Learning How to Vote Responsibly

Seems easy huh? Well it's actually not as straight-forward as it may seem. So I'm going to outline ways that I think might help those who may struggle with voting responsibly.

1. Figuring out your basic assumptions:
There is no one true political party, and no one right way to do things. There are many. However, each of us have an ideal world that we'd like to live in. Perhaps you prefer little government interference. Perhaps religion is important to you. Perhaps you prefer abiding strictly by the constitution. Whatever it is, the most important thing is to figure out what your assumptions are. So here are some questions that are a good start to figuring out your basic assumptions:
     What do you believe is the fundamental strength(s) of a society? (ex: freedom, self-sufficiency/lack of debt, God, families, tolerance, justice, peace, equality, etc)

     What is the morality code that should be followed in this country? How much do you trust the public to make the decision for themselves to abide by the code, and how much should be legislated by the government?

     Where should government never intervene? What fundamental rights should be given to the citizens?

    

2. Finding your candidate(s):
Note that I said candidate, not political party. While it may often be that you agree with a certain party most of the time, one of the most dangerous things to responsible voting is to stop the research process because you believe every one candidate in a certain political party is the best. One of the other dangerous things is to only focus on certain offices. For instance, this year is a presidential election year. However, that does not mean that when you go to vote you will only be voting for the president. There may be state and local positions up for election as well, and it is also crucial to know who you'd like in those offices as well. Especially since their policies will probably more directly affect you.

So how do you find this information? Well, the internet is a great place to start. If you find it difficult to find local politicians online then I'm sure there are local offices that contain information. But one important thing to note is that the higher the office, the more false information there is out there.

So let's start with where NOT to look for information. Places that are pretty conspicuous are things that have titles that evoke emotion or sound extreme. Such as, but not limited to, "Can you believe what this video shows canidate A doing?" "If moderates or independents see this it'll be over for candidate B". Another sad, but true reality is you cannot find out information about one candidate from another candidate. The National Conventions are fun and all, but they are filled with half trues and bold faced lies, and it is very difficult to figure out what's right or not. Occasionally it'll seem easier to just believe everything they say which is a very dangerous thing to the voting process.

Continuing the where-not-to-look theme, we have news stations. They are ALL biased. Even if they are biased in your favor it's still not truthful. CSPAN is boring, but at least it leaves the social commentary at home. It is probably the only political news station that could honestly be endorsed. At least, the last time I watched it, all it did was point a camera at congress. It might have changed. I don't get channels anymore.

Well, now for some places to look for accurate information. The best place to start is with the candidates official pages. I have yet to see one that does not include an almost fully disclosed idea of what their policies are. So read that first. Another great source is debates. Debates are good because the candidates are standing right there to refute the bold faced lies that others tell about them. Though it is still probably good to do a little research to figure out the extent of truthfulness of statements that were important to you.

Other than that, do a lot of research. Though while you do research, don't let anyone decide for you if something is acceptable or not. An example of this is recent unemployment rates. Democrats say that during Obama's term unemployment dropped from 10% to 8%. Republicans on the other hand say that for the past 43 months unemployment has been above 8%. So, first, go look it up to see if the numbers are correct. Then look to see if the fluctuation is normal. Figure out the typical highs and lows of our country, and decide for yourself if 8% is unacceptable. Now, if you can't find a site that you trust enough, then that fact does not become part of why you are voting for anyone. If you aren't 100% sure, then it's dismissed. End of story.

Also note that facts and figures can be tweaked. For instance, Michael and I were recently researching the Florida statistics on drug testing for welfare. We were surprised when Florida pages had a lot higher numbers of those turned down for "drug related reasons" than, say, the New York Times and other newspapers had reported. So we looked at the actual numbers. It turned out that the Florida site was inflating numbers by claiming that people who didn't take the drug test were turned down for "drug related reasons". Always look at the numbers yourself, don't let anyone you don't trust completely interpret it for you.

Once you feel like you have enough information on each candidate then you can decide who your candidate should be.

3. Being a respectful citizen:

This one is hard for everyone. I have difficulty all the time because sometimes my beliefs become so ingrained in me that I can't even figure out why anyone else would think differently. For example, I care a lot about helping the less fortunate, and in my experience, I can't trust the public to do it without interference. Some times I forget that people who don't agree aren't heartless. Maybe they trust people more than I do. Maybe they don't fully understand the lives and behavior of the lower class. It could be for any reason, but that doesn't give me the right to label them as anything other than a human. We all come from different backgrounds and have different ideal worlds we'd like to live in, and we should be respectful of that.

What is and isn't respectful? Well for one, name-calling is not respectful: redneck, evil, communist, bigot, intolerant, etc. All of these are completely inappropriate and never did anyone any good. You will never convince someone you are right by calling them names.

Another thing that I think we sometimes forget is that spreading lies is gossip and whether you know the person or not is very disrespectful. Maybe you don't think you're an offender. Well, did you ever share a meme on facebook that wasn't completely truthful? Such as, "you didn't build that" or on the other side "I'm not concerned about the very poor." Those statements have been clarified a hundred times, so if you are knowingly sharing false information (even half-truths) about someone then you are being disrespectful. Whether you know them or not, they still deserve respect.

Also, remember that there is no evil form of government. Government is a thing and therefore can't have morality. The people running the government can, and so they can make the government evil. But just because your ideal world doesn't include socialism or communism, that doesn't make them inherently evil. It just means you prefer a different form of government. This implies that those who value those kinds of governments also aren't inherently evil. They just have a different preference. And we all have to learn to respect those preferences.

And that's about it. And don't forget, there are actually more than two presidential candidates, so don't forget to research everyone who is on the ballot in your state. Happy voting!

Chick-Fil-A

I was considering writing about the Chick-Fil-A contoversy, but then I read this. And it is better than anything I could have written, so I'll just put it here instead.

http://oddmanout.net/post/28484026012/chick-fil-activism

Chick-Fil-Activism

"In response to the Chick-Fil-A controversy, I had initially avoided adding my voice to the online dialog and instead pointed my friends to my “Tread Lightly” post, which asks people to think carefully about the impact of their words before posting rash and thoughtless comments about LGBT issues.  Nevertheless, on a day when numerous Christians and conservatives are planning to dine at Chick-Fil-A as part of an “Appreciation Day” for the fast food chain, I want to draw attention to a growing trend I’ve noticed among my Christian friends and suggest an alternative approach to engaging our culture.  I’m writing this post specifically for Christians, especially those Christians who support a traditional position on marriage and sexuality and who have vocally endorsed Chick-Fil-A throughout this controversy, and I hope you hear me writing from a place of genuine love and friendship.  (I doubt non-Christian readers will find anything useful in this post.)  Here’s the point I’m going to try to make: Eating a fried chicken sandwich is one of the most inefficient means I can imagine for protecting or promoting your beliefs about marriage and sexuality.

I believe Christians need to avoid like the plague doing anything that serves the primary purpose of making us feel good about ourselves.  In Matthew 6:1-18, Jesus describes three important spiritual practices (generosity, prayer, fasting) under the umbrella of one specific commandment: “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven” (6:1).  When he provides specific instructions for the three disciplines, he’s essentially reiterating that primary commandment.  Each of the three practices holds great potential for one’s spiritual life, but hijacking them in order to feed one’s narcissism or polish one’s reputation essentially defeats the purpose.

I don’t think Matthew 6 speaks directly to public demonstrations or protests, but my concern is that supporting Chick-Fil-A by patronizing its locations in order to protect and promote a certain understanding of marriage is so disconnected from the actual issue (What do waffle fries have to do with gay couples?) that it accomplishes little more than making Christians feel like they’ve accomplished something.  If we approach the effort in purely economic terms, we can say it’s a pretty poor return on one’s investment: Yes, Chick-Fil-A donates an infinitesimal percentage of its proceeds to organizations that promote traditional marriage and sexuality (organizations many consider harmful), and yes, one of the company’s countless bigwigs has been vocal about his stance on marriage (which seems to have polarized many without persuading any); but if the issue at stake really is marriage, buying a fast food meal seems like a terribly ineffective way to achieve the goal, and it leads me to wonder whether Christians are more interested in puffing up their self-importance than they are in building up a constructive, convincing case for the marriage values they want to protect.  (I’ve said nothing about the deleterious effects of vocally supporting Chick-Fil-A, like how it broadens the gap between the church and the LGBT community and how it causes pain to people who experience nontraditional sexuality inside or outside the church.)

The problem is much bigger than chicken sandwiches and gay marriage, though; the growing trend I mentioned earlier is an unwillingness to suffer with the world in order to empower others to maintain the difficult, counter-cultural values certain Christians profess.  It’s much easier to vote against legalized abortions than it is to help a pregnant, impoverished teenager raise a child.  It’s less work to enforce stricter penalties on drug users than it is to walk with a friend through the torment of detoxing.  And it’s much easier to eat a chicken sandwich in support of traditional marriage than it is to navigate difficult questions about sexual identity and God’s will with actual human beings who experience nontraditional sexuality.  When we succeed in forcing Christian morality standards on others, regardless of their faith convictions, we can assign them all the blame for failing to meet those standards, and we can rest assured of our own impeccable righteousness when we do manage to play by those strict rules.  We don’t have to suffer with others because their suffering is their fault.

Hopefully you can guess where I’m headed with this: Jesus did something different.  Jesus, who faced temptation but avoided sin, chose to identify and live with those who were on the margins of a society that was largely religious and hierarchical, often placing himself at odds with people who claimed to take obedience to the law seriously (Hebrews 13:13).  Jesus, who shared a nature with God, voluntarily humbled himself to the lowest places, even allowing hands that would murder him to find success in their mission (Philippians 2:6-11).  The example of Jesus is one in which surrendering all to the reign of God is infinitely more costly and infinitely more rewarding than anything we might do merely to make us feel better about ourselves in a never-ending culture war.  In light of that heavy calling, here are my three suggestions for how Christians can more effectively engage our culture’s discussions about marriage and sexuality.  I can assure you each of these suggestions is much more difficult than eating an 8-pack of chicken nuggets.

1. Take the plank out of your own eye.

Matthew 7:3-5 is one of those passages I revisit regularly because of the vividness of its metaphor, the sharpness of its brevity, and the searing impact of its insight into the dark places of my soul.  I don’t bring it up to suggest that only perfect people have any right to rebuke lovingly the sins of others; obviously, that would lead to a gridlock in which none of us could ever challenge any of us.  I would suggest, though, that those who are going to advocate loudly for a traditional view of marriage ought to go to great lengths to insure—not necessarily for the sake of reputation, but for the sake of integrity—they’ve submitted themselves to the full implications of the traditional view they’re espousing, because a traditional view of marriage certainly encompasses more than the “one man, one woman” definition to which current conversations have minimized it.  Are you in a position to be removing specks from other people’s eyes, or is the plank in yours blinding you?  How are you doing in terms of sexual purity, lust, and honoring people of other genders?  If you’re married, how well does your relationship demonstrate mutual submission, self-denial, and faithfulness?  If you’re not married, how closely do your thoughts and behaviors adhere to the kind of relationship dynamics to which God calls you?  If you believe same-sex relationships are sinful, is it possible that any particular opposite-sex relationship could actually be farther from God’s design for marriage than a same-sex relationship, and if so, does that relationship (especially if it’s yours) merit more of your attention?  It’s essential for us to ask these questions on the level of a church community in addition to the level of an individual: Does the church community to which you’re committed offer a compelling portrait of the interaction of radically counter-cultural marriages and other relationships, or do you all mostly mirror our culture’s patterns?

It’s become a sad reality of our era that cynical Christians (a circle in which I occasionally sulk) and non-Christians alike often make bets about which so-and-so prominent homophobic pastor will be the next to either come out of the closet or get tangled up in a messy sex scandal.  Again, I don’t mean to suggest people with perfect marriages or single people with pristine sexual purity are the only ones with any credibility to speak about family values; and I certainly don’t mean to imply everyone who condemns same-sex relationships is harboring major sexual baggage.  I simply believe setting an example of a life lived with integrity to one’s values is probably more compelling and persuasive than any theological argument or legalese; and I’ve seen countless times how nothing undermines the traditional position on marriage and sexuality more than the revelation of sexual misconduct in the private life of someone well-known for espousing those values.  If you’re worried there’s a speck of immorality in our culture’s family values, start by removing the plank of immorality from your own eye.

2. Get to know a gay person.

Many Christians are understandably upset with how pop culture negatively portrays them.  I’m thinking of shows like GCB (originally titled, like the book that inspired it, “Good Christian Bitches”) that paint caricatures of people of faith, turning an endlessly diverse group of people into little more than a shallow archetype.  I genuinely hope no outsiders to faith base their perception of Christians on what they see in GCB.  In the same way, I genuinely hope no straight Christians base their perception of gay people on what they see inModern Family or Glee, because even though those shows are generally sympathetic in their portrayals of gay people, they’re still presenting an incredibly limited portrait with the intention of entertaining and not educating.  If your support of traditional marriage and sexuality causes other people pain, remember that you’re not hurting Cameron and Mitchell, because Cameron and Mitchell are not real people.  If you’re knowingly going to cause other people pain (as the support of traditional marriage and sexuality inevitably does, regardless of whether you believe you’re actually helping people in the long run by supporting those values), it’s essential to know whom you’re hurting and to understand why they’re in pain.

Don’t rely on those shows, and don’t assume a few degrees of separation from a gay person (“My mechanic’s cousin is a lesbian”) will do the trick.  Talk to a gay person.  Actually, since the main issue on the table is gay marriage, try to talk to a gay couple.  Invite them into your home, if they’ll come.  Ask them shallow questions about the Olympics and, when the time is right, probing questions about what they’ve experienced.  Lest this all start to sound too devious and manipulative, let me insist: The goal here is not reconnaissance.  The goal of these conversations is genuine empathy and informed understanding.  Jesus made some incredibly bold claims on the people who followed him, and he sometimes called them to do shockingly difficult things—difficult enough that some who initially sought him out eventually turned him down to his face.  Nevertheless, we cannot accuse Jesus of ignorance or unfamiliarity with the people he called; he knew each of them intimately, and he understood why they did the things they did, even as they rejected him.  Christians would do well to emulate that approach, especially if the values they’re going to support seem incompatible with the direction in which our culture is moving.  When Christians make broad, generalizing proclamations about the kind of life they believe God calls certain people to live and make those statements from a place of ignorance and misinformation, it rings false, shallow, and hateful to outsiders.  Before you try to remove the specks from other people’s eyes (on an individual or cultural level), spend time trying to understand those people on their terms.

3. Carry each other’s burdens.

A few of my Christian friends have told me, “It’s not my job to edit the gospel to make it easier for people,” and that’s absolutely correct.  If we cheapen the gospel in any way to try and make it more palatable or appealing to outsiders, that makes us condescending and cowardly.  It’s not our job to edit the gospel.  But it absolutely is our job to carry each other’s burdens, and if the call of Jesus on a certain individual’s life is unbearably difficult or onerous to that individual, then the community has failed to provide the support and help God calls them to provide (Galatians 6:2).  Calling people to difficult standards is loving and Christlike; calling people to uphold difficult standards on their own is unloving and entirely antithetical to the gospel, especially when the standards you’re calling people to uphold are so closely connected to relationships and intimacy.  The gospel is good news for everyone, and it shouldn’t be any harder for a gay person to be a Christian than it is for any other person to be a Christian.

Those Christians who uphold a traditional position on marriage and sexuality believe the call of Jesus includes abstinence from same-sex relationships, and reactions from outsiders (or other Christians who think about marriage and sexuality differently) toward that position range from dismissal to pain to horror.  If those Christians are correct, it would take an enormous shift in worldview for someone to abandon a positive, loving same-sex relationship to pursue either celibacy or an opposite-sex relationship in the process of choosing to follow Christ.  Those Christians who have never needed to wonder whether God might not want them to remain in or pursue a committed relationship (i.e., many straight Christians) might not take seriously how devastating and jarring that sort of requirement feels, at least as the person transitions into that new way of life.  (The insensitivity and audacity of many of the comments I’ve seen online from Christians leads me to believe they’re not taking that pain seriously.)  So, if God is calling people to uphold a traditional position on marriage and sexuality, and if some people in the community are hurting because of what that call requires, then God is calling all of the community to hurt with those people.  Their pain becomes your pain, and if you’re unwilling to suffer with them, you’re spreading an incomplete and poisonous gospel.

I completely understand the concern many Christians feel about the ways our culture’s values on any number of issues seem to be changing with increasing speed, even if we might discuss in another setting which of those changes are actually most troubling and problematic.  I also understand the appeal—especially having tried their lemonade—of trusting Chick-Fil-A to do the hard work of culture engagement for me.  But if you’re sincerely interested in honoring and upholding a traditional understanding of marriage and sexuality in a meaningful way, avoid your local Chick-Fil-A and use the time to work on your own relationships, to engage a gay person in genuine conversation for the first time, or to offer support to the LGBT Christians in your life.  The call of Christ runs much deeper than fast food and Facebook comments, and it’s time for Christians to trust the God who calls them instead of the corporations that feed them."

Gratitude Check

It seems there are a lot of people upset about what Obama recently said about business owners. I'm not going to talk about whether or not his wording was perfect because that would be a red herring of the real issue. It's something to complain about when you don't want to listen to what the person actually said. I don't agree with Obama on a lot of issues. He has good intentions, but he's clueless as to how to prioritize. However, you cannot take something someone said and dismiss it, or worse condemn it, because the guy who said it didn't know how to prioritize. There's wisdom in what he said whether you want to admit it or not.

If you are confused by what was said and you think he was wrong, ask yourself: "Would I have a business if ____________?" or "Would my business have failed if ______________?"

Think of people that maybe could have done something to help you. Would you have a business if no one ever fed you as a child? Would you have a business if no one taught you how to read? Would you have a business if someone didn't organize a society in which entrepreneurship was encouraged? or Would your business have failed if no one built the road leading to it? Would your business have failed if no one taught you how to run it? Would your business have failed if no one bought your product?

If even one of those questions was a yes, then you didn't do it alone.

And since most of the people who seem to be upset about what Obama said aren't actually business owners, you can think about what you have accomplished and how maybe you didn't get there on your own.

I know being dependent on others is scary. So scary that we use words like "interdependence" to mean that yeah I'm dependent on you, but you're also dependent on me, so we're even. I know that we want to believe that if we have food storage, a garden, savings and a house paid off that we don't need anyone else, but it isn't true. We will always need someone else. We will always need our families. We will always need our friends. We will always need our church leaders. And we will also always need someone else to work, so we don't have to. We don't work to be independent. We work for each other. We work so that our position is filled so that someone has time to have a position to help us. That's life. That's the gospel. That's the point. We didn't come here to learn independence. We came here to learn complete dependence on Christ and God. We came here to learn to love which we can't do alone. We came here to learn to live in and like Zion. Zion is unity. Zion is working together for a common goal. Zion is not barricaded houses with fathers guarding the food storage pantry with his rifle. Zion is sharing. Zion is caring more about the greater good of the group over ourselves. Zion is letting go of fairness. Zion is not something that will happen after we're dead, so we don't have to worry about it. It's something that has to happen now in our hearts. And what a great way to start! Making peace with the fact that to get where you are now, you were once and perhaps still are dependent on someone else.

Hope and Strength

So I might be alone in this, but sometimes (a lot) I need to feel like I'm actually a capable human being, that everything I perceive to be wrong with me isn't actually all that important, and that I'm trying. Well I have a playlist I listen to that helps, so I wanted to share it with others who might feel like me sometimes. And yes, there are a lot of disney channel songs. I like them. :D And I'm pretty sure all of these are on youtube.

Who Says-Selena Gomez
Other Side of Down-David Archuleta
Firework-Katy Perry
Less Than Perfect-Pink -----fair warning this one isn't actually called this and the real name has a swear word in it, but the edited song doesn't, so I just changed the name on my itunes.
Believe In Me-Demi Lovato
Unstoppable-China Anne McClain
Sweet Silver Lining-Kate Voegele
Part of Me-Katy Perry
Stronger-Kelly Clarkson

And if you like religious songs I like to listen to these three(also on youtube):
Blessings-Laura Story
Beautiful Heartbreak-Hilary Weeks
What Faith Can Do-Kutlass----band name sounds like it would be heavy metal, but I promise it isn't

And this guy named ze frank made a song called "chill out" for a girl who said she was overwhelmed and had people all over the world record their voices singing it, and I think it's one of the sweetest things I've ever heard strangers do for each other over the internet. And thinking about all those people wanting to help each other makes me happy, so I like to listen to that song too. Here's the link:  http://www.zefrank.com/chillout/  (Scroll to the bottom unless you want to read the whole story.)

Well I hope everyone remembers how awesome they are today! Have a great Sunday!

Public Assistance Fraud

So, I'm trying to make sense of people right now. It seems like a common practice is to say that the government can't do anything right, but at the same time we assume that they should be able to do everything and see everything without any help from us. For instance, I can't tell you how many people have told me that they "know someone who abuses welfare/disability/food stamps/etc". They assume that the fraud departments should just "know" that they don't need it or that the disability office should just "know" that the doctor who claims this person can't work is lying. Apparently the government is completely incompetent, mostly because they don't employ enough mind readers. What I don't understand is that these people who tell me all about the fraud seem to know about it, but apparently the best way to fix the problem is to tell me instead of the fraud departments. I'm guessing it's a lack of information, and since I am also against public assistance fraud I would be more than happy to inform as many people as I can.

http://www.ucowf.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=107&Itemid=65 

This has the welfare fraud departments' information for every state in the United States. If you want to report any other kind of fraud for your state, and the information is not on this page, I'm sure the welfare fraud line can direct you to the proper department. If you read this and know of anyone who complains about welfare fraud be sure to direct them to this link. If enough people commit to doing something about fraud when they know about it then maybe we can end public assistance fraud.

End rant.