he became Born Again and adopted a Charismatic Christian lifestyle.  In rural Oklahoma this also means adopting dogmatic, ideological Republicanism.  And he changed.

Gone was the rational, thoughtful, balanced individual I had admired and respected as a child.  In his place is an angry, fearful, hateful man.  By virtue of his chosen religiosity, he has incorporated a worldview holding that Democrats are evil secular humanists who deny God and worship at the altar of Socialism.  Republicans on the other hand acknowledge Jesus as their Lord and Savior, and humbly follow the will of God, only to get persecuted and ridiculed by the liberals for their efforts.

I cannot abide this worldview, nor the changes it wrought in my friend.  It is overly simplistic and willfully ignorant, painting the veneer of a false dichotomy on the face of our complex and ever-changing society.  It took a man who had compassion for the poor, who accepted students for who they were regardless of their expressed sexual orientation, and created instead a person with open and agitated hostility towards "poor, lazy welfare takers" and the "godless, liberal gay activists".

Working in collusion, Breitbart, Fox News, the GOP, and Charismatic Christian Nationalism, killed my mentor.  Yes, I grieved the loss of my friend.  Yes, I'm still damn angry about it.  No, I can no more change the material facts of this reality than I can add a cubit to my stature.

So, what do I do?  Well, for one thing I cook.  I cook for Muslims, I cook for atheists and agnostics, I cook for Pro-Choice Gay Socialist Liberals.  I welcome them into my home, I feed them, and I love on them.  I share in their joys, fears, and ambitions.  I share my own experiences of life as sailor, nerd, Believer.  All the people he now hates borne of misguided religiosity, I will embrace.

Since I believe in a Sovereign God, I am forced to accept that the reality I live in is supposed to be this way, at least for now.  So I will quiet my soul, I will pray a prayer of guidance, and I will speak out against religious bigotry and class hatred in my writing.  And tonight, because my Lord has shown favor to me today, Sarah and I will eat well, slumbering in an air conditioned house on a comfortable mattress, recharging our physical and spiritual batteries to face the evils tomorrow will certainly bring.

Amen.

Woody doesn't do Public Protesting

I have never attended a public protest, mainly because I'm not a goddamned Liberal.

The last time I considered joining a protest was back in 2008 when the radical-left socialist and domestic terrorist, William Ayers, was scheduled to speak at my university.  As a veteran, patriot, and solidly partisan Republican, I joined in the popular outrage of the time directed towards Obama and his Libby Crew like Ayers.  This outrage was exampled to me by the conservative pundits I listened to on talk radio three hours every day.  I was fully committed to standing outside the teaching college in my American Legion gear demonstrating my opposition to the presence of this UnAmerican "Big L" Liberal at my school.

Fast forward a decade and my political ideology has shifted to Centrist.  I no longer listen to Beck, Hannity, and Rush on talk radio.  I don't read "The Federalist Papers Project" blog or watch PragerU on Youtube.  I didn't replace those things with their liberal counterparts, but rather changed the methodology of how I keep myself educated.  I very closely follow the daily business of my state government for the 2-3 months they are in session each year.  I monitor the Federal Courts System for issues that are of concern to me.  Basically, I fired The Media.  I'm not an idiot and I don't need those idiots feeding me the Conservative or Progressive or Christian Point-Of-View their Advertisers have paid them for.

Which brings me to this Sunday's PRIDE March at the Nebraska State Capitol Building.  I'll be there.  With my heterosexual christian wife.

My Evangelical brethren and my die-hard Republican friends will not understand my participation in this event.  Their lack of understanding stems from a lack of education, which results in a lack of empathy.... manifesting ultimately in fear and anger.   Those friends consume the viewpoints of sources such as Dr. Carson, Col Alan West, Sean Hannity,  The Family Research Council, Nebraska Family Alliance.  Those sources tell my friends "The Gay Lobby is eroding the Values this country was founded upon.  They are forcing their Gay Agenda down our throats.  They hate God and they hate you.  Fight them, for your children's' sake."  I consider that position incorrect, ignorant, and wrong-headed.

I will be at the event to stand in solidarity with my LBGQT brothers and sisters.  To demonstrate to them that I see them.  As human.  As citizens who deserve equal protection under the law.  As part of my family and my community here in Lincoln where I've made my home.  I will be at the event, so that if my Evangelical or Republican friends choose to counter-protest, they will see me standing there, unashamed and unaccused.

This is not a Republican vs Democrat issue.  It's not a God vs Atheist issue.  This is about human dignity and common decency, an issue of Civil Liberty, and I choose to respond in Love.  Join me.

Nebraska Pride March | Nebraska State Capitol Building | Sunday, 11. June 2017

Shall I Apologize for my Polemic Position on Pop-Christian Culture Apologetics?

"Woody, why do you hate Apologists?  I thought you were supposed to be a Christian or whatever?"

I do not hate Apologists.  I simply have never met a single one who, after hearing their case, I had any intellectual respect for at all.
***
A number of months ago a visiting preacher spoke to the church I attended.  He was with Ratio Christi, an apologist group that targets college campuses.  He lamented from the pulpit that "too many of our Youth leave the faith when they get to college." His group, he stated, offered "historical, philosophical, and scientific arguments to believe in Christ." (https://ratiochristi.org/)

On its face I have no objection to that intention.  I too believe in Christ and believe that the Bible is true.  I too assign intellectual value to history, science, and to philosophy - getting my bona fide's studying chemical engineering at University and engaging in Lincoln-Douglas Values Debate in High School.  As both Scientist and Believer, I daily witness the mastery and mystery of God's Hand in His Creation.

 But here's the rub, I also believe conceptual integrity and I'm not an idiot.

As an intellectual nerd, I have undertaken a more rigorous study of history, science, and philosophy, than the majority of my christian brethren.  In addition to fluency with the fundamentals of western science and philosophy, I have fluency with the fundamentals of the Scriptures, having been raised in a King-James-Only-Church.  So when the Christian Apologist makes bull-crap arguments, taking concepts out of context, cherry picking language - I will know it.  When Scientists do this, intentionally misapplying concepts to make a fallacious point, or obfuscating data to coax readers into incorrect conclusions, we kick them out of our community and ridicule them to scorn (see Anti-Vaxxers and Climate-Change-Deniers).  Among Truth-Seekers there is *no* room for intellectual dishonesty.  If a person must use falsehoods and deceit to "prove" the "truth", they are at best ignorant of what the truth actually is, or at worst simply a dishonest jackass.

Many Evangelicals have been deluded into accepting Popular Apologetics as an authentic tool for presenting the gospel to secularist non-believers.  It is their Biblical David to battle the Secular Goliath.  By my personal standard, I do not believe these Christians exhibit intelligence in this choice.  They are an ignorant people playing with hard concepts they do not comprehend.  So you may ask Dear Reader, "What's is the end-game here, Woody?  What purpose does the practice of Christian Apologetics, as used by American Evangelicals, serve?"  For me that answer is easy: The end-game is what the end-game is for most of American Christianity: Money and Political Influence.

If you want to know what American Christians really believe in, examine what they teach their children in Church.  Do they teach their little ones the Bible? No, they teach the Awana Program which makes learning individual bible verses (interlocked with Protestant Conservative Christian Dogma) Fun!  What about the High Schoolers?  Surely they teach those Youth the Bible?  No, they teach second-rate Apologetics a la Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ", as their Sunday School Curriculum (the movie based upon the book cleared $7M in its first two weeks at the box office.  Each 'Student Edition' of "The Case for Christ" features 5 pages of advertisements for the other "The Case For.." books available for purchase from the Publisher at $9.99 each.)  For a bit of variety, they also teach a thinly-veiled "You're not an Godly American if you vote Democrat" message, a la a private screening of Franklin Graham's "Decision America" video (why would you show a video about Godly Republican Voting to minors who can't vote? Well... Brother Graham didn't spent a cool $9M on that project just to miss an easy opportunity to "invest" in the minds of future "christian voters" too).

Money and Political Influence.  Not the Bible.  Not Jesus's compassion upon the poor, upon women, upon refugees.  Not Jesus's overturning of the money changers' tables or his chastisement of the hypocritical Religious Leaders.  Nope.  Money and Politics shapes the discussion that a large segment of the Religious in America swallow without thought.

(untitled)

Yesterday was a very unfortunate day for (some) children in this, the Great State of Nebraska. Children in the Juvenile Justice System, children in the Foster Care System, children in the Developmental Disability System, and also children who are sick as well as poor, on the Medicaid System, they will indeed and undoubtedly suffer from votes taken Wednesday on the Nebraska Unicameral Floor.

The Governor has line-item veto authority on the budget, and he exercised that this year on a number of DHHS and Nebraska Supreme Court programs. Nebraska is supposedly crafting our best shot at weathering a very real economic downturn. His stated purpose for the vetos was to not touch the "rainy day fund", presumably to put the state at a lower risk of a Special Session resulting from revenue catastrophically lagging forecasts over the interim. On a number of the overrides, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee stated he felt the reduction in the Reserve was appropriate, and that the amounts of money were so small, that the reductions to the Reserve would be virtually insignificant.

The cuts were particularly viscous to a particular class of people, those at the margins of society. Normal people are often honestly ignorant of the plight of these Others. Sometimes we simply don't see them... and other times we decide not to. Riding the bus I do see some of these, The Unfortunates: The single moms wearing a McDonald's uniform whose stroller blocks the aisle, the convicts on work release taking about their "old-ladies" and their kids back in freedom, the dirty jeans construction worker with a lunch box that looks just like mine - they are people. Also where I live informs me of these Unfortunates, literally, between the Governor's Mansion one block to the West, and drug houses in a blighted area one block to the East.  I see barefoot and shiftless kids playing in yards of houses with overgrown weeds and missing windows, completely ignorant of how the middle-class white preacher's children experience childhood. These are the people impacted by these senseless budget actions.

I cannot say for certain what is the content of my fellow Nebraska Christians' hearts, for "what man can truly know another man?" But I hear these "Christian" Senator's arguments, I see their votes which represent their constituents. If you claim the cross and you aren't ashamed of your state government putting party politics before people, I'm ashamed of you... which doesn't really matter much in the greater scheme of things.

It is illegal in Nebraska, for a teacher in a public school to wear a cross necklace under a state law passed in 1919. You won't believe why!

**I am not a lawyer, just a dedicated nerd.  Courts determine innocence or guilt of crimes.  Title is intentionally sensationalized! because this stuff is deep and I wanted to provide some levity**

Let's take a closer look

On Wednesday the Nebraska Unicameral will begin the second day of General File floor debate on LB 62 (LB 62 Document Page).  I am really hoping for high quality debate on this bill.  It touches on some very important issues of both religion and law, and our style of doing state government provides an opportunity for anyone to increase their exposure to a handful of legal topics, in real-time, from the source: the Unicameral itself.  Topics likely to be discussed tomorrow might include the Separation of Church and State/Establishment Clause, the doctrine of Reasonable Accommodation, the notion of "compelled speech".  We also might see examples of various procedural methods of amending law, amending bills, and discussion of the phrase 'the opening of the statute for modification", something applicable to all bills and laws.

***

The prohibitions against wear of "religious garb" does not single out Christianity's crosses and Catholic habits, it extends as well to yamakas or the Star of David worn by Jews, to hajibs and the Crescent Moon of Islam, or any other object that is worn out of a person's religious conviction. From a review of the transcript to LB 62's  Public Hearing, we learn that almost a hundred years ago, the KKK lobbied for and secured passage of, similar religious garb bans in 35 other states, because they didn't want nuns educating their children with views that disagreed with their white-superiority beliefs. These bills were not difficult to get passed because at that time there was a great anti-catholic fervor sweeping the country, the ripples of which I felt in rural OK growing up. The protestant American people of the time were in fear the Catholics, many of them immigrants from Europe, might attempt to undermine America itself by electing a Papist-Sympathizing President. Might seem odd now, but it was a widely held fear back then. Since that time, all states have repealed their bans on the wear of religious garb by public teachers with the exception of Nebraska and Pennsylvania.

(Transcript of Education Committee Public Hearing on LB 62)

I'd like to review some of the arguments made Tuesday as a preview on what we may hear Wednesday:

1) As written, LB 62 would repeal two sections of state law which contain variously: language establishing criminal offences, language establishing criminal penalties for offenses, language compelling actions/speech. With passage of LB 62, notwithstanding local school dress codes, any teacher could wear any item of "religious garb."

2) Sen Schumacher has voiced a concern I think might be slightly in the legal weeds, but is valid enough to deserve mention. If the statutes are repealed the following hypothetical situation could occur: Two middle-aged public teachers, identical male twins, one a catholic bishop the other an agnostic LBGQT advocate, could both desire to "wear pink patent leather slippers and a pink frock" while teaching in a Public School. With the repeal of the statues, he posits, schools might allow the bishop to wear the clothing by way of the man's first amendment right to freedom of religion (as the uniform of a church officer), but might deny the agnostic (due to the clothing causing potential disorder in the classroom).  Sen Schumacher feels this might create a situation where the State offers preferential treatment to a person with positive religious affiliation over someone with no religious affiliation, something he feels might violate the 1st Amendment's Establishment Clause.  I think the dress code policies of local schools make this a moot point, but there is some merit to the argument.

3) Senator Chambers also takes issue with LB 62.  Sen Chambers utilizes a particular style of oratory in floor debate - always speaking with the knowledge his words are being recorded for History as a matter of the Public Record.  He often splits his speaking time between using rhetoric to make the point of his position, and separately discussing the procedural or legal substance of his position. In floor debate today he rhetorically asked, "If the Catholic Lobby feels so strongly that the current law is unconstitutional, why haven't they challenged the law in the courts?"  Although it might be considered inflammatory by some, and perhaps rightfully so, in my view that question is an incredibly dense piece of intellectual work, asking several layers of different questions regarding matters of law, important social issues, and data that can be found in the public record.

The technical answer to his question, insofar as I understand it, is that in order for the Court to determine the garb ban is indeed unconstitutional, a person with "Standing" is required to bring a suit before the court. To establish Standing is a not-simple legal topic, but I'd offer the gist is this: a Concerned Party would have to wear religious garb in the classroom in violation of current law, and be charged of violating the law by an agent of the State.  At this point the Concerned Party, now Defendant, could ask the Court for relief, something also guaranteed under the First Amendment, freedom to "petition the government for a redress of grievances".  From most of the cases I've read, it's about here that lawyers specializing in this type of law are typically procured for the Defendant, often retained by religiously affiliated lobbies.  Those lawyers, together with the AG defending the law, would then make their arguments to the court, first in written briefs outlining the legal aspects of their case, then in open court discussing the merits of their case through timed question and answer, with the Court making final determination on constitutionality of the law. I'm fairly certain the Court would strike down the current law as a clear and blatant violation of the First Amendment's protection of religious freedom, so clear is the question of the law the ACLU testified in favor of this bill as necessary to correct the current unconstitutional statues.

Secondly, moving from the Judicial side to the Legislative side of this, Sen Chambers has announced his intention to introduce an amendment Wednesday morning that would strike the punishment and crime language from current law, but would retain the prohibition against religious garb. I expect a very high level debate on the Chamber Amendment tomorrow, but as a primer, Senator Chambers voiced concerns he has with the how the Nebraska Justice System interfaces with children in his constituency. He says he is aware of students belonging to the LGBQT community enrolled in Public Schools, where a teacher of the student both wore religious clothing and made strong strong religious statements regarding homosexuality in the classroom. When the parents of the student kept the student out of school to prevent what they saw as the student's harassment, the county took legal action against the student and his parents under Nebraska truancy laws. Senator Chambers feels strongly that religion has no place in Public Schools because he feels "children should not be forced to become involved in the arguments held between grown adults". I will admit I'm not swayed by the arguments commonly presented by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which are very similar to Sen Chambers's argument here, but part of being a student of the law is maintaining an open mind. I'm very much looking forward to listening to the debate to get a better handle on the legal aspects of the various arguments being offered.

I cannot recommend tuning in to the debate strongly enough.  The snippets of things we hear in the media do not come close to encapsulating the complexities found in the making of law.  My intuition says the Chambers Amendment will not be adopted, and LB 62 should advance to Select File today.  If anyone has questions on any statements I made above, or on the debate that goes down Wednesday, hit me up!

Live stream link: http://netnebraska.org/basic-page/television/live-demand-state-government

Should Teachers Be Able To Punch Students In The Mouth Without Consequence?

or

"An example of Partisan Republicans attempting to game the committee and referencing system of the Nebraska Unicameral, poorly"

***

I just wrote my state senator on LB 595, a bill related to teachers interacting with combative students. My wife's employment as a para-educator, working primarily with behaviorally challenged students, provides me with background knowledge on some of the school environments that would be impacted by this bill.  Partisan Republicans are attempting to stack the deck and get their bills, some of which that have serious legal problems in their construction, onto the floor for General File.  They are doing this with a 2-pronged approach.  First, on Legislative Day One, they loaded certain committees with vote lock majorities of Partisan Republicans and placed inexperienced, unqualified people in chairmanships, such as Sen Groene, a person who has never worked in Public Education,as chair of the Education Committee.  Then, they are using a vote lock majority on the Referencing Committee to steer bills to committees that are not best suited to hear the bills.  Such is the case with LB 595.  Originally referenced to Judiciary, then two days later re-referenced to Education.  I have requested transcripts of the meeting where the re-reference decision was made.  I want to know exactly who said what on this bill, which I will then share publicly with the People of Nebraska.

Hello Senator Pansing-Brooks,

On Friday (and again this morning) I heard Sen Chambers make reference from the floor of his pending motion to re-reference LB 595 to the Judiciary Committee, that motion put LB 595 on my radar.

The Legislative Journal indicates the bill was referred to Judiciary on the 12th day of the legislature, and re-referred to Education on the 14th day, I would like to request the transcripts of the Referencing Committee meeting where the determination to re-reference 595 was made.  If this was a case of both committee's chairs mutually agreeing to re-reference the bill, could you point me toward where I can find that in the record please?  If your office cannot get the transcripts for me due to your workload doing the business of the state, please refer me to where I can obtain them myself.

Regarding the language of the bill: My wife is a para-educator to Everett Elementary School, primarily working with behaviorally challenged students.  LB 595 speaks to a hazardous aspect of her job that she deals with on a daily basis, physically combative students.  Having read 595's text, we both have serious concerns regarding the bill's current language, particularly in that the 'hold harmless' provisions provided school officials are far, far too broad.  We are also concerned that there is no age-related aspect to the bill, addressing violent kindergartners and elementary students along with violent high school teenagers in the same bill seems imprudent.

I feel this bill should be heard in Judiciary, that is where the 'hold harmless' provisions would be best addressed.  Even better would be a joint committee of Judiciary and Education, but I figure that's simply an impossibility, especially in the current political climate.  If the bill stays in Education, I very much hope Sen Groene will research both the Mandt System (http://www.mandtsystem.com), the system my wife was required to be trained in prior to doing any work related to restraining combative students, and also the current policies and procedures utilized by LPS in their Special Education programs.

Thank you for your work in the legislature.  I'd respectfully urge your opposition to LB 595 as currently written, and to support Sen Chamber's motion to re-reference LB 595 to the Judiciary Committee.

Woody

*address redacted*

2016 Christmas - Some Recipes the Woody's Enjoy.

Hello everyone!  Sarah and I are just wrapping up our holiday gift making, and wanted to share knowledge of some of our favorite dishes as a gift to our Facebook and Internet Friends.  If anyone ends us trying any of these, let us know how it turned out for you!

Attached word document has the url's and our notes.  Included are 4 easy Weekday Dinners, and 4 Fancier Preparations that we enjoy using when we have guests.

Happy Holidays!!!

2016_Recipes_The_Woodys_Enjoy

WE ARE RECRUITING!

Are you feeling unengaged with your position in the Righteous Army? Do you seem but a faceless follower in the Phalanx of the Faithful, mere cannon fodder in the fight against Liberals, Humanists, and Secularists? That ain't my gig either, Brother.

I am a Specialist. A highly motivated and highly trained Covert Operations Warrior for Christ. I infiltrate The Enemy's place of work. I infiltrate His social media. Indeed, I infiltrate even the lives over which He holds dominion, often by being that person's One And Only Christian Friend.
I convert no one at the point of a sword. If merciful God, through his Holy Spirit, should bring my Unbelieving Friend to knowledge of our Shared Brokenness, his own conscience will hold that sword... and I'll be right there, ready with a message of Peace, Love, and Forgiveness from Our Father.

It is possible this job is not for everyone. The work is hard and owing to our embedded nature, the Regulars may even question our loyalty at times. But the benefits package is legit. Good food, great friends, and the kind of Engagements guaranteed to provide you War Stories for the grand kids, should you be fortunate enough to make it to old age.

If you would like to know more about the work we do, or if you posses a unique skillset you think could assist us in the accomplishment of our mission, contact me.

Christians Only Pray For More Money So They Can Have The Nicest Car In The Church Parking Lot...

For non-churchy folks, the idea of tithing can be a bit mysterious.  When non-Belivers encounter 'tithing' and 'giving' in American Pop Culture, it is likely in from of Prosperity Gospel Preachers like Joel Osteen or Creflo Dollar.  I, like many other Evangelicals, reject the teachings of the Prosperity Gospel, which can be briefly summarized as: "IF you are a Good Christian, AND you give me your money, THEN God will give you Even More Money! (The built-in correlative is that if you aren't rich, then it follows you aren't a "good Christian" - only poor people are sinners).  I'd like to take a moment to provide an example of how tithing and giving works in my family, which I believe is built upon a Godly model.

Today my employer announced all employees would be receiving 3 months of "Healthcare Premium Holidays".  The premium holidays are months where we don't have to pay our insurance premiums for that month, because the past year's expenditures for our Employee Healthcare Plan were much lower than expected, and the surplus is then returned to us in the form of the premium holiday.  Basically, we get extra money in our paychecks for 3 months.

Believers are commanded to "give of our means".  For my family, we have determined we can afford to give 10% off the top of all wages we receive.  This is our tithe, which we monthly give to our local church to support the various ministries of Southview Baptist, provide salary to church staff, provide for the maintenance needs of our church building, ect.  The Bible also encourages Believers to "give gifts", and these are interpreted as being above and beyond the "required" tithe.  There is no requirement that the "gifts" be given to the church, the giver can give them to whomever they wish.  This 3 month healthcare premium holiday equates to almost $1000 in extra money, which our family didn't expect, which due to God's blessings we don't have an emergent need for, because we attempt to steward our normal monthly budget prudently.  These funds are prime material for gift giving.

At least 10% of that $1000 worth of Free Money, perhaps more if God wills, will be given away to someone else.  It is truly an awesome feeling to know that I will be the instrument that God uses to help someone who is in duress.  I have no idea who God will put in my path in the next few months who will have a need that my family, in obedience, can fill.  But I am certain that He will.   This is How We Love Others.  This is a way anyone's family can emulate Jesus.  Join us!

***
EDIT: 8/16/15 - God did indeed put a person in need before us.  Sarah and I are very thankful that we could use some of the 'extra' God gave us, something we didn't 'need', to bless someone else that very much did need it.

(untitled)

Yesterday I was admonished to "stay the course of my upbringing" in regards to a particular religious matter.  After prayerfully sleeping on the indictment, I was moved to offer this description of what it was exactly that I was taught in my youth, how my life today is different, and why I maintain an Evangelical World-view while rejecting Religious Fundamentalism as my guiding principal of who God is.

 I was born and raised in The Church of Christ.  They are evangelical fundamentalists and are not charismatic.  They strongly believe in the restoration of The First Century Church and base their beliefs upon their literal interpretation of the King James Bible (they contend all other versions are "watered down" and therefore not authoritative).  Adherents are taught to dig deeply into Scripture for Truth.  My mother taught me how to study with a Greek-interlinear bible, so I could examine New Testament truths in the original tongue.  My copy of Strong's Concordance of The Bible gets heavy use in my biblical research, even to this day.  In The Church of Christ, I was taught to ever be a Student, to reject the teachings of men, and to hold fast to The Word of God.

They also teach, and I believed, that only people from The Church of Christ will get into Heaven.  No Pentecostals, no Baptists, no Catholics.  Just folks from The Church of Christ and the actual first century christians.  They come upon this honestly, by their application of  Rev 22:18,19.  They don't believe Peter, Paul, or John rocked a guitar or organ in their first century worship service, so if you do rock a guitar or organ in your worship service, you are adding to The Book, and that's a damnable offense.  There are a few other things that disqualify other denominations from Heaven, to include not observing the Lord's Supper every Sunday, allowing women to hold positions of authority, and not having the correct "Last Days" beliefs, among others.  I was taught that The Church of Christ is right and everyone else is wrong.

That is how I was raised.

Then the Navy took me far far away from small town Oklahoma.  Out of rural poverty, out of a Conservative State, out of the Bible Belt, out of America.  I saw what Christianity looked like and how God works and moves in places like Africa, Spain, Germany, and Italy.  God used the Navy to teach me more about human nature, and in his infinite mercy, he revealed to me through the Holy Spirit a more perfect understanding of what Love really is.

Today I weekly welcome atheists, homosexuals, alcoholics, people with drug problems, people with pornography problems, people with anger and jealousy problems, people that follow the way of Islam, followers of Judaism, Pagans and others, into my home to dine with me at my table, although usually we just refer to each other as "Friends."  Before we eat, as a rule, I offer thanksgiving to God Our Father for our food and for our lives.  I have never once had a friend object or take issue with this practice.  After dinner we fellowship and talk about our experiences in life, often my wife and I share what God has done for us, His providence and protection.  It is here that God uses me as a tool for the furtherance of His Good Works.  It is here that I share in the struggles and celebrate in the victories of other Humans, who though they are different than me, were also created in the image of the Father.  It is here I attempt, with God providing the power, to evidence to Others what a self-sacrificing, other-focused, God-centered life, is.  A Christ-follower's life should be attractive to others: humble, confident, forgiving, loving.  This is how God uses me to send Jesus's call to the Unbeliever.

I am but a mere mortal.  And though God chose to make me an intellectual, my intelligence cannot come close to understanding the full breadth and depth of The Creator and His Mysteries.  As such, I have no place to judge the "correctness" of the Fundamentalist's understanding of God.  I do know that Good Fruit comes from Good Trees and that there is no Ugliness in Perfection.  Though I don't see eye to eye with the Fundamentalist, and though aspects of my Christ-Following-Life may come up short by his standard and understanding, I still believe we are on the same team.  Eph 4:1-7

My name is Woody, and I am a Christ-follower.  I am not a Baptist, a Catholic, or a Pentecostal.  I am not a Church-of-Christ'er.  Rather, I have been called out of The World to be A Peculiar Person and to follow the path God has laid before me.  I am about My Father's business.  Join me.

Godspeed To My Conservative Christian Brethren:

I would like to take a moment and wish Godspeed to my Conservative Christian Brethren who are actively Fighting the Good Fight.  To my friends with fear that the over-reach of judicial activists threatens the freedom of religion in America, to my sisters who believe passionately in Bible-centered morality, to my brothers who would willfully see the government shut down to protect the life of but a single, precious, unborn child -- I pray Peace Be Unto You.

And though I wish you well, I don't understand you.  Try as I might, my own pitiful fallibility is laid bare in this endeavor.

I wish you well because: 1) I love you, and it hurts me to see such anger and fear in your midst, and 2) I understand where you are coming from - I myself was raised with American Fundamental Evangelical values in the Church of Christ.

But I will not march with you against Planned Parenthood.  I will not march with you against SSM.  I will not join in your rally to put the 10 Commandments on the walls of Every City Hall.  Those are easy decisions for me.  What is hard for me, is coming to terms with the fact that your 'good reasons' for marching are just as real and very much as important and valid as my 'good reasons' for not marching.  I'm daily struggling to understand this, but I know it's vitally important that I honor you.

If I am to live out my belief that the God I serve is Sovereign, that everything that takes place is either allowed to happen by, or caused to happen by, Him, then I must accept that your viewpoints and your actions are within the Will of God, however difficult that may be for me.

I invite any Seeker of Truth to the table in my home.  If any of my Brethren would like to discuss the different sides of these social issues, I'm here.  Not to debate, but rather to explain to each other how exactly we came to our current Points of View.  I don't subscribe to American Christianity.  I don't subscribe to whatever messages the AFA, FRC, CMP,or The Blaze* are pushing.  I subscribe to the active and powerful working of the Holy Spirit in my life, tempering my understanding with Patience and Love, informing my Heart and Mind by the Holy Word of God.

I don't understand you, but I love you.  I don't understand you, but God tells me He needs us both.  I don't understand you, but Love demands I try.

*

AFA - American Family Association

FRC - Family Research Counsil

CMP - Center for Medical Progress

The Blaze - News and Entertainment Network founded by Glen Beck

Regarding the Kim Davis Case

I have no desire to wade into the ideological sides of the debate regarding Kim Davis.  I would like to offer layman descriptions of the following ideas, hoping that they give folks a clearer picture of what is going on.

Contempt of Court (criminal vs civil applications)
Roots of Contempt of Court go waaay back hundreds of years.  Here in modern America any Judge, be they federal, state, or county, has huge, almost absolute power in their own courtroom.  Note: no specific law breaking need be in question.  If Judge says “no blue shirts in my courtroom” and you wear one, he will ask you to leave.  If you don’t, it is within his power to jail you (not totally realistic, but it’s the idea).  This would be an example of a Civil Contempt charge.  For these the Judge can award either fines, imprisonment, or both, with the sole purpose being to coerce the offender into following the Judge’s order.  It’s very important to understand this is NOT punishment.  If imprisoned, the offender can gain release simply by agreeing to follow the Judge’s order.  There is also a Criminal Contempt charge.  An example of this would be a person who a Judge orders to turn over handwritten letters.  That person burns the letters instead.  A Judge could impose fines, imprisonment, or both, for the purpose of punishment, to vindicate the authority of the court.

Folks may disagree on the larger picture, but from a legal standpoint, Kim Davis was jailed for Civil Contempt of Court, for failing to follow the Order of a Judge in His courtroom, to wit: Issuance of Legal Documents pursuant to the duties of the Office of County Clerk.

Public vs Private Entity (Kim Davis the Citizen vs The Office of Rowan County Clerk who happens to be a person named Kim Davis)
Sometimes citizens give up certain rights by virtue of being public servants.  For example, uniformed service members are prohibited from speaking disparagingly of POTUS, their Commanding Officer, and other High-office Individuals.  Seems like that would be a clear 1st Amendment violation, in the restriction of Free Speech, but the issue runs deeper.  When a citizen is employed by the Gov’t, their Individual Rights can be superseded by their Governmental Employment status.

Plenty of case law and other commentary on this one alone to keep a person busy for days, but this specific case has more to do with the Office of County Clerk than with Ms. Davis as a citizen. Citizens enjoy protection of their Individual Rights via the Constitution.  Official Offices, such as County Clerk, Governor, Congressman, do not, they are simply Offices with specific duties that must be carried out.

Federalism (State's Rights vs Federal Gov't Supremacy)
Super sticky issue.  Since our country’s inception, some folks want strong Federal Gov’t, some want all power to the States.  In this specific case a Federal Judge imposed his will on a County (her authority came via the State) Employee.  The SCOTUS case involving SSM was a federal thing, which is why a federal judge was the one doing the hearing here.

Folks big on State’s Rights (to include the Oath Keepers) question whether a Federal Judge even has jurisdiction over a county employee.  I’m inclined to say he does, but there’s not a cut-and-dry answer.  The idea the Judge didn’t have jurisdiction has legal merit and will play out in the courts in following months.

Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Both the Federal One and Kentucky’s)
A big word floating around is “Accommodation”, which is an element of both these laws.  The Federal RFRA was passed by Congress in 1993 and sought to outline what types of accommodation employers or the government have to provide to employees whose job might require them to participate in activities that violate their religious beliefs.  The Supreme Court ruled that the application of this law to the individual states violated the Constitution, so in turn some states enacted their own legislation, as did Kentucky.  When the states did this, they often used wording different than the Federal Statute, in some cases making the protections broader or changing what the required accommodations look like.

For the issue at hand, Ms. Davis’s name is on the licenses.  She feels this makes it a Freedom of Speech/Freedom of Religion issue, and I’m inclined to agree with her.  Their current work-around is to remove her name and her office, simply stating “by decree of Federal Court” or something to that effect, which I think fixes the issue.  But reading both of these laws will give a clearer picture on what options exist to fix the problem (because that is far from straightforward).

OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES (The SSM case at the heart of it all)
I'm really disinclined to even write on this, but I feel many folks have feelings/opinions on the case without understanding the exact nature of the Supreme Court decision.  This is a legal description of the case, not a defense or endorsement of any specific ideological viewpoint.

The 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution contains what's known as the "Equal Protection Clause".  Basically the clause states that the laws of the Individual States cannot favor one class of peoples rights over another class of people without showing a substantial reason why.

The 5th and 14th Amendments of the Federal Constitution contain what's known as the "Due Process Clause".  Basically this clause states that neither the Federal Government nor State Governments can deprive citizens of "life, liberty or property" without showing s substantial reason why.

In Obergefell, the Supreme Court decided that marriage in America has two very substantial, but very different aspects.  One aspect is religious in nature.  It is relationship strictly between a Man and a Woman, sanctioned by God, binding two people together as one for eternity.  The other aspect is a legal one.  It is a contractual agreement between two people, agreeing to become a single legal unit with respect to the state/federal governments, binding them together for purposes of taxation, business, inheritance, and so forth.  SCOTUS has no authority over the religious aspect.  It can no more redefine marriage than it can attend church or temple.  Indeed, Separation of Church and State protects religious institutions from this very thing.  SCOTUS decided it did have authority over the legal aspect, by way of the 5th and 14th Amendments.  The Court stated that the lawyers for the States failed to prove a substantial compelling reason for only allowing certain individuals (one man one woman) to enter into this contractual agreement.  The Supreme Court has modified this legal aspect of marrage more than once in the history of our nation.  Of note would be the striking down of couverture and also the permitting inter-racial marriages.  The Opinion in the hyperlink above lays out exactly how the Court applied both Equal Protection and Due Process, but I'd be glad to expound on them by email or Facebook Private Message.

The Kim Davis case has increased the polarization of the SSM issue.  Many people on the News are presenting their opinions on the topic without any real consideration of legal facts of the case.  I’ve tried not to color the above topics with too much with my opinions.  If anyone would like to chat about my sources more, I’d be happy to discuss how I get my data.