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.