I saw what I consider to be a bat-crazy video today. Take a look and tell me what you think:

Why I think this is dumb:

1. It cracks me up the way the voice-over says the words “Islam,” “Muslim,” and “immigration” like they’re dirty words.
2. Change is apparently bad. No change!
3. The video seems to imply that the preservation of culture is important. OK, whatever, but from a Christian perspective, who cares? Our faith should transcend culture. If it doesn’t, we don’t have much of a faith.
4. One response to this video, at least from where I first saw this video and in the YouTube description, is that we should have (or adopt) more babies. Sorry, but procreation does not equal evangelism. That’s worked for hundreds of years, but it’s not a stellar evangelism strategy. Raising your kids in the Christian faith certainly makes it more likely that they’ll be Christian, but it’s no guarantee. It’s prone to failure (ask anyone in youth ministry) and frankly it’s kind of lazy. If having babies is your evangelism strategy, you really don’t understand Christianity.
5. I love how the video talks about Muslims getting together in Chicago and planning their strategy like it’s a bad thing. Like that’s not exactly what the creators of this video are doing.

If you disagree with tenets of the Muslim faith, that’s fine. If you’re concerned about human rights abuses in Muslim nations, that’s fine. But none of those things justify this kind of fear-mongering. If anything, shouldn’t Muslim immigration mean more evangelism opportunities in the United States? If it’s hard to do evangelism in the Muslim world, shouldn’t this be a blessing? Isn’t this an opportunity to teach the 9 million Muslims in America the benefits of our free-market, democracy-based society and watch it spread from there?

I feel like I’ve written on and off about Islam lately, and I do it because this kind of religious prejudice is nuts. Fear, anger and this war-like response are not compatible with the Christianity I believe in, the Christianity of love, hope and grace. The Crusades are over. Let’s not go there again.

One member of our travel group was wearing his own Barack Obama shirt and was approached by a local about it. The two even tried to negotiate a trade. When we were walking up and down a row of shops one of the kids who continually begged for money was wearing a T-shirt showing the Obama family.

In one store I saw a blaze orange T-shirt with simple black letters that said “Obama” across the top in all caps, then “Yes We Can” in the middle, and then “Yes We Can” repeated at the bottom in Amharic. It was so simple. And, unfortunately, too small.

I understand the historic nature of Obama’s presidency and how much of Africa is understandably head over heals to have one of their sons in the White House. But you don’t quite grasp that until you see it for yourself. And I imagine it has nothing to do with Obama’s politics, but it’s especially jarring when you try to imagine children anywhere outside the U.S. proudly wearing George W. Bush T-shirts four years ago. But I suppose children wearing any U.S. president on a T-shirt would have seemed absurd. At least until Obama.

P.S.: If anybody can find that blaze orange Amharic Obama shirt, I wear a large.

The breadth of opinions was hilarious. One person would be euphoric about an Obama presidency and the next person would be taking potshots at hope and change. One person loved the inaugural poem and the very next tweet called it a flaming failure.

It was also great to see people’s personal reactions, what lines of speeches/prayers/poems stuck with them, what made them laugh, what made them cry (quite literally).

Twitter clearly can’t replace news coverage (since everyone tweeting was relying on news coverage to make their comments), but it definitely changes the experience. And I suppose that’s true for anything people tweet about, not just news coverage.

Perhaps my own favorite tweet of the day was Lexi’s comment this morning:

Abby: “Lexi, today is the inauguration.”
Lexi: “Yay!”
Abby: “Do you know who’s going to be president today?”
Lexi: “Me, me, me!”

Followed closely by Tim’s geeky Battlestar Galactica reference.

Things I learned via Twitter:

• What looked like Obama flubbing the oath was actually Chief Justice John Roberts flubbing it.
• This interesting chart of presidential approval ratings. Lots of interesting questions there, of course it only reflects fickle public opinion.
• How many presidential assassination attempts there have been. Yikes. Some are lame and bizarre, but it’s a long list. Johnson and Eisenhower were the only modern presidents someone didn’t try to kill.

I stayed up last night to watch history. I couldn’t stand watching the pundit chatter, so I kept checking in and out. We watched the Clinton/Dole-Kang/Kodos episode of the Simpsons, watched some more returns, and then watched an episode of the Office. Then when I clicked back to check the results I heard a commentator say “President Elect Barack Obama.” It took a minute to confirm it, to see the map and the huge electoral lead. But it was over.

America had just elected its first black president.

From there we stayed up to watch history, seeing McCain’s gracious acceptance speech and then watching the crowds in Grant Park as a visibly tired and emotional Barack Obama came out to address the crowd. The images of the first black president are powerful and moving. No matter your politics, this is an intense moment for our country, our world, our generation and our children.

• You could see it in the tears of supporters gathered in Grant Park.
• In the drumming and chanting in Harlem.
• And in the dancing in the streets in the Cedar-Riverside neighborhood in Minneapolis.

There is a palpable excitement in the air like I’ve never seen before. Granted that has a lot to do with the fact that my guy won, but I think this is categorically different, both because I actually like this candidate (I can’t imagine dancing in the streets for any previous presidential wins in recent memory) and because of the historic nature of this win. And I’m clearly not alone in that first point.

But for all the jubilation, there is a lot of work to do. There are enormous expectations on Obama and it would be hard for anyone to live up to all of them. I’m eager to see how he proves himself and if he can live up to his promises to bring change to our caustic political climate. I’m eager to see if he can prove his detractors wrong, if at the very least he can gain their respect if not their support. In short, I’m eager to see if he can live up to the hype.

In the end Barack Obama is just a man. He needs prayer and support, counsel and wisdom.

And in the end this is just one moment in history. It is preceded by innumerable moments that won’t make it in the history books, but without which this moment could not have happened. It is only by concentrating on those many small steps, persevering in each day, that we can ever hope to bring about the change we seek.

Election Calls
In Minnesota robo-calls are illegal. Yet that hasn’t stopped two robo-calls from coming through, one from the Campaign for Change-DFL and one from Minnesotan Citizens Concerned for Life. I guess that’s one from each side of the political spectrum, so at least they’re fairly breaking the law.

In response to that anti-robo-call law in Minnesota, the McCain campaign has had real people making those calls and just reading the robo-call script. That’s perfectly legal, but it’s also perfectly insane.

I’ve received two of these calls and both times the caller read the script so fast I could barely understand them. The first time I started laughing and the caller just kept reading faster. The second call came on Sunday and I started laughing and asked if the guy could read it any faster. He laughed, said “You want me to take it up a notch? I’m up for it. Have a good day.” And he hung up. I’m not sure what either of those calls were supposed to accomplish. If you can’t do robo-calls, what’s the point of paying someone to read the same script? It’s a real person, why not have a real conversation with me? A conversation is much more likely to change minds than speed-reading a script.

Web Sites
Last night I spent two hours researching all the local campaigns for things you don’t normally hear about, like Supreme Court, Appeals Court, District Court, etc. As I went farther and farther down the ballot it became increasingly harder to find information. Local voter guides would offer a paragraph from each candidate, but every candidate for Soil & Water Manager says water is important.

The candidates who did have web sites had an appalling hierarchy of information. Their sites were loaded with buzz words and political speak, and rarely did they explain their stance or fully address issues. After growing frustrated with one candidate’s four page web site, I googled Bill Jungbauer only to find that he had a blog. (a blog touting 2010—what has he already conceded the 2008 election?) Why didn’t he link to the blog from his web site?

My favorite was third-party U.S. Senate candidate Dean Barkley who’s been polling in the teens (meaning this isn’t a joke of a campaign). Thanks to the poor design I completely missed the site’s menu and had to download a PDF to see his stance on the issues. Even worse, as a third party candidate he had a prime opportunity to show how he differed from the two mainstream candidates—especially in a bitter race between incumbent Norm Coleman and the outspoken Al Franken. Where was the chart showing how Barkley had a better stance on the issues than his rivals? As a third party candidate those stark differences (hopefully) are what make you stand out. Put them front and center.

Other info on web sites that’s not going to help your cause: Talking about conspiracy theories and including why your spouse and kids think I should vote for you.

No Web Sites
But what’s even worse than poor web sites is no web sites. I couldn’t believe that in the bitter mayoral battle in my town neither candidate had a web site. The city council and soil and water manager candidates also had no web sites. Now I realize those are small time races, but how can you be running a serious campaign and not have some kind of online presence? Even setting up a free blog site and listing your basic qualifications would be better than nothing. Why would you spend money on yard signs that don’t actually communicate any position you stand for when you could spend a couple hours and put up a web site showcasing any number of things?

Direct Mail
The other medium that has me scratching my head is direct mail. The other day we received 16 political fliers in the mail. I think we get the most from Senate candidate Al Franken. And he doesn’t just send postcards, he sends these slick, multi-page brochures. The direct mail deluge has been coming from all candidates and all levels.

What confuses me about it is that the copywriting on the direct mail pieces doesn’t tell you anything. It’s always completely biased info with little sense of context or fairness. Candidates continue to throw out claims that have been debunked by fact checking (which is a problem regardless of medium). For the national and state-wide campaigns it’s not as big of a deal because I’ve heard both sides and I know what angle the copy is taking. But for the local races it’s especially frustrating. You can’t sum up every position you take on a 5×8 postcard.

It’d be nice if the campaigns could actually communicate honestly and directly. Stick with one issue on your postcard, and give us some context and balance. And be fair about your opponent’s position.

E-mail Tally
Earlier this year I talked about how I asked each presidential campaign a question and was then inundated with e-mail (my question was never answered). Since submitting those questions on each campaign’s site on June 23, I’ve received exactly 120 e-mails from Barack Obama and three from John McCain. How’s that for a contrast? And I don’t think it’s a good contrast for either of them.

I’m Done Now
I’d be curious to know if anyone has been convinced by a robo-call or a postcard or an e-mail asking for a donation. Political marketing has certainly come a long way and the major candidates are doing impressive things, but I’m amazed at how ridiculous much of the marketing is. Thankfully it all ends today.

And that’s all because Piper is smart. Very smart. Dude talks in heady concepts and lingo that’s hard to get your head around. I don’t always agree with all of it, but I often find it immensely challenging (his work on Don’t Waste Your Life is perhaps the most accessible and incredibly convicting [though I should note that I didn't work on the DWYL web site!]).

I say all that because I have great respect for Piper and want to give some context of who he is before talking about this video.

So Piper made a conversational video explaining his heart and concerns about the 2008 presidential election. The nearly seven-minute video covers three basic topics:

• Women
• Race
• Abortion
• Over-investment in politics

Women
His first point about vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is easily going to be the most controversial:

“I personally think that it would have been better for her to stay at home with her disabled child, both for the good of the family and as a model for moms … I don’t think, Biblically, that a woman should be commander in chief.”

I’m curious if this kind of statement will take on the fury of Jeremiah Wright’s comments or even the statements from Sarah Palin’s pastors (freaky emphasis on spiritual warfare, condemning those who voted for John Kerry to hell, etc.). I doubt it. For one thing Piper is too well spoken and could actually explain his position to a reasonable standard (you may violently disagree, but his explanation will be logical and make sense). Though more importantly, he’s not connected to either candidate.

But I am curious. Many people would consider this statement to be sexist and I’m curious how our politically correct culture will react. It has been interesting to me that so many conservatives who have a more restrictive view about the role of women have been fully supportive of Palin.

Race & Abortion
Piper has good comments on race and abortion. He has a respectful tone, even though he disagrees with Obama on abortion, and I appreciate that.

Over-Investment in Politics
The bulk of the video concerns his view on politics that he further explains in this article (but I think the video captures it more succinctly). While the controversy over women will likely get more attention, I think this is the more profound. His view is that while we should vote and we should be involved, as Christians we can’t invest our heart and soul in the political process. If you’re going to be depressed on Wednesday because your guy didn’t win, you’re too invested. If you’re worried about terrible things happening because your guy didn’t win, you’re too invested.

His view on the sovereignty of God (cerebral, like I said) explains a lot of this and I think it’s a good perspective to have. Many of the hateful comments and outright lies I’ve seen from Christians during this election are a good indication that we’re too invested in it.

As a sidenote, the video gets especially uncomfortable when he talks about whether or not hard times are good for the gospel. The immediate question that comes to my mind is if people come to God through suffering, should we be praying that people would suffer? That’s a distressing line of thinking, though I’m probably not giving Piper due credit here (again, the sovereignty of God would play heavily into his explanation).

Conclusion
At any rate, a very interesting political video. And I’m hoping I can stop blogging about all of this soon. (Sorry if you’re tired of it, but it helps me process. Besides, no one said you had to read it.)

(link via jdblundell)

The big question seems to be whether or not Barack Obama’s tax policy is socialist (or how socialist is it, depending on your perspective). So let’s take a look at those proposed income tax brackets and compare them to historic income brackets.

To simplify things, I’m only looking at income tax rates for the highest bracket:

• Current income tax: 35% for those earning more than $357,700.
• Obama’s proposed income tax: 39.6% for those earning more than $357,700.
• McCain’s proposed income tax: remain at 35%
  (The current tax brackets are set to expire and revert to 2000 levels, so both Obama and McCain talk about their plans as cuts, which is a bit misleading. They’re both talking about extending the cuts, except that Obama wants to expire the cuts for the top two brackets; Source)

So the difference between McCain and Obama for the top bracket is 4.6% (for the second highest bracket the difference is 3%; for other brackets there’s no difference*). I have a hard time believing that 4.6% pushes us into socialist territory. The fact is both favor a progressive tax policy where the more money you make the greater percentage of taxes you pay.

Bottomline: The McCain and Obama tax proposals are relatively similar. Compared to a historic perspective, they’re very similar.

Historic Rates
Now let’s look at the income tax rate for the highest bracket throughout history (via Wikipedia):

• 2003-2008: 35%
• 2002: 38.6%
• 2001: 39.1%
• 1993-2000: 39.6%
• 1991-1992: 31%
• 1988-1990: 33%
• 1987: 38.5%
• 1982-1986: 50%
• 1971-1981: 70%
• 1970: 71.75%
• 1969: 77%
• 1968: 75.25%
• 1965-1967: 70%
• 1964: 77%
• 1954-1963: 91%
• 1952-1953: 92%
• 1951: 91%
• 1950: 84.36%
• 1948-1949: 82.13%
• 1946-1947: 86.45%
• 1944-1945: 94%
• 1942-1943: 88%
• 1941: 81%
• 1940: 81.1%
• 1936-1939: 79%
• 1932-1935: 63%
• 1930-1931: 25%
• 1929: 24%
• 1925-1928: 25%
• 1924: 46%
• 1922-1923: 56%
• 1918-1921: 73%
• 1917: 67%
• 1916: 15%
• 1913-1915: 7%

Since it’s only the top bracket and it doesn’t give us the amount of income to qualify for the bracket, it doesn’t tell us a lot (I tried looking for more complete info, the best I could find showed all brackets back to 1992. Of course I spent about five minutes looking, I’m sure the info is out there.). But it does tell us that over the years the U.S. has had a progressive tax policy that has varied quite drastically.

So if you think Obama’s tax proposal is socialist, then the U.S. has been socialist for a long time. The bottom line, again, is that with the perspective of history, Obama and McCain aren’t that radically different.

*Of course there are all kinds of differences in how Obama and McCain roll out all kinds of other taxes or cuts or whatever which would change the situation. But like I said, I’m looking at the simplest, most basic scenario.

Update: Here’s a great PDF from the IRS that lays out lowest and highest income tax rates all the way back to 1913. It gives a little more context and quite a bit of history about income tax. One of the things it notes is that from 1913 until World War II income tax was mostly for those with the very highest incomes.

Caveats
I’ve been contemplating this post for some time. Should I even write it? As a person who makes a living writing for a faith-based market (for the most part), it’s some what dangerous to talk about politics. There’s a very real possibility that people won’t hire me because of my political views. It’s happened for much lesser reasons.

But I guess because of that rationale I feel compelled to give a defense for why I’m voting for Barack Obama. I’d rather someone understand my reasoning and still reject me than reject me based on an assumption from something random like a Twitter post.

I think this will be the first time I’ve ever publicly blogged about who I’m voting for. The above rationale is part of the reason, but I’ve also never cared that much about politics. Part of the reason why I’m doing it this year is because of how important the times are. That’s said every year (I said it last election), but this election is historic on several fronts.

Ground Rules
I’m not going to load this post up with links and sources. Perhaps I should, but writing this is going to be grueling enough. I don’t have time to track down all the links. My arguments have come from watching the debates, listening to the candidates, following the campaigns and reading fact check sites. That said, feel free to call me on facts that I get wrong.

I’d also like to remind people of the importance of disagreeing well. How we disagree perhaps says more about our character than what we agree on.

Abortion
Let’s get right to it. Abortion is perhaps the biggest hurdle Christians face when it comes to supporting Barack Obama. I don’t like Obama’s stance on abortion. However, three things give me pause:

1. For the first time ever the Democratic Party is not simply pro-choice. One of the goals of their platform is reducing the number of abortions. That’s a goal everyone can agree on, and one we should all be pursuing. This strikes me as a much more realistic and attainable goal than the Republican approach of overturning Roe vs. Wade.
2. I think the Christian strategy of fighting abortion through legislation is a failure. By solely focusing on the political battle, I think Christians have made this a horribly polarizing issue and have failed to make any real gains in reducing the number of abortions. It’s been an all or nothing strategy, and so far we’ve got nothing. At this point I’d rather see small gains in reducing the number of abortions, even if it means abortion remains legal. I think the church needs to take the abortion battle away from politics and bring it into real life. That’s the only place our grace, mercy and love will make a difference.
3. I don’t buy the arguments that Obama is somehow pro-abortion. Nobody is pro-abortion. I accept his explanation of his Illinois Senate votes that seem to upset so many pro-life voters. Frankly, I think Obama is doing more to find middle ground on this issue that John McCain is.

I’m certainly not the only one who thinks this way about abortion:

• Steve Knight
• Jason Boyett
• Donald Miller

In general I find that the Republican Party is pro-life only when it comes to abortion. And that’s not good enough.

Whew. Now that we have that out of the way, let’s move on.

Economy, Taxes & Stuff
Anyone who read my disagree well post and took the quiz will know that I came down pretty close to socialism (and no, it’s not a bad word). On economic policies I think those who can afford more of the burden should shoulder more of the burden. I don’t think giving tax cuts to the wealthy is a way to help the middle and lower class. I think the Clinton years (which is similar to what Obama’s tax plan would return us to) are a good example of economic prosperity with higher taxes on the rich. Likewise, I think regulation is important. Our current economy seems proof enough of that.

This is an issue that I’ve seen little progress in debating. People seem to come down on one side or the other, and no amount of bickering seems to change minds. So take it or leave it. You either like the Bush policies (especially on taxes it’s clear that McCain is following the Bush example) or you don’t.

Defense, Terrorism & Foreign Relations
This is another issue where McCain seems to thoroughly follow Bush. I think the last eight years have been a foreign relations nightmare. Instead of a beacon of hope and light the U.S. has become a worldwide bully. We were misled into the war in Iraq and we’ve lost focus on the war against terrorism (and let’s be clear: terrorism in Iraq is a monster we created).

With John McCain I see more of the same. He was right about the surge (for now; I think it’s dangerous to tie political success to what happens on the ground—if Osama Bin Laden is ever caught it’s going to have very little to do with who is president at the time), but he was also wrong about the Iraq/9-11 connection and was wrong about Iraq not distracting from Afghanistan.

For whatever inexperience Barack Obama has, I think he has a much more reasoned, considered and sane approach to foreign policy. I think we have to sit down with our enemies and try diplomacy before resorting to destruction (bickering over preconditions aside). It’s working in Libya and I think it can work elsewhere. Even the Bush administration seems to be realizing this now, too little too late.

Other Issues
Certainly there are other issues to consider. Energy, education, the environment. I won’t go into great detail here, but again and again I find myself siding with Obama over McCain. Drill, baby, drill is not a solution.

Character & Temperament
Finally, when it comes to who I think has the character and temperament to be president, it’s hands down Obama. He has a vision and the calm, reasoned temperament to get there. What he lacks in experience he makes up for with a level-headed approach.
By way of contrast, John McCain seems erratic and reactionary. The negative tone of his campaign, suspending his campaign to “help” the bailout, his VP choice, even his slogans of “country first” and “maverick” seem disingenuous (for some one who rails against cronyism, I find it remarkable that his military advancement came primarily thanks to his family name). The man is certainly a hero who deserves our respect. But I don’t think the John McCain of 2008 is the same as the John McCain of 2000 who earned the respect of so many moderates.

And in what has to be the lowest priority and the stupidest reason to want to vote for somebody—I like Barack Obama. The man is a charismatic speaker. While that alone doesn’t qualify him for the presidency, it certainly helps. I find him inspiring.

In my previous presidential elections (which would only be two) I never really liked the person I ultimately voted for. And looking back at previous presidents I don’t see many that I genuinely like (though it’s fair to say my sense of history is pretty short-sighted). Actually liking a presidential candidate, never mind agreeing with him on the issues, is a welcome change.

In Closing
Part of the reason I felt compelled to write this post is because of all the insanity flying around as the election looms closer and closer. The fear-mongering and hatred is unreal. It probably happens every election, but it seems over the top this year. I don’t know if it’s due to race, religion, ideology or all three, but it’s kind of frightening. I think America is better than that.

In many cases I think this election has little to do with hope or a maverick, but it has everything to do with the opposing ideologies of Republicans and Democrats. If you like George W. Bush and you’ve enjoyed the last eight years then your choice should be pretty clear. If you disagree with those Republican policies, then your choice is also pretty clear. Throw in a maverick or hope and change, a woman VP or a black President, it doesn’t change the underlying issues.

That’s my admittedly biased rationale for supporting Barack Obama. Wherever you land, I hope we can disagree well. Now go vote.

(and hopefully I can shut up about politics for a while)

Then we have Sarah Palin talking about how much she enjoys visiting the “pro-American” parts of America. She too has quickly back tracked and acknowledges that all of America is pro-American.

And now John McCain is saying Western Pennsylvania is the “most God-loving, most patriotic part of the country.” I never knew we even had a God-lovin’ patriot contest.

So much of this is just politics and pandering to locale. It all reeks of who’s wearing a flag pin.

I appreciate how Barack Obama responded during his speech in Tampa Bay, Fla. yesterday:

There are no real or fake parts of this country. We are not separated by the pro-America and anti-America parts of this nation—we all love this country, no matter where we live or where we come from. There are patriots who supported this war in Iraq and patriots who opposed it; patriots who believe in Democratic policies and those who believe in Republican policies. The men and women from Florida and all across America who serve on our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a Red America or a Blue America—they have served the United States of America.

We have always been at our best when we’ve had leadership that called us to look past our differences and come together as one nation, as one people; leadership that rallied this entire country to a common purpose—to a higher purpose. And I am running for President of the United States of America because that is the country we need to be right now.

You can hear the audio on NPR (starts about 2:40). I couldn’t find the report I actually heard which had better audio, and I’d love to see the video.

Is Barack Obama a Muslim? No. (Visit IsBarackObamaAMuslim.com for the short answer.)

But what if he was? Who cares?

Is Barack Obama an Arab, as McCain crowds in Minnesota seem to think (yes, I’m embarrassed for my state)? No. His father is from Kenya, his mother is from Kansas (hey, my mom’s from Kansas!) and he was born in Hawaii.

Again, but what if he was an Arab? Who cares?

There’s a bizarre paranoia in the current presidential campaign that Obama will be mistaken for a Muslim or an Arab, and the implication is that Americans won’t vote for someone who is a Muslim or an Arab. The implication is that somehow being a Muslim or an Arab would be a bad thing.

We see that implication when McCain admirably confronted his crowd:

McCain passed his wireless microphone to one woman who said, “I can’t trust Obama. I have read about him and he’s not, he’s not uh — he’s an Arab. He’s not — ” before McCain retook the microphone and replied:

“No, ma’am. He’s a decent family man [and] citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues and that’s what this campaign’s all about. He’s not [an Arab].”

I appreciate that McCain is finally trying to tone down the scary rhetoric (“Terrorist!” “Kill him!”) at Republican rallies, but even his response seems to reinforce the idea that an Arab is not a decent citizen. I don’t think that was McCain’s intention and I’m not faulting him for it, but that seems to be a persistent feeling in this country. And it’s just wrong.

I understand wanting a president who has your faith and shares your cultural values. But this fear of different faiths or cultures is just creepy. I appreciate that people are quick to correct the errors here, but more than anything I wish we would confront the underlying racism and discrimination. The only positive note in all of this is that the issue is not that Obama is black (though a cynical person might say that is the issue, but it’s not culturally acceptable to express it that way, so instead we get the Muslim/Arab accusations).

It seems that Muslims and Arabs are facing a kind of culturally accepted racism and discrimination in this country today. And that’s just wrong. It’s like the Japanese internments during World War II, or the anti-German sentiment during World War I. You’d think at some point we’d learn the dangers of demonizing our enemies and learn to distinguish those who are different from us and those who are our enemies. You’d think a country that claims to be Christian (I don’t make that claim, but this discrimination comes from people who would make that claim) would do a better job showing how to love our enemies (something Jesus commanded), much less those who aren’t our enemies but are simply different from us.