Are Jesus and Santa White - My thoughts

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/wp/2013/12/13/its-wrong-to-worship-white-jesus/

I am going to address the article that I posted in the link above, but first I want to give you some background of my own theology.

When you try to describe God, what words do you use? Well, obviously, you have to use words from a human language, in my case English. The problem is, our words are best to describe the physical world. God is spirit. God is not a physical being. So if someone asks you to describe God, how would you do it so that they can understand it? Children think in concrete terms, so we have to give a concrete answer. We, in our finite minds, cannot accurately describe God because we are not capable of describing God, even to an adult. We can describe the physical realm from the vastness of the universe, all the way down to the quantum level, but we can’t describe God, because God is too big for our little minds to fully grasp. We have abstract words we can use, like “love”. So we say, “God is love.” I totally agree. But now describe “love”. We can’t do it, it’s not physical. But, we can experience it. Once we experience love, we can say “God is love” and have an idea of what that actually means. But to do it with words, I don’t think so.

Let me go yet another step into how we describe what we don’t have words for, using a great example from the Bible. If we look at the book of Revelation, John was transported to heaven and was told to write down what he saw. Ok, first problem, John experiences images, visions, and feelings that no actual words can describe. So my first question is, how can he write it down? The answer: "the best that he can." If we look at John’s descriptions of what he saw, he uses words that describe the physical world he was familiar with. His own words at one point are “And I saw what looked like a sea of glass glowing with fire. (Rev 15:2)” I paraphrase that to say, “I saw something beyond words and it was sort of like this…, but not really.” He tried to describe it with the only words he had. Some people describe abstract ideas, like emotions, as colors, or textures, or something that relates to our five senses. When I feel “love”, it is “warm”. The person who says that sort of thing relates being warm as a pleasurable experience. Love induces a “pleasurable” feeling, so describing it as “warm” makes a whole lot of sense. John saw heaven, something no one else has ever seen. It was too wonderful for words, so how can he possibly describe it? In terms of his five senses is the only way he can. Look at the English language. All our words work well with the physical world. We have “abstract” words to describe “ideas”, but when trying to accurately define those words, it’s very difficult to fully do so. Only people with common experiences can fully understand someone trying to describe that same experience. If you have never experienced falling in love, you will never actually understand someone’s description of it. I maintain that it cannot be done.

As children, our first concept of God is that He is like our parents or guardians. So if we had good, loving parents, we see God as a loving God. If our parents were harsh, we see God as a punishing God. As children, we understand God to be like those who have authority over us. My first concept of God was that of my grandmother. She would hold 4 of us at a time (myself and my brothers or cousins) on her lap in her rocking chair and sing to us. Whenever I thought about God, I pictured that scene and felt safe and loved. THAT was my concept of God. For those who started with bad experiences of what God was like, will often find it hard to see God as "good" as they mature. On a side note, we need to bring those who do not believe in Christ as the Son of God to that belief. As Christians, we need to be a reflection of God so that others can see what God is really like. When we condemn others, or refuse to help people, or anything that is not God-like, or something Jesus would not do, we project an image of God that is not true to His character. As “light to the world”, people need to see God in us, so that they might come to God and become part of His kingdom. We should “overcome” their old concepts of God with our love for each other and our care for the lost. Help them get passed their old ideas of God, and reveal the truth to them.

Now on to the article: The first line in this article says, “when someone insists that Jesus was ‘white,’ the theological implication is that God is white.” I have a hard time with this statement. First of all, if someone insists that Jesus is white, they have no frame of reference as far as history goes and are quite ignorant of the facts. Jesus was a Jew in the Middle East. As far as I’m concerned (looking from just a logical point of view), and I’m no expert, I will go with Jesus, in human form, had the complexion of someone from our modern day Middle East. I might not be totally accurate, but I’m guessing it’s pretty close. Second, I don’t see how Jesus being white infers that God is also white. God is not a physical being, so color is not part of his makeup. Just like God is neither male nor female. He is described, in the Bible, as being “our father” (a male description) because in the day it was written, fathers were responsible for caring for all those in their charge. God is responsible for caring for us, so again, going back to our ideas about how we describe God is directly related to our own experience, or in this case, the experiences of the writers. Describing God as female, at the time the books of the Bible were written, would not portray God in the best light, because it was a patriarchal society and women were not thought of very highly. So it makes total sense to describe God as a “father.”

Now after saying all this, I have to say, “if it is important to you that Jesus be a certain color, then you have completely missed the boat when it comes to the Christian faith.” How does the color of Jesus’ skin change any part of your faith? Either he was the son of God, or he wasn’t. The amount of melanin in his skin is irrelevant. If you are black and Jesus being white somehow hurts your faith, then you have the wrong faith. Also, if you are white and Jesus being black causes a problem for you, you better check your faith at the door because it’s not a Christian faith you are professing. Jesus came to Earth for one simple reason, to save humankind from their sins, to pay the price FOR us, because we are incapable of doing it for ourselves. He IS God and died on a cross to be the final sacrifice for the sins of the world, not for the sins of whites or blacks or any group you might name, but the whole world, which includes everybody.

A little more on my personal theology: I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. But I also believe that the writers who did the actual writing wrote within their experience and that’s why the “flavors” of the books of the Bible are so different. I don’t believe the Bible was dictated by God, word for word, to the writers. I believe they were inspired with the message of the Spirit and wrote it down, being true to their own style, personality and experience.

Next line in the article is “doesn’t God, in our cultural stereotype, look a lot like Santa? An old white man with a long white beard?” OK, I got another problem here. God doesn’t look a lot like Santa, Santa looks a lot like our concept of God. This was the line that told me the writer of the article doesn’t get the Christian faith, yet she is a former president of Chicago Theological Seminary! I believe our concept of God’s physical appearance is partially due to different artist’s renderings, like Michelangelo's painting on the Sistine Chapel ceiling. We have a human need to visualize God so badly that we are willing to believe other people’s ideas to be the truth, instead of thinking for ourselves. And even when we think for ourselves, we picture God in our own terms. Remember my personal concept of God? It’s my grandmother, holding me and my brothers or cousins on her lap, singing songs to us, making us feel safe and loved. When the book of Genesis says, “We are created in God’s image”, I don’t believe that means “physically” like God, it means our “spirit” is created in the image of God’s spirit. So as far as God being an old white man with a long white beard, I think that all comes from centuries of artist’s renderings of their idea of what God would look like, all based on the book of Revelation passage of what Jesus looked like to John.

What follows is my interpretation of why we see God as the old man with the white beard. When we read John’s words from the book of Revelation, specifically verse 1:14, the coming Jesus is described as having white hair and a white beard. We don’t normally associate Jesus looking like this, but we immediately turn this vision of John’s into our idea of what God would look like. Jesus WAS God, so we thrust this vision of Jesus onto God. Why would that be? My personal take is this: Jewish men of biblical times wore beards. That’s pretty much a given. And white hair is a sure sign of wisdom as is described in Proverbs. God, being all knowing and very wise, would of course be described this way, and would also be described in “our image” as a man. We are created in God’s image, so why do we describe God, “in OUR image?” That is probably the heart of this whole discussion. I once again go back to my own concept of God. My experience of unconditional love given to me by my grandmother, is my same experience of God. Had I not known that unconditional love in human form, how can I understand the unconditional love of God? I’m not saying it is impossible, because some people have come to God BECAUSE they never experienced unconditional love from anyone in their own lives. But I will contend that if you don’t experience it from another human being, it would be very difficult to experience it in the form of a spirit. How many people do you know that came to God without the aid of someone within the family God? I cannot think of anyone personally. If you walk into a church building, and no one welcomes you, or offers you hospitality, or extends a hand of friendship, are you going to experience God’s love within that building? Probably not. I believe that God is seen “in” us and that is how He is revealed to others. If we don’t “show” God’s love to others, they are not able to know God’s love. Yes, God loves those who have not experienced His love, but human contact is the medium God uses to show His love to others.

“Jesus and Santa are enormously powerful images for Americans.” This statement from the article gives me chills. I totally agree with it, but I also see this as a very dangerous road the author is revealing. Equating Jesus with Santa being on the same level is actually the kind of thinking that is destroying the faith of Christians. I have to ask anyone reading this, “As a Christian, is it OK to teach children that an all knowing man, who watches them as they sleep, who knows everything they do, even exists?” When I was growing up, I remember the period of time immediately following my parent’s announcement to me that Santa Claus was not real. I was the second oldest and was told this, by my mom, in the privacy of my parent’s bedroom, with the door shut, so my younger brothers did not hear. I was also sworn to secrecy not to mention it to my younger brothers. A day or two later, it occurred to me, “What about the Easter Bunny? Or the Tooth Fairy? How about anything my parents ever told me my whole life?” I was devastated! That was the first time it ever occurred to me that my parents had lied to me. Up to that point, I never questioned anything they ever said, so now I began questioning everything that ever came out of my parent’s mouths, past, present and future. Some say I’m overreacting, that it’s not that big of a deal. For a child who never doubted anything his parent’s told him, it was a HUGE deal! The next time we went to church, guess what I was doubting now? I had to ask, “Have I ever seen God? Have I ever witnessed God ever doing anything? How do I know adults have not been telling me a lie that God existed? How could I trust anything or anybody older than me, when my own parents have been lying to me my whole life?”

Perhaps I did overreact, but the author of the article talks about the book, “Santa Claus Should Not Be A White Man Any More,” by Alisha Harris. She says, “Harris writes movingly about the dominant culture white Santa and its effect on her as a kid.” If I overreacted, does it not stand to reason that Alisha Harris ALSO overreacted? The author of the article seems to think Ms. Harris is making a valid point because she is black and Santa was considered white, causing a huge conflict for her. How is the magnitude of conflict different from my experience of finding out that adults lie to children? Who actually has the bigger conflict going on?

The remainder of the article is based on the assumption that white people see God as white and how that concept is used to maintain racial superiority over others. That may be true, but why do we argue that we should change the idea of Santa being white to something else? Perhaps the better solution is for Christians to stop teaching their children that Santa exists at all! Let’s ask a few basic questions. As a Christian, how do you justify telling your children a lie? You know that lying is a sin, correct? And misleading a child, Jesus taught, is a huge deal. So why do you think it’s ok to do that? It is culturally accepted to tell this lie, so does that make it right? If your child does not believe in Santa, will he be picked on at school, making it “necessary” to lie in order to protect him or her?

When my first child was born, I told my wife, I do not want to use Santa Claus as part of our Christmas tradition. Now we had an understanding that if we wanted to change any long standing family traditions, we both had to agree to it, or else the tradition was to continue. You need to understand that both my wife and I had been raised with Santa, so in order to change that and NOT use this tradition required that both my wife and I agree to it, BECAUSE we had to go back to our families and tell them we are making a change and they weren’t going to like it. My wife declined to agree with me. So I prayed about it. I asked God to either make my wife see my point of view, or for me to see hers and accept it. Over the course of a few weeks, and as Christmas approached, we began witnessing something we never saw before. Everywhere we went, we would hear other parents saying to their children, things like, “If you don’t behave, Santa isn’t going to bring you any presents” or, “Santa can see you when you’re bad.” What my wife and I came to understand is that Santa was NOT the jolly old man we assumed he was, he was actually a disciplinary tool used to create fear in the hearts of children to force them to behave. Santa was not a fun story in the imagination of children, he was out there somewhere deciding who deserved his love, not based on grace, but based on merit. Santa loves you IF you deserve it. I can see many parents saying, “I don’t teach my child THAT sort of lesson.” Well, all I ask is that you think about the things you DO teach them. Did you ever tell your child that Santa would not bring them gifts because they were misbehaving? If the answer is “yes”, then I believe I have made my point.

In the end, we did not use Santa as part of our tradition. We told our children that they were not allowed to tell others that Santa wasn’t real. It was OUR secret and we would pretend with the other children who didn’t know the truth. My parents told me that I was robbing my children of their childhoods. I made my announcement to not use Santa on a phone call to my mom. She said that telling my children about Santa was no different than telling them about God, saying I am telling them about some invisible being that I can’t prove existed. My reply was that the difference is that God is real and Santa is not. My mother-in-law actually cried because my children would never have any fun at Christmas because I was taking away the whole point of Christmas. What we DID have, is an Advent wreath, complete with candles that we lit each day and read stories about Jesus from the Bible and taught our children WHY we celebrate Christmas. Every night, starting with the first Sunday in Advent, we would talk about Jesus and God and pray and worship them and thank them for the Christmas season. On Christmas day, we had a birthday celebration for Jesus, complete with a birthday cake. We sang happy birthday and ate cake for breakfast. We opened gifts like the “normal” families did, but we thanked each other for the gifts instead of Santa. The most fun part for my children? When people would ask, “What did Santa bring you for Christmas?” They could laugh inside that these adults, had no clue that Santa wasn’t real. THEY (my children) knew the truth, but adults were just plain silly for believing that story. The best outcome of our new found traditions? My children never thought that when we told them something, that it might be a lie. They knew without a doubt that we told them the truth about everything.

I don’t think arguing about whether Santa and Jesus are white merits any sort of news article to be written. Those of the Christian faith should be so far beyond this way of thinking that it shouldn’t even be a blip on our radar. When you are brand new to the faith, yes, it may be an issue at first, but experiencing God’s love, will wipe out this meaningless nonsense very quickly. Racial prejudice can run deep, but God’s love will conquer that in His children. Those who believe there is a difference in human beings based on skin color do not know the love of God. Being Christian by its very nature will tear down that sort of thinking. No one can love God WITHOUT loving their neighbor. So if someone professes “Jesus is white” because it is “culturally acceptable” to believe that, they are not professing any sort of Christian belief that I am familiar with. So if it offends you when others believe Jesus and Santa are white, perhaps you need to take inventory of your own beliefs. Because when we stand in God’s love, what others believe cannot hurt us.

How to Punish Children - my thoughts

http://www.jennifermcgrail.com/2013/11/how-and-why-i-opted-out-of-being-the-meanest-mom-in-the-world/

This was a great article on teaching correct behaviors to children. But I have to ask, “How should you ‘modify’ or ‘punish’ certain behaviors?” You can teach good behavior, but kids see other kids doing bad behavior and learn that too. I am always impressed with teaching "correct" behavior by example, but what do you do when the kids are practicing a "destructive" or "unacceptable" behavior?

When my children first learned to "lie" in order to hide something they did, I was taken completely off guard. The first couple of times, they actually got away with it, because I never saw it coming. They lied and I believed them because up to that point, they had always been truthful. However, when I actually caught them lying for the very first time, I had to figure out how to make them realize it was not a good practice to follow. So here's what my wife and I did:

We gave them a choice. I explained to them that what they just said to me was not the truth. "You said this, but I know that you did this. So I'm going to ask again. If you say this (the lie) I will smack your butt. If you say this (the truth) there is no punishment and we will fix whatever it was that you did." The first time each of my children were faced with this choice, they once again told the lie (different occasions, but the same reaction from both). So when they stuck to their lie, I smacked their butts. The next time my oldest told a lie, she immediately started crying and said, "I want to tell the truth!" So I allowed her to tell me again, and I hugged her and we fixed whatever it was she did.

However, my youngest was stubborn about it. At that time, we had a VCR (remember those?) and there was an issue with the children sticking things in the deck where the tape goes. So we told them, “Don’t do that.” It’s a very simple instruction and they understood. However, on one occasion, I got out of bed in the morning to find my youngest with her hand stuck in the deck. The door flap had trapped her hand. So I very calmly said to her, "did you put your hand in the VCR?" (Remember that her hand is actually stuck in it and she can’t get it out.) She looks me right in the eye and says, "No." I remind her that if she tells me the lie again, I will smack her butt, but if she tells the truth, I will not do that and we will fix the problem. So I ask again, "did you stick your hand in the VCR?" Again, she says, "No". So I smack her butt. I also leave her there with her hand in the VCR and turn to the other child and say, "let's go get some breakfast." Well, the younger one actually figured out how to get her hand out and proceeded to the kitchen for breakfast, but I don't mention it again.

She continued for 6 months sticking to her lies whenever she was faced with the choice of "lying and getting her butt smacked" vs. "telling the truth". But after 6 months of getting her butt smacked each and every time, she finally figured out that I was not going to ever let her get away with lying. So eventually she began choosing to tell the truth to avoid the punishment. She figured out that there was absolutely no gain in telling a lie, and she had my complete support in fixing whatever she had done to make it right. Both kids were also very quick to point out that they were “choosing” to tell the truth when they did, so the whole idea that telling the truth is a choice got through to them.

Many parents I know would fly off the handle to correct the problem of lying as soon as possible. I agree that lying is totally unacceptable. I have also been questioned as to why we don’t just punish them and let them figure out that lying is wrong. Why give them the choice of rethinking their options? They lied, so they deserve punishment. I agree, except for one thing, on the first offense, did they know that lying was wrong? I think most kids lie for the first time “accidentally”. They did something that is going to bring on punishment, so to avoid what they know is coming, they lie. It was nothing more than a defense mechanism, but it worked, so they learn to use it as a way to avoid other punishments. We don’t teach our kids NOT to lie until AFTER they do it for the first time. So the first time they do it, they actually did not know it was wrong. How can you punish a behavior that the child never knew he/she was not supposed to do? So giving options is a good way to let them make a choice HOW they want to proceed. Also, remember that my kids learned that they were making a conscious choice to tell the truth. Swift punishment for the offense will get them to make the choice to be truthful out of fear, not out of doing what is right. Both are learned responses, but which one teaches correct behavior out of a sense of doing right as opposed to doing what’s right for my own sake?

I see life as nothing but a series of choices. All choices have consequences, good or bad. So let’s ask ourselves a few questions. First of all, what is it that a child is lying about? A child lies when they have done something they are afraid to admit to. As a matter of fact, adults lie for the same reason. So, if they broke your prized knick-knack that you told them not to touch, they are reacting to the punishment you are going to hand out to the culprit who broke it. They are in complete fear of receiving the punishment for what they did. So to avoid that punishment, they lie as a protective reaction. In the case of breaking your knick-knack, they have two choices. They can lie or they can tell the truth. If they lie, and you believe the lie, they avoid the punishment for playing with it in the first place. If they tell the truth, do you hand out punishment for breaking it? Probably, so there is a reward for lying, if it works. If, on the other hand, they tell the truth, they are guaranteed to receive the punishment for the action of breaking it, so they are punished for telling the truth. Faced with these two choices, which would you choose? Personally, I would go with the lie. Again, if it works, I avoid all punishment. If it fails, I get punished. On the other hand, if I tell the truth, I am guaranteed punishment. Now, I’m a pretty smart guy, so I’m going to go with the option that gives me the best chance of avoiding punishment all together, which is lying.

When my children were given the option to tell the truth, that option included “my help in fixing whatever they did”. So their actual choices were, “tell the truth and avoid ALL punishment AND correct whatever happened” or “tell the lie and get punished for lying”. Of course, part of “getting my help in fixing whatever they did” came with a conversation on why whatever they did was wrong and how they should never do it again. I found my children were very open to listening to this whole conversation BECAUSE they did not receive the punishment. I think when we punish them for breaking the knick-knack AND punish them for lying, the fear of the whole situation closes them off to hearing any message we are trying to give them. If we want them to learn from their mistakes, we need them to be receptive to our teaching. My message to my children is that when you are truthful, you have a chance to make things right. I will always be there for you, helping you, but we need to be honest with one another. If they do the right thing, they have my full support. If they do something wrong, I will be there to help them fix it. Just to be clear, “fixing it” may include restitution to the wronged party, or suffering the consequences for their actions. Telling the truth is always a priority, along with taking responsibility for your actions.

Another thing about handing out punishment, I don’t believe in punishing my child WHILE I’m upset and not thinking clearly. If I punish my child out of anger, I actually consider that as a form of abuse. Of course I’m human so I get angry sometimes and want to smack them into next week, but I cannot teach my child correct behavior if I am only reacting to what they did. I need to be able to express my disappointment in them so they understand why they are being punished, why what they did was wrong, why I don’t want to punish them, but have to. Now, if they are playing around a hot stove, I react quickly. That is not the time to “explain” the dangers of a hot stove. First, they must be made safe, THEN explanation of why I reacted the way I did needs to be made. Reaction is necessary in many situations, but wrong behavior should be met with calm discipline. And of course, the discipline can be severe, depending on the behavior that needs to be corrected. I made it a point to say, “This is what you did, and this is what I need to do because of it.” In the case where they do something they don’t know is wrong, I don’t think that case should be met with punishment. If they break something that I never told them they couldn’t touch, how can that be met with punishment? I never said, “Don’t touch it” so how do they know it was wrong? If, on the other hand, I DID tell them not to touch it and they do it anyway, NOW I have a reason to hand down some discipline.

As I see it, I am not raising “children,” I am raising “future adults”. I can force them to tell the truth by giving out severe punishment for lying. I don’t have to give them the choice of telling the truth or receiving punishment. I can make punishment swift and effective and probably get a very obedient child. However, when they grow up, what lesson did they actually learn? They learned that if you lie and get away with it, there are no consequences. There are only consequences in getting caught. My children learned that telling the truth makes life better. They actually get the option to help those they wronged. If they lie and feel guilty about it later, they need to go back and admit that not only did they do something wrong, but they also lied to cover it up. Which is easier, telling the truth about what you did, or telling the truth about what you did AND that you lied on top of that? The first choice avoids the guilt and stress we put on ourselves. If we lie and don’t confess it because it is too hard to do, we may have the guilt and related stress for the rest of our lives.

Note - The following paragraphs were not part of my original post. I am adding them because the first few reactions to the original article had to do with spanking as a punishment being wrong. The readers totally missed the point of the methodology we used to discipline our kids because they got caught up in the form of punishment we chose. What I need to say is this, spanking in our household was extremely rare. The example I used above did carry spanking as the form of punishment used, but this form of punishment was used ONLY for a "severe" violation of acceptable behavior. To us, lying is one of these "severe" cases. The majority of times when discipline was necessary, it was in other forms, for example, a "timeout." For one child, isolation was very effective. When she misbehaved, we sent her to her room. With her personality, she "needed" to be with people. So for her, being alone was one of the worst things we could do. For the other child, being sent to her room was like heaven. She LOVED to be alone, so sending her to her room was not a punishment at all. So for her, we made her sit in a corner and watch the rest of us have fun. If necessary, we would get out a game and make her watch us have fun.

Second, I made the point of never passing out punishment while angry. In the case of spanking, if you strike the child in anger, you are doing nothing but teaching that reacting with violence is ok. That is a very bad example to teach. In the case I stated above, the spanking was an "option" that the children could choose. If they chose to lie to us, then the spanking would follow. They were told exactly that. They were given the choice of what they wanted to do, tell the truth and receive no punishment, or continue to lie and get the butt smacked. It was known ahead of time, so it was never an act of violence, it was what they chose to make happen. Also, it was a single whack to the butt, NOT a beating. It was firm and meaningful, but not abusive.

In my thinking, the form of punishment should be entirely designed for the child's personality. For me, as a child, I required only a stern look to be corrected. My brothers however, needed some physical correction. I believe spanking can be an excellent tool if used correctly and sparingly. If the child is spanked for every type of offense, its value as an effective tool is lost. In an overall, thought out plan of how to discipline your child, spanking can be quite handy. Too many parents do not take the time to figure out (ahead of time) how to discipline their children. If you figure out how you will handle the discipline before it's required, you can be far more effective in the long run. We all know that our children are going to need it, so think about it before you are forced into reacting to it. Proactive parenting is far superior to reactive parenting.

Terrorist Allowed to Become a US Citizen - My Thoughts

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/22/21081443-chicago-woman-hid-terrorist-past-on-citizenship-application-say-feds

In case you didn’t follow the link to the actual news article, the basic facts are this: a woman who committed an act of terror years ago lied on her application for citizenship to the U.S. and it was granted.

After reading this article, I wondered, who is stupid enough to ask “why did she not disclose her terrorist past?” The article quotes William Hayes (acting special agent in charge for Homeland Security in Detroit) as saying, “The United States will never be a safe haven for individuals seeking to distance themselves from their pasts.” Wow! A powerful statement if it actually had any meaning. Apparently, Homeland Security is working hard at keeping terrorists out of this country by asking them if they are in fact a terrorist. If they answer “no”, then they MUST be telling the truth, so we let them in. Why would we want to check into their past to see if they might be lying? I’m sure if we asked all of the illegal immigrants in this country, “are you an illegal immigrant?” they would all answer “yes” because the fear of being deported or prosecuted would never make them lie. And why would they lie? It’s not like they broke the law by coming here without the proper visas and documentation that are required. Oh, wait, that IS what makes them illegal. So if you’re willing to break the law to enter a country illegally, would you also be willing to lie on your application for citizenship? OK, who needs time to think about their answer? Anyone?

In the particular case reported in the article, the woman lied on her immigration papers to come to this country. And then she lied on her application for citizenship. Why are we surprised that she lied? She was willing to commit terrorist acts, but we think lying is so bad that we don’t expect her to do it? Since when was lying worse than killing people? The more I think about this, the more I wonder if the root of our immigration problems is that we are so afraid of offending someone by questioning their statements that we just believe every word out of that person’s mouth. But then I have to wonder, since our current administration is so weak on existing immigration law, are they also willing to let everyone into this country regardless of any danger they might pose? If they are going to allow illegal immigrants to stay by NOT enforcing the most basic laws currently on the books, why would they enforce the stricter immigration laws that would prevent terrorists from entering this country? We aren't allowed to ask the hard questions or check into someone’s past because that is “racial profiling”. I also wonder why we have people fill out paperwork to become U.S. citizens in the first place when anyone can come into the country illegally without any sort of repercussions? Filling out paperwork just creates another government job that costs the taxpayer more money when the government has no plan to prosecute someone who is here illegally anyway. So until the time where being a “legal” citizen has meaning, we are just wasting money and time “processing” people through the legal channels. If the current president gets his way, he will just declare all illegal immigrants to be legal, so why bother filling out the paperwork?

I said this before, I am in favor of immigration. However, those who truly want to become citizens of our country have the obligation to follow our laws and will have to “earn” the right to become a citizen. Those who are willing to do that deserve to become citizens, but those who are not, should be sent back to where they came from.

Marriage - my thoughts

Today, I decided to go a different route with my thoughts. A picture was posted on Facebook that got me thinking. It was a picture of an old couple and it read, “A reporter asked the couple, how did you manage to stay together for 65 years? The woman replied ‘We were born in a time when if something was broken we would fix it, not throw it away...’”

I could only think about how right she is. I was not born during that period of time, but I am happily married for almost 27 years, how did WE keep it together all that time? We had our ups and downs like everyone else. We have gone through sickness, loss of jobs, a major car accident, children and so many other things. What keeps us together?

In the beginning stages of marriage, we experience “infatuation.” This is the feeling that your partner can do no wrong. There isn’t anything they can do or say that bothers you. We have all talked to people while they are in this stage, and the sugar that runs from their mouths is just so sickening sweet, you want to vomit. I don’t know why we feel that way, because we have all been THAT person and made our friends want to barf. This is the stage we all wish would stay around forever. We can’t eat, we can’t sleep, we can’t concentrate. Our world revolves around this new person in our lives. Guess what? That stage eventually dies down. Don’t get me wrong, I still have moments when I look at my wife and it rekindles the fires of infatuation and I am riding high and again hope it never ends. But we cannot maintain that state forever, because it’s not real.

The second stage of marriage is when we start to notice that this person we love so much actually has some flaws. It can be just a little thing, but when repeated over and over, begins to grate on our nerves. Perhaps it’s in the way they pronounce a certain word. You know it’s wrong and during the infatuation period, it seemed so cute, but now, it just seems like it needs to be fixed or you’re likely to scream. It’s ok to feel this way. An example in my case is that I never put the toilet seat down. In the beginning that was ok, after all, love conquers all! But after a while, it became an issue. Just a little background, I grew up in a house of all boys. Putting the seat down wasted a lot of people’s time. But NOW, I’m sharing a bathroom with someone I love deeply, and she is asking me to make a change. So do I change the way I’ve done something my whole life, or do I stand and fight for doing things the way I want and make HER change? I can easily argue that she just needs to look before sitting down. (Those who have been married for a while will probably say this is so minor, why use it as an example? I do it just to illustrate a point. ANYTHING can be an issue, big or small. We all have something that gets under our skin and we are going to have to deal with it. Too many people keep their mouths shut on little things and when the big things come along, it only adds to what has not yet been resolved. It has been said that the way you do anything, is the way you will do everything. So if you won’t talk about the little things, you won’t talk about the big things either.) Back to my example… what I decided to do about the toilet seat was make the change in myself. I decided that since it was not a “life or death” situation. I could change because my love for her is greater than my need to do things my way. Again, a very minor situation, but later in life when the big things came along, we handled them the same way.

The third stage of marriage, I have heard called “the stage of misery.” Sounds ever so sexy, doesn’t it? This is the stage when you wonder, why did I ever get married in the first place? I heard about this stage during pre-marital counseling. The counseling was required by the pastor who married us, and it was eye-opening to say the least. I recommend ALL couples go through it and actually pay attention, because what is being taught is real, no matter how much you believe you and your intended spouse think you’re different. But the point of the counseling is to say, this stage will come, and half of all marriages fall apart at this time. After learning about the “misery” stage, we were told, here’s how to shorten this period and survive it. Guess what, we actually listened during the counseling and when this period came in our marriage, we talked about it, wrestled with it, and it passed very quickly. I hate when people say we were “lucky” that our marriage lasted so long. There was no luck involved. It was nothing short of being completely committed to figuring out what to do during the hard times and putting in the work to make it happen. One key to our success is that we took divorce off the table before we got married. So if divorce is not an option, you are forced to find other ways to go at the problems. As long as divorce is an option, you leave the door wide open to the idea of avoiding putting in some hard work. And never forget, marriage is work. It is very rewarding work at that. And yes, it can be very hard at times, but the rewards are great for staying with it.

I don’t remember what the 4th and 5th stages are called, but it is when love actually becomes mature. You made it through the hard times and now it’s a matter of happily living out the rest of your days with the one you love. Nothing is going to tear you apart short of death.

I can hear the critics already saying, but what if the person I married changed after we got married? Or what if he beats his wife? Or my spouse is so selfish and won’t work on our marriage? Or my spouse had an affair? Ok, first of all, I don’t believe EVERY divorce is wrong. Some marriages SHOULD end. I would never advocate a woman staying in an abusive marriage. Or if one partner refuses to work at the marriage that it’s all on the other. We all know couples that have been together 50 years and were never happy. They are proud to have “stuck it out”, but I believe marriage should be joyful, not miserable. So what I AM saying, is that 50% of all marriages ending in divorce is simply not acceptable. Divorce should be rare, not an everyday occurrence. I am not a marriage counselor. I do not claim to have all the answers. I can only speak from my own experience. Earlier I gave the example of the toilet seat. Most people reading this probably thought it was so insignificant that they ignored it. Well, I think it is more significant than it appears. I think my wife and I got through the really tough times because we talked about the little things first. Those little things that may have bothered you but seemed too petty to bring up, actually gave us practice on how we would eventually handle the big things. When a little thing bothered one of us, we talked about it. If it was bigger, we talked about it. If it was huge, we talked about it. Holding it in, only allows it to fester and grow. If you couldn’t talk about it while it was small, how will you talk about it when it’s big and ugly?

Now that I’ve said my piece, I want to finish by saying that I am an advocate of teaching young people how to live for others and stop focusing on themselves. The first step to a successful marriage is to focus on making your spouse happy. If I focus on my wife’s happiness, and she focuses on mine, we will both be happy. Not just happy, but happy beyond what we could possibly imagine. I don’t mean thinking, “If I do this nice thing for her, I get in return…” I mean, “I am going to do this nice thing for no reason other than I love her.” What ends up coming back is far greater than what you could have planned for. So if you teach your children nothing else, teach them to live for other people and not just for themselves.

Obama's Spending Record - my thoughts

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303753904577450910257188398.html

I have been reading about Obama’s spending record. What I found so hard is that there is no longer an actual un-biased news source for American’s to trust. Those in favor of Obama will only read left leaning news and those who oppose him will only read right leaning news. I found what I call the most un-biased news sources, and even those two sources disagree on the numbers.

What sparked my interest is that Obama is claiming that spending under his regime has risen at the slowest pace in the last 60 years. A left leaning news source made this claim and apparently Obama took advantage of it to toot his own horn. On the other hand, many right leaning news sources are claiming that his spending is out of control. The GOP jumped on that in a heartbeat. And then, several other news sources took on the challenge of figuring out actual numbers to see if Obama’s or the GOP’s claims were accurate.

In the end, what I found is that no one was able to agree whether some of the massive spending should be accounted to Bush or if it should be accounted to Obama. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), however, lumped the two Presidents together as the two administrations who took spending to new heights. I have to agree that between both of them, spending went out of control. But because one is a Republican and the other a Democrat, everyone wants to blame one or the other, not both. This is also supported by the news media. Since news is no longer unbiased, there is no way to get accurate information. The purpose of the news today is to divide the country into factions in order to continue creating more news. In turn this makes money for the news industry.

In my opinion, the WSJ got it right. We can’t blame just one President. Spending is often attributed to the President, but in actuality, spending bills come from Congress with the President’s approval. Bush, a Republican, was dealing with a Democratic controlled congress. So if Bush overspent, he had Democratic support to do so. Obama, a Democrat, had a Democratic controlled House when he passed Obamacare. This is one of the biggest spending bills of all time, but it is not accounted for yet, because it is just getting started and the spending has not yet begun. He is now dealing with a Republican dominated House. They have fought him all the way as far as spending goes. So he claims to be spending at a lower pace, but the House is actually reigning him in and not “allowing” him to spend more, plus Obamacare spending has not yet begun. There was additional billions requested by Obama that the House never approved. So should he be taking all the credit for not spending too much?

The second item where I think the WSJ gets it right, is that Bush gave out billions in bailout money (the spending obviously attributed to him), but when the funds were paid back, they were attributed to Obama as income against spending. This actually skews the numbers of actual spending. So the accounting of who spent what is not clear at all. Depending on your news source of choice, you will hear nothing more than an opinion of who is doing the spending, it will not be legitimate news. The left leaves out the facts that make the President look bad, while the right leaves out the facts that make him look good.

As I see it, we need to stop trying to figure out who to blame for our problems and get to the business of running the country and solving the problems we have. We also need politicians to stop campaigning by passing laws just to gain votes. And while I’m on that subject, we need politicians to live by the laws they pass, both Congress and the President. They do not participate in Social Security, Obamacare, Pensions for Federal employees, etc. They have systematically exempted themselves from having to suffer like the rest of us every time they make a decision. When was the last time Congress proposed a spending cut that included reducing their salary? They’ve made cuts to the pensions of Federal employees, but they have income FOR LIFE because they “served” our country as congressmen and women. I put the word “served” in quotes, because I believe most of them are “serving” themselves and not the interests of the country. They draw a full salary FOR LIFE even if they only served one term. When I retire after being on the job for 45 years, will I continue drawing the same salary as when I was working? Not at all! I don’t think that’s a realistic expectation for any job, unless you’re in Congress where “realistic” doesn’t really exist.

So let’s get back to solving our problems. We have a spending problem. I don’t care who caused it, I just want it fixed. We have an unemployment problem. Again, I don’t care who’s to blame, make it better. Our economy sucks, get it back on track. What the politicians know is that if they make their constituents happy, they will get re-elected. So they propose bills that give away free stuff as a means to getting there. All that free stuff costs money and contributes to our climbing national debt. What they don’t understand, is that if they made actual lasting changes, such as improving the economy, reducing unemployment, and reducing our spending, they will not only get re-elected, as an added bonus, a thriving economy means tax revenues will also climb, allowing them to spend more money on our actual remaining problems, perpetuating them into a lifelong career.

As a bonus, I found this article written many years ago that talks about the "tax and spend" method for prosperity. Very good reading: http://mises.org/daily/3637/

Students are told that the Bill of Rights is “outdated” and must be “revised” - my thoughts

http://www.infowars.com/sixth-grade-assignment-destroy-the-bill-of-rights/

As I read the actual instructions of the assignment, I viewed it as an adult with many years of experience under my belt. On the surface, it first sets up a fictional scenario of the government trying to revisit and “update” the Bill of Rights. Seems harmless enough from THAT viewpoint. But let’s look at what is really going on.

First, consider that the audience is NOT a group of adults who actually know enough to say it is strictly fictional. The audience is a group of 6th graders who very likely are hearing about the Bill of Rights for the first time. The instructions do not tell the children what the purpose of the Bill of Rights were or why they were written in the first place. I can only assume that they had some previous study on this topic before the assignment was made. But based on the assignment, we don’t know how “accurate” the material they studied may have been. Anyway, they are to study the Bill of Rights and make changes as they see fit. Based on what? Their limited life experience as a child?

Second, they are given the PATRIOT Act as a guide, another document they may have very limited experience with. It does not mention whether or not the children know that parts of the PATRIOT Act were struck down in court for being unconstitutional because they violated the Bill of Rights. If I were a cynic, I would say the teacher probably doesn’t know that little fact.

Let’s see if I remember my history correctly. The Bill of Rights was written and adopted around 1789. This was some years after the Revolutionary war. One of the reasons for writing it was because a group of people feared that the “new” American government would be just a bad as the “old” British government. The document outlines the rights of people (who have them simply because they are human beings created by God) that cannot be taken away by the government. It is not a document that says the government is “granting” or “allowing” its citizens to have them. I’m saying it was written for the purpose of assuring its citizens that they are free to live life without interference from the government. It was written at a time of peace by the people who fought for freedom. The men who wrote it were of a mind of minimal government.

On the other hand, the PATRIOT Act was written out of fear. I believe it is an over-reaction to the events of 9/11/2001. The act takes away rights we have as citizens in an effort to “protect” the country from future terror attacks. It was written at a time when people were still in shock from all that happened on American soil, not only the terror attacks on the Trade Center and Pentagon, but the anthrax attacks that soon followed. It was introduced as “if you vote against this bill, you are voting for terror.” Its very name, which is actually an acronym, suggests that you can’t vote against it or else you’re a traitor. The bill was introduced and passed in October, less than two months after the attacks. With people still in shock and having fear for their lives, the Act was passed ignoring the unconstitutionality of so many of its provisions. Since so many that make up the legislature are lawyers, I would think most of them should have known better. But it didn’t matter.

My belief is that the PATRIOT Act was a knee-jerk reaction that sounded good at the time. Since time has passed, perhaps the PATRIOT Act should be revisited and revised with the Bill of Rights as a guide to changing it. I think that may be a better assignment for the children since our laws are weighed against the Bill of Rights when challenged. We could actually teach them how the process works.

Illegal immigrants allowed to get valid driver's licenses - my thoughts

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57605943/california-oks-giving-drivers-licenses-to-illegal-immigrants/

So the governor of California signs a law allowing an illegal immigrant to get a valid driver’s license. Since I read this article early yesterday morning, I’ve been thinking non-stop about it. I can’t even begin to wrap my head around where to begin commenting on this because it makes a type of sense that’s not. The best I can do is list out what has been bothering me about it and comment on it as I go. So here’s what I found.

First of all, what strikes me is that the license is marked to signify that this person is an illegal immigrant. Latino groups are upset by the fact that the license says they are illegally in this country because it may lead to racial profiling. Well, yeah, it will. How is that a problem? My understanding is that federal law requires law enforcement officers to arrest illegal immigrants and get the Immigration Department involved to deport these people. After all, they entered the country illegally and by law, must be sent back to where they came from. If my understanding is correct, then this new law actually contradicts the previous law and somehow one of them needs to be struck down by the courts. So why is no one challenging the new law? Or the old law?

Second, the governor says that in order to get the license, you have to pass the written driver’s test. He explains that this is supposed to make the streets safer because the owner of the license will be familiar with the laws of our roads. How about the laws of our country, specifically the ones that state how to enter the country in a legal way? Perhaps that needs to be part of the driver’s test. Here’s a thought, if we deport illegal immigrants, they won’t be on our roads in the first place. Wouldn’t that make the streets safer?

Third, the reporter who wrote this article interviewed a man who came out to witness the signing of the law. He is here illegally and was very happy because now his two daughters who are also here illegally can now obtain a driver’s license to legally be driving to and for work. The one daughter has a job driving a food truck (roach coach as we called them years ago). So this says to me, she came here illegally, she obtained a job illegally (no social security number), she is driving illegally, she is not paying taxes (also illegal), and now she will be able to get pulled over by police and she can continue her illegal activities because no one is able to do anything about her status. And while I’m thinking about it, if she gets pulled over, she was most likely doing something illegal to warrant it. Just saying.

As I look over my previous comments, I realize that this new law actually ties the hands of the police to enforce the very laws they were sworn to uphold. I have so much respect for our law enforcement officers that I actually feel sorry for them because our leaders have reduced the law to a way to campaign for voters. The governor who signed this law is reported to be popular with Latino voters, who are primary supporters of the law. In California, Latinos are a major voting block and by signing this law, he is promoting himself as the candidate to vote for within that group. Call me a cynic, but shouldn’t someone be yelling “foul” and looking for a way to get this guy out of office? You can say that will be up to the voters, but he just got into bed with a strong voting block by being allowed to sign the law in the first place. How will he get voted out, if he can use the law to gain voters?

Perhaps those reading this can understand where my difficulty in trying to even begin making any sense of any of it comes from. I have tried to imagine any condition where this new law would make sense and I can’t. I am at a complete loss as to how giving a valid driver’s license to an illegal immigrant is a good thing. Don’t get me wrong, I am completely in favor of immigration, but there are laws written as to how that is to be done. If we are going to take the time to write laws, perhaps we should actually consider following them. If we disagree with a particular law, then there is a process to repeal them. Since when is it ok for a politician to ignore current law just because they don’t like it?

8 year old suspended because he had an imaginary gun

A little boy is suspended from school because he is playing cops and robbers with his friends and uses his finger as an imaginary gun. WOW! How can anyone have a problem with this?

I don’t know about you, but as for me and my brothers, we played cops and robbers as kids. We carried all sorts of imaginary weaponry in our imaginary arsenal. The most popular weapon we used was an imaginary pistol made by pointing our index finger at our target and using the thumb as the imaginary hammer to fire the imaginary bullet. What made it so realistic was the “BANG!” sound created by our vocal chords. I actually caused my brothers to obtain imaginary injuries and on occasion, an imaginary death. I was an awesome imaginary shooter! I don’t recall ever missing my target. I can only assume my brothers sometimes had imaginary body armor on because even when I hit them, they didn’t always fall to the ground as I imagined they would. As you can imagine, everyone who played cops and robbers ended up going on shooting rampages later in their lives… oh wait, that happened… NEVER!

What has happened to common sense in this country? Pretending is a natural part of growing up. As children, we take any common household item we can find and pretend it’s something else in an effort to be “grown up”, to imitate our parents or other role models. In a perfect world, isn’t a police officer someone we want our children to emulate? But you say, “what if the child was pretending to be the robber?” Now that changes everything. If I recall, my brothers and I took turns being the “good” guy and the “bad” guy. The reason for this is that you cannot play cops and robbers unless you have both cops AND robbers. If everyone was a cop, the game stops pretty quickly.

The school administration actually states that they have a policy about children playing with imaginary guns. When I read this, I had a flash back to all the movies I watched about the future when the “thought police” were able to arrest people based on what they were thinking. We should be thanking the school administration for getting this kid off our streets and preventing the mayhem he was obviously going to cause throughout his future lifetime. This child should be put away in a juvenile facility, before he infects other children with his capacity to pretend. What would happen to this country if we allow children to use their imagination as God intended. When I played cops and robbers, I actually knew the difference between my finger and the barrel of a real gun. I realize that this probably puts me on the “very gifted” end of the scale, so maybe it’s good that we don’t assume that other children can also tell the difference. That would be a stretch because your finger really does look like the barrel of a gun. I know my kids were often confused by it.

Just a thought, but if I were his parents, I would challenge the school’s policy based on whether or not the teacher reviewed the policy with the students on the first day of school so that they all understood what the acceptable forms of imaginary play were. I mean, a second grader might actually go wild with his imagination if he doesn’t know it’s wrong to pretend. I also wondered why none of the other children were suspended because they were playing too. I can only suppose that their weapons were concealed so that the teacher could not see them. And another loose end, how did they get all these imaginary weapons passed the imaginary metal detector? (Ok, that was a sarcastic remark).

Some people say that their children are afraid of guns and even imaginary guns. To that I say, “Why in the world would you infect your kids with your own personal fears?” Guns do not need to be feared, they need to be respected. I was raised in a house with guns. I was taught how to respect a gun. I learned the dangers of guns when misused. I learned it is wrong to point a gun, even if it is not loaded. I dare say that it is pretty much common sense to properly handle a fire arm. To teach your child to fear guns is to do a disservice to him or her. Yes, they need to know the dangers of guns, and they need to be aware of dangerous people who have guns, but to fear guns as an object is not right. Don’t the police carry guns? Should they fear the gun the policeman or policewoman is carrying? I think they should feel safe BECAUSE the police have guns. I just don’t understand this outright fear of a gun.

Closing of Federal Monuments a Scam

Shutdown overreach: More personnel sent to WWII memorial than Benghazi; Park Service closes park it doesn't run


Until now, I didn't normally make many statements of a political nature, but after reading this, I decided that something needs to be said. I believe our government, both Democrats and Republicans, have no interest in what's best for this country. I see people supporting Obamacare BECAUSE they support Obama, not because it's a good piece of legislation. I am man enough to say that my party of choice is screwed up and needs to get real with what's going on in this world. I am also man enough to say that the party I do not support might have some good ideas. I believe that something needs to be done with healthcare for the 30 million people who don't have it, but to change healthcare for the 270 million that do have it, is not the answer. And if it's so good, why is Obama allowing unions and other select "supporters" to opt out of it? Just asking.

Another problem is that the polarization of political sides is supported by the media, both conservative and liberal. The "middle of the road", which is where I believe most Americans reside, is not allowed to be heard because that doesn't sell news.

This country was founded on principles that have since been lost due to "career" politicians. The voting public votes based on what they can get by electing someone into office, not on what society as a whole would get. Programs that reward people for NOT working, subsidizing farmers to leave fields fallow, basically trying to manipulate our economy instead of allowing the economy to work as it is designed to work. Businesses that make bad decisions should be allowed to go under and those that make good decision should be allowed to flourish. When we "bail out" a company that made bad decisions, we allow that company to continue making bad decisions. AND we give them an edge over a company that is making the right decisions in what should be a "competitive" market. Where were the subsidies for the companies making good decisions? Don't strain yourself trying to figure it out, there weren't any. They had to put their own capital at risk to grow their business, while the "too big to fail" companies got billions of dollars FREE when they should have gone out of business. Capitalism is designed to weed out the bad and allow the good to flourish.

I posted this because I see America going down the tubes and I don't know what the answer is. Actually, I know what the answer is, I just don't know how to get the other 300 million people in this country to see it. We have raised generations of takers and politicians who pander to them to keep their jobs, instead of raising citizens who think of others first and themselves second.