I just read an interesting op-ed piece on the yahoo.com website, titled “Is this the ‘worst Congress ever’? The article begins, “The debt ceiling showdown has revealed Washington’s deepening divisions, and aversion to compromise of any sort.” Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute, says that hardliners in both parties have gained such power that compromise is basically dead, even on critically important matters.

People in both parties have moved away from the middle and toward the extremes, of both left and right. Extremists have taken on the role of obstructionists, and seem to revel in their new-found power. Compromise, to those holding this dysfunctional mindset, is something evil, and therefore to be avoided.

The American public seems to be increasingly frustrated, and rightly so, with this sort of ideological rigidity. As I said in the previous posting, I see this ideological rigidity all around, in all sorts of areas. It’s a malaise that’s very hard to cure, because those who see the world this way are esssentially insecure. And leaving the comfort of their ideology leaves them feeling vulnerable.

The current impasse over the U.S. debt ceiling reveals a deep-seated personality trait in politicians of both the extreme right and left. It’s called ideological inflexibility. For people with this malady, reasoned arguments have no appeal whatsoever — predetermined views rule the day. For those on the extreme right, there are to be no increases in the debt ceiling, even though the ceiling was raised by 5 trillion dollars during the Bush years. This group is also against tax increases under any circumstances. On the far left, there can be no cuts to social programs, no matter what the fiscal realities. If people stay locked in to these philosophical prisons, chances for compromise and progress are slim.

This problem is at the root of many of our biggest global challenges — from environmental nightmares to fundamentalist religious zealotry and everything in between. There’s ditches on both sides of this road. Learning how to negotiate the middle of the road is often the best choice.

So who’s uninformed here? The sign reader or the sign author? My thought is that if an individual criticizes evolutionary theory, the least they can do is to understand it thoroughly. That’s clearly not the case here. People who don’t know the theory will probably like this sign. Those who do know it will have their suspicions confirmed: some Christians are uninformed about basic science. And it’s painfully (and publicly!) obvious.

This is a church sign I like. Positive. Inviting. Compared to the signs below, it shouldn’t be rocket science.

This message expresses the essence of what it’s like to experience shame — the unintended consequences of our actions.

Here’s another church sign. Doesn’t make me feel welcome at all!

So what do you think? Is this a visitor-friendly sign? Is it proclaiming law or gospel?

Check out the following story from the Huffington Post — from which the screenshot was taken.

What do you think? Is this crying wolf? Or is the author a prophet we should listen to?

This is the link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-stein/the-perfect-storm-six-tre_b_582779.html

A theory in science is defined as “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena.”

It is more than a hunch or guess.

The English language is wonderfully malleable. Examples follow —