Skip navigation

Category Archives: education

I’ve been annoyed lately (not always a good thing before writing a post). Probably centered around the Fourth of July (the formal U.S.A. Independence Day), there is always a spate of articles about the U.S.A. being founded on Christian principles, which is somewhat true. Then there is the argument over whether Thomas Jefferson was a Christian or Deist, and the new one was John Adams. Since John Adams berated his son John Quincy Adams for being a devout Christian (perhaps it’s an Adams thing, especially when one reads the letters between John and Abigail Adams), one could question how much Christianity was in John Adams’ faith.

The issue that has brought this to the forefront for me is homosexual marriage. Nope this is not a post on homosexual marriage itself, but the conservative/traditional/orthodox (and add fanatical/hateful/hurtful to many of those who have responded) response. Oddly, for me, this is not a theological post. The question that is asked by many, what right of happiness is there? Now, this question can be applied to homosexual marriage, polygamy, marijuana, and so on equally. Including (drumroll, please) religion.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Declaration of Independence, Continental Congress, 4 July 1776

Note the “pursuit of happiness”. Wikipedia notes that some call this the best known English language sentence in the world. The school systems, secular institutions, and faith institutions have trumpeted this sentence for years. Thus we have declared that happiness is the most important thing/pursuit. Of course, Americans will pursue that which they think will make them happy. Currently, certain groups believe that having the right to “marriage” will make them happy. In truth, it might make certain things easier to obtain (like health care), but that won’t necessarily make any of them happier. Then there are those that believe that it is their obligation to support those who are pursuing happiness, which, in many ways, should be celebrated as concern for their fellow citizen.

Again, please don’t take any of this post as support for homosexual marriage, or even opposition to it. That is not the point of this post.

Ultimately, the issue comes down to the fruit of the harvest. The seeds that have been sown for generations is the “right” to “the pursuit of happiness”. Why is everyone so surprised at the result?

This was released in Fall 2009, and if feels out of date already! Since I posted Version 3.0 in December 2008, I figured that getting this out there wouldn’t be a bad idea.

Shocking! (sarcasm)

Surveys: U.S. Religious Activists Have ‘Widely Divergent’ Views

As much as I like some of the content on ChristianPost.com, today we have another article (see this post for another) which is too vague to be useful, other than to draw gross conclusions that can only be divisive, rather than edifying. I really hate it when news organizations (the mainstream/conservative/liberal/everyone press) don’t reference the actual questions. The phrasing of the questions is crucial!

For example, “Nearly half of conservatives (48 percent) believe scripture to be the literal word of God”. What was the question? Did they use “inerrant” or “literal” or some other word in the question? Did they ask the polled individual what they meant by that word?

In my denomination, The Church of the Nazarene, inerrancy is only applied to salvation1. So, if I answered, “the bible is inerrant in regards to salvation alone,” would that be a yes or no? Then it would be up to the poller to decide.

In regards to abortion, what are “most cases”? What kind of cases are people thinking about when they hear the question? I almost wrote that I was one of the 54%, because I read “some”. Imagine if “some” had heard “some” rather than “most”.

I guess I’m not a “conservative”. I think there needs be a lot of separation between state and church. I do not believe that because my faith helps me make decisions, that I should be banned from stating such. Nor do I think most people, if they truly thought about it, would want to squelch such (yes, there are a bunch of loud, obnoxious ones who would disagree with me).

I will say that this article notes the imbalance within the Christian community. Yes, helping your fellow man is a vital part of the Christian ethos and scripture. However, coercion by one’s government is not part of the deal. The Roman Catholic tradition has a great balance between what has become two sides, but Roman Catholics as a practical matter are having just the same issues.

The tradition, even in the Protestant Church (such as John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, and the “grandparent” of my denomination), is there. It is the rhetoric, and the American desire for a “simple”, “black-and-white” answer that is creating this insanity, along with the quick response medium of the internet (to which, of course, I’m contributing).

It is also the church, as a whole, that is at fault in the responses to this poll. What is the church teaching? Is it teaching? Is it helping its people wrestle with the faith? It IS okay to wrestle with the faith! That’s what the church fathers did!

This also does bring back to mind this article at the (evil) FoxNews: Has Christian America Come to an End?


1We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, by which we understand the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments,given by divine inspiration, inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation, so that whatever is not contained therein is not to be enjoined as an article of faith. (see Article IV in our Manual)

hattip: Douglas Karr

Are we Kicking Grandma to the Curb?

For a number of reasons, I have a real problem with what this post (and the quoted article/news story) say.  Not because it isn’t true, but because it is.  I don’t think that nursing homes are an ideal situation, that’s for sure, but am I capable of taking care of my parents (all four of them) as they get older?  I doubt it.

There is something to be said about the “good ol’ days,” where aged relatives would live in the same home as at least one of their children.  I certainly think it would be healthier for society if we weren’t so segregated in our lives according to age bracket (one of the things many churches are also dealing with).  However, in cases such as in my family, where one person has Alzheimer’s, it can be a full time job.

I also think that the changing perception of life changes in regards to age have a significant impact on the situation.  Take, for example, the fact that 100 years ago, most education ended with the 8th grade, and, frankly, there are questions on those final exams that I couldn’t answer.  That person was to become a productive member of society.  Now, the expectation is that they will become productive 4 years later, assuming they don’t go to college.

Much of the same can be attached to “retirement”.  In that same era, there was no retirement.  The modern “golden age of retirement” really means, you’ve saved the money you wasted your life earning, now go spend it, or least that is what far too many retirement salespeople and financial “guides” are trying to sell.  Well, if a person is burning their life away to go play at the end of the working era, why would they want to take care of ageing parents.  In many ways, it sounds like some kids, “my parents just cramp my style.”

Back to the really hard part, the church not doing what it is called to do.  The church has fallen prey to the same mentality as the populace, the government will take care of it!  Then there is the whole lawyer thing, and the lawsuits that seem to come with them.  What church is willing to take on that kind of litigative burden?  What church can afford it?  It reminds me of a post I read today, “A law degree only allows you to add friction to the economy…”

Litigation, cramping the style, whatever the reason…this is just not good.

That led her to join a nine-month process known in the Catholic Church as RCIA, or Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults.

In the Nazarene Church, we go through a membership class which lasts a few weeks. In the Lutheran Church, the same. However, these classes do not truly teach the faith. Of course, a nine month course like the Roman Catholic Church might scare more than a few people off, which might not be a bad thing. I once heard that the early Christian church, there was a three year “apprenticeship” for new converts before they became baptized. That’s a whole lot different than today, which may explain why so much of the populace call themselves Christian, but have no true understanding of the faith.

Oddly enough, it might also might explain why churches, as a whole, are losing members, not a conflict with the world (although, that doesn’t help), but if the church cares so little about teaching people deeply about the faith, encouraging them to invest in their faith (note: I am not talking about a church building or congregation), perhaps they might not be so quick to leave it.

In the Lutheran church, I heard nightmare stories about confirmation. While they sounded horrible, I suspect that they were inflicted upon the children not as punishment, but for the very reason I mentioned. They became invested in the faith.

Now, that does not mean that through trials, tribulations, doubts, depression, or questions, that a person will not leave the faith. There is nothing that can guarantee it. The end goal is to have a Christian who has more than a cursory understanding of their faith, so that they can truly live it.

A bunch of drunk teenagers vandalized a site once inhabited by the American poet Robert Frost. In A Violation of Both Law and the Spirit, Dan Barry seems offended that these, for lack of a better word, punks didn’t show respect to history or elders.

These punks are a direct result of a bunch of people who didn’t respect history or authority teaching them. Why are they surprised? The generation that is entering and leaving colleges now is filled with higher percentage of “entitlement” mentality people than probably has ever existed before at one time. They have the mentality of the old aristocracy, and all too often lack of responsibility.

I wish I could say that I’m surprised that those like Dan Barry are surprised, but I’m not. Nor am I, obviously, surprised at the behavior of these punks. People such as myself, Bible-believing Christians, are often ridiculed, even by our friends, for our concerns about trying (although we often—even usually—fail) to align with a Biblically based life. If people were honest, how could a Biblically (read: New Testament, and not forced conversion) be worse than this?

In Me and Ron Paul and The Dollar is Falling! The Dollar is Falling!, I discussed central banking and the currency base.

However, in 800 Dollar Gold in Plain English ( archived copy ), Jerry Bowyer adds a little more to the discussion. His primary point is that the theories being pushed in support of returning to a gold (or silver or whatever) are not nearly as robust as they seem, especially in light of recent history. Some of his comments echo mine in Me and Ron Paul, but mine were more gut feel than anything else.

Of course, the problem with Jerry Bowyer’s commentary is that begs the question, what to do? Who knows? However, I think the major point is that we cannot blindly assume that what seems to have worked in the past actually did, and that it will work for the future.

That all being said, the U.S. trade deficit is definitely an issue. We can’t keep sending money out (whether to China for our manufactured goods, or Mexico, Venezuela, or the Middle East for our oil). A lot of countries have been putting money back into the U.S., because we have historically had a stable currency. That is not the case now.

On the other hand, maybe this is a good thing for domestic manufacturing, especially with all the toy recalls recently. Perhaps companies will finally look at the U.S. as a valid source. The U.S. must continue to excel in changing things for the better. As long as we do, it will all work out in the end.

In Me and Ron Paul, I knocked some of the historical basis for the assault on the Federal Banking System. While I still believe that a central system does need to exist, Thomas Breton’s article, Chickens Are Returning to the Roost, may cause me to modify my perspective somewhat. While I still believe that basing one’s currency on gold (or silver, or something else “precious”, Golem not withstanding) is silly because gold is only as valuable as one perceives it, Mr. Breton brought to my attention that the benefit of a gold (or whatever) standard is that supply is limited (I guess we shouldn’t have a “hot air” standard, eh, D.C.?). Therefore limits (if rules of ratios are followed, but we know rules and politicians) on currency production and lending becomes naturally integrated into the system (hmm, banking and credit issues, anyone?).

Mr. Breton’s point that banks would have to have tangible (read gold or whatever standard) assets to exchange for paper currency, means that banks would be less likely to loan money to any one (including me). Of course, such a path, would send the tax and spend politicians (please note that this is regardless of party affiliation) into a tizzy. Also, companies such as MasterCard, Visa, Sears, BancAmerica, and so on would no longer be quite so willing to give credit cards to pets or dead people.

This is sounding better and better.

And I’m quite serious about it.

An interesting article at the New York Times discusses the rising specter of racism and prejudice based on genetics. The writer points out some blog postings and comments that are disturbing. That being said, there is something to be said about self-imposed homogeneity, especially in business…failure. I don’t want to see organizations forced to accept those with whom they (with or without basis) do not wish to associate with, nor do I want to see a stratified society based on genetics.

Nevermind…everyone should just see Gattaca.