All across this country, local governments are hiding behind their misguided interpretation of "separation of church and state" to deny people their constitutional rights to peacefully assemble and to follow the religion of their choice. Yet when illegal ordinances banning home Bible studies, house churches or any other religious gathering in a home are exposed, too often people of faith refuse to stand together to force their local officials to do what is right.
One of our blog readers sent me a link to a news story that broke last week on a San Diego newscast. A pastor and his wife were "interrogated" by a San Diego County employee for holding a small Bible study -- about 15 people -- in their home on a weekly basis, which the employee said violates county ordinances.
The couple's attorney, Dean Broyles of the Western Center for Law & Policy, said a few days after the interrogation, the pastor and his wife received a written warning that listed "unlawful use of land" and that told them to "stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit," a process that could cost them thousands of dollars.
"If the county thinks they can shut down groups of 10 or 15 Christians meeting in a home, what about people who meet regularly at home for poker night? What about people who meet for Tupperware parties? What about people who are meeting to watch baseball games on a regular basis and support the Chargers?" Broyles asked the TV reporter.
The couple is fighting this. But they should not have to fight this on their own. Every person living in that county who values his or her constitutional rights should be demanding that the county government recognize the Bill of Rights -- for everyone.
Years ago, we encountered a similar situation in Siloam Springs, Ark. Although city officials looked the other way when large churches in the community held small group Bible studies at members' homes, they told us we couldn't have a few people at a Sunday morning service at our house. The ordinance they cited prohibited any regular gathering in which more than two or three cars would be parked at a house. When we asked the ministers of the churches in town to sign a letter asking the city council to overturn the ordinance, none of them was willing to "rock the boat."
We face a related situation in Fairfax County, Va., in which the county refuses to give churches a permanent zoning permit. All they can get is a special use permit, which means they have to get the county's permission to do anything. But rather than banding together to fight this subtle discrimination, the churches live with the status quo.
During this past election, we heard a lot about the politics of change. Change must begin where we live. If we cannot effect change on the local level, how can we expect to change our world?
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Joey's Take -- Obedience School
You know, I haven't seen Bo since the first week he moved into the White House. I'm figuring the president told him he had to get his book written this year or else ...
Or maybe the president sent Bo to obedience school. We can't have anyone running around out of control in the Beltway!
Speaking of which, I bet the president wishes he could get a muzzle for Joe Biden. Also on his wish list would be a shock collar -- wait, would that be considered torture? -- or at least obedience classes for some of the political animals in Congress. They just aren't doing what he wants them to do when he wants them to do it. They really need to be White House-broken.
It's bad enough that the Republicans aren't playing nice, but the Democrats should know better. According to pack behavior, they're supposed to follow the top dog.
Ah, but there's the rub. Just who IS the top dog?
While a number drink the president's water, I'm sure some of those congressional Democrats would wag their tails and point to Pelosi. Others might lick up to Reid or the show dogs from kennels backed by rich special interests. And in the Republican pack, a few are still sniffing around McCain while others are going in circles around Limbaugh, Romney, Gingrich or anyone else who tries to smell like a leader.
What all the political animals in D.C. need to remember -- President Obama included -- is that they are on a leash controlled by the American people. And that leash can be yanked, or shortened, at any time.
If you want to join my fan club, you can e-mail me at JoeyPortie@gmail.com or become a Facebook friend -- just look for Joey Serebrov.
Or maybe the president sent Bo to obedience school. We can't have anyone running around out of control in the Beltway!
Speaking of which, I bet the president wishes he could get a muzzle for Joe Biden. Also on his wish list would be a shock collar -- wait, would that be considered torture? -- or at least obedience classes for some of the political animals in Congress. They just aren't doing what he wants them to do when he wants them to do it. They really need to be White House-broken.
It's bad enough that the Republicans aren't playing nice, but the Democrats should know better. According to pack behavior, they're supposed to follow the top dog.
Ah, but there's the rub. Just who IS the top dog?
While a number drink the president's water, I'm sure some of those congressional Democrats would wag their tails and point to Pelosi. Others might lick up to Reid or the show dogs from kennels backed by rich special interests. And in the Republican pack, a few are still sniffing around McCain while others are going in circles around Limbaugh, Romney, Gingrich or anyone else who tries to smell like a leader.
What all the political animals in D.C. need to remember -- President Obama included -- is that they are on a leash controlled by the American people. And that leash can be yanked, or shortened, at any time.
If you want to join my fan club, you can e-mail me at JoeyPortie@gmail.com or become a Facebook friend -- just look for Joey Serebrov.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Under Attack
If you feel like you're under attack lately, I've got news for you. If your faith is an important part of your life, you definitely are being attacked -- on all fronts.
A report sponsored by the National Institutes of Health (yes, your tax dollars at work) has determined that "people who use religious coping actually ended up receiving significantly more intensive life-prolonging burdensome care than those who did not" (emphasis is mine). That quote comes from the study's author, Holly Prigerson, who examined the intersection of religion and medical care in patients with terminal cancer. Her conclusion, stripped of its euphemisms, is that people of faith shouldn't get expensive, life-prolonging medical care because it's not going to prevent death in the long run or end their suffering. (Check out http://www.hhs.gov/news/healthbeat/2009/05/20090528a.html)
I'm seeing some proposals for healthcare reform coming out of this study.
Another example also involves the NIH. Francis Collins, a respected scientist who is an evangelical Christian, is being considered to head up the NIH. You should see the response from scientists -- the ones who think they alone hold all the answers to the world's problems. Here's a sampling from scientists commenting on a blog featured in The Scientist:
-- "We're finally getting a funding bump and respect and it may all be for naught if a religious apologist ends up at the helm."
-- "I have very strong reservations about such a posting for such a clearly religious person. ... The posting would be for the head of the NIH and I can envision several serious conflicts that would compromise Collins' ability to lead effectively and may very well result in bad policy choices. For example, how would he deal with issues relating to contraception, teenage sex, AIDs, Embryonic Stem Cell research and so on?
"I have to conclude that anyone choosing to have a strong religious belief has chosen to disqualify themselves from holding such a post. We need people that can be absolutely objective, and by definition this is not possible for an evangelical christian."
-- "I did not invent the religion (that was done by profoundly ignorant men thousands of years ago) but I can observe what it does to the faithful and I cannot feel comfortable with those of strong faith being in such positions where their faith can potentially introduce a dangerous bias with far-reaching implications for our society."
-- "I am deeply uncomfortable with the use of religious belief to make moral decisions that affect national interest."
-- "In a secular society, people who want to hold a highly visible public office should keep their faith to themselves, and not let their faith influence their decisions at a scientific level."
So much for freedom of speech, freedom of religion or even freedom of thought.
A report sponsored by the National Institutes of Health (yes, your tax dollars at work) has determined that "people who use religious coping actually ended up receiving significantly more intensive life-prolonging burdensome care than those who did not" (emphasis is mine). That quote comes from the study's author, Holly Prigerson, who examined the intersection of religion and medical care in patients with terminal cancer. Her conclusion, stripped of its euphemisms, is that people of faith shouldn't get expensive, life-prolonging medical care because it's not going to prevent death in the long run or end their suffering. (Check out http://www.hhs.gov/news/healthbeat/2009/05/20090528a.html)
I'm seeing some proposals for healthcare reform coming out of this study.
Another example also involves the NIH. Francis Collins, a respected scientist who is an evangelical Christian, is being considered to head up the NIH. You should see the response from scientists -- the ones who think they alone hold all the answers to the world's problems. Here's a sampling from scientists commenting on a blog featured in The Scientist:
-- "We're finally getting a funding bump and respect and it may all be for naught if a religious apologist ends up at the helm."
-- "I have very strong reservations about such a posting for such a clearly religious person. ... The posting would be for the head of the NIH and I can envision several serious conflicts that would compromise Collins' ability to lead effectively and may very well result in bad policy choices. For example, how would he deal with issues relating to contraception, teenage sex, AIDs, Embryonic Stem Cell research and so on?
"I have to conclude that anyone choosing to have a strong religious belief has chosen to disqualify themselves from holding such a post. We need people that can be absolutely objective, and by definition this is not possible for an evangelical christian."
-- "I did not invent the religion (that was done by profoundly ignorant men thousands of years ago) but I can observe what it does to the faithful and I cannot feel comfortable with those of strong faith being in such positions where their faith can potentially introduce a dangerous bias with far-reaching implications for our society."
-- "I am deeply uncomfortable with the use of religious belief to make moral decisions that affect national interest."
-- "In a secular society, people who want to hold a highly visible public office should keep their faith to themselves, and not let their faith influence their decisions at a scientific level."
So much for freedom of speech, freedom of religion or even freedom of thought.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Looking for a Contender
Despite all the doomsday predictions foretelling the death of the Republican Party, the GOP actually has a good shot at reclaiming several important congressional seats next year. That is if it recruits credible contenders rather than embracing whomever shows up or letting weak Democrats go unchallenged.
Take the Nevada U.S. Senate seat, for instance. Harry Reid, Senate majority leader and, thus, titular head of all Senate Democrats, is asking to be taken out as he is no longer seen as the champion of Nevada. The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports his favorable rating in the state is at 32 percent and his unfavorable rating at 51 percent. According to the newspaper's poll, Reid has fewer fans in Nevada than President Bush and even Rush Limbaugh!
But despite this news, no Republican has stepped forward yet to challenge Reid's Senate seat. Why? The most likely candidates have their eyes on the governor's mansion. And no one is eager to battle Reid who is infamous for his no-holds-barred campaign tactics.
Even though Reid is in no shape for a well-fought campaign, the most prominent Nevadan Republicans have jaws of glass. A few of them have actually contributed to Reid. Some of the problems they face? Criminal charges of recruiting and hiring undocumented workers. Accusations of pocketing money intended for nonprofit projects. Conflicts of interest, including a state senator whose day job is as a paid lobbyist to the Legislature.
But Nevada is not without its contenders. Tim Cushman, the third generation of a family that helped punch Nevada out of the dessert, is pro-business, understands the challenges facing Nevada and has kept his nose out of politics. He could be formidable in the ring if he could be persuaded to don the Repulican mantle.
Or there's state Sen. Barbara Cegavske, a small business owner who entered the political arena on the school board level when she became concerned about the education her sons weren't getting. Her family is grown now, and Barbara, from all reports, has proved she can go toe-to-toe with the meanest without becoming a closet bone collector.
If the Republicans are to regain seats in Nevada or elsewhere, the local and national committees have to do some scouting, start recruiting the brightest and best, and then dig into their pockets to give these candidates a fighting chance. Only then will they hush the naysayers and start building the excitement they will need to retake the White House in 2012.
Take the Nevada U.S. Senate seat, for instance. Harry Reid, Senate majority leader and, thus, titular head of all Senate Democrats, is asking to be taken out as he is no longer seen as the champion of Nevada. The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports his favorable rating in the state is at 32 percent and his unfavorable rating at 51 percent. According to the newspaper's poll, Reid has fewer fans in Nevada than President Bush and even Rush Limbaugh!
But despite this news, no Republican has stepped forward yet to challenge Reid's Senate seat. Why? The most likely candidates have their eyes on the governor's mansion. And no one is eager to battle Reid who is infamous for his no-holds-barred campaign tactics.
Even though Reid is in no shape for a well-fought campaign, the most prominent Nevadan Republicans have jaws of glass. A few of them have actually contributed to Reid. Some of the problems they face? Criminal charges of recruiting and hiring undocumented workers. Accusations of pocketing money intended for nonprofit projects. Conflicts of interest, including a state senator whose day job is as a paid lobbyist to the Legislature.
But Nevada is not without its contenders. Tim Cushman, the third generation of a family that helped punch Nevada out of the dessert, is pro-business, understands the challenges facing Nevada and has kept his nose out of politics. He could be formidable in the ring if he could be persuaded to don the Repulican mantle.
Or there's state Sen. Barbara Cegavske, a small business owner who entered the political arena on the school board level when she became concerned about the education her sons weren't getting. Her family is grown now, and Barbara, from all reports, has proved she can go toe-to-toe with the meanest without becoming a closet bone collector.
If the Republicans are to regain seats in Nevada or elsewhere, the local and national committees have to do some scouting, start recruiting the brightest and best, and then dig into their pockets to give these candidates a fighting chance. Only then will they hush the naysayers and start building the excitement they will need to retake the White House in 2012.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
A Sacrifice We Don't Deserve
In today’s consumer-oriented society, we are so fixated on instant gratification and what’s-in-it-for-me ideals that we too often take for granted our freedoms, our liberty – even our privileges. After all, we’re Americans. We deserve to live in a democracy, to have a bloodless change of regime, to enjoy a higher quality of life than much of the world.
Then the calendar rolls around to Memorial Day, reminding us, for at least this one day, that our country was born and has survived – not because we deserve it – but because men and women for more than 200 years have believed in the United States, and what it stands for, so much that they were willing to put their lives on the line.
We don’t deserve their sacrifice.
And although we can never repay the debt we owe our veterans, we must recognize that, without them, there would be no democracy, no liberty – no freedom.
So this Memorial Day while you’re enjoying the unofficial start of summer, please give a thought to all the men and women who were willing to sacrifice everything so we wouldn’t have to.
Then the calendar rolls around to Memorial Day, reminding us, for at least this one day, that our country was born and has survived – not because we deserve it – but because men and women for more than 200 years have believed in the United States, and what it stands for, so much that they were willing to put their lives on the line.
We don’t deserve their sacrifice.
And although we can never repay the debt we owe our veterans, we must recognize that, without them, there would be no democracy, no liberty – no freedom.
So this Memorial Day while you’re enjoying the unofficial start of summer, please give a thought to all the men and women who were willing to sacrifice everything so we wouldn’t have to.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Joey's Take -- Choosy Voters
My mom and dad are very choosy when it comes to buying my food. They read all the ingredients, and don't let me have anything my sensitive stomach can't take. And Dad does a pretty good job of rotating from herring to venison to chicken just so my tastebuds don't get bored with just one kind of food.
They were just as picky when it came to choosing me. They knew they wanted a rescue pup, but they needed one who would become part of the family and who wouldn't set Dad's allergies off. That's where I came in -- with my big endearing eyes, my constantly wagging tail and my unquestionable loyalty.
Since coming to live with Mom and Dad, I've watched my share of political debates and listened to more pundits than I thought possible. What has always amazed me is that Americans, who are so choosy about everything else, are so willing to vote for whomever the cat dragged home -- as long as it's the "right" breed.
They're often taken in by the pedigree or the grooming. So dazzled by a pup's "cuteness" factor, they may forget that a show dog probably won't do much work down at the ranch. And those who are suckers for the strays convince themselves that the mangy pitbull will never bite them.
Rather than restricting their choices to the dogs with the rich bloodlines and fancy grooming or settling for whatever dog wanders into their yard, political parties need to be more proactive in recruiting hard-working, grass-roots candidates -- the kind who can get along at the dog park but are tough enough to protect the house.
(I've got a few ideas I'd be happy to share. I can be reached at JoeyPortie@gmail.com.)
They were just as picky when it came to choosing me. They knew they wanted a rescue pup, but they needed one who would become part of the family and who wouldn't set Dad's allergies off. That's where I came in -- with my big endearing eyes, my constantly wagging tail and my unquestionable loyalty.
Since coming to live with Mom and Dad, I've watched my share of political debates and listened to more pundits than I thought possible. What has always amazed me is that Americans, who are so choosy about everything else, are so willing to vote for whomever the cat dragged home -- as long as it's the "right" breed.
They're often taken in by the pedigree or the grooming. So dazzled by a pup's "cuteness" factor, they may forget that a show dog probably won't do much work down at the ranch. And those who are suckers for the strays convince themselves that the mangy pitbull will never bite them.
Rather than restricting their choices to the dogs with the rich bloodlines and fancy grooming or settling for whatever dog wanders into their yard, political parties need to be more proactive in recruiting hard-working, grass-roots candidates -- the kind who can get along at the dog park but are tough enough to protect the house.
(I've got a few ideas I'd be happy to share. I can be reached at JoeyPortie@gmail.com.)
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Ignorance of Intolerance
Yesterday, my husband caught up with an old schoolmate online. When the woman found out he had worked in the Bush administration, she cut him off with "We have nothing in common. Since you don't share my opinions, I have no reason to talk to you."
"How do you know?" Job asked her. "You have no idea what I think."
She responded with a list of all the hot-button issues and her stance on each of them. She then basically said that if he didn't agree with her straight down the line, they had nothing to talk about. The irony was her inconsistency. For instance, she's for animal rights, but she enjoys eating meat. (Job informed her that he's for people's rights, but he doesn't eat much meat and I'm a vegetarian.)
The clincher, of course, is that she can't stand conservatives because we're intolerant.
You know, refusing to talk to people who hold different views is like thinking you have nothing more to learn after you graduate from high school. It's like visiting another country but insisting on staying at American resorts, eating American food and hanging out only with Americans (who share your opinions, of course). It's like reading only one book, singing one song and wearing the same outfit every day for the rest of your life.
It is a lonely life devoid of adventure and intellectual growth. It is the ignorance of intolerance.
If you would like to join the e-mail list for this blog, please send a request to mari.serebrov@yahoo.com.
"How do you know?" Job asked her. "You have no idea what I think."
She responded with a list of all the hot-button issues and her stance on each of them. She then basically said that if he didn't agree with her straight down the line, they had nothing to talk about. The irony was her inconsistency. For instance, she's for animal rights, but she enjoys eating meat. (Job informed her that he's for people's rights, but he doesn't eat much meat and I'm a vegetarian.)
The clincher, of course, is that she can't stand conservatives because we're intolerant.
You know, refusing to talk to people who hold different views is like thinking you have nothing more to learn after you graduate from high school. It's like visiting another country but insisting on staying at American resorts, eating American food and hanging out only with Americans (who share your opinions, of course). It's like reading only one book, singing one song and wearing the same outfit every day for the rest of your life.
It is a lonely life devoid of adventure and intellectual growth. It is the ignorance of intolerance.
If you would like to join the e-mail list for this blog, please send a request to mari.serebrov@yahoo.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)