Bullpucky!

Out local paper posted an opinion piece crying about the struggle for birth control. 
In it, the author attempts to paint the latest attempt of the Obama administration to force all entities to provide health insurance that provides birth control and  abortofacants, regardless of personal religious conviction as the next step in human rights and a continuation of the struggle against opression.

 To quote MASH's Colonel  Potter, "Bullpucky!"

I take two execptions to the article.  First, I don't think that Margaret Sanger should be lauded with near sainthood status, and secondly, the argument that it's about birth control is specious at best.

About Sanger, the author states that ...

Margaret Sanger, began crusading for birth control to save women from excessive pregnancy.

Was Sanger's motivation to save women?  Maybe, but I believe her motivation went deeper.  You see, she was a true believer.  A member of the church of  Eugenics. 

You remember Eugenics, don't you?  Eugenics a pseudoscience; the illegitimate offspring of evolution and genetics which lead Hitler to murder six million Jews in an effort to  purify the human race.  It was to motivation that lead the good old US of A to sterilize over 65,000 people against their will.  It viewed humanity as mere cattle, to have the weaker strains bred out.

While Sanger didn't support the gas chambers and firing squads of Hitler's Eugenics program, she wholeheartedly believed in reducing the population of the feeble-minded and inferior (which, in her mind, included non-whites.)  A chilling example of her mentality can be see from this quote from her 1920 book, Woman and the New Race

The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.

But, even granting that Sanger's legacy was not one to be proud of, the author still missed the point.

The debate isn't about "birth control." Birth control remains legal, available, and relatively cheap. Government subsidies allow local health departments to distribute contraceptives at low or no costs.

The debate isn't about birth control.  It's about just who has to pay for it.

Obama's mandate is about forcing organizations and companies to pay for health insurance for their employees that may contain provisions which violates their most deeply held religious beliefs.  The policy indicates that religious freedom must stop at the church door.

Most of the attention is on the Catholic hospitals and charities.  I am not a Catholics.  I do not have any problems with birth control that prevents conception.  I tend to think that the Catholic view of birth control is much too rigid and is influenced by the church's desire to breed more Catholics.

Regardless, the central fact remains, that faith cannot abide by itself.  A real, true abiding faith that changes lives and communities cannot help but to influence how we act.  The Bible puts it well:

James 2:17-18 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

True faith informs all aspects of the lives of the faithful, and thus the exercise of our faith must extend into the public sphere. 

Women who want contraception can get contraception.  Walmart and nearly every drug store in the nation sells it. 

Making people violate their religious convictions for another's convenience is just wrong.

Sad Story

Image from Bushmaster.com

In Webster New York, four volunteer firefighters were ambushed while responding to a structure fire on Monday, two were killed.

William Spengler, 69, who had spent some 17 years in prison for beating his grandmother to death with a hammer, set his house afire.  When the fire department responded, he attacked with a bushmaster, the civilian version of the M-16, an assault rifle.  He finally shot himself.

Police Chief Gerald Pickering said the first police officer on scene "in all likelihood saved many lives" by chasing and returning Mr. Spengler's  fire.

This brings up several very important points in the debate over gun control.  

First, how effect are gun laws at preventing violence?  As a convicted felon, Mr. Spengler was banned from owning firearms.  Most of the laws that congress is discussing would not outright ban firearm ownership.  If laws could prevent gun violence, surely an outright ban would have been effective.

Second, to those who lampoon the NRA's call for armed guards in schools, I would like to ask, was Chief Pickering wrong when he said the officer engaging in a firefight with the crazy felon saved lives?  When evil men take up arms, history has shown repeatedly that only good men with arms can resist.  

A quick web search turned up several instances where guns saved lives.  Like a homeowner fending off a home invasion, or another instance where a drunk kicked in a man's door?

Cops carry guns, not because they are evil and wish to do harm, but to be able to resist evil.

Lastly, a man who killed his grandmother should never have seen the light of day.  The way the mentally ill and criminal are dealt with only exacerbates the problem of violence.  If we wish to prevent gun violence, we need to make sure our jails are not revolving doors, and we need to ensure we have deal with the mentally ill.

Narrow View of Liberty

The liberal mindset so amazing!  The selfsame liberal mind that perceives such expansive form of expression as  pornography, flag burning, naked women in cages, crucifixes in urine, or protesting a solider's funeral with "God hates your dead solider" signs protected as  freedom of speech, sees no free exercise of religion outside at the church house door.  Don't even get me started how that they conveniently ignore the whole second amendment..

Consider the First Amendment to the Constitution.  How did our framers start out the Bill of Rights?  The first section of the First Amendment is about freedom of religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. U.S. Constitution, First Amendment

Before ensuring the freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and protest, our founders made sure that they ensured freedom of religion.  This is truly the first freedom. If government is going to invade my mind, and persecute me on my personal, deeply held convictions, then the rest of the freedoms are merely academic.

While holding the freedoms of speech, press, and assembly as sacrosanct,  liberals take a pin knife the to Constitution and remove such troubling sections as the Freedom of Religion and the Tenth Amendment.

Case in point, the Obama administration is currently trying to enforce a healthcare mandate that requires all insurance providers to cover contraception and abortion-inducing drugs.  This violates some peoples deeply held beliefs.  A Christain-ownded company, Hercules Industries, self-insures its 265 employees.  It has some problems with the mandate and has taken the law to court.  The administration said..

Plaintiffs’ free exercise claim fails at the outset because for-profit, secular employers generally do not engage in any exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment.

Pardon me.  I am a Christian.  It permeates every pore of my being, and affects everything I do from the way I work to the clothes I wear.  I engage in exercise of religion every moment of every day of my life.  To say that secular employers don't engage in exercise of religion is wholly and utterly stupid and false.

Chicken

Every since Dan Cathy, an admitted Evangelical Christian,  told a Baptist publication he supported the traditional, Biblical view of marriage, there has been a firestorm of controversy.

I can understand the shock.  I mean, after all, who would have suspected that a born-again, conservative Christian, in an interview with a Christian publication, would come out to side with what the Bible says?  




In other words, if you were shocked by the admission, you were stupid.  Sorry, but that's the honest truth.  If you were only ticked that someone would dare disagree with your politics, then maybe you you need to examine yourself.  After all, there's this whole free-speech thing in the Constitution that most liberals cherish that would seem to apply.

 While I don't have a problem with folks boycotting a store because they don't like its politics, I do have a problem with the tone and tenor of the discussion.  The vitriol was repugnant. 

Since when is disagreeing with somebody "hate?"  Since when is it profane to say "I support marriage between one man and one woman?"  Since when is it OK to verbally assault a minimum wage clerk at a fast food restaurant because of something the CEO said? 

The radical (and dare I would say rabid)  homosexual lobby will destroy anyone, tear down anything and mock anyone that stands in their way of getting their lifestyle venerated.  Veneration is the only word that fits, because tolerance isn't enough.

Dude, don't get a Dell!

My mother-in-law's computer started turning off, and she called Dell.  They told her she needed a new motherboard.

CPU without the heatsink.

Being the resident computer geek, I came down to take a look and found that the bracket which holds the heatsink fan assembly to the CPU was broken, so the heatsink was not properly pressing against the CPU, and thus was not cooling the CPU.  The CPU was overheating and turning off as a safety mechanism.

My plan was to get online and find the replacement part, and fix the computer.  My mother-in-law said "Why don't you call Dell.  They'll help." 

I hate calling tech support.  I loathe it.  Each time I try, I have problems regulating my blood pressure and fight to keep a civil tongue.  Call centers don't talk to tech savvy often, so their script and experience is geared to grandmothers, Luddites, and red necks.  As such, they won't listen, assume I'm wrong, and treat me like a moron.

So, after my mother-in-law prodded me a bit more, I gave up and called Dell for a replacement part.

I  spent almost an hour on the phone with them.  After explaining what I needed over and over again, and after sending them two pictures, they still didn't understand what I needed.

They kept on saying that the part I needed came with the heatsink fan.  It does not.  Their own website said so. 

After awhile, the fellow on the phone got his  "Technical Support Manager."   This guy looked at the picture of the CPU without the heatsink and said that  that the computer didn't have a CPU installed!  Anyone who has even a modicum of computer experience, can see the CPU is there!

The broken bracket.

Since my mother-in-law has never so much as opened her case, this is a case of a material defect.

A Dell illustration showing the bracket(green)

I found the part I needed for $7 in ten minutes on Google.  Thanks Dell.  Wonderful support staff there.  You have convinced me never, under any circumstances, buy a computer from you. 

Men of Science

I am a fundamental, born again Christian. I believe the Bible completely, and have no doubts as it its veracity.

I also am a science buff. I believe I have a scientific mindset as it comes to the natural world (as my poor bride will attest, when we disagree over a measurable item.)

I believe in science. The scientific method (observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and predictive testing of said hypothesis) is one of the most powerful tools ever devised to eek out knowledge.

I also have seen two reasonable, articulate, rational people look at the same data and, due to presuppositions, come to different conclusions, both of which can be argued from the data.

While society looks at the pronouncements of scientists as gospel, I must humbly point out that it is not as cut a dried as one may think.

Hard fact #1, Science has presuppositions.

That's not an insult. All humans have presuppositions. Science is no different. We assume our senses are reliable, that our memories are correct, and that existence is uniform (i.e. what happened in the past, like the sun rising, should also occur in the future)


Modern science, though, has two philosophic presuppositions that under gird all they do.
They base all of their investigations first in  naturalism and materialism.  Naturalism is the belief that "nature is all there is, and all basic truths are truths of nature, while materialism is the belief that "the only thing that exists is matter; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions.  These are the basic underpinnings of modern science.


Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that God exists (I do more than assume, but I digress). If God is real, how could science ever find evidence of His existence? Their primary axioms reject the possibility! What observations could be made that, considering the basic assumptions made, could be interpreted as proof of God?

Their predisposition makes all their observations and conclusions biased.

Hard fact #2, Evidence Doesn't Speak for itself.
Science starts with observation.  Some folks believe that ovservation alone disproves God.  A great example of this is distant starlight. 

We know that some stars are billions of light years away, right?  But how do we know it?  It's not like somebody got a really long tape measure and measured it.

There are two methods of measuring these distances.  First, you can take two readings from different parts in Earth's orbit and use mathematical triangulation (call parallax) to measure distances up to 1,600 light years (using space probe built for the purpose.)

For distances greater than that, they measure the brightness of the light from the stars and infer the distance from the brightness.  While they have tested this method against all near-by stars, and it holds correct, science is making an assumption of the uniform nature of the cosmos.

Once again, we have an assumption, albeit a well-meaning, logically concluded, and rigorously tested assumption that is spoken of as if it were proven fact, despite the fact that we have only observed the universe from our tiny spec.  Our sample size is just too small to know for 100% confidence.  For example, what if there were previously undetected phenomena which dims starlight that can't be detected from the angle in which we view the heavens?

So what is my point in all this?  Well, many state that science has disproved the Bible and has proven God doesn't exist, and that to believe in science means you can't believe in God.  All of that is utter nonsense.

Science doesn't disprove the Bible nor can science even speak to the existent of God.

Science isn't incompatible with faith.  Many of the greatest scientists that ever existed believed in God.  They saw the world as a manifest testimony of the glory of God.  They sought to explain the order and complexity they saw in the handiwork of God.

Don't let the assumptions sway you.

Fine Line

Ordained Church of God in Christ Pastor , Michael Salman, is now doing time in one my favorite jails, Maricopa county (home of the down-right awesome Sheriff Joe)

Why is the pastor in jail?  Well, he says it is for holding Bible studies in his home.  The county prosecutor says it for building and fire code violations.

Before we go into the Freedom of Religion and the Constitution, it is meet now to ask why public fire and building codes exist.

Simply put, fire codes exist because fires in public places can be deadly.  The record of  fatal fires is a very long and sad one.  Here are just a few for consideration.

• 1903 Iroquois Theatre fire which killed 605 people
• 1904 Triangle Shirtwaist fire killed 146 people 
• 1963 Golden Age Nursing Home fire, which killed 63 people
• 1980 MGM Grand Fire, which killed 85 people
• 1990 Happy Land fire that killed 87 people
• 2003 The Station Night Club fire killed 100 people

The only reason we don't have even more deaths than what we do is the fire codes that exist.  When something bad happens, people look at it and say "how can we prevent that from happening again?" 

The following are some examples of current fire code regulations which are designed to safeguard lives.

• doors that open with a push bar, and swing outwards, so panicking people can get out even if the people behind them are pushing them. 
• Battery-powered fire exits that will show those who are trying to get out where to go, even in a smoky, unfamiliar room.
• Multiple exits to the building, so when there is a fire people can get out fast.
• Sprinkler systems, designed to extinguish a fire or at least contain it long enough to evacuate a building 

Homes are generally excluded from these type of regulations. 

Therein is the rub.  Pastor Salman stated that he was having a private Bible Study in his home.  They weren't open to the public, and were attended by about 40 people a week.

His"home" was actually a 2,000 square foot building behind his home that, when built, was billed as a "game room."  That's only slightly smaller than the median US home size of 2,169 reported in the 2010 Census.

The City says that if 40 people gather every Sunday, it falls under the code as a public building.

So whose right? 

• Mr. Salman has a right, as an American, to worship and lead Bible studies in his home.
• The city of Phonex has a right and duty to make sure that public spaces are not death traps by enacting and enforcing fire codes, like every other city in America.
• Churches are expected to follow the law.  That inculdes building codes, American's with Disabilities Act, fire codes, and so forth

So the only question is whether Mr. Salman had a church or a Bible study.  My gut feeling is that  Mr. Salman had a church and either couldn't afford the money,  or didn't want to expend it to find a suitable commercial property for his church.  I think he was trying to slip in under technical definitions, so he could 'have his cake and eat it too.' 

But, who decides what is a "church?"  Could the government come in and tell me and my family that our family Bible studies are somehow illegal because they're not in a regulated space?  Who decides and what about our freedom of religion and freedom of assembly?

The main issues, to me, are what is a church and where does the power of government to regulate the lives of private citizens end?

In this case, I feel that Mr. Salman was wrong to knowingly disobey the law, and skirt the law. 

But, would he be in jail if he were leading the young democrats instead of a Bible study?

For the Kids

It seems that Scientologists  Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise are getting divorced.  TMZ (I am sorry for linking to TMZ) reports that they were ready to do battle until they learned how damaging battling parents could be for their daughter, Suri.  Now, they are working together to divorce amicably.

While I applaud all parents who realize the word doesn't rise and set above them (it's not all about you), and put their children before their own selfish wants, Suri be better off if they found a path to reconciliation.

After all, many studies (like this one, and this one, and this one.  These are by no means the only ones) show that children whose biological parents stay together do better in school, have healthier lives, and have more successful relationships then children of divorce parents.  The Children whose parents divorce are more prone to drop out of school, be abused, and be unemployed.  In nearly every category, children whose parents stay together do better than those familys who don't.

Tom and Katie, since you truly love your child and want to do whats best for her,  why not get into counseling, step over the inflated egos, lose the pride, drop the selfishness, and find a way to resolve your problems? 

Stupidest Marraige Advice!

I saw link on Facebook talking about "9 Marriage Problems that Are Actually Good for Your Relationship."

When I read it, I was so taken aback by the sheer stupidity of the advice that I was stunned silent.  At least, that is, for a few moments.

Between 41% and 50% of all first marriages end in divorces says DivorceRate.org.  The statistics are even worse for second and third marriages (more than 70% of third marriages end in divorce)

With such a high probability of failure, I can't let these stupid suggestions stand without rebuttal.

Problem One, "You both fantasize about other people." 

"This could be good for your marriage, the article says, "So thinking about a sexy neighbor, for example, can improve your marriage-as long as those racy visions stay in your mind."

Since the mind is the breeding ground for all behaviors, the slope between thinking and acting can be a very slippery one indeed.  The article says that fantasizing about others "allows you to open up to your partner physically and emotionally."

How can imaging someone else make you close to your spouse?  It doesn't.  What it does is cause you to be disillusioned with your spouse, and it will lead to relationship problems.

Problem Two, He goes out with the guys.

"Interests and hobbies outside of marriage feed a person's spirit and help break up routine."

Marriages tend either towards togetherness or isolation.  Drawing together by living a shared life of shared passions and interests knit hearts together, strengthen marriages, and repels divorce.

While separate interests isn't necessarily a bad thing and time apart is necessary for both spouse's sanity, if both the husband and the wife peruse their lives separately, they WILL  grow apart and have less common ground between them.  Couples should try to seek activities that they can enjoy together.

One other point.  While it is a good thing for a man to be around other men, too much time spent with "the guys" isn't healthy.  It can be a mark of immaturity, lack of commitment, or selfishness.

Problem Three,You argue a lot

"Fighting ... means you trust each other enough to share your feelings"

First, let's define terms.  According to Merriam-Webster's dictionary fighting means

To contend against in or as if in battle or physical combat

Conflict is common to all marriages.   So are fights.  But, fighting and arguing isn't healthy.  Fighting isn't about trust, it's about trying to force our way on our spouse.

While fighting can be a way for a couple to communicate, it's better to disagree without having to resort to fighting.  Fighting occurs when we allow our emotions free reign, and seek to win, not seek a solution.  When we fight, we want to be heard, not to listen.

True communication occurs when we seek to hear and understand first, and only then be heard.

Problem Four, He spends a lot of money on his hobbies. 

"But if the bills are paid and the kids are taken care of, let your husband get new golf clubs or go on a fishing trip."

Sure, it's fine to responsibly indulge yourself  from time to time.  But a consistent desire to spend money on your own own selfish desires is a mark of self-centeredness.  Being self-centered is poisonous to your marriage.

He uses porn.
 

"[Porn]... only becomes problematic when porn is used in secret or instead of interaction with a partner. "

Porn is a problem regardless of how it's used.  Porn distorts how we perceive and enjoy sex.  Porn desensitizes the user to real sexual stimuli, and may create unreasonable expectations our spouse cannot meet.

No porn use is healthy.  Porn use can lead to increased isolation, hurt, and relationship problems, and actually impair healthy sex within a marriage.

He works all the time

"Chances are, his drive and passion for his job are qualities that initially attracted you to him"

Working all the time is damaging for a marriage.  If the work is short-term, agreed upon by the couple, and used to benefit the family as a whole, it's tolerable.  When any of those items are not present, "working all the time" is intolerable.  Note:  working all the time is not a 40 hour a week job.  It's more like an 80 hour a week job.

The idea, however, of placing a career in front of the family is just plain wrong.  A man (or woman, for that matter) cannot develop close relationships to people he never is around.  Regardless of how much money or prestige it brings, it also brings loneliness and hurt.

You both flirt with other people online.

flirty friendships can be healthy as long as they don't get physical

 Sure, and building a fire in your living room floor is fine, as long as you control the flame.  If one of the spouses is feeling lonely or hurt, a flirty relationship can become something more very quickly.  Numerous families have been destroyed when a casual flirty relationship flared into some much more .

You're too tired for sex.

Of all nine, this is the only one I feel is not bad advice.  Many marital problems are caused by lack of sex.  For men, rejection breeds contempt, and contempt isn't healthy in a relationship.  Setting regular time to come together is not a bad idea.

The problem is that, for a women, the sex act isn't just physical.  To her, emotive and relational aspects are more important than just the physical.

This means that the state of the marriage, as she sees it, dictates her capacity to  want and enjoy sex.  Focusing only on the physical and ignoring the emotive and relational aspects of sex is like talking about ice cream without mentioning that it's cold.

He's close with a female colleague.

your financial stability and social status may depend on this specific office relationship

While the articles points out that honesty aids in  preventing affairs, close relationships with members of the opposite sex are quite the fertile ground for affairs

I look at marital infidelity like an infectious disease.  Public health measures prevent the spread of infections disease by controlling the vectors of contagion.  In other words, they find the ways disease spreads (cockroaches, rats, unprotected sex, etc) and tries to break the chain so infection doesn't occur.

Close relationships like those mentioned in the article crosses a line of separation, leaving a  married man susceptible for infidelity.

Sure, it's just a friendship now.  But once the relationship becomes more than just colleges, and his emotional or physical needs  aren't met, it will be a great source of temptation.

It is better to live in a smaller house, drive a smaller car, wear less fashionable clothes, than destroy your family.  Social status and financial stability are nothing compared to a intact and healthy family, and the family begins with the marriage.