A new study by the Centers for Disease Control shows that teen birth rates are on the decline...a 37 percent drop over the past 2 decades. This is regarded as good news. Pro-family advocates attribute this trend to the decisions of teens to postpone having sex. There are numerous Christian voices speaking into the culture about the importance of abstinence, reinforcing the message that the way to prevent pregnancy, sexually-transmitted diseases, and emotional instability is to wait until marriage, to engage in sexual activity within the context that God had set up.
CitizenLink had this report.
While many would hail this CDC report as good news, what is believed to be a major factor - abstinence - is regarded as somehow counter-cultural or even harmful. It is a battle to maintain Federal funding for abstinence-based sexual education, according to Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association: “One-hundred sixty-nine abstinence-education programs (recently) lost (federal) funding, and over 1 million students lost access to the very programs that can support and encourage the positive trends."
And there are those that tip the hat to abstinence, but then turn around and encourage teens that insist on having sex to use contraception. This is a mixed message and underestimates the power of choice that teenagers have. Programs encourage saying "no" to drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes, believing that young people can make and follow through on those choices - why not abstinence?
Ironically, this CDC news was released the same day that the mainstream media jumped all over the amount of money that Sarah Palin's daughter, Bristol, received as a spokesperson for the Candie's Foundation - the total received was over $300,000. Now, I can't endorse the work of the Candie's Foundation - they do advocate the "abstinence-plus" apporach, but isn't it interesting that Bristol and her family were roundly criticized for her having a child out of wedlock (which is par for the course among the Hollywood crowd - just check out the number of children born to parents who are not married). Now, that she's learned her lesson and is speaking out about prevention, she's being criticized because of the amount she was paid. Is it a large amount? Sure. Is it an appropriate amount, considering the amount of influence she might have on young girls? Perhaps. I mean, just look at the Hollywood types who earn gaudy amounts of money for endorsing their favorite charities. But, Bristol's message is not politically-correct in some circles - while some would not blink an eye at terminating a teen pregnancy, there is resistance to the message of prevention - because it involves making a counter-cultural choice to the teen mindset. And, maybe even Bristol won't just keep all that money for herself - maybe even she can invest it to bring an accurage abstinence-based message to more teens and their parents.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Got a (Half) Minute?
If you had 30 seconds to communicate a message to the world, how would you use it? What would be the essence of that message? A church in Southern California answered that question by producing a 30-second commercial and then approached the local movie theater about buying space on its screens to run it prior to the films. It features a number of phrases that people have used throughout the years to try and debunk the story of the resurrection, then invites people to the church to find out the truth. Here's the video, produced by Compass Bible Church:
The theater would not allow this 30-second video to be shown prior to its films, which I would dare say would probably, in most instances, contain more offensive content than this ad. The Christian Examiner had this piece on the controversy.
Here we have another instance where a media company has chosen to ban the message of the gospel, saying that it was offensive. Sound familiar? I think back on the proposal that Birmingham's Fixed Point Foundation made to Fox television about running a message during the Super Bowl. It merely encouraged people to "look up" the verse whose reference had been seen in the stands at football games, and even in a player's eye-black. This video introduced Fixed Point's "Look Up 3:16" campaign:
Fox told Fixed Point that the commercial could not air during the Super Bowl because of the nature of its content. I like what Fixed Point head Larry Taunton had to say about the 30-second opportunity on this video:
So...you have 30 seconds, roughly 75 words if you were to read straight copy, a handful of images on a screen - Would you want to communicate a message of hope? What would you say? Or, how would you depict it visually? 30 seconds - could you, would you, help change the world?
The theater would not allow this 30-second video to be shown prior to its films, which I would dare say would probably, in most instances, contain more offensive content than this ad. The Christian Examiner had this piece on the controversy.
Here we have another instance where a media company has chosen to ban the message of the gospel, saying that it was offensive. Sound familiar? I think back on the proposal that Birmingham's Fixed Point Foundation made to Fox television about running a message during the Super Bowl. It merely encouraged people to "look up" the verse whose reference had been seen in the stands at football games, and even in a player's eye-black. This video introduced Fixed Point's "Look Up 3:16" campaign:
Fox told Fixed Point that the commercial could not air during the Super Bowl because of the nature of its content. I like what Fixed Point head Larry Taunton had to say about the 30-second opportunity on this video:
So...you have 30 seconds, roughly 75 words if you were to read straight copy, a handful of images on a screen - Would you want to communicate a message of hope? What would you say? Or, how would you depict it visually? 30 seconds - could you, would you, help change the world?
Ephesians 5:16..."Redeeming the time, because the days are evil.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
I Heart New Words
When does a word become official? Perhaps it's when it makes the Oxford English Dictionary, which just added some 900 new words and meanings to its ever-growing stable of terms, which now has surpassed the 45,000 mark. Even sets of initials that have become so common have now been added, such as LOL (laugh out loud), BFF (best friends forever), and one of my least favorites, OMG (Oh, my G-- or gosh) are part of this ever-growing lexicon. These are common shortcuts that are used in the text and e-mail world.
The Associated Press has the scoop.
The newest edition also uses the word, "heart" as a verb, presumably as in, "I heart so-and-so", instead of the word, "love".
Words are powerful tools, and can communicate a variety of facts and emotions. And, it's important to freshen up our vocabulary. But, as Christians, we are cautioned to use our words wisely. James 3:2 says," For we all stumble in many ways. If anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body as well."
Jesus said that improper thoughts and emotions negatively influence the words we speak - perhaps there are negative words that flow from areas in our hearts that need to be dealt with. Choosing words wisely and eliminating idle or useless words from our vocabulary can be helpful as we seek to comply with the Scriptural admonition to speak the truth in love. What are we adding to, or subtracting from, our vocabulary that can bring us in greater conformity to Christ?
The Associated Press has the scoop.
The newest edition also uses the word, "heart" as a verb, presumably as in, "I heart so-and-so", instead of the word, "love".
Words are powerful tools, and can communicate a variety of facts and emotions. And, it's important to freshen up our vocabulary. But, as Christians, we are cautioned to use our words wisely. James 3:2 says," For we all stumble in many ways. If anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body as well."
Jesus said that improper thoughts and emotions negatively influence the words we speak - perhaps there are negative words that flow from areas in our hearts that need to be dealt with. Choosing words wisely and eliminating idle or useless words from our vocabulary can be helpful as we seek to comply with the Scriptural admonition to speak the truth in love. What are we adding to, or subtracting from, our vocabulary that can bring us in greater conformity to Christ?
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Values Voter Update - November 2010
The voters spoke out in the most recent election, this past Tuesday, and the U.S. House of Representatives will now have a Republican majority. The Senate will have a more balanced makeup as a result of the vote. A number of governor's races went to Republicans, as well, plus state legislatures are seeing an increase in Republican representation.
But is this a Republican resurgence? Not necessarily. One can interpret that the election represented a repudiation of the current course of our government. There was a definite anti-incumbency and anti-establishment feel in the results. Polling data showed that voters were distressed with Democrats, but not necessarily enamored with Republicans, either. The clear signal was that voters wanted a change, and definitely not the type of "change" that had been the mantra of the campaign in 2008.
The attitude of change and a call to governmental responsibility in the face of seemingly uncontrolled, or at least excessive, spending has been personified in the "Tea Party" movement, which is generally thought of to be an economically-based thread of our nation's populace. But many of the "members" of the grassroots movement also possess strong evangelical credentials. In fact, a poll released by the Faith and Freedom Coalition shows that 52% of self-identified Tea Party members are also evangelicals.
The influence of "values voting", and more specifically, faith-based voting, was greater in this year's election that in 2008. According to that survey, the largest single constituency in the electorate in the 2010 midterm elections was self-identified evangelicals, who comprised 29% of the vote and cast 78% of their ballots for Republican candidates.
And while much of the general news coverage focused on how economic factors would affect the 2010 vote, the life issue definitely played a significant role. The Susan B. Anthony List proclaimed this year "The Year of the Pro-Life Woman", and a number of the female candidates it supported were successful in their election bids. The List also sponsored its "Votes Have Consequences" project, in which it was active in races in districts where so-called "pro-life" Democrats who supported the health care reform legislation, which contained taxpayer funding of abortion, were running for re-election. The results are impressive: 15 of 20 of those Democrats proclaiming themselves as pro-life while supporting health care reform lost their elections. LifeNews.com has this guest column. You can also visit www.sba-list.org/scorecard to learn how SBA List-supported candidates fared on Election Day. And, here's a summary of the election of pro-life women from LifeNews.com.
I made the point in a recent interview with former U.S. House member Marilyn Musgrave, who headed up the "Votes Have Consequences" project, that candidates that have a foundation of being pro-life tend to hold a Biblical view on other issues, such as marriage and even the economy. A number of the Tea Party candidates, who spoke forcefully on economic issues and governmental restraint and stewardship, were at their core socially conservative, as well. Pastor Jim Garlow spoke with me and discussed that he believes that Christians, especially Christian pastors, will be speaking out increasingly on economic issues, including the concept of government within its means. Perhaps this election can send the message that a Christian view of government and public policy can yield effective solutions to the daunting issues that we face as a country.
But is this a Republican resurgence? Not necessarily. One can interpret that the election represented a repudiation of the current course of our government. There was a definite anti-incumbency and anti-establishment feel in the results. Polling data showed that voters were distressed with Democrats, but not necessarily enamored with Republicans, either. The clear signal was that voters wanted a change, and definitely not the type of "change" that had been the mantra of the campaign in 2008.
The attitude of change and a call to governmental responsibility in the face of seemingly uncontrolled, or at least excessive, spending has been personified in the "Tea Party" movement, which is generally thought of to be an economically-based thread of our nation's populace. But many of the "members" of the grassroots movement also possess strong evangelical credentials. In fact, a poll released by the Faith and Freedom Coalition shows that 52% of self-identified Tea Party members are also evangelicals.
The influence of "values voting", and more specifically, faith-based voting, was greater in this year's election that in 2008. According to that survey, the largest single constituency in the electorate in the 2010 midterm elections was self-identified evangelicals, who comprised 29% of the vote and cast 78% of their ballots for Republican candidates.
And while much of the general news coverage focused on how economic factors would affect the 2010 vote, the life issue definitely played a significant role. The Susan B. Anthony List proclaimed this year "The Year of the Pro-Life Woman", and a number of the female candidates it supported were successful in their election bids. The List also sponsored its "Votes Have Consequences" project, in which it was active in races in districts where so-called "pro-life" Democrats who supported the health care reform legislation, which contained taxpayer funding of abortion, were running for re-election. The results are impressive: 15 of 20 of those Democrats proclaiming themselves as pro-life while supporting health care reform lost their elections. LifeNews.com has this guest column. You can also visit www.sba-list.org/scorecard to learn how SBA List-supported candidates fared on Election Day. And, here's a summary of the election of pro-life women from LifeNews.com.
I made the point in a recent interview with former U.S. House member Marilyn Musgrave, who headed up the "Votes Have Consequences" project, that candidates that have a foundation of being pro-life tend to hold a Biblical view on other issues, such as marriage and even the economy. A number of the Tea Party candidates, who spoke forcefully on economic issues and governmental restraint and stewardship, were at their core socially conservative, as well. Pastor Jim Garlow spoke with me and discussed that he believes that Christians, especially Christian pastors, will be speaking out increasingly on economic issues, including the concept of government within its means. Perhaps this election can send the message that a Christian view of government and public policy can yield effective solutions to the daunting issues that we face as a country.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Tumult Around Tebow
College seniors who have excelled on the gridiron are gathering this week in Mobile, Alabama to show their stuff to NFL scouts and play in the Senior Bowl game. One of the areas of speculation for the past few months has been the ability of Florida standout and former Heisman winner Tim Tebow to fit into a pro-style offense, which is quite different than what he was accustomed to while the Gator QB. Well, an even bigger area of speculation surrounding this outstanding Christian young man has been the content of an ad, called, "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life", scheduled to run during the Super Bowl, featuring Tebow and his mother in what is projected to be a life-affirming ad.
The backstory here is enthralling - Pam Tebow, pregnant with Tim, was advised by doctors to have an abortion, due to the fear that an illness she had contracted would result in Tim being born with some sort of special need or needs. Nevertheless, the Tebows chose life, -and look at how Tim Tebow has excelled not only on the football field, but at life. This story is expected to be a key element of the 30-second Super Bowl presentation, the script of which has been approved by CBS. However, so-called "women's groups" have protested the airing of the ad, and you can read the report from the New York Daily News here.
In response to that torrent of communication, CBS has announced that it stands by its decision to air the ad.
What is notable about some of the rhetoric is the hypocrisy that is present. Here are the words of Jehmu Greene, president of the New York-based Women’s Media Center, quoted in the article above:
“An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year - an event designed to bring Americans together..."
That same group made a statement blasting Focus on the Family, which is paying for the ad using designated funds from private donors:
“By offering one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization, CBS is aligning itself with a political stance that will damage its reputation, alienate viewers, and discourage consumers from supporting its shows and advertisers..."
Those words are quite "unifying", aren't they? Apparently these groups don't want the American public to be exposed to opinions with which they disagree.
Ponder this: In sports, and in broadcasting in general, we are exposed to products and practices that violate our values…for instance, how many beer ads will air during the Super Bowl? What about those historically offensive ads for a certain internet service provider? I would prefer that the networks don’t air the ads, but they are a free market enterprise, and as long as the ads don’t violate FCC decency standards, they are free to air those ads. So, if these passionate pro-choice, er...pro-abortion advocates don’t like the message, they can change the channel or go get a snack when the ad comes on.
If they were really as they say, "pro-choice", wouldn’t they applaud Pam Tebow’s decision to save the life of her son, Tim? After all, Pam exercised her "right to choose". And, furthermore, wouldn’t they applaud their own mother’s choice to give birth to…them?
And for another thing, I think I’m glad that CBS has the game this year – if NBC was broadcasting the Super Bowl, you can be assured that ultra-liberal commentator Keith Olbermann, who co-hosts that network's football studio show, would be jumping up and down with unabashed vitriol. ABC and ESPN might be less prone to show the ad, either.
So, I hope CBS will continue hold the line – and not bow into pressure. Tim Tebow certainly doesn't mind the pressure - he has continued to winsomely justify his views, as recently as this week, when he was quoted in USA Today as saying:
"I know some people won't agree with it, but I think they can at least respect that I stand up for what I believe ... I've always been very convicted of it (his views on abortion) because that's the reason I'm here, because my mom was a very courageous woman. So any way that I could help, I would do it. "
Tim Tebow's first endorsement - LIFE! What an inspiring choice.
The backstory here is enthralling - Pam Tebow, pregnant with Tim, was advised by doctors to have an abortion, due to the fear that an illness she had contracted would result in Tim being born with some sort of special need or needs. Nevertheless, the Tebows chose life, -and look at how Tim Tebow has excelled not only on the football field, but at life. This story is expected to be a key element of the 30-second Super Bowl presentation, the script of which has been approved by CBS. However, so-called "women's groups" have protested the airing of the ad, and you can read the report from the New York Daily News here.
In response to that torrent of communication, CBS has announced that it stands by its decision to air the ad.
What is notable about some of the rhetoric is the hypocrisy that is present. Here are the words of Jehmu Greene, president of the New York-based Women’s Media Center, quoted in the article above:
“An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year - an event designed to bring Americans together..."
That same group made a statement blasting Focus on the Family, which is paying for the ad using designated funds from private donors:
“By offering one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization, CBS is aligning itself with a political stance that will damage its reputation, alienate viewers, and discourage consumers from supporting its shows and advertisers..."
Those words are quite "unifying", aren't they? Apparently these groups don't want the American public to be exposed to opinions with which they disagree.
Ponder this: In sports, and in broadcasting in general, we are exposed to products and practices that violate our values…for instance, how many beer ads will air during the Super Bowl? What about those historically offensive ads for a certain internet service provider? I would prefer that the networks don’t air the ads, but they are a free market enterprise, and as long as the ads don’t violate FCC decency standards, they are free to air those ads. So, if these passionate pro-choice, er...pro-abortion advocates don’t like the message, they can change the channel or go get a snack when the ad comes on.
If they were really as they say, "pro-choice", wouldn’t they applaud Pam Tebow’s decision to save the life of her son, Tim? After all, Pam exercised her "right to choose". And, furthermore, wouldn’t they applaud their own mother’s choice to give birth to…them?
And for another thing, I think I’m glad that CBS has the game this year – if NBC was broadcasting the Super Bowl, you can be assured that ultra-liberal commentator Keith Olbermann, who co-hosts that network's football studio show, would be jumping up and down with unabashed vitriol. ABC and ESPN might be less prone to show the ad, either.
So, I hope CBS will continue hold the line – and not bow into pressure. Tim Tebow certainly doesn't mind the pressure - he has continued to winsomely justify his views, as recently as this week, when he was quoted in USA Today as saying:
"I know some people won't agree with it, but I think they can at least respect that I stand up for what I believe ... I've always been very convicted of it (his views on abortion) because that's the reason I'm here, because my mom was a very courageous woman. So any way that I could help, I would do it. "
Tim Tebow's first endorsement - LIFE! What an inspiring choice.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Was Robertson Right?
The media and blogosphere have been awash lately with comments about Pat Robertson’s comments on the “700 Club” television program regarding the nation of Haiti, which is continuing to recover from the January 12th earthquake, which has killed thousands and left multiple thousands homeless. He mentioned that the nation is “cursed” and that in 1791 leaders of a rebellion against French rule “swore a pact with the devil”.
Pat’s history is fairly on target – the slaves who led the rebellion in Haiti in 1791 were led by a man who believed in voodoo, and a ceremony was held that swore allegiance to some being or force other than Almighty God, so you could say that over the years, Haitian so-called “religious” leaders have been practicing a form of religion that is clearly anti-Biblical, and of the enemy.
Haiti is permeated in witch doctors and voodoo, and while there is a religious element in the form of the Catholic Church, nevertheless the practice of voodoo is the predominant spiritual practice it the land.
There are a number of principles that we can take away from a careful analysis of Robertson’s comments.
I believe there is historical evidence and geographical evidence that Haiti could be considered a “cursed” land. Just look at the difference between Haiti and the relatively prosperous Dominican Republic on the same island. Haiti is the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere, and while some would attribute that to poor leadership, that leadership has accepted and even actively pursued the voodoo practices that have enslaved so many people on that half of the island.
Because of the abject poverty that is so prevalent in Haiti, the nation was ill-equipped to deal with the severity of the earthquake.
What about God’s judgment? Well, if God was using catastrophe to judge sin, then America and each of us individually are getting off light. There is plenty of sin to go around, and it is going unjudged, at least from a catastrophic sense. However, we do live in a fallen world, and natural disasters are going to occur with some regularity. And, I believe we are living in a time when these types of calamities are going to increase – in Matthew 24, Jesus paints a picture of a fallen world racing toward judgment and His return that is being beset with all sorts of natural signs. So, while there is an element of judgment, I cannot say (nor can anyone else) that this earthquake was God’s selective punishment on the practitioners of voodoo – in fact, there has been a massive prayer effort for the nation of Haiti to break the curse on the country.
Did God allow this? Of course.
Can God use this? Imagine the possibilities. The land is now infiltrated with more Christians than ever before, who are sharing the love of Jesus, the hope of the gospel, and the truth of God’s word. This is a unique missionary opportunity, and perhaps it took this adversity to bring salvation for a huge amount of people. And Pat is definitely a player – CBN’s Operation Blessing will be used greatly of God to touch literally thousands of lives in the name of Jesus.
Was Pat Robertson right? While the tragedy did not necessarily come because of the sin or the curse on the land or the practices of the people, it does remain that Haiti has for years been a cursed nation. It now stands at the precipice of being a blessed nation, full of new believers in Jesus Christ. I believe that adversity brings opportunity, and our role is not to necessarily question why something occurred, but how God could use these circumstances for His glory. Pat’s timing was not good, but I don’t interpret his comments as saying the people brought this tragedy upon themselves, and I believe what he said was motivated by compassion for the people there.
And, one further thing - how do people get off on criticizing Pat for a statement they do not understand, calling him “stupid”, for instance, when misstatements are commonplace in public life? We are all flawed individuals – and I’m thankful we don’t get what we deserve – in the form of God’s judgment for sin. So, before we judge Pat Robertson, or the people of Haiti, may we take to heart the words of the apostle Paul, who encourages us to examine ourselves…and as we look within, perhaps we can dig deep and be involved in helping the people of Haiti.
Pat’s history is fairly on target – the slaves who led the rebellion in Haiti in 1791 were led by a man who believed in voodoo, and a ceremony was held that swore allegiance to some being or force other than Almighty God, so you could say that over the years, Haitian so-called “religious” leaders have been practicing a form of religion that is clearly anti-Biblical, and of the enemy.
Haiti is permeated in witch doctors and voodoo, and while there is a religious element in the form of the Catholic Church, nevertheless the practice of voodoo is the predominant spiritual practice it the land.
There are a number of principles that we can take away from a careful analysis of Robertson’s comments.
I believe there is historical evidence and geographical evidence that Haiti could be considered a “cursed” land. Just look at the difference between Haiti and the relatively prosperous Dominican Republic on the same island. Haiti is the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere, and while some would attribute that to poor leadership, that leadership has accepted and even actively pursued the voodoo practices that have enslaved so many people on that half of the island.
Because of the abject poverty that is so prevalent in Haiti, the nation was ill-equipped to deal with the severity of the earthquake.
What about God’s judgment? Well, if God was using catastrophe to judge sin, then America and each of us individually are getting off light. There is plenty of sin to go around, and it is going unjudged, at least from a catastrophic sense. However, we do live in a fallen world, and natural disasters are going to occur with some regularity. And, I believe we are living in a time when these types of calamities are going to increase – in Matthew 24, Jesus paints a picture of a fallen world racing toward judgment and His return that is being beset with all sorts of natural signs. So, while there is an element of judgment, I cannot say (nor can anyone else) that this earthquake was God’s selective punishment on the practitioners of voodoo – in fact, there has been a massive prayer effort for the nation of Haiti to break the curse on the country.
Did God allow this? Of course.
Can God use this? Imagine the possibilities. The land is now infiltrated with more Christians than ever before, who are sharing the love of Jesus, the hope of the gospel, and the truth of God’s word. This is a unique missionary opportunity, and perhaps it took this adversity to bring salvation for a huge amount of people. And Pat is definitely a player – CBN’s Operation Blessing will be used greatly of God to touch literally thousands of lives in the name of Jesus.
Was Pat Robertson right? While the tragedy did not necessarily come because of the sin or the curse on the land or the practices of the people, it does remain that Haiti has for years been a cursed nation. It now stands at the precipice of being a blessed nation, full of new believers in Jesus Christ. I believe that adversity brings opportunity, and our role is not to necessarily question why something occurred, but how God could use these circumstances for His glory. Pat’s timing was not good, but I don’t interpret his comments as saying the people brought this tragedy upon themselves, and I believe what he said was motivated by compassion for the people there.
And, one further thing - how do people get off on criticizing Pat for a statement they do not understand, calling him “stupid”, for instance, when misstatements are commonplace in public life? We are all flawed individuals – and I’m thankful we don’t get what we deserve – in the form of God’s judgment for sin. So, before we judge Pat Robertson, or the people of Haiti, may we take to heart the words of the apostle Paul, who encourages us to examine ourselves…and as we look within, perhaps we can dig deep and be involved in helping the people of Haiti.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Christmas (Twi-) Light Zone - Homewood, AL
Ah, yes, I wrote in Journey magazine recently about some of the ways that public officials have become intimidated with respect to the celebration of Christmas. Well, the hits just keep on coming, as attempts to overregulate the expression of the season continue to proliferate.
And, one of the latest comes from the state of Alabama, where a Birmingham suburb passed a law over a decade ago that requires off-duty firefighters to be present when a church conducts a Christmas candlelight service. Not just the presence of a fire extinguisher, or one or two firefighters, but 4 of them! At every service.
Read the story here from the Birmingham News.
OK, I don't know how many candlelight services are being held on Christmas Eve in the lovely little burg of Homewood, but let's say there are 25. That means 100 firefighters would have to be dispatched to various parts of the city. At $100 a piece!! I can understand the public safety issue here, but realistically, how many times have candlelight services resulted in a hazardous situation? And, where does it end?
I don't know how this regulation was passed, but perhaps a more practical means could be developed, if there's such a concern about a fire breaking out at a candlelight service. And, as the lady from Samford said in the Birmingham News article, the "least restrictive" means was not taken here, with regard to free expression. So, what's the endgame - will a church either knowingly or unknowingly break the law and have a firefighter-less service, be forced to pay a fine, and then file a lawsuit, claiming it is unconstitutional because of free expression concerns? Does the City of Homewood have enforcement personnel that would be dispatched on Christmas Eve to arrest church leaders and snuff out the candles?
I don't perceive any malicious intent here, but this does seem all a bit of an overextension of governmental regulation. Perhaps some inspired wisdom can bring light into this potentially dark situation.
Further reading: Frank James' piece on the NPR "Two-Way" blog.
And, one of the latest comes from the state of Alabama, where a Birmingham suburb passed a law over a decade ago that requires off-duty firefighters to be present when a church conducts a Christmas candlelight service. Not just the presence of a fire extinguisher, or one or two firefighters, but 4 of them! At every service.
Read the story here from the Birmingham News.
OK, I don't know how many candlelight services are being held on Christmas Eve in the lovely little burg of Homewood, but let's say there are 25. That means 100 firefighters would have to be dispatched to various parts of the city. At $100 a piece!! I can understand the public safety issue here, but realistically, how many times have candlelight services resulted in a hazardous situation? And, where does it end?
I don't know how this regulation was passed, but perhaps a more practical means could be developed, if there's such a concern about a fire breaking out at a candlelight service. And, as the lady from Samford said in the Birmingham News article, the "least restrictive" means was not taken here, with regard to free expression. So, what's the endgame - will a church either knowingly or unknowingly break the law and have a firefighter-less service, be forced to pay a fine, and then file a lawsuit, claiming it is unconstitutional because of free expression concerns? Does the City of Homewood have enforcement personnel that would be dispatched on Christmas Eve to arrest church leaders and snuff out the candles?
I don't perceive any malicious intent here, but this does seem all a bit of an overextension of governmental regulation. Perhaps some inspired wisdom can bring light into this potentially dark situation.
Further reading: Frank James' piece on the NPR "Two-Way" blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)