Reference is made to James Ronald Kennedy's book, Reclaiming Liberty, pp. 147-161.
The Declaration of Independence states, "These truths we hold to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights...that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." It is a basic American core value that every citizen has a God-given inalienable right to guide and direct his/her own life as he/she sees fit, free of government interference, so long as he/she does not inflict physical injury upon the persons or properties of other people, and does not financially pick other people's pockets or bank accounts. Implicit in free choice is the understanding that individuals must take personal responsibility for the consequences of their choices, and not shift blame or responsibility to other people.
Compulsory government public education violates this basic American core principle, especially in that education establishment officials prescribe certain academic courses as "necessary" for children grades 1-12 to take, ostensibly "for their own good". In so doing, education establishment officials also violate the students' U.S. Constitution First Amendment freedom of assembly/association, by making students of incongruent personalities and social values to associate with one another, also ostensibly "for their own good". Such arrogance presumes parents to be too lacking in academic and intellectual acumen, i.e. stupid, to decide for themselves the education of their own children. Involuntary servitude in violation of the U.S. Constitution 13th Amendment? Maybe. But suffice it to say at least that the proposition that children are a gift from God to their parents is abrogated by the public school education establishment. This scenario is not consistent with American values, it is more like Nazi Germany, in the which Adolf Hitler and the Nazis told adults, "We do not care what you think, because we have your children."
Public government schools eventually do benefit society-at-large, not only those having children who make use of them. Nevertheless, what of the future of individual students? There is a valid debate between the desirability of a "well-rounded education", versus that of high-powered specialization in one discipline. Nevertheless, the decision concerning this debate should be made by children's parents, not by any government education officials. Parents, not government education bureaucrats, are ultimately responsible for the education of their own children. In some cases, parents can and do pass on to their children all the necessary skills they(the children) will need, to economically survive and prosper in the future. Other parents may pass on to their children but some useful skills, and may wish to use public schools as a complementary tool, to guarantee their children's future financial success and survival. But this decision must be made exclusively by parents. In cases where students wish to seize academic initiative by studying through private resources topics similar to those taught in public schools, public schools must accept as academic credit towards graduation the private study of the student, pending the successful passing by the student of an exam in the academic subject designed and administered by the public school. Many universities and colleges in America already do this. Public schools should do likewise. The requirement for graduation from high school should be determined only by numbers of academic credit-hours taken, and not by completion of specific academic subject courses "for students' own good".
"The Lord loves a cheerful giver", states the Bible, in II Corinthians 9:7. So it must be with education: we want children in class-rooms who want to be there and are eager to learn, and not those who view education as a dreadful drudgery of abject abomination. Indeed, the truly successful teacher is the one who inspires his/her students to continue studying independently his/her academic subject, long after they have left his/her classroom. Persuasion, not coercion, will get this job done. Any idea requiring coercion for its realization is most likely a strongly undesirable one anyway.
"No child left behind" also sounds like no child can get ahead. It is a socialist concept mandating that all children march lock-step together academically, because as soon as some get ahead, others by definition will be left comparatively behind. Is it not true, that the greatest minds have been those of "up-stream swimmers" who went against the crowd? Where would America be today, had Henry Ford, the Wright brothers and Thomas Alva Edison been placed in a socialist educational environment in the which they were forbidden to "get ahead" of the common masses?
Public education must not be totally abolished, but perhaps placed into partnership with private education, in guaranteeing to each individual student his/her right to decide and direct his/her own future. Especially in times of severe budget cuts and restrictions to public schools, partnership with private supplementary education is key to successful achievement of this goal. In any event, it is time for professional educators themselves to go back to school, and learn that ours is to be a government by the people, and not a people by the government.
-Lawrence K. Marsh
Monday, January 18, 2010
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Vox Populi Vox Humbug!
In the beginning of America's national history, its founders established the nation not as a democracy, but rather, as a constitutional republic in the which individual citizens shall be extended certain individual liberties to exercise as they please, regardless of either partisan government wish or majority public opinion. The nation's founders both understood and feared the potential tyranny of absolute majoritarian democracy. This concept is consistent with the Bible scripture of Matthew 18:11-14, where Jesus Christ tells of the good shepherd who leaves his flock of 99 sheep, to look for one which is lost. In the sight of God, every individual is supremely valuable: "Even so, it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish." (Matthew 18:14). Thus today, we have in the U.S. Constitution the Bill of Rights, which are granted to individual citizens against either mobocracy or government encroachment upon them. Freedom is unfortunately not automatically self-enforcing, and individuals, above all, need the shield of the law to protect them against majoritarian popular opinion.
Are majorities always right? Individual inventors have often been ridiculed in their own life-times by collective majority opinion against them, saying their ideas are nonsensical and thus worthy of summary dismissal. Yet the courage of inventors to "swim upstream" against popular opinion at the time has greatly advanced civilization-at-large in later generations. Suppose Henry Ford and the Wright brothers surrendered to popular majority opinion of their day, where would America be today without the automobile and the airplane? In the early years of American military involvement in Viet Nam, nearly all members of Congress voted to approve the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Only two members of the U.S. Senate--Wayne Morse of Oregon and Ernest Gruening of Alaska--had the courage of their personal convictions to vote against the resolution, to say American involvement in Viet Nam was a political mistake from the beginning. Only as the war continued into the next decade with increase of American death and expenditure of money for the war, with no apparent satisfactory conclusion in sight, did Americans in large numbers find the courage to jump onto the band-wagon and say, "me-too", as opposition to the American misadventure in Viet Nam became more popular. But the credit for true, principled bravery goes to those two United States Senators, who from the beginning defied overwhelming majority opinion and voted their honest consciences on the war question.
The Bible records that Jesus Christ was crucified with majority opinion popular approval. That same majority voted to have released from prison a criminal named Barabbas, saying Jesus Christ should be crucified in his place. (Matthew 27:15-26) This same Jesus Christ also said that the road to destruction is wide, while the road to salvation in God's kingdom is narrow, and few would find it. Not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" to Jesus Christ will enter God's kingdom, but just those who do God's will. (Matthew 7:13-27) He warned His followers that even as He is unpopular, His followers likewise would be hated by the world, and would suffer persecution at its hands. (John 15:18-20) The wide popularity of certain publicly-prominent individuals claiming to be Christian is therefore a sure sign and stamp that they are not of God. God has a reason for preference of the unpopular over the popular, as stated by the apostle Paul in I Corinthians 1:23-29: "...that no flesh should glory in His presence."
Right and wrong cannot be decided by substitution of numbers in place of absolute principle. Ethnic and religious minority groups who have had a history of persecution at the hands of a hostile majority can well-testify to this proposition, not just in America, but world-wide. What, then, about protection for the smallest of all minorities, the individual? What would the majority of people say of Jesus Christ today, were He to return to earth in the flesh now, and start up His ministry as He first did two thousand years ago? Is it not true that popular ideas, truths, practices and organizations begin as a vision in the mind of just one individual? If we could transport all Christians of our modern times back to Israel in the time of Jesus Christ, and He called out those transported Christians of today to be His first twelve apostles, how many of them would have the courage to answer His call and step up to the plate in the face of overwhelming popular unbelief?
We in America today must be careful not to outlaw actions and behaviours of other people just on the basis of their unpopularity alone. In so doing, our society-at-large may kill the proverbial goose that laid the golden egg, and lose valuable insight to the advancement of human civilization.
-LKM
Are majorities always right? Individual inventors have often been ridiculed in their own life-times by collective majority opinion against them, saying their ideas are nonsensical and thus worthy of summary dismissal. Yet the courage of inventors to "swim upstream" against popular opinion at the time has greatly advanced civilization-at-large in later generations. Suppose Henry Ford and the Wright brothers surrendered to popular majority opinion of their day, where would America be today without the automobile and the airplane? In the early years of American military involvement in Viet Nam, nearly all members of Congress voted to approve the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Only two members of the U.S. Senate--Wayne Morse of Oregon and Ernest Gruening of Alaska--had the courage of their personal convictions to vote against the resolution, to say American involvement in Viet Nam was a political mistake from the beginning. Only as the war continued into the next decade with increase of American death and expenditure of money for the war, with no apparent satisfactory conclusion in sight, did Americans in large numbers find the courage to jump onto the band-wagon and say, "me-too", as opposition to the American misadventure in Viet Nam became more popular. But the credit for true, principled bravery goes to those two United States Senators, who from the beginning defied overwhelming majority opinion and voted their honest consciences on the war question.
The Bible records that Jesus Christ was crucified with majority opinion popular approval. That same majority voted to have released from prison a criminal named Barabbas, saying Jesus Christ should be crucified in his place. (Matthew 27:15-26) This same Jesus Christ also said that the road to destruction is wide, while the road to salvation in God's kingdom is narrow, and few would find it. Not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" to Jesus Christ will enter God's kingdom, but just those who do God's will. (Matthew 7:13-27) He warned His followers that even as He is unpopular, His followers likewise would be hated by the world, and would suffer persecution at its hands. (John 15:18-20) The wide popularity of certain publicly-prominent individuals claiming to be Christian is therefore a sure sign and stamp that they are not of God. God has a reason for preference of the unpopular over the popular, as stated by the apostle Paul in I Corinthians 1:23-29: "...that no flesh should glory in His presence."
Right and wrong cannot be decided by substitution of numbers in place of absolute principle. Ethnic and religious minority groups who have had a history of persecution at the hands of a hostile majority can well-testify to this proposition, not just in America, but world-wide. What, then, about protection for the smallest of all minorities, the individual? What would the majority of people say of Jesus Christ today, were He to return to earth in the flesh now, and start up His ministry as He first did two thousand years ago? Is it not true that popular ideas, truths, practices and organizations begin as a vision in the mind of just one individual? If we could transport all Christians of our modern times back to Israel in the time of Jesus Christ, and He called out those transported Christians of today to be His first twelve apostles, how many of them would have the courage to answer His call and step up to the plate in the face of overwhelming popular unbelief?
We in America today must be careful not to outlaw actions and behaviours of other people just on the basis of their unpopularity alone. In so doing, our society-at-large may kill the proverbial goose that laid the golden egg, and lose valuable insight to the advancement of human civilization.
-LKM
Monday, December 14, 2009
By What Authority Do You Preach?
The Bible records that the scribes and Pharisees, the educated "priestly class" of New Testament times, constantly hounded Jesus Christ with the question, "By what authority do you preach?" (Matthew 21:23-24). Jesus Christ was by profession a mere carpenter, who learned that trade from His earthly father. By comparison to the theology-educated scribes and Pharisees, He hardly had any formal credentials by which to recommend Himself. Yet, He in his youth astounded the chief priests of the temple, as He taught with authority.
The Bible also records that He authorized His twelve apostles to preach in His name, saying "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every living creature." (Mark 16:15). He also is recorded as sending out His twelve apostles (Matthew 10:5-7) to tell the lost sheep of the house of Israel that the kingdom of God is at hand. Yet those apostles, like Jesus Christ Himself, were not formally-educated professional theologians, but were of humble worldly professions. Several, for example, were mere fishermen. Here was the beginning of the notion of a lay clergy. Indeed, Jesus said that the hireling cares not for the sheep of the flock, and runs away when the wolves come to attack them(John 10:12-13).
At the time of the Protestant reformation, when Martin Luther stood before the Diet of Worms to answer to the Catholic church authorities of his day for his accusations against the established church, he refused to recant his ideas, saying, "Here I stand! I can do no other!" Based on the scriptures, Martin Luther established the proposition of infallibility resting with the Bible scriptures themselves, rather than with a professional church hierarchy. He also therefore established the notion of the universal priesthood of all Bible believers.
Today, followers of Jesus Christ preach by inspiration of the Holy Spirit revealed through Bible scripture, and not by academic certificates awarded by theological seminaries and colleges. "By their fruits you will kinow them", said Jesus Christ, in acknowledgement that deeds are a stronger witness than mere words in the proliferation of His gospel(Matthew 7:15-20).
-LKM
The Bible also records that He authorized His twelve apostles to preach in His name, saying "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every living creature." (Mark 16:15). He also is recorded as sending out His twelve apostles (Matthew 10:5-7) to tell the lost sheep of the house of Israel that the kingdom of God is at hand. Yet those apostles, like Jesus Christ Himself, were not formally-educated professional theologians, but were of humble worldly professions. Several, for example, were mere fishermen. Here was the beginning of the notion of a lay clergy. Indeed, Jesus said that the hireling cares not for the sheep of the flock, and runs away when the wolves come to attack them(John 10:12-13).
At the time of the Protestant reformation, when Martin Luther stood before the Diet of Worms to answer to the Catholic church authorities of his day for his accusations against the established church, he refused to recant his ideas, saying, "Here I stand! I can do no other!" Based on the scriptures, Martin Luther established the proposition of infallibility resting with the Bible scriptures themselves, rather than with a professional church hierarchy. He also therefore established the notion of the universal priesthood of all Bible believers.
Today, followers of Jesus Christ preach by inspiration of the Holy Spirit revealed through Bible scripture, and not by academic certificates awarded by theological seminaries and colleges. "By their fruits you will kinow them", said Jesus Christ, in acknowledgement that deeds are a stronger witness than mere words in the proliferation of His gospel(Matthew 7:15-20).
-LKM
Whatever Happened to Superman and John Wayne?
Thanksgiving, not Christmas or Easter, should be our favorite holiday of the year. It is the time to recall to our collective national memory our reliance upon both Almighty God and upon one another, for all that we are and all that we have, and the paramount importance of expressing gratitude for the same.
Among my fellow Christians at least, all too many will pray to God only when they are on the "down" side of life, to say, "Help, God! Get me out of this mess!" All too many will neglect and even refuse to pray to God when on the "up" side of life, to thank Him for placing them upon their proverbial mountain-top.
Our society has placed much value upon self-reliance. But how realistic is this social mantra? Is it not true, that somebody else somewhere contributes to all that we are, and all that we have? Some men, in their arrogance of pride, will deny their need for anybody else. "I'm a rock-'em sock-'em John Wayne-Chuck Norris-Arnold Schwarzenegger machismo man", they will say, "I can make it on my own, and if anybody gets in my way, I'll terminate them!" But the only problem here, Superman, is that the invention of cell phones has resulted in a deplorable dearth of telephone booths to which our mild-mannered news reporter Clark Kent can make a quick dash if necessary!
But wait! The story does not end there! You say Superman evolved from some one-celled low life in the remote past, just by godless random chance? Then, how does the path of evolution move ever-upward towards greater complexity in the face of sheer random chance? No, if we put Superman under an electron microscope and study his genetic DNA, we will see a vast myriad of amino acid molecules comprising his proteins, all lined up in a precise order. If even one amino acid is missing or out of order, guess what, folks? We do not have life! And what are the odds that the thousands of amino acid molecules would line up in precise order, just by random chance? Mathematicians have asked computers this same question repeatedly, and the answer has always come back as virtually zero! This phenomenon is called "irreducible complexity", and could God be trying to tell us something here? Given that birth defects have occurred, is it not then a miracle that most babies are born normal and healthy, with a million possibilities for something DNA-wise to go wrong? Indeed, the fool has said in his heart, "There is no god, to whom I should be thankful."
Yes, my fellow Americans, we must learn again to count our blessings and name them one-by-one. Today, the average American home could pass for the Prime Minister's residence in many foreign countries, and how many of us have the skills to single-handedly build such a home? President Abraham Lincoln was correct, to say we have become all too complacent in taking the Lord's choicest blessings upon this nation all too much for granted.
Finally, there is the issue of gratitude to one another. Who of us could single-handedly grow our own food, make our own clothes, construct our own automobiles we drive, and even extract from petroleum the gasoline necessary to move that automobile forward? Could John Wayne, Chuck Norris or Arnold Schwarzenegger do all that by themselves?
-LKM
Among my fellow Christians at least, all too many will pray to God only when they are on the "down" side of life, to say, "Help, God! Get me out of this mess!" All too many will neglect and even refuse to pray to God when on the "up" side of life, to thank Him for placing them upon their proverbial mountain-top.
Our society has placed much value upon self-reliance. But how realistic is this social mantra? Is it not true, that somebody else somewhere contributes to all that we are, and all that we have? Some men, in their arrogance of pride, will deny their need for anybody else. "I'm a rock-'em sock-'em John Wayne-Chuck Norris-Arnold Schwarzenegger machismo man", they will say, "I can make it on my own, and if anybody gets in my way, I'll terminate them!" But the only problem here, Superman, is that the invention of cell phones has resulted in a deplorable dearth of telephone booths to which our mild-mannered news reporter Clark Kent can make a quick dash if necessary!
But wait! The story does not end there! You say Superman evolved from some one-celled low life in the remote past, just by godless random chance? Then, how does the path of evolution move ever-upward towards greater complexity in the face of sheer random chance? No, if we put Superman under an electron microscope and study his genetic DNA, we will see a vast myriad of amino acid molecules comprising his proteins, all lined up in a precise order. If even one amino acid is missing or out of order, guess what, folks? We do not have life! And what are the odds that the thousands of amino acid molecules would line up in precise order, just by random chance? Mathematicians have asked computers this same question repeatedly, and the answer has always come back as virtually zero! This phenomenon is called "irreducible complexity", and could God be trying to tell us something here? Given that birth defects have occurred, is it not then a miracle that most babies are born normal and healthy, with a million possibilities for something DNA-wise to go wrong? Indeed, the fool has said in his heart, "There is no god, to whom I should be thankful."
Yes, my fellow Americans, we must learn again to count our blessings and name them one-by-one. Today, the average American home could pass for the Prime Minister's residence in many foreign countries, and how many of us have the skills to single-handedly build such a home? President Abraham Lincoln was correct, to say we have become all too complacent in taking the Lord's choicest blessings upon this nation all too much for granted.
Finally, there is the issue of gratitude to one another. Who of us could single-handedly grow our own food, make our own clothes, construct our own automobiles we drive, and even extract from petroleum the gasoline necessary to move that automobile forward? Could John Wayne, Chuck Norris or Arnold Schwarzenegger do all that by themselves?
-LKM
Saturday, December 12, 2009
LKM On Love and Marriage
The four-letter word "love" has been widely bandied-about in society over the decades, to mean many different things to many different people. In this connection, the notion and institution of marriage is deeply involved: today, America is witness to a shameful(shameless?)50% divorce rate, signaling a break-down in the institution of marriage.
Understandably, divorcing couples will emphatically claim that the undoing of their marital relation is strictly their own private business, and nobody elses. But when our national divorce rate stands at 50%, resulting in several adverse economic and socio-political impacts upon the public-at-large, whose business is the integrity of marriage then?
True love is to say that we value other people, for a possible variety of reasons. It also means that the basis of our value in relation to other people is not fleeting or transitory, but is rooted in eternal religious and other absolute truths, no matter how inconvenient they may be to us at the spur of the moment. True love, like God's word and the U.S. Constitution, must continue even when it pinches, as well as when it comforts. Otherwise, we have no word of God, no U.S. Constitution, and worst of all, no true love.
Divorce is no less than a signal failure to ascribe to the moral standard demanded by true love. It most likely is symptomatic of an attitude of "what is in this marriage for me?", rather than an attitude of "what can I give to this marriage to improve it?" Contrary to popular opinion, marriage never autonomously and automatically "works out" for anybody; rather, married people must constantly work at it, as a life-long project. This does not give license to regard one's marriage partner as their "extreme make-over project", although striking a balance between corrections and compliments is certainly very desirable.
Most likely, marriages fail because one partner has unrealistically high expectations from the other. We do not live in a perfect world; rather, the Bible tells us truthfully that we live in a sinful and fallen world. Given that fact, the Bible counsels us to forgive other people their sins to the same extent we would like to be forgiven our sins. "Mr. Perfect" and "Mrs. Perfect" exist in fairy-tale stories only, and not anywhere in the real world. While we may expect any one person chosen at random to meet some of our demands and desires, in no way can any one other person meet all of our demands and desires, to our satisfaction. Why then do we demand that of marriage partners, whom we regard as special? Jesus Christ counseled His disciples to pray with the words, "forgive us our sins, AS WE FORGIVE THOSE WHO SIN AGAINST US". This means we are not asking God for carte blanche blank-check uconditional forgiveness of our own sins and failures. Rather, we petition Him to use the same measure of mercy upon us that we use in our evaluation of other people--including our marriage partners.
This writer has his own marital standards he expects in any marriage partner. These are: 1)Understands and values what I have to offer her, to make her life better. Does not compare me with other men, to insist that I be like them. 2)Does not ever use tobacco, alcoholic beverages or narcotic drugs. 3)Socializes with other people outside the family within limits of modesty and decency, without being sexually promiscuous. Is not an "every man's woman". 4)Accepts financial responsibility, lives within her own financial means and never has debts. 5)Being of my own race is preferable, but is not absolutely required. 6)Instructs me and builds me up tactfully and diplomatically without tearing me down in abject contempt. 7)Is of Christian ethos and understanding, but exact church denomination or membership is not important. 8)Highly values education, sees self as a life-long learner. 9)Is approximately of my generation, not either a mother or a daughter, chronologically or spiritually. 10)Being a great cook is "a consummation devoutly to be wished"(to borrow words from William Shakespeare), but is not an absolute requirement. Still, women should honor the old adage that the way to a man's heart is through his stomach.
If we divorce our marriage partners for having personal failures ABC which we do not like, and marry another, that second marriage partner may well not have failures ABC, but could well have personal failures XYZ, which we also do not like. Nobody anywhere "has it all, says it all and does it all" perfectly at all times, from A to Z. The same as what President Abraham Lincoln once said about fooling people, should also be said about pleasing people: "You can please some people all the time; you can please all people some of the time, BUT YOU CAN'T PLEASE ALL THE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME." Persons considering divorce should keep this thought always in the forefront of their minds.
When Richard Nixon was this nation's President, there occurred a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. To fill that vacancy, President Nixon chose judge G. Harrold Carswell of Florida. But as the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee was looking over his record as a judge and a lawyer, they said it was mediocre. Yessirree, MEE-DEE-OCRE!--whereupon, Senator Roman Hrushka of Nebraska, a committee member, said with an apologetic demeanor, "THERE ARE A LOT OF MEDIOCRE JUDGES AND LAWYERS IN THE COUNTRY! GIVE MEDIOCRITY A LITTLE REPRESENTATION!"
Divorce results when we say, "My husand/my wife is MEE-DEE-OCRE!", and we refuse to give mediocrity any representation in them. Then-news anchorman Eric Sevareid has the answer to this: if you have a baseball game in progress, and the batter hits the ball into the out-field, and the out-fielder always catches the ball, THATS BORING! On the other hand, if you have an out-fielder who sometimes misses the ball, THAT MAKES THE GAME MORE INTERESTING! So it also is, with the game of marriage.
-LKM
Understandably, divorcing couples will emphatically claim that the undoing of their marital relation is strictly their own private business, and nobody elses. But when our national divorce rate stands at 50%, resulting in several adverse economic and socio-political impacts upon the public-at-large, whose business is the integrity of marriage then?
True love is to say that we value other people, for a possible variety of reasons. It also means that the basis of our value in relation to other people is not fleeting or transitory, but is rooted in eternal religious and other absolute truths, no matter how inconvenient they may be to us at the spur of the moment. True love, like God's word and the U.S. Constitution, must continue even when it pinches, as well as when it comforts. Otherwise, we have no word of God, no U.S. Constitution, and worst of all, no true love.
Divorce is no less than a signal failure to ascribe to the moral standard demanded by true love. It most likely is symptomatic of an attitude of "what is in this marriage for me?", rather than an attitude of "what can I give to this marriage to improve it?" Contrary to popular opinion, marriage never autonomously and automatically "works out" for anybody; rather, married people must constantly work at it, as a life-long project. This does not give license to regard one's marriage partner as their "extreme make-over project", although striking a balance between corrections and compliments is certainly very desirable.
Most likely, marriages fail because one partner has unrealistically high expectations from the other. We do not live in a perfect world; rather, the Bible tells us truthfully that we live in a sinful and fallen world. Given that fact, the Bible counsels us to forgive other people their sins to the same extent we would like to be forgiven our sins. "Mr. Perfect" and "Mrs. Perfect" exist in fairy-tale stories only, and not anywhere in the real world. While we may expect any one person chosen at random to meet some of our demands and desires, in no way can any one other person meet all of our demands and desires, to our satisfaction. Why then do we demand that of marriage partners, whom we regard as special? Jesus Christ counseled His disciples to pray with the words, "forgive us our sins, AS WE FORGIVE THOSE WHO SIN AGAINST US". This means we are not asking God for carte blanche blank-check uconditional forgiveness of our own sins and failures. Rather, we petition Him to use the same measure of mercy upon us that we use in our evaluation of other people--including our marriage partners.
This writer has his own marital standards he expects in any marriage partner. These are: 1)Understands and values what I have to offer her, to make her life better. Does not compare me with other men, to insist that I be like them. 2)Does not ever use tobacco, alcoholic beverages or narcotic drugs. 3)Socializes with other people outside the family within limits of modesty and decency, without being sexually promiscuous. Is not an "every man's woman". 4)Accepts financial responsibility, lives within her own financial means and never has debts. 5)Being of my own race is preferable, but is not absolutely required. 6)Instructs me and builds me up tactfully and diplomatically without tearing me down in abject contempt. 7)Is of Christian ethos and understanding, but exact church denomination or membership is not important. 8)Highly values education, sees self as a life-long learner. 9)Is approximately of my generation, not either a mother or a daughter, chronologically or spiritually. 10)Being a great cook is "a consummation devoutly to be wished"(to borrow words from William Shakespeare), but is not an absolute requirement. Still, women should honor the old adage that the way to a man's heart is through his stomach.
If we divorce our marriage partners for having personal failures ABC which we do not like, and marry another, that second marriage partner may well not have failures ABC, but could well have personal failures XYZ, which we also do not like. Nobody anywhere "has it all, says it all and does it all" perfectly at all times, from A to Z. The same as what President Abraham Lincoln once said about fooling people, should also be said about pleasing people: "You can please some people all the time; you can please all people some of the time, BUT YOU CAN'T PLEASE ALL THE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME." Persons considering divorce should keep this thought always in the forefront of their minds.
When Richard Nixon was this nation's President, there occurred a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. To fill that vacancy, President Nixon chose judge G. Harrold Carswell of Florida. But as the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee was looking over his record as a judge and a lawyer, they said it was mediocre. Yessirree, MEE-DEE-OCRE!--whereupon, Senator Roman Hrushka of Nebraska, a committee member, said with an apologetic demeanor, "THERE ARE A LOT OF MEDIOCRE JUDGES AND LAWYERS IN THE COUNTRY! GIVE MEDIOCRITY A LITTLE REPRESENTATION!"
Divorce results when we say, "My husand/my wife is MEE-DEE-OCRE!", and we refuse to give mediocrity any representation in them. Then-news anchorman Eric Sevareid has the answer to this: if you have a baseball game in progress, and the batter hits the ball into the out-field, and the out-fielder always catches the ball, THATS BORING! On the other hand, if you have an out-fielder who sometimes misses the ball, THAT MAKES THE GAME MORE INTERESTING! So it also is, with the game of marriage.
-LKM
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Sports: A Politically-Incorrect Christian Perspective
The Bible says in Romans 12:2, "Be ye not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind."
The objective of sports contests is to beat out other individuals or teams of persons in some athletic endeavor, in order to confer prestige upon the self at the expense of the repute of others. It is no less than an attempt to prove before men, WHO one is. One of the Ten Commandments is: THOU SHALT HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME. Self-deification is therefore a sin against this divine mandate.
For the Christian, once it is proven, both to one's self and to other people, WHOSE one is, it is of virtually no importance by comparison, to prove WHO one is. Inasmuch as supremacies of physical strength and prowess can be used for wicked evil, as well as for noble virtue, Christians should not give much moral priority to this kind of self-identity in the opinion of other people. And indeed, as salvation is all His work and none of our own, we have nothing in ourselves about which to boast, concerning our salvation. Indeed, God chooses the lowly, to bring down the high and mighty of this world, so NONE will boast before Him. I Corinthians 1:18-31.
It is a disgraceful shame, that most Christian churches in America today end their worship services some time between noon and 1 PM, so that congregants can arrive home just in time to turn on Sunday afternoon sports contests on TV. This is most definitely conformity to the world, and indicates that most people who call themselves "Christians" are not truly saved. Were all Christian churches to hold Sunday worship services in the afternoons(and some thankfully do), it would be interesting to see how many church congregants would THEN show up for worship services.
Jesus Christ warned that not everyone saying to Him "Lord, Lord" will inherit His kingdom, but just those who do His will. He also warned that the road to destruction is broad, and many go therein; but, narrow is the road to salvation, and few there be who find it. Surely, self-deification is on the broad road to destruction, contrary to the will of God.
-LKM
The objective of sports contests is to beat out other individuals or teams of persons in some athletic endeavor, in order to confer prestige upon the self at the expense of the repute of others. It is no less than an attempt to prove before men, WHO one is. One of the Ten Commandments is: THOU SHALT HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME. Self-deification is therefore a sin against this divine mandate.
For the Christian, once it is proven, both to one's self and to other people, WHOSE one is, it is of virtually no importance by comparison, to prove WHO one is. Inasmuch as supremacies of physical strength and prowess can be used for wicked evil, as well as for noble virtue, Christians should not give much moral priority to this kind of self-identity in the opinion of other people. And indeed, as salvation is all His work and none of our own, we have nothing in ourselves about which to boast, concerning our salvation. Indeed, God chooses the lowly, to bring down the high and mighty of this world, so NONE will boast before Him. I Corinthians 1:18-31.
It is a disgraceful shame, that most Christian churches in America today end their worship services some time between noon and 1 PM, so that congregants can arrive home just in time to turn on Sunday afternoon sports contests on TV. This is most definitely conformity to the world, and indicates that most people who call themselves "Christians" are not truly saved. Were all Christian churches to hold Sunday worship services in the afternoons(and some thankfully do), it would be interesting to see how many church congregants would THEN show up for worship services.
Jesus Christ warned that not everyone saying to Him "Lord, Lord" will inherit His kingdom, but just those who do His will. He also warned that the road to destruction is broad, and many go therein; but, narrow is the road to salvation, and few there be who find it. Surely, self-deification is on the broad road to destruction, contrary to the will of God.
-LKM
Saturday, December 5, 2009
LKM New American Flag Proposal
Down with political correctness! This pernicious doctrine is of Communist origin, Mao Tse-T'ung wrote of it in his Little Red Book, calling it "right thinking". Its purpose is to politically intimidate people out of speaking their honest minds, especially concerning those "hot-button" topics about which we all care so profoundly. This political phenomenon is most relevant in the discussion of mankind's five universally-favorite topics: money, sex, politics, sports and religion.
The notion of political correctness has become such a pervasive threat to American Constitutional freedom, that it is high time America adopted a new flag in rebuttal to it. I suggest we continue to have the fifty white stars on the blue field in the upper left-hand corner, even as we have with the current American flag. However, in place of the red and white stripes, we should have a white field, upon which is emblazoned the red letters "PC" inside of a red circle. A blue diagonal stripe should be placed across the red PC letters, signifying American collctive rejection of the political correctness doctrine.
This flag is completely consistent with American historic tradition. This nation was founded by dissenters who were looked upon by the rulers of their Old World countries of origin as being "politically incorrect". Our Constitution, accordingly, makes provision for dissent from popular opinion under the ruberic of the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights is to be extended to individuals, to exercise as they see fit, free of coercion to the contrary either by government or by collective majority opinion.
Thomas Jefferson was totally correct in saying that timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty. Let us Americans not be cowards, to prefer that boisterous sea of liberty today. Freedom begins at home, and we must practice at home the same ideals for which we expend American lives and resources on behalf of foreign countries abroad.
-LKM
The notion of political correctness has become such a pervasive threat to American Constitutional freedom, that it is high time America adopted a new flag in rebuttal to it. I suggest we continue to have the fifty white stars on the blue field in the upper left-hand corner, even as we have with the current American flag. However, in place of the red and white stripes, we should have a white field, upon which is emblazoned the red letters "PC" inside of a red circle. A blue diagonal stripe should be placed across the red PC letters, signifying American collctive rejection of the political correctness doctrine.
This flag is completely consistent with American historic tradition. This nation was founded by dissenters who were looked upon by the rulers of their Old World countries of origin as being "politically incorrect". Our Constitution, accordingly, makes provision for dissent from popular opinion under the ruberic of the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights is to be extended to individuals, to exercise as they see fit, free of coercion to the contrary either by government or by collective majority opinion.
Thomas Jefferson was totally correct in saying that timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty. Let us Americans not be cowards, to prefer that boisterous sea of liberty today. Freedom begins at home, and we must practice at home the same ideals for which we expend American lives and resources on behalf of foreign countries abroad.
-LKM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
