decently and in order

In 2000 my family and I joined a Presbyterian Church (USA) congregation.  The long path to that point was quite convoluted, mostly uphill and would likely require either psychoanalysis or an incredibly self-indulgent dissertation to explain.  This church, unlike my childhood church, preached a message centered on God's grace in a way that seemed practical, reasonable and accessible.  Hearing it helped me clear the final hurdle to be able to commit to a faith, a belief in something bigger than myself, that had been missing.  The committment was not given out of guilt or fear and it did not require me to suspend hard won ideas about spirituality, deny the truth that can be found in science or forfeit belief in human autonomy.  This community of faith was, in a small, unpretentious way, making the world a better place and I treasure being a part of it.

My membership in PC(USA) is almost exactly 10 years old now.  Over that time my involvement in church has grown from attending to participating, from learning to teaching, and from following to leading.  Recently I was elected to a Pastor Nominating Committee, charged to find a new pastor for our congregation.  It was hard work, but it was a spiritually rewarding experience.  If you have ever felt called to a task, have ever glimpsed God at work in your life or finished an assignment knowing that the lessons learned were greater than the conclusions delivered, then you understand my concept of spiritual reward.  It was an exhilirating experience, especially when we found our new pastor, someone we knew God was calling to serve our congregation.

The exhiliration, however, has passed for now.  Events outside our congregation, unfortunately, have generated serious questions for me.  The answer to these questions may affect my continued membership and participation, specifically in the PC(USA) but perhaps even generally, as a member of any church.  My church, or more exactly the denominational leadership of PC(USA), seems to be substituting the colloquial, institutional wisdom of local congregations with the opinions from 'high priests' with a political agenda.  My daily struggle is reconciling my heart, which says 'Stay, make it better', with my head which says 'to what purpose?'  I do not know how this will be resolved.

My differences with PC(USA) are mostly political, though occasionally about doctrine.  The issue of ordaining homosexuals has not been definitively resolved within the PC(USA).  The general wishy-washiness of their stance is troubling, but the idea that the final decision rests with the local congregation and its immediate Presbytery leadership is part of being Presbyterian.  I can forgive their gullibility on much hyped (and frighteningly religious) environmentalism because I believe that we are stewards of the earth. Though some of the whole "going green" enthusiasm often strays into believing that humans are gods in control of the earth, if the end goal is a cleaner world or respect for (not obedience to) nature, I can manage my own perceptions and endure "we are saving the earth" hyperbole.  And discussions about 'social justice' are only troublesome to me when people conflate opportunity and mandate ... equal opportunity is not equal outcome.

The PC(USA) Middle East Study Committee's report, however, undermines my ability as an individual member to reconcile the public position of PC(USA) with my private political beliefs.  This 172 page report gives the distinct impression that if you are not anti-Israel, then you are not a right-thinking Presbyterian.  Somewhere along the way, apparently, my faith has misinformed my politics, or vice-versa.  Either way, the implied question is 'are you sure you are in the right place?'

The MESC, in this report, has taken it upon themselves to write letters to constituencies outside of our denomination.  They have stepped beyond the role of speaking "to" the membership of PC(USA), and are now speaking "for" the PC(USA) to outside groups.  They are encouraging individual members to spread their message, and promote their opinions, as we, denominationally, undertake further study.  Like it or not, whether this report is officially accepted by the General Assembly this year or not, the MESC has pre-emptively spoken for me, as a member of PC(USA), about the issues in the Middle East.  If an individual member disagrees, what is their recourse?  Will they be heard?  Ironically, the report is titled "Breaking Down the Walls" while they are consciously building one inside the denomination.

Yes, I know the report categorically states that PC(USA) supports the right of Israel to exist as a sovereign nation.  In the conclusion, however, they write:

theocratic states in the Middle East that are “Islamic” or “Jewish” should be considered as anachronisms in the twenty-first century. Such states cannot exist without practicing discrimination against citizens who are of the other faiths than those of the state.

Doesn't that contradict the statement about the right for the Jewish state of Israel to exist?  Does that single statement provide enough balance to the obvious Palestinian bias in the rest of the document?  Where is the condemnation of the Islamic states in the region?  Does only Israel need to deny their faith?  Where is the charge that Egypt is 'inhuman' for not supporting Gaza through its non-blockaded southern border?  Palestinian violence is presented as understandable, but Israel's self-defense is presented as abuse of power.*

Over a year ago I wrote about the hand wringing over "disproportionate responses" regarding Israel's actions against mortar attacks from Gaza.  In that post I wrote "somebody has to kick somebody else's ass to settle this thing."  I still stand by that assessment.  The state of Israel has been "in negotiation" for borders, for water, for peace since it's inception.  It has also been under attack for that same period.  Saying that you support a two state solution and that Israel has a right to exist will not end the conflict, and laying the bulk of the blame at one party's feet, in large part because the committee believes they are the 'powerful' party, isn't speaking with truth for justice.  It is the language of a prosecuting attorney, not an impartial judge.

The committee writes:

It is also our prayer that the whole church will then engage in a thoughtful and prayerful study of this report with a view to taking significant actions toward fulfilling God’s vision of peace for all peoples.

Immediately above this plea for "thoughtful and prayerful study" they position themselves as the priests, prophets and pastors for our denomination.  This is no different than the stance the clergy took before the Reformation, only this time, instead of controlling the interpretation of scripture, they want to control secular political opinion.  My faith informs my politics.  By condemning my politics, they are condemning my faith, the one that has grown, and yes 're-formed', within this denomination.  Must I conform to their politics to be part of their denomination?  That seems to be the impression the PC(USA) priests and prophets want to make.

Yes, I pray for peace in the middle east, but no, I don't believe it can be obtained if Israel 'turns the other cheek' in submission to terrorists, or in shame from external 'tsk-tsking.'  Israel has turned the other cheek, many, many times expecting to be treated as equals but instead are hectored from all sides.  Neither side is guilt free, but I believe that peace will only be obtained in the middle east when one side imposes their will on the other.  The question then is, which side will be the most just in their victory?

The impression from the PC(USA) is that these kind of practical, political beliefs make me both a bad Christian and a bad Presbyterian.  If practical experience and thoughtful reflection on political situations cannot be reconciled with pronouncements from on high, do I stay and be presumed in agreement with those pronouncements, or do I leave and find a more personally truthful path?

Is it any wonder that PC(USA) is losing members at an alarming rate?

* the caption/explanation for the cartoon above
“Israel is attempting to achieve balance of power with the Arabs. The Arab reply: This will be the only balance.” Egyptian review, Roz-el-Yussef, February 14, 1966.

I bet Bush knows the difference between liability and collision auto insurance

Bore Patch: Battlefield Preparation and Ft. Hood

Bore Patch: Battlefield Preparation and Ft. Hood

Please click the link above and consider the truth and practical implications of this assessment of the battle at Ft. Hood.

Makes you think, doesn't it?

All You Need to Know About Pelosi's Health Care Bill

I'm working on being more succinct.  I wish Congress would.

So, Con-men, ruin us

To Mr. Jim Guest, CEO, Consumers Union:

Last week I cancelled my subscription to Consumer Reports.

It wasn't because I sprained my eye muscles from rolling them every time I had to wade through the underlying global-warming-eco-religion whackism in every stinking product review. It wasn't because you have abandoned any pretense of objectivity and became a government snitch for the EPA. It wasn't even the condescending email I received from P. Rick Burns, Customer Relations Representative #1326379, which effectively said that my opinions were not sufficiently enlightened enough to appreciate how hard CU has "fought" for me, the lowly, weak and uneducated consumer.

No, what ripped it was your obviously partisan urging to support the Democrat health care plan(s). "Doing nothing about health care is not a solution" and "policymakers need to find a solution this year" ... did you hire James Carville to write this for you? "We don't endorse candidates" my ass.

So I cancelled my subscription. Why would I want to continue to support your statist agenda? Especially since I'll never be able to trust your auto reviews now that your minders and union brethren own the American auto companies!

Interestingly, within 72 hours of cancellation, the volume of spam to my email account quadrupled. I suggest you amend the section of your privacy policy which reads:

If you have an online subscription to one of our sites, purchase and download any of our online reports and services, or enter an online contest or sweepstakes, Consumer Reports will not exchange or rent for promotional purposes any information that specifically identifies you.

In the interest of full disclosure you should probably add in:

But if you cancel your subscription, all bets are off ... we're selling your email address to every spammer we know.

One of the spammers, of course, is Consumers Union itself, and today I received an email from you, Mr. Jim Guest, CEO, asking me to "demand action" on health care reform. Typically fascist of you. Are you so intent on action, action, ACTION that you don't care about why subscribers cancel and you don't think we can take the time to make the right kind of reforms?

Here's a step-by-step response to your insipid email.

Have you dreamed of becoming your own boss, going back to school, moving to a new place, having another child—but then thought, 'what about my health coverage?'

No. But if I did my thought would be, why has the government created such a freaking monstrous regulatory and litigation filled environment which makes my health coverage so expensive?

Most of us worry about paying for health care, even if we have good insurance, and we give up a lot of our dreams for a little health security. We give up dreams of retirement, a different career or better education. Millions who have poor coverage or no insurance at all give up needed check-ups, preventive care and medication.

We don't worry about paying for health care ... we worry about paying for insurance! Riddle me this, Mr. Obama regurgitator ... why do we need insurance coverage for preventative care and check-ups anyway? Do you buy insurance to replace tires or get your oil changed? And if anyone is giving up their "dream" for the sake of "health security" it either isn't a very big dream, or they are such wussies they probably wouldn't succeed anyway.

It's time to give all Americans freedom from the health insurance trap. In the health care reform we envision, you can keep good insurance coverage if you've got it, or choose reliable alternatives that cover what you need at affordable rates. No one is denied for pre-existing conditions; no one goes bankrupt because of illness. With that kind of freedom, you don't have to put aside your dreams.

Freedom from the health insurance trap? Don't you realize that the government CREATED that trap by incentivizing employers to provide insurance and separating the consumer from the purchasing decision? And there you go again repeating Obama's lie that you can keep your insurance (that's right, I said it - he lied!). What makes you think insurance companies will even want to compete in this market? What makes you think employers will not just pay a fine and leave employees swinging, grasping for a 'public option'? And the pre-existing conditions ... do you not understand the concept of risk? How do you expect insurance companies to stay in business if they cannot use their actuaries to design products? And that whole business of no one going bankrupt due to illness ... well, that's about as a likely as a world free of nuclear weapons. How naive. And how you can equate these current congressional health care plans to freedom is beyond me. What about the freedom to opt out? Oh, you can't allow that because some people might not be responsible enough to take care of themselves and then we all have to shoulder the burden, right? Wrong. They roll the dice, they take their chances and besides I don't see dead people stacking up in the streets because they are being denied care, do you?

To get the kind of health security we need, insurance companies should be required to take all applicants, employers should be required to cover their employees or pay into the system, and we need to allow people to buy into something like Medicare.

Do insurance companies get to set the price for "all applicants" or will it be mandated to make it "affordable?" Can you say, 'buh-BYE insurance companies'? Do you not understand that the high cost of employment is already a terrible burden on our economy, especially for small and mid-sized businesses? Yeah, let's make the employers pay ... what do they do for us except provide wages to everyone. Besides, they're all rich, right? And why would you want "something like Medicare."  Are you insane?  MEDICARE IS BANKRUPT! You worry about individuals going bankrupt, but don't care about the entire freaking country? Simply amazing.

If we are going to each shoulder financial responsibility for health care—individuals and employers alike—then the coverage must be affordable. But we also must be smarter about how we spend our health care money. We now spend too much for too little. We don't need to pay for hospital-acquired infections or substandard care. We do need to pay for prevention and the effective management of chronic disease. When we catch illness early, we enjoy a better outcome at a lower cost.

Why is it that when liberals speak of 'shouldering financial responsibility' they forget to mention that this burden is already way out of whack, with 25% of the population paying 85% of the taxes. If you continue to punish the successful at some point, they quit ... and then who totes the note? And why do we spend too much today? Well there is waste, fraud, malpractice insurance, research and development, excessive regulation, over testing, coverage mandates and of course that nasty 3% profit ... a whole host of reasons, but fundamentally it's because the consumer is insulated from the real costs and the actual transaction for goods and services. If there was market pressure, instead of Medicaid payment schedules and government mandates, efficiencies would improve, bad providers would be driven out and prices would go down. And that whole "preventative care reduces costs" *HS drives me crazy. More screening, more visits, more tests will drive costs up and if you don't believe me, how about the New England Journal of Medicine ? If you want to see lower costs, make people write a check for the cost of services ... they'll be wheeling and dealing like Charlie Rangel at an IRS audit and who knows, maybe they won't buy that carton of cigarettes so they can pay for the chest x-rays ... give the consumer some freedom to decide. Sound familiar?

Without reform, what dreams will our children have to give up? Our children will enjoy even less health care security than we have today, and pay more to care for us. We have an opportunity right now to finally overcome the obstacles that have defeated reform for decades, but we all need to work together to make it happen. Do you know anyone else who might join you in action? Forward this e-mail to them so they can send their own message.

OMG. I cannot believe you brought the kids into this. I'll tell you the dream they have to give up ... the dream of ever getting out of DEBT you ignorant TWIT! And health care security? Seriously, is anyone secure in regard to their health care? Ok, maybe PRISONERS! I'll tell you what we have an opportunity to do ... we have an opportunity to avoid yet another government intrusion into our lives, the greatest and likely final one. In the next 40 years, spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will double. DOUBLE. And we can't afford it now, genius. How are you going to pay for this? And don't give me that 'budget neutral' crap. If it's budget neutral, why do I have to start paying for it now, but it won't kick in for three more years? It's 'budget neutral' in exactly the same way that Social Security is self funded. What a maroon you are. And what exactly is it that you want to make happen? The destruction of our economy and our country?

Oh, and I'm forwarding this email alright ... I hope you'll be hearing from them.

Sorry I can't give you a 'Best Buy' rating ... although you scored "Excellent" in the sanctimony, arrogance and fascist categories they are not the features in which most consumers are interested.

Consumers Union ... an anagram of So, Con-men, Ruin Us. I should have known better than to subscribe in the first place.

Sincerely,

A former subscriber

* Horse