Damn. The best thing Rick Warren ever said, and the fundies jump him.

Of course it had to happen!

“The last thing many believers need is to go to another Bible study. They already know far more than they are putting into practice. What they need are serving experiences in which they can exercise their spiritual muscles.” -Rick Warren

According to the silly website Slice of Laodicea, Warren is “propounding his Martha-style Christianity and works righteousness theology.” Their response? “At a time of unprecedented biblical illiteracy and rampant carnality among evangelicals, the last thing they need is to be told not to study the Bible. But if you aren’t working, you’re just a useless feeder in Rick’s world. And besides. If you actually do read your Bible, you’ll figure out pretty quickly just how off base Rick Warren’s social gospel really is.”

How absurd! Makes me laugh. I’m now going to quote someone even more radical and totally impractical than Rick Warren. Are you ready?

“These words I speak to you are not incidental additions to your life, homeowner improvements to your standard of living. They are foundational words, words to build a life on. If you work these words into your life, you are like a smart carpenter who built his house on solid rock. Rain poured down, the river flooded, a tornado hit–but nothing moved that house. It was fixed to the rock. But if you just use my words in Bible studies and don’t work them into your life, you are like a stupid carpenter who built his house on the sandy beach. When a storm rolled in and the waves came up, it collapsed like a house of cards.”

I can’t believe Jesus had the nerve to propound such a works-based theology. Didn’t anyone ever tell him that being “saved” has nothing to do with doing at all?! And here he goes, misleading who knows how many people! Oh well, at least he didn’t try to push that horrible social gospel on anyone! Ewww!

 

 

 

 

“The love of money is the root of all evil.” -Jesus of Nazareth

[The following are exerpts of a new series of posts by jmallory. Emphasis is mine.]

…I want to say that I CRINGE when I hear that the US is a Christian Nation. It is not, nor will it ever be… not with the system that the forefathers have set up, anyway. Secondly, I will define what I mean, and I assume, what most people mean, when I say, “Christian Nation”.  

A Christian nation is an entire country of people, devoted to following the teachings of Christ, or an  Ekklesia (church) if you will. From this definition, we can already see that the USA, is not, and under the constitution, cannot be a Christian nation. We have the freedom to follow any religion (or lack-thereof) we choose. Of course, this isn’t a new concept to anybody. However, for the sake of my point, I feel it is necessary to reiterate that point strongly. You see, if we truly are a Christian nation this is unacceptable, as it is clearly written that if there are those who continue with unrepented sin, they should be removed from among the body of Christ. Now, if we are a Christian nation, which we are NOT, we would understand that we, living in a community of fellowship with Christ, should not let this body, this community, this ekklesia, show any wrinkle or blemish. We would have to remove the evil person from among us. 

This poses a problem to this country which, supposedly, had been founded on Christian principles. When the Bill of Rights was written, George Mason and James Madison (deists- not Christians) had in mind that Americans should be free to worship or not worship how they please, and the exercise could not be controlled by the state. <–It seems natural, based off of the first amendment, that there would need to be a separation of Church and State, yet, it seems as though it should be natural to a Christian as well, as we are to be in the world, but no of the world. 

So, just how are we, the United States of America, a Christian nation? How is it possible, under our constitution, to be a Christian nation? Is it the idea that the majority of the US claims Christianity as their religion? That doesn’t make this nation a “Christian nation.” Is it our principles? Is it the American dream that makes us a Christian Nation? Absolutely not!

Our entire system is corrupt. Capitalism and Christianity can not coexist. Especially, in this day and age, it is the most evil idea that has crept into the minds and philosophies of not only Americans, but internationally, as well… and the idea is still a growing one. The problem with Capitalism, as common knowledge suggests, is that as the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. The majority have to suffer so that a few can live as they please. Yet, if you grew up as an American, you were probably taught that Capitalism is the best economical system the world has had yet. I disagree.. but that is what I was taught too. I will agree that Capitalism works (obviously not too well, as we’ve seen in the economy)… but that is all it does. It doesn’t help.

Take this financial crisis for instance. A lot of the bailout money ended up going into the pockets of those who work to keep the businesses running, and it wasn’t used how it had been intended to be used, that is, it wasn’t used to actually help the businesses, themselves. That is what capitalism does. It keeps a corrupted heart corrupt, and it corrupts the hearts of those that are uncorrupted. 

Capitalism idolizes mammon (money). This entire country idolizes capitalism. And if the Empire is idolizing capitalism, which idolizes mammon, then WE ARE IDOLATERS. This is when we really need to look at what Jesus says, “A slave cannot serve two masters. Either he will love one and hate the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve both, God and mammon.”

There are those that are reading this that will know exactly what I am talking about when they find themselves trying to defend mammon instead of God’s own words. There will be others who will not catch it… because no one wants to believe that something that has been a part of them for so long could, in all reality, be evil. [from "So You Want to be a Christian Nation? Part One"]

I find it ironic that you can find, “In God We Trust” on our currency.

What I’m saying isn’t a brand new idea, obviously, however, this subject is something that Christians ought to think about. Who is the “we” our currency is talking about? Not everyone believes in God. Some believe in a god or gods, but its (or their) name(s) isn’t (aren’t) “God”. However, our currency seems to suggest that we (Americans) trust in God. Not all of us do. In fact, many Christians don’t even put their trust in God. Many people put their trust in (drum roll please?) …MONEY! Again, I blame it on our system of capitalism. 

So does the phrase, “In God We Trust” really belong on our money? I don’t believe it does. I think that mammon is part of the world and should not taint the church. It is just another one of those things on the dollar bill that has become part of its intricate design- easy to overlook. Really, I don’t feel comfortable knowing that I will be trusting my money to put food on my table and not God. What I’m saying is, if “In God We Trust” is meant to be a friendly reminder telling us to pay attention to what we are investing in, it doesn’t work, and it really only serves as a contradiction. In a sense, this forces many people to live a lie. 

The solution to this problem is simple- though it may cost a lot. Take “In God We Trust” off of the American currency. It doesn’t need to be on our money and causes God to look at us and say, “Really? You trust me? You trust me, but you’ve refused to give that homeless man even a penny of what you’ve earned?” Remember–how you treat others is how you treat God. What you give others is what you give to God. If you want to be a Christian nation, trust God. Give away all that you have. See how God takes care of you. You may not have everything you want, but God will give you everything you need… and you would be doing this so others can have what they need. That would make one’s spirit beautiful.

I would also say that, along with taking “In God We Trust” off of our currency, we should take out “One nation under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. But I’m not going to say that. I am taking it a step further. I’m saying get rid of the entire Pledge of Allegiance… if you want to be a Christian nation (you can read some interesting stuff about the Pledge of Allegiance on Tom’s blog).  The reason why I say this is because as you recite the Pledge of Allegiance, you are declaring the USA your home. Is it really your home though? I don’t think it is. We are citizens of another kingdom. This makes us ambassadors. We are here temporarily and our purpose is threefold. 1) Worship God–serve only him (when we serve “the least of these, we serve God as well). 2) To let the world know about Christ (this is something that is less of a duty and more of something we shouldn’t help. The spirit should be overflowing in us, so we would have no choice but to tell others the source of our joy). 3) Help bring Heaven to Earth (the work of an ambassador–to represent his home)

That is all we are here for- and it is only temporary. Soon, we will be with God in our true home- the kingdom of God, which we are to help bring to earth. However, if Heaven is our true home, why would we declare the USA as our home? Is it because the USA seems more tangible then the Kingdom of God? Is it because we have a group of rulers that we can see? Is it because here, we have a sense of “freedom”? I’ve said it before and I will say it again. The term “freedom” is relative. If all of our freedoms are ripped away from us, God is still in Heaven and Christ still died for us. That is all the freedom we really need–that is, the peace and rest Christ has given us in and through him. I could still feel free if I can’t speak my mind (granted, it would not be fun). I could still feel free if I can’t worship God anywhere outside my home (I would probably do it anyway–but that is an entire different blog altogether). I would still have my thoughts. I would still have my beliefs, and NOBODY can take that away. 

Anyway, back on topic, when you say the pledge, you are claiming that we are one nation under God…this is a dilemma. Saying this can equate to saying that if you are not “under God” you are not a citizen of the USA or if you are in the USA, you are automatically under God. I have a problem with this. First, I want to explain that I do believe the USA and everyone in it is “under God”. That is my belief and since it is my belief, I say this is an accurate statement. However, we dwellers of the USA have a freedom of religion which is protected by the first amendment of the US Constitution. Not everyone believes in God or they may believe in a different god. But when they recite the Pledge of Allegiance, they are forced to say that they are under God (spiritually, they are, but in their own mind, they are not). Perhaps “forced” is the wrong word, but there is only one Pledge of Allegiance for the USA. But when you are saying that you pledge your allegiance to the USA, you are pledging your allegiance to God. Otherwise, you are not really pledging your allegiance. This goes against our very constitution, making it a contradiction to what the US actually stands for, thus, technically voiding the Pledge of Allegiance. Which to a Christian, this should be ok… because this is not our true home. We are simply visiting and making the best of our stay.

But we are not a Christian nation. If we were, we shouldn’t have a pledge of allegiance. Our pledge of allegiance should be our constant prayers to God. He is the only one we should be pledging our allegiance to, anyway. 

So you want to be a Christian nation?

Step One: Rewrite the Bill of Rights
Step Two: Find a monetary system that does not cause us to put our money before God.
Step Three: Remove “In God We Trust” from our currency- unless you really are trusting God.
Step Four: Get rid of the Pledge of Allegiance [from "So You Want to be a Christian Nation? Part Two"]

Uh, now it’s me again.  Still on the subject of the phrase “under God” in the pledge…what really irks me about this phrase is that it automatically assumes the US, our “one nation” is God-approved. If WE are “one nation under God” and your country ISN’T, then yeah, it’s “logical” to make the leap to say that the war in Iraq is a holy mission and we’re on the right side of it. [GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war? PALIN: You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote. GIBSON: Exact words.] It’s a really scary place to be, assuming that God likes us better and is on our side because we go to Christian churches.

Who’s the first person who knocked you down?

And by that I mean metaphorical violence, expressed verbally or psychologically. Or physically, depending on the story.

When I was little I played with Barbies and GI Joes and My Little Ponies and Hot Wheels and Polly Pockets and Legos and doctor sets and The Littlest Pet Shop and dinosaurs and little Fisher Price people, back when they were swallowable (I never swallowed any! Fools!), and to me none of these are either/or. Girl/boy. I like it that way. You play with what you play with. I think if little girls are only given toys like baby dolls and kitchens that really limits who they are and can become as people, and it’s pushing them into a little box. It teaches them to like “girl things” and to repress whatever parts of themselves don’t fit the checklist of approved “girl” characteristics and interests. And I think if little boys are only given toys like GI Joes and cars that really limits who they are and can become as people, and it’s pushing them into a little box. It teaches them to like “boy things” and to repress whatever parts of themselves don’t fit the checklist of approved “boy” characteristics and interests. My little brother got a Disney doll for Christmas once. He used to wear a Little Mermaid nightgown.

So even though I grew up loving pink ponies and tea parties and Disney princesses, they were (are!) just things I liked (like!). They’re only some of my interests, and they don’t make me a “girly” girl or relegate me to the kitchen. If you ask me to define myself, I will not say, “I’m a girl.” I will describe myself as a person. It never occurred to me that girls and boys are very different and move in their own separate spheres, because we don’t. Boys had cooties? Sure. Radically “other”? Ha. 

In first grade (it was first grade because in kindergarten we had half-days and went home before lunch, haha) in the cafeteria one day some of us were having a typical six-year-old debate over who was better, girls or boys. It was a very fiery debate, let me tell YOU. I don’t think anyone was making any serious advancements until David* announced that it was obvious boys were better, and I said “Oh yeah? Why?” And he said, “Because God’s a boy!” I said, “How do YOU know? Maybe God’s a girl! So there!” [insert nyaahs here.] And he said, “Nuh-uh! God’s a boy because Jesus is a boy so boys are better!” I was literally outraged and almost cried but I couldn’t let David* see how much he’d managed to irritate me, duh!

To a six-year-old that seems like a very unrefutable claim, especially when you all go to church and the very cafeteria you’re eating your little lunch in is part of a conservative Christian private school. You are taught that God created man in his image, and he created woman to submit to man. Some people even claim that man is made in God’s image but woman isn’t. Many denominations, certainly the ones I’ve been a part of for my entire life (until now, thank goodness) only recognize male pastors and church leaders. Women are categorically denied a voice and participation in church leadership. If a woman is called to lead, she can teach the children, and that should be good enough for her, because she’s a woman. The “maleness” of God and Christianity is definitely emphasized in these arenas. It hadn’t bothered me before, but after this little piece of drama, every little “he” or “man” in reference to mixed company, every “mankind”, piled on to the premise of God’s being male, and males being better. It’s rather horrible to be taught in school and in church that don’t worry, you’re still worth the same, but you’re still not as good as a boy.

I have since become aware that this is in every way ridiculous and also very harmful to far too many little girls growing up in a conservative context. Even regardless of religion. Christian, Muslim, Hindu..they all value girls less. The lasting sting of this outrage and the subsequent extra sensativity to the maleness of Christianity I think significantly encouraged my low self-esteem as a teenager which led to some very awkward things, including a dysfunctional and very damaging dating relationship. Since then, I have made quite a comeback–I am now a proud and vocal feminist (as opposed to a closet feminist–and before that I wished I could be a feminist but I was taught that feminism was wrong so I felt like I couldn’t be one, which is a very depressing place to be, most literally), I like myself, and I view people first as people, not their gender. I’ve seen how scary it is to be on the “wrong” side of the gender equation in terms of religion, and it makes me sad. I don’t think God is male, and I don’t think God is female. And I don’t think that somehow depersonifies God either. It makes God bigger. I think we’re the ones who, with our limited language capabilities, have made God smaller and put God into a box of our own design. We don’t have a big enough vocabulary, probably even a big enough brain, to really understand what it means to be bigger than our constructs of gender. And so I refer to God only as God. It’s not as hard as it sounds. In church, when everyone sings, “He can move the mountains,” I sing to God: “You can move the mountains.” Which in itself is pretty liberating.

But even now, when I’m more “enlightened,” if you will, the antifeminist agenda crap still gets pushed pretty heavily, specially in the church. About a year, year and a half ago, or something like that, when I was still at my ex-church, in the interest of starting our own class or group or something, the few college kids that were left brainstormed and all of our ideas were immediately shot down by the Powers That Somehow Still Be there. After a really long fight, what we ended up with was a crappy compromise at best. We wanted a Sunday school class, we got a few chairs set up in the lobby, and even that was only because one of the staff took pity on us and decided to help us himself. We wanted a small group on Sunday nights, we got a crappy class that revolved around lecture (by men, of course) as opposed to conversation. The entire body of the class was made up of females apart from the two or three men who of course were the only ones “qualified” to lead this class, thanks to their apparently-superior body part. After a couple months I literally couldn’t stand the misogynist, radical conservative ideology that was being dole out from that pulpit as ultimate truth, so I came out. I refer to this event as my coming out because in a conservative evangelical church such as this one, to admit to being a feminist and/or vigorously defend feminism is the kiss of death, basically equal in seriousness to admitting that you’re gay or that you regard All The Wrong Things as being metaphorical and/or literal, whatever your case may be. So then of course every week from then on it was like a scheduled fight after class, me and whoever the ringleader was that week. It was usually Brandon, who liked to laugh at me. I have Brandon on record, referring to his wife’s aunt or something like that, who’s a minister, as saying, “Whenever we go to her church, I just sit there and laugh. I can’t take her seriously. I don’t even listen to her. Why should I listen to her? She’s already sinning by standing up in the pulpit, so why should I? She can’t have anything worth listening to. She’s a woman.”

So it’s this same unempowering group, we’re having a party for something or other at my house, and we’re playing Apples to Apples. Someone plays the Hillary Rodham Clinton card, and boom! They’re off! Enumerating all the reasons they’d never vote for her, most importantly, the fact that she’s a she. They (these are the women!) “feel safer” with a male president. Evidently they noticed my look of shock and horror, because they tried to explain themselves. They used the example of pilots. “Wouldn’t you feel safer with a male pilot than a female pilot?!” they said. To which I replied, “NO,” in a tone I was hoping would convey my wish to change the subject to something less likely to make at least one of us very, very angry, because at least one of us was already on her way to becoming very, very angry and didn’t want to explode at a party at her own house. They didn’t get the hint, I guess, because they just kept rolling. It was determined that if they happened to get on a plane and then found out that their pilot was a woman, they’d ask to have their flight switched. [On a lighter note, I'm now in a much healthier church environment. Not perfect, but muuuch better.]

To close off this little circle I’m drawing here, back to gender constructs: I think the philosophy that most closely resembles my thoughts on gender would have to be the yin-yang relationship. Two parts, “opposite” but halves of a whole. Wikipedia describes yin-yang this way: “Yin-yang are opposing. Yin-yang are rooted together. Yin-yang transform each other. Yin-yang are balanced.” I’m not talking about women and men here, I’m talking about one person, different parts or pieces of one person. In one of his books, Jim Wallis [I'll check my books and see if I can find the exact wording..] writes about his belief that from childhood, girls are taught to repress their “masculine” qualities and boys are taught to repress their “feminine” qualities, but in reality we all have both. We all are both. The only way to be a whole and complete person in yourself is to find whatever part of you that you were taught to diminish. It’s also the only way for the gender divide we’ve created to be healed. If you teach your little boy that he can’t play with dolls, that’s for girls, and you don’t want to be a sissy–what he’ll learn is that girls are somehow not as good and consequently if he displays any “girly” tendencies he won’t be as good. We have to stop this. We have to realize that we have more in common than we have differences.

Now it’s your turn to hold the talking stick..;] What’s your story? When were you first made painfully aware why it was “wrong” to be who you are? How did it affect you?

*Grr!

We’ve got the dreamers’ disease.

Prayer for Dreamers by Vienna Cobb Anderson

We pray for the dreamers of this life, O God,
for those persons who imagine new possibilities,
who long for what others cannot perceive,
who spin dreams of wonder and majesty in their minds.
Defend them from ridicule and harsh criticism,
from self-doubt and lack of faith in their dreams,
and from abandonment of this call to make things new.
Grant that from their dreams
may come forth blessings for humankind
to enrich the quality of life
and the wonderment of us all.
Amen.

January 1, I’ve got a lot of things on my mind.

Drop the last year into the silent limbo of the past. Let it go, for it was imperfect, and thank God that it can go. [Brooks Atkinson]

The object of a New Year is not that we should have a new year. It is that we should have a new soul and a new nose; new feet, a new backbone, new ears, and new eyes. Unless a particular man made New Year resolutions, he would make no resolutions. Unless a man starts afresh about things, he will certainly do nothing effective. Unless a man starts on the strange assumption that he has never existed before, it is quite certain that he will never exist afterwards. Unless a man be born again, he shall by no means enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. [G.K. Chesterton]

I’ve been thinking about it a bit and I think there are a lot of things for me to choose from. I’m not really into the New Years resolution scene. At all. At all. I think, for me, it would be better to just work on one thing at a time, and not worry about making something my goal for a year, just to do it. Some interesting options:

-The elimination of polarizing labels from my vocabulary, as McLaren’s pondering. I wouldn’t mind dropping words like “liberal” and “conservative”, but there are some I would rather not give up. There are some movements that I am proud to align myself with. I am a feminist, for instance, and that’s a very divisive word in the spheres I generally run in, and I’m not interested in going all Palin and saying “Oh, I’m not going to label myself either way.” It’s something I’m committed to. Some things you either are or you aren’t. Which brings me to a second, sort-of similar option:

-No more name-calling. Which would mean no picking on “liberals” or “conservatives” or whatever group of people. It would also mean I couldn’t call people idiots, which is sometimes a very convenient thing to do, for instance, when you’re driving down the road and these people let their trash can fall over and roll down the hill at you, or when you feel like remarking on the alarming amount of people who engaged in political party-motivated vandalism and destruction this fall.

-Radical Honesty, which is something I did not make up but instead stole out of Extras. This character opted for brain surge (surgery) that made it impossible for him to lie. He couldn’t even pretend anything. It made for some awkward times when they were being kidnapped and pumped for information by aliens, but the interesting thing about it was that whatever he said, you knew it was the truth. But again. It made for some awkward times occasionally. I think just regular honesty would be a better and more truthful choice. I suppose if you don’t have to tell the truth, it can mean more when you choose to do so. But even so, I’m not really talking about truth-telling, I mean some kind of soul-honesty. Very few people at any given time know what’s going on in my head and in my heart. It is kind of funny since I am also what is termed a rather “emotional” person (meaning I cry a lot) but I don’t talk about it. I tend to shut that kind of conversation down pretty quickly, especially if I sense that the other entity envolved is not likely to understand. It’s hard for me to make friends. I’m a really loud person, once you get to know me, but that’s the thing of it, it takes forever for me to really get to be friends with someone, and not so many people care to stick around that long. 

-Loving other people. Everybody says they love other people, but I think most of us clearly don’t. In his book Blue Like Jazz, Donald Miller talks about this guy he met who was so annoying to him and he felt like he needed to let him know it, so he treated him like crap, sort of subtly. And then God was like WTF? and Don realized what he was doing, that he was really trying to change this other person because he couldn’t love and accept him the way he was. Once he figured out (the kind of figuring out that involves real work, not just knowing something in your brain) that his only interaction with this other person was supposed to be one of love and kindness, he could fully embrace the other person for who he was and he found that he even enjoyed his company. He even liked him. He just decided to be delighted about this guy’s existence.

-Peacemaking, which is something that gets talked about a lot, and it generates protests against wrong and pig-headed policies, which is good, but other times I think we don’t actually do much to put peace forward as an actual, viable option for all of us living together. Peace on Mother Earth starts with peace with you and peace with me. How are nations ever going to get along if individual people can’t do it?

-Just listening more, just trying to…understand people, I guess, instead of making snap judgments about them. I suppose you could also call it empathy.

I think I’m not going to choose one, I’m just going to work towards them all. They’re all summed up right here. Maybe someday I’ll get there..

What a wonderful world it would be.

You know how in general I don’t believe in making New Years resolutions, etc.? Besides Jonas Brothers concerts, I’ve found one that is really, really swell. It sounds extremely difficult. It sounds impossible. But of course it could also change the world. It balances out.

“I’m thinking about…not committing yet, just thinking about it…making a New Year resolution–to try to drop polarizing words from my vocabulary in 2009–including words I’ve used in this short piece: left, right, liberal, conservative, pro-life, pro-choice, and so on. I wonder what would happen if a bunch of us tried it…as a way of breaking with the insanity of always doing what you’ve always done while expecting to get otherwise than what you’ve already got. Hmm.” -Brian McLaren

We could at least try. Have you ever tried that experiment, you know, that one they used to pull on us at youth conference and things like that? The group leaders or whoever used to challenge us to go an entire week without thinking about other people in negative ways. Or if that was too scary we could start smaller. We could start with one day. We always failed, of course, but I wonder who we could have become by now if we hadn’t given up after four hours disgusted with ourselves and our negativity. If, for instance, I hadn’t abandoned the whole idea as hopeless, but instead had actively replaced wrong thinking with right thinking, if I had sooner come to terms with my own inner condition, if I had looked for creative ways to spread goodness, I would probably be a better person by this time than I am now, and that’s the small picture. I used to think that if I tried to do something like that and failed, then that was it, I failed, I was a failure. My thinking’s been changing. I think now that if I try something and fail and keep trying, I am not a failure at it. The only way to get somewhere is to move. PS, this is one of my fave movies: :]

I’m not afraid to fall
It means I climbed up high
To fall is not to fail
You fail when you don’t try
I’m not afraid to fall
I might just learn to fly
And I will spread
These wings of mine

I’m not afraid to fall
And here I told you so
Don’t want to rock the boat
But I just have to know
Just a greener side
Or can I touch the sky?
But either way
I will have tried

I’m not afraid to fall
I’ve fallen many times
They laughed when I fell down
But I have dared to climb
Not afraid to fall
I know I’ll fall again
But I can win this in the end [Superchic[k], “Get Up”]

“Kill the Beast!”

[Here's a post I wrote maybe three months ago--I just found it in my drafts. And I still feel the same way, so I decided to disclose it..]

I was in the Miami County Republican Headquarters [don't ask] today and they’re selling a McCain/Palin t-shirt featuring Sarah Palin, dressed in camo and wielding a gun of threatening proportions, standing behind a donkey lying dead on the ground, its brains blown out and its blood all over the forest floor or whatever. Wherever the designer assumes you hunt donkeys.

Personally I found the image offensive. I know lots of Palin lovers and believers would disagree, would in fact laugh and cheer and “amen!” and financially support such a design, but to me, the transference they’ve made of an opposing political campaign to an image of something Palin would like to hunt down and viciously destroy is definitely distasteful, to say the least. Yes, offensive. Inappropriate. In fact, it’s as offensive to me as if the Democratic party were to release a t-shirt picturing Obama telling Palin what to cook him for dinner. Or a design with the words “Rape Palin”. They’re all inappropriate and offensive.

It strikes me as interesting that what this image portrays is not the “independent streak” I’ve been told so much about. Actually it seems more like, “Bipartisanship? Working together for the common good? Ha! I have a better idea: how ’bout if we disagree, I’m gonna hunt you down, I’m gonna run you into the ground and pump you full of bullets! :]” It is a nice comment, though, on how this campaign season has been run. It’s not even just her opponents the image isfocusing on, it’s the other party in general–and oh, are they ever “the other”. It’s like the right wants to just wipe the left out, obliterate it, erase it, and that would be okay, because “they’re elitists”.

Call me crazy [it's happened before and it'll darn well happen again], I’m glad we have different political parties. It’s good to work together. It’s a good thing to have a system like this that Checks and Balances (It’s Not Just for Elected Officials Anymore!) itself out. You get too much of one side, you have the freedom to vote it out next time, to switch tactics, and if we can stop yelling at each other long enough to remember that, we can really change things. We have the power, the resources, the information, the means to eliminate poverty, to feed the hungry people, and we’re not doing it because we don’t really care about the poor, we just use them as talking points. We hold them hostage and use them as bait. Bait and switch..