Currently, the Tulsa area, a controversy is going on that is tied to a trend that has been going on for several years. Businesses, schools, and other organizations have replaced 'Christmas' with 'holiday' in the names of their December events, and Christians have resisted this by saying that Christ shouldn't be taken out of Christmas. The local flare-up is over the decision of U. S. Senator James Inhofe, a Tulsa resident, to not ride his horse in this year's parade because the organizers changed the name of the event.
Of course, many criticize him, saying he is close-minded, bigoted, and failing to represent all the people of Oklahoma. But they say this about him no matter what he does or says. Unless Inhofe changes into a liberal Democrat (he is one of the most conservative Republicans in the Senate), he will never please them. Even then, I believe they would remain suspicious of him, just waiting to pounce on him with venom and vigor if he ever again expresses another conservative or traditional thought.
On the other hand, many have applauded him for taking a stand for Christ.
Me? I'm kind of in the middle on this one.
I am glad when anyone takes a stand for Christ, however I do think that he could have taken his stand in a better manner.
Why make an issue of the parade's name? Does this really matter? In this case, maybe not.
Who decides what the parade is called? Whoever puts in on.
I tried to search online to see who that is, and apparently the parade is put on by its own organization. This organization might be an offshoot of the Jaycees, because they were mentioned in a sponsorship application I found. The parade director said the organization is not a religious one, and the parade is just a community event.
Why should we expect a non-religious organization to name their event with a Christian name, just because they called it a Christmas parade in the past? It's their event, they're not a Christian organization, and they have the right to name it whatever they want.
If the outfit behind the parade was a Christian organization, and they changed the name from 'Christmas' to anything else, then they could be taking Christ out of the event. They could also be trying to cover up the Christian nature of the event, a "bait and switch" approach to presenting the Good News of Jesus. Wouldn't that be a really spiritual method!?
Now, I have to admit I have a different perspective on this "Christ in Christmas" business anyway. You see, I'm not sure that Christmas was about Christ to begin with.
Much has already been written and said about how most Christmas customs have pagan origins, and how Christmas occurs on the same date as ancient pagan festivals (Saturnalia in Rome, Yule in Nordic lands). Did the Church do this to make it easier for pagans to believe in Jesus, or to make it easier for the Church to absorb pagans?
Of course, this doesn't mean that pagan customs can't be "saved." See what I wrote about the gittith in my Christmas Meditation post. My contention is that if Christmas is about Christ, it is so only when we make it that way. This is true for individuals, families, churches, whoever.
If Sen. Inhofe wants Christ in the Tulsa holiday parade, he should ride in the parade carrying a Christian flag, or a banner that says "Jesus Is The Reason For The Season."
Showing posts with label Democrat. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrat. Show all posts
Friday, December 10, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
A New Type of Primary Election?
Tuesday was primary election day in Oklahoma. That night I looked up the election results online, and also read the comments posted by other readers. Of course, there was the usual back-and-forth about Republican vs. Democrat, liberal vs. conservative views, plus comments on open vs. closed primaries.
On the primaries issue, both sides have a point. In a closed primary, independent voters can only vote on non-partisan offices (judges) and issues (state questions, bond issues, etc.), so a candidate favored by independents could be eliminated and the independents wouldn't have a say in the matter. In an open primary, voters in one party could unfairly strengthen a weak candidate that their own party's candidate can defeat easily.
So, I was thinking, why not a new type of primary? One that allows independents to vote on party candidates, but would not allow voters in one party to vote on the candidates of the other party. I guess you would call it a semi-open primary.
Here's the way it would work:
If you are a member of a party, you get your party's ballot that lists ONLY your party's candidates, candidates for non-partisan offices and non-partisan issues. If you are an independent voter, you get a ballot that lists ALL candidates for all contested offices (including the independent candidates), and non-partisan issues. This will allow independent voters to show their approval of partisan candidates.
Independent candidates must get ten percent (10%) of the vote to continue on to the general election. This will save the cost of added names of candidates that have no real chance of winning or influencing the outcome of an election.
I know this last part will put extra pressure on independent candidates to get out and campaign early, instead of waiting until after the primaries to make a strong effort. But isn't the purpose of a primary election to eliminate candidates? Why not eliminate independent candidates early? I also think it's a fair trade-off for allowing independent voters to vote on partisan candidates.
Besides, strong independents actually tend to muddy up general elections. Remember Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996? He drew voters away from the Republican candidates those years. Democrats tend to think of Bill Clinton as their party's savior after 12 years of Republicans in the White House, but the truth is that Perot was the deciding factor. The same thing happened in the 2002 Oklahoma governor's race. Brad Henry won that year because independent Gary Richardson drew votes away from Steve Largeant. If an independent candidate is strong enough to get past the primary, then that will alert the parties that they must account for that candidate and not focus on each other. Remember Jesse "The Body" Ventura?
Will this ever become a reality? Probably not, but hey, a blog is where people can put their thoughts out there for others to see and maybe discuss. And, you never know who will read this and start a move to make it happen...
On the primaries issue, both sides have a point. In a closed primary, independent voters can only vote on non-partisan offices (judges) and issues (state questions, bond issues, etc.), so a candidate favored by independents could be eliminated and the independents wouldn't have a say in the matter. In an open primary, voters in one party could unfairly strengthen a weak candidate that their own party's candidate can defeat easily.
So, I was thinking, why not a new type of primary? One that allows independents to vote on party candidates, but would not allow voters in one party to vote on the candidates of the other party. I guess you would call it a semi-open primary.
Here's the way it would work:
If you are a member of a party, you get your party's ballot that lists ONLY your party's candidates, candidates for non-partisan offices and non-partisan issues. If you are an independent voter, you get a ballot that lists ALL candidates for all contested offices (including the independent candidates), and non-partisan issues. This will allow independent voters to show their approval of partisan candidates.
Independent candidates must get ten percent (10%) of the vote to continue on to the general election. This will save the cost of added names of candidates that have no real chance of winning or influencing the outcome of an election.
I know this last part will put extra pressure on independent candidates to get out and campaign early, instead of waiting until after the primaries to make a strong effort. But isn't the purpose of a primary election to eliminate candidates? Why not eliminate independent candidates early? I also think it's a fair trade-off for allowing independent voters to vote on partisan candidates.
Besides, strong independents actually tend to muddy up general elections. Remember Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996? He drew voters away from the Republican candidates those years. Democrats tend to think of Bill Clinton as their party's savior after 12 years of Republicans in the White House, but the truth is that Perot was the deciding factor. The same thing happened in the 2002 Oklahoma governor's race. Brad Henry won that year because independent Gary Richardson drew votes away from Steve Largeant. If an independent candidate is strong enough to get past the primary, then that will alert the parties that they must account for that candidate and not focus on each other. Remember Jesse "The Body" Ventura?
Will this ever become a reality? Probably not, but hey, a blog is where people can put their thoughts out there for others to see and maybe discuss. And, you never know who will read this and start a move to make it happen...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)