Yesterday I wrote optimistically and enthusiastically about the social skills of some U.S. teens. Then I read a news article regarding Chinese youth, and realized that a comparison is in order.

The article, “Web-savvy & cynical: China’s youth since Tiananmen,” quotes and compares Chinese citizens who either lived through the June 4, 1989 military crackdown against demonstrators in Beijing, or who were born after it. The difference in political knowledge and concern is striking.

Here is one portion of the article:

Wu Xu, 39, was a Tiananmen participant. His generation was plagued by insecurity, he says, and hoped that China could “catch up” to the West politically and economically.

“This generation is totally different,” says Wu, author of a recent book about Chinese cybernationalism. “There is no kind of feeling of inferiority. … They have had the advantage of the last thirty years of China’s economic performance.”

Wu contends that China’s youth know more than they let on, and while they tend to be fiercely proud of their country they are also highly critical of their government. He calls them “a double-edged sword with no handle,” because their opinions cut in many directions and are not guided by any single ideology or organization.

Although young people in the United States also have opinions that go in many directions and are not guided by any single ideology or organization, they have something that Chinese people don’t: the freedom to speak their minds and to hear dissenting views.

The last presidential election is a case in point. Young people in large numbers supported the ideas of Barack Obama, and used social media tools and techniques to energize that campaign. But Obama’s opinions and promises weren’t unopposed, and voters were able to sift through messages from every candidate (Republican, Democrat and several others).

Further, as a Christian, I appreciate having the freedom to speak truth as I have learned it, in a country where people with other views also have the right to state their views. The mention of a double-edged sword in the article above reminded me of the verse in the bible that states,

For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. — Hebrews 4:12 (New International Version)

I truly believe that the situation in China cannot be sustained, and someday, that nation will face truths that have been long suppressed.

Jesus Christ isn’t a swear word; it’s the name and title of a human being who is worshiped as both God and Savior by millions of people worldwide—including me.

Today it is not unusual to hear someone say “Jesus Christ” with contempt, using it as a swear word when something or someone upsets the person who uttered the words. If you are one of those people…stop it.

People have used foul language for thousands of years, and this post isn’t an attempt to change that behavior. I swear on occasion, and I understand why people do it. It’s difficult to offend me with most vulgarities—with the exception of “Jesus Christ.”

If you are an agnostic, an atheist or a believer in a spiritual movement other than Christianity, why should you care? After all, Jesus is not your Lord, your savior, your God. You should care out of respect for Jesus Christ. Notice that I’m not saying, “out of respect for Christians.” We could have a good long discussion of how Christians have wronged others. That might give you reason to curse them, but not Jesus.

No evidence exists that Jesus ever did anything in his 33 years on earth that would justify scorn. He led a pure life; spread a message of love and repentance for sin; and healed people who were blind, lame, deaf and crippled. For that, he died a terrible death after three sham trials and without evidence of wrong-doing. Well, he did say that he was the Son of God, but many of us believe it.

Should people around me stop using “Jesus Christ” as an obscenity because I believe that they are defaming my Savior? Yes and no. The answer revolves around decency and courtesy towards the beliefs of another human being.

For example, the next time you’re tempted to use Jesus Christ as an obscenity, picture yourself substituting another name. Say, “Prophet Mohammed,” or “Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,” or “Buddha.” Picture yourself saying those names with the level of scorn and contempt that you would use with “Jesus Christ.” Picture yourself exclaiming it in a crowd of Muslims, Jews and Buddhists.

Maybe you want to avoid the obvious verbal and/or physical pain that you would suffer from that example. Okay, substitute another person’s name, such as, “Barack Obama,” “Queen Elizabeth,” “George Bush,” or “George Clooney.” These are other good people, not quite up to par with Jesus, but about the best we see at the international level these days.

A final thought about the words “swear” and “curse.”

According to Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, two definitions for the word, “swear,” are:
1: to utter or take solemnly (an oath)
2: to use profane or obscene language: curse

The same source includes the following definitions for the word, “curse”:
1 : a prayer or invocation for harm or injury to come upon one : imprecation
2 : something that is cursed or accursed
3 : evil or misfortune that comes as if in response to imprecation or as retribution
4 : a cause of great harm or misfortune : torment

I don’t use “Jesus Christ” as a swear word because I utter that name with solemn reverence.

On this Good Friday, Christians remember how Jesus was cursed; that is, caused great harm and torment by people who invocated for his injury.

Don’t be one of them. Leave the name of Jesus out of your swearing and cursing vocabulary.

Today, I’m enjoying a round of golf at Eastern Illinois University. Early Sunday morning, I leave with a busload of middle-school youth and other adult leaders of my church for a week of fun and spiritual renewal at a Christian camp near Bemidji, MN.

No PCs at camp, so this blog will be quiet for at least one week.

I had lunch today with some people, one of whom told us about his history of heart problems. Bill has endured two major heart surgeries and can’t work because of the damage to his heart muscle. He told us that at one point during his most recent heart attack, while he was being pumped with nitroglycerin and morphine in an attempt to reduce his pain and keep him alive, the doctor told him:

“According to all of my training, and what I know, and what I’m seeing, you have about five minutes to live. If you feel inclined to make peace with your God, I’d suggest that you do it right now.” Bill decided that it would be a good idea to follow his doctor’s advice right then, and thought,
“God, thank you for the life you’ve given me. If this is my time to go, I’m ready.”

As soon as he had finished that “prayer,” the pain from the heart attack ended. “Doc, the pain is gone,” Bill exclaimed. “Are you B…s..ing me?” the doctor replied. Bill wasn’t kidding, and in the decade since that near-death experience in 1998, he has continued to live his life as though God has him here for a purpose.

If you were told that you only had five minutes left to live, would you be at peace? If you then learned that the Grim Reaper wasn’t making a house call that day after all, how would you want to spend the minutes, hours, days, weeks and months that could follow?

All of our days are numbered; let’s make them count.

I don’t know whether Miley Cyrus (Hannah Montana), Tom Cruise or the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr. are familiar with any 12-Step Program, but they could benefit from some helpful guidance offered by those programs.

Most of the well-known 12-Step Programs (e.g., Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous) operate under a set of principles known as the Twelve Traditions. Number 11 states, “Our public relations policy is based on attraction rather than promotion; we need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio, and films.” Number 12 states, “Anonymity is the spiritual foundation of all our traditions, ever reminding us to place principles before personalities.”

My friends who taught me about 12-Step Programs said Traditions 11 and 12 protect both the individual and the 12-Step Program as a whole. They protect the individual because they discourage a member of the program from being “put on a pedestal” and becoming known as an “expert” on addictions or compulsive behavior in the media. That media spotlight could bring pressure that might, in combination with a failure to “work the program,” prove detrimental to the member. The traditions protect the 12-Step Program because it won’t be linked in the public’s mind with the failure of any individual member.

Take an example of a celebrity who goes on a media tour, stating that he or she is an alcoholic, but has stopped drinking thanks to Alcoholics Anonymous. If that celebrity later drinks, and that is reported in the media, some other active alcoholic might say, “I guess that A.A. Program doesn’t work.” Regardless of the fact that millions of people have successfully found and maintained sobriety through the A.A. Program, this person sees the failure of one famous person as representing the effectiveness of an entire program.

When 15-year-old Miley professes her Christianity–then agrees to be photographed in a sexually-tinged pose, she falls off the pedestal. When Rev. Wright engages in a clash of religion, politics and race, he stumbles from his soap box. When Tom Cruise appears irrational, then attacks someone for trying to retain rationality, he slides off of the pedestal and upsets the soap box.

No one is perfect, of course. None of us on a bad day would want to be held up to the media spotlight. When circumstances or good fortune, or old-fashioned hard work culminate in media attention, those 12-Step Traditions can be helpful in maintaining our perspective, and the reputation of the organizations or movements we hold dear.

If you’re a student, or have ever been one, I strongly encourage you to watch the recently released documentary, “Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed.” It can help renew the healthy skepticism and willingness to explore new ideas that can promote discernment, greater learning and increased tolerance–skills and attitudes that many schools purport to foster, while stifling in reality.

At least discernment, learning and tolerance when it relates to the validity and scope of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and a second theory, Intelligent Design.

As stated in a press kit on the website for the movie, “In a controversial new satirical documentary, author, former presidential speechwriter, economist, lawyer and actor Ben Stein travels the world, looking to some of the best scientific minds of our generation for the answer to the biggest question facing all Americans today: Are we still free to disagree about the meaning of life? Or has the whole issue already been decided…while most of us weren’t looking?”

What do you think, readers? As a writer with journalism training and experience, I would be hard-pressed to think of something that bothers me more professionally AND personally than a person or institution (educational, governmental, religious or other) that actively and purposefully works to stifle freedoms—with freedom of speech and thought being near the top of the list.

Man’s inhumanity to man so often is played out by a degradation of rights and privileges, as dissent is cowered, obedience is demanded and resistance is punished. Don’t get me wrong—the scientists and learned people who are shown in “Expelled” have not suffered anything like people in devastated regions like Darfur, areas of China, South and Central America, or past generations who died in concentration camps, killing fields and the Roman Coliseum.

Ben Stein however, has purposely connected his documentary, both visually and factually, with major historical events that divided nations and resulted in the suffering and deaths of millions: Nazi Germany’s desire to rid humanity of genetically “inferior” people and the Berlin Wall that kept freedom and dissent out of a major portion of Eastern Europe after World War II.

Okay, you may think that it is over the top to discuss Adolf Hitler’s massacre of millions of Jews, Christians, Gypsies and others in the same breath as the fate of a teacher in Seattle, WA (USA) who doesn’t make tenure because of a paper that dares to consider the possibility of intelligent design. Take that skepticism, or disbelief, or whatever you call it with you to the next screening of “Expelled.” Then remember that Hitler didn’t set up the crematoriums on the first night that he took power in the 1930s. No, first he and his henchmen worked methodically to stifle the right to speak or think in opposition to the ruling authority. Today, the ruling authority in terms of science doesn’t want to engage in the discussion regarding intelligent design.

If you see the movie and then comment here along the lines of, “Nice try, but here’s why I don’t think that Ben Stein is right,” we can have a good discussion. Just don’t comment cavalierly that you don’t need to consider the question because “intelligent design is for religious morons and can’t hold a candle to evolution.”

Because then I might be closer to the truth by saying that rather than keeping an open mind, your head was squeezed shut so tightly that your brains fell out.