My dad and I had a conversation recently about the cultural obsession with "tolerance." Specifically, we talked about what supposed free-thinkers really mean when they demand open-mindedness.
Of course, they mean for people of opposing views to lay their assumptions aside in order to find common ground and discuss problems rationally. They want intellectuals to start at the bottom line and explain the reasons for their beliefs step by step, in order to reach agreement together.
No, wait.
Then why are fair debates so hard to find? Why are the most well-read and intelligent individuals (usually those most interested in conversation because they know they have solid reasoning) dismissed as bigots and silenced? Why was I called names ("immature" and "ridiculous") when I defended Sarah Palin with a relevent parallel? By the way, don't miss the comment section of that post! Apparently, I made Anonymous "sick," since I was "so sure" I was right. How could I be so close-minded?
Instead of the above definition, our culture's idea of tolerance and open-mindedness only requires those holding traditional beliefs to give them up, even if they haven't been proven incorrect. "Old" automatically means "outdated," and anything controversial is Progress! Think we should allow mothers to kill their unborn? Believe the government should steal from the rich to feed the poor? Don't worry about the evidence to the contrary; the good news is you're open-minded!
Ann Coulter explains how this phenomenon affects politics in her article about "sacrosanct" topics. (Okay, I had to look up this word. Forgive me if you already know this, but sacrosanct means hallowed, venerated, or consecrated. Anything "sancrosanct" is assumed correct and beyond the realm of questioning. End grammer lesson.)
I'm well aware of Coulter's reputation in the liberal media. She's irreverent and unapologetic. But I have to ask, "Is she wrong?" Really, let's be open-minded here. After reading her examples, and allowing for comic-exagerration and sarcasm, tell me what's inconsistent about her statement:
When liberals say, "nothing is sacrosanct," they mean "nothing other Americans consider sacrosanct is sacrosanct." They demonstrate their open-mindedness by ridiculing other people's dogma, but will not brook the most trifling criticism of their own...
Or, tell me what's wrong with my statement that only a gun-holder--not somehow Sarah Palin--can be responsible for a shooting. I'm open to criticism regarding anything I've posted to this blog because I want to find the truth more than I want to be right. The truth can handle criticism.
But, I'll only be open-minded as long as it means having ears ready to allow words into my brain, where they will be processed, evaluated for revelence, and assessed with critical thinking. On the other hand, I must reserve the right to rebut with facts of my own.... And I must insist there be no name-calling. No stating the obvious "you just think you're right" without giving me reason to believe otherwise.
As a lover of debate and respecter of truth, I wish more people sparked up conversations and reasonsed fairly, in order to build consensus. It's a lot of fun when done properly. But both parties have to come humbly. Both must be ready to concede. And if, eventually, one person's case falls apart and he resorts only to insults or fleeing the situation, guess which one probably owned a list of selfish, sacrosanct ideas and a closed mind?
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Friday, January 28, 2011
Piers Morgan: If You Don't Like the Answer, Don't Ask.
Me: Do you think pepperoni or hawaiian pizza is better?
You: I have to say Hawaiian.
Me: WHY?!?!?!
You: I just read a study linking greasy pork products with heart disease. And I also hear that tropical fruits, like the pineapple in Hawaiian pizza, have many benefits. So, I conclude that Hawaiian is a better choice.
Me: Are you saying people who eat pepperoni are unhealthy?
You: Uh.....I suppose that follows. If I must give a short answer, then, yes, I'll side with the experts who found pepperoni-eaters to be unhealthy.
Me: Don't you think that's a little judgemental of pepperoni-lovers?
You: How did this become personal? I'm not waving a banner that says, "Ye who eat pepperoni shall be punished!" But, if someone asks, then I tell them my source doesn't support pepperoni.
Me: You can't just abrogate your responsibility by blaming the word of experts. When you say someone is unhealthy, it's a big statement! You ARE being a judge! So, please excuse me while I go tell any who will listen that you are an intolerant, pathetic, pepperoni-hater.
-----
You: What the heck was that about, Amanda?
Well, read this story about an interview between CNN's Piers Morgan and televangelist Joel Osteen, and you'll recognize a true pepperoni-pineapple debate. (And do watch the clip, too, for the whole irksome effect!)
At some point during their discussion, Morgan asked Osteen point-blank: Do you think homosexuality is a sin? Then, in typical ratings-boosting, bait-and-trap fashion, Morgan criticized the preacher for his answer.
Now, don't get the wrong idea here. I'm not Joel Osteen's biggest fan. He, like many megachurch leaders, subscribes to a Gospel of Health and Wealth with which I strongly disagree. And, as this person points out, he rarely takes a stand on anything controversial, since the notion of sin puts a damper on his depictions of the euphoric, problem-free Christian life. In short, he has earned a reputation for being spineless.
But, apparently, Osteen will give a straight answer when backed into a corner. And--in response to the question about homosexuality--he states the Bible calls it a sin.
Unfortunately, Morgan controls the "interview." Morgan asks the questions, and he decides how long to spend on each answer. But, instead of admitting the topic can't be covered in a 5-minute segment (and while ignoring Osteen's assertion that it's "complicated") Morgan makes a wormy move. He sets an emotional trap, brings up Elton John, and demands a short, on-the-spot answer to the now-personal question: why would you say Elton John is a sinner?
For a second time, Osteen delivers the shortest answer possible, pointing to the Scripture. He tries to remind Morgan it was HIM who wanted to talk about it. He tries saying it's not the Christian's job to condemn people or judge sinners. (Osteen doesn't hold up banners saying, "Ye homosexuals will be punished.") But, Morgan interrupts with:
"I think you ARE a kind of judge. And I don't think you can abrogate that kind of responsibility. When you say to 7 million people, 'homosexuality is a sin,' it's a big statement. You are a judge."
Oh, Silent Joel Osteen, you aren't used to the hotseat, are you? More than one angry blogger tore into him. Check out this guy, who actually praises Morgan for not letting that "closet case" get away with a "Holier than Thou answer." (Thanks, Mr. Blogger, for exposing the world's judgemental people....)
There is plenty more to dissect from the interview, but I can't allow Morgan's biggest mistake to go unmentioned any longer. No one can argue with a messenger without refuting the place he got the message. It's not "abrogating responsibility" to give a source for our beliefs. Certainly, offering a reason such as "this or that tells me so" is better than Morgan's own vague, unsupported statement, "I don't think you can help being gay." Providing proofs through back-and-forth dialog was the gentleman's way to debate, back before you could trump reason with the phrase, "Don't judge!!!"
If you don't like my stance on pineapples, you need to prove my research is a sham. But don't bring up a friend of yours with a pepperoni-affinity. Your point remains unsupported, even if you paint a cute, mental-picture baby. Don't spring into personal attack--calling me a "judge" and questioning my intent. A mean offense cannot substitute for some kind of defense. (Plus, calling me a "judge" makes you one.) And don't ask your question a hundred different ways, to see if it changes my answer. Only a two-way, logic-based discussion will further my thinking; not several attempts to make my viewpoint sound inhumane.
-----
Just as the interview spirals to a painful close, Morgan asks Osteen's wife "what she would say to Elton John" if he were there. And, unfortunately, she doesn't handle the grilling much better than her husband.
But, Mr. Morgan, I have an answer to that question. I'd say, "It's an honor to meet you, Sir Elton John. You're a legend!"
See, unlike the Atheist television hosts bent on defaming evangelical pastors, I don't obsess over homosexuality. Since I don't have the burden to entertain an audience and keep my viewers, I don't have to gravitate toward the most controversial topic. And since Christians should see the whole person and love them despite their sin, it wouldn't be my place to bring up homosexuality with the singer at all.
But, if Elton John asked me, point blank, what I believed about his homosexuality, the situation changes, and I hope he has time to listen. It's a complicated, but well-researched answer that I would love to share if he really wants to hear it. If either of them asks, Elton John and Mr. Morgan should prepare for a long, source-sited answer they won't like.
You: I have to say Hawaiian.
Me: WHY?!?!?!
You: I just read a study linking greasy pork products with heart disease. And I also hear that tropical fruits, like the pineapple in Hawaiian pizza, have many benefits. So, I conclude that Hawaiian is a better choice.
Me: Are you saying people who eat pepperoni are unhealthy?
You: Uh.....I suppose that follows. If I must give a short answer, then, yes, I'll side with the experts who found pepperoni-eaters to be unhealthy.
Me: Don't you think that's a little judgemental of pepperoni-lovers?
You: How did this become personal? I'm not waving a banner that says, "Ye who eat pepperoni shall be punished!" But, if someone asks, then I tell them my source doesn't support pepperoni.
Me: You can't just abrogate your responsibility by blaming the word of experts. When you say someone is unhealthy, it's a big statement! You ARE being a judge! So, please excuse me while I go tell any who will listen that you are an intolerant, pathetic, pepperoni-hater.
-----
You: What the heck was that about, Amanda?
Well, read this story about an interview between CNN's Piers Morgan and televangelist Joel Osteen, and you'll recognize a true pepperoni-pineapple debate. (And do watch the clip, too, for the whole irksome effect!)
At some point during their discussion, Morgan asked Osteen point-blank: Do you think homosexuality is a sin? Then, in typical ratings-boosting, bait-and-trap fashion, Morgan criticized the preacher for his answer.
Now, don't get the wrong idea here. I'm not Joel Osteen's biggest fan. He, like many megachurch leaders, subscribes to a Gospel of Health and Wealth with which I strongly disagree. And, as this person points out, he rarely takes a stand on anything controversial, since the notion of sin puts a damper on his depictions of the euphoric, problem-free Christian life. In short, he has earned a reputation for being spineless.
But, apparently, Osteen will give a straight answer when backed into a corner. And--in response to the question about homosexuality--he states the Bible calls it a sin.
Unfortunately, Morgan controls the "interview." Morgan asks the questions, and he decides how long to spend on each answer. But, instead of admitting the topic can't be covered in a 5-minute segment (and while ignoring Osteen's assertion that it's "complicated") Morgan makes a wormy move. He sets an emotional trap, brings up Elton John, and demands a short, on-the-spot answer to the now-personal question: why would you say Elton John is a sinner?
For a second time, Osteen delivers the shortest answer possible, pointing to the Scripture. He tries to remind Morgan it was HIM who wanted to talk about it. He tries saying it's not the Christian's job to condemn people or judge sinners. (Osteen doesn't hold up banners saying, "Ye homosexuals will be punished.") But, Morgan interrupts with:
"I think you ARE a kind of judge. And I don't think you can abrogate that kind of responsibility. When you say to 7 million people, 'homosexuality is a sin,' it's a big statement. You are a judge."
Oh, Silent Joel Osteen, you aren't used to the hotseat, are you? More than one angry blogger tore into him. Check out this guy, who actually praises Morgan for not letting that "closet case" get away with a "Holier than Thou answer." (Thanks, Mr. Blogger, for exposing the world's judgemental people....)
There is plenty more to dissect from the interview, but I can't allow Morgan's biggest mistake to go unmentioned any longer. No one can argue with a messenger without refuting the place he got the message. It's not "abrogating responsibility" to give a source for our beliefs. Certainly, offering a reason such as "this or that tells me so" is better than Morgan's own vague, unsupported statement, "I don't think you can help being gay." Providing proofs through back-and-forth dialog was the gentleman's way to debate, back before you could trump reason with the phrase, "Don't judge!!!"
If you don't like my stance on pineapples, you need to prove my research is a sham. But don't bring up a friend of yours with a pepperoni-affinity. Your point remains unsupported, even if you paint a cute, mental-picture baby. Don't spring into personal attack--calling me a "judge" and questioning my intent. A mean offense cannot substitute for some kind of defense. (Plus, calling me a "judge" makes you one.) And don't ask your question a hundred different ways, to see if it changes my answer. Only a two-way, logic-based discussion will further my thinking; not several attempts to make my viewpoint sound inhumane.
-----
Just as the interview spirals to a painful close, Morgan asks Osteen's wife "what she would say to Elton John" if he were there. And, unfortunately, she doesn't handle the grilling much better than her husband.
But, Mr. Morgan, I have an answer to that question. I'd say, "It's an honor to meet you, Sir Elton John. You're a legend!"
See, unlike the Atheist television hosts bent on defaming evangelical pastors, I don't obsess over homosexuality. Since I don't have the burden to entertain an audience and keep my viewers, I don't have to gravitate toward the most controversial topic. And since Christians should see the whole person and love them despite their sin, it wouldn't be my place to bring up homosexuality with the singer at all.
But, if Elton John asked me, point blank, what I believed about his homosexuality, the situation changes, and I hope he has time to listen. It's a complicated, but well-researched answer that I would love to share if he really wants to hear it. If either of them asks, Elton John and Mr. Morgan should prepare for a long, source-sited answer they won't like.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
I Don't Need a Man! Except Uncle Sam...
This is why I struggle to rally behind most "feminist organizations."
For some reason, to be concerned about women's rights in America, you also have to be radically against the idea of traditional families. Supposedly, a real advocate for women fights for her right to have the job she wants, to have as many children as she wants, to have her own house, etc.
But to suggest the need for a partner to accomplish these goals is anti-feminist.
Some highlights from the above article:
-"the government shouldn't promote marriage."
-"children should be considered a public expense."
-Lives would improve if pay for women went up "much more than if people simply got married and stayed married."
On the other hand, of course, it's okay to promote reliance on the government. We're supposed to offer childcare assistance, housing assistance, and welfare/food stamps when necessary. That's only logical, since life is expensive and everyone needs help sometimes. But, don't suggest that help should come from a loving, supportive life partner.
(sigh) when will women realize that the overall condition of their gender has NOT improved since the adoption of a selfish, "I don't need a man" mentality?
For some reason, to be concerned about women's rights in America, you also have to be radically against the idea of traditional families. Supposedly, a real advocate for women fights for her right to have the job she wants, to have as many children as she wants, to have her own house, etc.
But to suggest the need for a partner to accomplish these goals is anti-feminist.
Some highlights from the above article:
-"the government shouldn't promote marriage."
-"children should be considered a public expense."
-Lives would improve if pay for women went up "much more than if people simply got married and stayed married."
On the other hand, of course, it's okay to promote reliance on the government. We're supposed to offer childcare assistance, housing assistance, and welfare/food stamps when necessary. That's only logical, since life is expensive and everyone needs help sometimes. But, don't suggest that help should come from a loving, supportive life partner.
(sigh) when will women realize that the overall condition of their gender has NOT improved since the adoption of a selfish, "I don't need a man" mentality?
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Teaching Little Apes
Today, I stumbled upon a book by Dale McGowan called Parenting Beyond Belief: On Raising Ethical, Caring Kids Without Religion.
(sigh)
I have to admit, I'm a tad interested in reading the book in order to highlight (literally) all the logical errors that MUST be inside a manuscript whose very title is inconsistent. I, like apparently many atheist parents, am curious to know how one would teach "morals" without an Author of Morality. Unless your children become the only ones never to ask "why should I?"--I honestly don't know what they could say.
If you don't see a problem with the concept of teaching ethics without a belief in God, let me ask you this: what does the word "ethical" even mean if there is no Absolute High Standard? If we crawled out of a slimey pit 10 million years ago, why should we be "caring" individuals, trying to raise "caring" children? It seems to me, a parent dealing with a child asking "Why should I keep my hands to myself?" is in the same sticky spot as the talk show host answering the question, "Why shouldn't a husband cheat on his wife?" (I'm referencing a previous post, "Risen From Apes")
There is no way around it: if we originated from apes, there is no reason to "be good." In fact, it gets more cerebral than that--because the word "good" implies a standard. To say something is good means something else is bad, and I would have to ask, "According to who/what?"
Many people argue their morals are based on what brings the "most benefit to the most people," or what brings the least harm to the most people. But why is that definition better or worse than the belief that a shrinking, suffering population is "best?" Keep in mind, we all originated from nothing and for no reason! At what point did one of our ancestors say "if our numbers grow, and we feel pleased with ourselves, then rightness has been accomplished!?"....and, even if you can hypothesize and answer to that question, where did the very concept of "rightness" and "wrongness" come from anyway?
The point is, there's no explanation for "ethics" and "morals" and no need to be "caring" without a God who put those laws in place. Even the supposedly-nobel effort to advance human life and make people happy falls short of being an acceptable standard, since human life itself is not sacred unless it was created intentionally. In other words, if there was no reason for our origin--if we evolved through chance rather than being planned with purpose--then there is no reason to continue existing.
It must be tough teaching that to a Little Ape....
(sigh)
I have to admit, I'm a tad interested in reading the book in order to highlight (literally) all the logical errors that MUST be inside a manuscript whose very title is inconsistent. I, like apparently many atheist parents, am curious to know how one would teach "morals" without an Author of Morality. Unless your children become the only ones never to ask "why should I?"--I honestly don't know what they could say.
If you don't see a problem with the concept of teaching ethics without a belief in God, let me ask you this: what does the word "ethical" even mean if there is no Absolute High Standard? If we crawled out of a slimey pit 10 million years ago, why should we be "caring" individuals, trying to raise "caring" children? It seems to me, a parent dealing with a child asking "Why should I keep my hands to myself?" is in the same sticky spot as the talk show host answering the question, "Why shouldn't a husband cheat on his wife?" (I'm referencing a previous post, "Risen From Apes")
There is no way around it: if we originated from apes, there is no reason to "be good." In fact, it gets more cerebral than that--because the word "good" implies a standard. To say something is good means something else is bad, and I would have to ask, "According to who/what?"
Many people argue their morals are based on what brings the "most benefit to the most people," or what brings the least harm to the most people. But why is that definition better or worse than the belief that a shrinking, suffering population is "best?" Keep in mind, we all originated from nothing and for no reason! At what point did one of our ancestors say "if our numbers grow, and we feel pleased with ourselves, then rightness has been accomplished!?"....and, even if you can hypothesize and answer to that question, where did the very concept of "rightness" and "wrongness" come from anyway?
The point is, there's no explanation for "ethics" and "morals" and no need to be "caring" without a God who put those laws in place. Even the supposedly-nobel effort to advance human life and make people happy falls short of being an acceptable standard, since human life itself is not sacred unless it was created intentionally. In other words, if there was no reason for our origin--if we evolved through chance rather than being planned with purpose--then there is no reason to continue existing.
It must be tough teaching that to a Little Ape....
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Get Off God's Lap
I have become increasingly disappointed with women's devotionals. Apparently, every one of my sister's in Christ is a D-personality, task-oriented, hurried and harried, and pulled in all different directions. And, devotion writers have responded by delivering the message, over and over again, "Jesus is the safe place to curl up with a nice cup of coffee and unwind."
We are handed the story of Mary and Martha, under the assumption that all Christian women are Marthas, wearing themselves out in service and simply needing more down time. We are given the example of the woman with the bleeding issue and told we just need "a touch" from Jesus' cloak, like she did. And, through these stories and personal examples of "PTA meetings, soccer games, church responsibilities, and laundry" the writers of women's devotions constantly praise our activities while inviting us to the Jesus Spa. There, we can "step back," "take a break," and "spend a little time--just you and God." Change nothing else! This is all you need to live a complete, Christian life.
Part of my issue is that I can see this misguided advice for what it is because I do not have PTA meetings, soccer games, or loads of other typical, American-mom responsibilities, and I know from experience that loads of freetime/me-time isn't all it's cracked up to be. Sure, I keep busy with my job at the daycare, house-keeping, and other details. But, ultimately, I find plenty of down time and chances to spend in God's Lap, and I've found He doesn't want to massage my shoulders and let me return to the things which are breaking me down to begin with.
So, my main problem with the so-called solution to "get a little God" is this tactic presents a Christianized version of the message the world sends ALL women: "Be more selfish."
"Yes, you are superwoman, and the hand which rocks the cradle rules the world. But everybody needs time for themselves. So, take a minute and relax! You deserve it! Then you will feel prepared enough to go right back to the draining, lifeless activities which brought you here..."
I probably should clarify I don't mean to suggest that prayer and time with God inherently are selfish. Only let me explain, with no exaggeration, that eight out of ten devotions I get in my email are telling me to take more time for me. Every time I'm looking to hear a word from God, I'm told the word is "rest, sit down, take a load off." And I just have to wonder when God is going to tell me what He told his disciples:
"GO!"
"Don't just sit here, waiting for Me to make you feel better. I've already promised to give you whatever you give me--pressed down, shaken together, and running over. That includes time and energy. If you're feeling drained and tired all the time, perhaps your goals aren't the same as Mine. So, sit down long enough to get your instructions. Then, GO! I'll go with you, but go."
A hot drink and bubble bath can fix a lot of things. And if you are an over-worked Martha, you won't be able to go anywhere until you've spent time recouperating. But, no amount of rest will substitute for the fact that we were created to do things for the Kingdom. And, if you aren't fulfilled by the meetings, games, and chore list, may I suggest the very core of your system is broken--beyond what a quick trip to God's Lap can "fix?"
Take it from someone blessed with the opportunity to snuggle up and listen for God's voice with frequency--He isn't waiting like a pit crew to polish your hood, change the worn tires, and send you out for more of the same. He won't affirm your daily, spirit-killing routine, just because you turn him into a half-hour coffee break. And, shock of all shocks, He doesn't always agree that you are a hard-working, selfless individual, deserving of more, more, more. You can hear that from any commercial or talk show host in the country.
Rest in God's arms when the battle gets heated. But don't take His comfort as a license for selfishness. Don't run back to home base looking for peace, when you really need to get out of your comfort zone for awhile.
Go, look for opportunities to turn that selfishness into service, and you may just feel less "busy" and more "energized" than ever.
Go.
We are handed the story of Mary and Martha, under the assumption that all Christian women are Marthas, wearing themselves out in service and simply needing more down time. We are given the example of the woman with the bleeding issue and told we just need "a touch" from Jesus' cloak, like she did. And, through these stories and personal examples of "PTA meetings, soccer games, church responsibilities, and laundry" the writers of women's devotions constantly praise our activities while inviting us to the Jesus Spa. There, we can "step back," "take a break," and "spend a little time--just you and God." Change nothing else! This is all you need to live a complete, Christian life.
Part of my issue is that I can see this misguided advice for what it is because I do not have PTA meetings, soccer games, or loads of other typical, American-mom responsibilities, and I know from experience that loads of freetime/me-time isn't all it's cracked up to be. Sure, I keep busy with my job at the daycare, house-keeping, and other details. But, ultimately, I find plenty of down time and chances to spend in God's Lap, and I've found He doesn't want to massage my shoulders and let me return to the things which are breaking me down to begin with.
So, my main problem with the so-called solution to "get a little God" is this tactic presents a Christianized version of the message the world sends ALL women: "Be more selfish."
"Yes, you are superwoman, and the hand which rocks the cradle rules the world. But everybody needs time for themselves. So, take a minute and relax! You deserve it! Then you will feel prepared enough to go right back to the draining, lifeless activities which brought you here..."
I probably should clarify I don't mean to suggest that prayer and time with God inherently are selfish. Only let me explain, with no exaggeration, that eight out of ten devotions I get in my email are telling me to take more time for me. Every time I'm looking to hear a word from God, I'm told the word is "rest, sit down, take a load off." And I just have to wonder when God is going to tell me what He told his disciples:
"GO!"
"Don't just sit here, waiting for Me to make you feel better. I've already promised to give you whatever you give me--pressed down, shaken together, and running over. That includes time and energy. If you're feeling drained and tired all the time, perhaps your goals aren't the same as Mine. So, sit down long enough to get your instructions. Then, GO! I'll go with you, but go."
A hot drink and bubble bath can fix a lot of things. And if you are an over-worked Martha, you won't be able to go anywhere until you've spent time recouperating. But, no amount of rest will substitute for the fact that we were created to do things for the Kingdom. And, if you aren't fulfilled by the meetings, games, and chore list, may I suggest the very core of your system is broken--beyond what a quick trip to God's Lap can "fix?"
Take it from someone blessed with the opportunity to snuggle up and listen for God's voice with frequency--He isn't waiting like a pit crew to polish your hood, change the worn tires, and send you out for more of the same. He won't affirm your daily, spirit-killing routine, just because you turn him into a half-hour coffee break. And, shock of all shocks, He doesn't always agree that you are a hard-working, selfless individual, deserving of more, more, more. You can hear that from any commercial or talk show host in the country.
Rest in God's arms when the battle gets heated. But don't take His comfort as a license for selfishness. Don't run back to home base looking for peace, when you really need to get out of your comfort zone for awhile.
Go, look for opportunities to turn that selfishness into service, and you may just feel less "busy" and more "energized" than ever.
Go.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
You Mean Sometimes the Right Thing is EASY?
This past weekend was grrrrrrrrreat! For the first time in I-Won't-Even-Guess-How-Long, Luke and I enjoyed three days off work together. We didn't request this time off. There was no holiday. It just happened to happen. And, though he is busy studying for his nursing boards, we spent a lot of time together.
That is, after getting over our big fight on Friday night.
I know what you must be thinking. "Yay! It's been too long since Amanda shared a juicy story about fighting with her husband."
You are in luck, Good Reader. Before the post is done, I will tell you about two, seperate issues we had before our grrrrrrrrreat weekend went down.
Luke worked six days in a row last week (Friday being the sixth), and each night after coming home he went straight to the office to log study hours for the nursing boards mentioned above. So, he mostly was inaccessible for a long while... And approximately 90% of our issues begin this way. (For an account of how my need for quality time and Luke's difficulty with time management usually clash, you can read about this argument from a few months ago.)
I began letting Luke know I was feeling neglected on Friday morning, and he said he understood the reason. By way of compromise, he wanted to keep studying until 6:15, but then we could have a "date night." He mentioned eating out, watching a movie, or doing something unusual like "building a fort" together. "Okay," I agreed.
Then I waited...
Until 9:15pm.
And that's when I got kind of frustrated.
And I started thinking, "This is going to turn out just like the argument from a few months ago."
And, sure enough, shortly after Luke strolled into our bedroom with a couple excuses and a defensive tone, he started to fall asleep! (sigh).... So, I took my leave and went to the couch to pray, where things could have progressed just like the argument from a few months ago. Except I had learned an important lesson earlier in the week, when we had another disagreement. (I told you! Two, seperate accounts of friction! Allow me to divulge this one!)
My car started squeaking last week. I knew it was the brakes because they've been grinding for awhile, but the squeaking proved we couldn't ignore it any longer. And, when I told Luke about it, he started looking for reputable shops in Fort Wayne. The only problem was, it took about two hours of internet searching for him to announce, "I'm just going to fix them myself!" Then he started the long process of internet research to tell him "how to" do something. (I'm very familiar with this process, as we own a home and have spent many hours in do-it-yourself projects. Luke loves "how to" researching.)
However, from the perspective of a woman who already feels she isn't seeing much of her husband (save for his closed eyelids in the morning, when I kiss him before going to work), I didn't think fixing the brakes on his own was manageable. Either he has the time to spend on the car--and, by the same token, the time to spend with me. Or he doesn't have time for either...
But, when I mentioned the other things he could/should be doing with his time, he became defensive... I explained that I appreciate his desire to save us some money, and that I believe he is capable of fixing the brakes. But, I also don't think it's worth missing more time with him when we can afford to hire a professional. For me, his nursing test and job are higher priorities. Yet, telling him I miss his company didn't soften the blow, and he was mad that I was "getting in the way" of something he wanted to do.
Then, he said something which made me realize the real problem had nothing to do with brakes or defensiveness or differing opinions. He said (sarcastically), "When the nursing test is done, will you let me make decisions, or will you have something else on a list for me to do?"
And it hit me that he was angry in the same way a child gets mad at a parent. He saw ME as the obstacle to his plans, and he didn't like what I was saying. But, while he should have conducted a similar argument with his conscience, I was personifying the "bad guy" instead. It occured to me that Luke is a good man who wants to do the right thing--but the right thing is hard to hear from another individual. It's easy to get mad at the person pointing out the truth, even if you would agree when forced to consider the options yourself.
So, I stepped back and said, "Pray about it. If you honestly can tell me your decision to repair the brakes yourself is the wisest use of your time, and if you are at peace with it, I will not stop you." And instantly, the argument was over.
Know what else? He didn't have time to fix the brakes... and it was so much easier not having to play the role of his conscience. It made so much sense after that. Why not let him get mad at the Holy Spirit instead of me? God can take Luke's frustration! And, in the meantime, it doesn't put unnecessary strain on our relationship. I don't have to be the bad guy.
Back to Friday night, after I left Luke half-asleep in the bedroom, clearly in the wrong for backing out on his word and leaving me disappointed. I went to the couch and started praying, but this time, I didn't run back and turn the light on in Luke's face. (If you read the argument from a few months ago, you know what I'm referencing.) Instead I asked that God would do the convicting. I told Him that I know Luke is a respectable, God-fearing man who just needs a nudge sometimes--but that I'm not qualified to give him that nudge. And, once again, my experience was much less stressful than usual.
Luke found me in the living room and apologized for getting wrapped up in his business at my expense. And--though we didn't come up with any "fail-proof solutions" for preventing this situation next time, it helps to know it's not my responsibility to make sure Luke doesn't let me down again. I just need to encourage him to pray, and let God do the rest.
Then Saturday rolled around, and we slept late together. We went to church Sunday morning, and in the evening, we built a fort in the living room. Finally, we studied for Luke's boards together on Monday, and by the time we got back from Applebee's that night, I was convinced it was the grrrrrrreatest weekend in a long time.
That is, after getting over our big fight on Friday night.
I know what you must be thinking. "Yay! It's been too long since Amanda shared a juicy story about fighting with her husband."
You are in luck, Good Reader. Before the post is done, I will tell you about two, seperate issues we had before our grrrrrrrrreat weekend went down.
Luke worked six days in a row last week (Friday being the sixth), and each night after coming home he went straight to the office to log study hours for the nursing boards mentioned above. So, he mostly was inaccessible for a long while... And approximately 90% of our issues begin this way. (For an account of how my need for quality time and Luke's difficulty with time management usually clash, you can read about this argument from a few months ago.)
I began letting Luke know I was feeling neglected on Friday morning, and he said he understood the reason. By way of compromise, he wanted to keep studying until 6:15, but then we could have a "date night." He mentioned eating out, watching a movie, or doing something unusual like "building a fort" together. "Okay," I agreed.
Then I waited...
Until 9:15pm.
And that's when I got kind of frustrated.
And I started thinking, "This is going to turn out just like the argument from a few months ago."
And, sure enough, shortly after Luke strolled into our bedroom with a couple excuses and a defensive tone, he started to fall asleep! (sigh).... So, I took my leave and went to the couch to pray, where things could have progressed just like the argument from a few months ago. Except I had learned an important lesson earlier in the week, when we had another disagreement. (I told you! Two, seperate accounts of friction! Allow me to divulge this one!)
My car started squeaking last week. I knew it was the brakes because they've been grinding for awhile, but the squeaking proved we couldn't ignore it any longer. And, when I told Luke about it, he started looking for reputable shops in Fort Wayne. The only problem was, it took about two hours of internet searching for him to announce, "I'm just going to fix them myself!" Then he started the long process of internet research to tell him "how to" do something. (I'm very familiar with this process, as we own a home and have spent many hours in do-it-yourself projects. Luke loves "how to" researching.)
However, from the perspective of a woman who already feels she isn't seeing much of her husband (save for his closed eyelids in the morning, when I kiss him before going to work), I didn't think fixing the brakes on his own was manageable. Either he has the time to spend on the car--and, by the same token, the time to spend with me. Or he doesn't have time for either...
But, when I mentioned the other things he could/should be doing with his time, he became defensive... I explained that I appreciate his desire to save us some money, and that I believe he is capable of fixing the brakes. But, I also don't think it's worth missing more time with him when we can afford to hire a professional. For me, his nursing test and job are higher priorities. Yet, telling him I miss his company didn't soften the blow, and he was mad that I was "getting in the way" of something he wanted to do.
Then, he said something which made me realize the real problem had nothing to do with brakes or defensiveness or differing opinions. He said (sarcastically), "When the nursing test is done, will you let me make decisions, or will you have something else on a list for me to do?"
And it hit me that he was angry in the same way a child gets mad at a parent. He saw ME as the obstacle to his plans, and he didn't like what I was saying. But, while he should have conducted a similar argument with his conscience, I was personifying the "bad guy" instead. It occured to me that Luke is a good man who wants to do the right thing--but the right thing is hard to hear from another individual. It's easy to get mad at the person pointing out the truth, even if you would agree when forced to consider the options yourself.
So, I stepped back and said, "Pray about it. If you honestly can tell me your decision to repair the brakes yourself is the wisest use of your time, and if you are at peace with it, I will not stop you." And instantly, the argument was over.
Know what else? He didn't have time to fix the brakes... and it was so much easier not having to play the role of his conscience. It made so much sense after that. Why not let him get mad at the Holy Spirit instead of me? God can take Luke's frustration! And, in the meantime, it doesn't put unnecessary strain on our relationship. I don't have to be the bad guy.
Back to Friday night, after I left Luke half-asleep in the bedroom, clearly in the wrong for backing out on his word and leaving me disappointed. I went to the couch and started praying, but this time, I didn't run back and turn the light on in Luke's face. (If you read the argument from a few months ago, you know what I'm referencing.) Instead I asked that God would do the convicting. I told Him that I know Luke is a respectable, God-fearing man who just needs a nudge sometimes--but that I'm not qualified to give him that nudge. And, once again, my experience was much less stressful than usual.
Luke found me in the living room and apologized for getting wrapped up in his business at my expense. And--though we didn't come up with any "fail-proof solutions" for preventing this situation next time, it helps to know it's not my responsibility to make sure Luke doesn't let me down again. I just need to encourage him to pray, and let God do the rest.
Then Saturday rolled around, and we slept late together. We went to church Sunday morning, and in the evening, we built a fort in the living room. Finally, we studied for Luke's boards together on Monday, and by the time we got back from Applebee's that night, I was convinced it was the grrrrrrreatest weekend in a long time.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
"Endowed by the Creator with Certain Unalienable Rights..."
Today, I came across this article about the bottom-line difference in thinking between Liberal ideas and Conservative ones.
Who or what should determine what's right and fair? Is there a higher power--resulting in a universal "right" and "wrong?" Or are the desires and emotions of individuals the most important factor in law-making?
As with many other things I've discovered, selfishness lies at the center of this issue...
Who or what should determine what's right and fair? Is there a higher power--resulting in a universal "right" and "wrong?" Or are the desires and emotions of individuals the most important factor in law-making?
As with many other things I've discovered, selfishness lies at the center of this issue...
Monday, January 10, 2011
Everybody Loves a Comic.....or Not.
Some of you may remember the time I chose to keep my mouth shut instead of arguing with a disrespectful teenager. His status updates on Facebook became increasingly profane, and I was tired of reading them. But, rather than confront his ignorance and risk hurting the way he sees Christians, I simply removed him from my friends list quietly. (Well, quietly except for the post I wrote here.)
Today is a story of another Facebook issue...and a different response I chose: logic and a bit of humor. Turns out, if somebody actually is wrong, being witty makes that person even more angry than calling them names and possibly slapping their mother....Though, I've never slapped anyone's mother, so maybe I'll post again the third time this happens?
Anyway, here's the story. I have a handful of politically-outspoken acquaintances, and--for whatever reason--they tend to be Liberal-minded college freshmen. Read: I get along with most college freshmen. Even some Liberal-minded college freshmen. But few things are more irritating than a 19-year-old regurgitating his professor's lectures and NBC's headlines daily on your newsfeed.
Okay, continuing. Most of the time, I read whatever emotionally-charged propoganda is posted by one of these individuals, and move on with a roll of my eyes. Sometimes I blog about the reasons I disagree with their views. But, yesterday, I felt the need to ask, "Are you SERIOUS?" And I meant the question. "Seriously?!"
A young pup we'll call "Joe" posted a link to the Arizona shooting story and announced, "Looks like Sarah Palin got her wish."
Now, I'm not Sarah Palin's biggest fan. Maybe she just needs a new publicist. Actually, she probably was much more likable before she had publicists at all. But, her biggest issue is the same as mine: feeling the need to respond with a statement every time someone slanders her. As a result, she became the Conservative Lindsay Lohan--always ending up in the news with a family scandal, always on the defensive, and never sounding very smart.
At any rate, I agree with the critics who say Palin is not ready for Presidency. But, that's neither here nor there. I could not figure out, having read Joe's post, how even a punk kid who devours leftist ideas like cake at his 4th birthday (incidentally, not that long ago) could think Palin and the Arizona shootings had a link.
So, I asked: "Are you really suggesting that Palin wanted 6 people killed in Tuscon today? I mean, REALLY?" Just a few minutes later, I got a response, which I would quote if I could. (I'll explain why I can't later.) But, the paraphrased version is: Sarah Palin posted a map of the US on her website with the heading "Take back these seats in 2010" with crosshairs marking the House seats she wanted to see occupied by Republicans instead of Democrats. The representative shot in Tuscon (Gabby Giffords, Democrat) was marked on that list--with crosshairs above her district. Therefore, the "atmosphere of violence" Palin helped create makes her at least partially responsible for the shooting--"whether intended or not."
Well, I'd already involved myself, so I decided to offer my own take on the situation. I suggested anybody willing to kill in ANY capacity is out of his mind. Murderers are unstable at best and completely duranged at worst. You cannot blame any one person, on either side of the aisle, for the actions of a madman.
To drive the point home, I offered the classroom example I use a lot. If one of my students says, "Jack made me mad, so I hit him," I still hold the hitter solely responsible for the violence. Furthermore, I would be even less impressed if the student said, "Another person hates Jack, and so he drew a picture of me hitting Jack, which I found and interrpreted to mean I should hit Jack. So I hit him." I mean, I'd be impressed by a preschooler's use of the word "interrpreted," but I still wouldn't buy the rationalization that the artist of the picture is responsible for the crazy conclusions or violent actions of the Hitter. And I honestly couldn't believe that Joe wanted me to buy that in the Palin case.
I asked him if he holds the Quran responsible for terrorist attacks, too, since extremists routinely justify acts of violence using its text--and since Holy Books can be likened to moral "maps" like the one Palin used. Shouldn't we blame the Quran for creating the "atmosphere of violence" regardless of "whether it was intended or not?" Or should we agree that, whether its the priest who kills abortion doctors or crazies yelling "Allahu Akbar!"--only the psycho killer is responsible for the psycho killer's crime.
Joe mentioned something about the Quran being an ancient document, so it doesn't count...(?) And he agreed he won't blame Palin specifically until the Arizona gunman says "I saw her map and thought it meant 'shoot'". But, if the gunman DOES try that excuse, Palin is partly guilty. Period.
At this point, I was done with lengthy, logic-filled prose. And I decided to let him have the last word. In response, I simply would hide his future posts to prevent them from making my eyes bleed. But, I happened to scroll down his page and come across a note from another friend of his which I couldn't pass up. It read:
Dear Death,
We will exchange Dobby* for Justin Beiber*.
Sincerely,
The World
(*Dobby is a cute, elf character from Harry Potter, who almost teleports away from an enemy, but is stabbed fatally just before he disappears. Justin Beiber is a real-life popstar, adored by junior high girls and considered talentless and annoying by just about everyone else.)
I remembered my dad told me the best way to make a point sometimes is to use humor. So, I wrote:
"Careful, guys. You are creating an atmosphere of violence around Justin Beiber. And, whether you intend it or not, some lunatic could interrpret this to mean you want Justin dead. If Justin gets stabbed while trying to disapparate, you will be partly responsible."
hehehe. I still giggle thinking about this. Because, my dad also warned that a witty response is similar to the Bible's words about an act of kindness done for an enemy. You know, the whole "heap burning coal on their heads" thing? I knew the more clever I was, the more it would get under Joe's skin...
But I expected him to write back and tell me why my analogy--like the Quran one--didn't apply in this situation, and then I was going to drop it. Really! I would thank him for being the expert on "How to Assign Responsibility 101," and I'd promise to return next time I had trouble discerning the absurd from the rational. But I wasn't going to try and convince him he was wrong any more.
Unfortunately, Joe only wrote "act your age" on my wall.
And then he unfriended me.
Note to self: well-written arguments, example stories, and a jab at the end= immature.
Unfriending someone on Facebook= acting my age.
I guess I'll go back to that response next time (unless I decide to slap someone's mother).
But, here's a lesson in the meantime, Kids. Everybody loves a comic. Unless the comic makes too much sense.
UPDATE: Found this article interesting and applicable. "Many college students are found lacking critical thinking and reasoning skills..." and cannot resist being swayed by emotional testimonies.
Today is a story of another Facebook issue...and a different response I chose: logic and a bit of humor. Turns out, if somebody actually is wrong, being witty makes that person even more angry than calling them names and possibly slapping their mother....Though, I've never slapped anyone's mother, so maybe I'll post again the third time this happens?
Anyway, here's the story. I have a handful of politically-outspoken acquaintances, and--for whatever reason--they tend to be Liberal-minded college freshmen. Read: I get along with most college freshmen. Even some Liberal-minded college freshmen. But few things are more irritating than a 19-year-old regurgitating his professor's lectures and NBC's headlines daily on your newsfeed.
Okay, continuing. Most of the time, I read whatever emotionally-charged propoganda is posted by one of these individuals, and move on with a roll of my eyes. Sometimes I blog about the reasons I disagree with their views. But, yesterday, I felt the need to ask, "Are you SERIOUS?" And I meant the question. "Seriously?!"
A young pup we'll call "Joe" posted a link to the Arizona shooting story and announced, "Looks like Sarah Palin got her wish."
Now, I'm not Sarah Palin's biggest fan. Maybe she just needs a new publicist. Actually, she probably was much more likable before she had publicists at all. But, her biggest issue is the same as mine: feeling the need to respond with a statement every time someone slanders her. As a result, she became the Conservative Lindsay Lohan--always ending up in the news with a family scandal, always on the defensive, and never sounding very smart.
At any rate, I agree with the critics who say Palin is not ready for Presidency. But, that's neither here nor there. I could not figure out, having read Joe's post, how even a punk kid who devours leftist ideas like cake at his 4th birthday (incidentally, not that long ago) could think Palin and the Arizona shootings had a link.
So, I asked: "Are you really suggesting that Palin wanted 6 people killed in Tuscon today? I mean, REALLY?" Just a few minutes later, I got a response, which I would quote if I could. (I'll explain why I can't later.) But, the paraphrased version is: Sarah Palin posted a map of the US on her website with the heading "Take back these seats in 2010" with crosshairs marking the House seats she wanted to see occupied by Republicans instead of Democrats. The representative shot in Tuscon (Gabby Giffords, Democrat) was marked on that list--with crosshairs above her district. Therefore, the "atmosphere of violence" Palin helped create makes her at least partially responsible for the shooting--"whether intended or not."
Well, I'd already involved myself, so I decided to offer my own take on the situation. I suggested anybody willing to kill in ANY capacity is out of his mind. Murderers are unstable at best and completely duranged at worst. You cannot blame any one person, on either side of the aisle, for the actions of a madman.
To drive the point home, I offered the classroom example I use a lot. If one of my students says, "Jack made me mad, so I hit him," I still hold the hitter solely responsible for the violence. Furthermore, I would be even less impressed if the student said, "Another person hates Jack, and so he drew a picture of me hitting Jack, which I found and interrpreted to mean I should hit Jack. So I hit him." I mean, I'd be impressed by a preschooler's use of the word "interrpreted," but I still wouldn't buy the rationalization that the artist of the picture is responsible for the crazy conclusions or violent actions of the Hitter. And I honestly couldn't believe that Joe wanted me to buy that in the Palin case.
I asked him if he holds the Quran responsible for terrorist attacks, too, since extremists routinely justify acts of violence using its text--and since Holy Books can be likened to moral "maps" like the one Palin used. Shouldn't we blame the Quran for creating the "atmosphere of violence" regardless of "whether it was intended or not?" Or should we agree that, whether its the priest who kills abortion doctors or crazies yelling "Allahu Akbar!"--only the psycho killer is responsible for the psycho killer's crime.
Joe mentioned something about the Quran being an ancient document, so it doesn't count...(?) And he agreed he won't blame Palin specifically until the Arizona gunman says "I saw her map and thought it meant 'shoot'". But, if the gunman DOES try that excuse, Palin is partly guilty. Period.
At this point, I was done with lengthy, logic-filled prose. And I decided to let him have the last word. In response, I simply would hide his future posts to prevent them from making my eyes bleed. But, I happened to scroll down his page and come across a note from another friend of his which I couldn't pass up. It read:
Dear Death,
We will exchange Dobby* for Justin Beiber*.
Sincerely,
The World
(*Dobby is a cute, elf character from Harry Potter, who almost teleports away from an enemy, but is stabbed fatally just before he disappears. Justin Beiber is a real-life popstar, adored by junior high girls and considered talentless and annoying by just about everyone else.)
I remembered my dad told me the best way to make a point sometimes is to use humor. So, I wrote:
"Careful, guys. You are creating an atmosphere of violence around Justin Beiber. And, whether you intend it or not, some lunatic could interrpret this to mean you want Justin dead. If Justin gets stabbed while trying to disapparate, you will be partly responsible."
hehehe. I still giggle thinking about this. Because, my dad also warned that a witty response is similar to the Bible's words about an act of kindness done for an enemy. You know, the whole "heap burning coal on their heads" thing? I knew the more clever I was, the more it would get under Joe's skin...
But I expected him to write back and tell me why my analogy--like the Quran one--didn't apply in this situation, and then I was going to drop it. Really! I would thank him for being the expert on "How to Assign Responsibility 101," and I'd promise to return next time I had trouble discerning the absurd from the rational. But I wasn't going to try and convince him he was wrong any more.
Unfortunately, Joe only wrote "act your age" on my wall.
And then he unfriended me.
Note to self: well-written arguments, example stories, and a jab at the end= immature.
Unfriending someone on Facebook= acting my age.
I guess I'll go back to that response next time (unless I decide to slap someone's mother).
But, here's a lesson in the meantime, Kids. Everybody loves a comic. Unless the comic makes too much sense.
UPDATE: Found this article interesting and applicable. "Many college students are found lacking critical thinking and reasoning skills..." and cannot resist being swayed by emotional testimonies.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
What Now, Dear Readers?....If You're Still There?
It's 12:35am, and I can't sleep.
My husband asked me why and then offered the usual, "Is there anything I can do to help?" But, when you can't answer the first question, the second is impossible, too. My mind is racing with thought, but I don't know WHY or WHAT to do. (Although, I'm 99% sure there is nothing Luke can do to fix it.)
First of all, I'm thinking that there are only four months until Baby McKinney makes the big appearance. We haven't even started on the nursery. But, more importantly, I will be quitting my job and staying home full-time at that point, and I'm a little nervous about my mental health through these changes. Will it be challenging enough being an at-home mom after mothering a whole classroom of preschoolers for two and a half years? Will this big change prove similar to other changes I've experience by throwing me into a mental and spiritual tailspin until I grow used to the new situation?
I'm excited about the calling to raise a healthy, godly child, but what ELSE am I supposed to do at the same time? I just can't imagine that doing laundry and dishes will totally satisfy my need to serve.
And that reminds me, how can I continue a blog about special education (as well as keep my promise about NOT overwhelming this space with baby news) if I'm no longer teaching in special ed?
(sigh) I'm so far behind in posting about my life that even THAT typically-cathartic activity seems overwhelming. And, when this many thoughts jam up in my head, it usually means I haven't been handling myself wisely. My devotions are only so-so, my daily routine has become....just that. And I'm VERY ready for the next steps.
I just wish I knew what they looked like.
My husband asked me why and then offered the usual, "Is there anything I can do to help?" But, when you can't answer the first question, the second is impossible, too. My mind is racing with thought, but I don't know WHY or WHAT to do. (Although, I'm 99% sure there is nothing Luke can do to fix it.)
First of all, I'm thinking that there are only four months until Baby McKinney makes the big appearance. We haven't even started on the nursery. But, more importantly, I will be quitting my job and staying home full-time at that point, and I'm a little nervous about my mental health through these changes. Will it be challenging enough being an at-home mom after mothering a whole classroom of preschoolers for two and a half years? Will this big change prove similar to other changes I've experience by throwing me into a mental and spiritual tailspin until I grow used to the new situation?
I'm excited about the calling to raise a healthy, godly child, but what ELSE am I supposed to do at the same time? I just can't imagine that doing laundry and dishes will totally satisfy my need to serve.
And that reminds me, how can I continue a blog about special education (as well as keep my promise about NOT overwhelming this space with baby news) if I'm no longer teaching in special ed?
(sigh) I'm so far behind in posting about my life that even THAT typically-cathartic activity seems overwhelming. And, when this many thoughts jam up in my head, it usually means I haven't been handling myself wisely. My devotions are only so-so, my daily routine has become....just that. And I'm VERY ready for the next steps.
I just wish I knew what they looked like.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)