Wow. Make sure to read the date this was published.
Christians in Germany during WWII
Thanks to Thinking Christian for posting this.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Missing perspective
As usual, much of what is lacking in the news is just perspective.
Here's an article that inspired me to back off of the instant polls and
updates. It is written by Tony Woodlief He is frequently insightful
without being inflamatory (a difficult propositition.)
http://online.worldmag.com/2008/11/03/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-christian-voter/
Here's an article that inspired me to back off of the instant polls and
updates. It is written by Tony Woodlief He is frequently insightful
without being inflamatory (a difficult propositition.)
http://online.worldmag.com/2008/11/03/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-christian-voter/
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Best abstinence lesson ever
When my husband and I were dating, my future mother-in-law told me a story that was the best story I've ever heard encouraging abstinence.
She told a story about a couple much like us, in college, engaged, with plenty of freedom. But she's an OB nurse, and she met this couple in the hospital when the woman was giving birth. The couple knew they couldn't give the little baby girl the life they wanted to give it, with stability and money, but they had decided give it life. The time came to have the baby, and then give it to the parents who were going to adopt it.
My mother-in-law told about how the couple had a separate room to say goodbye to the baby, to send it off to its new life. She told about how they walked out of the hospital crying, with no baby to hold. She told how they knew they were doing the right thing for their family and for the baby, but that it was still hard.
After having 3 babies and 2 early miscarriages, this story means even more to me, but even at the time I was tearing up. I decided that this would not happen to my fiance and me. That story and the consequences the other couple faces brought life to the choices I made every day. Thanks, mom.
*I know, it could also encourage birth control. I guess it depends on who you are.
She told a story about a couple much like us, in college, engaged, with plenty of freedom. But she's an OB nurse, and she met this couple in the hospital when the woman was giving birth. The couple knew they couldn't give the little baby girl the life they wanted to give it, with stability and money, but they had decided give it life. The time came to have the baby, and then give it to the parents who were going to adopt it.
My mother-in-law told about how the couple had a separate room to say goodbye to the baby, to send it off to its new life. She told about how they walked out of the hospital crying, with no baby to hold. She told how they knew they were doing the right thing for their family and for the baby, but that it was still hard.
After having 3 babies and 2 early miscarriages, this story means even more to me, but even at the time I was tearing up. I decided that this would not happen to my fiance and me. That story and the consequences the other couple faces brought life to the choices I made every day. Thanks, mom.
*I know, it could also encourage birth control. I guess it depends on who you are.
Comprehensive Abstinence sexual education
The other day I listened to a radio show (Diane Rehm or Talk of the Nation, most likely) with a number of participants from all sides of the sex education debate. What it came down to was this:
The Comprehensive woman pointed out that by pointing out the failure rates, teens might think "well, they all fail, I may as well not use anything." I would point out that teaching about birth control and the naturalness of sexual activity (with or without marriage) might lead teens to think "well, everyone is doing it, I must be a dweeb if I'm not." (I heard a talk about "50 ways to yes" which told stories about how you present something changing the chances that it would be accepted: I think this is one of those cases.)
Look, I'm for teaching about condoms. But then let's teach about the failure rates too. Let's teach kids that they don't need to use their bodies to get the emotional support they seek. Let's teach kids better ways to have someone who loves you than having a baby. Let's teach kids that they are so valuable that their sexuality is not something to experiment with, but something to cherish. Let's teach kids that not doing it is the normal pattern. Let's teach kids that they are more than their sexuality, that they have a mind, emotions, and a body apart from sex.
From what it sounded like on the radio, neither the comprehensive nor the abstinence only groups have much of a difference from this program, and if they would start listening to each other, they would find that out. Unless both the women were lying about their actual positions...
- Abstinence only educators say that they provide information about contraception, it is not a focus of the course.
- Comprehensive educators say that they provide information and relationship skills which encourage kids to choose abstinence.
The Comprehensive woman pointed out that by pointing out the failure rates, teens might think "well, they all fail, I may as well not use anything." I would point out that teaching about birth control and the naturalness of sexual activity (with or without marriage) might lead teens to think "well, everyone is doing it, I must be a dweeb if I'm not." (I heard a talk about "50 ways to yes" which told stories about how you present something changing the chances that it would be accepted: I think this is one of those cases.)
Look, I'm for teaching about condoms. But then let's teach about the failure rates too. Let's teach kids that they don't need to use their bodies to get the emotional support they seek. Let's teach kids better ways to have someone who loves you than having a baby. Let's teach kids that they are so valuable that their sexuality is not something to experiment with, but something to cherish. Let's teach kids that not doing it is the normal pattern. Let's teach kids that they are more than their sexuality, that they have a mind, emotions, and a body apart from sex.
From what it sounded like on the radio, neither the comprehensive nor the abstinence only groups have much of a difference from this program, and if they would start listening to each other, they would find that out. Unless both the women were lying about their actual positions...
Friday, July 11, 2008
Letters from a broad...: Just write it down
This post from C.L. Hanson says a lot of things I had been thinking about, and I really liked it up until her last comment:
The problem with this argument is that the definition of marriage would depend on who decides what the traditional family is. As I see it, there are at least 4 actors in marriage: the people making the commitment, the community, the state and God. For the purposes of this discussion we will ignore God---I hope to cover this on another post.
As Chanson points out, no one can stop the couple/family from considering themselves married. If the community or the state doesn't acknowledge it, this can cause inconvenience (or even loss of life, as pointed out by one of the commenters) but this individual right cannot be denied.
The community gets involved in recognizing the couple and supporting them in their lifelong commitment. This is not something that can be changed by the state. The state can determine how the community treats the couple, but they really can't determine how the community feels about the couple. In many cases, the primary communities of homosexual couples or polygamist families are fully behind their commitment. But there are some communities who don't recognize or support interracial marriage, or call it marriage, for goodness sake! You can't just tell people, "you must support and recognize this couple, because we say so," although you can tell them that "you must treat and act toward this couple the way we say."
The state is the third actor. The state determines the rights and responsibilities of the couple. So if one person wants to sever the marriage, the state sets the rules about how the contract is broken. The state tell each party what they can do, and how the couple interacts with various other legal entities (corporations, the tax collectors, hospitals, for example, but not individuals).
I was also interested to see in Chanson's comments that she equated the record keeping of motherhood with the record keeping of marriage. Motherhood is a biological fact, which is recorded by the state, which goes along with a set of responsibilities related to the biological fact. One can transfer the responsibilities through adoption, but the biological fact remains. Now that many couples don't have children together, the biological fact of marriage is severed from the cultural expression of marriage.
After thinking about this, I suppose I can see the argument a bit better. It goes like this: homosexuals (or polygamists) deserve this certain right to be married because they are just like the heterosexual couples, and not to allow it is just plain discrimination. But as Chanson points out, marriage is much more than something proposed by the state, and it seems to me that people who want to legislate the term "marriage" being used by the state about homosexual marriage are trying to influence the feelings of the community by changing the state. They'd be better off just changing the state, and then getting the community behind them by slower steps.
Note: this post is not about my own personal feelings about legalizing homosexual marriage, which are not settled. It's only about Chanson's argument that the state should not get out of the marriage business, which I think has some flaws.
The practice of having a pair-bonded (mating) couple who have declared to their community that their bond is permanent is something that exists in every culture, and is a part of the human condition. I don't think it's useful to act like there's nothing distinct about it or that being someone's spouse is no different than moving in with your siblings to save money.It seems to me that she is saying that the state has an interest in preserving (or documenting) traditional, family marriage, as long as it is her definition of tradition (a mating couple) and her definition of family (which includes polygamists and homosexual couples, but not other versions of families). This seems a little hypocritical, and gives the argument back to religious conservatives, who say "Yes, and traditionally marriage is between one man and one woman."
The problem with this argument is that the definition of marriage would depend on who decides what the traditional family is. As I see it, there are at least 4 actors in marriage: the people making the commitment, the community, the state and God. For the purposes of this discussion we will ignore God---I hope to cover this on another post.
As Chanson points out, no one can stop the couple/family from considering themselves married. If the community or the state doesn't acknowledge it, this can cause inconvenience (or even loss of life, as pointed out by one of the commenters) but this individual right cannot be denied.
The community gets involved in recognizing the couple and supporting them in their lifelong commitment. This is not something that can be changed by the state. The state can determine how the community treats the couple, but they really can't determine how the community feels about the couple. In many cases, the primary communities of homosexual couples or polygamist families are fully behind their commitment. But there are some communities who don't recognize or support interracial marriage, or call it marriage, for goodness sake! You can't just tell people, "you must support and recognize this couple, because we say so," although you can tell them that "you must treat and act toward this couple the way we say."
The state is the third actor. The state determines the rights and responsibilities of the couple. So if one person wants to sever the marriage, the state sets the rules about how the contract is broken. The state tell each party what they can do, and how the couple interacts with various other legal entities (corporations, the tax collectors, hospitals, for example, but not individuals).
I was also interested to see in Chanson's comments that she equated the record keeping of motherhood with the record keeping of marriage. Motherhood is a biological fact, which is recorded by the state, which goes along with a set of responsibilities related to the biological fact. One can transfer the responsibilities through adoption, but the biological fact remains. Now that many couples don't have children together, the biological fact of marriage is severed from the cultural expression of marriage.
After thinking about this, I suppose I can see the argument a bit better. It goes like this: homosexuals (or polygamists) deserve this certain right to be married because they are just like the heterosexual couples, and not to allow it is just plain discrimination. But as Chanson points out, marriage is much more than something proposed by the state, and it seems to me that people who want to legislate the term "marriage" being used by the state about homosexual marriage are trying to influence the feelings of the community by changing the state. They'd be better off just changing the state, and then getting the community behind them by slower steps.
Note: this post is not about my own personal feelings about legalizing homosexual marriage, which are not settled. It's only about Chanson's argument that the state should not get out of the marriage business, which I think has some flaws.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Do I believe in evolution?
When the republican candidates were asked if they believed in evolution, 3 of them did not raise their hands. Many people took this to mean they were anti-science or just plain stupid.
If someone asked me if I believe in evolution, I would have a hard time deciding whether to raise my hand. I definitely believe that the beaks of the Galapogous finch have evolved over time due to natural selection, I believe that bacteria adapt, that human selection can cause traits to change. As the old joke about infant baptism goes: "Believe in it? I've seen it done!"
I would probably even believe that natural selection caused species to change over millions of years, even though we have never "seen it done." The time periods we are talking about are so unimaginable, that anything might happen.
I do not believe in unguided, impersonal creation. I don't believe that random chance mutation plus natural selection alone explains why we are here, what we do every day. I don't believe that evolution explains the beginnings of life (and neither do the scientists, that is a different topic). I absolutely do not believe that evolutionary theory disproves the existence of God, or that science can inform us of ultimate meaning in the universe.
I believe in God, not in evolution, whatever I may think about the truth of the theory of evolution. Based on my experiences and others' experiences, the "evidence of the heart" as well as my senses and reason, I think that's a better bet.
If someone asked me if I believe in evolution, I would have a hard time deciding whether to raise my hand. I definitely believe that the beaks of the Galapogous finch have evolved over time due to natural selection, I believe that bacteria adapt, that human selection can cause traits to change. As the old joke about infant baptism goes: "Believe in it? I've seen it done!"
I would probably even believe that natural selection caused species to change over millions of years, even though we have never "seen it done." The time periods we are talking about are so unimaginable, that anything might happen.
I do not believe in unguided, impersonal creation. I don't believe that random chance mutation plus natural selection alone explains why we are here, what we do every day. I don't believe that evolution explains the beginnings of life (and neither do the scientists, that is a different topic). I absolutely do not believe that evolutionary theory disproves the existence of God, or that science can inform us of ultimate meaning in the universe.
I believe in God, not in evolution, whatever I may think about the truth of the theory of evolution. Based on my experiences and others' experiences, the "evidence of the heart" as well as my senses and reason, I think that's a better bet.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
How to pick a president
Tom Gilson at Thinking Christian pointed out a great article from Christianity today about how to pick a president: www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/june/17.22.html
It points out that while policy can be important, more important is character. They go through the classical virtues and Christian virtues to show how each (or the lack of each) influences the outcome of a presidency.
They also point out many reasons that agreeing with a person on policy will probably not guarantee any particular policy being followed, from a recalcitrant congress to acts of God. I would like to add that in all likelihood, there is no candidate with whom I would agree on policy. Thus the best I can hope for is someone who makes decisions in a way that I can respect and understand.
It points out that while policy can be important, more important is character. They go through the classical virtues and Christian virtues to show how each (or the lack of each) influences the outcome of a presidency.
They also point out many reasons that agreeing with a person on policy will probably not guarantee any particular policy being followed, from a recalcitrant congress to acts of God. I would like to add that in all likelihood, there is no candidate with whom I would agree on policy. Thus the best I can hope for is someone who makes decisions in a way that I can respect and understand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)