Proposition 8 has been reversed! Prop 8 was a measure in California to define marriage as between a man and a woman. This proposition was approved by the people of California in a referendum. This measure would have effectively banned gay marriages and place a clear limit on marriage.

     Some conservatives accused this judge of judicial activism, which is another way of saying disrespect towards the intent of the constitution (law). A judicial activist would make his interpretations of the law without regard for the intent of the law, but through the lens of his ideology. In the case of Prop 8, the judge is biased towards the homosexual lifestyle, therefore he overturned the will of the people of California.

     In one sense, those who are unhappy about this judge's decision is correct. I believe that the intent of this country's founders was to have a government by the people. The forefathers held to the principle of democracy. To overturn the people's decision means to go against the principle of democracy.

     On the other hand, it can be argued that the forefathers wanted to safeguard life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To violate the right to the pursuit of happiness is against the principles of the forefathers also. The forefathers wanted rule by the majority but protection of the rights of the minority. It can be argued that Prop 8 does violate the right to the pursuit of happiness, in this case the rights of homosexuals to have their union with the one they love and want to spend their lives with recognized by the state. The forefathers would probably be against gay marriage but we don't know that with certainty. The forefathers did not envision this issue coming up, therefore it is up to the present generation to decide this issue. 

     This referendum should have been challenged immediately and not allowed on the ballot if gay marriage is an inherent right (an issue that could open up a can of worms), a question that should have been settled first. By putting it on the ballot, it becomes an issue for the people to decide and the people decided to limit marriage to monogamous adult heterosexuals. The principle of rule by the majority is a clearer principle than the principle of the right to the pursuit of happiness and should be respected.

     Is a definition of what the state would recognize as marriage necessary? To have a legal basis for judgments on inheritance or justice issues when a union breaks up, a limitation of what the state recognizes as marriage is necessary. For example, think of a polygamist (polygamy would also be covered by this referendum) who dies and did not have a will. He has children by his "wives". If there is a dispute on inheritance, who will get his property? If only the first marriage is recognized, then the decision is clear, although not emotionally easy. The children by the first wife gets his property, not the other "wives" or their children.

     Following the principles or the intent behind the law is not always a black and white issue.  Does the right to bear arms give people a right in this country to have an arms race- some people having RPGs or AK47's? Some may say that weaponry could prevent an oppressive government and protect homes, and that is why the forefathers safeguarded the right to bear arms. However, the forefathers did not foresee the weapons of today, therefore, the right to bear arms have to be rethought in this generation.

     What then should the criteria for a judge be? Remember that those for Prop 84 and those against Prop 8 can co-opt the constitution. What then should we really be looking for in our judges? We should be looking for judges who advocate for justice and mercy, things that God values. They must apply the law equally, not favoring the rich, the poor, or those who share their lifestyle. They must apply the law in such a way as not to destroy the guilty, and with compassion for the victim.

     Now that President Obama has declared the end of "formal" (it is not really over) combat operations in Iraq, many of us ask the question "Was it worth it?" Was all the bloodshed, the lives of our soldiers and the lives of the Iraquis killed in the midst of combat, worth it? This question will initiate lots of debate. One side will say that it is worth it because a dictator who killed many has been overthrown. The other side will say it is not worth it because there were no weapons of mass destruction found.

     Perhaps, it is more fruitful to ask the question, was America's motives right for going to war? In the end, we could not completely control the results of our decisions. However, we can examine our hearts to see if our heart is in line with the heart of the loving God who is sovereign over creation. We are all guided by our hearts, our values and concerns. Some in the administration may have been driven with compassion for the oppressed, which is in line with God's heart. Some in the administration may have been motivated by protecting American interests in oil. Some really believed that there were weapons of mass destruction. Motivations, good and bad, coalesced and created the fervor for war. When many people are involved, there will also be multiple motivations. That is why scriptures command us to pray for our leaders. We pray that the motives behind their actions may spring from a heart whose concern is in line with God's concerns. As an aside, some may say that war is always wrong, but I believe that violence is sometimes necessary.

     After high school, I joined the Marine Corps. As I look back, I see that my motivation was to be able to say that I went through the hardest boot camp, and behind it was a heart obsessed with making myself look tough. I could evaluate this decision as wrong because it is not in line with God's heart. However, it is also in the Marine Corps that I became closer to Jesus, which is of infinite worth and God's desire for all. Therefore, I could look back and say that joining the Marine Corps was worth it. I was motivated for wrong reasons, but God made it result in good.

     The soldiers who gave up their lives could be seen as victims of bad motivations from our leaders. However, because of the sacrifice of our soldiers, some Iraquis can now live without the threat of being gassed. Some Iraquis can now sleep at night knowing that the government will not barge in their door and take their loved ones. I know there were bad results, including more persecution of Christians. The persecution may be intended to eliminate the light of Jesus from Iraq, but God is sovereign and he can make this persecution result in the light of Jesus even shining brighter in Iraq.

     Does being prophetic mean always being in conflict with others? I heard of a church planning to burn Koran's on Sept. 11, although I think they abandoned the plan. The idea was to turn Muslims away from Islam. There is another church that pickets a gentleman's club near it's location, and even going so far as to get the license plates of the cars that are in the parking lot and posting them on the internet.

     Surely, this churches would stand behind the First Amendment, their right to free speech, besides, the police have been posting pictures of men who have solicited prostitutes. This brings up the question, does legal mean right? Additionally, there are precedents to displays of iconoclasm in church history to bring groups of people to the church. In Europe, a missionary took down a tree sacred to pagans. A long time ago, the Conquistadors commanded a whole tribe of Mexican Indians to burn their idols in exchange for their support in a war with another tribe. Was this right?

     The zeal for the faith among these Christians is commendable. God did tell the Israelites to rid their land of any pagan influences. However, there are a few things they need to think about.

1. The apostle Paul acknowledges that Christians have to live in the midst of evil. The church is like later Israel, it is a pilgrim community. The pilgrim community was called to seek the peace of the city where they live in, with all its evil. On the other hand, early Israel is God's hand of judgment. In creating this nation, other nations were punished for rejecting the God who has been kind to them. I know many people don't like this judging God, but a nation that raises its head against God will destroy what God values, his creation. I believe that God is showing that because of the prevalence of the sinful nature, his kindness only hardens the hearts of men. This points to the need for God to directly change hearts. Sometimes, no amount of rehabilitation can change people, and God is not obliged to change hearts, it is his gracious prerogative. 

2. In the early stage of God's history with Israel, he was showing them that even a nation whose foundation is Godly would someday drift into ungodliness. Israel became like other nations, worshipping idols and making alliances with nations instead of trusting God. Again, this shows the prevalence of the sinful nature which no amount of kindness can change. God has to forgive sins and change hearts. The corollary to early Israel is the church. It is to be kept pure from ungoldiness. However, even in the church, the prevalence of sin is noted. The apostle John calls Christians to confess their sins and for a Christian to to say that he has no sin is a lie. The difference of the church from the world is its attitude of repentance.

3. God calls us to be at peace with our neighbors. I don't believe that the actions of these two churches promote peace with its neighbors. Are Christians then supposed to keep quiet in the face of evil? Are they supposed to be politically correct? We have become a society that is too sensitive. Any disagreement with a certain lifestyle could be construed as hateful speech, which could bring about persecution from certain people. On the other hand, there is such a thing as hateful speech. Christians should not engage in speech that demeans people, making them to be less than human. Christians should engage wrongs with gentleness and respect. To destroy a people's icons, even if there was a precedent, is hateful speech. How would we feel if somebody burns crosses and bibles. Do not do unto others what you don't want them to do to you is a criteria for hateful speech. On the other hand, we should not consider hateful speech respectful and honest criticisms of us. It is legitimate to expect (not demanded) to be treated with gentleness and respect. Even though the police display pictures in the Internet, I don't believe it is a practice that Christians could follow. It demeans men who rightfully should take account for their actions. I believe a correct response would be to confront the man in love and then if he is exposed, it should be only to the one affected by his actions directly. This assumes that the person gets to know the man.

     Moses allowed the people to divorce, something that God hates.  There comes a point where evil could not be stopped by pleading for what is right, where people are adamant in maintaining evil practices. Instead of destroying people who insisted on their way, God made concessions and remained kind to them. This does not mean that God changed his mind about divorce. This seems to be where we are in our history. The push for legitimacy of the homosexual lifestyle is an adamant refusal to follow God's standards. How do we deal with this? God's continued kindness is a paradigm of how we face evil in society. We continue to be a prophetic voice against evil and at the same time, love people even to the point of giving them freedom to engage in their evil practices. We still pray for the peace of society, and this includes its peace with God.   

     One of the top news of the day is the proposed building of a mosque/community center in the site of the former twin towers, those two buildings that were destroyed on September 11, 2001. I still remembered that day, I was on an Amtrak train to Chicago from St. Louis. I can imagine how much more memorable this day was for those who have lost their loved ones that day. It was a day of pain and sorrow.

     I understand the sensitivities of those who oppose the building of a mosque at this site. This was a burial site and the mosque will remind people of the evil that happened that day. How is that so? Let me explain.  I reflected on what would I feel if a loved one was murdered in a certain place. The closest analogy I could think of is if a family member of the murderer built a house in that place. I would be very uneasy, even though my resentment is against the murderer himself.

     I suspect that the issue is not that a building is being built in on the site because I see crosses erected on a highway, on the site of a big accident where a death occured. I suspect that if a church is proposed in that site, there would not be too much rumbling. There is a deeper issue to be considered. The resentment, whether they like it or not, is against Muslims themselves. People see Islam as the culprit in this evil, not just individual Muslims. 

     Moderate muslims can distance themselves, saying that the hijackerrs were not real Muslims or they are misled. This reminds me of Christians, responding to those who point to the crusades as an example of "evil" that Christians do, saying that the crusaders were not real Christians or just misled. The problem with this reasoning for a muslim is, how could you tell a real Muslim from a fake Muslim, especially since the hijackers looked zealous for their faith. Answering this question would make this conversation degenerate into an endless theological discussion, instead of what would really serve the cause of peace, a heart to heart conversation.

   Also, the underlying assumption is that real Muslims "like them" don't do such things? They may not kill but its a possiblity that they hurt other people's feelings- their own spouses or their own children. Does not evil reside in all people? If they deny this, saying that they are better than those other muslims (or fake muslims), then they are being unreal. Evil does reside in all people, no matter how closely they follow their religion. Christians who respond to the crusades issue in the same way are unwittingly denying the universality of the sinful nature, and consequently, the gospel.

     An honest answer, which probably serves reconciliation better is to own the Muslim hijackers as their own and empathize with the pain of the people affected by this act of fanaticism. This would open up heart to heart conversations, which will begin the healing of resentments.

    I end with a message to fellow Christian. The evil that resides in the crusaders also resides in us (greed, murder, etc.) Let us confess that, and also remind others that evil resides in them also. That evil was taken away when Jesus died on the cross. To those who believe in Jesus, their evil nature has also died. The life of the follower of Jesus is a life of living in that reality. Sometimes we may fail but if we turn back to the cross, there is forgiveness.  

     I notice that when children take an interest in gangs, most adults immediately discourage them instead of trying to explore why children would want to be in gangs in the first place. I have thought about this issue as one who works with children and have come up with reasons why the gang culture appeals to children.

1. Gangs are like a family. There is guidance and there is protection. In fact, some gangs have bylaws, like a society in itself. Whether they live up to this bylaws is another issue. In a world of broken homes, children look for family to belong to. Gang members protect each other, whereas sometimes parents abuse their children, reject them, or at least don't listen to them.

2. Gangs exemplify toughness. Sometimes children are beaten up and made to feel very weak. Some children retreat to their own worlds where they are strong, feared, and/or loved. The gang lifestyle of showing strength against enemies by "defending" territory, and having dangerous initiation rites, give the impression of the gang as a symbol of strength. That symbol of strength draws children, especially when they feel they are respected in the group.

3. Another drawing power of gangs is the promise of easy money. For some, moneyis a pressing problem. However, for some, it is easier to get money doing illegal activities than doing honest work. Therefore, no matter the danger, they would rather dedicate themselves to the gang than become law abiding citizens.

     I hope this reflection makes us think of how to serve our children instead of judging them for becoming affiliated with gangs. Some preliminary thoughts are the importance of family. The church, or at least a family in the church can start becoming fathers, mothers, and siblings to children who have no families. We must reiterate that toughness is not the way to peace but following Jesus to the cross. Humility and the acceptance of weakness is the way to peace. Finally, we must reiterate the importance of work (God made man to work that creation would benefit mankind), that it develops character and makes us good citizens in God's world. Who knows, maybe gangs that are usually devoted to the destruction of order may become devoted to brotherhood and service.

     Recently, Franklin Graham called Islam an evil religion, offending many Muslims and causing him to be uninvited for a speaking engagement in the Pentagon. This sweeping statement that the Rev. Graham made is an example of the black and white thinking that does not do justice to reality. However, the opposite reaction of denying that there may be strands of intolerance in Islam also does injustice to reality.

    If we are to take into account the truth that men and women are made in the image of a good God, and that men and women are also sinners, not just in their actions but in thedirection of their hearts, we could not make these black and white statements. There is a good strand in Islam. Although I don't claim to be an expert, it is zealous for the creator God. Now some may argue that Allah is not the same as Yahweh, the creator God, but I beg to differ.

     As a Christian, I do believe that God has revealed himself fully in the Old and New testaments. I believe that Muslims do worship the one who created all things. The point of monotheism is that there is a God above all creation, and that everything else is not god. Other spirits may be acknowledged, but there is to be only one God to be worshipped. Muslims have zeal for this God. Another good strand is that Almsgiving is one of the pillars of Islam. This shows love for neighbor, something that is right. 

     However, there is also an evil strand. The prophet Muhammad did engage in Jihad (holy war), and although Jihad can be reinterpreted, it definitely included war on those who do not follow Allah so Islamic law could be implemented. Also, the concept of Jihad shows an "us and them mentality" which denies the universality of human sinfulness. In biblical thought, all men have sinned, and that does not exclude those who follow God. Therefore, humanity's stance towards God and man should be humility. That is why the exiles of Israel were called to live in peace wherever God placed them, not overthrow the structures of society and implement biblical law.     

     It is not realistic to judge an ideology/religion as completely evil or completely good. If we do that, then we are denying the truth about human beings as both glorious and fallen. I want to conclude by saying a little bit about the proposed construction of a mosque in the former site of the World Trade Center. Instead of making an argument for or against it, I want to propose a good use of this site. It could be a memorial museum to the effects of terrorism. We can feature stories of men and women whose lives have been cut short because of a suicide bomber. This may not make as much revenue, but this could have a sombering effect towards those who take lightly the toll that terrorism takes in the hearts of people. I have been to Auschwitz and it is a somber experience. It made me think about these men and women whose dreams of life in peace have been cut short because of man's disregard for life, in the service of their ideology.

Since elections are coming up soon, I want to share my thoughts on choosing leaders. The kings and government officials in scriptures were mostly not chosen by the people. In our republic, the rulers are chosen by the people. The fact that the people elect rulers show that power (at least theoretically since some people have better chances of becoming rulers than others) lies in the hands of the people. How can people responsibly use this power in the voting booth? As a Christian, I believe that all people are called to show the humility that Jesus showed, becoming a servant to all by dying on the cross. How does this humility apply in the voting booth? Here are my thoughts.

1. We should choose leaders who fights for the good of everyone, not just a special interest group, even our own. We should be wary of candidates who promises to always be on the side of labor or business. A leader is the servant of all people, not just rich or poor.

2. We should not choose leaders who fights only for the good of one group (even if it is our group) without being considerate of the good of others (those who we may not naturally care for). I believe it is good for a candidate to be pro-life. However, that candidate must also have compassion for the woman who is anxious about carrying a baby to full term.

3. We must vote in consideration of everyone, not just ourselves. We should not choose leaders who will push their agendas without consideration for everyone who would be affected, even if those agendas are agreeable to us.

In summary, we should choose leaders who are humble, focused on serving everyone. A humble leader affirms those who are trying to make this world a better place, even if they have a different method. A humble leader is not out for his glory. 

One night I walked into a horrible scene- bloodstained carpet, one child crying with blood gushing from her head, children crying telling me what they saw happened, that one child has jumped on another and has brutally punched her repeatedly on the head. I was starting to get very angry at the "aggressor" for her violent behavior, as "witnessed" by her peers.

My shock at the violence at that time reminded me of the shock people felt at the events off the coast of Gaza where a humanitarian aid ship was alledgedly attacked without provocation by Israeli forces. People jumped on the bandwagon of condemning Israel for the killing of nineteen civillians. The people immediately saw the Palestinian activists as victims of Israeli aggression and understandably, they sided with the Palestinial activists.

This reaction was similar to the reaction of my kids at work when they saw their peer bleeding profusely, an injury that required fifteen stitches. It was similar to my initial reaction towards the aggressor-"she should be in jail", "she should apologize profusely to everyone, "she should be isolated for awhile."

Alas, the truth is not what it seems. The cops came on the scene and the cameras were reviewed that night to see if charges have to be made on the "aggressor". Here was the true story. The "aggressor" was sitting on the couch and the "victim" came on the scene. The "victim" started bullying one of her peers. The "aggressor" stood up for the peer who was being bullied. The "victim" responded by punching the "aggressor". The "aggressor", being at a disadvantaged position, stood up and in the process pushed away the "victim". The "victim" tripped and her head hit a TV stand. The "aggressor" (at least initially) was in a precarious situation and the injury was an accident that indirectly resulted from the "victim's" provocation.

We tend to have strong feelings towards victims and aggressors. However, my experience has shown that the role of victim and aggressor is not always as clear as it seems. I heard that police cameras are being used to evaluate the behavior of policemen. I understand that a group of policemen beating one person with a baton is most probably police brutality. However, there are situations that may not be as black and white. Consider a cop throwing a suspect to the wall. It is completely probable that the cop felt that the suspect may overpower him and he neutralized the suspect by throwing him against the wall. To just stand there and wrestle with a suspect could cost the policeman his life.

I don't think many people understand how is it like to have to subdue other human beings as part of their jobs. I ask those who does not know to give those who know the benefit of the doubt. When an aggressor seems to be very strong, a feeling of fear comes on the one who has to subdue him. The fear may become warranted at the first physical contact between the aggressor and the subduer. The subduer may feel fear for his safety as he feels the strength of the aggressor who is doing all he can to resist the subduer. Can we be quick in condemning the subduer for throwing the aggressor on the wall? Or tightening up on a choke hold? I think those who don't  understand the reality of having to subdue other human beings should try to empathize with the subduer.

In our world, sometimes violence is necessary. There will always be people who are determined to harm their fellowman. The scenes in the movies where the cop just goes behind a suspect and cuffs him is unfortunately not always the reality. There is the possibility that the suspect will fight and endanger the life of the cop. That is the reality. So please, when we hear these events of "peaceful" people being "harassed" by aggressive villains, let us reserve our judgment and be open to the possibility that violent action was warranted.  

I have been reflecting on the issue of freedom to exercise religion. I have been hearing about groups wanting to take prayer out of public schools (including the day of prayer) and taking religious symbols (specifically, the cross) from government property.

I strongly suspect that this drive to take away prayer and religious symbols is an attempt to get the supernatural (i.e. God) out of the public realm. Behind these attempts is the secularist push of the supernatural into the private realm, never to interfere with the public realm. Behind these drive is an aversion to the supernatural  (because of intellectual pride, lifestyle maintenance, negative experiences), especially the Judeo-Christian framework of reality, as manifested in prayer and the christian symbol of the cross. 

The truth is that what a person really believes or values in private will somehow manifest itself in public. A politicial who says he opposes abortion privately but supports abortion rights probably believes that the freedom to choose is the greatest value and should not be subordinated to the right of a human being to live. It is also possible that this politician values power above all and that pandering to one group will give him the power he so values.  

These groups that push for the taking away of prayer and religious symbols usually support their position by saying that the first amendment separates church and state. What the first amendment really does is to assure that one religious group should not have the supremacy and that people should be free to exercise their religion. The concern is that one religious group will be favored by the state. 

I submit that the opponents of prayer and religious symbols are the ones who are violating the first amendment. If a public school teacher wants to lead her students in prayer because she believes in a God who intervenes, she should be allowed to, as long as she does not force her students to do so (students should be allowed not to pray for any reason). To stop her is to violate her freedom to express her faith, and that is the violation of the first amendment.

As far as religious symbols, these symbols are built as an expression of maybe one person or a group of person's religious expression. To tell people that they could not build a religious symbol (e.g. the judge who put up the ten commandments in his courtroom) is a violation of their right to express their faith. Some may object that tax dollars should not be spent on these symbols. However, when we hand our money over the state, we gave it the implicit right to spend however it chooses.

Now to those who oppose the opposers of prayer and religious symbols. The first amendment guarantees the right of everyone to express their faith. Therefore, they have to be open to having teachers in the public school who express, for example, their wiccan faith by teaching students a dance to mother earth or something. They also have to be open to having pentagrams in government buildings.

Is this freedom of religion ideal? No, because it is not glorifying to God. We should use this freedom to protect ourselves from persecution but we should not think of it as the greatest thing in the world. Freedom of religion is a value of this nation and we have to respect that. Should that be changed? Ultimately, every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord, that is the goal of history. That would be brought about by the Holy Spirit working in the hearts of people, not by force. The work of the Christian is to pray for the knowledge (relational) of God (Jesus) to fill the earth as the waters cover the sea.

I recently heard on the radio that the proponents of intelligent design are shunned and even censored by their fellow scholars. The reason cited by the radio commentators is fear of the truth.

I don't think fear is the main reason for this shunning. The opponents of intelligent design don't have to give up their paradigms of how the universe evolved. They may have to be open to the possibility that natural selection is not random but is directed by an intelligent designer. This is a reasonable belief, considering the intricasies of this universe. One may observe the workings of the eye and it would be perfectly reasonable to think that the formation of the eye has an intelligent designer behind it. Things that are functional and beautiful usually has intelligent design behind it.

I think the real issue is contempt. For some scholars, belief in an intelligent designer, especially one who holds some commonality with the God of scriptures, is considered contemptible. People who are otherwise open-minded can be contemptous of those who believe in the God of scriptures.

How do we as Christians deal with contempt? I believe the answer is the Gospel. God does not value us based on our intelligence, beauty, or even morality. God loved us before the foundation of the world, even before we put our faith in Jesus. This same gospel also helps us deal with our own contempt. If we are honest with ourselves, we hold some people with low regard. This may be those who have different beliefs, or have lifestyles that are contrary to God's law. This same gospel reminds us that without God's grace, we are dead in our blindness and sins, and in this world that held him in contempt, he continues to seek his lost sheep.  

In the Gospels, it is said that if we are to enter the Kingdom of God, we are to become like little children. What does this mean? As I was watching how my little daughter was interacting with some people in the park, I got a glimpse of the antidote to contempt. Little children do not seem to have contempt. They will approach others and talk to them about their day, what they have, etc. This welcoming attitude is true even with the younger emotionally disturbed children I work with. This might be what it means to live according to the gospel, to become like little children. Little children are satisfied with God, they know that they can come to him for life and love. Little children are also willing to extend grace to the outsider. May we be people who find their life and their affirmation from God. May we be people who extend grace to those outside our circle of family and friends.