Tag / America

by Greg

The Blame Game

pointing-fingersDeep within the heart of mankind is a hesitancy, if not an outright refusal to accept responsibility. Some of us are able to work up the courage on occasion, but generally our first (and second, and third) response is to point the finger at someone else.

Yesterday a friend told me a story he had been involved with personally that illustrates this perfectly.

At a recent, one-time event, held by a group of Christian home schooling families at a local park, a boy was injured on the playground equipment. It was bad enough that his family incurred a couple thousand dollars worth of medical bills for his treatment. They did not have medical insurance, so at some point they were counseled to bring a lawsuit against the park to help cover the medical costs. The park, in turn, required (I’m not certain if it was through further litigation) that the home school group acquire insurance for that past event, as well as future ones. The buck was passed from one party to another to another.

My friend lamented this one family’s choice to forego health insurance. That was their responsibility, thought he. I contend that, while he’s right that insurance would be the smarter option for them, they could still choose to not pay monthly insurance, but they are still responsible for the medical bills for themselves and anyone under their care: like a young son, living in their home.

But our culture—nay, human nature—looks for someone else to pass the responsibility on to.

We do it in so many ways. It’s not necessarily just when we do something wrong. We are loth to accept our own responsibility for our eating, sleeping, and other personal care routine and choices. We neglect opportunities for our own education in deference to an easier, more “fun” experience. We miss chances to encourage one another because of the “effort” involved in doing so.

In every case, whether missing out on good, or not owning up to an already-chosen bad… we seek someone or something else to be culpable.

Is it just shame? We don’t want to be the ones who were wrong? Is it that we want someone else to take care of us? I honestly have no idea.

It’s really easy to do, though. I think it’s the reason we clamor for a “king”.

Do you remember the story? The Israelites didn’t want to just be personally responsible to God, they wanted a king like all the other nations. And so God gave them a king, and that did not turn out well.

Today we in America seem to think our President is a king. (I think the presidents do, too, with all of their executive orders.) We get so excited in the lead up to a Presidential Election because he is the embodiment of “Someone Else” to take the blame.

Now, obviously, it’s not all blame. Sometimes he is also praised. We pass that responsibility along, too. Basically, it seems like we’re saying, whether good or bad, I just don’t want to be responsible for it!

Having six rather young children in our home (though they are getting older…) we see this play out time and time and time again. It’s so incredibly rare for any of them to step out and instantly accept responsibility for an action. The funny thing is, the youngest often have the easiest time of it. Our two-, three-, and four-year-olds are the ones who will answer, “I did it!” when Mom or Dad ask, “Who is responsible for this??”

What lovely transparency! How great would it be if we all could be so carefree about our reputation and convinced of our acceptance with and love from those who matter to us that we could simply say, no matter how bad it might seem for us, “It was me!”

It takes humility. Thinking of others more than yourself. It takes that peculiar confidence of feeling—no, knowing—your full acceptance with those that matter.

And ultimately, that comes from understanding your position with Father. Doesn’t it?

A deep confidence in your “rightness” (righteousness through faith) with him. We have been made right with him, by his choice; if God is for us, then who could be against us.

Accepting personal responsibility is also rooted in a love for justice. For truth. (Which, is even more deeply rooted in a genuine care or concern for others, that comes from humility …)

It can certainly be difficult, embarrassing, even painful. There are many reasons to not accept responsibility for your actions (or inactions). And that’s why we’re so good at it, so often. But there is deeper, more lasting joy in doing what is required of you. It’s really the core of a society: that each member is wholly responsible for himself.

We do live in a free nation, founded on this idea that each member is created equally, granted certain inalienable rights by the Creator, and is personally responsible for his own actions.

What about those who are born incapable of being responsible for their own actions, whether physically or mentally? Are they expected to “take care of themselves” and the rest of us should just “stick it to them” if they can’t? What about social justice, and social injustice? If someone can’t care for themselves, and they don’t have any family or close friend who is willing to do so, don’t we have a “responsibility” to them?

Sure! Each of us has a personal responsibility to act in whatever situations to aid persons God brings across our paths. Definitely. And we can even join forces, as churches or otherwise, to perhaps do “greater” (more) good for more people. Jesus spoke often about caring for poor, widows, orphans, etc. This is actually one of our responsibilities: to help those who can’t help themselves.

But…

This is a neat quote from Benjamin Franklin regarding charity:

To relieve the misfortunes of our fellow creatures is concurring with the Deity; it is godlike; but, if we provide encouragement for laziness, and supports for folly, may we not be found fighting against the order of God and Nature, which perhaps has appointed want and misery as the proper punishments for, and cautions against, as well as necessary consequences of, idleness and extravagance? Whenever we attempt to amend the scheme of Providence, and to interfere with the government of the world, we had need be very circumspect, lest we do more harm than good.

Our society today has taken the Blame Game so far that a large portion of our citizenry (and non-citizens?) have the mentality of entitlement, and a “victim” mindset. That blame is even worse because it is somewhat amorphous, nebulous, and faceless. It’s “the Man” who keeps you down, a corrupt system, evil Capitalists, greedy bankers, and so forth. If it’s easy enough for us to blame another person face to face, it’s super easy to pass blame onto someone who is not a real person.

Then we are left with an entire culture who is always passing along responsibility to the “next guy”. Personal Injury lawyers… yikes. They only exist to “blame” someone else, to the tune of millions of dollars. But it’s not just litigation. The Blame Game is played at all levels of our society, to the point where it’s incredibly, ridiculously rare to see someone willingly accept responsibility for their own actions, and even to assist someone else, without being forced to do so.

I may be speaking too generally here. No, I’m sure I am. But I’ve been wanting to write out these thoughts for quite some time because it’s more than rampant in every area of American life. (And yes, I’m sure it’s not just in America.) There is something at the core of us that does not want to accept responsibility.

That core—the root—seems to me to be a deeply rooted trust in Father. I really believe that’s the key to life: Trust. Jesus seems to speak of it throughout the gospels. It’s a central theme: faith, trust… placed in a Father who loves you more than you can even imagine.

So if he’s got your back… you can take the blame. You can accept the responsibility, despite whatever pressure it might put on you once you do.

Because He is for you.

I wonder how different our life together could be if we all really knew—and believed—that?

by Greg

Sex Sells (Apparently)

Aerie Ad - Girl in lingerieI wouldn’t usually post such photos here. But I guess I’m trying to make a point.

Have we really gotten so used to seeing women in their underwear (or less) that it doesn’t even slightly surprise us?

(My hope is that when you saw the photo for this post on my website, you were surprised, or shocked. It hopefully seemed quite out of place. And it should.)

Last night my four-year-old daughter, Emma, and I walked through nearly the entirety of our local mall, and the volume of near-nudity prominently displayed in store fronts truly overwhelmed me. It was not hidden in the lingerie section near the back of a department store. Rather, right out in front, for every passer by.

I did some research when we got home and found out that there are an inordinate amount of lingerie stores in our mall. It could be that this is the reason that there are so many super-over-sized revealing photos, but still, you can’t walk down nearly any corridor of the mall without being bombarded by boobs.

Aerie storefront display - Girls in lingerie

I know I sound old saying this, but… I don’t remember this when I was a kid!

(Yep. Old.)

Now you can be shopping at the Apple Store for an iPad mini and get an eyeful of what amounts to “soft porn” at the same time. (There’s another “intimate apparel” store across the hall from our Apple Store.)

Am I overreacting here? I’m not sure. I am a guy, of course, and scantily clad, beautiful women do have a certain appeal, but what is that appeal? Certainly it is to my flesh—the part of me that is supposed to be dead. We are all well aware, however, that it still fights for life.

Jesus said that adultery is wrong, but that a man looking at a woman lustfully is just the same (since sin is a heart issue, before it’s a behavior issue) … but, I’m not sure that’s why I feel uncomfortable strolling the halls of the mall. (There wasn’t any lustful looking going on.)

I am more uncomfortable when my boys are with me. Aged 14 and 11 1/2, the internal chemicals are beginning to and have already worked their magic and the appeal of women dressed in little, even posed suggestively many times, well… that’s not something I want to test my boys’ will power on. And all to just find a new favorite well-used video game?

Last night it was Emma, who was certainly taking it all in. Once she said, “More bras! Ha!” (Yes, she’s awesome.) So I’m not really sure what she thinks about it, but she at least finds it somewhat humorous.

spencers

But I think in the end, I just find it sad. Near the end of our mall tour we passed Spencer’s. This particular window display was the most overt of all the stores in their attempt (in my opinion) to use sex to sell. (They might even more be selling sex, not simply lingerie, but…) I actually shook my head at their forwardness, and quickly moved along. Later when I was looking for store displays online to share with you here, I discovered that when you click the above banner—taken from their website, but this was also the current store front display—you have to consent to viewing adult material before going further into their site. So, perhaps they aren’t even trying to hide the soft porn part?

(Note: I actually do remember that my mom would direct us past and cast doubt upon the goodness of Spencer’s stores in our various malls. Though I do think we darkened their door a time or two along the way. I think my sister liked some of the stuff in there? I do not remember such displays in their front windows… but I do have this inner, red warning light regarding their establishment. Perhaps this is not a new development.)

What I think all of this reveals about us (yes, pun intended) is a culture that is certainly progressing more and more towards debauchery. Again, I know that I sound old suggesting that “my generation” wasn’t as perverse as “this generation”, and to an extent, I’m sure I’m wrong. People are people. We’re all dead in sin, none of us can escape that; one generation’s societal moral superiority notwithstanding.

But I really do think this is a symptom of a deeper sickness.

Families are now horribly rent asunder: rampant divorce, children outside marriage, multiple parents (but really no parents), gay marriage, abortion… they are all signs of our inner moral corruption and decay.

So it makes sense that we’d continue to feed our flesh—the part of us that drives this decay—and even progressively think less and less of it, allowing it to have more of a hold on us.

We’re naked under our clothes. (Did you know that?) Nakedness is not the sin. The way it’s used to appeal to our selfish, fleshly, worldly desires can be, and those desires can be. Paul said, “All things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial.” Perhaps that applies here.

I don’t think I’m talking about the over-sized posters, though.

It seemed so blatantly obvious last night on our walk through the mall that these are symptoms of a culture-wide decline; gradually slipping more and more toward full worldliness, and farther away from godliness. It makes sense, of course, as culturally we have been removing God from everyday life for several generations now. It’s certainly bound to happen this way.

I know I sound old. (And, I kind of am!) This generation is worse off morally than mine, but maybe not than my parents’ generation? (The sixties, hippies, etc? Could be we improved from that?) And we will continue the downward trend until, as individuals, and families, and then as a society we allow God to resume his rightful position as Father and leader and provider and all that he is and wants to be to us.

Until then, it shouldn’t surprise me what is displayed in the large windows of our public marketplaces. If we continue this way, it wouldn’t be shocking to see actual nudity soon, as well as much more sexual images.

This really is the visible symptoms of a deeper issue.

I want to say, “And I hope for our society’s sake that we turn to Jesus and live full lives as he intended us to!” … but I wonder if that’s my wrong thinking about “life to the full”. Life to the full is messy. We are messy, broken, sinners. We are in a broken world, and though we can experience a taste of true, unbroken life, we are still here, in this mess. And that will never change, until we’re not. So, no matter how much we, as a society, might turn to Jesus … the deeper issue here (not the symptoms) is part of the bigger picture of “full life” that God intended. I think.

That doesn’t mean I have to traverse the mall corridors, though. 🙂

I’ll finish by saying that I hope wherever you are right now, you know the Father, the One True God, and Jesus Christ whom he sent (John 17:3) and that you know his abundant grace and life and are living that fully and free from guilt and condemnation and judgement (John 3:17) … because that is how we’re meant to be.

(Clothed, or not.)

Note: The photos in this post are mostly taken from the retailers’ websites. My iPhone camera was not doing a good job capturing the images I wanted to use for this post. All of these images here were on display in three-times-real-life size in the store windows, as well as dozens more.

by Greg

Big Box Thinking

New-ish friend and somewhat-regular blog reader, Jessica, noticed a brief aside in this post not too long ago, and encouraged me to take some time to flesh out the thoughts that I previously quickly prohibited. (They were not directly related to the post being written then, and they also would have likely nearly doubled the length.) I did want to elaborate on the thought—at some point—but hadn’t gotten back to it yet.

Then today, I happened to hear someone lamenting that, “Nowadays, traveling state-to-state, you just see all the same things. The same stores, restaurants, etc. It’s all the same. But we’re not the same!”

Amen, said I.

That’s precisely my point. I believe the previous context was the emphasis we place on the election of the person to the office of President; the weight which we put on participation in this quadrennial event as opposed to the annual (and sometimes more often) elections for people who actually matter more to us in our daily lives.

Somehow we’ve gotten this idea that homogenous experiences trump individual, unique ones.

And so, all of our restaurants are the same. All of the stores we shop at are the same. In a few cases, what used to be many stores are all found in one place now. There is no difference from one city or state to the next, save a few landmarks and geographical differences. (And maybe the way they talk?)

And how could there be? We can travel around the world within a day. In fact, who needs to travel? We can be virtually anywhere at any time, thanks to technology. The “communities” we live in are getting smaller and smaller (along with being more homogenous) due to the accessibility we have to each other.

But is that all it is? Technology? I don’t think so. It feels like more. It seems like more. There is a general desire for a uniform experience, even uniform thinking. This is certainly a quality of human nature. It’s why peer pressure exists (and works), and it’s been employed by and on everyone for, well, probably since we came into existence.

The question is, does that truly agree with our nature? Is that the best thing for us?

As is quite obvious (despite our best efforts to hide it)… we are all different. E-ver-y, single, one of us. We might honestly have much in common with some folks we know, maybe especially our family, but when it comes down to it, we all are somehow, someway different from one another—maybe especially our family!

And that is how God designed us. He clearly made us with unique individual personalities and temperaments, likes and dislikes (loves and hates!), and he even made it more obvious with our outward appearance. As much as we are vastly different “on the inside”, we are just as obviously different “on the outside”. From skin tone to hair color (or lack of hair… color) to shapes of bodies to facial features; the list goes on and on.

We are different. Unique.

So why do we try to be the same?

Do you remember the segment on Sesame Street when we were growing up, “One of these things is not like the other…” The point of the activity was to look at several items and point out the one that was different. In that case, different was wrong, to be singled out and removed, changed to match the rest.

Hmmm… we learn things early in life, I guess?

The political stage is another great example of this. Maybe especially the current environment in our country. You are either liberal/Democrat or conservative/Republican. There are some who are “independent”—including Yours Truly who often trumpets his own libertarian leanings—but really, it often feels like most people are in one camp or the other. Then, depending on your location/current surroundings, there’s generally a consensus one way or the other on the “proper” worldview or ideology. Kinda scary, actually.

When we look at the commercial scene, the ubiquitous homogeneity continues. Chain restaurants are the most popular establishments, and can be found everywhere. When we traveled the country performing our music from ~2000 to ~2005, we discovered chains out west that we didn’t have here in the east, but even many of those are here now, and vice versa. (Not completely, of course. The general direction does seem to be toward being omnipresent, though.) For retail there are the Wal-marts, Targets, Costcos, etc. Each shopping mall across America also houses basically the same list of stores.

Is this good?

I was recently thinking about those restaurants. Even though I do enjoy their food, the fact that it is exactly the same food, same decor, same everything… kind of makes me question the reality of the food I’m consuming there. I mean, in order to achieve such a level of homogeneity, one would assume that there is at least a lack of fresh, local ingredients involved. (And in some cases, one might even question whether the homogenous product is actually consumable…)

(Note: One of our favorites of the chain restaurants is Chipotle. And, while they may meet most of the undesirable “chain” qualifications, I do believe they are somewhat unique in their use of local farms and fresh, local ingredients. Or, it may be that their delicious food has me very biased on this occasion…)

But not everyone is like this. (We are unique, remember?) There are folks who value their local retailers and eateries and groceries—does Wegmans count as our local grocer?? And there are people who care about local politics, local issues, local communities.

Is that better? I’m not sure. I keep coming back to it. I think we are made inside a fairly small enclosure (some of us larger than others) and when it comes down to it, we are only barely in control of just that: us. Everything else is out of our hands. So with our limited control, resources, abilities, and the whole being fixed to one place in time and space thing… it seems like smaller is what we’re made for.

Simpler. Nearer. More focus, more attention, more care given to where we are, who we are with.

Doesn’t that then spill over into the rest of our life? Being that we’re all in different places, with the potentially fewer relationships that cross our paths (though that can change many times over a long lifespan) … does that not precipitate a more unique experience?

I can definitely see the other side. The more experiences you have, the more different people you know, the more different you will be! But the other side of the coin seems to be that the greater our reach geographically, the more we want it to look and be the same.

I’m not really advocating one way over another here, just fleshing out some thoughts that have been surfacing in my brain every now and again. I do think we are made for simpler. But I am also completely aware of the fact that this might be part of my uniqueness. I might be made to be simpler? Perhaps.

However it turns out for you, just remember that you are unique. That could mean that you match a group of friends on 90% of your likes and dislikes and philosophies and worldviews.

But there’s still 10% that’s just you. And that’s definitely something to celebrate.

(Maybe with a nice dinner at your local diner?) 🙂

by Greg

Conditional Libertarianism

I have been enjoying Ron Paul’s book, Liberty Defined. Enjoying, and finding myself becoming frustrated by it.

See, there’s no doubt in my mind that I am mostly a libertarian. Mostly. I’m not completely one because I understand that people—you, and me—are sinful. We have a natural bent towards doing the wrong thing. (Or, not doing the right thing.) The Bible tells us so, and, well, so do our eyes and our reasoning. So a completely free society, with little to no rules/laws to govern our actions towards others… well, it just can’t work.

And the whole book that thought keeps returning. I keep thinking, You know, he’s so right on! We should have the freedom to choose what we want to do, not be made to conform to some behavior through some law or system of laws and regulations… But quickly on the heels of that thought are the reminders that the hearts of men are selfish and self-serving and devious. (I believe the word is “sinful”.)

George Washington mentioned the importance of morality and religion to society. (Basically, they can’t exist without those foundations.) Many others from the Generation of 1776 expressed similar sentiments. They knew that you can’t divorce liberty from responsibility, and they knew that our natural condition was fallen, sinful. (All of the restrictions built into our system of government are for precisely this reason!)

Does that mean Ron Paul is wrong? No, I still think he’s right, but since we can’t do away with sin, it’s mostly just a utopian view of life together as a nation, that can’t ever be fully realized.

I believe Mr. Paul realizes this, too, and he’s not truly advocating a completely lawless society. (I know he’s not wanting anarchy.)

And he does make some good points.

I recently read his thoughts on Marriage. (Each chapter of the book is essentially a short essay on issues that affect our freedom, and one of them tackled marriage.) I can’t quote the whole chapter, but I do wish you could/would read the whole chapter. (Just click the book cover at the top of this post to purchase a copy of the book, or check it out from your local library!)

This paragraph stuck out to me:

The supercharged emotions are on both extremes of the issue, because neither extreme accepts the principles of a free society. One side is all too willing to use the law to force a narrow definition of marriage on everyone without a hint of tolerance. The other side—a minority opinion—wants the law to help them gain social acceptance even though this is impossible for law to achieve. Those who seek social acceptance of gay marriage are also motivated by the desire to force government and private entities to provide spousal benefits. When dealing with government benefits, this becomes an economic redistribution issue—a problem that would not be found in a truly free society.1

“Neither extreme accepts the principles of a free society.” Wow is that true. We just can’t leave each other alone. We all have our various agendas, and we fight hard to make sure that the state—the law—makes everyone else think and act like we do. I said in yesterday’s post that this definitely won’t work.

So in a free society, each person should be allowed do as their conscience allows or instructs them to, unless it is somehow (actually) injurious to another. Instead, we must fight to be right, or to be accepted.

Paul concludes:

This issue hardly justifies an amendment to the Constitution; passage or even a heated debate only serves to divide us and achieves nothing. It is typical of how government intervention in social issues serves no useful purpose. With a bit more tolerance and a lot less government involvement in our lives, this needless problem and emotionally charged debate could be easily avoided.

His recommendation is to make marriage a private matter. “Though there may be a traditional dictionary definition of marriage, the First Amendment should include allowing people to use whatever definition they’d like.”

I concur. And I concur with much that Ron Paul has to say. (Remember? I am conditionally libertarian.)

If you are looking for a good, thought-provoking, conversation-starting read, I recommend, “Liberty Defined”.

And, in the end, I will continue to agree with people like Ron Paul, who believe in allowing for the maximum amount of freedom possible in a society. Just remember that there must be limits—a conditional libertarianism, thanks to the “condition” of sin.

(Good thing Jesus took care of that in the long run!)

1 – Liberty Defined, Ron Paul, ©2011 Grand Central Publishing, p. 184

by Greg

What Elections Mean

I Voted stickersAnd so it ends. Or, begins? Continues?

The elections are over, and the American people have chosen. Whether state representative, Senator, Mayor, local judge, or President of the United States—we have chosen.

If your guy (or gal) won, you’re elated. Your confidence in the American people is restored or confirmed, and you’re glad that the majority of your neighbors are “thinking straight”.

If your guy (or gal) lost? Well, we’re in for it. We’ll get what’s coming to us. We have made our bed and now we get to lay in it. We can try again in a year or two or four, if there’s still a country left!

No matter which way the elections turned out, this is how the day after would have been. One group or the other celebrating or complaining, depending upon the results.

A Quick Lesson from History

What I have said for so long (here on this blog site, and in many conversations) is that elections are not where changes are made. They aren’t. Elections reveal where we already are. And what I see is that we are a very divided, and even confused nation.

In one way, that’s what we’re supposed to be. In what we call the Federalist Papers, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison laid out the reasoning behind the Constitution, so that everyone in every state could understand the idea of the Union that was being proposed. (There already was a Union, but it was so loose that it really almost wasn’t a Union.) One of their arguments for stability in such a diverse group of people—yes, even when we were only thirteen states, we were very diverse—was that there would be enough “factions” that no one majority group would dominate any minority groups. The more diverse the opinions and “passions” of the group (or faction, as Madison called them) the greater the likelihood of there being compromise; working together for their common good.

Listen to these words from Federalist 10:

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.

Doesn’t that sound like us today? Intriguing.

I’m getting slightly off track here. Please click through to Federalist 10, though, and read the rest. (And 9, too, since 10 is “part two”.) Better yet, read all of the Federalist Papers. It’s a great way to understand where we came from, who we are supposed to be (as a nation) and just republican/representative government in general. We recommend The Original Argument, a collection of these papers, “Adapted for the 21st Century” (says the publisher). We read it together with our 13- and 10-year-old sons. Very interesting history/civics lessons!

Back to my point: Elections reveal who we are, they don’t change who we are.

This is very important. Elections are in place because, one, we are a free people who have chosen to elect our representatives/leaders from amongst ourselves, and two, they occur “at regular intervals” to ensure that we remain a free people, and no one elected leader (or group of them) can usurp and retain that power indefinitely.

Elections are definitely important, but it’s not really where (true) change comes from.

Legislating Morality

Do you believe that too many people are being overlooked and forgotten by the systems in place, having to go without good food or medical care because those with money are not doing their fair share to correct this injustice? Do you know that what God cares about most is that we care for those who need it the most? Do you also feel that so many people are just blind to this!? “Why can’t they see how wrong they are!?”

Do you believe 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? Do you feel that economy, commerce, and thus, communities will thrive if only they are free of heavy—and unnecessary—government intervention, regulation, restrictions, and especially taxing. (AND, do you feel that the money being collected for taxes is not only exorbitant, but equally wastefully spent or more so?) Then, with these truths being so obvious to you, do you feel incredulous that so many people are just blind to this!? “Why can’t they see how wrong they are!?”

…

So, do you truly believe that “those people”—either side—will change if you or someone who agrees with you is given a place of power that would allow them to force—by law—the actions that you wish them to take? Will that actually foster the change you desire?

You can NOT legislate morality. (But… we should stop people from killing each other. It’s rather difficult to co-exist when murder is an acceptable response to a grievance.)

It is right to want to help people, especially the ones who can’t help themselves.
It is right to hate greed, and to stop any actions that are a result of it.
It is right to love freedom.
It is right to encourage personal responsibility and education, and an active love for our neighbors.

But you can’t make that happen by electing someone, or passing a law.

I Think We’ve Been Here Before…

There is a post I’ve not yet finished called “The Tytler Cycle” (the attribution of the “cycle” to Alexander Tytler is questioned, but the veracity of the words are not in doubt, proven by history again and again.)

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

  • From bondage to spiritual faith;
  • From spiritual faith to great courage;
  • From courage to liberty;
  • From liberty to abundance;
  • From abundance to selfishness;
  • From selfishness to complacency;
  • From complacency to apathy;
  • From apathy to dependence;
  • From dependence back into bondage.

OK, so, different folks will place us (the United States) at various places on that cycle, but most will place us somewhere in the lower part of that list. Where would you say we are?

Regardless, it does seem to be a cycle that we (human beings) can not break out of. It happened many times in the Bible—just read the book of Judges. Every time I read that book I can’t help but think, WHAT are they thinking?? It has happened through history, and it will keep happening.

I do believe we are somewhere on the lower part of the list, but not to the bottom. And I think we, as a society, keep wanting to go further towards bondage. We don’t WANT liberty. We want to be told what to do, what to think… and we want to have everything we need (or want), without the cost or effort it should take to get it.

I believe that was revealed by our elections. We voted for other people to take care of stuff for us: “the rich”, the federal government. I think that is our mindset, worldview, paradigm. (Not all of us, but a majority of us.) It was evidenced by not only the choice for president, but many other elections as well, including various proposals (legalization of marijuana, gay marriage, etc.) albeit in somewhat different applications.

I’ll say it once more: Elections reveal who we are (and what’s important to us), they do not change who we are.

Education, education, education.

A free society, who chooses their own leaders—and also their own laws and codes of conduct, which are based on some commonly understood and agreed upon moral foundation—must be educated. We have public education, higher education, lower education? There’s no shortage of talk about education. But the “short” of it is that we are not educated.

(This—history of education, current state of education—is an enormous subject that I will not attempt to cover here. There are many books… and I have brought it up from time to time already. Browse this tag and this tag, if you’d like.)

The only way real change comes is through generations and generations of education and choices/action. Slavery was outlawed in the U.S. on January 1st, 1808—following generation after horrible generation of a reality that never should have been—but it took until 1865 to officially set all of the slaves free. And then it took another one hundred years to allow equal rights to the descendants of those who had been slaves.

Today we think it’s a “choice” to end a life begun in a woman’s womb. Certainly it is, as much as slavery was a “choice”. We think it’s a choice to marry someone of your same gender (well, some would say it’s not a choice…) and of course that is true, too.

We are all given choice. Free will. We can do whatever we’d like, really. The issue is the consequences, and the previously agreed upon “standards” that will govern a society, and our interaction with our neighbors. Clearly there are different thoughts, opinions, and “passions” regarding that currently in our society, and I think there will continue to be. (Partly I think we’re becoming less diverse because of the way we are educating our younger generations: teaching them what to think, rather than how to think.)

In the end we get to decide, and then we get to live with those choices. Nothing will change regarding abortion no matter which candidate we select. And if you believe that we as a society should mandate caring for the poor (or the not-wealthy) by taxing “the rich”, you’re not going to win over those who disagree simply by electing a candidate who will enact such policies.

Ultimately you can only “win” (read: enact true change) by educating people to the strengths of what you believe. People are smart, and can be trusted when given the facts. We are all endowed by our Creator with freedom to know and to choose. Whether we won or lost an election, nothing changed because of that. The only real change happens inside someone’s heart, and mind, and then spreads outward from there. (In their home/family, to their community, and beyond.)

(Note: I’m not sure that we want to make it our goal to change other people’s thinking. But, that is my inner libertarian coming out…)

We will not transform America (one way or another) by an election. Any election, with any result. But, God willing, we Americans will return to the One whom so many of the Founders knew and trusted, and repeatedly credited with the formation of this Great Experiment called the United States of America. I don’t see the majority of us being founded in our trust of Him. We are still a free people choosing and being our own government, though, not by force or lineage. That is unique in history, and was greatly celebrated when we accomplished it just two hundred thirty-six years ago.

It still should be today. Elections are wonderful. But don’t put too much stock in them for “accomplishing your mission”. They’re a good barometer of who we are, and what we think.

And there’s another one coming soon.

Last Words

Finally, for those who follow Jesus, I leave you with these two thoughts:

Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God. So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished. For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you. The authorities are God’s servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God’s servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong. So you must submit to them, not only to avoid punishment, but also to keep a clear conscience.

Pay your taxes, too, for these same reasons. For government workers need to be paid. They are serving God in what they do. Give to everyone what you owe them: Pay your taxes and government fees to those who collect them, and give respect and honor to those who are in authority. —Romans 13:1-7

And, most importantly…

…the LORD has told you what is good, and this is what he requires of you: to do what is right, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. —Micah 6:8

by Greg

On Electing A President (And Other Election Day 2012 Thoughts)

Today is the first Tuesday in November, and that means we’re voting here in the U. S. of A.!

(But, if you’re alive, you are probably aware of that.)

And, every four years we get a little more excited because we are voting for the President! That’s big stuff!

While I will admit that it is, in a way, “big stuff”, I keep feeling like, it shouldn’t be.

Voting is definitely something we should be glad that we are able to do. We have a full voice in so many different races for so many different government positions (and various proposals, as well). That is not something we should dismiss, nor forsake.

But I keep thinking that the whole President thing gets so blown out of proportion. We treat our president as somewhat of a “king”. (Although, we are glad he’s only “king” for four years at a time, and for a maximum of eight years… except for FDR.) We presume and grant authorities to the Executive Branch that were not intended for one person to have. (There’s just something in us that longs for a king…)

It’s been going on for a while. And not just one party’s man. Executive orders, “czars”, budget proposals, laws, etc.

(Note: George W Bush and Ronald Reagan had such “officers” in abundance as much as Barack Obama, who is oft-criticized for his “czars”. From what I can tell, referencing posts appointed by the Executive as “Czars” goes as far back as Woodrow Wilson.)

These are not things the President/Executive is meant to be doing.

The Congress shall make the laws… The President will be the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, and has the power to convene and adjourn sessions of congress, and even make treaties, if two thirds of the Senators approve. And, well… I’m just going to quote it:

and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

So, here’s the thing. When the first thirteen states decided to form the union we were all born into, they really didn’t want a king. They put nearly ALL of the power for everything in the hands of (1) the states, (2) the two branches of congress of those states, with equal and population-based representation, and (3) they checked that power with a very limited Executive officer (President), and a judiciary branch. But the true power was in the State and Local governments. (NOT in the Federal government.)

And really, that is what we have lost, and why we put SO much emphasis on this quadrennial election of one man (or woman).

They used to refer to our country in the plural, “The United States are …”, but of course, we have been ever-increasingly a large, amorphous single entity, “The United States is…”

And so, we spend millions of dollars, listen to endless debates, go through nearly two years of campaigning … for the one office of temporary king.

Fascinating.

The REALLY fascinating thing is, we still do the electoral college! Seriously? 🙂

For some reason, though we think “is” rather than “are” regarding our nation, we still rely on the Electors from each state to grant all of the votes from that state to one candidate (in theory) of their choosing. I don’t know (and am not going to look it up right now) if an Elector or a state has ever gone against the popular vote in that state since we have had popular votes, but… well, I guess they could?

Did you know there were Presidents elected who were not voted on by all the people? That was another indication in the Constitution of the limited role the President would play.

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves.

And then, if there was a tie, the House of Representatives would vote to choose the President, with the second person on that vote being elected as the Vice President, with a tie there being broken by a vote by the Senate.

Again… fascinating.

In a republican government (please note the small “r”), the emphasis was on the representation in smaller units. First in a local community, choosing a representative in their state government, and then those representatives choosing some from among them to represent their state in congress with the other states of the union. Thus, in theory, you are actually represented. (With a lesser emphasis placed on the representation the further away from you it got.)

Somehow today (over many generations) we have slid into more of a view that the further away representative is the more important choice. I think there is some correlation between our love for big box stores and franchised/chain restaurants, but… I’m too tired to flesh that out. 🙂

I will vote today as soon as we can get to the polls. I look forward to it. I like voting for the people we know in our small town. I like voting for people who have similar views of government to mine.

I just like voting. I’m glad that we can.

And I hope you will. And encourage everyone you know to vote, too. (If they don’t know who to vote for, don’t just tell them who to vote for! Give them a quick overview of the options, and what they stand for. As unbiased as possible?) 🙂

Get out today and vote. It may not be a perfect system (or what the writers of the Constitution envisioned) but it’s still likely the best in the world, and we’re privileged to be part of it.

(And if you don’t like the results, then hit the campaign trails earlier next time! Either for your preferred candidate/representative, or YOU could be the representative! You never know …)

by Greg

On Chick-fil-A… and diversity in general

Chick-fil-A Eat Mor ChikinFirst, I am not really a big fan of Chick-fil-A’s food. (But my wife really is, so it’s a special treat when we are in Chick-fil-A territory!) Thus, this post is not really about their food, or their fun kid’s meal toys, or the fact that they play Christian music in their restaurants, nor that they are closed on Sundays.

But you probably already knew that.

If you haven’t heard—and, well, it’s possible that you haven’t?—the Christian-owned, alternative-to-cows restaurant has been in the news for the past month thanks to remarks that company president and COO, Dan Cathy. Here’s what he said:

Re: the “crisis of fatherlessness”

As an employer, first off, just from that perspective, I see it as a real crisis, in the sense that there is a certain amount of emotional DNA—there’s physical DNA obviously that comes from the dad and also from the mom, but beyond that—there’s some essential emotional DNA that God intended for us to give, from a mother and a dad that, we observe over our life as children—in infancy, and then growing up—that we can only get from our dad, and we can only get from a mother. And we’re to get it in a home, dynamic environment where they’re interrelating together, to build the stability and the self-esteem that God wants us to have to get through our teenage years.

Now when we don’t have one side or the other, you know, I just have to tell you, I think we’re just emotionally handicapped. Doesn’t mean we can’t survive and have a happy life, but it means that we’re gonna have some odds stacked against us. Hopefully there can be somebody that intervenes to help make that up for us. But, uh, to have so many people today that are growing up in homes where they don’t have a mom and dad—I’ll tell you, as an employer, it makes it that much more difficult for us, because we sometimes actually have to have a parenting role.

As it relates to society in general, I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage. And, I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we would have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is all about.

Wait. Is that all?

Yep.

Where is the controversy? WHERE is the “anti-gay” that peppers every headline on from every “news” organization?

No really. Where is it?

See, so much of what we hear (and react to) is hype. And it’s predetermined. “What? Someone promoted a traditional, Mom-and-Dad-in-the-same-home family?? THEY HATE GAYS! Boycott!! Tell everyone you know!!!” And then the reaction, “What? They’re attacking my favorite Christian restaurant for speaking the truth against legalizing gay marriage??! Get out and support them! Buy ‘mor chikin’! Tell all your friends!!”

Ugh.

First of all, if you have the time, please listen to this clip—the one that started this recent fury… I mean, flurry of activity on the blogs, social media, and news sites. The whole Dan Cathy interview starts around 21:28, and the part quoted above starts at 29:43. Cathy was a guest on the Ken Coleman Show (never heard of it…) on Father’s Day weekend, talking about his Dad, and his own marriage of 40-plus years to his one wife, and the benefits of a Mom-and-Dad, stable family. Listen:

People. Please. PLEASE. Stop the knee-jerk reactions. Your favorite commentarians (that’s not a word) are NOT ALWAYS RIGHT. Probably not usually right. Take a breath… use Google (or other resources… talking to actual people is good, too!) 🙂 and try to find what is actually being said. If the headline says “Anti”-anything, plan on doing some major filtering. Find quotes, but find LONG quotes. Look for the sources of those quotes (like the show above).

I just can’t believe the agenda that nearly everyone has, one way or another. Truth does not appear to be as important as being first to post, or furthering one’s own worldview—whether or not the item being discussed actually supports or even has anything to do with said agenda.

I will keep pounding this drum till the cows come home. Listen to each other. Go to the source. Believe in each other.

We have to stop using the word “anti” unless it’s really true. Pro-traditional family is not anti-anything! (Except anti-non-traditional-family? But it’s still not anti if it’s FOR something.) Aren’t people who want women to have the choice to end a pregnancy nearly always referred to as “Pro-Choice”? But the opposite side of that argument—those who are actually against abortion—are called anti-abortion-ers. (Though, that side prefers Pro-Life, I believe.) That seems to be a case where words are used correctly.

But what Dan Cathy said, and those who think traditional, one man, one woman, married for life family is a better option (or, the best option), can not be labeled “anti-gay”—or anti-anything—when they are promoting, not protesting.

He is welcome to believe and even promote what he believe (unless it actually injures someone else, or keeps them from doing the same), and everyone else can listen (or not) and then respond (or not) as they see fit. But, as I said above, the response should follow really listening. Not just a knee-jerk (“pre-programmed”) response to a second-to-forty-fourth-hand report about what “someone said”.

There are many more articles to read. Please browse at your leisure.

And be nice.

by Greg

The Declaration

Declaration of Independence

We’ve begun something of a new tradition here in the Campbell home. On the 4th of July, we read through the Declaration of Independence. It’s pretty amazing how the truths stated in this 236-year-old document are just as true now. Sadly many of the reasons given for “throwing off” the government under which those people found themselves could easily be said of the government we find ourselves “under” today. (Though, according to our constitution, We the People are not under the government… we are the government!)

For the record (though you can find it in many other places, too):

The Declaration of Independence

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 entitles 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly, all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of governments. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative Houses repeatedly for opposing with manly firmness his invasion on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone for the tenure of their offices and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to ren-der it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They, too, have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our separation and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in general Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliance, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

Signers of the Declaration of Independence
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

MASSACHUSETTS: John Hancock, John Adams, Samuel Adams, Robert Treat Paine

RHODE ISLAND: Elbridge Gerry, Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

CONNECTICUT: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

NEW YORK: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

NEW JERSEY: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

PENNSYLVANIA: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

DELAWARE: Ceasar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

MARYLAND: Samuel Chase, Thomas Stone, William Paca, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

VIRGINIA: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

NORTH CAROLINA: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

SOUTH CAROLINA: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Authur Middleton

GEORGIA: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

For further reading, there’s a great collection of original documents available online here at WallBuilders.com, from David Barton.

by Greg

Rick Boyer on Government Schools

Take Back The Land - Rick BoyerI am currently reading a book along with my son, Ian, called Take Back The Land, by Rick Boyer. Mr. Boyer is a home schooling superstar. If you home school, chances are you are already familiar with him. (If you’re not familiar with the book, I highly recommend it—and I’m only a few chapters in!)

The Boyers have 14 kids, they were home schooling when it was definitely only questionably “legal”, and they have spent 30 years not only educating their own family, but helping thousands of other families do the same.

(By the way… can you believe there was a time in the United States of America when it was potentially illegal to choose to educate your own kids rather than put them into the government education system?)

The book is aimed at young people (primarily home schooled young people 12-ish to 20-ish) and is a longer version of a speech he gave to a “graduating class” at a home school conference not long ago. His basic premise/challenge to the young reader: Grow up! Our culture has been steadily expecting less and less from young people, and so they play video games and don’t really do much of anything until much later in life than they could. He’s spot on so far in nearly everything he’s saying (and Ian thinks so, too).

I look forward to finishing the book (hopefully today) and probably discussing it more here, but for today, there was a section about Government Schools I wanted to highlight. I’ve offered my thoughts on this site a time or two. Mr. Boyer also described these institutions well:

One reason I believe home education is the key to revival in our culture is that it is a rejection of the system that I blame in large part for our present apostasy, the “public” school system. That’s a misnomer, of course. The schools are government schools. They’re not public at all, except in the sense that the public pays the taxes that support them and suffers the consequence of their existence. The government controls what is taught in those schools, and the parents who are rearing the students and paying the taxes for the schools have almost no input. Their values are not respected and in fact are often undermined.

The quote continues, but I just wanted to stop there and point out that this is really true… it’s not like a public library, or a public park where you can go and use it at any time you’d like, in any way that suits you. In many (most? all?) ways you’re either all in, or not in at all. And regarding taxes … do you remember this post?

Let’s keep going with the quote. This is the good part:

There was a time, early on in our history, when everybody would have laughed at the idea of compulsory school attendance. In the first place, it wasn’t needed. There was homeschooling, tutoring, and lots of affordable private schools. Literacy was much higher at the time of the American Revolution than it is now (see John Taylor Gatto, Dumbing Us Down). [editor’s note: Gatto’s books on education are on my to-read list…] Schooling wasn’t worshipped as the answer to all problems because people had been educating themselves for generations with little time spent in school.

Sorry for the long quote. I felt it was a necessary context for this:

More importantly, the compulsory nature of today’s schooling would have seemed both weird and offensive. In the early days, when Americans could remember the struggle to become a free country, the idea of a law confining innocent people to government institutions for most of each day, five days a week, nine months of the year would not have been tolerated. It would have been seen for what it is: imprisonment of the innocent. Promoters of compulsory attendance pointed to the very small percentage of American children who were not being educated and used them as an argument for their agenda. Once again, the needs of a very few were used as leverage to infringe on the freedom of all.

Emphasis mine. Almost done. (This one is not fully quoted… just a few key phrases):

Once compulsory attendance had become the law of the land (around the early 1900s), the public school system gave the government and those who had influence in government the opportunity to effectively brainwash a large percentage of the population. That’s partly why public attitudes toward moral, economic, and political issues changed so radically over the last hundred years.

…I blame government education for a lot of the problems we have today, especially the erosion of our freedom. Our public schools provide just the kind of young people one would expect a government to want: passive, uncritical thinkers who are unlikely to start any revolutions; conditioned by long practice to do what they’re told, moving in groups, with weak family loyalties and strong peer dependency.

There are many reasons we home school. He listed some of them. We can’t really imagine not home schooling our children. Again, for all of the reasons he mentions here. We want our kids to be fully who they are. To learn about the world in whole, not the world with God—who planned, and made, and holds it all together—wholly removed from the picture.

There really is a lot more, but… you might want to just buy the book. 🙂

Now, time to stop writing, and get back to reading!

by Greg

D-Day: When Things Mattered

Last night we honored D-Day (June 6th) by watching an episode of Ken Burns’: The War (on Netflix). It follows the lives of four guys who lived through WWII, and specifically that day in Normandy.

It invoked so many thoughts and emotions… I certainly can not describe and share them all here.

The one prevailing thought I had, however, was that there is right and wrong.

These guys—just kids—were willing to give up their lives (literally!) in order to go over and make right what someone (or a large group of someones) made wrong… for somebody else!

That can not be emphasized enough.

The aggressors (Nazi Germany) were bent on eradicating the Jews (and just non-Aryans, right?) and were expanding their territory across sovereign nation after sovereign nation until the brave, heroic, persons of principle among the nations stood up and said, “You shall not pass!”

And they truly were brave. Heroes. Righteous. Courageous.

Not that they were flawless human beings. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Some of them were maybe even “bad” guys… but they stood up for what was right. That made them heroes.

They literally gave up their lives (I contend even the guys who didn’t die on D-Day were never the same again)… and it was for other people. Not the US. Not Americans (directly). It was not to expand our territory or influence or whatever… it was just taking a stand against evil.

Some today think that war is always wrong. They think that generations are not different. In a way that is correct: people are people. But there was something in my grandparents’ generation that was different. I’m not sure if it was a product of the circumstances of their day, or if it was that they had not yet removed God and respect and decency and morality from the general fabric of society. Maybe it was both. But whatever it was, we still owe to them (the world, not just America) an incomprehensible, inestimable debt of gratitude.

We mostly argue about ridiculous things today, things that really don’t matter. (We are free to do so in part because of the courageous choices and actions of these men.) Sometimes I think we argue for the sake of arguing. Political gaming. Blagh.

Things matter. People matter. Someday I think we (our nation, and as individuals) will be faced with a similar crisis. At that point, I wonder what that generation will do? Will their descendants someday label them the “greatest generation”? Or will that moniker forever be inexorably bound to the generation whose men bravely stormed the beaches at Normandy… until they had either given up their life, or succeeded in preserving freedom for the world?

I think we will someday find out, one way or another. Somehow we always get to decide if we’re going to stand, or stand by.

On D-Day… (and in many other battles) they chose to stand.