lunch

A spirited discussion over lunch yesterday with my "on air" buddy, Jason Dean. We were all over the place, talking about politics, the economy, and somehow we got into people's rights. Not sure about Jason, but it was one of those conversations that I was still having in my mind as I drove away from Citrus Plaza--and it's still percolating.

One one level, the history of mankind has to do with rights. Starting with Adam and Eve--they, at some point, decided they should have the "right" to live their lives without the interference of their Creator--"free" from His authority. We all know how that one ended up . . . .

Since then, it's just been one battle after another. When America was founded, the settlers believed Britain no longer had the right to rule over its new colonies. The settlers also felt they had the right to wrestle whatever land and livestock they needed away from the native Indians.

Then came the slavery issue--they felt they should have the right to be free. At some point, women stood up for the right to vote. In the 60s, the civil rights movement would begin to bring equal rights to blacks. More recently, a battle over immigrant rights has been brewing, and currently, the question of who has the right to legally marry is taking center stage.

Several years ago, the rights of the unborn seemed to be center stage. During the eighties and nineties, I remember intense debates, picketing and even violent protests defending the right of babies still in the womb to see the light of day. Lately, it seems as if the war in Iraq, the economy, gay rights, etc, have stolen the spotlight. How tragic.

Furthermore, I'm no longer convinced that all we need to do is elect a "pro-life" president and that will take care of the issue. Roe v. Wade is nearly 40 years old, and we have had plenty of pro-life presidents. Perhaps God would have His people adopt a different "strategy"; perhaps the political solution may not be the right solution. Not by might, not by power, saith the Lord. Of all people, as someone who was adopted at birth, I have a very personal stake in this issue. And I am as guilty as the next person to be getting all caught up with these other more "loud and urgent" issues over this past election year. The voice of the unborn is a still, small voice--a silent voice.

I stand convicted for not continuously, fervently praying. I stand convicted for not more consistently supporting my community's pro-life pregnancy counseling center. I stand convicted for worrying more about my rights than about the rights of those who have no rights, no voice, no hope.

A Blended President

No, I'm not talking about some new smoothie concoction. I'm referring to Barack Obama. And I'm not really comfortable with the way the media (and just about everyone else) has chosen to label him: black, african-american, etc.

Isn't he also white? Wasn't the mother who raised him white? And her parents who also helped raise him--both white (caucasian). He spent a couple months with his dad in Kenya--that's it! So, biologically, he's half white and half black. I will argue, however, that because he was RAISED by his white mother and grandparents, that makes him about 75% white.

Ok, take Tiger Woods. Dad is black, mom is Asian. So, he is equally 50-50. But isn't it true that whenever you hear someone describe his background, he is almost always referred to as black or African American? Wonder how that makes Mom feel? Wonder what Tiger feels about it . . . .

Now, does the media lean towards that half of one's DNA because it is the father's side in both cases? If so, that's pretty sexist, no? In any case, America is becoming more and more "blended", and we certainly need to start coming up with some more accurate terms to describe "what" people are. Because to call Barack or Tiger "black" simply does not tell the whole story.