In case you did not know, I am a Christian. Until recently, I went to church every Sunday. (In case you’re reading this from the future, in this part of 2020 there’s a “novel Coronavirus” keeping us away from large group events like church and sports, so I have been watching a church service online.) I generally don’t feel the need to talk about my Christian beliefs. I don’t consider myself a leader of the Christian world and I don’t often feel like I have a good handle on the details. But occasionally I publish my opinions online, especially in times where I feel like have something to contribute or can offer a perspective not often given.

Why did I feel the need to express my opinion? For 20 years now, I have been living away from my parents’ home and in a big city. I went to college and have been working for 15+ years. I’ve also been using the Internet and social media to listen to lots of different types of voices from around the world ever since I got my own e-mail account in about 1996. I’ve also been following mainstream media and, to some extent, mainstream entertainment/pop culture, and I have seen some trends that disturb me and also do not coincide with my experiences.

These are some things I believe Christianity stands for that various political parties support or oppose:

• Love your neighbor and the world. Take care of this world that God gave us. Treat your neighbor as you would yourself. Treat your enemies with love, even. Help out those less fortunate. And your neighbor is every person, even your enemies, no matter their beliefs or skin color, among many other differences.
• Life should be preserved if at all possible. This includes unborn babies, murderers, and those who would like to end their own life. Also, I’d say that war is very rarely justifiable if at all, but in the past, I thought it was justified sometimes because I was angry.

Those are two really broad areas of belief. Christians across the country and world vary widely on how they interpret the relative importance and the method of making these things happen. But my main point is that I don’t believe that either party in America represents these perfectly—at least the way I interpret and prioritize them. I do not think Christianity as an institution should be political anyway. Individuals are free to be political if they want, though. Until about 60 years ago, Christianity was not tied to a major political party like it is now, if I’ve done my history research correctly.

In fact, one of the tenets of the United States of America is religious freedom. I think it’s a very important part of our democracy. Most of the original founders came to America for the ability to worship or not worship as they pleased. It seems like many Christians in America today believe that Christianity and their nation should have the same values—for many, it feels like that is what they had once upon a time. I believe that America was never a Christian nation and the fact they feel it once was is some misplaced nostalgia. As Christians, we should instead fight to our keep religious freedom. For if we try too hard to make American values align with Christian values, we run the risk of losing religious freedom completely.

In today’s America, Christianity is mostly known to non-Christians by the pronouncements of Christian leaders, many of which today are closely aligned with one political party. Or they have a personal experience of being a part of a Christian church and being told what they have to believe and have left because they cannot reconcile that with their personal values. But at least in the churches I’ve been to all my life and among my friends, there are a wide variety of political ideologies and personal values. Many of the most highly-regarded Christian leaders do not talk about politics in America regularly. They don’t endorse candidates. The churches these leaders run are filled with people from both parties. Not too surprisingly, though, the fringes of American Christianity are the most vocal and their views get covered a lot more in the media.

I think American Christianity’s close association with politics is giving a bad impression of what Christianity is to the un-churched. The average American may think I must belong to a certain party and that all Christians do follow that party’s values and leaders. I honestly am scared to tell my co-workers that I am a Christian because they will think I hate them the way the most vocal Christian leaders of today revile them and their beliefs. I don’t want to hide the fact that I am a Christian but I do not want anyone to think I identify with the politics that is pretty much synonymous with Christianity in America today. I honestly do not believe that any one party is necessarily bad, but this close affiliation makes it very hard for persons who are aligned with other parties to respect Christians.

With the wide variation in interpretation of what it means to be a Christian, do we agree on everything? No, but we agree on the major beliefs and try to have a civil discussion about the disagreements, if possible. Ideally, we can put aside our disagreements from time to time and work together to make the world a better place. I think that’s the best course of action in this time when America is so divided. When I get a note from a friend who sees things differently, I sometimes get a bit angry at first. “Obviously I’m right and they’re wrong!” But then I hopefully stop myself and decide I need to think and pray about this more before responding angrily. I need to mull over whether they had a point and if I need to change my mind and heart.

When someone responds in a way you don’t expect or disagree with, do not assume they are worse than you or somehow uneducated in the “right way”. Step back, take a moment, and try to have a discussion. Ask them why they say that. Listen to their stories of their life experiences. We all have different personal histories and that is what makes America the beautiful land it is. And we have to learn from our neighbors if we are going to make America even better, no matter how our beliefs or political leanings differ.

Below are my slides for the "3...2...1... Launching Your Site" at Minnebar 12 on March 25, 2017.

Thanks to all who attended and get back to me if you have any questions, comments or feedback. I'd love to hear it.

Note: The following article contains mild spoilers about the television show "Person of Interest". The spoilers only reveal much of what is fleshed out in the pilot and the first few episodes as well as the general direction the show goes over it's run so far. If you are averse to spoilers, then suffice it to say that I think you should at least watch the first half of the first season to get a good feel for the show.

I watched the first 10 minutes of "Person of Interest"'s pilot on live TV back in 2011. I turned it off. The show started with a man in bed with his girlfriend. Then he was drinking in the subway. He beat up a few street kids. I figured it was an origin story of an all-to-predictable CBS cop show. But six months later, friends online were raving about the show. It wasn't until September 2012 when it was on DVD that I was able to give it a second look and found that the remaining 33 minutes of the pilot (and the ensuing seasons) proved me wrong. "Person of Interest" is now my favorite show on television.

Yes, the show does start as a twist on the usual cop show format. Mr. Finch (Michael Emerson, "Lost") has built a surveillance machine, and it gives him social security numbers. He investigates the person to find if they are a murderer or a victim. He needs Mr. Reese (Jim Caviezel, The Passion of the Christ and The Thin Red Line), an ex-military, ex-CIA operative to work things out in the field. Their goal is to help people, if they can figure out what is going on in time. A classic TV mystery.

As an aside, one reason I enjoy "Person of Interest" is it's style. Cuts between scenes show the inner workings of the surveillance machine, all the mundane traffic and security cameras that make up it's data. Backstory is given via The Machine's audio and video clips as well. Most scenes are given a very cinematic but realistic look that makes it look great but also gives the feeling that this could be actually happening. The best part, though, is that the show is shot on the streets of New York City, which looks and feels much more grounded in reality than any Hollywood backlot. The location crews find great, real places on and off the streets and it's hard to tell where the real world end and the set dressing begins. And finally, there's plenty of action. Mr. Reese is not trying to kill the bad guys, but he knows how to stop them in their tracks with a well placed punch, bullet, grenade, shoulder cannon or being T-boned by a truck.

But while you watch the first season's mysteries, you find that something else is going on along with the "person of the week". What is the nature of The Machine that Mr. Finch built? Why did he build it? What is his background? Also, a hard-working cop (Taraji P. Henson, "Empire" and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) wants to apprehend these do-gooders that are rounding up the bad guys and leaving before she can talk to them. Another cop is working with Mr. Reese to figure out these mysteries even though he doesn't know where the "person of interest" comes from. And they start running into various forces within the city, from corrupt cops to mobsters and even some groups more technologically inclined. So while the show has a weekly format, there is great character development and a storyline that flows through the seasons.

The show also has a science fiction undertone as well. Not that it takes place in a whole different world, but it takes place in a world where the surveillance state is heightened. While today's government organizations likely are able to monitor lots of data, there's no way they can process all of it in real-time. The Machine can process all surveillance data and predict where bad actors may pop up. But also, The Machine starts showing signs of being somewhat of an artificial intelligence. "Person of Interest" explores the consequences of surveillance and an AI having some say in what happens in the future. What does an artificial intelligence think of the humans that created it? What would happen if it ran the world? These ideas are being explored more and more in the 3rd and 4th season. Becaiuse of this, less and less episodes are the mystery of the week but instead are a more serialized storyline.

"Person of Interest" has been my favorite show on all of TV since I started watching in 2012. It was not the mystery of the week that really drew me to the show, although that draws some, but it was the bigger story that built over the first season that got me hooked and made it my favorite show on television. These themes continued to expand throughout the next three seasons. I thought the latter half of the fourth season was a little weak, but I hope for a return to form in the fifth and potentially final season. But hey, if you watch the four seasons this fall and then watch on TV or CBS.com this winter, hopefully "Person of Interest" will continue to create great characters, riveting action and speculate on the effects of tomorrow's technology for a few more years. I sure hope it does.

"Person of Interest" seasons 1-3 are now available on Netflix streaming in the US. I also have them on Blu-Ray and DVD if you want to borrow them. I have season 4 on Blu-Ray as well, as well as season 4 comes to Netflix on September 22. Also, starting September 3rd, check out my favorite new network TV show of the 2014-2015 season on Netflix—it's called "Madam Secretary".

The return of the T-shirt posts! This is a shirt I've had for a year or two and, like some of the other geeky, math-related shirts I have, they get lots of response. Sadly, most comment that the shirt is wrong because they do not understand the match concept, but a small minority of knowledgeable folks know the details and quietly and calmly say they like the shirt. Here's a bad photo of it:

The shirt says "2 + 2 = 5" in big yellow chalkboard-style lettering with smaller text of "For extremely large values of 2" beneath in smaller letters on the front The black shirt has nothing on the back. The shirt was given to me as a Christmas gift from my sister and brother-in-law, if I remember correctly. (Good math fans to pick that one out.) The shirt was then available from ThinkGeek.

What this means to me is that math is somewhat relative. Usually, "2" is assumed to be an integer, but in math, "2" could be representative for any number, such as "2.3" or "6.0". And, more importantly, as a programmer, after a bit of programming with numbers you learn that math is hard. In many languages, how the data is stored and represented during processing can make the math not work as expected. For example, if you add integer "2" to decimal "2.6", the language may just automatically convert the decimal to an integer by lopping off the decimal part, so the answer may be the integer 4. To get an accurate result, you may have to force the integer to become a decimal "2.0" and then you'll get a decimal result, "4.6", from an add operation. So, to me, it shows that math is not as simple or straightforward as you think it may be.

Incidentally, all employees behind the counter at the Highland St. Paul Chipotle this afternoon were adamant that this shirt was completely wrong and one was even disturbed that someone would not agree it is wrong. I, as usual, just smiled and said it's a confusing math joke.