Dear Heavenly Father,
I'm feeling lazy and I need Your mercy, God. Please help! I want to remember this truth, LORD God, and be a living example of it:
"But blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD,
whose confidence is in Him.
He will be like a tree planted by water
that sends out its roots by the stream.
It does not fear when heat comes;
its leaves are always green.
It has no worries in a year of drought
and never fails to bear fruit." (Jeremiah 17:7-8)
Thank You, LORD, for Your Holy Spirit and for comforting me, counseling me, and convicting me in times where I need it the most. This weekend has been a beautiful time of rest. It has not been easy...to stay in that rest...but I ask that You would bring fruit from it and help me to see and carry out practical ways where I can trust You. You say that Your yoke is easy and Your burden, light. I long to take that yoke upon me, though it cost me my pride. It's more than worth it! Help me to be diligent to carry out Your work with fear and trembling for it is You who is working in me both to will and to work for Your good pleasure.
In Jesus' name, amen.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Privacy/Political Power Analysis: Those Who Talk Should Take a Walk
As I write this blog entry, I realize it’s easy to speak what one knows without taking any responsibility. Lewis “Scooter” Libby learned that lesson when he was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice for leaking the name of C.I.A. Officer Valerie Wilson. The only journalist who refused to testify whether Libby was a source for that information was Judith Miller, former New York Times reporter.
Judge Thomas F. Hogan had ordered a subpoena on the journalist’s sources and she refused to testify, saying, “If journalists cannot be trusted to guarantee confidentiality, then journalists cannot function and there cannot be a free press.” (Miller’s statement). Even after the judge had indicated that the sources waived their right of confidentiality, she argued, “waivers demanded by a superior as a condition of employment are not voluntary. They are coercive.” Miller firmly believed that even under law, a source should not have to give over his or her right to privacy. If such an exception became commonplace, government could easily silence potential sources who would otherwise speak freely with journalists they trust. She argued that the government cannot use its authority to justify the invasion of privacy—or more specifically, a source’s right to confidentiality.
Examining Miller’s choice, I would undoubtedly acknowledge her decision as noble and idealistic. She was apparently a superb journalist, even according to her ex-boyfriend Steven Rattner who worked at the Times (NY Magazine Article). She was ruthlessly aggressive when it came to her coverage on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and sought after information from sources by any means necessary. Yet she claims that her refusal to testify was a decision of conscience (interview with PBS).
I believe I would have made the opposite decision along a similar basis—but my loyalty would reside not with my sources but with the truth. A certain measure of impartiality must be taken by a journalist when it is to uphold the truth. Holding to confidentiality agreements with sources is important, but even those agreements are upheld by reasonable authoritative laws. The matter at hand was to get to the truth about Libby’s charges. Revealing who Miller had received information from about Plame’s identity would have helped in coming to those conclusions. According to Parent’s “Privacy, Morality, and the Law,” "privacy is not receiving significant legal protection" and is limited to "autonomy or control over significant personal matters" (105, 95). A person has a legal responsibility for what they say. Furthermore, the allegations against Libby were a matter of national concern, not merely a person's private personal matters. My choice to reveal my source would undoubtedly result in losing the trust of many potential sources who would leak information for important stories. But then again, I think the truth will always surface regardless if one leaks something to me off the record. I would not want to find myself protecting someone who maliciously gossips just so they’re opponent can be publicly humiliated without my source taking any responsibility.
Judge Thomas F. Hogan had ordered a subpoena on the journalist’s sources and she refused to testify, saying, “If journalists cannot be trusted to guarantee confidentiality, then journalists cannot function and there cannot be a free press.” (Miller’s statement). Even after the judge had indicated that the sources waived their right of confidentiality, she argued, “waivers demanded by a superior as a condition of employment are not voluntary. They are coercive.” Miller firmly believed that even under law, a source should not have to give over his or her right to privacy. If such an exception became commonplace, government could easily silence potential sources who would otherwise speak freely with journalists they trust. She argued that the government cannot use its authority to justify the invasion of privacy—or more specifically, a source’s right to confidentiality.
Examining Miller’s choice, I would undoubtedly acknowledge her decision as noble and idealistic. She was apparently a superb journalist, even according to her ex-boyfriend Steven Rattner who worked at the Times (NY Magazine Article). She was ruthlessly aggressive when it came to her coverage on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and sought after information from sources by any means necessary. Yet she claims that her refusal to testify was a decision of conscience (interview with PBS).
I believe I would have made the opposite decision along a similar basis—but my loyalty would reside not with my sources but with the truth. A certain measure of impartiality must be taken by a journalist when it is to uphold the truth. Holding to confidentiality agreements with sources is important, but even those agreements are upheld by reasonable authoritative laws. The matter at hand was to get to the truth about Libby’s charges. Revealing who Miller had received information from about Plame’s identity would have helped in coming to those conclusions. According to Parent’s “Privacy, Morality, and the Law,” "privacy is not receiving significant legal protection" and is limited to "autonomy or control over significant personal matters" (105, 95). A person has a legal responsibility for what they say. Furthermore, the allegations against Libby were a matter of national concern, not merely a person's private personal matters. My choice to reveal my source would undoubtedly result in losing the trust of many potential sources who would leak information for important stories. But then again, I think the truth will always surface regardless if one leaks something to me off the record. I would not want to find myself protecting someone who maliciously gossips just so they’re opponent can be publicly humiliated without my source taking any responsibility.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Prayer #1
Dear Lord,
Thank You so much for loving me and putting up with me! You stay near to me when my heart struggles to let go of the things of this world. Thank You, for never forsaking me. Thank You for being the reason why I am strong and courageous.
As I think about Your love, it's hard to "see" it's attributes manifested in my life. Please open my eyes to just how deeply You love me. Sometimes I feel like I have to love You or else You won't love me. But I realize that it's not about how much we love you but how much You love us. Your love is the reason I've been saved from my sins--not my own works, or pure motives, or efforts to be and do the right.
Looking at Psalm 15, I'm surely undeserving to dwell on Your holy hill in and of my own efforts. But I believe You have made me victorious in all those things and I need not fear Your returning but to long for it as a bride longs for her bridegroom. I want to be ready. Please let this day be a day of preparation for Your coming. Oh, teach me to love Your servants--those who fear You. To be unafraid to speak the truth from my heart. To not slander or take up a reproach with my friend or do evil to my neighbor. I want to walk blamelessly and to do what is right. And to let my yes be yes and my no be no...even if it hurts me. Let me not be double-minded and change all the time.
What a delight You are to my heart--for so long I did not perceive it. Still, I can be so spiritually dunce and forget why I'm living and the One I'm living for. Jesus, lead me today. Help me not to live to please man or myself but to please You. I believe that if I acknowledge You in all my ways, You'll make my paths straight--but this is possible only by the power of Your Holy Spirit. Please help me to walk by Your Spirit today instead of the flesh.
In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.
Thank You so much for loving me and putting up with me! You stay near to me when my heart struggles to let go of the things of this world. Thank You, for never forsaking me. Thank You for being the reason why I am strong and courageous.
As I think about Your love, it's hard to "see" it's attributes manifested in my life. Please open my eyes to just how deeply You love me. Sometimes I feel like I have to love You or else You won't love me. But I realize that it's not about how much we love you but how much You love us. Your love is the reason I've been saved from my sins--not my own works, or pure motives, or efforts to be and do the right.
Looking at Psalm 15, I'm surely undeserving to dwell on Your holy hill in and of my own efforts. But I believe You have made me victorious in all those things and I need not fear Your returning but to long for it as a bride longs for her bridegroom. I want to be ready. Please let this day be a day of preparation for Your coming. Oh, teach me to love Your servants--those who fear You. To be unafraid to speak the truth from my heart. To not slander or take up a reproach with my friend or do evil to my neighbor. I want to walk blamelessly and to do what is right. And to let my yes be yes and my no be no...even if it hurts me. Let me not be double-minded and change all the time.
What a delight You are to my heart--for so long I did not perceive it. Still, I can be so spiritually dunce and forget why I'm living and the One I'm living for. Jesus, lead me today. Help me not to live to please man or myself but to please You. I believe that if I acknowledge You in all my ways, You'll make my paths straight--but this is possible only by the power of Your Holy Spirit. Please help me to walk by Your Spirit today instead of the flesh.
In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Freedom Study: If It's Legalized, It's Publicized
For a journalist, it seems that the highest ethic is to report the truth which is only accessible through freedom of expression. John Stuart Mill believes that the only exception to freedom of expression is when an opinion may incite harm to another. One’s freedom of speech must be taken away when it is spoken with the intention of hurting another “without justifiable cause”. I agree with Mill and would take that one step further by asserting that freedom of speech that is detrimental to the reader’s judgment of the truth must either be censored or published with caution.
On March 3, 2010, Voice of America published an article entitled, “Gay Marriage Law Takes Effect in Washington”. Along with reporting the 5 W’s of the newly enacted law, the journalist chose to gather the opinions of two newlywed homosexual couples, along with a representative of the National Clergy Council—whose opinion the journalist included at the end of the article. There seemed to be an unbalanced representation of opinions in regard to the new law. Four out of five of the persons quoted were supporters of homosexual marriage. The opinions of Darlene Garner and Candy Holmes—newlyweds under the new marriage law—were given the most representation in the article with three quotes. The couple met 14 years ago in church and are currently Christian ministers. In the article, Holmes was quoted saying, "We are recognizing that God is about love and marriage is about love and that's our focus.” The majority of the article’s views are of the subjective viewpoint of those who support the new law. I suppose if it’s legalized, it's publicized.
Christians who embrace homosexuality like Garner and Holmes are entitled to their own opinion. Those opinions, however, misrepresent the truth claims about the Christian God in Scripture (1 Cor. 6:9-11). Not only do the expression of their opinions do harm to the accurate portrayal of the Christian faith but to other Christians. When Christian leaders hold differing views on issues of sexual immorality—in this case, homosexuality—it can confuse the public and Christian believers, particularly those struggling to overcome the sin of homosexuality. From Garner and Holmes’ point of view, homosexuality is not a sin and is a practice to be embraced and even celebrated. They say that God and marriage are about love, but in 1 Cor. 13, Paul says, “Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.” Though their words may be true to some extent, their reasoning does not justify their practice of marrying someone of the same sex as a God-glorifying act.
Judith Andre is right in indicating that the ethical objections to certain opinions will be driven by the beliefs and values of the publication. Journalists, however, have the responsibility to report and portray people accurately. Their first loyalty is to the truth, not to their own value system. I would argue that any opinion that misconstrues the truth shouldn’t be reported, especially without appropriate context.
On March 3, 2010, Voice of America published an article entitled, “Gay Marriage Law Takes Effect in Washington”. Along with reporting the 5 W’s of the newly enacted law, the journalist chose to gather the opinions of two newlywed homosexual couples, along with a representative of the National Clergy Council—whose opinion the journalist included at the end of the article. There seemed to be an unbalanced representation of opinions in regard to the new law. Four out of five of the persons quoted were supporters of homosexual marriage. The opinions of Darlene Garner and Candy Holmes—newlyweds under the new marriage law—were given the most representation in the article with three quotes. The couple met 14 years ago in church and are currently Christian ministers. In the article, Holmes was quoted saying, "We are recognizing that God is about love and marriage is about love and that's our focus.” The majority of the article’s views are of the subjective viewpoint of those who support the new law. I suppose if it’s legalized, it's publicized.
Christians who embrace homosexuality like Garner and Holmes are entitled to their own opinion. Those opinions, however, misrepresent the truth claims about the Christian God in Scripture (1 Cor. 6:9-11). Not only do the expression of their opinions do harm to the accurate portrayal of the Christian faith but to other Christians. When Christian leaders hold differing views on issues of sexual immorality—in this case, homosexuality—it can confuse the public and Christian believers, particularly those struggling to overcome the sin of homosexuality. From Garner and Holmes’ point of view, homosexuality is not a sin and is a practice to be embraced and even celebrated. They say that God and marriage are about love, but in 1 Cor. 13, Paul says, “Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.” Though their words may be true to some extent, their reasoning does not justify their practice of marrying someone of the same sex as a God-glorifying act.
Judith Andre is right in indicating that the ethical objections to certain opinions will be driven by the beliefs and values of the publication. Journalists, however, have the responsibility to report and portray people accurately. Their first loyalty is to the truth, not to their own value system. I would argue that any opinion that misconstrues the truth shouldn’t be reported, especially without appropriate context.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)