Sanctification with a pickle on top? or, Why Jesus doesn't care about your chicken sandwich

I actually had a lot of quasi-cynical titles I was debating between.  "Christianity with a side of waffle fries" was way up there too, but you can only put so many titles on the title. ;)  The topic of this post ought to be blatantly obvious already, unless by some miracle you've managed to avoid the trumped up news (and I'm using that word very loosely) flurry over the last few days.

It boils down to Chick-Fil-A's stance against gay marriage and the scores of Christians (and non-Christians) that turned out to wolf down some heterosexual poultry on "Chick-Fil-A" appreciation day.  This post is not about whether it was a meaningful act of the citizenry to proclaim their democratic values and freedom of speech (the link above is a fascinating article on the legal/constitutional implications, btw), or whether it was merely representative of genius marketing and the naive, public belief that we can positively change the world by eating MORE fast food. (really!?)  This post is directly aimed at those who saw their patronage of Cathy's chicken empire as an act of spiritual devotion.

Now, I realize that nothing would so quintessentially pigeonhole us as American Christians as to believe that we could actually grow in spiritual depth by gorging ourselves on waffle fries (oh, but they are soooo tasty!  WWJDF?  What would Jesus deep fry? Answer: waffle fries! :) but I'm afraid there's just no basis for that.  To widen the context, there is a growing interest in what is labelled "moral consumerism" or "moral boycotting" on the negative side.  The idea is that through our purchases (or refusing to purchase) we can be more or less moral.  Now, I'm not saying that it's wrong to think about what we are purchasing or that it has absolutely no value, just that it has no spiritual value.  Yep, you heard me.  Jesus doesn't care about your chicken sandwich or if you're scarfing Oreos.  Allow me to give you the practical reason and then the biblical one.

Practical: The fact is that our global economy is far too interconnected for "moral consumerism" to really mean anything.  Some Christian friends of mine lamented the rainbow-stuffed Oreo and how they will no longer be able to enjoy it's wafery-creamy goodness.  Fact: Oreo is owned by Nabisco, which is a division of Kraft Foods.  Are really you going to stop eating ALL Kraft Foods products?  Good luck.  What about the fact that (prepare to be shocked...) gay marriage (and/or abortion) is NOT the only moral issue Christians should be concerned about?  What about companies who oppress their workers in distant lands?  What about those who provide "golden parachutes" to their CEO's while basically screwing over the rest of their employees, not to mention the rest of the world economy?  Again, I'm not saying that we shouldn't think about these questions or even that we shouldn't take some form of action to ensure that the companies we buy from are more ethical, but to take the practice of "moral consumerism" to its logical end, you will end up naked and starving or living on a kibbutz, weaving your own hemp clothes and eating from the collective garden.  If that's your thing, go for it, though even then one of the kibbutzniks might be gay and, by the same logic, you'd have to abstain from eating their vine-ripened tomatoes.  Go for it, but don't think it will make you more holy. 

Biblical: Fortunately, we are not not stuck with a merely pragmatic argument.  The question of purchasing goods as an expression of faith was actually a question that arose with the very first generation of Christians.  In God's providence, we have the answer of the Apostle Paul to this quandary in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10.  The issue of the day was buying meat at the market.  Almost all the meat in those days was previously offered to false gods in sacrifice before being sold at the market.  What was Paul's answer?  Boycott meat?  At least go ferret out the kosher butcher (which probably wouldn't have been too hard to do in a church with a good portion of Jews)?  Nope.  He says, "Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no questions... food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse."  So much for "moral consumerism".  Paul goes on to argue that if we receive it and praise God for it, we can eat (i.e., consume) whatever we want.  It doesn't really make a bit of difference who it was offered to, or what the butcher (or CEO) stands for or against.  Eat it and thank God. 

I'd like to look at a few results of this idea of "moral consumerism" to see why is has no real spiritual value.  First of all, notice that it is a current trend primarily in the western world where there is an over-abundance of material goods.  If you are really willing to say that "moral consumerism" is the duty of all mature Christians, tell me this: Are you really saying that if your starving, Christian brother in India can barely get grain to eat, and then only from a Hindu merchant who has offered it to one of his plethora of gods, that he has to continue starving?  Or if he does eat it, that he is somehow less "moral" than you are as you waste more money than he will see in his lifetime on your own personal amusement at the mall and on christian t-shirts with witty, little brand rip-offs that make you feel justified in spending more money on yourself than you send to help him?  What about the Christian in a Muslim country where EVERYTHING he buys is Halal?  The thing about "moral consumerism" as a supposed "spiritual virtue" is that it presupposes a material over-abundance of products to choose from and that the consumer has enough money to be picky.  It's not even a viable option for most of the world's population (or in reality for westerners.  See practical reason #1).  But in our self-centered affluence, we like to think that blowing money on ourselves makes us "moral" as long at the CEO stands for what we do.

And here we come to the next point.  The term "moral consumerism" is an appalling, uniquely western term that is really rather oxymoronic.  The premise is that I can be a self-centered consumer and feel good about myself at the same time.  I have no problem with the term "responsible consumerism".  Much like "responsible drinking" it implies that you are careful with this intoxicating practice of blowing money on yourself and do not do it in excess.  But "moral consumerism" seems like it should imply something more than just binging on all of my materialistic desires as long as I can attach some superficial moral value to the CEO of said company.  "Moral consumerism" ought to imply that we are moral in not spending as much on ourselves, that we consider those other brothers across the world who are starving while we debate between waffle fries and Oreos and instead send the money we would've blown on ourselves to help THEM!  Imagine that.  Perhaps the real reason we seek moral alleviation in what we buy is because, deep down, we realize we're simply spending too much on ourselves.

And here we get back to the Apostle.  He goes on to say in these chapters that though we are free to eat whatever we want, we should put one principle over our freedom: love.  If buying meat sacrificed to an idol is a point of offense to the person you're with, then abstain.  If you are with a vegan, don't eat a burger in front of him.  If you are having lunch with a homosexual friend (yes, Christian, you should actually DO that! ;) don't go Chick-Fil-A.  The point of our freedom is to use it to love others.  Spiritually speaking, what you eat doesn't matter.  Why you eat it does.  And the reason in these choices should be because you love others.  If we were half as concerned about exercising ourselves in true, self-sacrificial generosity and submitting our taste buds to loving our neighbor as we are about which trans-fat laden tidbit agrees with our values, we'd go a whole lot further in real sanctification and holiness instead of contenting ourselves with a paltry show of self-centered pseudo-spirituality.

El fin.  Rant, done. ;)  Comments welcome!

Ukraine: A Democracy at Risk

i just read this article from the widow of murdered ukrainian journalist, gregory gongadze. it pretty well sums up the steep, downhill ride that ukrainian democracy has taken since the orange revolution in late 2004/early 2005 and the resulting mindset of many ukrainians as they head to the polls this january. very sad, but unfortunately true. if you're interested in where ukraine is at or is heading as a country, i'd recommend it:

Ukraine: A Democracy at Risk

the sordid tale of politics in ukraine

i ran across this brief synopsis of the last dozen or so years of ukraine's political history on radio free europe and thought i'd share. for any who are curious or interested in understanding what it going on over here and how ukraine got to the place it is, this article is a really good start:

Constitutional Instability In Ukraine Leads to Legal Turmoil

why ukraine's problems cannot be solved by any amount of money

so, i was reading the headlines and stumbled across the latest reason why ukraine's problems will not be solved by any amount of imf loans. as it turns out, yuri lutsenko, ukraine's internal affairs minister (over all the police and generally charged with "maintaining social order and safety"... incidentally probably one of the better ministers in the cabinet) got into a drunken brawl with some german police officers in the frankfurt airport and has officially offered his resignation from the cabinet of ministers. he is rejecting the claims of the german officers, but for some reason resigned anyway.

this reminded me of one time last year when my wife and i happend to be visiting her mother and she had the news on. and much to our amusement and simultaneous discouragement, we saw video coverage of the Verkhovna Rada (ukraine's parliament). took me a while to find it on youtube (archive of everything embarrassing that people wish could be erased), but here it is:



but maybe that is a faster way to decide politics: throw two senators in a UFC cage and whoever remains alive gets their legislation passed. :) of course, the sad part is THESE are the people ruling the country. no wonder we are in such a mess (despite any global crises). at least we know the only way anything positive is gonna happen is by praying for them. ;)

an interesting debate on torture

just watched this on the daily show and thought it was well done on both sides. thoughts? (preferably AFTER watching the debate :)

disclaimer: the interview contains some uncensored language, so if you don't want to hear it, don't listen.

(the embed tags were broken, so you can see the debate by clicking on the links below)

part 1

part 2

part 3

some good news for crisis-wracked ukraine?

i found this article the other day to be very interesting. it is probably the first article on the economic crisis in ukraine that i've read that is optimistic. though the assessments on the political part may not be entirely accurate, it is interesting to get an overview of the situation here. here are some highlights.

Together with the international financial institutions, the Central Bank has examined all of Ukraine's banks and quantified their bad debt. Compared to the West, Ukraine's share of toxic debt is small.

Seventeen Western banks have committed themselves to recapitalizing their subsidiaries in Ukraine with $2 billion this year. In addition, it is estimated that two-thirds of the country's refinancing needs this year will be met.

Thanks to early and resolute anti-crisis actions, international reserves remain reassuring at $25 billion, or eight months of imports. Industrial production increased in both February and March over the preceding month, suggesting that Ukraine might already have turned the corner (although GDP will probably still decrease by 8 percent to 10 percent this year). Even the bond and stock markets have soared in the last month.

desperation and fascism in ukraine

(the above poster is from soviet days and translates: "beat the fascist scum!")

this article published by the Telegraph just a couple days ago tells a horrifying tale, especially in light of the destruction caused by nazi fascism in ukraine not all that long ago:

On March 15, voters in the Ternopil region of western Ukraine elected a new regional assembly. This was an Orange Revolution bastion, a region that has long sought to embrace the West and shun Russia.

But it is also has Ukraine's highest unemployment. In a crowded field, the previously little-known Freedom Party won 50 of the regional assembly's 120 seats as voters embraced its hard Right leader, Oleg Tyagnibok, who has urged the expulsion of all Jews and Russians from Ukraine. (emphasis mine)

"The problem is less the popularity of the nationalists than the universal disappointment with mainstream parties," said Viktor Chumak, a political scientist in Ukraine's capital, Kiev. "Voters are sympathising with radicals more and more as a result of the crisis."

it's pretty sad when political infighting among the powers that be is so bad that people are ready to vote in a little hitler. there might be many underlying problems causing the friction between the president and prime minister now, but the main one seems to be this: there is absolutely no concept that the goverment is enstated to serve the people. it still seems very much to be a left over sentiment of soviet times that the people exist for the state and not the state for the people. or as good old william wallace put it, "You think the people of this country exist to provide you with position. I think your position exists to provide those people with freedom."

this result is unlikely to repeat itself in the eastern and southern parts of the country where there are many ethnic russians and the majority of the jewish population reside, but still, its shameful that people anywhere would be driven to such desperate choices by the indifference of their leaders. then again, it often seems that in desperate times people are willing to accept solutions that normally they would be appalled at. perhaps pragmatism is the ultimate moral vacuum.

understanding the crisis

i was recently reminded of an excellent video lecture series that i first learned about through my friend josh. the video series is basically a breakdown of the economy's breakdown. the most fascinating part about it is that is was all (except for the last couple segments)produced BEFORE the economy really took a hard nose-dive in late 2008, so its foresight is really astounding. for anyone interested check out the first session:



the rest of the sessions can be viewed at: www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse hope you enjoy!

should the right to life lead to death?

you may have seen the tragic headlines this week about a 9-year-old girl in brazil who was given an abortion because she was raped by her step-father and became pregnant with twins. weighing in at only 80 lbs., the doctors concluded that to continue the pregnancy would've put the life of this young girl at serious risk and hence performed the abortion. the article explains that:

Abortion is illegal in Brazil, which has more Catholics than any other nation, but exceptions are allowed in cases of rape and when the mother's life would be endangered by giving birth....

The Catholic Church's archbishop for the area criticized the decision as against "the law of God" and excommunicated her mother, the doctors and other people involved in the abortion...

"The law of God is above any human law," Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, the archbishop of Olinda and Recife, said...

"I believe the position of the church is extreme, radical and inadequate," Health Minister Jose Gomes Temporao said on a government radio program.

"I am shocked by the radical position of this religion which, wrongly saying it is defending a life, puts another life in danger that is as important as any other."

later reports have confirmed that the vatican has upheld and defended the bishop's ruling of excommunication for those involved. now, i give serious props to the brazilian public for their strict abortion laws. also, kudos is in order for the catholic church which has held an unequivocal stance against abortion and homosexuality as sin, despite the ever-increasing unpopularity of those positions, even when many protestant denominations are willing to pander to popular opinion. however, this case certainly begs the question: "should the right to life lead to death?"

now, i'm not a brazilian doctor and i was not part of the medical conclusions, but assuming the facts are accurate, the point of the health minster is valid: are we willing to protect one innocent life at the cost of another? no matter what way you look at it, the whole situation is a sickening tragedy. but though the refusal of the catholic church to kowtow to moral relativism and the preeminence given to God's law over man's is commendable, one gets the feeling that they may be applying the letter of the law but missing the spirit thereof: namely, to protect innocent life. thoughts? comments? (and since this topic is a "flash-point", remember to keep the comments respectful... inappropriate comments will be deleted. ;)

why can't the dollar stop growing?

okay, so it's not so much that the dollar is growing as that the "hryvnia" (ukraine's currency) is in a death spiral. the dollar has reached its all-time high, or in other words, the hryvnia has hit an all time low. (9.26 grn. to $1) bloomberg has this article on the situation here. some highlights are below:

Ukraine’s hryvnia tumbled, closing at a record low against the dollar, after Moody’s Investors Service said it may cut the country’s rating because political infighting is hampering efforts to avert a financial crisis.

The hyrvnia has lost more than 50 percent against the dollar in the past six months as reduced demand for exports and a lack of foreign credit causes Ukraine’s first economic contraction in a decade.

Inflation soared to 22.3 percent last month, the highest level in Europe

for the foreigners here whose accounts are in dollars (myself included), this makes things comparitively cheaper than a few months back when it was still 5:1. but, though it's almost hard to imagine i'm saying this, i wish the dollar would go back down some, cause if it keeps growing, ukraine's economy might just free fall off the precarious cliff it's teetering on.

NOTE: the following day bloomberg updated this article, and outlined the newly dropped default rating. the new rating implies:

a 69.6 percent chance Ukraine will default in the next two years and 91.8 percent in the next five years.

obama vs. osama?

an interesting article from the la times on how obama's election may actually pull the rug out from under radical islamic aggression towards america (yes, pun intended ;). read the full article:

obama could change dynamics in the arab world

any thoughts? (only please spare me the "obama IS a muslim" junk, okay? ;)

for the love of gays

perhaps you caught the latest public plea for the legalization of gay marriage in the united states. if not, you can read the full text/watch the video of MSNBC news anchor keith olbermann here. these are some highlights from his impassioned plea for gay marriage and mourning the passing of proposition 8 in california:

"If you voted for this Proposition [against gay marriage] ... Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? ... these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want—a chance to be a little less alone in the world... What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace... that love? The world is barren enough. It is stacked against love... tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

his plea certainly asks a number of good questions. i really only began thinking about them because my friend josh posted this video on his blog with some comment. the following are excerpts from my comment on his post and on this video/transcript:

now, as for olbermann’s commentary ... i don’t live in america, so i’ve not been subjected to whatever prop 8 adds were run, picket lines, etc. i hope this allows me to look at it with less of the possible cultural bias that i might have living in the states (or ca particularly). i’d also like to think that as someone who used to BE bi-sexual (before i met Jesus), i could be less biased than maybe someone who’s been straight from day one.

my first question is, on what ideological basis is the whole idea of gay marriage being put forward?

olbermann goes off about how this issue is all about giving love a chance, etc. without questioning his definition of love (yet), how does not allowing people to marry hinder love? throughout much of history there have been situations where certain classes or races were disallowed to marry by the ruling class, or only with some heinous condition (anybody remember braveheart? :). in such cases, those people have always simply been content to be married in the eyes of God, ignoring the state because it was unjust. and i guarantee you that the slaves who were only married in God’s eyes never loved each other less than the white couples who were married legally. this is not a question of love. sorry, olbermann. (btw, that is NOT to compare the situation with slaves being disallowed marriage and gays not being granted “marriage”. the two are entirely different for reasons i’ll get to.) and we must be able to see that it is NOT even about legal rights (as olbermann highlights), since many states and politicians have offered “civil unions” which give the same legal rights without the title of marriage. what then is this ideological hurdle of “marriage” that many in the gay community are so intent on jumping? here is where we get back to the root: we cannot talk of marriage without talking of God. as olbermann himself brings “the creator” into his reasoning, i’ll assume its fair game in the discussion. but just for a moment, let take the atheist/darwinist approach:

is there a basis for homosexual marriage on a purely humanist/evolutionist level? certainly not. richard dawkins once said that the purpose of life, if there is a purpose, is to pass on one’s genes. the homosexual automatically by his choice rules himself out of the “survival of the fittest” by his behavior which, if observed by a darwinist in an animal, might simply be described as an anomaly, mutation, self-destroying defect, etc. that sounds really harsh, i know. fortunately i’m not an atheist and my worldview doesn’t constrain me to view homosexuals as any less “worthy” of survival than i am. but it should be clear that there is NO ground in any purely humanistic, sociological approach that would justify gay marriage. it is darwinistically irresponsible, socialogically self-destructive.

so, we HAVE to return to the idea of God. the declaration of independence states: “all men are created equal”. but we sometimes forget the context of the following words, “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” ANY appeal to ANY human rights must be an appeal TO God and not in spite of Him or against Him. without God there are no “rights”, only brute force (aka, survival of the fittest). but it is then a false dichotomy to appeal to God for the rights of men and then ignore or slander God for the other moral standards He gives. (not to get into the whole “were the founding fathers deists?” discussion, but no matter what, we could at LEAST without even studying the question confine their concept of the divine to the monotheistic religions, as there is not One Creator in the eastern religions, etc. all of said monotheistic religions which mark homosexuality as sin.) so, if for any rights is it necessary to appeal to God, how then shall we define the application of those rights by turning away from Him?

on the idea of "if marriage is essentially religious, why should the gov’t have a say at all?" because marriage is a covenant which was established by God for ALL humanity. it is not that the government is to dictate to the people what marriage is, it is that God is to dictate to the government (and hence, the people) what marriage is. this is (as i think you all know) defined in the Genesis account (which again, all 3 major monotheistic religions accept) as “a man… shall cling to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” that simple phrase really defines the terms of marriage: monogamous (sorry mormons ;), heterosexual, adults (the word for wife is woman in hebrew, not girl), permanent (becoming one).

again, it is impossible and dishonest to try to extract rights from the Creator while ignoring His definition of marriage. here’s the thing: if we deem it acceptable to ignore God’s definition of marriage in legalizing “gay marriage”, why stop there? why not legalize polygamy? i mean, why limit their freedom? they’re consenting adults after all! why not legalize incestual marriage for consenting adults? why not polygamous, gay, incestual marriages? the problem is, if we deny God the right to draw the line, NO ONE can. God has given us rights, but they are derivative to the rights He has as Creator (one of which is to dictate to us what is good and right…. including the definition of a right marriage).

what is the driving force for “gay marriage” then, if not for legal privileges? are they happy to just “be married in God’s eyes?” no. then is the accusation true that there is an attempt to “re-define marriage”? i don’t think that’s the ultimate goal. any re-definition of marriage (not of unjust laws of men, but of the definition from God who established marriage) is an attempt to re-define God Himself. it is to make God in our own image. to make Him subservient to our decisions. to make ourselves the Lord. THAT is why this issue is such a big deal to people who are NOT gay and don't have close gay friends. THAT is why olbermann is practically in tears, because if he can persuade people to push through gay marriage, he will have (in his mind) re-defined God.

back to olbermann’s idea of “why do we have to stamp out love?” this is how i define love: love is seeking what is best for the other, not for myself. one of the most unloving things one can do is allow a person to continue unchallenged in sin. worse than that is justifying another person’s sin. proverbs says, “faithful are wounds from a friend, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.” true love will not justify sin in a friend’s life. hence, olbermann is not actually talking about loving homosexuals and allowing them to love. he is talking about being a coward and “kissing deceitfully”, that is, doing what’s pleasant and nicest, not what’s best for a person (anyone with kids ought to know what i’m talking about.) allowing someone to think that their sin is right is NOT love, it is hate, no matter how nice it might look. therefore, what he is promoting in the long run is that we hate gays. personally, it is because i love those who are in homosexual life styles (and have empathy towards them) that i oppose “gay marriage”, a step which would only be a lie to them that their sin is acceptable to God. i’d much rather have them and keith olbermann think i’m “stamping out love” and actually love our gay friends, than lie to them in the name of nicety and actually be hating them. because i would want others to speak to me honestly about some sin that i held and thought was acceptable. that is what i would have "others do to me." THAT is what it is TO me. it is because of my love for the gay community that i oppose gay marriage.

“how can you talk so categorically about homosexual marriage being sin?” easy, because its a discussion about marriage in the first place, which is necessarily a discussion about God. its like if someone said, “let’s make easter the optional celebration of the resurrection of Christ or the founding of Playboy”. or “let’s make Ramadan the celebration of the people vs. larry flint trial.” again, one can’t talk about marriage without talking about something that is God’s ground. if you don’t like easter, don’t celebrate. if you don’t wanna be muslim, don’t fast on ramadan. congratulate heffner and flint all you want, but don’t call it easter. if you don’t want to be in an adult, monogamous, heterosexual, permanent union, the laws of america grant you that right, but don’t try to call it marriage.

as a final note, i will say (even NOT having seen the adds for prop 8) that i’m sure some of them were very condescending and bitter, etc. sadly, i've met too many christians with really angry attitudes towards homosexuals. THAT is not love, and hence not something Jesus would approve of. i am convinced that as Christians, we ought to love and pray for and practically serve and do good to homosexuals who are in our families, among our friends, at work, etc. JUST as zealously as we oppose gay marriage. again, we MUST remember that opposing gay marriage is actually being FOR people who are gay, seeking their good (not to oppress them), in turning them from sin to the Creator who made them and made marriage. it is for the love of gays.

back in the USSR?

i just was reading about a proposed change to the constitution of Ukraine under the article "concerning freedom of conscience and religious organizations".  for those of you who read ukrainian and are interested in the details of the proposed changes here are a few links:

read the proposed changes (in Ukrainian): click here (on this page click

Проект Закону 21.04.2008 to open the word file with said proposal)

to compare the changes (which reference the original constitutional article on religion) to the original: click here (in Ukrainian)

to read about how unhappy the Ukrainian buddhists are about this proposed law (and i totally agree with them), click here. (in English)

the basic gist is a few additions making life harder on newer churches (read non-eastern-orthodox): a proposed annual RE-registration of a new church for the first 10 yrs. of its existence (those of you in Ukraine who are even vaguely familiar with this process know that once is bad enough), and changing the minimum number of citizens necessary to register a church from 10 to 50.

in addition to that there are specific additions to make it harder for foreign leadership within the church (or at least statements which are xenophobic in nature, even if they don't change the actual way things are done).  whereas the previous article states only that foreigners are allowed to carry out ministerial functions in the churches that have invited them, the new addition states "foreign citizens do not have the right to take part in the government of religious organizations in Ukraine".  also it forbids religious organizations whose "governing center" is not in Ukraine from owning property in Ukraine (implying Roman Catholics with the HQ in Rome or Buddhists with the Dalai Lama in... where is he again?  possibly also applying to JW's and Mormons?)  This particular law would not so much apply to protestant Christians here, since there is no centralized authority center, but the principle behind it is still one step away from kicking all foreign religious workers out.

this is all suspiciously similar to what is already in place in Russia, stating that only religious organizations having existed in russian territory for 50 yrs. or more have full rights, kicking out foreign missionaries, only allowing the practice of Eastern Orthodox Christianity in all armed services, and generally Putin being the high priest of the Russian Orthodox Church. 

BUT in Ukraine the good news is that this amendment is only being proposed.  it was given to the Rada (Ukraine's Parliament) on Apr. 21, 2008 by Genadiy Moskal' (see pic below) with a request to take action on it within 2 month's time.  That means it may be coming to a vote very soon.  so please PRAY that this bill would not be passed (if it is the Lord's will).  it would be the beginning of possibly more restrictions on religious freedom in Ukraine.  here's the guy who put it forward, pray for his salavation, too. (oddly enough he's not on Yanukovich's team, but in the "Our Ukraine" block (the western-leaning side)).

 

"The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD,
    Like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes." -Proverbs 21:1

i'll post something less political next time...

what would Dr. Jesus do?

imagine a place and time where if your house caught on fire a call to 911 would not be enough to give you hope.  imagine that one had to purchase "fire insurance" for one's home (and i don't mean to replace lost goods).  imagine if firefighting was a competitive business market with different providers.  and imagine if upon arriving at the scene of a fire, before letting even a drop of water fly, the firemen would first stop to check if you were insured by their particular brigade, and if they discovered that you were not insured or insured by another company, they would simply hop back on the truck and drive off into the night as your possessions roasted to a crisp and loved ones writhed to an agonizing death.  does that sound like a world you'd like to live in? 

to us in the 21st century such a tale seems cruel and impossible.  allow human beings to suffer a miserable death simply because they haven't signed up for the right company's services?  to put the dollar above the worth of a human life?  for-profit emergency rescue?  "absurd!" we cry.  quickly we recognize the attitudes and ideas involved in such a scenario as inhumane, mercenary and down-right evil.  but in fact, that is the way that things used to be in the not-so-distant past, both in the US and many other western countries. 

until the late 19-th century and early 20-th in some US cities, fire brigades were a paid service that one had to buy insurance for.  as different brigades formed and competed for business, there were even cases where one brigade would obstruct another brigade's arrival to the scene of a fire.  soon people began to see the dangerous road they were headed down and cities began to make firefighting a government service, a basic provision of life for each and every citizen. 

but have things really changed in america?  now imagine a different scenario:  a man who discovers he is dying of cancer walks into a hospital.  his situation is indeed life-threatening, but before a doctor will even step within 10 ft. of him, he must prove that he is a subscriber to an insurance company.  and if he is subscribed to a company that particular hospital does not accept, he is sent out.  and if he has no insurance?  will he be left to writhe to an agonizing death at home in his bed as the victims of a fire in less enlightened days?  protect and save human life... for profit!?!?  yet, where are the cries of "absurd"!  how come americans have come to accept this as a perfectly normal part of life? 

ah, but let's go back to our original story:  what if that same fire brigade upon arriving, finds that the house ablaze is indeed one of its clients.  yet, before expending any of its energy or water it discovers that your house had hazardous electric wiring before you bought your insurance policy.  imagine then that despite the fact that you are its client, the brigade still turns around and drives off into the night because your house had a "pre-existing condition" that you did not warn them about before purchasing their insurance. 

thankfully things never got that bad with the fire dept. but in the states people are all too familiar with that excuse from health insurance companies.  is it not just as mercenary that the insurance companies are willing to sacrifice human life to generate more profit?  is it not sickeningly ironic that places with names like "good samaritan", "st. luke's", and even "holy redeemer" are ready to turn away a dying man whose life they could easily save, simply because he cannot cough up the ridiculous amount of money they ask?  somehow i don't think that's the same "good samaritan" Jesus spoke about, who gave out of his own pocket to care for a wounded fellow human being. 

the US is the only country of the industialized nations that does not supply health care to its citizens as a basic human right.  US citizens pay the highest per capita average for health care IN THE WORLD, and yet in a 2000 worldwide study by the World Health Organization, the US ranked only 37 out of 191 countries in overall health care; beat out by even columbia, morocco and costa rica. (read the article here) 

you may have noticed on my "currently watching" michael moore's sicko which is about the health care system in america.  now, i'd like to give the caveat that i do NOT agree with the huge majority of mr. moore's political stances and generally lop-sided, partisan rhetoric.  however, the information in this movie is VITAL for every american to stop and think on.  (and he takes a swing at hill as well as george w. in the film)  if you watch it, try to forget the other things he's produced and just take it as-is and weigh it in your own mind.  the information about the fire dept. is not mentioned in the movie.  that was my own research.  this documentary simply made me interested to find out about the situation. 

i think its interesting that i've not not heard one single american evangelical christian i know talk about this issue.  plenty about prayer in schools, abortion, immigration laws and other such hot-button issues.  but doesn't callously allowing men to die, denying them the treatment that could save their lives just to make one's wallet thicker seem a crime on the same level as abortion?  if Jesus were a doctor (and indeed He is the Great Physician) would He let that happen?  there are ways to get involved and find out more.  if you're interested, google: "US National Health Insurance Act" (also known as HR676 - read full text here) - a bill in the House of Reps. now that has gained much momentum in the last few months which proposes health care for every US citizen as a basic human right provided for by the government.

i live in a country with a "universal health care" system and though there are flaws it is pretty great to be able to go to the pharmacy and know that i can purchase just about any kind of drug i need for under $6.  its nice to be able to go to the hospital whenever i feel i need to without worry about if my insurance company will cover the cost.  when we first moved to svitlovodsk i got sick with something crazy and had a fever of 104 (40C).  my wife call the "ambulance" and they came within 20min. and administered the shots i needed to bring the temperature down and gave me a prescription to get.... for FREE.  ukraine's flaws with its health care system are largely a result of lack of resources and rampant corruption in the government in genereal (both problems which are absent in the US).  and even with all its problems, the concept itself is pretty great.  watch the documentary, check out the subject matter, take a stance.  peace out.

btw, i'd be very interested to hear people's thoughts on this.