I’ve noticed, of late, a very real disconnect between the way my mind works and the way the world is. This is particularly noticable in my understanding of racism.

I grew up in a fairly homogeneous environment. In fact, digging through memories of my public school career, I can only think of one minority student with whom I attended school before college. I’d like to think that she never had to deal with any boneheaded racism (though, judging by the morons who attended my high school, I realize that’s probably not the case). She and I were separated by a year or so in age, and I never spent any significant time around her, so even if there were blatant racist attitudes in my classmates, I never had opportunity to see them.

When I got to college, of course, there were minority students, but my reluctance to socialize with anyone didn’t provide me much opportunity to see how they were treated outside of the classroom. Of the few I knew by name, I don’t know of anyone ever treating them with a lack of respect because of their race. Again, I’m not saying that it never happened, but that I never saw it if it did.

So, to me, racism’s always been this abstract evil, something that no reasonable person would ever engage in. When I think of racists, I think of Nazis and the KKK. While I believe that there are always going to be people who hold stupid hatreds of one nature or another, the idea that racist behavior would be tolerated for even a second by the general public is completely alien to me.

I mentioned, not too long ago, some hate-filled political cartoons portraying Bush’s advisor, Dr. Condoleeza Rice, in a rather despicably racist manner. Honestly, I chalked it up to a left-wing fringe artist whose hate-filled work got him some recognition in circles that Senator Byrd (who I’ve tried very hard to remove from office in every election I’ve been allowed to vote) might have appreciated, but who could never have earned any real respect as a political cartoonist. Unfortunately, a list compiled by Democracy Project seems to indicate that it’s more widespread than I’d like to believe. (There are cartoons there that are critical of Dr. Rice without being insulting to her because of her race, but there are far too many of those that focus on her race.)

How a newspaper could run a cartoon like this and not lose every single one of its readers that day, I have no idea. It does a great deal of damage to my theory that the government doesn’t need to punish racist hiring practices because the market would take care of the problem more effectively, though.

I know some people honestly believe that Dr. Rice has her position because Bush needed a “token Black” in his cabinet, but couldn’t that have been done by putting someone in a less prominent position? The woman certainly seems genuinely intelligent — isn’t it just possible that the President appointed her to the position she has because, I don’t know, he thinks she deserves it? I certainly think she deserves it, based on what I know of her. I know that the idea that a minority person couldn’t have earned a job purely on merit is the attitude that Affirmative Action programs promotes (which is why such programs bother me so much), but I know of no such program in the Cabinet.

You don’t like Dr. Rice, for her politics or whatever else? You think she’s only been kept in Bush’s cabinet because she’s a Yes Man… er, Woman? Fine. I disagree, but you’re entitled to your opinion. You have a problem with her gender or race, or think either of those two things has more to do with her appointment than the fact that she’s highly qualified and Bush respects her? Go back to the Stone Age where you belong, cretin. Stop fouling up my internet.

On this date in 1917, Robert C. Byrd, whose website says he is the “West Virginian of The 20th Century“, was born. Byrd is a former member of the KKK who left because he was “disinterested” (not, apparently, because the organization is based purely on the evil notion that one race is superior to others). He is also a favorite senator of the Citizens against Government Waste, who have dedicated a page to him that they’ve entitled “Byrd Droppings“.

This “great” man has gone to Washington for many years, working hard to bring home the bacon (or, is that pork?) for the state of West Virginia. I don’t deny that West Virginia is a fairly poor state; I’ve been here my whole life, after all. However, just as I believe that too many handouts are more harmful than useful for individuals, I think that the amount of money siphoned off to us from Senator Byrd is counterproductive. Why should the state find ways to pay for anything, when we can always rely on Byrd to get the money for us?

His spending isn’t all that I take issue with. The evote.com article “One Man’s Pork Is Another’s Bacon (which obviously covers the spending problems as well) says:

Along with his penchant for pork spending, Byrd has also gotten attention in the past overall for civil rights issues and race relations – especially in the spring of 2001 when he made a rare appearance on a weekend show (Fox News Sunday) only to find himself under fire for having casually dropped the term “white niggers” during his appearance.

“There are white niggers. I’ve seen a lot of white niggers in my time. I’m going to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country…” said Byrd in his remarks on Fox News Sunday. Of course, during that same appearance Byrd recalled how his mother had once told him “you can’t go to heaven if you hate anybody.”

The remarks predictably generated a quick firestorm of controversy – or at least they did for a couple of weeks. At the end of the day, Byrd was basically shielded by the capital “D” (for Democrat, of course) next to his name, and possibly to a lesser extent, his age. Republicans were quick to point out that if one of their own had made a similar transgression or even committed some lesser offense, they would have been swamped with angry calls for resignation and harsh criticism from Democratic civil rights activists.

One reason Byrd’s comments didn’t generate much of a long-term backlash was that his background as a member of the KKK was already fairly well known and something he has apologized for in the past. In fact, one detail that critics often cite is that instead of just being a casual member, Byrd was a “Kleagle” who got $10 a head for recruiting new members.

As the article points out, a Republican who made those same comments would’ve been burned at the stake. Look at what happened to Trent Lott over his comments at Senator Strom Thurmond’s 100th Birthday Party, and compare that to what happened to Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd, who said of Byrd: “There has never been a time in U.S. history that he would not have been right for. He would have been right for the Founding. He would have been right for the Civil War …” How much outcry did we hear over those remarks? None, unless you watch Fox News or listen to conservative radio stations. There’s a double standard here that shocks me far more than it should, considering the bias shown in this last election.

Byrd’s near constant complaints about the Bush administration have stopped carrying any weight (with me, at least), because it’s getting impossible to tell when he’s outraged over something real or whether he’s just outraged for the sake of being outraged. I had long-since stopped paying any attention to what Byrd said when a local radio personality shared that same sentiment a couple of days after the election.

It’s time for West Virginia to get some new blood in Washington. The Senator has done his best to serve us, but the last thing this state needs is an image of draining money from our more financially stable brethren. It’s time we get a Senator who reflects the true moral values of our state, and stop voting for Byrd just because he’s been there a long time and earns us lots of money. Hopefully, two years from now, we will collectively tell Mr. Byrd that we appreciate all he’s done for us, and that we hope he enjoys retirement.

From the aforementioned article in The American Prospect: “‘There’s no conceivable way he could lose an election here,’ says Paul Nyden, a reporter who covers Byrd for The Charleston Gazette.”

Given Byrd’s age, I hope he wouldn’t run again. If he does, I pray Nyden’s wrong.

I’m really not sure what to make of this. On the one hand, part of me wants to say that the solution is to hire a lot of people who believe in celebrating the Sabbath on Saturday, and then letting them have their Sabbath off while the rest of your employees don’t work Sunday — so everyone gets the chance to observe a religious day of rest.

However, I think it’s important to truly examine the motives behind the why of this change in schedule. Family Christian Bookstores says that they view their company as a ministry, not a business, and reaching people who may be looking for materials on the Sabbath is the driving force behind this change, not the extra money making day.

After examples of secular businesses who shut down on Sundays (Chick-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby), the article gives the company’s response:

FCB President Dan Browne told the Associated Press that his company’s decision on whether to remain open on Sundays was different than a chain like Chick-fil-A because FCB sells “ministry products.” “No one’s going to go to hell for not eating a chicken sandwich,” Mr. Browne said.

I question whether or not anyone’s going to Hell for waiting until Monday to shop at FCB, and I would urge the decision makers at FCB to think very seriously about their witness in this case. Whether they truly believe that this is acceptable because they want to be open to witness on Sunday or not, most of the secular world will believe the extra open day is being done for the money. Giving this impression to the world hurts the company’s witness, I think, and the reason given doesn’t convince me that they’re necessarily doing the right thing.

It may be a little hypocritical of me to criticize this, since I have a tendency to go shopping on Sundays and I probably shouldn’t. In light of this, I’ll need to pray and study on this issue. I hope that FCB’s decision makers would (or have) done the same.

It’s my understanding that common wisdom tells us not to discuss politics or religion in too open a place unless we’re ready to make enemies. This may or may not be something I’ve made up, but it does seem that these topics are pretty volatile. It’s very easy to make enemies very quickly. When we mix politics and religion, though, the danger of an emotional explosion increases exponentially.

La Shawn Barber and other conservative Christians often assert that it is impossible to be both a Liberal and a Christian. On the other side of the aisle, liberal Christians (I’m sorry, but I don’t know of a good example of a liberal Christian blog.) express just as much disbelief that it is possible to be truly Christian while holding conservative values. What would Jesus say? Is Jesus a Republican or Democrat? A Liberal or a Conservative?

My honest opinion is that the answer to both of the latter two questions is, simply, “Neither.”

When I think about what he would have to say about the hatred that seems to ooze forth from both sides of the debate, I simply shudder. It is never our place as Christians to judge the heart of another person. While we are called to lovingly tell others when we believe that their actions are not Biblically right, it is wrong of us to assume we can look at their actions and know that they’re not even trying, or that they don’t believe.

Both sides have a point (or two, or three, or…). I don’t see how anyone who truly believes the Bible can believe that abortion is acceptable in the eyes of God. On the other hand, we are told to care for the poor and afflicted, to show His love to all those around us, and conservative Christianss don’t always address that very well. I don’t know what Jesus would say when faced with the division that is splitting his Church (because I honestly believe there are truly faithful Christians on both sides of this debate), but I could guess.

My dad often shares the following story in Church. I’m paraphrasing because, well, my memory’s lousy. A guest in my grandfather’s house was angrily ranting about another man. He was so angry that he was talking about getting a gun and going to shoot the other man. My grandfather simply asked who had made the second man wrong the first. The first man looked at my grandfather and said, “Why, Satan.” And, who was it that was making the first man want to kill the second? “Satan.” My grandfather then asked, “If you’re both serving the same master, why do you want to kill him?”

Christian faith doesn’t require us to all be of one mind on every topic. In fact, I believe that if God had wanted an entirely homogeneous Church, he would have never given us freewill. Let’s face it: it would have been a heck of a lot less trouble for Him if He had simply made Adam incapable of even wanting to taste the Forbidden Fruit.

No political platform, no political candidate, will ever be perfect in the eyes of God. Not until Christ once again returns to this earth will we have a perfect leader. While it’s very tempting to say that one sin is somehow worse than another, the Bible tells us that isn’t so. I don’t have the verse in front of me, but the Bible says that whoever is guilty of the least infraction of the law is guilty of violating the whole law.

The wages of sin is death.

For all have sinned, and fall short of the Glory of God.

If neither position is perfect, and if God recognizes no degrees of imperfection, why do we insist on judging who is “more wrong” in the eyes of God? I strongly suspect that the reason we give into such temptations is that Satan is very capable of finding our weakest points and hitting them… hard. When we can see nothing but our anger and hatred toward Christians who stand on the other side of the political spectrum, our Christian witness in the world is severely damaged. Satan isn’t stupid. He knows that, in this increasingly carnal-minded world, Christianity is under assault from outside. If he can help divide us, we’re easier to defeat — divide and conquer, as it were.

Christians — in America and elsewhere — need to remember that we have a common ground to stand on. We need to come together and acknowledge that, even when we disagree, we are still Brothers and Sisters, still bound to do what we can to reach the lost of this world who haven’t yet found Jesus Christ. We need to stand on the Word, and we need to do whatever we can to mend the split that Satan is trying to create within Christ’s church.

Some people seem to frown on the white-on-black color scheme, and in the interest of being a friendly host, I’ve added a couple of links to my sidebar. Under the calendar, you’ll see two links to change the style of the site. There’s still some tweaking underway, but nothing too major.

Thanks to Justin, whose site inspired this exact method of the layout switch. He says he got the code from here, so in the interest of proper sourcing, I’m listing it, too.

Thoughts would be appreciated.