Proving your innocence: Blow to Go

For the past 5 years, there have been multiple articles written about new emerging car technologies.  One of the main ’safety’ devices being tested right now is a standard breathalizer.

Yes, you read that right:  standard breathalizers built into each new car.  No longer deemed appropriate for only those who have proven themselves alcholic nuisances, now it would appear that everyone will be checked ‘just in case’ starting in the next few years.

The latest article I have found can be found here:

“Mandatory In-Car Breathalizers Coming?”

http://www.motorists.org/blog/duidwi/mandatory-in-car-breathalyzers-coming/

By Eric Peters

(Here is the intro to the article):

“If you’re not a convicted drunk driver, should you still be required to have an in-car breathalyzer fitted (at your expense, ‘natch) to your next new vehicle?

Apparently, some automakers — including GM and Toyota — think so. They and a few others are working together under the auspices of something called the Driver Alcahol Protection System for Safety, which is a $10 million federal “research program” that is trying to develop just such technology for mass introduction a few years from now.

At the moment, the only people who have to deal with (and pay for) in-car Breathalyzers are convicted drunks; the devices are basically ignition locks that prevent the vehicle’s engine from being started until the would-be driver blows into the tube and the system determines he’s not liquored up.”

What direction are we as a nation…as a global community, as some may claim…Where are we headed?  Is this not another example of a growing trend to feel the need to prove yourself innocent…assuming everyone is guilty until proven otherwise?  What type of philosophy is behind such thinking?  If this is the case, what kind of society are we building for ourselves and our families?  Does anyone have any rights in such a society?  Furthermore, in spiritual terms…Is that type of thinking Biblical?

Is this type of thinking geared to a more safe and secure society…or does it breed fear and mistrust?  If the latter is the case:  is this a type of total control society which the Bible has described for us already?

What do you think?

Dobson Double Standard?

Today, one of the major headlines on Fox News’ main website was:

‘Dobson: Obama ‘Distorting’ Bible, Pushing ‘Fruitcake Interpretation’ of the Constitution’

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/23/3428/

In the article, Dobson addresses Obama’s scriptural stances like this:

“I think he’s deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology,” Dobson said.

“… He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter.”

In the article, Dobson sites various stances attributed to Obama concerning such things as slavery and Old Testament dietary restrictions.  Constitutionally, Dobson sites Obama’s thoughts support of abortion as a, “fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution.”.

After reading through this article, a few thoughts may come to mind right away.  First, Obama has never hid his support for things such as abortion, either morally or Constitutionally speaking.  Is the Bible ambiguous, or unclear about the taking of innocent human life?  For people who consider themselves Bible-believing ‘Christians’…what does it say about someone when Scripture says something, and then someone who claims to believe in Scripture willingly chooses to live in a way outside of Scripture?  Are they really ‘Believers’, or are they simply using their God-given freedoms to believe as they want…even if it means ‘believing’ in something that is by definition un-scriptural?

What may be confusing to some is twofold:  First, why is Dobson so concerned about Obama perhaps ‘deceiving’ the Christian communities around the US?  And second…why now?

The first question may be a bit more straightforward.  With all of the reportedly emotionally-charged support for Obama, it may appear to some that Dobson is trying to strike a balance between peoples’ feelings and their rational decision making.  Even though a person can make you excited about a certain idea, does that mean that the said idea is worth implementing?

However…the second question may be a bit more puzzling.  As I have written before in a previous blog post, Dobson has previously endorsed only one other president, in 2004: current President George Bush.  (Source cited: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1706650,00.html).  However, this was done in spite of repeated evidence that George W Bush believes in alternate religions being of equal validity  (You can find my previous post providing more information regarding that here: “Are there many paths to heaven?” http://bereanwatchman.wordpress.com/2007/12/19/).

Am I the only one who finds this a bit confusing?  While no man is perfect, or will totally endorse and/or agree with all views and beliefs of another, the point remains:  How far is ‘too far’….what doctrinal issues are considered ‘deal breakers’ for Christians?  At what point do disagreements lead to different doctrinal or spiritual beliefs altogether?  Are issues such as abortion….or road to salvation…important in a Christian’s life?  And if so…and if a person chooses to take another standpoint which is not supported by Scripture, but is in fact contrary to Scripture, then:  How should a person consider the spiritual ‘fruit’ and leadership qualities of that other ‘Christian’?  In the famous words we have heard since childhood:  “Does a rose by any other name smell as sweet”?

What comprises truth?  How things are labelled?  Or is reality simply a ’sum of its parts’?

What kind of considerations are taken into account when judging the ‘Christian-ness’ of Obama….versus the ‘Christian-ness’ of Bush?  Furthermore…with what we know of each men, what do their spiritual fruit show us? And finally:  Why is it that men and women who are considered ‘great Christian spiritual leaders’ by many can overlook such seemingly basic principals?  (And perhaps more frightening:  What does this say about ‘Christians’ when things like this go seemingly unnoticed daily?)

One last thing….What do you think about the “fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution” comment?  What do you think of that, in the light of the controversial current administration programs such as surveilance, interrogation techniques, etc?  Isn’t abortion just as important such as these issues, or aren’t they important?  Does fighting terror take precedence from safeguarding liberty?

What do you think?