PRISM and Me

I keep thinking about this whole PRISM scandal coming out recently, especially because I'm a very opinionated person, and am quite active on the internet in sharing my opinions via Facebook, my blog, etc.

Two things: 1) I'm not surprised to learn about PRISM - actually, I'd be more surprised if there weren't a program like that in place; 2) How much more extensive are these covert operations than we know?

The thing about PRISM (our government mining personal, private online data from Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc.) is that it's most concerning in conjunction with the IRS scandal, given that we know conservative groups and individuals were especially targeted and given a hard time when seeking non-profit tax status, and all because they were active in disagreeing with some of the policies of our President, policies which they viewed as detrimental to the health and safety of our nation.

What I mean is, how troubling is it to think that under that same administration, individual American citizens might have their private correspondence, photos, posts, etc. looked through without their knowledge, or that they might even face hassles in real life for the opinions and beliefs they shared in their virtual life? Surely there is no such thing as privacy anymore; I do hope there is still such a thing as liberty.

Should Christians Watch or Read Game of Thrones?

I can't speak to watching the HBO series, only to having read the first book through and having made it a few chapters into book two. The question of "should Christians watch Game of Thrones" has been part of what's prevented me from earnestly purchasing the series, or borrowing it from the library. Even though I find the plot rich and intriguing, the characters diverse and believable and engaging, and have very much been fascinated by the story so far as I've read it, I've read enough to know what to expect if I watch the series.

I don't feel the question is really about Game of Thrones. Rather, the question is about a more fundamental underlying issue: namely, how are Christians to interact with the sin and sinners around them? And another question, what does what we're interested in for media - books, movies, music, etc. - say about how godly we are, how pure we are, whether we love and follow Jesus, etc.?

It's too easy (and risky) to make a hard and fast rule across the board, to risk falling off into legalism and unlicensed judgment on the one side. Equally easy is falling off on the other side into relativism, amorality, emotionalism, minimizing, etc.

As I've studied the Bible and meditated on God's Word for all the years of my young adult life (not so many years, really), I've come to believe it matters more to God what our reasons will be for coming to the decision we do. In other words, God will care more about why we did or didn't watch Game of Thrones than he will whether we did.

Did I pick up Game of Thrones in pursuit of a vicarious sexual thrill? Did I publicly denounce Game of Thrones in pursuit of a reputation for piety? If both are wicked attitudes and mindsets, will God have any more approval for the one than the other?

I've read C.S. Lewis' Narnia series, as well as a handful of his other works, and enjoyed them thoroughly. I read through Tolkien's LOTR and The Hobbit and was and am a fan. What partly distressed me, or what kept me from completely embracing them, however, was the sense of artificiality, or perhaps of excessive moral sanitation. They’re excellent children's books, yes, and excellent books for an adult to read as well. Excellent stories, and obviously fantasy, but how real were the people? Were the outcomes too convenient, and would I develop unrealistic expectations in life from reading them?

It occurs to me that I feel this sense of artificiality because of having read the Bible since I was a young boy, and because I've read a good deal of human history, and neither the Bible nor history has led me to such a clean or cut and dry view of human events, or of the human heart.

I am concerned that some Christians who read the Bible just glaze over the portions which mention unimaginable violence and cruelty, or which tell (briefly, except in the case of Song of Songs) of sex, and which often mention sexual immorality.

The Bible is not crass in it's depiction of sex, even when Song of Songs covers sexuality at length (for an entire book!), but it does recognize that it exists!

My concern is that Game of Thrones goes unfortunately too far in it's depiction of sex acts; then again, perhaps it's difficult to fault a book for going into more detail about the sex acts in the story when every other bit of dialogue or action in the story is also covered with more detail; when minimizing sex in a novel or any other media, at what point as a writer do you risk inconsistency of narrative to become suddenly vague about one topic?

On the other hand, do we develop naive assumptions about what novels should be when we've digested LOTR and Narnia for years, books written primarily with children in mind which conspicuously avoid sexuality entirely (as I would want any children's book to do)?

I believe the Bible deals with sex more candidly than do either of those works, yet less explicitly than Game of Thrones. And, really, the sexual content in Game of Thrones is what concerns me most, due to its explicit nature.

Zooming out, however, I find the framework and portrayal of characters to be more realistic and true-to-life in Game of Thrones, and I hope we as Christians will not hoist childish, naive objections on anything just because we wish all stories could be told with talking and singing vegetables.

There has to be a distinction between "keeping ones self unspotted from the world" and a reckless pursuit of naiveté. Whether we watch or read Game of Thrones or any other thing, I hope we Christians are able to make that distinction in word, deed, thought and feeling.

We are devolving! Or are we?

Researchers say Western IQs dropped 14 points over last century

We are devolving!

Half kidding aside, I'd be interested to know in more detail how they ensured consistency of methodology, and whether the statement "on average... those populations measured dropped by 1.23 points per decade" reflects only a comparison of data from the individual years 1889 relative to 2004, or whether it can be trusted to reflect all the years between.

For instance, I might have a big pot of oatmeal with blueberries in it. Suppose I plunge a spoon in at the far left side and come out with four blueberries, but only find three blueberries when I plunge the spoon in on the right. The bigger that bowl was, the more dubious would be my claim that a pattern could be predicted throughout that bowl based on the plunging of my spoon in just two places.

Further, I'd like to ask how they took their sample group, how they selected persons to participate in the testing. Did they advertise at the mall? Did they randomly call persons from the phonebook? Did they select college students in attendance? Whatever method they used, even if it might appear very similar in our general description to what the Victorians recorded themselves as having done, what effect would the changes within those institutions have on the kind of sample group a person might get from using them? 

If, for instance, they made it geographical, perhaps particular to a certain neighborhood or town or county, is there a way to account for how changes in the economy of that area may have influenced migration in or out of the area by more educated or intelligent citizens? In America, you might have a stark contrast comparing I.Q.'s of persons in Detroit, MI or Silicon Valley, CA from 1950 and 2010, and for obvious reasons. As major industries HQ-ed in those places, or as their economies cratered, migrations of skilled workers would effect the average intelligence of the population.

Questions of methodology and how to assure reliable data aside for a moment, I should wonder at the assertion that, essentially, dumb women have lots of children. I find that offensive and dubious, as my wife and I would like to have a large family, and I wonder whether such a conclusion is easily grasped for to soothe a Western society which is preparing now for a population contraction due to such low average birth rates? In other words, is there a bias towards suggesting that intelligent women have fewer children?

Today is Tomorrow's Past

What I consider to be the present as of this writing will someday be the distant past.

I've never been this age before. In twenty years, Lord willing I live that long, I can look back on the decisions I'm making now, and on the perspective I had on the world and my circumstances in it, and I'll have some context; I'll be able to name the mistakes and the successes. 

That's why they say hindsight is 20/20, isn't it?

When I'm 46 rather than 26, I'll understand better what an impact my having taken Josiah porcupine hunting today had on how he thought of himself, or the world, or me, or porcupines.

I'll understand how choices I'm making now on how to manage money set my family up for either more economic uncertainty, or else more peace of mind.

It'll be clear to me how the relationships and disciplines I forged at work helped me to build this or that kind of career and skill set, and how that career opened up opportunities or limited them for me and mine.

There are some things I'm sure I'll regret not having figured out sooner: people-pleasing, humility, how to appropriately and respectfully give and receive rebukes, how to tend to details without losing sight of the thoughts and feelings of those around me. 

I could go on. 

I regret those things now; why wouldn't I still regret them in 20 years?

I've been thinking about what I'll leave to my sons some day. My example, what I've taught them, memories of time spent with me - beyond that, what's certain? 

If I left them $1 million, would that be enough to hang a hat on? What about a huge property with thousands of acres? What about a profitable company? The wealth could be squandered, the property might be neglected, and any profitable company could be mismanaged or driven out of business by trickery or exceptional competition.

I consider myself a writer; perhaps I overestimate my ability to write well. But what if I left the boys a stack of books I'd written, or what if they were given a trunk full of my journals? Surely my writings could sit in obscurity, or be hidden away as amateurish or embarrassing, or they might be misunderstood or misinterpreted. In such cases, is there any lasting glory to my having written in the first place?

The fact is, despite my anxiety over potentially amounting to nothing in life, my self-worth and enduring legacy depend on more than just being able to generate a paycheck with a high dollar figure, or my ability to pass along significant property and wealth, or my ability to curry favor with the masses.

What if I become President of the United States some day? Would that mean my life was a success? Surely not, if taking a glance at others who've held that office is any indication. Often, there are nearly as many who hate the chief executive as there are those who admire him; and who but historians and professors can even name all the presidents who served in the 1800's, much less tell you the decisions each made and how impactful those decisions were on the world? So it will be in the 23rd century, I suppose, that there will be as little memory of who all occupied the oval office in the 21st as we have now for those who served in the 19th. That is, assuming our political system survives into the 23rd century - quite a big assumption, if you ask me, given the way things are going now.

Is there anything I could say, or build, or do which will certainly have lasting value? 

It's impossible to say whether my great, great grandchildren will learn my name, or take any interest in what I've done. What's more, it's difficult to say whether they should. 

"A good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children,

but the sinner's wealth is laid up for the righteous."

- Proverbs 13:22

That passage became a prominent one in my self-evaluation and planning a few years ago when I heard Pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, WA talk about the biblical call for men to take responsibility for themselves, their families, their churches, their communities, etc. Between when I first heard mention of Proverbs 13:22 in that context and just yesterday, I think I've interpreted this passage to mean that if I'm a good man, I'll make sure my grandchildren have some sort of money or wealth set aside for them in my will.

That's probably still true, but just yesterday, as my thoughts wandered the way they typically do, another possible interpretation became apparent. 

What if the inheritance a good man leaves to his grandchildren is the good example he set for them to follow, and the good upbringing he gave their parents, and the fruit of the good decisions he made which caused a chain-reaction of blessings for them as well?

For instance: what if the inheritance I leave to the children of Josiah David Mullet, Elihu James Mullet, Solomon Emmanuel Mullet, and Daniel Joseph Mullet (etc.) is that I read the Scriptures to their fathers before bed? Or what if the inheritance to my grandchildren is that my wife and I steadfastly committed to educating their fathers at home? What if, regardless of whether I go to my grave an elderly pauper, I'll leave a legacy behind which is worth immeasurably more than a plump bank account, a grand mansion, or a famous name?

It's too easy to allow myself to be tricked into thinking I'll be worth only so much as the money I accumulate and keep. And, by extension, since the money comes from work, I'll be worth only so much as the job I'm able to land and keep and advance in.

What's infinitely more significant than missing 10 hours worth of overtime in my paycheck two weeks from now is losing my temper when the boys make a mistake or are behaving in an undisciplined way; what's far more pressing is that I don't make up foolish, unjust, oppressive rules they couldn't hope to follow, or which they would follow to their detriment; what's way more important is not setting a bad example by my own attitude, habits, relationships, speech, choices, etc. 

Lord help me.

There's Always a Bigger Fish

I recently went over to the home of a cousin of mine for the afternoon to shoot some firearms, 10 guns in all between his, his dad's, our Grandpa Mullet's, a rifle from his other grandfather, and a shotgun of mine.

Guns, like many things, have limitations.

Take my Remington 870 Tactical, for instance. It has the shortest legal barrel at 18", a pistol grip, adjustable stock; I've added a tactical flashlight to it just in front of the pump; it looks beastly!

Take it out trapshooting, however, and you're going to find it woefully inadequate next to my uncle's 870 variant with the traditional stock and longer barrel. They're both 12 gauge, but one performs markedly better at shooting clay pigeons accurately.

And that's how they've been designed. My shotgun isn't so much for hunting birds as they fly through the air as it is for tactical operations. I bought my shotgun in case someone ever tries to break into our home in the middle of the night, or in case some wild animal is roaming around the yard and threatens our boys.

I've been following the gun control debate these past months, and the rhetoric has me thinking - about politics, about polarization, about the difference between urban, suburban and rural mindsets, about the balance between liberty and security, and about the relationship of citizens to their government. 

Many provocative questions come to mind. For instance:

Are gun control opponents and 2nd amendment defenders paranoid or pragmatic about the possibility of a tyrannical government taking hold in America, and the need for citizens to be armed so as to discourage or deter such a government from blatant abuses?

If such a tyranny were to take hold, would it occur suddenly and conspicuously, or by degrees and quietly to where the majority of Americans would fail to recognize the tyranny until it was firmly established?

If such a tyranny were to take hold, would there even be any point in resisting, and is the 2nd amendment proposed as a safeguard against tyranny a moot point when our police forces and military are already so heavily armed, and are in fact the most advanced and powerful in the world?

Even if evenly matched, would there be a moral or ethical basis, support or framework for fighting against the official government of one's country, as the colonies fought against the British during the Revolutionary War, or as some argue the Confederacy fought against the Union in the Civil War?

Such questions are dangerous, perhaps, but they're too obvious to be ignored. 

The issue of the moment now is gun control. On the one side, the President and many prominent liberals contend that America is unsafe with certain guns, or so many guns, or certain people getting guns. In order to protect us from ourselves and one another, they must erect barriers to purchasing weapons, at least certain weapons, at least for certain persons deemed dangerous.

Am I to object if the criminal, the bad man, is prevented from acquiring a weapon prior to breaking into my home? Surely if he's disarmed before disturbing our domestic tranquility this is for the best, and hopefully I'll not ever have to fire my own weapon at such a man! That is my preference. But will gun control legislation achieve such a goal, or will it simply penalize me, with time or money or some other inconvenience, for acquiring a weapon? And if penalizing, will it prevent in so far as it discourages?

And if the President and other liberals have considered that criminals are not stopped by gun control laws, that only law-abiding citizens obey laws about guns or any other thing, and if these liberals proceed with gun control legislation anyhow, it's not difficult to see how gun control opponents can quickly object on the grounds that a tyrannical government must first disarm it's citizens in order to minimize their ability to resist tyranny.

But there again, what is tyranny? If I disagree with a law, is that enough to make that law tyrannical, or is the government which enforces that law therefor oppressing me? Surely not, since then every man in a prison could contend that he is not at fault for having stolen his neighbor's stereo, or raping that woman, or beating that man to death at the bar; no, his government must be the one at fault for having made laws which he deemed tyrannical and overly-restrictive. But that can't be! Such would be anarchy and ridiculous.

The intelligent, thoughtful proponent of liberty will contend that this is not what is meant by tyranny, however. Tyranny is taking a freedom away from me which my exercising would not have harmed any other person. But who will decide what is harmful to other persons? 

Is my selling you a 16 oz. soda which might contribute to your becoming obese or contracting diabetes, considering that obesity and diabetes are clearly harmful, different only by degrees from my shooting or stabbing you? I've never heard anyone dispute that the government should make and enforce laws against unlawful, unprovoked shootings and stabbings; but many are offended by NYC Mayor Bloomberg attempting to outlaw large sodas. 

Is Bloomberg a tyrant, however benevolent, or are those who object merely ignorant peasants who don't know what's best for them, who object like an inmate who's been convicted of larceny, rape, assault or murder, that the government is at fault for making a law they don't want to obey?

Is Obama a tyrant, or are those who object simply rebellious and insubordinate subjects who need to be reminded of their place?

I get to thinking, even if we were ruled by tyrants, what responsibility have we as Christians? We must speak the truth in love, boldly and clearly and courageously. But what would we have said in the days of George Washington or Abraham Lincoln? 

"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."

Romans 13:1

Was King George a tyrant, or were the colonists traitors who offended godliness and order by opposing him as they did? Was the Confederacy a legitimate motion to affirm the liberty of those States which seceded, or was Lincoln a hero for boldly opposing a wicked and racist society which had chosen to take up arms against it's government rather than submit to reform?

I don't know. If you've read this far, perhaps you were hoping I'd make some lofty, impassioned argument one way or the other. Perhaps you're undecided and you wanted me to help you make up your mind. Perhaps you're firmly in one camp or the other and you were hoping to hear me affirm your presuppositions about the topic. I can't do that, though - not sincerely, anyhow.

The fact is that I have misgivings about universally defending liberty against restriction; there are freedoms which I and others clearly benefit from forgoing, even if only when we restrict ourselves willingly by conscience and good judgment.

I am deeply inclined in my heart and mind and soul to oppose tyranny with forceful, firm arguments, and to look with disdain on threats of violent opposition to government, which I see as disorderly and wicked, and such a disdain could only be parted with in very extreme and dramatic and obvious circumstances. I consider myself open-minded when it comes to laws and legislation, except where my conscience dictates that this or that matter is firmly in the black or white, and then I vote with my conscience.

Meanwhile I look on politics as being eternally adversarial, but also increasingly polarized and polarizing in this country. I continue to wonder, without some moderating or unifying event, issue or character, whether we will find America embroiled in another civil war in my time. And if there were a civil war, what would I do? Again, I realize this is dangerous to suppose publicly, but what is more dangerous is for the trend to continue in our nation until two opposing sides have no ability to both save face and compromise. 

What concerns me more than the possibility of raising eyebrows is the notion that our political system, that our civil institutions, cannot find resolutions for the tough questions with all sides conducting themselves with integrity and mutual respect.

Just like a gun is designed with certain purposes and limitations, so too are arguments and proposals. My cousin and I spending the afternoon cheerfully taking turns shooting at targets to see who's the better shot, and to test out how each firearm performs - this is dramatically different from he and I taking turns firing at one another to do each other harm. One scenario will see us concluding the day, each with more experience and a smile on our face; the other will end tragically, with tears and bloodshed. 

So goes the nation. 

"Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it."

Proverbs 4:23 (NIV)

"Kids Belong to Whole Communities"

"We have never invested as much in public education as we should have because we've always had kind of a private notion of children. Your kid is yours, and totally your responsibility. We haven't had a very collective notion of 'These are our children.' So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities. Once it's everybody's responsibility and not just the household's, then we start making better investments."

- Melissa Harris-Perry, MSNBC

More Thoughts on Melissa Harris-Perry's Ad

I realize that there are single parent situations where that one parent is working two or more jobs, and there are families in which both parents work. What am I going to say in their cases, that the children should be ignored by everyone and fall through the cracks? No. 

On the other hand, what if you have children in a family like mine? I work, my wife stays home with the boys and cares for and educates them. Do my wife and I need to "break through this notion of children belonging to their parents"? 

Suppose we adopt a notion that my children belong to the community. Can the community take a vote and decide that my children will attend the public schools along with the majority, and could such a vote be used to overrule the decision my wife and I have made to teach our children at home? If my children aren't really mine, but belong rather to the collective, then the answer is yes. The collective must have the say if they have the primary responsibility.

Children need more than just time with their families. Children need their parents taking responsibility for them, more rather than less, in the time they're spending. They need parents instructing them, providing for them, protecting them, guiding them, being examples for them. That's way better than parents just sending their children off to public schools wherein they're lost in a sea of peer pressure, bad influences, chaotic standards and relativism.

One of the problems with parents ceding responsibility for children to the community, which the wording of Melissa Harris-Perry's public service announcement is clearly advocating, is that you have parents opting out. This already happens, sure, whether the MSNBC host is encouraging more of it or not. But we can't just spot the trend and say, "Let's just go with the flow and tell all the parents to opt out, since a lot of them already are."

Is this egalitarianism in disguise? Do we feel so sorry for children growing up in homes with only one parent that we, not wanting them to feel inferior somehow to children growing up in homes with two parents, will just find a way to bring those children with two parents down?

Such would be philosophically consistent with liberal views on wealth distribution, where Margaret Thatcher once pointed out, "He would rather the poor were poorer, so long as the rich were less rich." 

If we focus more on reducing the gap than on doing what's best for all children, we might very well advocate for this dichotomous view wherein the community always raises children better than their parents. But think of the implications. 

I keep thinking of the psychological phenomenon known as diffusion of responsibility. It's the same effect which causes a large crowd of onlookers to do nothing while a man is shoved onto the tracks of a subway; the collective inaction allows each person to tell themselves that it's not their problem, that someone else will get to it. We cannot as a culture do that en-masse with our children. It will have disastrous results, not unlike what happens to the victim of that subway train.

Diffusion of Parental Responsibility: A Response to Melissa Harris-Perry

I recently posted to my Facebook this meme that's been circulating which includes the quote from Melissa Harris-Perry alongside her picture, then two quotes below from Adolf Hitler, alongside his picture. In the interest of being fair, I'm posting the video from which those quotes from the MSNBC host were taken.

I'll add that what she's saying sounds nice. Who can legitimately argue against society taking responsibility for the children? 

Children need to be taken care of! 

But here's my question: just because some other men abandon their children and create a vacuum which needs to be filled by other family members, teachers, other persons in the community, does that mean I need to "break through" this notion of my sons being mine? And if so, for what? So the community can raise my children also?

 The cure for what ails American education and child-rearing is not diffusion of responsibility throughout the community, where everyone (and no one) takes responsibility for the raising of children; the cure is mothers and fathers stepping up and taking responsibility for teaching, protecting, and providing for the children they've brought into this world. 

Listening to Melissa Harris-Perry, you would think this is the problem rather than the answer.

I'm not for abandoning orphans, or neglecting children whose parents are not instructing them. But does our entire nation have to turn into an orphanage in order to fix the problem?

"Investing in public education" would mean, for my family, taxing my income more in order to pay for someone else's child to be educated. But what if I need to keep that money for myself so I can educate my own children? 

My wife and I will educate our children at home, and spare them an inept and detrimental public education system. So we need money for curriculum, school supplies, field trips, education apps on the iPad, etc. When Melissa Harris-Perry takes $500 out of my pocket to pay for society's efforts to educate American children, that means I have $500 less to spend on educating my own. 

And let's just make this clear: I would spend that $500 far better than she or some bureaucrat would. And at least my wife and I aren't subtracting from that $500 to pay our personal salary, or to pay for metal detectors, or any number of other things which the public schools have to "invest" in.

What's being advocated here, I'm afraid, is further encroachment by our government on our personal liberties. You have to sell taking control over everyone else's children in a soft and compassionate way, but what happens when there's resistance to the idea?

In Germany, you have your children taken away, you're slapped with a fine, you're sent to jail. And according to the Justice Department, in America, the government that plants a flag on your children and tells you to get lost is in the right, and you as a parent are in the wrong if you don't salute and get marching.

We need to think critically of the implications here.

The Romeike Family - German Homeschoolers in America

I signed the HSLDA petition this morning asking that the Romeike family, German homeschoolers who've sought political asylum in America, be allowed to stay in the U.S.

Home education in America has been legal for a while. I remember hearing about a challenge in recent years in California which involved a judge denying that parents have a constitutional right to educate their children at home (Criminalizing Home Schoolers, TIME, 3-7-08), and I know some states are more lenient while others are more intrusive when it comes to laws governing home education. It is at least legal here, though.

According to the website for the National Center for Education Statistics, homeschoolers in 2007 numbered about 1.5 million in the U.S., or about 3% of American students (NCES).

I was educated at home from the second half of 1st grade up until my senior year of high school. My wife and I began homeschooling the eldest of our four sons just this year, as he entered kindergarten, and we are committed to educating him and his brothers all the way through til graduation of high school.

What reasons have we for bucking the trend of public education? Many.

First off, these are our children; God gave us the responsibility for training and caring for them. We're not merely a breeding pair, my wife and I. We are their father and mother. Someday we will stand before Almighty God and give an account for how we taught, trained, protected and provided for these children. We take this seriously.

The public education system is bloated, bureaucratic, inefficient, chaotic, relativistic, amoral, godless, and incapable. It's a monstrosity that should be reformed or abolished. Sadly, however, there doesn't seem to be real accountability. Diffusion of responsibility is at least partly to blame.

It seems to me as though children who attend public schools are educated despite, not because of, the system. I want my children to be able to read proficiently, do advanced math, learn the lessons of history, acquire a fundamental grasp of the sciences - I'm not confident that the American public education system has a good record in this regard sufficient to warrant my confidence that sending my children to them would present a high chance of meaningful education happening. It feels as though I'd be rolling the dice.

Public schools are physically unsafe. Children bring guns to school and shoot up their classmates. When in the world would I have to worry about that with homeschooling?

Teachers have sex with students, students are taught to embrace as legitimate and praiseworthy sexual immorality, and are not taught to abstain from sex outside of marriage, but instead are given condoms and a moral vacuum in which to experiment with one another, get pregnant, contract STDs, and reap emotional and spiritual mayhem, all in the name of moral relativism and expressing themselves. So long as there's a morning after pill or abortion-on-demand to keep them from ruining their lives, we'll look the other way.

Back to the actual education part of the equation, the students in public schools are so distracted by pressures from their peer group to conform to various changing standards of coolness in fashion, music taste, attitude, interest, etc. that they don't focus on their subjects.

Public schools hold children in an artificial, unhelpful and unnecessary environment that requires either the advanced students to be held back in order to prop up average test scores for the students who are not progressing, or else the students who are not progressing are dragged along mindlessly in order to keep up with the advanced children, or else both simultaneously in order to reach the biggest possible group of students in the center! What is accomplished is neglect of many and, at best, a commitment to mediocrity for the majority. Meanwhile teachers are burnt out, students are disillusioned, and a great failure is being tolerated and propped up.

Public education is forbidden from including any godly, biblical or moral content in the instruction. What is produced then, putting aside any private attempts by parents or churches, is a godless, amoral education which explains all things in a naturalistic, utilitarian way, and scrubs a young person's convictions away implicitly (sometimes also explicitly) by the example set, discouraging them from having, exercising, or especially sharing convictions. That is to say that children are trained to be godless.

What is taught instead of a Biblical, Judeo-Christian worldview is a theory and philosophy of origins which is contradictory and hostile to the Biblical account, implying that either there is no God at all, or else the god we should worship is that absent watchmaker the Deists believed in. This Deist's god is not the type who would've sent Jesus to atone for your sins, not the type who would have intervened in human affairs to perform signs and wonders, or to give revelations of truth or his will - quite the contrary. If and when the existence of the supernatural is not denied, it is so insidiously and persistently implied to be ridiculous, backwards, ignorant, intolerant and harmful that I cannot conclude that the system, insofar as it is religious, is anything but anti-Christ.

How then am I to proceed as a Christian man with children?

• If I see it as my duty and obligation to protect these children, but I see the public education system as harmful in many ways; 
• If I see it as my duty to instruct these children and ensure they're prepared with a knowledge and understanding of the world and their place in it which will help them to make wise, informed decisions in their adult life, but I see the public education system as severely deficient in this regard; 
• If I see it as my duty to weave into daily instruction an understanding of God's Word and ways, a personal discipline and sense of right and wrong which will help my sons know how to be honorable, upright men, and how to respond to vile and wicked men in the world, and if I feel that the public education system is operating with complete negligence in this regard where it is not operating counter-productive to these ends;

How can I send my children to be educated by the public schools?

Consider this court document in the Romeike case, which I read this morning, and place yourself in my shoes. I find myself wondering about parents having their children taken away by a government, as the German government will do once this family is returned to their country. 

How can this be seen as something other than persecution, especially where this German family sees their responsibility as many American homeschooling families do - namely, to educate their children themselves rather than entrusting the task to a godless, ineffective system? That is, how can we dismiss the claim of persecution unless we either minimize the legitimacy of their convictions or else downplay the pain which would be caused them by being forced to comply to a law which is contrary to their convictions?

Which is also to question how a decision can be made in favor of the German government's rights over those of this family's, and how can such be tolerated in America regarding the Romeike family without the same reasoning being used someday against American homeschooling families?

Forgive my naivete, but I was under the impression from reading history that many persons from around the world came to America to escape government overreach in their home countries, especially with regards to religious conviction.

How much more pain could you cause a parent than to take their children away from them? The court document I linked to above explains that the German government would not be enforcing their compulsory school attendance law out of a desire to hurt the Romeike parents, but is that entirely the point?

Suppose some government made up a law against breathing air. Then you could argue that the government choking the breaker of such a law to death wasn't so much about trying to hurt them, only about enforcing the law. Since when is the government the wronged party in this, when you break a ridiculous, overreaching law? Once the law is in place, can the government deny that it is in the wrong for choking the lawbreaker by explaining that the lawbreaker is really the one in the wrong for breathing air and breaking the law?

What is being asserted here is that the government reserves all rights unto itself which are not explicitly given to the people; but that is not a limited government, but rather a limited individual and an unlimited government. It will then be said that you do not have a right to do anything which has not been explicitly permitted for you to do.

Tell me truly, is there a more true definition of oppression?

Montana, and Other Wide Open Spaces

1,400 miles and nearly 15 years separated my having left Glendive, Montana and my having returned.

I was born at the Glendive Medical Center in November of 1986. My dad was a farmer in the Bloomfield area. I enjoy vivid memories of exploring those 1,600 acres of grassland and crops, especially the winding creek that ran through our property. While dad and mom worked during planting and harvest seasons, my brother and I tromped up and down that creek looking for frogs and fish, occasionally ran into snakes, and just generally enjoyed the fresh air and wide open spaces.

Now my wife and I rent a small farmhouse, north-west of Glendive by 10-15 miles, and I get to enjoy seeing our sons roaming outside. Their squeals and ruckus play as sweet percussion and accompaniment to the winds that blow undeterred over mostly treeless plains.

My parents moved with my little brother and I to Ohio when I was about 10, and I don't think it ever felt like a suitable replacement to the wide-open freedom of Big Sky Country. You can't really look in any direction in Ohio without seeing some sign of human development - power lines,  houses, businesses, roads, cars, etc. It's just too busy, too noisy, too crowded.

I feel like I can breathe out here. "Elbow room," is what they used to call it.

Will I ever forget the second broker I assisted at TQL, a woman named Shannon, who told me matter-of-factly that my having four kids was ecologically and socially irresponsible? "The planet can't support this many people," was something akin to what she told me.

I know people who'd be offended by that, but I just laughed. I think she was offended that I laughed. We didn't get along the best after that.

I was undeterred. My wife and I are expecting our fifth child in September now (unless we're having twins, which do run in the family on both sides).

It's hard when you grew up in a state as sparsely populated as Montana to take people seriously when they say the planet is overcrowded.  Montana, one of the larger states in the union, just recently hit a population of 1 million persons, and a quarter of those live in or around the city of Billings, in the center of the state.

I think those wide open spaces I grew up with influenced me in another way, helping to instill in me a distrust of authority and resistance to excessively controlling measures. You get so used to being your own boss when there aren't other people around.

Add to that how easy it is to get into a mindset of bucking the trend when you're homeschooled, and you've got a recipe for wanting to govern yourself and speak your mind.

Robots

Easter Sunday, on my way back to the office after running my route, I caught a story on the SiriusXM BBC World Service channel. In the spotlight was the present and future of economics.

Unfortunately, I do not recall the name of the two men being interviewed, either because I wasn't paying attention, or else I tuned in part-way through the program.

In any case, what did capture my attention was talk of production and job growth coming uncoupled for the first time in our history. Usually they go together - when an economy's productivity goes up, so also does job growth. Now we see productivity rising, but we're not seeing job growth.

Why is that? Because of the effects of technology. For instance, robots being used in factories where people have traditionally performed a task.

Which has me wondering: Will I someday be replaced by a robot?

It's an intriguing thought.

Enduring Legacy

I have four sons - Josiah David, Elihu James, Solomon Emmanuel, Daniel Joseph. My wife's pregnant with our fifth child right now, due in September. We don't know yet whether we'll be having another son or our first daughter. We're very excited to find out, either way.

What sort of world will my sons become men in? They're quite young now - ages 5, 4, 3, and almost 2. But what sort of nation will this be 20 years from now? How about 30, 40, or 50 years from now?

Sometimes I wonder which choices I'm making now will influence my children for the rest of their lives, perhaps my grandchildren and great grandchildren as well. What sort of example am I setting? What am I telling them about life, about their responsibilities and what to expect, about how to make good decisions and do what's right?

Immigration Anniversary

A year ago next Saturday I was just arriving in Montana to look for work.

Much has changed.

Thursday I switched out of the truck I'd been running in as a contract pumper, which I had gotten brand new and had only put about 25,000 miles on, and I switched into another new truck as an employee of one of the world's largest energy companies.

They pay for all the fuel, insurance, and maintenance.

I have a company cell phone and laptop for business purposes, as well as a company credit card for travel and procurement expenses.

They give me great training, including computer-based courses I can take from home, not only helping me to be more productive in the present, but also preparing me for a very profitable future at their company, or anywhere else in the oil and gas industry for that matter; and they pay me for my time!

What's more, I enjoy my work! There's enough variety to avoid boredom - it isn't constant physical labor, nor constant talking, nor is it constant sitting at a desk or in a driver's seat.

I don't feel dehumanized, as if I'm just an extension of a piece of machinery, as I did at that factory I worked in for 9 months. I don't feel as though I'm being pressured to lie and defraud, as I did at another workplace of mine in Ohio.

We're on our way out of debt, with all our credit cards paid off, and also one of our auto loans. My wife is now back in Ohio for her first visit since moving out here with the boys back in June, in part to drive that car we've just paid off to my dad so I can sell it to him as part of a repayment for years of relying on his generosity to stay afloat.

 We aren't wealthy (by American standards, anyhow), but when I compare my income now to the best of jobs back in Ohio, when I worked harder than this and yet couldn't pull us above the poverty line, I'm so relieved to be earning a decent wage that allows us to buy the necessities without worry.

Now I'm saving for our first home, hopeful we'll be able to either buy one outright, or else purchase some land and have a modular brought in. My company wants me to move to Sidney to be closer to my route and the office, exciting in part because it tells me they want to rely on me more, and/or they're concerned for my safety with the amount of driving I do now.

In any case, housing is still the biggest hurdle. There's a scarcity of rental options, and what is available is very highly priced and has been spoken for by the time you call. Homes for sale are more plentiful, but we're still trying to climb out of the financial hole after years of scraping by. I'm hoping to save up for a down payment within 6-9 months time and have us moved before next February.

In conclusion, the point isn't to brag, but rather to excitedly explain what's possible. I've grown so tired and depressed of the economic and political doom and gloom I hear in the news. Sometimes I wonder if anything truly good can or does happen in this world. Surely I'm not the only one who feels that way. To some extent, I like telling my story because it reminds me of hope.

Elsewise, I like the thought that my encouraging story will give hope to someone else; if they have hope they will persevere.

Reliability and Reputation

I worry a lot - too much, in fact.

...about what people think...

...about whether I'll conquer the world some day...

...about whether I'm brilliant or original in any way...

...about how my sons will turn out...

Why do I worry? Do I think that somehow the only way to motivate myself to excel or succeed, perhaps even survive in life, is to make myself afraid?

I am imperfect. Am I trying to prove otherwise? What am I so afraid of in being imperfect, rejection?

The terrible thing is that all this insecurity might actually end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy, more thwarting than ensuring my success. If I'm always nervous and distracted by the thought of failure, I'll not have sufficient focus left for succeeding.

But then maybe I should probe deeper into how I define success. What am I striving for? What would it take for me to consider myself successful?

I don't know when it started exactly, but I have a suspicion. I started working for a prominent logistics company in Cincinnati, Ohio and was being told I too could work really hard and make a six-figure income. It wasn't long before I adopted that dream as my own, and I worry that since then I've held it up in my thoughts as a sort of idolatrous mirage. When did my life become all about making money? It can't be!

But wait. Am I saying that making money is bad? No. But putting it at the center of your self-concept is, and so is seeing your whole life revolve around the attainment of that goal.

The same goes for people-pleasing.

Why have I gotten so wrapped up in trying to impress everyone anyhow? Maybe as a means to the end of someday making a lot of money, I'm not sure. Or do I want to make a lot of money to impress people because that's really my highest goal?

I used to enjoy writing and singing and taking pictures and being funny and thinking grand philosophical, theological, political opinionated thoughts, and voicing them, and debating with people. Not so many years ago, I used to really enjoy those things. I can't seem to do any of them anymore, or even consider doing them, without first asking myself what people will think.

Do I even enjoy my children anymore? I know I do sometimes, but how often am I just simply missing out on relishing the privilege I have to be their father right now? Too often, and all because I've become preoccupied with worrying about whether people approve of the age at which I started having these sons, or whether they approve of how close in age my sons are to one another, or whether they agree that we should have this many, or whether they think my children are well-behaved.

It's insane.

"The fear of man is a snare,

But he who trusts in Yahweh is safe." 

 So what gives, Garrett? Why are you afraid of people? Why don't you trust God anymore?

I think that's what it comes down to.

Well, for one, the stakes have never been higher for me. I didn't want to fail as a father when I only had one son, but now I have four!

We recently moved over 1,400 miles for the employment and career opportunities which are uniquely available in abundance here in eastern Montana and western North Dakota, due to the Bakken oil and gas formation. Sometimes I feel like the eyes of everyone who knows me or has heard of me are on me and that my rise or fall will be subject to an audience of hundreds.

So what if it is, though? Yes, that possibility plucks my heart strings on two notes - that of people pleasing and also of wealth chasing. But maybe I don't need to care so much. Maybe I can choose to care less.

My cousin posited the statistic about funerals to me that, on average, only five people will cry at your funeral. In other words, only five people are going to care enough that you died some day to even shed a tear. So if the vast majority of people I meet are going to care that little about my life when it ends, why should I burden myself too much with what they think of me while I'm alive?

Maybe I won't end up a phenomenal success right where I'm at now. Maybe I'll never conquer the world. Maybe this is as good as it ever gets. So what? I don't think that's true, but so what if it is? I shouldn't stop enjoying the life God has given me right now and be miserable just because it's not quite what I expected.

If I'm patient and work hard and try to do a good, thorough job, remain honest and decent and faithful with what's been entrusted to me so far, I will make progress and move forward, whether slowly or quickly.

"God willing, we will live and do this or that."