Random Thoughts

Well maybe just a little bit, but that title sure seemed like something I would never say. I saw Howard Dean on The Daily Show the other day and got to thinking about what he said. Basically he stated that the new "motto" of the Democratic party was "love thy neighbor as thyself." Which of course is the Biblical second great commandment.

So what does this mean for conservatives and Christians?

I have often said that the Government doesn't belong in social programs, personally I prefer a more libertarian style Federal Government. Smaller government leaves less chance for corruption and waste. It also means less money in taxes. However this doesn't appear likely to happen any time soon.

So what can be done to fix this? First of all, we need to stop relying on the Government or any particular party or person to solve the problem. Secondly, Howard Dean was right. We need to love our neighbors and ourselves. However his method of doing this and mine are different.
He would have the Democratic party start/fix social programs (health insurance, welfare, etc.). However, this just makes for a bigger government.

My solution? Christians need get up and do something (show some love)! The secular solution is for the government to throw money at a problem. This however is done without any real emotional ties. Christians need to get our and support Charities. If there aren't enough Christian shelters or food pantries around, then get more started. Tired of paying more in Medicare and taxes to fund the uninsured? Support or start Christian medical clinics. I could go on, but this can only work if there are a lot of people involved. Christ told us to love our neighbors, so why are we letting ourselves off? Paying someone else to do things, just isn't working well enough.

This sort of movement would have two initial affects. First, there would be less demand for government programs (making conservatives and libertarians happy) and second it would give Christians more opportunities for spreading the Gospel.

Matthew 25:37-40
Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

Here is the picture of me with my advisor after winning the 2005 Silver Symposium. It's annual award given to the top Graduate Student presenation in the annual Silver Memorial Symposium at the University of Delaware Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry.

From NorthJersey.com

By JOHN CHADWICK
STAFF WRITER



It's a bedrock belief of Christianity - not a topic for debate.

Until now.

A venerable Protestant denomination - at the behest of some of its conservative members - is preparing to vote next month on a measure declaring that Jesus Christ is the Lord, and making it mandatory for clergy to accept his divinity.

It may seem like a slam dunk, but delegates for the 1.3 million-member United Church of Christ may reject the resolution. Several Bergen County pastors, who aren't delegates to the convention, said they expect the measure to fail.

"Religiously speaking, it sounds like apple pie," said the Rev. Raymond Kostulias of the First Congregational Church of Park Ridge. "But there is a judgmental quality to it that implies very strongly that those who do not agree with us are condemned or damned or hopeless - and that's exactly the thing that UCC is against."

Hmm... those that don't agree are condemed? Isn't that what the Bible teaches? Why bother going to Church and calling yourself a Christian if you don't believe the Bible is true? The UCC is considered a liberal denomination, so this story really isn't much of a surprise. Perhaps they should go back 1500 years when people had the same issue and see how they decided.

Too busy to post anything lately. I need to get a lot of work done before I can finish up my Ph.D., so I've had little time for anything extra.

For now, posts will be pretty infrequent. Feel free to comment though!

Wachovia apologizes for slavery ties. Bank's predecessors owned slaves; company hopes to further awareness of African-American history.
June 2, 2005: 9:31 AM EDT

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Wachovia Corporation has apologized for its ties to slavery after disclosing that two of its historical predecessors owned slaves and accepted them as payment.

"On behalf of Wachovia Corporation, I apologize to all Americans, and especially to African-Americans and people of African descent," said Ken Thompson, Wachovia chairman and chief executive officer, in the statement released late Wednesday. "We are deeply saddened by these findings."

What is the real point of doing this? I wholeheartedly agree that slavery was bad, but what good does apologizing more than 150 years after the fact really do? It seems like an exercise in futility to me; unless there is some pro-slavery movement afoot that they are trying to counter--but I doubt that's the case.