Where to draw the line between dedication to holiness and religious fanaticism (in light of the 9/11anniversary)?

What is holiness? What is religious fanaticism?
  Holiness is a measurement of a person’s divine nature. How godly a person are they?  Understanding what holiness is, requires an understanding of what divine identity is defined. If the divine being is a loving identity, holiness is a measurement of one’s loving nature. If the divine being is a wrathful God, who will destroy any opposition, then holiness is a measurement of one’s triumphs over any opposing ideas or definitions.

  Religious fanaticism is an intolerance of any religious beliefs that do not fully align with our own. This covers every religious belief from the far left to the far right, if the person is avidly intolerant of any religious belief, other than their own.

  In ancient times this was only a problem when two religious ideas crossed paths. The world’s societies or cultures were divided by religious beliefs. A person’s neighbors were of the same faith as they. As populations grew and humanity became more mobile and urban, people found themselves with neighbors of different religious views.

  These new neighborhoods of mixed views taxed the concept of holiness. If a person’s holiness was a measure of their love of their fellow beings, they would never attack anyone else’s beliefs. They would always forgive, while turning the other cheek. The classic example of this was killed by his neighbors. Any person who truly follows this way of holiness will always end up in some form of crucifixion, not triumph, on this Earth.

  If a person’s holiness is to prove here on Earth that their religion or understanding of the divine is the one and only true one, they will always attack the beliefs of others. They will live by the sword and die by the sword. Their earthly triumphs are never permanent, because someone always eventually attacks and defeats them.

  So is it futile?  Where can we draw the line, so each can survive as neighbors? I am not sure any longer. I thought we could exist side by side, but the attackers don’t like to heard disagreeing ideas, no matter how philosophical it might be. So, may be we are headed back to the dark ages, when neighborhoods were divided over religious differences.

  Perhaps we could let each group build a wall around their cities and allow no one but true believers into their particular neighborhood. Let them all sign a treaty that says they will keep their noses out of the business of the other cities and neighborhoods. I think its called isolationism.

  Wait a minute, isn’t that what they are doing with the Gaza strip? North Korea? Saudi Arabia? and other places? It is even close to home, with the blossoming congregations in several religions. These growing groups are against anyone with different views. The people inside these movements usually don’t really know for sure what their religion is in truth, but they love the comfort of being surrounded with fellow believers. Just like living in a village around the castle with a king protecting you.

  I guess the line to draw between dedication to holiness and religious fanaticism is a circle and allow in only people like me - And to Hell with the rest. Or forget any line at all and respect my fellow human beings and their beliefs - And be fanatical about it.

Are women only valuable for their female forms

  September 12, 1866, a new era of entertainment and feminism started with the New York premiere of "The Black Crook". It is the first American theater show to feature beautiful American girls. The beginning of an era when some of the public go to the musical theater to hear the show while others go to see the showgirls. Since then there has been a tendency, so to speak, to bring on the dancing girls as attractive window dressing to help sell a concept or an idea. Flesh became an agent of profit.

  Ye gads! That sounds awful. Are you saying that anything that shows flesh is bad, vulgar or indecent? You don't look or sound like a prude. I am not a prude. I believe flesh in art has a place. The works of the great masters stir people at the inner core of their being. It, also, is not for me to say what is art or what is trash. One person's trash is another person's art. Don't believe me? Go antique shopping with me sometime.

  What caught my attention about what "The Black Crook" ushered into society is the purpose of flesh in its presentation. Was the script or cast so weak, the director found it necessary to parade a female form to secure audience approval? Flesh for profit? Today slim beautiful female forms stand smiling in ads for socket wrenches, fishing and hunting gear, automobiles, and alcoholic beverages. Flesh for profit?

  Ye gads! There you go again. What are you some kind of crusader for a return to good old American values? Heavens no! Nobody, but good old boys, wants to return to those good old days. You know, days when a man could belt the old lady and brag about it at his local watering hole. The era when a woman, broke, barefoot and pregnant, kept her place, while old dad kept his mistress happy in town or himself in socially accepted brothels like Miss Laura's Place. Ah yes, the summer days in sweat shops with ten year olds girls sewing fourteen hours a day and occasionally losing just a finger or two. Will we ever return to a day when young ladies keep their mouths shut and accept what comes naturally to good old boy fathers, uncles or neighbors? Ah yes, those days when men were men and women were women, whatever that means. Flesh for profit?

  My point is that since that eventful day 145 years ago, we have wonder far into the forest of misuse of the female form as an object. Like a hiker in the woods we are surrounded by ads dominated by smiling standing women. As these slim young icons work for profiteers, they net a deeper sale. They subconsciously sell another powerful image. A fundamental message that beauty of the flesh is the only profitable asset a real woman can have in her life. No wonder she is the darling of the good old boy set.

  The spill over effect in the rest of our lives is frightening. Witness frustrated women of all ages throwing billions of dollars to a diet industry, who promises you will look like those fleshly images, if you just spend a few more dollars. And nothing is more frightening to a modestly built middle aged woman, than a fashion industry that designs for sports car image bodies. The final straw is the increasing number of upper level executives, who feel compelled to seek a trophy wife from the flesh for profit cult.

   Let us see the Madison Avenue ad companies present products solely in light of benefits and features. Please Mr. Ad Man recognize me as a person, who can think. Only a few of us are mindless twits. Restore the standard of truth in advertising. Let me see what I am going to get for my money, not what I wish in my pubic fantasies. It is time to end the era of flesh for profit.     

Justified Homicide depends upon your culture

  Recently, the news showed a Roman Catholic priest advocating the killing anyone involved with preforming an abortion. He refered to it as "justifiable homicide". According to this priest anyone killing a doctor, who performs abortions, should receive a medal. Yes, he said a medal!

  No it wasn't Pope Gallistus II at the Lateran I Council in 1123 forbidding married priest. Nor was it Paul III reaffirming moral standards for clergy at the Council of Trent, 1545-63. It certainly wasn't Dietrich Bonhoeffer who after his work, "The Cost of Discipleship", was executed in a concentration camp. And most assuredly it wasn't something from Derek Humphry founder of the Hemlock Society and ERGO! (an acronym of Euthanasia Research and Guidance Society).

  It was a simple parish priest. It could have just as well been a extreme fundamental Protestant or Muslim. Or taken to extremes any ideologue, who thinks he or she is God's personal judge and jury. But who he was is not as important as the point he raised. What is "justifiable homicide"?

  Justifiable - adjective: liable to trail in a court of justice or capable of being decided by legal principles or by a court of justice - do justice is to act correctly.
  Homicide - noun: a person who kills another or a killing of one human being by another.

  Justifiable homicide is the legal act of killing another human being. The key area here is legal. By whose standards or laws? if we go by the laws of our creator we are not allowed to take the life of any human beings. Of course after the Creator established this standard for humanity it became obvious everybody was not going to live up to the expectation of not killing. So particular rules tailored for the people were established that justified some killing.

  The keystone to this system is the presence of the one who made the initial rule, the Creator. The absence of the Creator is perhaps the essence of the problem the priest from Mobile was addressing. Tolerate me now as I walk through the various paths logic thinking creates around this issue.

  First question needed: what is a human being? Does life begin at conception and end at brain death or does it start with the first breath of fresh air - end with the last grasp?
  Second question: can people live together who answer question one differently?
  Third question: if they cannot live together what must be done?
  Fourth question: is it possible for a group of one opposing view to impose their views and standards on the opposite group in an acceptable manner?
  Final question: can a group of people with certain values live peacefully in a society with opposing values?

  Possible answers to the above questions -
  First answer: however you answer the only justifiable homicide is that defined by the legal or ruling identity.

  Second answer: in America we have people who either oppose or favor the death penalty which is justified homicide. If the biological matter is not a human being the whole discussion is moot. If it is a human being, cannot the proper authorities define accurately justifiable homicide?

  Third answer: history teaches us that when two opposing standards exists in one place, something eventually must give. Since the beginning of time one or the other groups becomes dominated by the other group and slave to their rules and standards. History also shows that the enslaved group either attempts political take over by peaceful or violent means. If that is not possible they usually migrate to a new land where they can impose their desired standards.

  Fourth answer: There are no historical examples of this ever being done successfully.

  Final answer: some major philosophies teach that a person or group may live in a society but not be of that society. The early Christian Church is a classic example of this approach. They were a minority group with certain values they could not impose on the greater society of the day. They developed a sub culture and over generations won converts to their beliefs and standards, but it was never peaceful.

  In my subculture justified homicide is defined by our God with each person answerable directly to that God. We stress the turning of the cheek; the freedom of others from being judged by God and only God; and that all life that belongs to God goes to God after death of any kind. I am a Christian in a non Christian world. The people of God have always been strangers in our own land.

  No I have no answers for all of you. I only have answers for those in my subculture. Just as you find yourself. It is called life.

What is the Statue of Liberty like?

Years ago while living in Greece an interesting thing happened to me. It has always helped me understand the uniqueness of this great nation. This special event happened in a small sheepherder's village north of Athens during a wedding feast in the village square. While sitting at a table with my friend Johnny (Yanni in Greek) sipping Retsina, the peasant's national wine, he asked me a profound question. It rings in my ears today.

  With a very earnest look on his face Yanni asked, "Denny (yes they use to call me Denny) what is the Statue of Liberty like? Is she as beautiful as everyone says?"

  I had seen the statue many times and thought it quite beautiful and special. But his question and the expression on his face made me realize it was more beautiful and special than I had ever realized. In fact the same could have been said about this free nation.

  There are times when a different perspective can give a new meaning to something we take for granted. The Statue of Liberty is our nation's primary symbol of what we believe is the spirit of America. The statue arrived at what was known as Bedloe's Island in New york Harbor in 1885.

  This "beautiful lady" as Yannis called her, was a gift from France. She was built across the Atlantic, disassembled, transported here, and reassembled as a noble symbol of freedom. It was a gift to us because of the way other people thought of us and not of our own self image.

  Interestingly she, the lady of freedom and inspiration to all is an immigrant. Immigrants she beckons to come, bringing their poor, their tired and their hungary. That "beautiful lady" was quite a sight and when I sailed into New York Harbor a year later I was able to see how really beautiful she is and how proud I was of the message she sends to people like Yanni. She was the image we want them to see.

  Is that still true today?  Has her image abroad changed over the last few years?  Does it now say don't bother me if you are poor? This is a land of opportunity for only those, who got in before we slammed the gate. Does it project the notion that religious freedom, means only Christians, especially the religious right? Jews, Islam, Buddhist, Hindus and others find your own New Jerusalem (New Foundation for Peace). Is our lady turning her back on people, who may have been created different then us? Is that the image she now has abroad?

  Of course these questions could be asked of our own local neighborhoods. What is our image in the eyes of our neighbors? Is this a place where the poor can come and find new opportunity? Is my community a place that tolerates other religious beliefs? Do we welcome those who are different than us? Do we have freedom of thought and speech?

  How shall we know the answers to these and other similar questions? Ask our neighbors from afar. What image do they have of us? Do they see a homogenized island or a melting pot of opportunity? Does that lady in New York Harbor extend her invitation to all in behalf of our own local community?

  According to the principles of our founding documents for freedom, every community across this great land endorses her invitation. The ones, who don't become a cancer toward the existence of freedom as understood by the rest of the world, when they think of the "beautiful lady."

  This also can be applied to your own home, business and church.  It also applies to those who immigrate to this great land. Does the Statue of Liberty symbolize the spirit of you? America is a land of individuals, who are free and brave. America is a nation of communities. America is these United States, united in freedom as symbolized by the "beautiful lady."

  Yes, Yanni everyone in America believes the lady is beautiful. I am right about this aren't I? Or must I brace myself for the bigotry and censorship I found in our neighbor's countries? Have the new immigrant brought their bigotries with them or have they also become admirers of the “beautiful lady”? Let’s hope not! Why? She keeps her beauty through our nation’s inner beauty.  Let’s keep her beautiful to the world! Insist that every citizen living here and any person who crosses our borders pledge allegiance to what the “beautiful lady” stands for!

Manny and Moses - Ordinary people count

  An ancient tale with Hollywood liberties: “As Moses and the persecuted, desperate people raced across Egypt, they came to the Red Sea. After giving a quick thanks to the Lord, Moses then called out,  “Manny! Manny!”
  From the crowd came Manny, a publicity staff man, “Yes Moses?”
  “The Boats!” said Moses.
  “What?”
  “The boats. The boats you were suppose to arrange - to get us across the Red Sea?!”
  “Oh, my God!” said Manny. “Moses with all the news items and human interest stories - I forgot!”
  “You forgot the boats?!” cried Moses. “You idiot! The Egyptians will be here any minute! What do you expect me to do - ask God to part the waters, let all of us across, and drown the pursuing Egyptians? Is that what you think -”
  ”Boss,” said Manny with enthusiasm, “you do just that!. It will be at least worth two pages in the Bible!”

  The individuals and groups in the Bible did not do what is recorded to get their names in print. They were simply reacting to their current circumstances, with what ever faith in God they possessed.  They weren’t seeking fifteen minutes of fame.  They were merely doing their jobs and living life.

  The real lesson of this tongue-in-cheek story? Even though we may forget something vital in serving God and the people, God will pull it out of the fire, if it is important enough to God. The story also helps us to remember that many great ideas and acts of faith come out of ordinary circumstances. And each and every time ordinary people are involved.

  Not many people have even two Biblical pages, let alone even more. When you think about the millions of people involved in the stories from beginning to end, this is astounding. In fact only a small fraction of the characters even got their names mentioned. But make no mistake, Manny and his friends were in every great crowd and at every miracle recorded in holy scripture.

  And each and everyone of them, imperfect as they may or may not be, were vital to the message of God recorded. After all if Moses had lifted his arms to part the sea and only three people went across, would you read the story or go to see the movie? I think not.

  It is important to know, that whatever our role in life, it is important for the story of God’s work on Earth. So do your particular job the best you can and don’t worry, God will step in, if it is important enough and really needed.

There Are No Free Lunches - Coxey's Army

Years ago, Jacob S. Coxey led a march on Washington D.C.. His had assembled nearly 400 unemployed people, who actually made it to our capitol, where Coxey was arrested for trespassing. With that the army was dismantled. The phrase, "Coxey's Army" has become a symbol for ragged groups parading for lost causes.

What was Coxey's Army after? They wanted the federal government to finance a half billion dollars public works, that would provide work for the unemployed. James Coxey believed it could be accomplished by the government simply issuing that amount of new money. He may be gone, but proposals like Coxey's Army are still with us. It seems as if everyone still looks to Uncle Sam for help. And we are hearing this more and more as we move toward that far off Presidential Election in November.

But is that what our ancestors fought and endured hardships for? To build a government to take care of us, like a king in England? No! The founding leaders sought to build a land of opportunity, not dependency.
Our nation's future depends upon this nation being a people in search of opportunities and not handouts. How can that be done? Let us look at our own community. I have seen, first hand, people looking for opportunity and those looking for a handout. I don't like what I see when I look into the eyes of those wanting a handout. Am I looking at the great -grandchildren of Coxey's Army?

We have an under 6% unemployment rate in my county, with many companies desperately looking for qualified help. Confused? Don't be. Many of those persons classified as unemployed have no intentions of changing their status. They are busy searching the land far and wide for government handouts. "I don’t work, I am pregnant with two children and I need my rent and utilities paid every month, can you do that?"
When I have attempted to employee some of the modern day members of Coxey's Army, they said they would work, but had no transportation. Provide transportation and they said, no one was there to wake them up on time to be picked up.

They said they were desperate for money. They came late the first day with some excuse about children. Then they worked a few hours before leaving and promising to see me the next day. But I would never see or hear from them again. They said they wanted this or that but were never willing to follow all the rules to get there.

How do they survive? Many are recipients of some form of disability. I suppose that is what our ancestors called "to lazy to work" or irresponsible. Now before you get on my case, I know there are true cases of disability, but not as many as the Government seems to indicate exist. Can’t a person with a bad back still get an education and be retrained to find a different means of survival if they really want to or have to do it?

All of the Coxey's Armies through out history needed to join that revolution that says each person is responsible for there own lot in life, unless incapable of taking care of themselves. Is that a change? Today’s hopeful politicians want us to believe that this is a new concept. But it is as old as the hills. It is the bricks that the founding fathers used to build our nation.

The government is not responsible for us. We are responsible for us. The government is responsible to us to protect us from outside dangers and internal commerce. That is why we are a land of opportunity. Everyone has an opportunity to learn in school and graduate knowing how to read and write. Everyone has a choice to give an honest days work for an honest days pay. Everyone has an opportunity to better themselves, it just takes determination and hard work. It's time to dismantle Coxey's Army again. There are no free lunches. Handout recipients seem to be lost causes.

Perhaps if the candidates told us they would help us bring back the County Farms and let people pull themselves up by their boot straps we might get somewhere. Maybe some of the food can be used to feed the prisoners in our overcrowded jails. Of course we would have to cut the welfare umbilical chord. Is that liberal? Conservative? Socialistic? No it is Patriotic, in the original sense.

"The Devil Made Me Do It!

  Hallelujah! Praise the Lord! Open up the jails! I have just seen the ultimate solution to tort reform and crowded jails.
  The other day the newspaper reported that a man killed eighteen people, yes eighteen. The man's defense was that he was a crack head, abused by his mother and raped by a social worker when he was a young boy. It wasn't his fault after all. The dealer, his mother and the social worker actually pulled the trigger.

  Like a flash of light, it came to me that we all can claim our problems are the result of the actions of people, who came before us. Following this logic to its ultimate conclusion, we discover we can all blame Adam and Eve for our problems. Cain killed Able because of his upbringing. So bulletin! we no longer need jails, courts, judges, and lawyers. The common and unbeatable defense is now: Adam and Eve made us do it!

  Of course Adam and Eve's only defense was "the devil made me do it." Somebody made me do it? A six foot burly drunk exclaims, "my wife makes me drink". Now she is five foot two, it takes real mental power to visualize her holding him down on the floor. And it takes even more to see her pouring the drink down his throat as he desperately attempts to struggle free.

  The same struggle surfaces while reflecting back on my youth. Three boys went into a small local store, owned by a little old  and kind lady. Two decided to steal a bottle of Nehi grape soda. The third chose to sneak back and pay her the ten cents. All three lived on the same street and came from similar families. Today we know, by popular demand and acceptance, that the two who snatched the sodas did so because of something negative in their background or families. What on earth caused the third boy to do a good act?
Today we aren't sure.

  Fifty some years ago, the little boy who paid the dime did so because he felt sorry for the little old lady. She worked so hard and was kind to all of them many times. From the time he first left the store his conscience wouldn't leave him alone. The other two seem to have no conscience. They got what they wanted and to heck with the old lady. They even made fun of the third boy for going back. In fact they resented him. They were concerned only for themselves, he was concerned for others.

Who made them that way? The two who stole the Nehi came from families with a father and mother, brothers and sisters, with their own homes and no real trauma in life. The third boy couldn't remember his real father, lived in basement home and was raped by a neighbor at age six. According to what is in the news these days this story is all wrong. This boy made a moral decision and took responsibility in the middle of an immoral setting, where the majority were acting irresponsibly.

Today he could have gone back and brutally attacked, raped and killed the old lady, before turning on his friends in rage and killing them under stress. A good lawyer and a sympathetic jury would easily see that his father, who abandoned him and his sister, the neighbor who traumatized him and the modest living quarters were more than enough to justify his actions. In fact they probably would award him millions from Nehi Beverages for making sodas that would entice young boys to steal.

  God holds each person responsible for there own actions. The devil cannot make anyone do anything. The only power anyone has over another is the power to influence. History is littered with persons, who have given up their lives rather than act irresponsible or immoral. Successful societies hold people responsible for their own actions.

  Physical and mental cowards shy away from accepting responsibility for their actions. They also allow and encourage others to make immoral and irresponsible decisions. "Real Men and Women" use their past only for understanding themselves and certain influences in their lives. However, "Real Men and Women" then hold themselves accountable to make moral and responsible decisions. They do not tolerate any less from others.

  Aren't you tired of this endless rhetoric that is nothing more than one big excuse for irresponsible behavior? I am! It is my cause to stand up against things irresponsible. I don't want to be buddies with my children, I want to be their father. I don't want to be well liked, I want to be respected for my principles. I am going to say, no to the man who hits a woman; to a child being disrespectful toward an adult; to thief the first time he steals; to a teenager crowding in line at the movies; to the church gossip killing the reputations of others; to sin; and to anyone tolerating immoral and irresponsible behavior.

  Many of you know the basic problem. In my Uncle Tom's words, some chose to do good and some chose to do bad. My grandmother would say some want to go to heaven others to hell. I say there are self centered people, who don't give a damn about anyone or anything, and there are God centered people, who care enough about others enough to act responsibly and morally. Let us call it what it is - Evil (period). And let's start when they are little boys.

"The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"

    "The sky is falling!
     The sky is falling!"
  At least according to the news media, the fundamentalist right, the anything goes left, the wishy-washy politicians as well as others who benefit when they scare the "hades" out of us, the public. Listen to them and all you want to do is pull the covers up and stay in bed.

  But these alarmist are life's navel gazers - people concerned only with their own personal  perspectives. You know them. They say, "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up." Like news reporters who give opinions instead of news reports. Ratings are their god. Or like fundamentalist, who really believe their group is the only group. Bigotry is their god. Like free thinkers, who won't lay responsibility where it truly belongs. Blame is their god. Like politicians, who refuse to lead. Reelection is their god. All self centered people whose god is themselves.

  Thank goodness for the many Star Gazers in this world. They are concerned for the whole and not themselves. Positive real thinkers whose word is their bond. Reporters who report the facts without interpretation. Truth is their image. Religious folk with open minds. Love is their image. Social activist holding everyone responsible for their own actions. Freedom is their image. Politicians willing to chose the harder right instead of the easier wrong. Leadership is their image. Citizens willing to pick up the gauntlet of life. Positive action is their image.

  My concern today is tomorrow. Will there be a tomorrow? Are the children of today capable to lead tomorrow? What can we teach them to insure they will become Star Gazers instead of navel gazers?

  There will be a tomorrow. This old blue ball spinning through space has a lot of miles left on the warranty. The children today are no different the ones of my day, the ones a hundred years a go or those a thousand or so years ago. What can we teach them? They teach us. They know the difference between self centered and other centered. They know the formula for success. We must enable them to follow that formula.

  A classic example of a child Star Gazer was a young girl’s suggested bumper sticker. Her message if followed will insure our tomorrows. If the news media followed her standard, the edification of America would be assured. If people in pursuit of truth used her standard, they would be able to live at peace in a world filled with differences. If the liberally minded used this standard they would see progress instead of victims. If the politicians used it as their guide our big government would be reduced ten fold.

 Her message is a Star Gazer's bumper sticker. Advice for success.
 "IF YOU ARE YOU BEST IN EVERY WAY - IT IS SURE TO PAY"

  Life is complicated enough without us sticking our noses in other people's business. Keep your eyes and attention on what you are doing and do it well. In the long run it will produce better results and a better world.

  Our newest Star Gazer is correct. It is time to bring quality back and throw out the arrogance that has surfaced in our society today. Thank you for such a beautiful and important Star Gazer bumper sticker!

Christianity and Capitalism

“How Christian is free market capitalism, and what is the proper Christian response to those who succeed in it and those who fail in it?”
 Definitions cause and prevent wars and schisms. First some definitions, to understand where I am coming from for this issue.
1) Christian = a person who disciplines their life’s ethics after the Christ. (Followers of the Christ) In my personal faith that Christ was the man Jesus of the Gospels in Holy Scriptures.

2) Free Market Capitalism = an economic system that allows supply and demand to determine the cost and the focus of production (agricultural, industrial, services, etc.).

  Jesus was a capitalist. As a carpenter/contractor, he made his living according to the demand for his services. Scripture doesn’t really let us know his economic level, although his contemporaries seem to have been somewhat successful in their fields of endeavors.

  Thus the question, “How Christian is free market capitalism?”  It depends upon the ethics of the individuals in the marketplace. If all conduct their business with a Christian code of ethics it is a Christian free marketplace.

  History has proven that to be a pipe dream. But it doesn’t alter the fact that a Christian must follow the Christian code of ethics regardless of what the rest of the marketplace is doing. In short a Christian must learn to use the Christian golden rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you) in a system where the golden rule of most is do unto others before they do unto you and he who has the gold rules. A tough task, but one that many very successful people have come close to doing most of the time.

  What than is the Christian response to those who succeed in the marketplace and those who fail?  Maybe a conversation I had with a rich lawyer might help. He said he felt guilty in church because of how he had been blessed with riches due to his God given talent.

  I told him I was sure God was pleased to hear him acknowledge his riches were the result of a gift from God. He didn’t claim riches in arrogance, he claimed it in humility.

  Next I said in the gospels the disciples went about their business of spreading the gospel. How do you think they were able to do that full time? He responded, “Others helped them along the way.”

  My response was, “You got it!”  God gives the gift of earnings to some and they underwrite the work of others. This is essentially the basic financial system of the church.

  What about the poor? Hey, Jesus said, “The poor will always be with us.”  And we are to care for them. So, the more successful a person is in the marketplace the more they will be able to care for the poor.

  My whole notion fails if a person is in the marketplace primarily out of greed and not out of a response to God. But operating under Christian ethics in a non-Christian atmosphere is nothing new and neither are the results. Sometimes the Christian capitalist is successful and sometimes they crucify him.  Regardless of the situation all Christian capitalist must apply the laws of God when it comes to the distribution of the wealth. After all since it is God’s gift that made it possible the earnings all belong to God anyway.

Is the word liberal seem to be going the way of baloney?

"Baloney!" originally meant an bologna sausage. Something of real quality and taste. It either appealed to your palate or it did not. It was simply a matter of preferred preference and your personal choice.
Later in history it became a part of the popular slang vocabulary. It no longer meant quality and taste. In slang it meant an emphatic "nonsense!"

Now the word liberal seems to be going the way of baloney.
An academic dictionary defines liberal as an open minded person, who advocates progressive reform. Where is the baloney there? On behalf of the meat packers and sausage lovers everywhere please let every one know their is nothing of nonsense about this baloney.

On behalf of individuals everywhere who care about learning and expanding the horizons please let others know that liberal is wonderful gift to have. It was a liberal who told Isabella of Spain, "I can find a new way." It was a liberal who said wrote our Constitution that encourages individual thinking and freedom.
If you don't agree with the polices of someone spell out what it is exactly you don't like. Shouting baloney or liberal and meaning nonsense or "no sense to me" is far from being genteel. Surely your vast training, experience and knowledge can do better than a flippant slang.

Throwing the "L" word down is a cheap and tasteless way out of an intellectual debate. Like baloney, liberal is a matter of taste. One man's pasta is noddles and another is lasagna. Are we so narrow minded that we cannot honor the taste of another person?

If we say eating bologna sausage is nonsense we are taking the sleazy way out of life's on going debate. A genteel person with refined qualities would be gracious and more specific. They might say, " i don't like your baloney because you put to much pork into it and use only local ingredients. You let it stay in the pot to long and the skin is breakable. Also for my taste buds you pout to much garlic and spices into your baloney. That is why it is nonsense to me."

If you don't like a liberal position spell it out why you don't like it. Going "na na your a liberal" doesn't do it for me. You see I see myself as an open minded person, who advocates progressive reform in the world that surrounds me. I don't think everyone should be able to live by their own standards in a society. Our society requires some basic standards to survive. That's no baloney! It was founded on the principles of individual freedoms that do not harm the will of the whole.

Our history is littered with men and women who have sacrificed for the whole and never considered their sacrifices losses of freedom. Why? They were interested in progress and reform. They were liberals who we all revere. That's no baloney! So please find another way to attack each other. Baloney is delicious and good for the soul. Liberal is wonderful and good for society. so find a new word for your slang vocabulary. Please!