Monday, December 27, 2004

Thoughts at Christmas

Not all my thoughts, but just a couple...

When i think of Christmas, i think of babies.

Babies who grow up to be great kids
Babies who grow up to be Godly young men and women
Babies who grow up to be beautiful brides and humble grooms
But most of all, babies, or i should say, a baby who grows up to be our Savior

I also think of giving.  Not only giving gifts that we wrap and put under the tree, but also...

Giving of our bounty to those less fortunate
Giving of our time and talents
And, most of all, giving of our very lives as sacrifices

Tuesday, December 14, 2004

On Buying a Christmas Tree

Since this is the first year in a few that we'll be staying home for Christmas, it's also the first year in a few that we've had a Christmas tree up in the house. Kids had asked to go out every weeknight last week, but i decided that we'd wait for a sunny weekend day, which turned out to be this past Sunday.

Turns out that dozens of other folks had the same idea, as we managed to hit the local tree place at quite the rush-time. I found it funny to feel the competitive juices kicking in as we strolled through the rows of trees, looking for the right one, not wanting to get beat out by the other families on the same mission. You'd get these furtive glances back and forth. "You're not checking out MY tree, are you, pal?" And none of us, most likely, able to pick out quality Fraser Firs, anyway.

:raisingarizona: "I think I got the best one"

Settled on one about 7 feet high, so that it doesn't dominate the piano room. TreeDude sawed off the pudding-skin from the trunk-bottom, then wrapped it and strapped it to the Suburban. DadDude carried it in the house, while everybody watched. Locked it into the tree stand, then fed it its quart of water.

Sunday, December 5, 2004

A Field Day with Emily

Emily and i enjoyed a pleasant Sunday afternoon recently, taking in the NCAA Championship game in Women's Field Hockey.  The game was in town, on the Wake Forest campus, and pitted my Blue Devils (Duke) against the 2-time defending champions of Wake Forest.

Even though the game turned out to be a dud (if you were a Duke fan), with Wake taking a 3rd straight title with a 3-0 victory, we both had fun.  Emily was quite the wiggle worm, and was naturally more excited about seeing the Duke band and mascot, and the Wake cheerleaders.  And the free pen she got from the NCAA exhibition booth was an unlikely hit.

Still, i think Emily took in enough of the game to understand what she experienced.  She could explain afterwards how the game works (in the most general sense, of course -- you hit a ball with a stick and try to shoot it in the goal), and she knew which team was which.

After the game, we stopped at Burger King for a late lunch / early dinner.  Bought her a Spongebob watch, which i don't think she's worn since, and probably couldn't even locate it in the house.  Grabbed two Burger King crowns on the way out -- one for her, and one for Jackson.

Saturday, November 20, 2004

I am the Stuffing!

From the same site as the previous entry...  What Part of Thanksgiving Are You?

You Are the Stuffing You're complicated and complex, yet all your pieces fit together. People miss you if you're gone - but they're not sure why. What Part of Thanksgiving Are You?

What "Number" Are You?

Quiz: What Number are you?

Just a whimsical thing.  Here's my result...

You Are the Investigator5 You're independent - and a logical analytical thinker. You love learning and ideas... and know things no one else does. Bored by small talk, you refuse to participate in boring conversations. You are open minded. A visionary. You understand the world and may change it.

Now, i'm off to change the world.  Maybe.

Monday, November 15, 2004

"Incredible" Day with My Son

I had a fun day yesterday hanging out with Jack.  The gals all went to an all-day free concert put on by the local country radio station, leaving us guys to fend for ourselves.  Since Jack's not yet into a day-long of tracking fantasy football stats, we went to see the season's hit movie The Incredibles.

I'm sure it's cliche by now to describe the film as incredible.  So i won't.  But i checked with my friend Roget, and he said i could call it amazing, marvelous, fabulous, and wonderful, among other things.  It's really quite good.  I liked it better than any of the recent animated movies, other than perhaps Shrek and the Toy Story movies. 

Holly Hunter is just terrific as the Mom, Helen Parr.  Edna (voiced by the director/screenwriter), the diminutive seamstress to superheroes, was also very good.

But this movie is about the action, and the themes.  One theme is the sense of loss that frequently comes as you age, thinking that your incredible days are all behind you.  How we all long to be special, break free from the chains of the mundane.  Thoreau's quiet desperation.  It's a glorious thing, then, when the spirit to save the world is resurrected.

The other main theme is one of the family bond, with the Parr family as metaphor for either our own family or the larger families of communities or the church.  A family bonded by love, and saved only by each one lending his or her unique special gift. 

Jack also enjoyed the movie, and was such a little gentleman.  Never fussing even though we were probably the only ones not to get snacks.  No bathroom breaks, which means he probably didn't have a long-enough moment of boredom to think about it. 

After the movie, Jack wanted a McDonald's Happy Meal (chicken nuggets, fries, and Sprite -- always the same), with its Incredibles toy.  We brought it home and hung out together until Julie and gang came home.

P.S.  If you liked The Incredibles, check out Brad Bird's other movie, Iron Giant.

Sunday, November 14, 2004

Picture of the Kids

Testing out the ability to post pictures here. This one is of the kids, taken about a year ago. Jack looks like a natural urchin, doesn't he?


The Myth of Genetic Homosexuality

I was all prepared to write an entry on this topic.  Started doing some more research on the web, and ran across this webpage...

Myth and Reality about Homosexuality

It really encapsulates most or all of what i was going to say, and does it better and more completely.  So, instead of writing my own essay, i'll ask that you peruse the link, or consider these excerpts:

Myth: Research shows that there is a "gay gene." Homosexuality is genetic.

Reality: Homosexuality is not a genetically encoded condition. Contrary to media hype, there is no conclusive or compelling empirical evidence showing any absolute biological, genetic, or hormonal causation for homosexuality. Homosexual activist and molecular biologist Dean Hamer’s study claiming the existence of a homosexual gene has been scientifically discredited. Studies that claim to prove homosexuality is genetic have been purposefully designed from a homosexual advocacy perspective and seek to convince society that homosexuality is innate, psychologically normal, and thus socially desirable.

Footnote 80. "Sexual orientation, once thought to be an unchanging sexual trait, is actually quite flexible for many people, changing as a result of therapy for some, ministry, for others and spontaneously for still others." (Warren Throckmorton and Mark A. Yarhouse, "Ethical Issues in Attempts to Ban Reorientation Therapies," American Psychological Association, Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 39, No. l, June 2002, 66-75) 30% of those who enter treatment for homosexuality with an experienced therapist are able to achieve a heterosexual adjustment. An additional 30% are able to control their homosexual behavior, although they do not develop a sexual attraction to females. (Warren. Throckmorton, (1996) Efforts to modify Sexual Orientation: A review of outcome literature and ethical issues, Journal of Mental Health and Counseling 20, 4: 283-305)

Emphases are in the original.

Don't give in to the incessant drumbeats of a Godless society, foisting untruths to society's ultimate detriment.  We shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall set us free.

Thursday, November 4, 2004

2008: It's Not Too Early (Is It?)

Early predictions for the nominations for President for 2008, the first year in a long time that no sitting President or VP will be running for the office.

Democrat (assuming they want to win):  Evan Bayh / Mark Warner

Bayh is currently a Senator from Indiana, and a former Indiana Governor.  He heads the Democratic Leadership Council, a moderate Democratic group.  He may not have enough foreign policy experience or gravitas (not saying he doesn't; i just don't know), but he does score high in likeability, electoral positioning (could deliver Indiana), and seems a decent fellow.

Warner is the current Governor of Virginia, another red state that could turn blue.  Also relatively moderate.

Others to watch:  Ed Rendell (Gov of Pennsylvania), Bill Richardson (Gov of New Mexico), Rod Blagojevich (Gov of Illinois), Joe Biden (Delaware Senator - VP only)

It won't be (or shouldn't be): Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama (newly elected Senator from Illinois), John Edwards.

Clinton has way too much baggage, and would energize the right like we've never seen.  Obama is too inexperienced, and is nothing more than the flavor of the day.  His day may come, but it won't be 2008.  Edwards' political career is done.

Republican:  George Voinovich / Bill Owens

Voinovich is a sitting Senator from Ohio.  Like Bayh, he is also a former Governor of his state.  He should be on the ticket one way or another.

Bill Owens is the current Governor of Colorado, and is considered a rising star in the party.

Others to watch:  John McCain (a decent VP choice if he doesn't get the nomination), Chuck Hagel (Nebraska Senator - VP only, and only if not paired with another Senator), Bob Taft (Gov of Ohio & only if Voinovich is not on the ticket), Elizabeth Dole, and Rudy Guliani.

It won't be:  Jeb Bush (he said he would not run), Ah-nold (no way a Constitutional Amendment passes in enough time, if ever), Bill Frist (a good guy, but i just don't see it)

If i didn't mention your favorite candidate, go here to see others.  Let me also say in closing that i haven't studied closely these candidates' politics, and do not necessarily know where they precisely fall on the left-right spectrum.  This look was mostly about perceived resumes to date.  I'm sure i'll be set straight sooner or later.

Wednesday, November 3, 2004

Election Day (and Night) Saga

Election Day lately has become like Super Bowl Sunday.  Lots of anticipation leading up to it, then hours glued to the TV seeing how it turns out.

Day began early, at Julie & i wanted to get to the polls as they opened at 630am.  Unfortunately, this was a very popular idea, and by the time we arrived, the line looked to be about 2 hours long.  I went on to work, but Julie stuck around.  She made it out around 815am.

I came back to vote just after lunch, and was surprised to find almost no line.  I was in & out in 15 minutes.

Came home to follow the day's events on TV and the web.  Started reading all the web & blog chatter about the exit polls, and how they were looking VERY good for Kerry.  Then saw that the online betting sites were switching heavily to Kerry's favor (Bush had been the favorite for a while), so much that the markets couldn't really keep up with the line.  By evening newstime, Bush was listed as a 3-1 underdog.

Knowing this, it was easy to read the unspoken sentiments of the news anchors and pundits.  The Bush camp was reportedly "subdued", and the Kerry camp "optimistic".   It was going to be a John Kerry night, just as i had predicted. 

The first states polls closed at 7pm, with the key indicator the state of Virginia.  Networks said it was too close to call.  Not good news.  Then, at 730pm, we had NC.  Also too close to call.  What?  There's no way that Bush could lose NC.

So, at this point, i sought out the exit polls online, finding them in great detail on CNN's website.  I immediately noticed the disparity between men and women.  Not in who they voted for, but in what % of the poll respondents were men, and what % were women.  Some of the state exit polls had a 10-15 point gap between men and women.  So, women were being over-weighted if you just looked at the state totals.  This was skewing the numbers significantly in Kerry's favor (since men tend to support Bush more strongly).

There were probably other skewings in the weightings.  Most notably, i expect, was the weight given to self-described Republicans.  Historically, more folks call themselves Democrats than Republicans.  But, yesterday, for the first time in maybe forever, the two groups were equally represented at the polls. 

Also, take a look at how Bush fared with the given demographic segments compared to 2000.  He improved with both men (+2) and women (+5).  He improved with Blacks and Hispanics.  He improved all over the board.  In fact, when you look at the exit polls this way, the nationwide results -- a 3 point Bush victory -- follow quite naturally.

So this analysis was my first inkling of hope.  The second was a Bush operative reporting on county-by-county returns in Florida (a state where the exit polls predicted a Bush loss), saying that Bush was improving on his performance in 2000.  My mood begins to lighten.  There's a spring in my channel switching.

As the real votes start to roll in, there are no real early surprises.  Red states stay red; blue states stay blue.  The predictions were right -- just watch Ohio.  And we watched Ohio until about 2 in the morning before turning in for the night.  It looked pretty much over from my reading of the Ohio vote.  With Ohio, Bush had at least a 269-269 tie, and would then win in the House of Representatives tie-breaker (assume no faithless electors).  And New Mexico was looking good.

Just got a few hours sleep, as the phone rang at 6-something am (one of Caroline's friends).  Once i was awake, i had to turn the news back on, and see what had happened.  Still no resolution.  I was in no shape to go to work, so continued watching until Kerry conceded just before lunch.

Bush Wins!

OK, i was wrong about the election.  And it wasn't a psychological hedge.  At least i don't think it was.

The only state i missed was Ohio.

More later

Saturday, October 30, 2004

Election Prediction

A number of smart people that i respect and admire, including my brother, expect George W. Bush to win the 2004 Presidential Election with surprising ease.  Maybe it's just nervous pessimism, but i'm not convinced.

I wouldn't be surprised if we had a reverse of 2000, with GWB winning the popular vote, but Kerry winning the Electoral College.  I'm sure legions of Bush-haters would consider that poetic justice.

My Electoral College prediction is:
Kerry = 272
Bush = 266

Electoral Vote Calculator -- go here to play with various scenarios

My allocation of battleground states:
Kerry: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Bush: Florida, Colorado, Iowa, West Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada

Thursday, October 28, 2004

The Gospel According to Extreme Makeover: Home Edition

JOHN 14:2.

In My Father's house are many mansions.

 

God is sneaky, mischievous, in a fun, I’m-looking-out-for-you sort of way.  His Truths are found in many unexpected places.  One such odd place, i submit, is the hit TV show Extreme Makeover:  Home Edition.

 

For those not familiar with the show, each episode focuses on a needy and/or deserving family, whose home could use a serious upgrade.  A team of designers and builders pretty much take down the existing home, and reconstruct a totally new one in one-week’s time, upgrading beyond anything the owner had dared to dream.

 

The hook is the chosen families.  They are almost invariably a family that has endured hardship, such as from the death of the mother; made significant sacrifices, say for a sick or handicapped child; or selflessly given back to the community, in far more abundance than they have taken in return.  The common theme is that selflessness, of putting others first.

 

I see the influence of Jesus Christ in almost all of these families.

 

Matthew 25: 34

 

Then the King will say to those on His right hand, 'Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.’

 

So here comes the Extreme Makeover team, with their earthly metaphor of that “mansion just over the hilltop”, beckoning the sheep to inherit their reward.

 

You might think i make too much of the metaphor.  And i’m aware of the varying interpretations of the word translated as “mansion” in John 14:2.  But consider this:

 

§         God will reward his children

§         We can lay up treasures in heaven (Matthew 6:20)

§         Heaven will be awesome, beyond our best dreams

Quick Hit for Dad

There was an article in yesterday’s USA Today about the “perfect eulogy”.  It contained a note that the author had written to his father…

 

“Dad,

When i succeeded, you stood back and took no credit, and when i failed you were by my side.  What more could a son ask for?”

 

I feel the same way about my Dad.

Wednesday, October 20, 2004

Slavery & Abortion

Sorry to not have anything original again, but this was so good that i had to share...

Spoken by someone already free, spoken by someone already born....

SLAVERY - Although he may have a heart and a brain, and he may be human life biologically, a slave is not a legal person.  The Dred Scott decision by the U.S. Supreme Court has made that clear.
ABORTION - Although he may have a heart and a brain, and he may be a human life biologically, an unborn baby is not a legal person.  The Roe v. Wade decision by the U.S. Supreme Court has made that clear.

SLAVERY - A black man only becomes a legal person when he is set free.  Before that time, we should not concern ourselves about him.  He has no legal rights.
ABORTION - A baby only becomes a legal person when he is born.  Before that time, we should not concern ourselves about him.  He has no legal rights.

SLAVERY - If you think slavery is wrong, then nobody is forcing you to be a slave-owner.  But don't impose your morality on somebody else!
ABORTION - If you think abortion is wrong, then nobody is forcing you to have one.  But don't impose your morality on somebody else!

SLAVERY - A man has a right to do what he wants with his own property.
ABORTION - A woman has a right to do what she wants with her own body.

SLAVERY - Isn't slavery really something merciful?  After all, every black man has the right to be protected.  Isn't it better never to be set free than to be sent unprepared, and ill-equipped, into a cruel world?
ABORTION - Isn't abortion really something merciful?  After all, every baby has a right to be wanted.  Isn't it better never to be born than to be sent alone and unloved into a cruel world?

Monday, October 18, 2004

Faith & Politics

Back in July, i broached the topic of the intertwining of faith and politics, promising to articulate a formulation for the sort of faith-based beliefs that should work their way into the law-making arena, and those that should not.  While i haven't gotten around to writing that blog entry (it's a very difficult subject to get fully around), i did want to share this article from Albert Mohler (see the entry from 10/15/04).  See link for full text of article.

Christian Faith and Public Policy--Questions Revisited

How are we to relate our Christian beliefs to the political sphere?  That question has demanded the most careful and faithful Christian thinking for centuries, but recent developments demonstrate that our current post-Christian age presents us with new and ominous postmodern perils.

Recent comments by Senator John Kerry provide an illustration of how not to apply Christian truth to the great moral questions of our age.  The senator provided an illuminating insight into his confused and convoluted understanding of faith and politics when, in the course of Wednesday night's presidential campaign debate, he responded to a question about abortion. Bob Schieffer of CBS News, moderator of the debate, posed the following question to Senator Kerry: "The New York Times reports that some Catholic archbishops are telling their church members that it would be a sin to vote for a candidate like you because you support a woman's right to choose an abortion and unlimited stem cell research. What is your reaction to that?"

Mr. Kerry responded by arguing that he respectfully disagrees with these archbishops of his church. "I am a Catholic. And I grew up learning how to respect those views, but I disagree with them, as do many. I believe that I can't legislate or transfer to another American citizen my article of faith. What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn't share that article of faith." In other words, Senator Kerry claimsto be a Catholic who is perfectly free from any responsibility to apply Catholic moral teaching to public policy, insofar as he has the opportunity to form, influence, and vote upon legislation.

In an extended commentary, Senator Kerry tried to relate his Catholic background to his publicrecord. "Now with respect to religion, you know, as I said I grew up Catholic. I was an altar boy. I know that throughout my life this has made a difference for me. And as President Kennedy said when he ran for president, he said, I'm not running to be a Catholic president. I'm running to be a president who happens to be Catholic. Now my faith affects everything that I do and choose. . . and I think that everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith, affected by your faith, but without transferring it in any official way to other people." In framing his argument this way, Senator Kerry effectively argues that there can be no "transference" of his Catholic conviction to his political life. With this argument, the senator intends to absolve himself of responsibility to contend for Catholic moral teaching in his political life.

That argument, antithetical to the Christian moral tradition, would at least have the virtue of consistency. It would, that is, be considered consistent if Senator Kerry would hold consistently to it.

But Senator Kerry immediately departed from his own argument. After stating that his Catholic conviction should not be transferred "in any official way to other people," he went on to argue that his Catholic faith is the animating motivation behind his work for justice, environmentalism, and the alleviation of poverty. "That's why I fight against poverty," Kerry explained. "That's why I fight to clean up the environment and protect the earth. That's why I fight for equality and justice. All of these things come out of that fundamental teaching and belief of faith."

Which way is it, Senator Kerry? It would appear that Kerry is quite willing to transfer his moral convictions concerning poverty and the environment to public policy. But the transference of his self-proclaimed Catholic identity and motivations stops when the contested territory becomes sexuality or abortion. Given Senator Kerry's characteristic confusion on this issue, those watching Wednesday night's debate could hardly be surprised.

See above link for rest of article.

Sunday, October 3, 2004

Monday Morning Quarterbacking

Remember that Mastercard commercial with Brett Favre, taking a Monday morning stroll through a small town? 

 

A father is wiping chocolate ice cream off a child's white sweater. Favre says, "I would have gone vanilla with that sweater."

 

Workmen are gathered around a geyser of water shooting up from an excavation. Favre: "I'd have looked out for the water main. But that's just me."

 

A shopper is carrying a bag of groceries. The bottom of the bag tears open, spilling the contents all over the sidewalk. Favre: "I'd have double-bagged it."

 

That's what i think of when i hear John Kerry talking about the Iraq war.  And Kerry's Monday Morning Quarterbacking was on full display at this week's first Presidential Debate.  These quotes are taken just from the very first question:

 

"We're now 90 percent of the casualties in Iraq and 90 percent of the costs.  I think that's wrong, and I think we can do better."

"I have a better plan for homeland security. I have a better plan to be able to fight the war on terror."

"We can do a better job of training the Iraqi forces to defend themselves, and I know that we can do a better job of preparing for elections."

 

It's all so disingenuous, when Kerry himself supported the war to begin with and voted, along with 76 other Senators, to give the President the authority to engage troops in this endeavor.  In the Democratic primaries, Kerry positioned himself to the right of the leading contender at the time, Howard Dean, and as the pro-war choice.  Once he gained the nomination, he was all of a sudden against the war.

 

It's the worst sort of coulda, woulda, shoulda.

 

In the debate, Kerry told us to check out his plan on his website.  So i did.  Here's his brilliant (sarcasm) plan, along with my commentary:

 

1.  Strengthen the military -- Mm, ok.  Does anyone really believe that a Dem administration is going to make the military stronger that it is or would be under the GOP?

 

2.  Deny mass-terror weapons to the terrorists

 

3.  Cut off terrorist finances -- I can't, for the life of me, figure out why Bush didn't think of these last 2 already.

 

4.  Make homeland security a priority -- Uh, didn't Bush elevate Homeland Security to a cabinet post?  This makes 4 absurd points out of 4.

 

5.  "Launch a strategy to win the war of ideas to prevent terrorists from poisoning more minds" -- I had to quote this one directly, because i have absolutely no idea what it is supposed to mean.

 

6.  Promote democracy and freedom throughout the Muslim world -- Am i mistakenly reading from the Bush-Cheney website?  Here's one quote on this point:  "America will be clear with repressive governments in the region that we expect to see them change, not just for our sake but for their own survival."  Isn't that what we're already doing in Iraq?

 

7.  Build strong alliances -- or, as he repeatedly put it in the debates, hold a summit.  Yippee, a summit!  More blowhards talking.

A Tribute to My Dad

Yesterday, i attended a seminar on The 7 Secrets of Effective Fathering, as led by Dr. Ken Canfield of the National Center for Fathering. The 7 Secrets are:

Effective fathers...

Are committed to their children

Know their children

Are consistent in their attitudes and behavior

Protect and provide for their children

Love their children's mother

Are active listeners to their children

Spiritually equip their children

I am truly blessed to have a dad who did all these things. Still does.

Because Dad is such a good Dad, we (his kids) tend to nitpick on the very few areas we see for improvement. Recently, Dad rightly lamented how people "ignore the 99 good things you do, and focus on the 1 thing you did wrong." I'm sure Dad knows as well as i that is how the world tends to work. But it's not how appreciative kids should work, so i set out to make a list of 99 things that my Dad did right.

A list of 99 is too big to fit into one of these journal entries, so i'll be breaking them up, and listing them over time. I'll start with a quick ten, noting that these are not in any ranked order.

1. Loves Mom

2. Shows affection to Mom

3. Does special things for Mom

4. A born-again believer and follow of Christ

5. Always made sure we went to church, and that he was there, too

6. Took active leadership in the church

7. Made sure that we kept our focus on Jesus, not toys, during Christmas

8. Coached our sports teams

9. Never saw a true fight or argument from our parents

10. Always provided income, without waver or complaint

Because of my dad's example, i know that i have a huge head start on being an quality father, and pray that i can be as effective with my kids as he was with me. And that my son will one day consider me his example -- his good example -- of what a father should be. And so on down the line it hopefully goes.

Tuesday, August 10, 2004

Whitewater Rafting

Here's a link to a photo of Julie & me whitewater rafting on the Arkansas River in Colorado.

http://hometown.aol.com/mikedscott/rafting.html

It was such a fun trip.  Although the snow-runoff water was quite cold, the weather that day was surprisingly nice.  No wetsuits or water boots needed.

Thursday, July 15, 2004

Two Books of Interest - Church & State Issues

Just wanted to jump into the interlude and recommend 2 books by Stephen Carter, a Yale law professor, on the topic of how religion fits into political debates.

The first is The Culture of Disbelief: How American Law & Politics Trivialize Religious Devotion.  I loved this book when i first read it about a decade ago.

The second is God's Name in Vain: The Rights & Wrongs of Religion in Politics.  Not as good as the first, but still an interesting read.  Carter conveys an argument that is closely aligned with my views.

Wednesday, July 14, 2004

A Governing Philosophy

How are we to make sense of the awesome task of governing a nation like the USA?  How to balance the often-competing interests of differing viewpoints, premises, and goals?  How do we decide which arguments are legitimate or illegitimate? 

 

Or, is that even the right question?  In a representative democracy, a government of the people (by the people, for the people), i’m not sure we should concern ourselves with legitimacy of arguments, but rather a more simplistic formulation – truth, as in “is this true or not?”

 

Truth.  That’s the starting point.  If something is true, we shouldn’t care how the argument came about, or who first advanced it.  Ideas matter.  Labels don’t.

 

Sure, the Truth formulation merely begs the question of what is true.  But that is what grown-ups do – sift through the competing assertions of truth, and make grown-up judgments about how we should govern ourselves, based on our best approximations of the “right thing”.  If you disagree with my notion of truth, tell me why my truth is wrong, but don’t tell me that my truth is not allowed in the debate.

 

So drive a stake through the notion that religious-oriented political viewpoints are out of bounds in America.  Arguments that all political viewpoints should be secular are supremely wrong-headed, and show a profound lack of understanding of American Government, of people in general, and of religious people specifically. 

 

For how do we make those grown-up judgments about truth, without utilizing our own understandings of the world?  If my understanding of the world is based on a belief that God exists, how can i NOT incorporate that into my ideas of truth?  Anything less would be incoherent.

 

Taking this more specifically into the political realm today, if i believe that God created marriage to mean a certain thing, then i MUST use that as my starting point in deciding how to structure our society.

 

Notice that i have used the phrase “starting point” twice now.  What else is there, besides truth?  Surely a governing philosophy cannot be a simple translation of my understanding of truth in our laws.  How do we grown-ups come together and properly sift through our differing truth formulations?

 

One way is majority rule, a core essence of our sort of government.  While surely majority rule is prone to abuses, it is still a very simple idea – majority rule is better than minority rule.

 

Truth and majority rule.  What else do we need?  We need ways to protect those with minority viewpoints from abuse of themajority viewpoints.  But wait, doesn’t that contradict our 2nd ingredient?  On the contrary, our 3rd ingredient works in necessary concert with the 2nd.  To be frank, democracy government creates “losers” – those in the minority on an issue, typically.  No government can be stable if such losers are permanent, or feel so.  The current American system does a decent job on this, with its checked-and-balanced branches, frequent elections, and free speech dogma.

 

But it still seems like something’s missing.  Our dish needs more kneading, perhaps more flavoring.  A liberal dash of pragmatism will do the trick, again for the sake of stability. 

 

Take divorce as an example.  A majority may believe it to be frequently morally wrong, but that does not necessarily mean that those same folks have to conclude that it should be legally wrong.  While perfectly legitimate to conflate morality and law, it is not always required, either by God or this governing philosophy.

 

How do we decide when to conflate, and when not to?  Ah, now we’re getting down to the nitty-gritty for American believers.  This is the hard stuff, where we earn our chef’s hat.  I’ll need to let this cook for a while.  To be continued…

Monday, June 14, 2004

Remembering Reagan (an exchange)

The following is an exchange that i had on my fantasy baseball message board, with a good friend.  First, my original post, dated June 5th (all links are added here) ...

Just logged on and saw the news that Ronald Reagan had died after a long bout with Alzheimers. I'll probably have more later, but wanted to share some quick thoughts.

Like many in my generation, Reagan shaped my political philosophy far moreso than any other person. And i'm sure that his influence will stay with me for all of my life.

I'll remember him most for bringing America back, and for winning the Cold War without an actual war. Reagan's policies and personality (don't underestimate that element) brought a super-super-power to its knees, and we are forever in his debt.

We'll see you on the other side, Mr. President.

My friend soon posted this reply...

No offense to Reagan or anyone that considers him a hero but thought I would ask a few questions. Not being mean spirited just trying to figure out the man and what he was about.

I was probably too young for him to shape me as some of you say but help me understand how he:

Brought America back

Single handedly won the Cold War without an actual war

Brought a super-super-power to its knees

I always thought America's fate (from a wordly perspective) was in the blood and sweat of it's people. These same people that dream, work, etc. But from a more traditional perspective most of the war veterans that have spoken lately speak about God and His Grace that has kept this country strong. Help me understand how one man turned America around.

The same is true for winning a cold war. I thought the cold war lasted about 40 to 50 years and was waged by multiple people. How can one man gain credit for bringing down the wall?

Same goes for the super power of I guess the soviet union. From what I have seen that regime was destined to fail eventually. Hardly one man could do that in just 8 years.

Finally to say we are forever in debt to one person is strong. Help me understand that one.

Maybe we are forever in debt to the guys that died on Normandy's beach or soldiers that lost their lives in the Pacific campaign. I would even go for being forever in debt to the WWII generation in general as opposed to one man.

Not trying to be cynical but most of my heros are guys like my next door neighbor who fought in WWII or people like my grandfather who was a P.O.W. in Nazi Germany for nine months. Further heros are some people I have met recently and they meet twice a week just to pray for our country.

Once again I think Reagan has his place in history and I admire his rise to the top. But I need more understanding of how a person gets to such legendary status.

I always thought this country and what it stood for was much bigger than any one man. I think even Reagan would agree.....But I am young and a little naive so forgive me for any rude remarks.

When you answer remember that I already have read the paper and online stories. So I don't want a rehash of the past but your true conviction of why he is your hero.

I responded...

Note first that i didn't call Reagan my hero. That was Phil, although i don't have any issues with that. There's room in our hearts & minds for more than one hero, in more than one area of life. You might be my fantasy football hero, for example.

And our heroes may be flawed. I'd bet many of us consider our dads to be our heroes -- i know i do. And we all know more than anyone how our dads are flawed, but that doesn't make them less of a hero. Or should i say, that doesn't make them unworthy of being a hero.

But my original post was not about heroes; it was about how Reagan embodied what came to be my political philosophy, and about what he did for America as our President.

Back in 1980, i was not old enough to vote, but i was for Carter, if only because i believed the hype that Reagan would get us into a war, and i was going to be of draft-age soon (remember- the draft had ended as recently as 1973). Out of nothing more than pure selfishness, i didn't want go to war, and so i supported Carter.

Even in 1984, early in that campaign, i still hadn't seen the light, and was actually favoring some guy named Gary Hart for my first presidential vote, enough to be selected as a Hart caucus delegate from my hometown precinct. But sometime between the local caucus and the regional/state meeting, i got the Reagan religion. I never went to that regional meeting, and have never looked back politically.

(I wish i could remember my conversion experience, but i truly don't. It was probably related more to an issue like abortion, rather than fiscal policy.)

So, some of my admiration for Reagan was in retrospect, because i wasn't wise enough to appreciate it at the time. And i started thinking more for myself, doing my own research, rather than relying on the national news.

"Bringing America Back" - you may have been too young to have felt the national mood back in 1979/80, but it wasn't a pretty time. Huge recession, huge inflation, energy crisis, no Summer Olympics, Carter's malaise speech, still in hangover from Watergate & Vietnam. And then to top it off, Iran takes scores of Americans hostage, and keeps them hostage for over a year.

Simply put, by force of his resolve and personality, Reagan turned all that around. Turned it around on its ear, on a dime. Also, our military strength was restored under Reagan, as he doubled the size of the miliatry budget, rectifying an alarming situation with our defense.

"Winning the Cold War" - I don't really have much to add to what you have surely seen by now in all those newspaper and online articles you have read. But again, you have to go back to the pre-Reagan years, and understand where we were. It was an era of appeasement, nuclear freeze-niks, and constant talk of who had which missles pointed at whom. It was an era where the future looked to be one of forever detente (at best), with each super-power pretty much held in check by the other, and the pall of a nuclear war threat hovered darkly over us all.

And all the while, the people in the Communist bloc suffered greatly. Reagan's was the primary voice saying "Enough!". Reagan was theone with the nads to call the USSR an "evil empire", to tell Gorbachev to "tear down this wall!" And Reagan was the one whose (again, here is that combo) resolve and personality allowed a successful negotiation with Gorbachev, and the ultimate end to the Soviet Union.

If Reagan had not been President, i believe that the USSR would still be limping along. While not quite the super-power that it had been, it would still be oppressing its people under an atheistic, communist philosophy. There would still be gulags. There would have been another Afghanistan or two. Reagan made sure that the grandson of your next-door neighbor didn't have to experience what his grandfather experienced.

Was it just one man? No, certainly not. But if Reagan had not been President, that i do truly believe that these things would not have come to pass as well as they did for America. I do truly believe that strong leadership makes a huge difference in most any endeavor. 

Wednesday, May 26, 2004

Sob & Circumstance

Emily graduated from kindergarten last week.  She was in the half-day program at Calvary Baptist Day School, taught by Mrs. Kistemaker (gracious, i don’t even know her first name).

Before the graduation ceremonies started, I heard a few of the moms in the audience assure each other that they had enough Kleenex.  That made me silently scoff, with a little hmpf sniff accompanied by a smile, since i found it funny in “isn’t that precious” sort of way.  I mean, it’s just kindergarten, for crying out loud.  It’s not like the tykes are heading off to college.

About one minute into the program, and i’m wishing i had my own Kleenex.  What did i know?

For me (and i think Julie had a similar reaction), it was watching Emily sing that first song with such confidence and gusto.  We’ve never seen that from her before in any sort of public setting (she’s always been very confident at home).  She also sang with enormous heart, giving you a glimpse into a future filled with love for God, and a quiet tenderness for people (other than her brother).

And when you think back to the beginning of the school year, when we were still a bit worried about whether she would even talk in class, much less sing-out in a public performance, you are floored by her progress.  You are pleased you selected this kindergarten for her.  You are so proud of how she has matured, how she is now showing the world what you knew was there all along.

It also hits you how quickly she is growing up.  And how you don’t feel ready for it.  Like a train leaving the station, and you’re still packing your suitcase.

Sunday, April 18, 2004

Sports-O-Rama

We're having our own little Olympiad here at the Scott household, it seems, with each of the kids involved in a Spring sports league.  Almost every night, we're running around from one locale to the other, juggling who goes where and when, with which parent.  It's a regular Ops Mgt problem, that could be studied by leading MBA schools.

Caroline is playing fast-pitch softball (girls 13-15) in the Northwest Forsyth Little League organization, on a team called the Roadsters.  This is her first time ever playing softball, and she is just about the youngest one in the whole league, making it quite the learning experience.  The Roadsters are a pretty good team, and the girls are very gracious and encouraging with Caroline's learning curve.

Emily plays T-ball in the same place, on a team called the Reds.  It's for 5&6 year olds, and is not the same T-ball that i remember from my youth.  Not sure if it is because of the young ages, or creeping PC nonsense, but they have a bunch of don't-compete-just-have-fun rules.  One base at a time.  Everybody bats every inning.  Stuff like that.  I don't really have a problem with it, though, assuming it is an age-thing.  Emily is very good at the defensive "ready position", but is still working on that whole deal of catching the ball.

Jackson, meanwhile, is playing indoor soccer for 3&4 year olds, downtown at the YMCA.  (A friend of mine calls it "beehive soccer", aptly describing how it looks, as all the kids hoover around the ball.)  They don't keep score, but just go out & have fun & run around.  Main point is to get some exercise, and learn how to be part of a team.  Jackson's team is the Blue Whales.

For Mom & Dad, aka the Chauffeurs, we trade off on who goes to the ballfields, and who goes to the Y, as it seems that the games & practices are always at the same time. 

We all usually end up at the ballfields, though, a place where Dad finds great enjoyment.  I could spend every nice evening out there, not only watching my own kids play, but taking in games with the Coach-Pitch youngsters, or real Little Leaguers.  The combination of fond memories of my own childhood, and the purity of the game of baseball, makes for a place and time that just feels right.

Friday, April 16, 2004

Unlikely Father/Daughter Bonding

How's an old fogey like me going to relate to a young lady of 12 going on 16, even when that beautiful young lady is my daughter?  Well, sometimes, Grace comes in the oddest of forms.

Caroline & i have formed a bond watching the old Dick Van Dyke Show.  I picked up the DVD set of the first season, and we have been enjoying those earliest episodes (from 1961) of that great sitcom.  I think it's just about the most underrated sitcom in TV history.  One of the 10 best shows ever on TV, of any genre.

Anyhow, father & daughter find we can laugh at the same jokes.  The DVD Show has just enough edge to be cool enough for a pre-teen, enough wit to appease and please the dad, enough camp and pratfall humor for both of us, and the right measure of cleanliness so nobody gets uncomfortable and turns the channel.

A few of our favorites so far...

Laura thinks Rob takes her for granted, so she dyes her hair blond

Rob feels guilty when he misses Ritchie's school play -- this is Emily & Jack's (they're always a pair, huh?) favorite so far

Rob & Laura remember the night they first met

Wednesday, April 14, 2004

Reaction to The Passion

In my previous entry, i mentioned that the brutality of The Passion movie was not as bad as i expected.  I was further surprised by my reactions to all the physical pain that Jesus endured.  While it saddened me to see Jesus beaten, scourged, demeaned, and ultimately sadistically crucified, i was not moved to tears.  I didn't get mad, angry, want to fight back.  I don't admit that proudly nor with shame -- it just is. 

Perhaps my reaction is a function of being so familiar with the story, down to the gory details.  Having heard many sermons over the years that go into excruciating detail of what happened on Good Friday, expounded with excellent rhetorical and emotional manipulation (i mean that in the best way -- really).  I mean, since i was a kid, i've known about the nail holes, about the spear-piercing (although i never pictured it like Gibson shows), about being severely whipped (must admit that one particular scourge-blow made me gasp), about the crown of thorns.  And not just "knowledge", but skillful preachers have put me there on the scene.  Mel Gibson's movie just put the vivid pictures in my head up on the big screen.

Still, i found it strange, my reaction, because i fully expected to be nauseous, or sobbing, or both.

Instead, i was most moved by the scenes with Mary.  Starting when John bursts into the home where Mary was the night of Jesus' arrest, and gives her the news.  And continuing through pretty much every scene she's in, particularly as she watches the scourging.  And when she finds a way to get close to Jesus as He carries the cross, and stoops to comfort him.  As she watches her son die.  As she kisses his bloody feet.

My reaction to Mary brought to mind what i found to be a general reaction to the movie.  I found myself with an increased understanding of and appreciation for the spiritual predilections of Catholics.  Not to worship Mary by any means, but to revere her.  Also, a desire to partake of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper (the Eucharist for Catholics) way more often than the quarterly-or-so frequency of most Baptist congregations. 

And an odd fondness for relics, prompted by seeing the crown of thorns in the dirt toward the end of the movie, and wanting a piece of it.  Just to touch it, or to touch the stones along the Via Dolorosa -- anything to get closer to the Christ who died for me.  To have something to hold, something tangible, to clutch it tightly.  Likewise, I finally gained an understanding of those who make pilgrimages to the Holy Land.  My thoughts have always been "i have Jesus in my heart, why do i need to go to Jerusalem?"  But now i get it.

Those are my emotional and sociological reactions.  Theologically, no new great insights.  Just a needed reminder of what is most important in life.  And another reminder of the folly of most doctrinal disputes.  When we can't even master the basic tenets of loving God and our neighbors, why should we arrogantly argue about the relatively trivial?

P.S.  I read an excellent article and review of The Passion in First Things.  Check it out.

Finally Saw The Passion

I finally saw The Passion of the Christ movie this week.  Let me say upfront, in short, all the hype is deserved, and almost none of the criticism is valid. 

From a pure film aesthetic standpoint, this is a fantastic movie, and a marvelous achievement overall.  The Passion is an Oscar-caliber film.  Not that i think it will happen, but it deserves nominations for both Best Picture and Best Director.  It is a better film than at least half of the Oscar winners just in the last decade -- Chicago (03), Gladiator (01), Shakespeare in Love (99), Titanic (97), English Patient (96).

I would also nominate Maia Morgenstern for Best Supporting Actress (the Academy will concur, i predict).  She gives a remarkable performance as Mary, the Mother of Jesus.

As for the invalid criticism, the anti-Semitism angle is ridiculous.  In fact, i felt that Gibson went out of his way to show just the opposite.  Then you have the words of Jesus himself, in one of the flashbacks, where He explains to his disciples that He lays down His life willingly.  It is also very clear that, as believers already know, the crucifixion was God's plan all along.

Sure, the Roman soldiers were the proximate cause of Jesus' death, and sure, it was clearly the Jewish Sanhedrin leaders who gave Him up to the Romans.  But as we have been taught, Jesus died for each of us, and so it was my sins, your sins that put Him on that cross.  Blame extends no further than the face in the mirror.

But back to the film...  i was very impressed with how Gibson combined fidelity to scripture with artistic imaginings.  I thought the scenes with Peter were great.  The scenes with Judas were great.  The scenes with Satan are wonderfully imagined and depicted. 

The flashback scenes were more plentiful than reviewers had led me to believe -- there's plenty in there about the ministry and message of Jesus.  I especially liked the flashbacks that included Mary, with the best one being her interplay with an adult Jesus, as He crafts a "tall table".

The gore and brutality were not as dominating as i expected, however.  The scourging scene is long because the scouring itself was long.  Besides, Gibson doesn't show every blow (he shows enough) head-on; for some, he shows us Mary's face.  That doesn't lessen the impact, though, as i found it more difficult to watch her watch it.

I'll say more later about my reactions to the movie, but let me close this entry by saying:  Go see this film!  See it at the theater to get the full effect.  Don't let any of the misguided criticism dissuade you from seeing it, or from persuading friends and family to go see it, even if they are not believers.

Thursday, March 18, 2004

Final Four

My Final Four picks for 2004 are Duke (surprise), Oklahoma State (hey to the F-I-L), Kentucky, and Connecticut.  Duke beats OSU (sorry, Jerry) for the championship.

Friday, March 12, 2004

Top 10 Reasons Not to See The Passion

/sarcasm on/

 

Top 10 Reasons You Should Not See The Passion

  1. Anti-Semitic
  2. Too violent
  3. Doesn't focus on Jesus' message
  4. Too little of the resurrection
  5. Too out-there version of Catholicism
  6. Not good stewardship of your $ to see a movie
  7. Too close to the Gospel account
  8. Strays too far from the Gospel account
  9. Mel’s just trying to make gobs of $
  10. The actor who plays Jesus is too white and American

/sarcasm off/

All the Reasons Not to See The Passion

It's been hilarious tracking all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about The Passion of the Christ, Mel Gibson's film about the crucifixion of Jesus.  For several months leading up to the film's release, all we heard about was the criticism that it was anti-Semitic, and would foster hatred toward modern-day Jews.

 

After preview showings, most media and Christian leaders found the original criticism way overblown.  So, the media & Christ-critics had to find other ways to lambaste the movie.  Herein, I present the:

 

Top 10 Reasons You Should Not See The Passion

[See next journal entry for top 10 list]

 

But, of course, as NewSong sang, you can't keep a good man down.  Heartland Americans are not seeing this movie to the tune of $240 million and counting.

 

And we are reminded of the scripture in 1st Corinthians 2:14, "the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised."  Or same book, chapter 1, verse 23:  "but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness."

Sunday, March 7, 2004

What a Difference a Month Makes

They say that March comes in like a lion, and goes out like a lamb.  But February 2004 came in like a black-breasted buzzard, and went out like the Jacana. 

 

Or, abandoning the animal-theme, February came in with the elites firmly in charge of the culture, not giving one whit about things most important to you and me.  A culture where major American institutions like the NFL and CBS thought nothing of putting on a sex-laden show at the Super Bowl halftime -- and that was before the so-called wardrobe malfunction.

 

But February went out with the bloodied face of a cinematic Christ, somehow forgiving his executioners.  And the solemn faces of true believer movie-goers, in one sold-out theater after another, propelling The Passion of the Christ to blockbuster status.

 

America is hungry for change.  Change in our culture.  Change in our hearts.  And in the shortest month (the extra leap-year day wasn't even needed), America served notice that change is in the air.

Sneak Attack in the Culture Wars, Part II

Well, all they’ve done is awaken the forces, strengthened our resolve.  Enough was finally enough.  Finally.  When the other guy throws a grenade in your living room, staying on the sidelines is no longer an option.

 

The counter-punches were swift and strong, as the Heartland rose up in indignation.  Perhaps you wrote a protest letter for the first time in years, if not ever.  The NFL & CBS couldn’t apologize profusely enough (whether sincere or not).  The FCC kicked into gear.  The silent majority made an impact, because they finally spoke up.

 

The tide was already starting to turn in the Culture Wars (more on this later), but the debacle of Janet & Justin will prove to be the tipping point that leads to committed mobilization of the great mass of troops on the other side.  Hang on to your proverbial muskets, be minuteman-ready, keep your powder dry, and don’t shy away from the battle. 

Sneak Attack in the Culture Wars, Part I

Make no mistake – the Culture Wars are alive and well, and never really left us, even if we can put it out of mind, numbly going about our mundanity for months on end.  The Culture War is nothing less than a fight for the soul of America, if not the souls of Americans themselves. 

 

The other side – an army of ideologues no less zealous than the most Faithful – never lets up, using myriad tactics to erase the appearance of God in our society.  Commanded by the elites, their chief weapon is skillful erosion, a bit-by-bit dismantling of that we hold dear.  More like a swarm of grasshoppers than in-your-face soldiers. 

 

Usually, anyway.

 

What happened at the Super Bowl halftime show (and surely you know by now what happened), however, was a sneak attack in these wars.  A frontal assault right into our dens and basements.  A commando raid formulated by General MTV, with no regard for collateral damage.

In the Beginning...

Just discovered last night that AOL has this journal/blog feature.  As many of you know, i’ve been keeping a personal, private journal for many years now.  While i don’t write as much these days – the era of marriage & family contentment & busyness – compared to the earlier days of anxious single-hood, i do still jot off some thoughts every now & then.

 

But it’s time to write more frequently again, and to write more openly.  So i beg your indulgence as i begin this online journal, noting observations about life and the culture.   

 

Feel free to leave comments, as the site allows, and your conscience urges.