• Random rant Friday

(Pic: Granddauaghters Hannah and Kaylah)

Should Christians celebrate Halloween?

Google “Should Christians celebrate Halloween?” and you’ll get about one thousand sites covering everything from “it’s completely harmless” to “it’s completely hellish.” Here’s site 1,001 that’s somewhere in the middle: Yes, no and maybe

Are presidential candidates “Christian”?

In a 2004 interview in the Chicago Sun Times, Democractic candidate Barack Obama columnist revealed why it is so difficult to answer that question:

“Part of the reason I think it’s always difficult for public figures to talk about this is that the nature of politics is that you want to have everybody like you and project the best possible traits onto you. Oftentimes, that’s by being as vague as possible, or appealing to the lowest common denominators. The more specific and detailed you are on issues as personal and fundamental as your faith, the more potentially dangerous it is.”

In the Sun Times interview, Obama told columnist Cathleen Falsani, “I am a Christian. So, I have a deep faith. I’m rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.”

Some of those paths include his father whom Obama described as an “agnostic,” his Muslim paternal grandfather, and his mother whom he describes today as a “Christian,” but in his 1993 memoir, Dreams from My Father, remembers as “a lonely witness for secular humanism” who believed “thoughtful people could shape their own destiny.”

Consequently, Obama told Falsani that he does not believe anyone is going to hell and that he is unsure he is going to heaven. “I don’t presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die.”

Republican candidate John McCain is less candid about his faith, saying in a BeliefNet interview with Dan Gilgoff, “I am a Christian and I attend a Baptist church. I pray every day. I ask for guidance. I ask for strength.” But any elaboration is “a private matter between me and my Creator.”

So, in this election, I’m not voting based on who or who is not a “Christian.” (Obama seems more a Universalist rather than orthodox Christian and McCain seems to be less than candid about his Christianity.) I’m casting my ballot for whom I believe is best suited to restore the economy, make health care and a good education available for all Americans, and protect our country from both internal and external threats.

Indianapolis Christian Writers Conference: November 7-8

I’ll be teaching two classes at the Indianapolis Christian Writers Conference next Friday and Saturday: Crossing Over with the Cross on writing for the general market and From Stage to Page on turning messages into manuscripts. I’ll also be meeting with potential writers for Vista, Wesleyan Publishing House’s “take-home paper.” (And, click here for a ream of writers’ resources.)

I hope to meet many of you there.

• Truth: first casualty of politics

It’s been said, “Truth is the first casualty of war.” The same can be said about politics! So here are a few sites that claim to sort out truth from fiction in the 2008 U.S. political campaigns:

FactCheck.org

PolitiFact.com

Snopes.com

Of course, I’m always wondering, Who’s checking the fact checkers? (See If your mother says she loves you, check it out.)

Here’s an important fact check from the Democratic campaign:

In his interview with The News Journal published Oct. 19, Sen. Joe Biden presents a seriously erroneous picture of Catholic teaching on abortion. He said, “I know that my church has wrestled with this for 2,000 years,” and claimed repeatedly that the Church has a nuanced view of the subject that leaves a great deal of room for uncertainty and debate.

This is simply incorrect. The teaching of the Church is clear and not open to debate. Abortion is a grave sin because it is the wrongful taking of an innocent human life. The Church received the tradition opposing abortion from Judaism. In the Greco-Roman world, early Christians were identifiable by their rejection of the common practices of abortion and infanticide.

The Didache, probably the earliest Christian writing apart from the New Testament, explicitly condemns abortion without exceptions. It tells us there is a “way of life” and a “way of death” and abortion is a part of the way of death. This has been the consistent teaching of the Church ever since.

Most Rev. W. Francis Malooly, bishop, Catholic Diocese of Wilmington

So, please, carefully consider the claims and counter claims between now and November 4. And, if your mother says she loves you, check it out.

Thursday 9 am An email from “Bill Brown,” a “retired member of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association,” is making the rounds attacking Barack Obama. This is not in any way associated with the BGEA, which has never commented on political races. (See Snopes article.)

• Who’s intellectually honest?

Mike Gene has a great article on assessing all the heated arguments between now and election day—or anytime. Here are excerpts and main points from The 10 Signs of Intellectual Honesty:

When it comes to just about any topic, it seems as if the public discourse on the internet is dominated by rhetoric and propaganda. People are either selling products or ideology. In fact, just because someone may come across as calm and knowledgeable does not mean you should let your guard down and trust what they say. What you need to look for is a track record of intellectual honesty. Let me therefore propose 10 signs of intellectual honesty.

1. Do not overstate the power of your argument. One’s sense of conviction should be in proportion to the level of clear evidence assessable by most. If someone portrays their opponents as being either stupid or dishonest for disagreeing, intellectual dishonesty is probably in play. Intellectual honesty is most often associated with humility, not arrogance.

2. Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist.

3. Be willing to publicly acknowledge and question one’s own assumptions and biases.

4. Be willing to publicly acknowledge where your argument is weak.

5. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong.

6. Demonstrate consistency.

7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument. Ad hominem arguments are a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty. However, often times, the dishonesty is more subtle. For example, someone might make a token effort at debunking an argument and then turn significant attention to the person making the argument, relying on stereotypes, guilt-by-association, and innocent-sounding gotcha questions.

8. When addressing an argument, do not misrepresent it.

9. Show a commitment to critical thinking.

10. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when a point or criticism is good.

Thanks, Mike!

• Will prayer affect election?

The tension between God’s providence and humans’ freewill has been long discussed and debated. So, will all the prayers between now and November 4 make any difference in the U.S. presidential election?

Alaskan governor and Republican vice presidential candidate believes so. When asked by James Dobson on the “Focus on the Family” radio program if she was discouraged with polls showing Republicans trailing, Sarah Paliin answered:

To me, it motivates us, makes us work that much harder. And it also strengthens my faith, because I’m going to know, at the end of the day, putting this in God’s hands, that the right thing for America will be done at the end of the day on Nov. 4. So I’m not discouraged at all.

What do you think?

Note: Sunday 9 pm: At this point, “Yes, the winner will be God’s will” is ahead in the polls. I’ll run the poll again after election results are in. It will be interesting to see Evangelicals’ reaction if Barack Obama wins and the progressives’ reaction if John McCain wins. Were prayers answered? Was God’s will accomplished?

Here’s my take: humans—with freewill—will decide the outcome of the election, but God—in His providence—will accomplish His eternal, worldwide will regardless of whatever choices are made in the 2008 U.S. election (Job 42:2, Romans 8:28). I don’t understand how God does it, but I believe He does.

And, for something lighter, click for comedy and commentary on 2008 election

• Moderation in all things?

In a recent emailing, I identified myself as a “moderate.” And I was immediately accused of being “indecisive” and “apathetic.”

The problem with liberal, conservative and moderate labels is that few of us consistently fit the stereotype. For instance, I’m decisively conservative on abortion and un-apathetically liberal on capital punishment. So, does that make me a liberal, a conservative or simply schizophrenic? (I think it makes me pro-life from womb to tomb.)

And, I’m not alone. A study by the American National Election Studies shows that most voters consider themselves moderates, which I assume means they refuse to be pigeon-holed into the liberal or conservative categories. (If given a choice between A or B, I often choose blue.)

But my best argument for being a moderate comes from a man who was never, ever accused of being indecisive or apathetic—Saint Paul:

Let your moderation be known unto all men (Philippians 4:5).

So, as you explore my Heavy Topics with a Light Touch, you’ll find both conservative and liberal positions because I want to look at each new issue afresh. Which, I suppose, makes me a moderate—or a schizophrenic. You can decide!

• Would last honest reporter please turn on lights?

Whew! A scathing editorial by Orson Scott Card pleads, Would the last honest reporter please turn on the lights? The piece, originally published in the Rhinoceros Times of North Carolina is spreading across the Internet and radio talk shows like a California wild fire.

Some of Card’s charges include:

This housing crisis didn’t come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Isn’t there a story here? Doesn’t journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren’t you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. “Housing-gate,” no doubt. Or “Fannie-gate.”

Instead, it was Sen. Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

Card fuels the fire by accusing mainstream media of being “just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party.”

It’s time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a daily newspaper in our city.

Card is not just blowing smoke. A Washington Post headline announced, Study: Coverage of McCain Much More Negative Than That of Obama:

Fifty-seven percent of the print and broadcast stories about the Republican nominee were decidedly negative, the Project for Excellence in Journalism says in a report out today, while 14 percent were positive. The McCain campaign has repeatedly complained that the mainstream media are biased toward the senator from Illinois.

Obama’s coverage was more balanced during the six-week period from Sept. 8 through last Thursday, with 36 percent of the stories clearly positive, 35 percent neutral or mixed and 29 percent negative.

And, as I mentioned in the last Random Rant Friday, the mainstream media’s poll numbers tend to have Obama with a larger lead than the more independent polls.

No wonder the network nightly news anchors have seen their numbers plummet this election season: CBS News has fallen over the year from 6.4 million viewers to 5.9 million; ABC News from 8.1 million to 7.6 million and NBC News from 8.2 million to 7.8 million.

Those of us who like our news “fair and balanced” turn to the Internet in an attempt to get a better understanding of the truth. Somewhere between The Drudge Report and The Huffington Post, CNN and Fox, there are clues! Keep looking!

• Swiss guarantee ‘plant rights’

The Swiss constitution now protects plants from geneticists “trampling on a plant’s dignity.”

Yep, when Dr. Beat Keller, a molecular biologist at the University of Zurich, wanted to genetically modify wheat to make it resistant to a fungus, he had to get government’s permission and promise not to “disturb the vital functions or lifestyle” of the plants. (See details from The Wall Street Journal.)

A 22-page treatise on “the moral consideration of plants for their own sake” states that vegetation has an inherent value and that it is immoral to arbitrarily harm plants.

I love plants—especially stir-fried—but I’m not sure I’m an advocate of plant rights. In fact, the Swiss seem to have holes in more than just their cheese. Isn’t it a bit hypocritical, if plants have rights, that 15 percent of pregnancies in Switzerland end in abortion? That would seem to seriously “disturb the vital functions or lifestyle” of the unborn. Hmmm?

So, some thoughts on the inherent value of the unborn. And here’s an interesting article if you’re wondering which US party is most pro-life. (The answer may surprise you!)

• For writers only

If you’re not a writer, feel free to click on over to my 200 articles on everything from sects to sex.

But if you’re a writer, you’re going to resonate with Jodi Picoult’s honest and transparent article from Writers’ Digest, “Try, Try, Try Again.” Here are some excerpts:

. . . the only reason I turned to writing again was because I was a miserable failure at my other jobs.

For some reason, reporters often call me an overnight success. But if that’s true, it’s been a fifteen-year-long night. My career, like those of most writers, has been one of slow, incremental growth, a mixture of both success and failure. And here’s the thing that’s really remarkable: The failures you face as a writer are more important, because they are what make you work harder, do better and build up the rhinoceros-hide-thick skin you need to survive in the publishing world.

When at first you don’t succeed, you have two options: slink back into ignominy or come at it again with a vengeance.

Here’s what I remember about that time of my life [when my books weren’t selling]: wondering where I was going to get enough money to pay the mortgage. Thinking that I’d been delusional if I believed I could make a living as a writer. Picking up a job application at a nearby Home Depot.

One of the saddest truths in publishing is that good books aren’t always the ones that sell. You can do everything right and still not get a contract. More often, the writers who succeed are the ones who refuse to buckle under the failures that are heaped upon them; who reject the notion that they aren’t as mediocre as industry professional say they are.

They say that failure builds character. Well, it also hurts like hell. Writers are, by definition, riddled with self-doubt; running into brick walls every time your career seems to be on the upswing is enough to give anyone pause. Even at this point of my career, I’m well aware that an author is only as good as her last book–that at any moment, I might find myself flirting with failure again. I only hope that I have enough fight in me to rally toward success.

Yep! I can relate! And if you can, too, check out my page of writers’ resources for
some encouragment and inspiration. I also have a page of encouraging quips and quotes when your “rhinoceros hide” is wearing a bit thin.

• ‘Random rant Friday’

(Use the “comment” section to suggest a caption. Lots of possibilities!)

Polling the polls

The only polls that count are those on election day, but that hasn’t stopped the pollsters!

While virtually every poll shows Senator Barack Obama in the lead, his percentage over Senator John McCain is all over the map as suggested by an interesting Wall Street Journal graph. For instance, a CBS/New York Times poll gives Obama a 14-point lead while Gallup poll shows him with just a two-point edge, equal to the margin of error.

Most political scientists also predict an Obama victory according to PS: Political Science and Politics, a journal of the American Political Science Association (APSA). “Six out of the nine presidential election forecasts predict an Obama victory with popular vote totals ranging from 50.1 percent to 58.2 percent, while two predict a race too close to call and one predicts a narrow McCain victory.”

I tend to put more stock in the non-mainstream-media, non-ivy-league polls. Rasmussen Reports, a research firm, has Obama winning the election with 50 percent to McCain’s 46.

And you can take my totally unscientific poll at my 2008 Election page (margin of error, 100 percent). You’ll also find lots of humor and commentary there including “WWJD? Who Would Jesus Elect?”

My numbers much better than McCain’s

I feel like I’ve won the election, the lottery and Indianapolis 500 after Tuesday’s announcement that my Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) number is 2.9! The “normal” number is 4. Both the urologist and radiologist were amazed at how low and how quickly my number had dropped indicating that the 42 radiation treatments were effective in destroying the cancer. Click here for details.

I really did have cancer

A new online phenomenon is faking one’s fatal illness. Psychologist Marc Feldman has dubbed it “Munchausen’s by Internet.” In the real world version, Munchausen’s by Proxy, caregivers intentionally cause illness or injury to someone so that they can heroically “save” them.

Online, people fake their own illnesses (or death) to elicit attention. According to Feldman, “people with the disorder frequently target communities devoted to medical issues, such as support groups for cancer patients or people with anorexia.”

Death and Deception on the Internet documents the story of Evie who blogged about her serious illness, then when she “died” became Adam, her “husband,” who encouraged people to post tributes. When people became suspicious (no online obituary, her husband spent all his time online rather than grieving her death, both Evie and Adam had a unique punctuation style, etc.) her “sister” came to Adam’s defense.

Bizarre! So, yes, I really had prostate cancer and I do appreciate your encouraging emails!

And somewhat related . . .

Are “online churches” an oxymoron?

The deception and dishonesty in online communities makes the promise of online church ring hallow as well. So here’s why I believe that there are bats in the cyber church belfry.

And totally unrelated . . .

Should Christians celebrate Halloween?

Yep, it’s time again for that annual debate. Google “Should Christians celebrate Halloween?” and you’ll get about one thousand sites covering everything from “it’s completely harmless” to “it’s completely hellish.” At my annual Halloween page you’ll find site 1,001 that’s somewhere in the middle plus a look at other creepy things.

Have a great weekend!

• I passed my PSA test!

Tuesday 2:00 pm

Great news! I passed my PSA (Prostate Specific Antigen) test, which means the 42 radiation treatments have successfully zapped the cancer.

My original PSA was 7 (average is 4) and now is 2.9 (better than average).

You can read about my medical adventures at Top Ten Things I’ve Learned Living with Cancer.

Thanks for your prayers!