Breaking: Lazy Journalism Rewarded by a Race-Obsessed Culture!!!

When does a quick Twitter search and a couple screen shots count as investigative journalism?  When the story is about racism, of course!  Minority-hating is so prevalent that a reporter needn’t work terribly hard collecting a black list of offenders (no pun intended) before presenting the nasty, intolerant folks for public shame.

For example, this article recently chastised roughly 15 Tweeters, whose posts about the black actors in the movie The Hunger Games were considered racially-inappropriate. The scandal was uncovered by the reputable journalists at Jezebel.com. (Motto: "Celebrity, Sex, Fashion for women.")

Okay, seriously, Jezebel is an online tabloid. If you need more proof, one of its columns is called "the dirt bag.” Like most gossip gazettes, it has turned defamation into an art form—though celebrities provide bigger targets than private citizens. So I’m a little surprised they dared post the full names and faces of unsuspecting Tweeters, under a headline calling them "Racists.” 

The tweets were used—poor spelling and all—to make sweeping character judgments. But the reporter didn’t bother contacting the Tweeters personally so they could explain themselves in more than 140 characters. Jezebel settled for lazy research leading to libelous accusations, which is why “entertainment news” receives zero credit from sane people.

But race-obsessed America isn’t sane.

Thus, a whole gaggle of second-and-third-hand outlets picked up Jezebel’s story, taking it seriously as if it hadn’t appeared next to a piece about “the appropriate times to stare at a woman’s butt." Copy-cat “reports” ran in Forbes, HuffingtonPost, E!, Us Magazine, WashingtonPost (blog), and countless other virtual information hubs. And—what’s worse—not one of these newspapers gave the Tweeters a chance to defend themselves. No one gave them the benefit of the doubt.

Does it frighten anyone else that a regular Joe’s tweets, statuses, and blog quotes can be ripped from context and used to castigate him as a person?  Is it possible there are explanations for those quotes, besides utter, intolerable racism? 

-------                    

                         

"After watching the hunger games preview 6 times in a row, i realized Rue is black. whaaaat?! #shocked."

"cinna and rue weren't suppose to be black...why did the producer make all the good characters black smh"

"I was pumped about the movie, until I learned a black girl was playing Rue."

Honestly, I have no idea whether these Tweeters think black people are worth less than white people. Or if, possibly, they’re just upset the movie didn’t match the picture in their head. Personally, while reading the Hunger Games, I had a difficult time keeping track of the skin tones of 50+ characters at once. So I, too, am surprised Rue is black. I see now the book’s author calls her “dark-skinned,” but I missed that line the first time around. And I can tell you what I would have said to my husband in the theater, when I saw African-American Rue instead of the red-head I expected:

“So, they’re keeping it PC, huh?…” 

Luke would understand what I meant; when the book’s author doesn’t specify a race for a character, the part often goes to a minority actor, to “balance out” the cast. We wouldn’t want a movie to become too white, or the producers might get caught in the pages of Jezebel, wearing the racist label.

Thus, if someone pictured Rue incorrectly, his “disappointment” belongs in the same category as those who complained about Dear John, Twilight, and any other best-seller-turned-movie failing to reach the high expectations of its fans. Viewers especially hate when a beloved novels get edited for political reasons. 

In this case, it seems many fans were guilty of misreading. (What?! With elogquent, well-punctuated Twitter posts like theirs?! Poor reading comprehension?...  #shocked)  But that’s far less damning than being “racists.” 

A couple of those tweeters I’m nearly sure were just making jokes. Like this guy, who is pictured as a young, black man, (and who tags a dark-skinned girl in his tweet): "EWW...rue is black?? I'm not watching." It sounds like irony to me. Another person wrote, "Since when is Rue a nigger?" He could be an insensitive racist. Or he could watch a lot of “shock” comics—like Chris Rock—and genuinely believe blatant profanity is funny. 

Again, I can’t say what happens in the heads of these Tweeters—much less their hearts—but I wish at least one reporter had bothered to ask them before (almost all of) the offenders closed their Twitter accounts. This last bit of the story interests me most... I believe the reaction of the “guilty tweeters” reveals more about the issue of racism than anything they wrote before realizing a sleazy magazine would turn it into news.  

The internet community blasted the Twitter-users, with a unity that doesn’t often follow controversial stories.  Even when a tiny human died in utero, trolls emerged to say unspeakably ugly things to the parents. Yet, in the case of the Racist Tweeters, literally thousands of responses delivered the same message: “Shame on those tweeters!”  “Skin color doesn’t matter!” “Racist behavior sickens me!” “I thought Rue looked like an angel!” And on, and on, and on. In my searching, I couldn't find one--NOT ONE--person suggesting the tweeters were misunderstood. Let alone someone suggesting that racism itself is okay.

So, where are all the racists?

The readers/commenters believe “skin color doesn’t matter.” Their implication is, “I’m not a racist!” And many people shared the story on Facebook—to clarify they disapprove of racism as well. This generation went to school in integrated classrooms, played on black, brown, and yellow sports teams, and usually had a least one close friend they could use as a reference about life-in-a-different color.  (At 7-years-old, I asked Jasmine how she “got her hair with all the beads in it.” She responded very informatively with: “I don’t know. My mom does it.”) 

Besides hearing that “skin color doesn’t matter” (repeatedly), most young people have experienced it. Thus, being “racist” is so serious an offense that even people condemned supposedly by their own words took to hiding rather than face the wrath of the righteously-angry Online Community. (Motto: we’re not racist.)

So, where are those who believe skin color does matter? And why are we so determined to find them, give them a platform, and then criticize their intolerance?

Parenting Advice from Richard Dawkins

We’re terrified of the word “brainwashed.” 

Yet, I propose to you—if parents had done it properly since the beginning of time—we’d be a far more intellectual people than “free-thinking” has made us…

What does “intellect” mean, apart from what God revealed to our ancestors? What can we know that He hasn’t allowed? How can anyone claim “freedom of thought,” if God sustains our very life, while we grope for answers in the brains we worship in His place?

Perhaps this is why the parenting advice of Richard Dawkins (evolutionary biologist), irritates some of us:

“Do not indoctrinate your children. Teach them how to think for themselves, how to evaluate evidence, and how to disagree with you.”

Indeed, parents… Teach your kids how to think. But, naturally, you shouldn’t teach “how to think” is better than teaching “what to think.” Because, that would be teaching them what to think…

And definitely don’t tell them what to believe because—Dr. Dawkins believes—this is the best belief. 

If your babies reach adulthood and don’t trust a thing you say, pat yourself on the back.  After all, to quote Dawkins again, “The majority of children born into the world tend to inherit the beliefs of their parents, and that to me is one of the most regrettable facts of them all.” 

Except, some of us believe children were meant to inherit the beliefs of their parents, once upon a time, before something threw the system for a loop.

In the beginning, God walked with the first humans. He taught them about right and wrong, and He outlined the rules for enjoying life to the fullest. Thus, you might say the first “intelligent” thing men did was put their faith in the One with the answers…

 

Anyway, during all this intimate contact with mankind, God instructed His people to make sure they didn’t forget what they were learning. He said, to paraphrase, “BRAINWASH YOUR KIDS.”

“Fix these words of mine in your hearts and minds; tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.” (Deut. 11:18-21)

I’d bet Richard Dawkins thinks this practice is despicable. When parents repeat “their truths” to naïve and impressionable children, it stunts their ability to ask questions for themselves.  Right? Right?

Yet how does he explain this long letter, rife with conclusions and absolute statements, written to help his 10-year-old daughter determine the “correct” kind of belief?   

Here’s my favorite part: “My dearest daughter…. I want to move on from evidence, which is a good reason for believing something, and warn you against three bad reasons for believing anything. They are called ‘tradition’, ‘authority’, and ‘revelation’.”  

I agree with Dawkins that beliefs should have some evidential support. But doesn’t it sound like he’s teaching her what to believe, in that sentence? Is this not indoctrination of the scientific method?  If Dawkins’ message to little Juliet was “disagree with me,” how far will she take it?

Much to the dismay of Dawkins’ generation of scientists, their process of un-educating children has sort of backfired. These little brains have gotten so good as asking questions they won’t even answer them anymore! Dawkins defends his use of absolute statements—saying essentially, there is such thing as “certain enough,” though no science can prove something 100%. He says agnosticism (or, “I don’t know for sure”) doesn’t have to mean a 50/50 toss-up—so he expects people to  lean safely toward one conclusion or another.

But members of the next generation of “free” thinkers don’t always agree.   After years of being told they can solve anything on their own, if they demand evidence, young people have begun to doubt the very brains they use to ask questions.  Suddenly, Dawkins’ religion of Biology ushers young minds into Philosophy, which has a history of praising people for being “intelligent” when they lock themselves indoors for hours or days, trying to solve major problems like, “How can I know that I know that I know?”   

It’s ridiculous, isn’t it? We send our children to college for learning, and their biggest lesson is they can’t learn anything. Then, they hear echoes of Dawkins’ words: tradition, authority, and revelation are bad.  Yet, when they ask for “proof” that skeptical science is good, they find none there, either. Their doubt and further questions lead, eventually, to an “infinite regress” of skepticism, until they conclude—in frustration—there are no answers for anything at all. 

All of this could have been spared if—somewhere during the Enlightenment era, perhaps?—men hadn’t gotten too “smart” for their own good.  If they hadn’t declared—without reason—that things are only true when they study it themselves, the nonsensical, immoral Religion of Thought wouldn’t have grown out of control.  Because intellectuals allowed themselves to be deceived, they gladly surrendered the only certain, God-spoken truths, which had been passed through tradition since time began.

The results are foolish.

“…what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him; but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools…” (Romans 1:20-22)

Science can study many things and produce certain-enough answers. But, it doesn’t answer all the questions of a man’s spirit. Seek God with your whole heart, and don’t let your brain drive you crazy. If you really want to find the Truth, God says you will find Him.  

And when you do PLEASE brainwash your children!  Regardless of what Dawkins says, he indoctrinated his kid, too. The only difference is—rather than the God of the Bible—he sold the impotent gods of Thought and Science…

Theoretically, if Dawkins’ parents had done their job, and their parents had done their job—all the way back to Adam—none of us would be free-thinkers. And it would be fantastic! Satan never would have converted anyone to his Religion of Lies (John 8:44), and all people would remain “brainwashed” by the Creator, who came up with the idea of “true” in the first place…

Unfortunately, no child born into the world has totally inherited the beliefs of their Heavenly Father—which is “the most regrettable fact of them all.”

For Which God are you Searching?

I really wanted to like the book Eat, Pray, Love.

 

For the same reasons I picked up Bossypants—that is, I liked the author’s speaking style and wondered if her book was equally good—I borrowed Elizabeth Gilbert’s memoir from the library.  (She gave an encouraging talk about harnessing creativity on Ted.com, so I had high hopes for this best-seller.) Gilbert spent a year “searching for her center” across Europe and Asia, after an ugly divorce and sudden thirst for spiritual ideas sent her reeling…  But, with another similarity to the Bossypants situation, I wasn't totally enthralled.

First, the positives: Gilbert is funny. (Yes, definitely more so than Tina Fey, if you're wondering!) She has a whimsical, sometimes-rambling voice, sprinkled with short, clever punchlines. As a writer, I gathered several techniques for conveying thoughts more thoroughly, without losing entertainment value to wordiness. (Whether I manage to use this new knowledge remains to be seen.)

So—while vehemently disagreeing with the moral of Gilbert’s story—the tale was very well-told.  

She also hooked me with a chew-worthy quote on the very first page: “Sincere spiritual investigation is, and always has been, an endeavor of methodical discipline. Looking for the Truth is not some kind of spazzy free-for-all…”  

 

"Wonderful!" I thought, "An educated, disciplined person wishes to find capital ‘T’ Truth in a methodical way… We ought to find some common ground!" And, yes, since Gilbert and I both desire for people to yank their heads out of their monotonous routines long enough to look for life’s Answers, I believe we do share similarities.

Unfortunately, Gilbert’s system for determining the goodness or rightness of something relied heavily on how she felt about it. Thus, I conclude her year-long quest only yielded a new personal truth (lower-case 't’), which Divine Reality doesn't always support.

Chapter one, though sparing the details of her looming divorce, Gilbert recalls sitting on the bathroom floor thinking, repeatedly, “I don’t want to be married anymore.” “I don’t want to live in this big house.” “I don’t want to have a baby.”  Gilbert's strong emotions told her something was wrong, and it was time for drastic changes. She wanted something else. She didn’t feel the way she believed she should, regarding her husband and her home...

But--during an emotional crisis--how can the pursuit of "good feelings" be anything but a spazzy free-for-all?  Where is the Absolute Moral Standard in Miss Gilbert's life? How can she trust unstable, often-changing feelings to lead her to Truth?

Gilbert's "reasons" for getting out of her marriage are similar to the method she uses to reject the Bible’s teaching about Jesus: “I can’t swallow that fixed rule of Christianity insisting that Christ is the only path to God.”  So, what does she believe? “Traditionally, I have responded to the transcendent mystics of all religions.”  Thus, Gilbert proudly reveals her cards. She embraces relativism and adopts whichever spiritual ideas give her an emotional response. She has chiseled a god who answers to her feelings, rather than using her head to find the Answer that doesn’t change. 

I should pause here to say Gilbert’s self-constructed "truth" system is no worse than the religion of Christians who stumble upon the all-powerful, unchanging Truth completely by accident. If you worship Jehovah, read the Bible, and say your prayers “In Jesus’ Name Amen,” but have no idea why, then you are equally guilty of the spazzy, free-for-all method.  I realize it's tempting to base our knowledge of Divinity entirely on sampling exquisite cuisine, standing near oceans and mountains, or surrendering in tears during a beautiful concerto.  

But God gave us minds to pair with those bleeding hearts.  And I have no patience for brainless devotion in any of its forms.

The book was exciting, from a travel-guide perspective. Its style tickles the ears, and it is loaded with personality.  But, the most important summarizing paragraphs, those meant to reveal pieces of Truth, only left me wondering, “By what Authority are these conclusions drawn?” I’m not interested in someone’s personal truth, developed around getting what she wants and feeling happy.  I’m one of those “strictly speaking,” close-minded Christians about whom she scoffs in the first chapter. But her beliefs may be simplified in a phrase as well: Moralistic Therapeutic Deism, a religion of comfort and convenience.

How is my uncompromising doctrine worse than wishy-washy self-indulgence?

Jesus cannot be both the only way (as He claimed) and one of many ways (as Gilbert would prefer). I want to know if Jesus was the Lord or just a liar. And, if He is Lord, then I want Him to tell me whether I should be happy in my house or stay married to my husband or have a brood of kids...  I want real answers, straight from THE Answer, even if His will turns out less gratifying than twirling pasta by the sea in Italy.

I'm glad Miss Gilbert enjoyed her search  for "herself."
But she is not the god whose will concerns me.

If You Don't Like My Teaching

An Open Letter to Victims:

This blog is not for you. Unless you want to be offended by an arrogant, out-of-control, right-wing nutcase, stop reading and go find something interesting on Youtube. (Preferably a talking animal or something else that won’t accidentally inspire you to make a personal change.)

I talk a LOT about individual responsibility around here, and I don’t buy that anyone in America is helpless to society. I believe everyone runs into obstacles (some legitimately unfair), but that most problems occur as a result of sin. And even truly mistreated individuals have the power to overcome it. This is good news because it means change is possible! Bad things can be fixed! 

Unless you like being a victim.  If you like blaming other people, or you’re not brave enough to take charge of the things over which you have control, then run. Run away! Don’t let me challenge you with my “you-can-do-it” insanity!

 I’ll use studies and statistics often. But I don’t fill each post with footnotes for two reasons:

1.      1. If you’re already inclined to disagree with me, you’ll find something wrong with my research anyway.

2.       2. A large percentage of my citations don’t come from a source in a science journal. They come from The Source: the Bible. If you have a problem with it, I dare you to fact check this Source for yourself. (Spoiler: MANY people have tried to disprove it and failed.) Meanwhile, if you practice the biblical principles I put forth, you’ll see they work 100% of the time.

  

Sometimes my style causes an uncontrollable urge to call me names and accuse me of having serious problems. But I only want to talk about ONE serious problem, which all of us has in common: sin stemming from selfishness. If you don't think you're a sinner, you’ll find nothing of value here.  If you think being a victim will work for you eventually—you like protesting the government, you blame your spouse/kids for your problems, or you want to enjoy lots of food/sex/recreation in hopes they make you happy, that’s fine! Just find another blogger for support.     

Here, you’ll see that selfishness which leads to disobedience of the Bible which leads to societal problems interest me. You might say that’s my specialty.  I’ve done a lot of thinking about it. I’ve done a lot of reading/observing. And this is where I put my conclusions... So, if you wouldn’t tell your English teacher, “I don’t trust all this stuff about verb tenses…where is the proof?”  (Or, if you wouldn’t insult the math whiz with, “You always have answers, and it makes you sound cocky. Is there anything you DON’T know, Mr. SmartyPants?”), then please don’t criticize me when I share what experience and practice have taught ME. Just find a teacher who says what you want to hear.

I’m just saying, if you don’t like what I’m teaching, kindly exit my classroom.

Thank you.

P.S.  For a similar read-at-your-own-risk post (which includes a few reasons I appeal to The Source), check out For Those Ready to Eat.

Victory for White People

At my Christian college, we "focused" on cross-cultural understanding. Every couple months, an African-American speaker encouraged us to sit with people from different backgrounds and remember that "Heaven will be multicolored."

Despite my tone here (and aside from one over-zealous black man who seemed to think his purpose was to "fix" we uneducated, bigoted white students), I didn't have a problem with the push to appreciate diversity. After all, Heaven WILL be multicolored. There is neither man nor woman, Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, in Christ's body. We're equals.

Equals UNTIL...

President Obama was elected. That's when a black student ran an article in the school paper about how happy she was to see this day in history. Why? Because "her people" had once been oppressed, and things finally were looking up for them. It was--I quote--an "African-American victory." If you don't understand the problem I have, imagine John McCain had won office and I--a white student--wrote about the great victory for white people...? Would it rub you the wrong way? (There is a chance you decided to read this post because those four words caught your attention.) It should offend you!

That's racism! 

I hate racism for the same reasons I hate ageism and sexism. Regardless of who does it, whether celebrating or lamenting, if you make an issue out of a person's physical body, you are drawing lines. AND, when you separate us with traits no one can control, you've created a very exclusive club. Unlike in Christianity (into which, all are welcome--truly equal.) I have no hope of being a member of this woman's "people." In her eyes, whether she was aware of it or not, John McCain and any other white person started out with a disadvantage...  So much for equality.

Unfortunately, most people who talk about desiring diversity quickly fall into the trap of elevating the minority. That's why the unnamed male student I mentioned got on my nerves. That's why feminism` generally makes me want to remove my high heels (the ones forced on me by chauvinist pigs) and assault most of the East coast senators with them. Most of the time, people repeating "equality, equality, equality" only mean "more perks for people who look like me!" And that attitude doesn't encourage compassion for "the oppressed." I don't much feel like celebrating the election of a black president based on black-ness alone.

Yes, disapproval of someone based on skin color, the year he was born, or what she keeps in her panties makes no sense.

But neither does considering these things "victorious."

"Modern" Marriage

Yep, I watched part of the Royal Wedding. I woke up at 6:30am and caught the end of the sermon, lots of choral singing, and the recessional parade thingy, which probably has a more official name than that...

I missed the live broadcast of the vows, but when I heard comments referring to the absence of the word "obey" from Kate's version, I decided to YouTube it. Sure enough, with a little research, I discovered this isn't the first time a royal bride omitted this word, and it has caused quite a stir in the past. This time around, however, several observers praised Kate for following in the footsteps of independent, strong women like Diana and Fergie, claiming it shows a concentration on equality in relationships.

First of all, I'd like to point out that both Diana and Fergie wound up divorced. That's mildly interesting.

But what I really want to ask is: what about the word "obey" terrifies modern women so much?

So many times, I've heard self-titled "progressive" women ("strong," "independent" women) remark about how they would DIE before promising to obey their husbands, but it always makes me wonder: What is so horrible about your significant other that you don't trust him? If you're worried he would ask you to do something which is morally WRONG, why are you marrying him at all? And if not--if your only concern is having to do things you don't always want to do--are you so selfish you can't give up your own desires in his favor now and then?
----

A friend of mine complained about all the wedding hooplah, because, as she pointed out, the world is celebrating a ceremony that otherwise doesn't hold much significance to our culture anymore. Most of the tradition and pageantry has been handed down from a time when marriage really did mean forever. Now,  despite the politically correct talk about the "beautiful couple" and how "happy they are," it seems perfectly appropriate to wonder secretly when it will end in a split. (Or to wonder the same thing, not-so-secretly on your blog, I suppose.)

I realize this is a touchy subject because so many people are affected by divorce. But I can't help noticing that wedding vows mean very little in our world, and that's another reason I wonder why women fight so fiercely over the word "obey." Frequently they say "love, honor, and cherish until death do us part," then turn around and part before death. So, why can't we mutter an insincere "I'll obey ya, too"   ???

And, what's with the "richer or poorer" thing? I know the royals don't have much to worry about in that department, but statistics show the rest of us fight about money above anything else... Why would any self-respecting woman promise to attach herself to a poor guy?!

If we REALLY want to brag about our progressive marriage ceremonies and keep our vows more practical for a modern society, I think mine probably should have read something like this:

I, Amanda, take you, Luke, to be my lawfully wedded husband. I promise to love you as long as I feel you are providing for our family, and I will treat you as an equal, unless I wake up one morning and realize I'm not happy and should look out for myself first. Life is short, afterall. But, it's not so short that I can promise---for sure--to be your wife the whole time. So, I promise to be faithful as long as our relationship still feels as good as dating. If I like the things you say to me, I'll consider your opinions. (But, let's be clear. That's not the same as "obeying!") I suppose I will cherish you, if you deserve it. And I will sacrifice for you, unless it hurts TOO much.  And, finally my love, I promise to enjoy the congratulations and the taxbreak associated with our new "committment," until it's time to dissolve the contract and try again with the next guy.

Oh, Amanda, you are so judgmental.

It's true, I see the carelessness being thrown upon the beautiful institution of marriage, and--in my judgment--it is a disgrace.  But if we thought seriously about our promises, maybe fewer people would jump into marriage so readily? Maybe we wouldn't be so quick to congratulate, but would caution each other that life-long relationships aren't for the selfishly-minded (unless you want to change the vows to resemble mine above)...

I actually don't have a problem with women who KNOW they have an issue with "obeying." At least they're thinking about the words of their vows! But, again, I wonder why you would go through with the marriage anyway--just removing the parts you don't like. If you can't be sure you're standing beside a man who only will exercise his authority as a last resort and for your good, if you wonder whether it will turn into an "abuse" situation, or if you don't know for sure if he could handle leadership, why are you pledging your life to him?

----
Luke hasn't yet used his headship to end an argument. Most of the time, we go back and forth in discussion when our wills clash, and there hasn't been an instance when he felt so strongly his way was better for both of us that he trumped me on the spot...

But I remember a time my dad stepped in and took charge, despite protests. My grandpa, Mom's dad, passed away somewhat unexpectedly, and the entire family left church early to drive nearly three hours and be with Grandma. We may have thrown some clothes in bags first, but we weren't totally prepared for a long visit. Besides that, Mom's extended family was arriving in droves, and Grandma's little house was getting crowded. 

So, my dad made the executive decision to take my three siblings and me back home to our house, and let my mom spend time mourning with her family. She didn't like the idea--wanting to keep everyone together, unsure about the cost of driving back and forth repeatedly, worried about whether we'd make it for the funeral, etc. And, ordinarily, Dad tries to accomodate Mom's wishes the best he can.

But, he recognized that she wasn't thinking with her usual clarity. She was distraught, and she needed the leadership of my father to take care of details while she dealt with her pain. I'm not sure whether she held a grudge against him at first, but I did hear her remark later that she was glad he stepped in and overruled her. After the fact, she could recognize he did it for her good.
----

There is no reason for me to suspect Kate and William will crash and burn in the matrimony department, other than the truly sad divorce statistics being collected. For this reason, along with the rest of the world, I'll stare breathless at the pomp, admire the beauty, and wish my best for the couple.

But I will not celebrate their focus on "equality," when I believe strongly true love elevates the other person. I cannot praise anybody for their "modern" or "progressive" marriage, because I don't see progress in the institution at all.

Self-sacrifice: My Personal Goal, but Impossible to Enforce

Selfishness is the root of all evil.
Jesus speaks constantly about serving our fellow man.
 We are told to put our own selfish interests aside and serve others--regardless of how it feels at the time.

And, with these principles in mind, I first began posting to this blog. I've always been haunted by verses such as, "Whatever you do for the least of these, you do for Me [Jesus]"  "Care for the widow and orphan,"  "Look not only to your own interests but also to the interests of others..." It can't be denied: after preaching the need for salvation, Jesus talked most frequently about sacrifice, love, and service. (All three are almost interchangeable in definition.)

I may have shared once that I interviewed author Lisa Samson in college, and was impressed by the way writing books was distinctly second place in her life. She talked much more readily--much more animated--about her inner-city ministry than she did about being an award-winning novelist. I'll never forget when she said, "Just because I may write words that bring people closer to God, that doesn't mean I don't have to lift my finger to help someone less fortunate than me."  ....It's a beautiful truth. But it was haunting for a college Sophomore--stuck on campus, writing lots of words all the time, yet totally unsure of where to begin my own acts of service...

Then, I got married and began work in a daycare for special needs children--which were two extremely challenging responsibilities from the very beginning. It was tough. And it was difficult to be positive at times. But it occurred to me, I can take on the attitude of service in my life right now. My major ideology was, "if we all put personal needs aside and practiced Christian love, the world's problems would shrink."   Divorce rates would drop. The truly needy would be cared for. And, although we would be sacrificing our own desires--we would end up being a happier people overall. That's what happens when we practice the always-true, made-for-our-good laws of God.

So, naturally, what really irks me is when people take the Bible verses above, upon which I've built my beliefs, and uses them to challenge my sincerity. I'm called a hypocrite. I've been told repeatedly, because I don't support a certain political party, that I "hate the poor" and fail to do my part in "taking care of the least of these." Mostly, these attacks come from non-believers who only know Jesus' words out-of-context and, furthermore, only revere them when it suits their political agenda. BUT, some Christians also think a "poor-conscious" individual must surely vote Democrat or else admit to being a self-centered jerk...

Apparently, Economist Dr. Mark Hendrickson has run into these same people, which inspired him to write a marvelous article, Christian Charity and the Welfare State, to explain why less government is better government, even when that government claims to care for the poor.  Now, I know it's popular in Christian circles to chant "Jesus isn't Republican or Democrat....blah, blah blah." But, as the chasm between the two parties begin looking more like Freedom vs. Socialism, I argue there is a better choice for the political direction of our country.  Technically, Jesus would be politically neutral even if Hitler came back from the dead, took control of the world as a Supreme Leader, and began killing off various groups one after the other. But that doesn't make it an ideal situation. Also, carrying signs that read "Jesus isn't a genocidal dictator" won't help much.

Read the article! And the next time a liberal tries to corner the market on "compassion" just because he or she advocates taking money from the evil rich and handing it to the "always-deserving poor," well....I still haven't figure out exactly what to do in that situation other than roll my eyes.

But, in the meantime, I vote in favor of the right to choose selfishness or service.

And then I'm going to choose service.

For Those Ready to Eat

Note: This is a long post. I wrote it because I promised a reader, and I plan to return to my shorter, spunkier, (apparently offensive) posts about marriage, parenting, and politics after this one. BUT, I just wanted to let you know, Aunt Bonnie, that you and your short attention span don't have to read this one. :)

Nothing is more frustrating for a comedian than the sour-faced man in the center of the room—arms folded—with an obvious “Make Me Laugh” attitude. No matter how good the entertainer, if someone is determined to remain unimpressed, there will be no convincing them otherwise.

Similarly, no parent/teacher can force a small child to eat his breakfast. Believe me—I’ve seen it attempted hundreds of times. A mother of a former student used to bring her son in every morning with the same, worried look on her face and the same story: “He only ate, like, two bites of his cereal at home! So I brought a PopTart and a banana with us. Could you please make sure he eats it?” Then, she would set her son up at the table and plead. “Please eat! Come on, eat a bite for Mommy! You’ll be hungry!”

No matter how many times I informed her that the boy wasted everything she ever brought from home, no matter how many times I suggested that he would eat if he were hungry, no matter how many times I suggested the attention he gets from her begging actually contributed to the problem rather than convincing him to eat, she still put on the same show every day. She was sure her baby would starve if she couldn’t find a way to CRAM the nutrients into his throat.

But, here’s my attitude about the one who refuses to laugh and the one who refuses to eat—it’s their loss. Why should someone spend hours trying to persuade them to do something for their own good? At some point, shouldn’t a comic or a mother (even a loving one) shrug their shoulders and say “Suit yourself”? Eventually, the grouchy man will realize he’s only wasting the price of his own ticket by not taking advantage of a chance to have fun. And the child will notice his stomach rumbling…. But, even if they DON’T see the light—even if they insist on remaining stubbornly opposed to your wishes—there will never be a point where you can MAKE them laugh or eat regardless.

This is what I’m learning about the defense of my beliefs. Many Christians, like a concerned mother, fall into a similar trap with Atheists—begging, pleading, and insisting that the Atheist do what is good for them rather than recognizing some never will. The Bible says the road to God is narrow and few will find it. It says that repeatedly handing Truth to those who don’t know what to do with it is like throwing pearls to pigs. AND, the apostles were told to walk away, knocking the dust off their feet, if they failed in their mission to deliver the good news to an obstinate and unrepentant city. (This advice is the biblical version of “Go on, brush your shoulders off.”)

I realize the life or death message of the gospel is FAR more important than enjoying a show or eating your breakfast, and it breaks my heart when people turn the whole thing into a fight about who's right rather than grasping the eternal consequences. But the concept remains the same. We can’t make somebody do what’s best for them. In fact, a Christian’s heart-level plea for a sinner’s salvation usually is misconstrued even worse than a mother’s concern, which is merely “annoying.” Many Atheists believe a Christian’s motive is actually hate-filled and self-righteous, totally missing the Christian’s underlying craving to help them find important answers.

This isn’t surprising, since Jesus said, “You will be hated because of my name.” In fact, it also compares those without the truth to somone “sleeping,” and this makes sense to me considering how cranky some people are when you try to wake them up. My husband is one like this, and it makes me worry about his safety if there were a house fire, Would he scream at me to leave him alone rather than hear my frantic insistence that HE’S GOING TO BURN? I don't know. But there is no rationalizing "it's for your good" with an unconscious person…

You can’t make anyone laugh. You can’t make anyone eat.

----

NOW, on the other hand, what if the man in the middle of the room just didn’t get the joke? What if he bought his ticket, intending to have a good time and truly ready for a laugh—but he missed the punch line? Well, by all means, I will explain it to him! Questions aren’t a problem, if you are confident in your talent as an entertainer—or, say, if you know you’ve found the Truth in the Bible. I don’t mind offering valid reasons why I'm a Christian, just like I don't mind telling a toddler why breakfast is important.

And this is why today’s post contains a brief summary of the contents of the Bible, why its reliable as the Word of God, and several links to other websites which deal with biblical apologetics—all because an anonymous friend asked, “Why should I believe it?” It’s important to show that faith is not irrational. It isn’t inconsistent. You don’t have to leave your brain behind to discover truth, and—in fact—when you study honestly, you’ll discover that not eating DOES make you hungry, and Mom was right! (Oh, and you’ll find there IS a God who reveals Himself in the Bible.)

Just don’t gloat that nobody can make you eat. I freely admit as much.

----

If you haven’t read my post about The Letter, you may want to start there. It’s a quick analogy I threw together regarding the position all humans find themselves in when confronted with reality.

All of us have been thrown into the “field” of this world, and we are left with the obvious questions of “Why are we here?” and “What do we do now?” We can see there are those sitting by themselves, marching to the beat of their own drum and not even TRYING to participate in finding answers to these queries. You might call them the “delinquents” of society, like criminals who break rules intentionally and pot-stirrers who generate discord. OR, those bench people from the story might simply be comparable to those who live day to day as if there isn’t a big, complicated situation to explain. They go to work, eat, laugh, and love, but they never ask the tough questions.

Then, we can see there is a man (symbolic of Christians) who claims to have the answers. He says the Field Master wrote the rules and sent instructions for how to follow them, which is found in “The Letter.” Apparently, we must jump, spin, and flap our arms at certain times…but the man also alludes to “another way,” meant for those actually willing to read what the Letter says for themselves.

The Letter—or the Bible—is actually a collection of narrative stories, poetry, history, and prophecy, which we divide into the “Old Testament” and “New Testament.” Most people recognize it is full of "wise sayings," and major religions (such as Judaism and Mormonism) even recognize it for being God's Word, too, though Mormons have an additional message from God called the Book of Mormon. But the idea that the Koran or the Baghavad Ghita are equally important comes from a basic misunderstanding because even the books themselves do not claim to be God’s Word. This makes the first part of the investigation easy: we don’t need to worry about which of the “letters" we should read to start with—there is only one which even claims to be composed directly by Him.

Here is a link which offers three suggested tests for determining whether some document really was authored by whomever it says it was. You might say they are tests to see whether “the Letter” really came from the Field Owner. But the link uses a slightly different story—comparing God to a King who, though estranged from his son, sends information regarding a way to cure him of a disease… How does the son know the remedy actually came from the King/Father, when the Son has never met his dad? How do we know the Letter came from the Field Owner, when the man in white never actually met him?

Next, I would encourage those examining the authenticity of the Bible to question whether its reliable, from a reporting stand point. This link talks about the way historians determine the events of history, and how the Bible lines up with other ancient records. (Spoiler alert: if you think Plato said some pretty wise things, then you have to believe that Jesus existed—and that he said wise things, too.) But, keep in mind, Jesus claimed to be God in the flesh. So, he can’t just be “another wise guy” or “another prophet.” Either He was God in the flesh, or he was a lying, manipulative, or otherwise crazy…

Next, check out some of the Letter’s scientific accuracies. Any time the Bible speaks definitively about a piece of scientific truth, it has been discovered totally correct.

Next, consider that the “rules” of the “field” (or the laws of the Bible) line up with what our consciences tell us. AND, when followed as a life guide, the Bible never leads anyone astray—suggesting the same One who Created life to begin with also authored this Book of How to Navigate Life. If the King sent a remedy and, upon taking the medicine, the boy gets better, that remedy was authentic… But if the son never reads the prescription and follows the instructions, he can sit around asking “Did this really come from my Father, the King?” forever.

Finally, I’ll speak about the Bible’s internal consistency, since a reader asked why we don’t kill our disobedient children (as it instructs in Leviticus). The Old Testament contains the Law of God, and what it takes to be perfectly holy in His eyes. In fact, the entire book of Leviticus was written to the Israelites—God’s people—for how they should serve Him and make amends for their sins in order to continue living under His love and protection. In other words, it’s the moral AND CIVIL law for a tribe which already had a relationship with God. They didn't even have a human king at the time. They listened to God's voice strictly, and He told them everything to do. But, because they were establishing their own government, not every rule in the book was meant to be observed by all men for all time. God is very clear about which laws are which. We are told in the New Testament that “you must be circumcised” was a civil law, which not everyone follows today. Yet, the Ten Commandments apply to all men everywhere, even today.

Another reason the New Testament is important: it tells us the Law (including the Ten Commandments) was designed to make the Israelites realize how imperfect they were. Nobody could possibly follow all of the rules. (As my story said, nobody could jump over every stick and wave their arms every time the wind blew in the field.) But, God never intended for the Law to be the final plan. He sent Jesus as a bridge between God’s Law and sinful man, so that even imperfect people could have a way to spend eternity with a Holy God. According to the Bible, there really are TWO ways to get to Heaven: be perfect (which we know we can’t do) OR accept that Jesus lived a perfect life—never breaking the law—and then offered to carry us into Heaven with Him.

Anyway, my final suggestion for anyone trying to find errors in the Bible is to start by reading books by CHRISTIANS, who usually ask better, harder questions than non-Christians because THEY’VE ACTUALLY READ THE BIBLE. In fact, an interesting number of Theologists are former Atheists, who set out to disprove the Bible at some point and ended up being convinced of its Divine origin. Check out Lee Strobel, C.S. Lewis, and Ray Comfort, all of whom are former doubters who probably could argue with themselves better than most unbelievers argue against them. But because their questions were pure, all of them woke from their sleep. Eventually, their searching brought them to the God of the Bible. (Also look for Mark Mettelberg's best-selling books “The Reason Why” and “Questions Christians Hope No One Will Ask,” in which he first builds the case against Christianity, before offering explanations.)

But, keep in mind, studying is for the child asking, “Is breakfast really good for me?” or the man saying, “I don’t get the joke!” You will find plenty of thoughtful, patient, well-read people who are ready to help you understand. Yet, if you’re hoping these links will make you eat or make you laugh, they won’t. Everyone still has the personal responsibility to figure out if the Bible’s claims to be God’s word are true, and nobody can force another to accept it.

It's just a very difficult, emotional subject because the consequences for refusing are much worse than a miserable night in the comedy club or a hungry belly.

CANI Get Free Money, Please?

We are very busy around here this week, painting walls, assembling wee-furniture, and organizing piles of stuff in preparation for the arrival of McBaby approximately 4 weeks from now. But, since Luke ran to the store for some more tape and another screw to replace the one for the crib we lost, I have a couple minutes to share the reading/thinking I've been doing lately.

Here's an article about the correlation between the reality show Supernanny and the attitude of entitlement among Americans today: the Supernanny State. If you read it, pay special attention to the quote by Thoreau at the end...

His words, like the entire article, make us consider the difference between helping people and enabling them.

It will appear I'm switching gears with this next link to an article on Credit Card Reform, but I'll try to bring it full circle. The lady featured, a Democrat, wants to pass legislation to reduce the "fine print" involved with credit card and loan applications in order to simplify the process for consumers. She argues that competition can thrive only if we understand what the various contracts say in the first place, in order to make the most informed decision possible.

Now, generally, I don't have a problem with this idea, even though I haven't heard from the opposition, yet. (It's possible there is more to the bill than "simplifying"--which keeps the Republicans from jumping on board. I'm interested in reading a Conservative's perspective on the issue before I support the legilsation.) However, at first blow, I like what this lady has to say. Who could be against straight-forward language to help us make better decisions, right?

But, I'm afraid this legislation only will help people like me make decisions more quickly--but won't actually reduce the occurrence of loan default or home foreclosure. I believe there is more to the financial crisis in America than simple "ignorance" or "misunderstanding" of the fine print. And I think CANI provides a pretty good example.

What's CANI?

CANI stands for Childcare Alliance of Northern Indiana, and it helps low-income families (almost always single mothers) cover the cost of daycare services. A percentage of the students in my classroom are able to attend thanks to financial assistance from CANI.

In exchange for filling out government paperwork, making a few phone calls, and proving they need help, mothers receive a plastic card, which they are supposed to swipe upon dropping off their child and picking him up from the daycare center. The electronic machine on the receptionist's desk functions like an old fashioned time clock, by keeping track of the number of hours the student spends in childcare. Then, the information is sent to the internet, where a representative of the provider (for instance, me) can make sure everything was recorded properly. Assuming all works properly, CANI will pay the provider of services (the daycare) directly for the amount of time recorded by the electronic time clock.

However, not all works properly every time. Sometimes parents are running late and forget to swipe the card. Sometimes, parents simply don't feel like doing it. Whatever the case, the time clock allows parents to correct errors and "catch up" their records up to 14 days after missing a sign-in or sign-out. But, this handy function only helps those who are...how do I say this?...reliable.

Rather than speaking in hypotheticals, let me just describe for you exactly what my job became--as the teacher--not too many weeks back. No, I wasn't spending hours creating lesson plans and teaching kids to read. Eventually, I found myself spending HOURS trying to "help" parents fulfill their card-swiping responsibilities, just so our daycare center could get reimbursed for our services.

Every Monday morning, I would look at the online records to discover that--look!--five or so children were not signed in/out AT ALL last week. Our records showed they came to school every day, but the CANI records showed they didn't attend at all. If left as it was, we wouldn't receive a dime for those services... So, I would write down every single date for which I saw a discrepancy, and give it to the parent in the form of a letter.

Dear ______,

Your child was not signed in/out for the following days, March 12-16. Please use your CANI card and adjust the records the next time you are in the building. We do not receive payment for services unless this is done properly.

Thanks.

So, parents would catch up the records for all five students by the next day.

HA! Just kidding!

Usually, the parents would corner me the next day (or several days later) and say, "I don't remember what time I brought him in or picked him up on those days. Could you remind me?" And, being a helpful individual, Miss Amanda would spend another hour or two writing another group of letters. This time, with the daycare records in front of me, I would compose something like this:

Dear _____,

Our records show your child was here the following days/times last week:

3/12/11 In at 8:30am, out at 4:30pm

3/13/11 In at 9:00am, out at 5:00pm

3/14/11 In at 8:30 am, out at 5:00pm

3/15/11 In at 8:00am, out at 2:00pm

3/16/11 In at 8:00am, out at 5:00pm

Please adjust these days/times with your CANI card as soon as possible.

Thanks.

I would write personalized reminder letters like this for all students with discrepancies. And I used very plain, straight-forward language, as you may have noticed... So, of course--now knowing what was expected of them--the parents would jump into action and fix the errors...

Except for the ones who lost their letters. (Eventually, I began photocopying all the letters I wrote each week, so I could keep the originals and make MORE copies when parents "couldn't find" the first one.) Also, there were times parents would take the line "as soon as possible" very liberally, and their "first opportunity" to swipe their cards would come AFTER the 14 day period offered by CANI for such corrections...

So, what does the daycare provider do then? CANI required my boss to fill out "discrepancy worksheets" for any days/times we provided services, but for which the parent never swiped their cards. Each day required a seperate form. So, there were times my boss filled out 10-12 worksheets to send to the CANI headquarters. And THEN they may be returned to her with a note that said, "You missed box 2" or "You used blue ink instead of black." (No, I'm not making this up! This is a government agency, remember?)

So, let's recap: an agency called CANI--in cooperation with the daycare I work for--agreed to offer financial help to deserving mothers, trying to feed their families or go to school or whatever. These women just need someone in their corner! So, help was provided in exchange for swiping a credit card twice a day. Unfortunately, when this became too tedious, parents simply neglected to swipe the card, andthe job of jumping through hoops and hunting down our money fell to teachers like me and to directors like my boss...

Needless to say, Miss Amanda became fed up. So, she spoke with her boss and said, "Enough."

I suggested we start a new policy, for which I was willing to write precisely one letter a week--one which I could photocopy five or so times and which required zero personalization. And, it ended up reading something like this:

Dear _______,

Today is Thursday. Your child's CANI card has not been swiped at all this week. You have until tomorrow (Friday) at closing time to fix the errors, or we will be forced to charge you personally for the time your child was here.

Thanks!

Now, I was a little less abrupt than that. And, my boss and I explained to each parent, face-to-face, why we needed to change policies. We told them, nicely, that we couldn't continue losing money and spending so much time dealing with paper work, so we were looking for a better way to keep parents accountable. And, for a few weeks, the threat of being charged personally ensured that EVERY child was signed in/out consistently!

Until...

I suppose it was bound to happen, but eventually, a couple of mothers decided to test our sincerity. Monday morning rolled around, and I discovered that the records of two students had NOT been adjusted before we closed on Friday. So, I told my boss about it.

I'd love to say she issued swift discipline, but--actually--I don't know the rest of the story. She mentioned calling the offending parents, and I'm not sure what happened after that. But, I don’t think they were charged. There are many sweet-natured people in the world who have a hard time assigning consequences, even after a story like the one I just told. So, it wouldn't totally surprise me if those mothers continue to receive chance after chance, all in the name of compassion and good will.

So, I ask you, Readers, as I look out the window expecting to see my husband pull into the driveway at any moment, what IS the root of "neediness" in our country, which Thoreau encourages us to attack?

Parents want to raise respectful, selfless children, but many of them, as the Supernanny article points out, would rather be "nice" to them than to discipline. Similarly, there are many people—like the lady in the second article—who are concerned with American debt the state of the housing market/credit card industries. Yet, we continue to bail out those who sign contracts they can't keep. And, though the fine print has complicated things, there remains people like me who pay their bills regardless and who only scold themselves if they signed a contract they didn't understand... Simply neglecting to pay isn't an option for a responsible person. Instead of giving me hope for a debt-free America, I believe a “reformed credit card system” only will help those who already intend to do honest business in the first place. But I fear even very plain, straight-forward language won't prevent irresponsible people from being irresponsible...

So, what should be our response, as individuals AND as a country, when people fail to uphold their end of a bargain? How far should we "nice" people go to "help" those who are in need?

And at what point does helping become enabling?

We Want "Change"--But We Don't Want "Different"

Netflix's instant watch feature now offers old episodes of the TLC show "17 Kids and Counting," and....I watched the entire first season. Yes, I fell trap to the addiction, granted more than a couple years behind the rest of the country.

For those even further out of the loop than I, the show follows a smalltown, Christian family who have 17 biological children. Actually, I believe they have 19 now--but there were only 17 during the first season, when the mom, Michelle, announced she was pregnant again.

Overall, I found it very refreshing to watch a family working together, getting along, and making the most out of their lives.

Since the Duggar Parents were closely involved with the show's production, the family was portrayed in a good light for the most part. All of the Duggars recognize their uniqueness, but TLC never seemed to insinuate their lifestyle choice was bad.

Not like this person.

"The premiere episode of “17 Kids and Counting” tracked the Duggars’ “Today” trip to New York. While the family toured the city, the producers of the TLC series prompted the children to deliver their streaming impressions, and the results are very “Green Acres.” They cannot get over all the hustle and mayhem. “In Central Park there’s actually children there,” one of the boys says. “The rest of the city I didn’t see too many children, but Central Park there was a lot of kids.”

Jim Bob brought his prejudices with him, believing you can only hail a taxi if you’re waving money in your hand. Another boy is entranced by the large screens in Times Square even though some of the ads are “raunchy.” The Duggar children are not allowed to watch cable television, only obliged to appear on it."

I'll pause here for a moment, since I saw this episode. (I saw all of them.) The only prejudice involved belongs to the author of this article, who assumes a smalltown man has prejudices about the city. Jim Bob and his oldest son both tried hailing a cab for several minutes with no luck before Dad finally pulled out a wad of cash and convinced a driver to stop.

Also, just in case anyone hasn't noticed, some of the ads in Time Square are raunchy. The kid was right.

Continuing...

"A call to parenthood that would cause 99.9 percent of American couples to sneak out in the middle of the night and leave their children with a lifetime supply of juice boxes does not even appear to overwhelm the Duggars, and that has the effect of making them seem denial-prone or indifferent, even as they are shown to be paying considerable attention to the small nation state they oversee.

The Duggars home-school their children and create whole domains of responsibility rather than simply doling out chores. The laundry room, as Michelle puts it, “currently that’s Jinger’s jurisdiction.” Michelle never seems to raise her voice or even grow tense. Jim Bob manages to keep his hair perfectly combed. This is all quite mesmerizing, as if a 300-pound person suddenly landed in an ice rink during a figure skating event and performed a quadruple axel without incident."

See the article for the absurd conclusion about what close-knit family life portrayed on television supposedly does to the audience.... (Spoiler: The show "exploits divisions" among viewers.)

Obviously, I take offense over the tone this reviewer adopts. But I'm even more concerned by the fact that controversy and division HAS developed around the show, for reasons I truly cannot understand. Here is a short list of criticisms I've found from various bloggers, tweeters, and commenters. (Incluing this blog dedicated solely to commenting on the family: duggarswithoutpity.blogspot.com)

-The Duggars are exploiting their children, using the "TLC gravy train" to support them.

-They don't believe in dancing. (Weird!)

-Their children expect to find future mates through courtship (Weird!)

-They don't watch TV and have limited access to the internet (Weird!)

So, it's America's business that the Duggar's are weird?

I could defend each individual criticism of this family, but I don't think I'll waste the time. Instead, I'll admit all the controversy kind of makes me want to follow suit and do away with my TV. When paternity tests and out-of-control kids are the norm on daytime television, and Oprah and Dr. Phil make their money giving theory-based advice to moms at the end of their rope, but a family actually MAKING IT is torn down, I'm not sure I can continue to watch...

Personally, I believe kids should be aware of "raunchy" stuff and then be given good reasons not to participate in it--rather than made to believe evil doesn't exist at all. (After all, how can we expect to combat immorality if we don't even know this particular enemy is lurking.) Growing up, I was given straight answers for any questions I had as well as access to the internet, TV, books, articles, movies, and whatever else so I could learn to answer questions about WHY Mom and Dad believed what they believed. Oh, and we danced.

But, I would like to point out that today's parents are terrified their kids are going to get pregnant/get someone else pregnant. They've heard the entertainment industry can convince young minds of anything (that is, if a cartoon character on a package of cigarettes doesn't). Parents are confronted with statistics about violence in song lyrics, video games, movies, etc. And, even if their kids don't do drugs or bring a gun to school, parents have bought the idea that all kids will get into trouble. It's just what they do. The best WE can do is hand them condoms and set up internet monitoring so we can be aware when they're misbehaving. And, over coffee with friends, we can cluck our tongues and lament, "something has to be done about our youth."

But, then, why do we criticize the Duggars for their abnormal children? The Duggar kids are not sexually active, nor are they violent. They aren't disrespectful, like a normal teenager. They aren't rebellious and impossible, like "normal" kids.

Meanwhile, the parents are self-supporting--raising all of their kids with their own money. (And they were doing this BEFORE the "TLC gravy train" pulled into the station.) And they've developed a way to divide responsibilities which makes their household run like clockwork in a manner the "Desperate Housewives" can't fathom. In fact, I find it interesting that the author of the above article compared the Duggar's to a nation-state... but was NOT suggesting we could learn something about fiscal AND personal responsibility from this debt-free, neighbor-loving group. Instead, the writer only obsesses over their strangeness...

I agree, the Duggar's are weird. But, in a fallen, depraved world which causes many to step back in alarm and demand "change," why is that a bad thing?