Years ago, when the Affirmative Action law was passed, the company I worked for conducted sensitivity training for employees. This was to prepare us for the anticipated influx of women and minorities. The trainer said to us, “The purpose of this training is not to change your heart, although we hope it happens. We can’t change your heart, but we can change your behavior. And your behavior will change.”
That trainer was right. Only God can change a person’s heart, but the person must be willing to be changed. The failure of worldly ways of changing hearts (and often behavior as well) has been demonstrated in recent events. The most obvious recent event involves Donald Sterling, who, in a private telephone conversation, came across as racist (see future post for more on this). Some celebrities have said demeaning things about women recently, and rap music often degrades women as well.
It seems that no amount of political correctness or cultural pressure can change people’s hearts. This country needs a change of heart that can only be done by God:
1. Most importantly, we need to turn back to God, and take seriously the motto on our money: “In God We Trust.”
2. We then need to return to the values that made this country great – not perfect – but great. Only God can do that.
3. If we’ve done these first two things, then mostly everything else will fall into place that needs to be corrected if those who come to God take their faith seriously and follow the Scriptures.
4. Finally, we need to change our culture from one of crudeness, materialism, self-centeredness and excess to one that reflects good values. We tolerate entirely too much violence, sex, nudity, and the occult in the media and games.
Let’s face it. This country is a mess. We are heavily in debt, we have a dysfunctional Congress that is incapable of action, we have a serious substance abuse problem, our economy is weak, and we have lost status in the world. We continue to turn away from God just at the time we need some divine intervention. Let’s not sit back and let a few militant atheists and misguided judges eliminate God from our nation. Let we the people set the agenda and may it be one of faith, hope, and charity.
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
Putin's Folly
It has been estimated that Putin supposedly spent over $51 billion to build the Olympic facilities in Sochi to show the world that Russia is a 21st century modern country. Putin, wanting Russia to take its place among the progressive nations of the world, put on quite a show at the winter Olympics. Following the Sochi extravaganza, Putin pulled back the curtain of modernity by his invasion of Ukraine, revealing that Russia is in reality still back in the bad old days in terms of its imperialist thinking. It’s a shame that Russian expansionism appears to be alive and well. As a result, it appears that Russia under Putin is not ready to take its place among the leading nations of the world. Putin just wasted $51 billion of goodwill by his Hitler-like land grabs.
Mr. Putin: read your Bible. It says we shouldn’t covet (desire, lust after) another’s goods or wife, nor should we steal them. Putin covets part or all of Ukraine and he’s in the process of stealing them. Let us pray for the nation and people of the Ukraine, and also pray that Putin will pull out his troops and won’t make any more land grabs. Also pray that there won’t be any bloodshed. While we’re at it, let’s not forget the people of Syria as well. We pray that the 21st century will be one of peace and tranquility in which nation will no longer rise up against nation.
Mr. Putin: read your Bible. It says we shouldn’t covet (desire, lust after) another’s goods or wife, nor should we steal them. Putin covets part or all of Ukraine and he’s in the process of stealing them. Let us pray for the nation and people of the Ukraine, and also pray that Putin will pull out his troops and won’t make any more land grabs. Also pray that there won’t be any bloodshed. While we’re at it, let’s not forget the people of Syria as well. We pray that the 21st century will be one of peace and tranquility in which nation will no longer rise up against nation.
Friday, May 9, 2014
The Right Is in Denial
The Right does not want to recognize reality, and as a result, they are looking like complete fools to the rest of the world. Anything the Left says, even if it’s obviously true, the Right will contradict it. It’s really getting to be ridiculous. One area where the Right is in complete denial has to do with climate change. Now I know it is a controversial issue, particularly regarding its cause. However, there is enough data to clearly demonstrate that some sort of climate change is taking place. I also know that statistics can be manipulated, and that there is a lot of junk science out there as well. Nevertheless, I believe there is enough data showing that something is definitely happening to the planet. Yet the Right consistently denies it.
I don’t think the Right should debate what is occurring, but what are the causes. Since the Industrial Revolution got underway, humans have been spewing all kinds of smoke and pollution into the atmosphere. In the late 20th century, with China and India becoming more industrialized, more and more pollutants ended up in the air. Common sense tells you that there is a human element to climate change by the sheer volume of what’s released into the atmosphere each day. I believe we have overwhelmed the atmosphere’s ability to cleanse itself, and as a result, more pollution stays in the air, causing climate change. There are other causes, such as El Niño, natural atmospheric cycles, and cutting down the rainforests, but it makes sense to attack the one obvious cause: man-made pollution from factories, power plants, and cars and trucks.
We must reduce this pollution if for no other reason than we shouldn’t be breathing it in! Forget about climate change – I don’t want to breathe that stuff in and get lung cancer, COPD, or some other terrible disease. Of course it can’t be just the United States and Western Europe that should invest in pollution controls. Other industrialized nations such as China, India, Russia, Japan, Korea, and Brazil must also do their part in reducing pollution significantly.
So I wish the Right would wake up and not be in denial. They are just making themselves look foolish.
On another topic, the Republicans should not focus on repealing Obamacare, but should strive to make adjustments to improve it. That program is seriously flawed but with some substantial adjustments, I believe it could turn out to be beneficial. The Democrats should take a hard look at Obamacare and realize that improvements must be made for the good of the country. Every government program has unintended consequences, and they should be addressed before too much harm is done. One glaringly necessary adjustment is tort reform. That alone would significantly reduce the cost of medical care in this country.
I don’t think the Right should debate what is occurring, but what are the causes. Since the Industrial Revolution got underway, humans have been spewing all kinds of smoke and pollution into the atmosphere. In the late 20th century, with China and India becoming more industrialized, more and more pollutants ended up in the air. Common sense tells you that there is a human element to climate change by the sheer volume of what’s released into the atmosphere each day. I believe we have overwhelmed the atmosphere’s ability to cleanse itself, and as a result, more pollution stays in the air, causing climate change. There are other causes, such as El Niño, natural atmospheric cycles, and cutting down the rainforests, but it makes sense to attack the one obvious cause: man-made pollution from factories, power plants, and cars and trucks.
We must reduce this pollution if for no other reason than we shouldn’t be breathing it in! Forget about climate change – I don’t want to breathe that stuff in and get lung cancer, COPD, or some other terrible disease. Of course it can’t be just the United States and Western Europe that should invest in pollution controls. Other industrialized nations such as China, India, Russia, Japan, Korea, and Brazil must also do their part in reducing pollution significantly.
So I wish the Right would wake up and not be in denial. They are just making themselves look foolish.
On another topic, the Republicans should not focus on repealing Obamacare, but should strive to make adjustments to improve it. That program is seriously flawed but with some substantial adjustments, I believe it could turn out to be beneficial. The Democrats should take a hard look at Obamacare and realize that improvements must be made for the good of the country. Every government program has unintended consequences, and they should be addressed before too much harm is done. One glaringly necessary adjustment is tort reform. That alone would significantly reduce the cost of medical care in this country.
Thursday, May 8, 2014
De Blasio’s Support for Israel
NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio doesn’t appeal to me because he is too far to the Left for my taste. I didn’t like the way he handled the charter schools issue, and his “tale of two cities” rhetoric is somewhat divisive and fosters an “us versus them” mentality. He pretty much marches in lockstep with the Progressive agenda.
But I read recently that the Mayor is not in complete lockstep with Progressive doctrine. He is very much pro-Israel, which runs contrary to mainstream liberal doctrine. As a matter of fact, de Blasio has taken a lot of heat from his fellow progressives on that subject. A lot of ugly things were said about him by his fellow lefties, even though he’s about as far left as you can get. So my opinion of the Mayor has changed somewhat, and I applaud him for acting on his conscience rather than towing the line of his fellow liberals on this important topic.
The harsh criticism of de Blasio by the Left has demonstrated once again what a harsh taskmaster political correctness is. There is little room for matters of conscience or individual thinking in the PC world. We see this oppression on university campuses, which are supposed to be bastions of free speech and exchange of ideas. The fact that the Left is so doctrinaire tells me that the terms Liberal and Progressive are misnomers. Moreover, the key virtue of the Left, Tolerance, is nowhere to be seen. Even within their own, there is very little tolerance of ideas or beliefs that run contrary in every aspect to mainstream political correctness.
I wanted to point out this contradiction so that you don’t get sucked in to political correctness, although it is very hard to avoid these days. I still believe in acting on your conscience and not being told what to think or do. Sometimes I get the feeling we are living the novels “Brave New World” and “1984” with the PC mavens acting as the thought police. In the meantime, let’s give the mayor credit for supporting Israel.
By the way, that doesn’t mean anybody who is pro-Israel agrees with all of the policies of that government. It simply means that we believe Israel has a right to exist. I believe I’ve written one or more posts on Israel in the past, but I think I will write another one soon. Most people are woefully ignorant of the recent history of that nation. Once you know a little something of its 20th century history, you’ll change your attitude towards that tiny nation.
Lest you think I’m picking on just the Left, see a future post for my criticism of the Right.
But I read recently that the Mayor is not in complete lockstep with Progressive doctrine. He is very much pro-Israel, which runs contrary to mainstream liberal doctrine. As a matter of fact, de Blasio has taken a lot of heat from his fellow progressives on that subject. A lot of ugly things were said about him by his fellow lefties, even though he’s about as far left as you can get. So my opinion of the Mayor has changed somewhat, and I applaud him for acting on his conscience rather than towing the line of his fellow liberals on this important topic.
The harsh criticism of de Blasio by the Left has demonstrated once again what a harsh taskmaster political correctness is. There is little room for matters of conscience or individual thinking in the PC world. We see this oppression on university campuses, which are supposed to be bastions of free speech and exchange of ideas. The fact that the Left is so doctrinaire tells me that the terms Liberal and Progressive are misnomers. Moreover, the key virtue of the Left, Tolerance, is nowhere to be seen. Even within their own, there is very little tolerance of ideas or beliefs that run contrary in every aspect to mainstream political correctness.
I wanted to point out this contradiction so that you don’t get sucked in to political correctness, although it is very hard to avoid these days. I still believe in acting on your conscience and not being told what to think or do. Sometimes I get the feeling we are living the novels “Brave New World” and “1984” with the PC mavens acting as the thought police. In the meantime, let’s give the mayor credit for supporting Israel.
By the way, that doesn’t mean anybody who is pro-Israel agrees with all of the policies of that government. It simply means that we believe Israel has a right to exist. I believe I’ve written one or more posts on Israel in the past, but I think I will write another one soon. Most people are woefully ignorant of the recent history of that nation. Once you know a little something of its 20th century history, you’ll change your attitude towards that tiny nation.
Lest you think I’m picking on just the Left, see a future post for my criticism of the Right.
Monday, April 21, 2014
Philomena
My wife and I recently watched the movie “Philomena,” and if you haven’t seen it, I recommend it highly. The story is about an Irish woman by the name of Philomena, who is now elderly (played by Judi Dench) in the movie. Journalist Martin Sixsmith (Steve Coogan) helps Philomena Lee search for her long-lost son, who was taken from her by nuns in an Irish convent and sold into adoption when she was an unwed teenager. The movie is based on a true story, and it raises some moral and ethical questions that I’d like to address.
On the positive side, the nuns provided a place for these disgraced mothers and their children to live at a time when such pregnancies often resulted in rejection by the girl’s family and the community as a whole.
Unfortunately there are a number of serious negative acts these nuns did. The first negative act had to do with their treatment of these unwed mothers. The nuns took in these girls and their children, but then they treated the girls like slaves. It was like something out of a Charles Dickens novel, but occurring in the mid-20th century. The rationale, according to “Sister Hildegard” in the movie, was that these girls had sinned and therefore deserved harsh treatment as penance for their transgressions.
We should understand that there are a number of problems with that mentality. First of all, the Bible tells us that Jesus died to pay the penalty of our sins. If you believe you have the responsibility to punish people for their sins, then you have a very distorted view of Christianity and what Jesus accomplished on the cross. Of course I’m not talking about civil authorities, whose job it is to keep order and dispense justice.
Such a mentality is dangerous because it then could be used to justify punishing the Jews for Jesus’ death, for example. It also encourages revenge rather than forgiveness, ignoring the teachings of Jesus about forgiveness, loving one another, and the principles expressed in The Beatitudes. You also have to ask these nuns, “Just how long must these girls be punished before their sins are fully atoned for?”
Secondly, Jesus did not establish his Church to be a vehicle for punishing sinners. Rather, one of the roles of the Church is to dispense God’s grace (unmerited favor) through good works. Those nuns did not exhibit grace, only condemnation and cruelty.
Thirdly, the Bible tells us that all have sinned and fall short of God’s standard. So why were these nuns so hard on those who committed one particular sin? These nuns were abusing the weak and vulnerable, judging them rather than ministering to them.
The second negative act these nuns did was to sell these girls’ children. On one hand, it was good that these children usually, I presume, ended up in good adoptive homes. These were often in the U.S., where these children had opportunities available to them that they wouldn’t have had in Ireland in mid-century. On the other hand, to yank away these children from their mothers, usually without warning, and sending them off into the unknown, was cruel and heartless. These young mothers were not given a choice as to whether to keep their children or not. It was assumed they were unfit, and taking away their children was probably considered to be another justifiable form of punishment.
The third negative act on the part of these nuns was to destroy all adoption records to prevent birth mothers from ever reuniting with their children. The nuns even lied to those inquiring about their children. So we can add deceit to the list that includes cruelty and lack of grace.
Steve Coogan, who played Martin, also co-produced the movie, and co-wrote the screenplay. He admits he is not fond of the Roman Catholic Church. Having been raised Catholic, he fell away from Catholicism and now views it (and probably most religions) with some distain. Hence some of the negative comments by “Martin” in the movie. Nevertheless, the basic facts in the movie are true. These nuns did mistreat the unwed mothers and did sell their children. Regardless of your view of the Roman Catholic Church, or Christianity in general, we have to acknowledge the sins of these nuns, and realize that such actions are inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus, whom they claimed to serve.
Despite blatant wrongdoings that have been well-publicized, the Church and its agencies have done many good works in the past 2,000 years: sending missionaries out to help people all over the world; building hospitals and orphanages; providing food and goods to the needy (Salvation Army, Catholic Charities); and it was the “safety net” before government got into the welfare business. On balance, the Church has done more good than harm, something we should remember when we are tempted to view the Church as irrelevant or worse.
On the positive side, the nuns provided a place for these disgraced mothers and their children to live at a time when such pregnancies often resulted in rejection by the girl’s family and the community as a whole.
Unfortunately there are a number of serious negative acts these nuns did. The first negative act had to do with their treatment of these unwed mothers. The nuns took in these girls and their children, but then they treated the girls like slaves. It was like something out of a Charles Dickens novel, but occurring in the mid-20th century. The rationale, according to “Sister Hildegard” in the movie, was that these girls had sinned and therefore deserved harsh treatment as penance for their transgressions.
We should understand that there are a number of problems with that mentality. First of all, the Bible tells us that Jesus died to pay the penalty of our sins. If you believe you have the responsibility to punish people for their sins, then you have a very distorted view of Christianity and what Jesus accomplished on the cross. Of course I’m not talking about civil authorities, whose job it is to keep order and dispense justice.
Such a mentality is dangerous because it then could be used to justify punishing the Jews for Jesus’ death, for example. It also encourages revenge rather than forgiveness, ignoring the teachings of Jesus about forgiveness, loving one another, and the principles expressed in The Beatitudes. You also have to ask these nuns, “Just how long must these girls be punished before their sins are fully atoned for?”
Secondly, Jesus did not establish his Church to be a vehicle for punishing sinners. Rather, one of the roles of the Church is to dispense God’s grace (unmerited favor) through good works. Those nuns did not exhibit grace, only condemnation and cruelty.
Thirdly, the Bible tells us that all have sinned and fall short of God’s standard. So why were these nuns so hard on those who committed one particular sin? These nuns were abusing the weak and vulnerable, judging them rather than ministering to them.
The second negative act these nuns did was to sell these girls’ children. On one hand, it was good that these children usually, I presume, ended up in good adoptive homes. These were often in the U.S., where these children had opportunities available to them that they wouldn’t have had in Ireland in mid-century. On the other hand, to yank away these children from their mothers, usually without warning, and sending them off into the unknown, was cruel and heartless. These young mothers were not given a choice as to whether to keep their children or not. It was assumed they were unfit, and taking away their children was probably considered to be another justifiable form of punishment.
The third negative act on the part of these nuns was to destroy all adoption records to prevent birth mothers from ever reuniting with their children. The nuns even lied to those inquiring about their children. So we can add deceit to the list that includes cruelty and lack of grace.
Steve Coogan, who played Martin, also co-produced the movie, and co-wrote the screenplay. He admits he is not fond of the Roman Catholic Church. Having been raised Catholic, he fell away from Catholicism and now views it (and probably most religions) with some distain. Hence some of the negative comments by “Martin” in the movie. Nevertheless, the basic facts in the movie are true. These nuns did mistreat the unwed mothers and did sell their children. Regardless of your view of the Roman Catholic Church, or Christianity in general, we have to acknowledge the sins of these nuns, and realize that such actions are inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus, whom they claimed to serve.
Despite blatant wrongdoings that have been well-publicized, the Church and its agencies have done many good works in the past 2,000 years: sending missionaries out to help people all over the world; building hospitals and orphanages; providing food and goods to the needy (Salvation Army, Catholic Charities); and it was the “safety net” before government got into the welfare business. On balance, the Church has done more good than harm, something we should remember when we are tempted to view the Church as irrelevant or worse.
Thursday, March 6, 2014
Another Book Recommendation
In a recent post I recommended “Sealed with a Kiss.” I now recommend another book, also written by a friend of mine. Below is the summary of the book from Amazon.com.
Dr. Ken Ardrey was a hardworking and enthusiastic pastor and family man when his life was suddenly shaken up by a diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease. He battled, and continues to battle, the physical and emotional aftershocks of his illness. However, rather than letting this sickness permanently sow seeds of bitterness and despair, he has developed a faith based plan for dealing with all that life can, and will, throw at you. This book chronicles Ken’s personal journey, and provides the reader with a practical blueprint for living their faith and having courage in the times of need. How will you respond when life shakes you up?
The book is encouraging and inspirational, and also very practical. I highly recommend it whether or not you are dealing with a crisis.
“When Life Shakes You Up” by Ken Ardrey
Paperback, available at Amazon
ISBN-10: 1937602222
ISBN-13: 978-1937602222
Dr. Ken Ardrey was a hardworking and enthusiastic pastor and family man when his life was suddenly shaken up by a diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease. He battled, and continues to battle, the physical and emotional aftershocks of his illness. However, rather than letting this sickness permanently sow seeds of bitterness and despair, he has developed a faith based plan for dealing with all that life can, and will, throw at you. This book chronicles Ken’s personal journey, and provides the reader with a practical blueprint for living their faith and having courage in the times of need. How will you respond when life shakes you up?
The book is encouraging and inspirational, and also very practical. I highly recommend it whether or not you are dealing with a crisis.
“When Life Shakes You Up” by Ken Ardrey
Paperback, available at Amazon
ISBN-10: 1937602222
ISBN-13: 978-1937602222
Saturday, March 1, 2014
Book Recommendation
I’d like to recommend a book to you, especially if you are a baby boomer. Read the description below from Amazon.com and then I’ll tell you about my role in the book.
Drawn from an extraordinary collection of over four hundred perfectly preserved personal letters, “Sealed with a Kiss” is a coming-of-age story, a romance, and a glimpse of an America poised on the brink of change. Anyone who remembers having a pen pal, scribbling envelopes with codes like S.W.A.K, or even just falling in love will recognize themselves in its story--and savor its vision of not just a unique moment in time, but also a timeless love.
In 1957, Bob Zielsdorf is thirteen and living an ordinary middle-class suburban existence in York, Pennsylvania. On a trip to Massachusetts to visit a friend, he meets fourteen-year-old Fran Jordan. Though they spend less than an hour together (admittedly, an hour that includes some kissing, thanks to a local variation on Spin the Bottle), they agree to write. Remarkably, they do, beginning a correspondence that will last for eight years, encompass hundreds of letters, and end with an enduring marriage.
As Bob and Fran move from middle school into high school and college, they never live in the same town or even the same state. Long distance calls are still too expensive to be a relationship staple. Instead, the teenagers' bond, which begins as friendship and only later deepens into love, is forged through writing. Describing high school and college, family and friends, home and travel, frustrations and dreams, practical jokes and serious car accidents, companionship and “chemistry,” the letters paint a vivid and unselfconscious picture of two lives in transition from childhood innocence to adult choice.
The “friend” Bob was visiting in Massachusetts was me, and I appear in several places in the first third of the book. If you grew up in the 1950s and 1960s you’ll appreciate the descriptions of life back in the day. The book is an easy read, and it’ll take you down memory lane, especially if you were a teen-ager during that time.
“Sealed with a Kiss” by Bob Zielsdorf, ISBN-10: 0991317408, Publisher is Two Shores Books, Vero Beach, Florida. Available through Amazon. Paperback
Drawn from an extraordinary collection of over four hundred perfectly preserved personal letters, “Sealed with a Kiss” is a coming-of-age story, a romance, and a glimpse of an America poised on the brink of change. Anyone who remembers having a pen pal, scribbling envelopes with codes like S.W.A.K, or even just falling in love will recognize themselves in its story--and savor its vision of not just a unique moment in time, but also a timeless love.
In 1957, Bob Zielsdorf is thirteen and living an ordinary middle-class suburban existence in York, Pennsylvania. On a trip to Massachusetts to visit a friend, he meets fourteen-year-old Fran Jordan. Though they spend less than an hour together (admittedly, an hour that includes some kissing, thanks to a local variation on Spin the Bottle), they agree to write. Remarkably, they do, beginning a correspondence that will last for eight years, encompass hundreds of letters, and end with an enduring marriage.
As Bob and Fran move from middle school into high school and college, they never live in the same town or even the same state. Long distance calls are still too expensive to be a relationship staple. Instead, the teenagers' bond, which begins as friendship and only later deepens into love, is forged through writing. Describing high school and college, family and friends, home and travel, frustrations and dreams, practical jokes and serious car accidents, companionship and “chemistry,” the letters paint a vivid and unselfconscious picture of two lives in transition from childhood innocence to adult choice.
The “friend” Bob was visiting in Massachusetts was me, and I appear in several places in the first third of the book. If you grew up in the 1950s and 1960s you’ll appreciate the descriptions of life back in the day. The book is an easy read, and it’ll take you down memory lane, especially if you were a teen-ager during that time.
“Sealed with a Kiss” by Bob Zielsdorf, ISBN-10: 0991317408, Publisher is Two Shores Books, Vero Beach, Florida. Available through Amazon. Paperback
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
