"Ain't It Awful?!"

"Ain't it awful?"

A decade or more has passed since someone first introduced me to the phrase “Ain’t it awful?” We can say, "Ain't it awful?" when talking about what is happening in the church, in schools, in our town, in our world. People don't generally use these precise words, but the phrase is useful to evaluate the words they do use. They are sharing news that shocks and offends them and would like others to agree that what is happening is terrible. A surprising number of people seem attracted to terrible news and almost enjoy calling attention to it. This opens up a market for alarming "clickbait" headlines.

A few days ago, a Facebook friend shared a post containing a screenshot from a Daily Wire article. Among other things, my friend said, "It's so scary that this is actually real life!!" That seems pretty close to saying, "Ain't it awful?" Two other friends commented on her post, agreeing that what is happening is just plain awful.

The shared post

I cautiously clicked on the shared post. The author was a self-described "health activist" with 257,000 followers on Facebook. Her bio says she is a "speaker of truth you don't want to hear but desperately need to know." I scrolled through her posts. They offered alarming news. Her reward for sharing that news is clicks, comments, and many followers. I was now a new set of eyes on her content thanks to my Facebook friend bringing her post to my attention.

Like I said, this activist shared a screenshot of a Daily Wire article. It did not include a link. What we could see was the headline: "Movement Barrels Forward to Euthanize 12 Year Old Children in Canada." There was smaller print about how experts say this validates the "slippery slope" argument.

My first thought was: 12-year-old children, specifically? All of them? If not, how many? Who gets to choose? What if there are 13-year-olds causing trouble in Canada? Or rebellious 16-year-olds? Why is Canada fixated on euthanizing 12-year-olds? Will they need to close their high schools in a few years for lack of students?

The Daily Wire Article

It was time to hunt down the article behind the headline. For that, I needed a search engine. Copying the exact headline into Google quickly led me to the article. I discovered I could read up to seven articles before I hit the paywall at The Daily Wire. I truly appreciate that access.

Click... The Daily Wire gets credit for a hit on Google. And I am offered other clickbait.

Click... The Daily Wire gets a new visitor. And I am offered other clickbait.

Click... The author of the article gets another view. My friend and the "health activist" have delivered one more set of eyes to these internet content providers.

And what did I find? This: "Advocates for assisted suicide in Canada, where it's been legal for just under a decade, are pushing to expand the practice to children." Aha! 12 is the minimum age these advocates are proposing, not the target age. And the subject here is "assisted suicide," not "euthanasia." (Both end in death; the difference is in who makes the choice.)

How many are advocating for lowering the age limit for assisted suicide? The article doesn't say. It zeroes in on one group known as DWDC -- Dying with Dignity in Canada. The article doesn't tell me how large that one group is nor how many of those involved in the group have signed on to this proposal to lower the minimum age for assisted suicide. Nor does it identify anyone outside the group as advocating for this change.

The author of the article goes on: "Experts say the advocacy shows there was merit to the 'slippery slope' argument made against the law from the outset."

What experts? How many experts are saying this? The author of the article quotes one. Extensively. I can't tell from the article if anyone else made the "slippery slope" argument a decade ago and is now saying, “I told you so!”

So what do we have here?

After investing way too much time, here is what I know:

1. Euthanasia is legal in Canada. And several other countries. You and I may not approve of that fact. The citizens of those countries are probably unconcerned about our opinions. Either they are monsters who are fine with their weakest and most vulnerable citizens simply being killed off or this topic is more complex than we can comprehend from this one clickbait article. Maybe more research would reveal that Canadians are less heartless than they appear at first glance.

2. At least a few outspoken people in Canada think "mature minors" should have the option of assisted suicide within a set of guidelines. You and I may think that's an awful idea, that there is no world in which a minor (or anyone else, for that matter) has clear enough vision to choose death over life, regardless of how much pain they suffer. (And even if there were, how would authorities assess someone's maturity level?)

We are allowed to hold that opinion. As far as we know from this article, the vast majority of Canadians agree with us. It is only the scary headline and the concern of the author and the one expert she interviewed that implies anything different. There is no mention at all in the actual article of these advocates making any headway in pushing through their agenda.

Is this thus-far-unsuccessful push to expand the current assisted-suicide guidelines something we "don't want to hear, but desperately need to know," in the words of our health activist friend? As Americans unfamiliar with the history and complexity of life-and-death discussions in Canada, do we need to weigh in on this?

3. Scary headlines get clicks. Clicks pay. They keep digital magazines solvent. They generate more assignments for authors. They give "activists" more traffic. More searches, shares, clicks, and followers lead to more revenue. That may be the truly awful thing going on here. People who make money off our alarm are exposing us to an "awful" world that does not actually exist -- at least not yet. Those who are advocating for the rights of minors experiencing severe suffering to choose death have n    ow had their opinions amplified by "ain't it awful" sharing. You and I have been tricked into giving a platform to voices and opinions we find offensive!

Ain't it awful?

Are there awful things happening in our world? Yes! Do we "desperately need to know" about those awful things? Sometimes. If we care about the lives of 12-year-old children, we need to be aware that in-school fatalities in the U.S. are awful, much worse than in other countries. We need to be figure out why the problem is so much worse here and look for ways to make our public schools a place parents can be reasonably confident their children will find safety and value. Sharing the awful news about school fatalities in the U.S. with care and accuracy might prompt people to take action to reduce those statistics.

What we don’t need is to drive traffic to sites that exaggerate and sensationalize bad news or amplify the voices of a few as though they represent an entire population. Can we work on toning down sensationalism rather than spreading it? If we don't have the time or inclination to dig deeper into alarming stories to find the facts behind them, can we just walk away?

Shame On You, Mike Braun!

After weeks of pressure from Washington, D.C., Indiana Governor Mike Braun has announced a special session of the Indiana General Assembly to push forward the idea of redistricting Indiana mid-decade to weaken the influence of Indiana Democrats

Democrat candidates received 40% of the vote for both U.S. President and Indiana Governor in 2024. That 40% is already vastly underrepresented at both state and federal levels. 20% of the Indiana General Assembly is Democrat and 20% (2 of 9) of Indiana's U.S. representatives. Neither Indiana senator is a Democrat.

I have heard all my life that "Cheaters never prosper." This is blatant cheating. The current legislature has no authority to redistrict the state. The Indiana constitution says:

Section 5. The General Assembly elected during the year in which a federal decennial census is taken shall fix by law the number of Senators and Representatives and apportion them among districts according to the number of inhabitants in each district, as revealed by that federal decennial census. The territory in each district shall be contiguous. (History: As amended March 14, 1881; November 6, 1984).

The General Assembly did its job following the 2020 census. There is no authority and no precedent for a mid-decade General Assembly to set aside that work and redistrict at the cost of Indiana taxpayers.

Will cheaters prosper in this new era of government? I will do everything in my power to make sure they don't.

Shame on you, Mike Braun, for trying to drag Indiana into this cheating scheme!! And shame on the Indiana legislators who are going along with it!

https://apnews.com/article/indiana-redistricting-special-session-braun-63f3447efcc34529dfc363a96a763b6e#

The Abortion Issue

One strategy the Republican party has used to secure the loyalty of committed Christians is to advocate for a complete ban on abortion (and to label Democrats as "baby killers").

The cry goes out, "We must protect unborn babies!" This appeals to people who paint all abortions with the same brush, as infanticide by selfish women who want to enjoy sexual freedom without facing the consequences. From this viewpoint, the Democrat message is, "Have fun! Don't worry about getting pregnant! You can just get rid of the problem."

Let's look at this more closely. There are at least three types of abortions. 

   a. spontaneous -- the fetus is expelled by the woman's body prior to full development. (Is this an act of God?)

   b. elective -- a woman who finds herself pregnant requests that the pregnancy to be terminated. This generally happens as soon as possible after the pregnancy is confirmed so the woman can get on with her life with as little discomfort as possible.

   c. medical issues -- early delivery of a baby because of severe health issues involving either the mother or child. These are the late-term abortions that get so much press. Women in this last group have accepted, even embraced and celebrated the pregnancy until something dreadful changes their course. This dreadful thing comes in many forms and each case needs careful counsel by professionals.

Anti-abortion laws tend to be a blunt force solution aimed at women in the second group, but they also affect those in the first and last groups. Offering medical care to those experiencing some form of spontaneous abortion can be a liability under strict anti-abortion laws. Inducing labor for a fetus that has died in utero or been shown to have abnormalities incompatible with life is also a liability. Sacrificing the life of the baby in order to save the mother is a tragedy for all involved, as is sacrificing the mother's life in order to save the baby. These scenarios involve excruciating choices far more complex than any law can anticipate.

A recent advertisement for a pregnancy test shows the relief women experience when seeing their results. As viewers, we are not shown the results and don't know which women are overjoyed by a negative result -- 'Whew! I'm not pregnant!" -- and which are overjoyed by a positive result -- "I'm pregnant! How wonderful!" Nor do we see the tears when the result is the opposite of what is hoped for. But we get the message that pregnancy is a big deal! Barring complications, it is the beginning of nine months of major physical changes followed by the bittersweet trauma of childbirth and the emergence of a helpless human baby bearing the combined DNA of both partners.

It interests me when people say, "If a woman gets pregnant and doesn't want the baby, she should simply give it up for adoption." This is where cultivating empathy can help us. This choice requires the woman to set aside nine months of her life nurturing and birthing a baby she doesn't want or is maybe unable to care for. How will she explain to her family, friends, coworkers, and curious bystanders the circumstances of her pregnancy and her choice to give the baby away? Instead of explaining, will she drop out of life and "disappear" when her condition can no longer be hidden? Will she then let go of the baby she has birthed at such cost as though she were simply a surrogate? Few of us have walked that road. Can we imagine what it is like to do so? This "simple" solution is far more costly than we often acknowledge.**

One aspect of unwanted pregnancies that isn't often addressed is the fact that there is always a man involved. 100% of the time! No exceptions! That man may be a romantic partner or spouse, an acquaintance, a relative, or a stranger -- welcome or not -- but he is always present for the conception and is often more focused on his own desires than on whether the woman he is with would like to give birth to a child if he impregnates her. He is likely physically stronger than she is. We like to think unwanted pregnancies are the result of poor choices on the part of the pregnant woman, but how free is she to make good decisions in light of her relationship with and possible subjugation to the man?

What we need are better ways to avoid the NEED for abortion. The traditional Republican solution has been abstinence. Women who don't engage in sexual activities don't end up pregnant. This has not proven to be an effective method to avoid unwanted pregnancies, however. The human sex drive is incredibly strong!

The Guttmacher Institute reports that the U.S. abortion rate has increased slightly since Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022, even though many states now have strict laws against abortion. That number doesn't include illegal (unreported and unregulated) abortions. It seems to me that we really need to move beyond laws limiting access to safe and legal abortions and focus more on ways for young women to avoid unwanted pregnancies. After all, what woman would choose having her insides scraped out as her preferred method of birth control if she had a less risky and invasive alternative at hand?

As a Christian from the Baby Boomer generation, I value marriage and sexual fidelity, but I know many in our nation make different choices in terms of sexual relationships than I do. Expecting the risk of pregnancy to rein in people’s passions has resulted in far, far too many unwanted pregnancies and resulting abortions, particularly since men often push for and even demand sex while women are the ones who end up pregnant. A vote to ban abortion does not lead to greater morality. What it does is disproportionately punish impoverished and oppressed women who have less independence and access to all forms of birth control by forcing them to bear babies against their will while those with more resources enjoy sexual freedom. That is not righteousness on the part of those passing laws (which seldom effect their own lives). Nor is it the path to every child being welcomed and treasured by their parents. It is oppression of poor women. 

As a follower of Jesus Christ, I want to vote for the oppressed to be set free not further oppressed. (See Luke 4:18) How can we legislate less and care more for the well-being and freedom of every woman, rich or poor, to choose if and when she will lovingly welcome an infant into her arms? How can we best make sure that every newborn baby is enveloped in love?

——- **If you would like to step into the story of a pregnant teenager and the difficult choices she faces, I recommend the movie "Juno" from 2007. It is rated PG-13 and currently available on Hulu. A good book from the Christian fiction shelves is The Atonement Child by Francine Rivers.

The Making of a Christian Democrat

Becoming a Republican

When I first registered to vote at age 18 in 1976, I was surprised to be asked what party I wanted to join. After a flash of panic, I remembered my parents were Republicans. That must be our party. 

It took several more years to gain enough knowledge about the respective platforms of Republicans and Democrats to feel a true sense of loyalty to one party over the other. Democrats were in favor of social programs to share the wealth. The idea was to tax people in proportion to their income and provide support to those less willing or able to find and keep a job. In contrast, Republicans valued individualism and low taxes. Each citizen needed to support themselves and their family, pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, if necessary. Republicans were willing to fight for our freedom. Republicans had strong moral values and respect for law and order. Yes, I could sign on to that. It was obviously the best fit for a Christian like me.

Evolving views

Despite being a card-carrying Republican, I wasn’t one to vote “straight ticket” over the years, often splitting my ballot. After all, Indiana Democrats such as Evan Bayh, Indiana’s governor from 1989-1997, tended to land on the conservative end of their party on social issues. However, it wasn’t until Barack Obama came along in 2008 that I first cast my ballot for a Democrat to be President of the United States. That choice had less to do with well-studied political views than simply liking what Obama had to say and how he said it. And I liked the idea of electing a Black man as President. That year, Indiana’s electoral votes went to Obama. Looking back from 2025, it’s hard to believe Indiana went blue in 2008, but I was part of it.

After voting for Obama again in 2012, I was less Republican than I had ever been. It didn’t take much exposure to Donald Trump to decide I would not be voting for him. I was shocked when he won not only the Republican nomination in 2016, but enough electoral college votes to move into the White House. I was even more startled to learn that friends and family I thought shared my values voted for him. Over time, many became passionate defenders of him. I have seen people from less conservative areas suggest that voting for Trump is a sign one isn’t a “real Christian” (while my more conservative friends and neighbors often have the opposite view), but these were indeed “real Christians” — pastors, church leaders, people who study the Bible and know it well, committed followers of Jesus Christ. I couldn’t understand it.

When, after a four-year respite under Joe Biden, Donald Trump returned to the White House in 2021, I realized that I no longer wanted to be associated with the Republican party. If Republicans support what Trump stands for even after lengthy exposure to his bully tactics, I need to find a new party. But am I ready to call myself a Democrat?

Considerations

One motivation to reconsider my politics was observing how the Republicans have changed over the years to the point where they support the policies of the current administration. We are far from the days when President George W. Bush talked about “compassionate conservatism.” 

Another consideration is how I have changed over the years. I am no longer convinced that people who have better jobs or more money are somehow of better moral character than those who have less. I have realized that not everyone has bootstraps with which to pull themselves up. In short, I have more empathy for those who have been pushed aside by society. I care about those who struggle to catch up from a disadvantaged starting place. The idea of offering such people tax-funded assistance has a lot more appeal to me than it once did.

Another attractive aspect of the Democrat party is how much more diverse its leaders are in gender, religion, and cultural heritage. DEI – diversity, equality, and inclusion – has become a concept openly rejected by Republican leadership. But I want to be inclusive. I love the diversity I find in all of creation, including within humanity. I regret the fact that some people have fewer open doors in their lives than others based on differences having to do with gender, socioeconomic level, culture, skin color, country of origin, age, sexual identity, or disability.

In recent days, empathy has been described as a weakness and even a sin by some Republicans. But I actively cultivate empathy in my own life by exposing myself to the stories of people not like me through books, movies, social media, and a variety of cultural experiences. I am willing to walk into those stories to become more aware of views other than the one being born white in rural America gives me. I still discover prejudices within myself, but I am trying to set them aside rather than embracing them.

Does that make me a Democrat in our two-party system? This is a question I have wrestled with as Trump’s second term has threatened the very foundations of the American experiment.

Faith and politics

Republicans like to think of themselves as the Christian party, based, as much as anything, on being against abortion and homosexuality, but Jesus never addressed either issue. Instead, he called us to a life of love and compassion. He reached out and drew in people whom others excluded. He treated women as worthy partners in conversation. He asked questions and listened to people. He touched the untouchable. He offered healing rather than harm. He told us there is blessing in being merciful, in being peacemakers, in humility. He called us to a life of generosity; to give food to the hungry, care for the sick, and welcome the stranger. He offered grace to those others pushed aside.

It is not in spite of my Christian values that I can no longer be associated with the Republican party, but because of them. Compassion and grace toward the poor and oppressed are virtues I seek to cultivate, not devalue.

It took a while to get here, but I truly believe that, as a whole, the Democrat party values are more “Christian” than those of the Republican party. That doesn’t always come through in individual leaders. Power and authority in this world have never meshed well with the values of the Kingdom of God. And I know many good Christian people remain loyal to the Republican party. Still, I feel like the pressure on the Republican side is to be less compassionate, less merciful, to emphasize the “Thou Shalt Not” of the Ten Commandments while pushing aside as weak and impractical Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, whereas the pressure on the Democrat side is more toward the compassion and generosity Jesus taught.

Beyond the question of which political party in the U.S. is a better fit for me as a follower of Jesus Christ is the question of whether I should align myself with any nation or political structure in this world. IF I am going to do that, however, I want to choose the one I feel has a better grasp of Christian values. And right now, I am convinced the values of the Democrat party better reflect the life of mercy, compassion, and grace to which Jesus calls us.

I'm Ag'in' It!

 "I'm ag'in' it!"

My first memory of encountering this colloquialism was years ago at a school board meeting. An improvement to the school facilities was being discussed and one board member made his opposition clear. The phrase struck me as useful. Clear, settled opposition, not open to discussion. I tucked it away to pull out as needed.

As it turns out, I haven't found much use for the phrase. Unlike that old farmer, I don't find all that many situations where I am inclined to firmly set my jaw and declare my opposition to a proposal for change.

In the past few months of attending Democrat party meetings in my area, I have been reminded of that phrase again. Democrats are an endangered species locally, and I appreciate those trying to breathe new life into the local organization, but the main rallying message I have heard thus far revolves around being against what is happening around us. The current administration? We're ag'in' it. The conservative evangelical director of a local after-school program? We're ag'in' 'im and don't want public funds to go to his program. Businesses failing to hang onto their DEI initiatives under pressure? We're ag'in' 'em.

When a proposed highway through our part of Indiana came up as the latest target for our protests at a recent meeting, it was too much for me. The meeting had lasted plenty long already when the topic was introduced. I decided I was done for that round and left.

Since when do Democrats take a uniform stand against infrastructure improvements? Wasn't President Joe Biden's infrastructure plan a major accomplishment for his administration?

I know the issues involved with the proposed highway. They are the same ones I heard against the I-69 extension through southwest Indiana three decades ago. Among them: Highways consume private property and destroy farms. They bypass small towns and their struggling business districts. They cost millions or even billions of dollars. These are valid points. But they aren't the only factors involved in the road decision and don't represent one political party. If they did, I would expect the Republicans to be the ones taking the position of less government interference and greater concern for individual rights, not the Democrats.

The role of government is to collect resources and provide goods and services for their citizens. Where would we be if transportation depended on individual landowners laying asphalt on their own property and tying their section of roadway in with their neighbors' roads? As it turns out, the only way to have roads is for the government to acquire lengthy ribbons of land and bring in construction crews.

The question then is, "Do we need another road?" Apparently, the answer is "no" for my Democrat friends. They are "ag'in it" and that is fine. I just wish they would conduct their anti-road protests apart from the Democrat party. I have no strong opinion on this latest road project, but generally see good transportation options as a positive thing. However, discussing the Mid-State Corridor project is not the purpose of this post, so I will move on.

I have concerns about a lot of things happening in our world, but my preferred stance is to highlight and support the good rather than highlighting and protesting the bad. If I manage to make any contribution to the local Democratic Party organization with my limited resources, I hope it will be to support initiatives that will bring positive changes. I would like to see more support for local immigrants and minority groups, more DEI initiatives, more support for literacy and educational initiatives. These are goals that stand in opposition to our current President and his administration, but I see them as having more opportunity for local initiatives that make a difference.

On a recent trip to Washington, Indiana, I saw a sign promoting the Rotary Club, highlighting their positive contributions to the community. I just caught a glimpse of it in passing and didn't catch all it said. I hope to revisit that sign soon and snap a picture of it. Positive community involvement is a goal I would like to pursue, valuing and uplifting all people in the community. Maybe the best way to do that is to join the Rotary Club, but I don't live in Washington and have limited time and energy. I still have hope that involvement with the Democrats can bring similar opportunities, both locally and on a broader basis.

That Sinful Woman

Recently, the Lectionary calendar brought us to John 12:1-8 about Mary of Bethany pouring nard on Jesus' feet and wiping them with her hair. For our Sunday School discussion about it, I did a side-by-side comparison of the four gospel accounts of this event -- from Mark 14, Matthew 26, Luke 7, & John 12. It seems obvious to me that this is one happening and, like other gospel events, the story just varies in each. However, the conventional interpretation seems to be that there were two events -- one in Bethany involving Mary, the godly sister of Martha & Lazarus, and the other in another time and place involving an unnamed woman "who lived a sinful life" One source suggests that John confuses the two events and brings details from the "sinful woman" into the Bethany story. That writer says that someone as respectable as Mary of Bethany would never let her hair down in public.

My question is: Why? Why don't people simply accept that Mary of Bethany was the woman "who lived a sinful life" and wiped Jesus' feet with her hair? Is it because they can't accept that Jesus' best friends might have had scandal connected to them?

I mean, the parallels are too many to discount so easily. Let's look at them:

Mark, Matthew, & Luke all identify the host as a man named Simon. Mark & Matthew identify him as "Simon the Leper" from Bethany, Luke says he was a Pharisee named Simon. John just says the dinner was given in Jesus' honor in Bethany and that Lazarus was there and Martha served. In all cases, a woman anointed either Jesus' feet or his head with perfume. Mark, Matthew, & Luke all say the perfume was in an alabaster jar. Mark & John identify the perfume as nard. Only John identifies the woman as Mary, but both Mark & Matthew tell us it happened in Bethany. How many women were there in Bethany who would do such a thing?

If I let my imagination go, I wonder if there is something beyond the small-town connection between Jesus' sibling friend group and Simon the Leper/Pharisee's household. If Simon had leprosy, does that mean his wife might have moved back home with her siblings? Could Martha have been that wife? Was there something wrong with Lazarus that precluded him from having a family? Was Mary a social outcast because of her sinful past who lived with her brother and sister? Was she able to let her hair down at Simon's house because she was with family there? Is that the reason she was able to show up at the dinner in the first place? (And, yes, I've heard about the public nature of these events and that anyone could enter certain areas, but the family connection idea seems to fit better.)

When I shared these thoughts with my seminarian daughter, she offered a new perspective. Traditionally, we have seen the "sinful woman" as sexually immoral. But then and now, women have been categorized as "sinful" for so many other offenses. Think of all the things that bring rebuke to women and girls even in our current society. Interrupting men. Being 'bossy.' Dressing in ways others find offensive -- and there are SO MANY ways to offend others by what women wear or don't wear. Acting "uppity." Taking on leadership roles in the church. Not being submissive enough to authorities. The list goes on.

Moving back to Jesus' day, there would have been many more ways for a young lady to be condemned. Maybe Mary declined to enter the marriage her parents arranged for her. Maybe she sat in the room with the men instead of working in the kitchen. (Oh, right, we already know that is the case from Luke 10.) Maybe she spoke when women were supposed to keep quiet. Maybe she didn't keep her hair up. Maybe she insisted that the expensive perfume she somehow acquired was hers to use as she pleased.

In all this, I am always asking the question: Why does this matter? It seems much of the cultural background and language study that people love to insert into Bible study isn't all that important to the overall message of the gospel. But if Mary was the woman Luke tells us "lived a sinful life," that strikes me as huge! It means Jesus didn't just interact with "tax collectors and sinners" in a ministry role, but that he counted broken people who were social outcasts among his closest friends. He liked them better than more socially acceptable people. They were the people he turned to at the end of the day when he wanted to just relax and not be "on." He was so non-threatening to Mary that she could let her hair down in his presence. Simon the Leper/Pharisee may not have been thrilled having her around and wondered why Jesus let her touch him, but Jesus did let her touch him and let her sit at his feet while he was teaching and Martha was so busy with lunch preparations. As someone who struggles to fit into the traditional roles of women, I love the idea that Jesus loves spending time with outcasts.