Response: Harvard Initiates the Fall of American Higher Education

Ahoy mates. I've finally received some feedback on something I have written, and as promised, I will defend (or amend) my arguments in light of this response. So here goes:

Story One:
The first source of criticism over my post was as follows:

"You describe multiculturalism as being tolerant, including and granting equality to distinct cultural groups, and then state that it is"obviously wrong." Are you implying that tolerance, inclusion, and equality are wrong?"

There's a lot to chew on in those statements, so I guess I will just clarify my argument in hopes that it will answer the question. What I meant to say explicitly about Multiculturalism is that it is, above all, relativist; Multiculturalism does not believe in truth - in a right and a wrong. But it does have its dogmas, the most prominent of which is tolerance.

Now I know it's difficult to go on the record anywhere and state that I am against tolerance, because that makes me out to be a bigot (and I would like to think that I am not one), but I will say that I am against tolerance in the way that Multiculturalists have perverted the word. Webster's Dictionary defines tolerance as having "sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own." Multiculturalist tolerance goes beyond sympathy and demands acceptance. Multiculturalist thinkers would say that I would be intolerant if I was not fond of a community or culture that based itself upon prostitution, for example. They would require me to believe "Well, if prostitution works for them, then that's fine by me." But I would be demonstrating true, Websterarian tolerance by simply thinking that we should not immediately destroy the society. I am sympathetic towards the people, but I do not agree with their beliefs, just as the Christian is called to hate the sin but not the man.

Multiculturalists are quick to call Christians intolerant because they do not accept other views. But wouldn't Christianity fail as a distinct religion if its members did not all hold to the same virtues? To call Christians intolerant (by their definition of the word) is to call Christians Christian! Or to call Buddhists Buddhist! To be a person with a soul, do you not have to make decisions of right and wrong? For to me, if you are a person who believes in nothing at all, you are worse off than the man who believes in the wrong thing because you at least have made some "moral" decisions in your life.

And this is what the Multiculturalists have done by making the world a cultural smorgasbord: created people with no convictions at all. Sure, they will have opinions on education and politics and economic policy, but they are mere talking heads with no foundation greater than themselves.

As such, in response you another argument you made, we can consider the ideas of other cultures and study them as long as it is not done relativistically. There are things that are right and wrong (such as a society that bases itself on prostitution or exploitation of the poor, etc). It is also important, again, not to throw the baby out with the bathwater and simply denounce those societies because of their sins. I would argue, though, that since we live in America we ought to primarily study American history rather than concern ourselves with history of places we will most likely never have to deal with. Parenthetically, I realize that this opens me up to the counter-argument that "the world is becoming more globalized and soon American history will become the world's history, etc.". I'll save globalization for another day (or days) as it, too, is something I am completely opposed to. If you want to read a book that probably has a lot more wisdom on globalization than I do, read Joseph Pierce's Small is Still Beautiful. Also for a much more detailed argument of Multiculturalism, please read The Disuniting of America by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. as he has a jolly good argument in that book.

The critic also wrote that "The history of America is in fact found in Africa and Latin America and the East, since American citizens come from all over the world." This statement almost refutes itself. The great men of American history did not come from Africa, Latin America or the East, they were from the West (namely, Europe). To my knowledge, none of the Founding Fathers were from these regions and no President has been from those regions. Even so, today's culture is not shaped on culture from those areas.

Admittedly, I do not have a strong response to the critique that Multiculturalism and Scientism are "fruits of Western thinking." I first wanted to say that these ideas are a result of the globalizing trend that is prevalent throughout the world, but by good bud Wendell Berry himself once said, "Global thinking is not possible," so I have to abandon that argument. What I do know is that Multiculturalism and Scientism have ultimately stemmed from Romantacism and the Enlightenment, both time periods which doubted the existence of God and so sought to fill the void with science and reasoning or with human emotion and intuition, both of which, then followed unilaterally, cannot produce a healthy philosophy (or at the very least, for my sake, one that fits with a Christian worldview). But, again, I still cannot escape the fact that these are largely fruits of the West, except by making a familiar argument. The West is what has made America great. I shouldn't have to defend that, but I'll just throw out simpliest example, that of religious freedom. But the West has also produced bad ideas, namely, Multiculturalism, Scientism, Post-Modernism, etc. I cannot, then, fully endorse the West. But I can endorse that which agrees with my convictions, and that I do.

Stories Two and Three:

The critic writes:

As a counter-argument, I guess the ACLU doesn't like the bibles and the courses in the schools because it violates the separation of church and state. And even though the students can choose not to participate, because the state can't play favorites, it would have to allow every religion (even the crazy ones) to give out their writings and potentially have elective courses.

Church and state is a funny issue. Here is all the Constitution says concerning religion and the government:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

I'm sure books have been written about this very statement, but I'll try to keep it to less than a book. The law is simply that the government will not make a law establishing a religion as the official religion of the state. I realize that Court decisions have redefined this by ensuring religious topics are no longer taught in public (federal) schools and trying to extract "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.

Regardless, one of my professors at school gave me a copy of the Students' Bill of Rights. The Students' Bill of Rights outlines the religious rights guaranteed under constitutional and federal law that students and teachers have while in public schools. The list may surprise you:

1. The Right to meet with other religious students.
   The Equal Access Act allows students the freedom to meet on campus for the purpose of discussing religious issues.
2. The Right to identify your religious beliefs through signs and symbols.
   Students are free to express their beliefs through signs and symbols. (Including Christian t-shirts, etc.)
3. The Right to talk about your religious beliefs on campus.
   Freedom of speech is a fundamental right mandated in the Constitution and does not exclude the school yard.
4. The Right to distribute religious literature on campus.
   Distributing literature on campus may not be restricted simply because it is religious.
5. The Right to pray on campus.
   Students may pray alone or with others so long as it does not disrupt school activities or is not forced on others.
6. The Right to carry or study your Bible on campus.
   The Supreme Court has said that only state directed Bible reading is unconstitutional.
7. The Right to do research papers, speeches, and creative projects with religious themes.
   The First Amendment does not forbid all mention of religion in public schools.
8. The Right to be exempt.
   Students may be exempt from activities and class content that contradict their religious beliefs.
9. The Right to celebrate or study religious holidays on campus.
   Music, art, literature, and drama that have religious themes are permitted as part of the curriculum for school activities if presented in an objective manner as a traditional part of the cultural and religious heritage of the particular holiday.
10. The Right to meet with school officials.
    The First Amendment to the Constitution forbids Congress to make any law that would restrict the right of the people to petition the Government (school officials).

Some places have attempted to legislate laws that would permit teachers and students to further express their religious convictions under the banner that their statements are not the official views of the school district. Here's one example of a town in Fort Bend, Texas.

In short, the church and state debate isn't much of a debate. As long as the governing body (in this case, the school board) does not explicitly affiliate itself with a particular religion, any of the above things are permissible in schools. Both school districts, though they have histories with law suits, still stand today because they have obeyed the law. With the specific example of poor Jane Doe being forced to accept a Bible on school grounds, it is completely legal for this to happen (the only thing that could have been illegal is if she was forced to take it, but that would be awfully difficult to prove).

So when the critic writes: "[the state] would have to allow every religion (even the crazy ones) to give out their writings and potentially have elective courses," he is absolutely correct. But it will never happen because decisions of curriculum (especially curriculum of electives) is created and approved by local school boards and it would be hard to find a community school board that would allow for "crazy religions" to be taught in their schools. As such, Catholic public schools still stand and school districts with Christian-sympathies (though not officially affiliated) continue to teach our students the truths they desperately need to hear.

Thank you for the comment and allowing me to firm up my arguments.

Harvard Initiates the Fall of American Higher Education

It has been a while since I've looked at a news website, so I've decided tonight to take a gander at my personal interest: education.

Story One:

Harvard approves biggest curriculum change in 30 years

Western civilization took another hit last week when Ivy League member Harvard University, one of the leading institutions of higher learning in America, overhauled its curriculum to place a higher emphasis on discussing "societies of the world" and the sciences (and the moral implications of advances in science). This is merely a continuation of the progressive philosophy of American education that is already so prevalent in our failing public schools. Call it what you will, but the moves by Harvard University are moves toward Multiculturalism and Scientism in higher education.

Multiculturalism centers around the idea that Western Civilization has failed as a model for society and so modern societies should seek values and ideas from other cultures to fill this void left by the West. As Wikipedia puts it, "Multiculturalism is the idea that modern societies should embrace and include distinct cultural groups with equal social status." The only true difference in these definitions is my part about the failure of the West, which is an assumption of Multiculturalist thought.

The idea of considering ideas from other cultures doesn't sound too bad on the surface, but its implications on American education are huge. The trend of American education today says that we should teach our students to be, above all things, tolerant. It teaches students about other cultures under the presupposition that all cultures are equal. So the West is as good as the East, African culture is as valuable to us as Irish cultures, and the Jewish faith has accomplished exactly as much as Buddhism. The world is nothing more than a smorgasbord of equal cultures and all the modern student must do is have his fair share of each to be "educated."

This is obviously wrong. All cultures are not alike, nor are all cultures equal. The religion of China and the religion of the West are not the same nor comparable. The Irish have not accomplished as much in their history as the English or the Greeks. We live in a world of unique, individual cultures just as we live in a world of unique, individual people. If teachers are to teach children to be American citizens, they must become, above all things, experts in American history, and the history of America is not found in Africa or Latin America or the East, but in the West.

The effects of Multiculturalism already are apparent today as American students today leave schools with less knowledge of their country than ever before. However, what's most dangerous is that they leave school skeptical of their own heritage. Sure, every history has its dark moments, just as all people have fallen short of the glory of God, but that does not mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater; despite our efforts to eliminate our heritage, America is a product of the West.

I will leave Scientism for another day, but briefly, I will lay out the following argument. When we begin to emphasize the sciences in school, it tends to endorse the philosophy of materialism - that all we are is that which we can observe. While scientific observation is a way to better understand God's created order, it has its limits, especially in the realm of faith, ethics and morality. Science does not leave room for morality or religion. There is no quantitative measure for God or morality. If educators teach education outside its Christian context, science becomes an excuse to endorse a purely materialistic way of life. And I don't want to carry out this argument now, but this endorsement of materialism makes education's purpose purely utilitarian; that is, a materialist view of education makes students believe that the only purpose of education is to help them in getting more material wealth in the future instead of education being the means by which students become well-rounded people capable of being active citizens in their respective communities.

Stories Two and Three:

Louisiana school district sued over Bibles in school

Advocacy groups sue to halt Bible classes in Texas schools

There's nothing more refreshing than reading yet another story about the ACLU defending American "Freedom" from the poisons of Christianity. The American Civil Liberties Union has sued an eastern Louisiana school district for distributing Bibles on school property. As the story goes, students were instructed to pick up copies of the New Testament near the school's office. The fifth-grade student (whose parents filed the suit at the bidding of the ACLU) soon found herself in line with her class waiting to receive their Bibles from two men. Said the ACLU representative Joe Cook, "With her classmates and teachers looking on, Jane accepted the Bible out of a feeling of coercion and fear that she would be criticized, ridiculed and ostracized." This is the fifth time in thirteen years that the school district has been sued over religious issues.

In regards to this story, it's about time we get those nice gentlemen handing out Bibles out of our schools so we can concentrate our attention more fully on the secular humanist philosophies we cling to so dearly. I love this story. It's an example of a public school district (a parish school district at that) sticking it to the man by ignoring laws in order to teach the truth as they see it. And this isn't even the first time they've done it!

The only reason the ACLU cares is because the school took time that would normally be spent proclaiming its agnostic views in favor of Christianity. This is not an issue of freedom or about adherence to the constitution, it's an issue of a school not fitting into the standardized mold the government has put in place.

Did you read the quote from Mr. Cook?! Poor Jane was "coerced" into accepting a Bible from two men with her teachers and peers looking at her every move. You could make up a similar story about a Christian child in public schools being forced not only to accept but to read a Biology textbook proclaiming evolution as truth! But you will never hear of the ACLU fighting against the Scientism and Secular Humanism so prevalent in schools because its exactly what they want.

Jane may have accepted the Bible because the rest of her peers did, but no one made her read it. Not an ounce of Biblical teaching was disseminated during school hours and Jane still has her religious freedom. What this Louisiana school district does realize though, and unfortunately more school districts do not, is that it's what inside those Bibles that offer freedoms reaching above and beyond any freedoms man himself could ever legislate.

And now the third story. This one, another ACLU gem, is about two advocacy groups who have sued a Texas school district for offering a Bible course as an elective. The ACLU and the American Way Foundation (what euphemistic names!) have hailed the Bible course as "basically a Sunday School class within the walls of a public school."

This is a sticky subject. It is first necessary to recognize that the Bible class is an elective. Students attending the school are not required to take the class and can opt to have nothing to do with it. For that reason alone, this law suit will fail.

The real issue to me is if the Bible ought to be something taught in public schools or in private schools without Christian affiliations. I find it hard to make a judgment for all schools; that is, I would probably leave it in the hands of the parents, teachers, and school board members of each individual district and school to determine the best course of action.

Obviously, I would love Christian morality and Biblical teaching encouraged in a school setting. The Founding Fathers of our nation even thought that this was the best course of action in our schools. But the teaching would have to have a rherotical approach, meaning that the teacher would have to be laying out the thesis that Christianity or the Bible is indeed true. Many secular universities today offer courses on Christianity and the Bible, but the professors are adamate atheists or agnostics. They teach religion and Bible courses using a dialectic approach, laying out every religion as equal, every Biblical teaching as something Christians believe. Their approach is "here are the facts, but that's all you need to know so that you can interact with those people if the moment arises." Does this remind you of Multiculturalism? If schools are to teach the Bible, they must start with the presupposition that the Bible is true. If teachers desire to instill Christian morals in their students, they themselves must believe Christian morality is true and necessary.

Thanks for muscling through this series of essays. Please comment and raise counterarguments and I will answer on this forum.

Express mannequins are blind

If you don't know by now, I'm back in State College working at the lovely Pretzel Gourmet again this summer. For all you skeptics out there, there are good reasons for doing so, which are as follows:

1. More hours
2. More money
3. A feeling that my work-to-compensation ratio is better than at Hoss's
4. Assistant Manager (granted, only a title change...)
5. Less stressful

Now I know people who know me well will look at that list and not think that I would go back to such a place for those reasons, especially for more money, but let me rationalize a bit. It's only for times I'm off of school and there really aren't ways of acquiring teaching internships (especially since all teachers are required to be interns of a sort in order to graduate). Thus, the best thing I can do is earn as much money as I can. Now don't take this to mean that I should start acquiring money illegally, but in a way, unless your summer job is going to help you get a better job in the future (whatever a "better job" is), summer jobs are for money and keeping you from being bored. Unfortunately for me, the Pretzel Gourmet only accomplishes the former.
Bringing me to my thoughts of the day while sitting in the Pretzel Gourmet:

I love seeing the elderly. If you've been here before, you've no doubt read my mini-essay on the elderly. Well, here's another reason I love the elderly: elderly couples are adorable! I realize that it's not the most manly or culturally acceptable thing to say, but they are! Look at them next time you get the chance. I've worked at the Pretzel Gourmet for about three years and only this week have I ever really seen elderly couples as cute. But seriously, they are incredibly encouraging to me in that it shows that marriages do work; that no matter how hard society attempts to redefine the marriage and change the roles of husband and wife and destroy the family and community, love still prevails. But, of course, we knew that all along (cf. 1 Corinthians 3).

I hate Express. First of all, the place is as intimidating as Victoria's Secret, Hot Topic, the makeup counter at Bon-Ton and the DEB; I just can't do it. I get near the place and feel like I'm getting dizzy. It's too white, and big, and bright, and it has the most ridiculous music. That said, I want to discuss their mannequins. I'm not talking about what they're wearing (that's for another day). What I want to discuss is the design of their heads. Sure, who looks at the heads. Well, when you're stuck at a failing pretzel business 40-hours a week, you start to become very accustomed to your surroundings. Regardless, they're half-heads; that is, they end at the bridge of the nose and leave off the eyes and brain. I thought about why they would do that, but then I laughed at how truly simple their reasoning is. Express wants you to buy their clothes whether you like them or not, right? So they rely on advertizing to help "convince" you that their product is best. Not the best argument, but hang with me. So if the store wants you to buy their stuff and doesn't care what reasoning you go through as long as you buy stuff from them, their best tactic will be to get you to make an irrational decision. Disagree? Look at the mannequins at any store. They're all "perfect" people. And then look at how they present them under stylish lighting and hung in fancy ways next to other things that would look good with it. It's all very charming and clearly an attempt to convince you to buy something. Also, listen to the music at any big fashion place: it's loud, uptempo, and repetitive. Don't think that gets your heartrate going? Ever feel like you're always in a rush in a clothing store? At last you see where I'm going. Express doesn't want you to have eyes or a brain (figuratively, of course). They want you to make blind, irrational judgments to turn a fat profit. It's that simple. I really can't explain it any better.

That's all for now. I need to make these shorter if I want to update more regularly. Feel free to comment.

Forced Education Damages School and Students

Preventing students from dropping out of school may not be such a worthwhile goal. While the goal of keeping students in school is certainly a worthwhile aim, the method by which experts and legislators have attempted to fix the dropout situation is a flawed proposition. To combat the nation’s “Silent Epidemic,”[1] experts are trying to convince state legislators to pass laws that will raise the minimum age for mandatory schooling, forcing students to remain in school until they are 18 years old. It is a dangerous proposal, one that could undermine school and student alike.

To understand why forced schooling will not work, one must fully understand why students are leaving. According to a recent study by research firm Civic Enterprises, as many students drop out for not being challenged enough as those who quit because of lack of academic dedication.[2] In addition, researchers found that dropouts felt “too much freedom” in their school experience, a key factor according to 38% of dropouts surveyed.[3] High school students on the brink of dropping out are not always the teen moms, drug dealers, or neglected children society makes them out to be. They are sometimes the average or above-average students who have learned that school is purely about future monetary success.

Something students do believe is that more education will help them earn more money in the future. The statistics are clear: dropouts earn less than graduates.[4] Experts such as those at Civic Enterprises boast that one solution to the multi-faceted problem is to raise the minimum age for mandatory school attendance from 16 in most states to 17 or 18. Two additional years of mandatory schooling, according to experts, would allow more time for teachers to reach out to struggling students, but moreover, would help the students obtain the all-important diploma that will suit them better financially in the future.

This is a faulty conclusion. Forcing students to remain in school against their will en route to securing a diploma merely for the sake of the title cheapens school. If state legislators passed minimum age laws to ensure that every child is required to graduate, the value of a high school diploma will suffer. If schools force-feed students diplomas, they becomes valueless. School becomes a mere factory where students clock-in upon entrance, do their work, and then clock-out upon dismissal for thirteen years until they receive a piece of paper qualifying them as an “educated” person, when in reality, they have learned nothing more than to hate learning.

The way to prevent students from dropping out of school is not legislative, but philosophical. Teachers must teach students early, often, and throughout their school careers the importance of education in regards to the development of the person, which includes aspects of life that are more than economic such as character. What the student needs is a purpose for education, not laws or authorities telling him that he must become educated because that is what everybody else does. If done under the philosophy of education centered on the development of the person, it will make him a greater, more valuable member of society able to adapt and interact effectively with all aspects of life. The purpose of education is not to graduate, but to educate. Substituting false achievement in the form of spoon-fed diplomas does not develop the student in the least.

A majority of teachers in schools today teach students that education is a means of gaining material things out of life. However, if the student realizes that he can gain something greater without the assistance of school, it will become useless to him. Students must see a purpose in school.

There is yet hope for those who think of dropping out, or already have; a sense of purpose installed in the correct area in their life will infuse the student to learn. Schools and communities must reach out and help those students in need of attention. Teachers must challenge the gifted – and all others even more – so that they might see the value of education as a betterment of the person, not merely the improvement of their résumé.

Man cannot legislate achievement. Forcing kids to attend school will fix the dropout problem, but it will not ensure that students are getting a purposeful education.

---

[1] Civic Enterprises, “The Silent Epidemic”, http://www.civicenterprises.net, 26 March 2006

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

A Response

I have finally received some real criticism for my essay “The war and the War” and I desire now to respond to these arguments. Here is the response from the anonymous person:

Good points....but I have 2 remarks:

1) how do you respond to the statement, "if we try to negotiate with madmen, we will eventually have the bomb dropped on us, eventually killing us all."

2) People in America aren't necessarily against the doctrines of Christianity, but rather the institution of organized religion. In history, we have seen much corruption and evil committed by a Church-sponsored nation cloaked under the auspices of "We believe in Jesus Christ". What do you care if someone's gay? Why is it your job to control the sexual orientation of someone, even if it's completely caused through environment? The problem people have with the church is its elitist power trip that it feels the need to inform anyone outside of their own of what to do.

I’m glad the first argument raised was in the form of a question. I guess my primary concern with the question, however, is the statement itself. The statement presupposes a lot of things, and I will each of these that I noticed.

1) “if we try to negotiate…” This statement first argues that we have not tried to negotiate with madmen. It was my argument from the beginning that part of our problem is that we not only negotiated with madmen, but that we had decided to trust certain madmen with weapons and economic benefits. It would seem obvious to me that we ought to stop providing madmen with these materials and benefits, whether we “trust” them or not. As of now, no madman has proved capable of dropping “the bomb” on us, outside arguably North Korea.
2) The arguer seems to see negotiation as mere nit-picking and not an actual active process that could possibly have a positive outcome. To me, the statement seems to paraphrase as “If we complain to madmen about their madness, they will, in fact, go mad on us.” This is naturally a possibility, but it is not always the case. If you approach a sinner about his sinfulness, he could certainly repent.
3) Both of our arguments hinge on the assumption that we are in the right and the madmen are wrong. While we are far from perfect, I think we can agree that the madmen we are (or have not yet) confronting are much further than we.

In short, I am not sure how to reply to this response when I am not sure the point at which it is attempting to get. If it is trying to force me to abandon my position due to the threat of “the bomb,” it has failed. God is in control of his-story, so I do not fear anything of which He is in control.

The second argument is interesting. I would probably have to agree with most of the reader’s argument. I might even go a step further. Not only are people outside Christianity disappointed with the established church, but people inside are equally (if not more) disappointed. I will leave the discussion of the history of the church throughout history to someone who is much better prepared to offer historical examples (and I might suggest the reader to do the same). However, I will agree that the church throughout time has messed up. I’m sure if Christ were to speak to us directly today, he would express his disappointment with the church as a whole. As I see it, the church as too much interest in doctrine rather than attempting to “act justly, love mercy and walk humbly with [its] God.” (Micah 6:8)

However, to say that the church ought to keep out of the world’s business is slightly ludicrous. The reader asks, “What do you care if someone’s gay?” I care because that person has allowed his perverse desires to lead him into bondage with sin. It is not, however, my job to correct this behavior. It is not even my obligation. It is my job to love, to love my neighbor as myself; to dislike the behavior but not the man. I will say that homosexuality is wrong, but so is a man looking lustfully at a woman, or a boy coveting his friend’s new bike, or a man allowing his love of sports to control his life and in essence become his god. But my duty is to try to live as close a life to Christ as I can. To fear God and keep his commandments. To shun evil and love good.

The church at times has been overly judgmental. It has seen itself as self-righteous even, likening itself to the Pharisee praising God for not being as lowly as the tax collector. The church has a lot of work to do, I agree, but the God whom Christians profess is very real.

Thank you for responding!!

as personable as mold in an expired container of cottage cheese

Welcome everyone to Cooks Forest State Park! I am currently nestled into bed in the heart of Western PA “roughing it” with my family for the week. Now when I say “roughing it,” images of lean-to’s and cooking eggs on rocks come to my mind; but to the Constable family, “roughing it” is far from archetypal. For example, we are in a pop-up camper, complete with three beds, running water, electricity, and a refrigerator. There is a bathhouse roughly 50 yards away from our location and the nearest child molester is quite possibly merely a stone’s throw away. As part of this journey (and further subtracting from our “roughing it” score), I have brought my computer to catalogue the action daily to give my take on the trip, and quite possibly larger issues upon which I will have much time to ponder.

As you can tell, the Constable Family Vacation 2006 is not a glamorous cruise or a jaunt along a shoreline before sunset or even a thrilling mechanical ride that flings our bodies at mind-numbing speeds. We are in Cooks Forest State Park, home of trees, squirrels, rivers, sunshine and tornadoes. My mom says we’re “pathetic” for coming here. My sister is horrified to spend more than fourteen hours without seeing her beloved boyfriend. My dad is really just looking for some time off work. And I’m mixed in my motives for coming. Practically, I’m here to rest, read some books, and write. Beneath the surface, I’m hoping I’ll find tons of time to spend with God and loving family. This is as much a spiritual retreat as a physical getaway. So frankly, Cooks Forest State Park, offers very few distractions from my intended goals.

Today wasn’t too eventful. We packed up and were able to leave by 1pm and took the relatively short two-hour drive to the campground. After settling in and eating a generous portion of my mom’s famous sloppy joes, we had some family come up and visit. I was most thrilled by the little Frisbee I was able to play with my seventh-grade cousin. One of the things I miss about GCC is the ability to find someone to throw a Frisbee with you anytime and anywhere. That alone is worth the tuition. After they left, my family played some cards. My dad won, and once I started on the sorry trail towards defeat, I started to become a little sour. My competitive streak gets the best of me sometimes. It never really comes out in friendly games at school, but when I’m home, I guess I feel like I deserve to beat everyone. Unfortunately that everyone included my family today, and though it was annoying, we were able to laugh it off later.

Perhaps the best moment today was when a man in a golf cart approached our campsite with a question. Now previous to all of this, we discovered that our electricity was out. My mom brought a TV so she could watch Big Brother (admittedly, a great show, but I could live without it for a week), and she became upset during the process of locating the channel with the antenna when the TV’s power cut out. Minutes later, we discovered the problem was not our camper, but the campground. Back to the moment, we were all playing cards outside when the man in the cart asked, “Do you folks have power?” Not even waiting for the nice plump gentleman to complete his quaint sentence, everyone but myself shouted back, “NO!” in a somewhat bitter tone. The man took the hint and scootered off into the sunset while my parents shouted an apology for their obvious unintentional rudeness.

Tonight’s entry will end here since it is 1 am and my eyes are getting a bit droopy. I can’t believe I’m following a sweet essay on war with a nonsense summary of my family’s vacation. But I guess that’s the beauty of a blog: Anyone can publish anything – there doesn’t have to be a theme. So for those of you eagerly awaiting some startling new philosophy on life, look to the Bible, not me. That’s where you will find wisdom, precious precious wisdom, more valuable than the riches of the world…

Hugs and handpounds

~Break~

Vacations never last as long as expected. Five days off of work and time to spend reading the Word and spending time with family and resting seems like a really long time, especially since a single day off work in itself is incredibly relaxing. But this vacation, though half complete now, seems like it’s almost over. Well, enough trying to attract pity, on with the show.

Day two started like every other vacation day in Constable history: late. I am merely guessing, but I assume that most families on vacation are out and about by 10 am. Psht, if you came to our camper at 10 am with all the intentions off immediately rushing off into town we would wearily ask you who in our family has been rushed to the hospital or if the campground has suddenly has caught fire. We greet the morning sun at 10:30 am and are usually not ready to do anything of real structure until noon. A despicable time, I realize, but a reality.

So yesterday we woke up at our usual late time, had our usual breakfast, and decided to go for a nice scenic horseback ride through the forest. Alright, easy enough. Well what we projected to be a one-and-a-half-hour jaunt turned into an outrageous three-hour adventure. Most of our extended family lives in the region we are staying in this week, so we thought it hospitable to invite my grandfather out to spend a day with us. Unfortunately, we had not made plans as to when he would visit us and told him that we would call him with the arrangements. Cooks Forest State Park is a cellular black hole. We tried as hard as we could to get a signal as we drove down the road towards the horse stable to call my grandfather, but not one of our four cell phones picked up enough signal to dial. What was most frustrating was my mom giving us an update every time the amount of bars she possessed changed. Here I transcribe a snippet of conversation during this too real car ride:

Dad: Alright, anyone have anything yet?
Breanna: Nope, no service.
Mom: I got one bar!
Tyler: Nah, I keep going in and out of serv…
Mom: Oh, no service…wait, two bars!
Dad: Should we stop?
Mom: Wait, no service again…
Tyler: Maybe we should just wait until we get to Brookville to call (it’s only eight miles away)
Breanna: How come we don’t turn around where we had two bars?
Tyler: It doesn’t work like that around here. Signal changes like the wind.
Mom: Yeah, one bar.
Dad: There’s the horse place there
Breanna: Why didn’t we stop?!
Mom: We have to call grandpa!
Dad: Brookville is right next to I-80, we’ll have signal there...
Mom: Ooo! Three bars!
Dad: You want to…
Mom: Oh wait, no service
Breanna: Go back to the place we had signal!
Tyler: Mom, why don’t you call as soon as you see you have signal?
Dad: We’ll be in Brookeville soon…
Breanna: Just go back! It’ll rain before we get to ride horses!
Tyler: Why don’t you…
Dad: I’M NOT TURNING BACK!
Tyler: I’m not talking to you! MOM, call when you get any signal!
Breanna: Why don’t we turn back!
Dad: Here…we’re in Brookville
(Everyone exits and makes phone calls, then gets back into car)
Dad: Who’s up for ice cream?
Tyler and Breanna: ME!

The horseback ride itself was interesting. The man running the stable made about nine too many sexually-charged statements and seemed to have a hobby in collecting jokes directed against women. For example, what’s the difference between a woman and a Pit-bull? A Pit-bull doesn’t wear lipstick. Yeah. So anyway, our guide was about as personable as mold in an expired container of cottage cheese, which made the trip slightly less exciting. My horse’s saddle had the name Onyx upon it (coincidentally the 66-point Scrabble word that clinched my victory over Erica last week), but was later told that his name was Junkyard, and I couldn’t have had a better horse. My thesis on horses is as follows: They are tremendously majestic creatures that are incredibly beautiful and strong (and probably trustworthy); however, they remain animals, and by that I mean that they are not humans and not as predictable. I realize that a well-trained horse will act however the trainer wants it to 99.9% of the time, but every time I mount one of these amazing animals, I can’t help but notice how inferior physically I am to it. That man has been able to subdue the horse is enough of a miracle in my book. In short, I mean to say that I find horses terrifying because of their brute strength, but so amazingly crafted by God that I cannot help but be attracted to them. Anyone who makes a living off caring for these magnificent beasts has my utmost respect. The trip in itself was pretty cool. My horse kept running into the horse in front of me (probably my fault, but can’t they see!?). It was also the only horse not to shamelessly relieve itself or attempt to snatch a snack off the nearest tree. When I nudged him right, he went right, and when I pulled back, he stopped. Junkyard was a gem, and I thanked him kindly afterwards for the scenic adventure (and for not pulverizing me).

Day Three was slightly more and slightly less eventful. First the slightly more… We planned on taking a canoe trip down the Clarion River on Tuesday. I use the word “planned” loosely, for we merely penciled it into our schedule of things to do that day. Planning would have meant research. But we did things our way, and that meant waking up at our usual time and eating our usual breakfast and meandering about getting ready to depart before eventually making it The Pale Whale Canoe Fleet at 1 pm. My dad exited the car to get some preliminary details and returned quite enraged. The only trips offered after noon were four miles long, only a 90 minute journey. Needless to say, our plan for the entire day was destroyed. We were pretty disappointed (some of us more than others), but immediately tried to do something else on what turned out to be the most pleasant day of the week (in regards to the weather). So instead of asking our grandfather to come out Wednesday as “planned,” we called him to request that he come out that evening. He couldn’t, so we spent the day lounging around camp relaxing. I didn’t complain; in fact, going into the vacation, I figured that we would have free time most of the time, so I was able do some reading. We went out to eat that night, and I got sick from the meal, and I won the nightly card game (Texas Hold’em), and all in all, it was a great day.

Day Four started out much differently. We were determined not to sleep away our final opportunity to go on a decently-sized canoe trip, so we woke up at the unheard of time of 7:30 am and ate a quick breakfast. We were at the Pale Whale by 8:45; it opened at 9:00. After some awkward small-talk with an unfortunate nearby staffer, we gathered our rented paddles and PFDs and piled into the van and trucked up the river. Our driver tried his best to chat with us, but eventually we ran out of questions to ask complete strangers that you have no intention of seeing again. I do, however, remember that he attends PSU-Behrend, a member of the PAC, Grove City’s athletic conference. Why Behrend does not call itself PSU-Erie is beyond me. Before the name change, Erie was probably the best branch campus option; after the change, I’d have to lean towards Altoona or DuBois, just because they’re fun to say.
Anyway, the canoe trip was great. My mom and I manned the first canoe while my dad, lovingly nicknamed the Pale Whale due to his choice to be shirtless and shamelessly pale, and my sister paddled along in the other canoe. The Clarion River has an average depth of three feet, which is actually the deepest it has been in a while. If there were a canoe trip designed for people afraid of water, this was it because one could see the bottom of the river wherever one traveled. Things were frustrating at the start since few of us ever had paddling experience (especially with my canoe since my mom and I seemed to always be undoing what the other would do), but once we got a few miles in the trip, we were able to relax more and take in the scenery. We finished the trip faster than the average time, which surprised us, and left the Pale Whale (the canoe fleet, that is) feeling much better than we had Tuesday.

My grandfather came up that night, which was good. We spent the last part of the night relaxing and reminiscing before we had a huge chicken fajita feast that night. I forgot to mention before that we had brought along a TV. My relationship with the television has deteriorated since going to college. I have done some reading, and some thinking, and some more reading, and while I do not feel like outlining an entire position against the overindulgence in TV, I mean to say that TV is definitely something I can live without. My mom, on the other hand, loves the TV. I can’t blame her, nor do I judge her, for I, too, waste my time on various other things. So we brought the TV with the slim hope that we could pick up the signal to watch our favorite primetime shows. It just so happens that our campsite had full cable hookup capabilities! While I may have went a little overboard with my comments on how watching TV wasn’t really camping, I eventually gave in and watched Big Brother (such a good (yet trashy) show). That night, we also played 500 Rummy. I’ve played a few games of Rummy in my day, but this was not only the greatest game I’ve ever played, but quite possibly the greatest game in the history of the game. Every player led at one point and everyone had had their highs and lows (except me. I was slow and steady picking up about 50 points a hand and being the one who goes out before everyone else). Nevertheless, we came to the final hand with everyone within striking distance of the necessary 500 point goal. In the final hand, every single card, every single one of the possible 500 points, was played. The result was that every player scored over 500 points, my sister hitting 500 exactly, and my dad scoring 545 points. It was amazing. I’m sure you’re sharing in the excitement.

As I write, I am home participating in a free online poker tournament. There were 16500 entrants and I am now one of 9035 remaining in the tournament. That may explain why my style has been shoddy throughout the latter part of this entry. I hope to write a wittier, lengthier entry soon. I pray that you all are making the most of every day. We ought to be using every precious God-given breath for His glory.

The war and the War

Hello hello! Last night was the 230th birthday of our great nation! Though we have many problems and are a nation divided, I am still reminded of what it means to live in the freest country in the world. Those who say we are not free are foolish. We have freedoms people all over the world would die to obtain. As a Christian-American, I do not have to fear persecution unto death on a regular basis.

The war and the War

Version 2.0

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails."

~1 Corinthians 3:4-8

Imagine 55,000 people killed every year for something in which they believe. We can hardly fathom this being possible in America due to our numerous freedoms, but it’s happening to one group of people you may not expect: Christians.

According to a recent study, 55,000 Christians are persecuted on average annually. It is an impressive figure and one I decided to compare to the death toll in the current Iraq war. Since the war started on March 20, 2003, a total of 2539 American soldiers have died. But I must take it further, for American lives are no more precious than Iraqi lives; to exclude all others killed by the war would be an injustice. According to Iraqi Body Count, around 40,000 civilians have died. Though sources vary (greatly) on the following figure, approximately 10,000 additional Iraqi insurgent troops and police/guards have died in the conflict. In short, in the nearly 40-month war in Iraq, around 53,000 people have lost their lives in the name of war, 75% of whom never picked up a weapon.

Every year, more Christians are killed than the amount killed in the present 40-month Iraq war. Taking the per-month average and multiplying it by 40 months, 183,333 have died in that span, nearly three-and-a-half times that of the Iraq war. 183,333 Christians killed for proclaiming Christ as their Savior, for adhering to the Great Commandment, for praying for those less fortunate than they, for building churches, for feeding the poor, for clothing the naked, for nurturing the sick, for visiting those imprisoned, for giving drink to the thirsty, for essentially adopting children and caring for their every need, for knowing the Almighty God.

There are clearly two kinds of war that we wage today. The first war, the war against Iraq and “terrorism” (as if one can destroy an idea with bombs), is a war that must cease. I have heard enough of the showy politicking: a war for “liberation”, “freedom”, “security”. I am probably not a good Grove City Republican (though I have no political affiliation) in writing this, but this is what I know: that war, an expression of hatred, can never and will never be more effective than peace, an expression of love. And what is “effective”? It is simple; our goal is peace, and the only way to achieve peace is to practice peace. War cannot breed peace, as hatred can never breed love. Only love will do. Jesus said, “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you.” (cf. Luke 6:27) These words are not accepted today as applicable, but they must be.

The war apologist is shouting, “What of the attacks? What of the terrorists? Do you not remember the Towers and the anguish of that day? They capture our soldiers and kill them without remorse! They want to kill us all and then hang our bodies naked in the streets! Do you seriously suggest that we lay back and let them build armies and bombs to destroy us all?!” They are all valid questions and what they assume is probably correct. They want us dead and will do whatever they have to do to wreck havoc on us all. “Why?” seems like a logical question to ask. I don’t have an answer, or even any concrete guesses, but it seems like a great question to propose. Also, the use of revenge as a reason for war (and ultimately, to end all wars, as it has been said) will never result in peace. Wendell Berry writes, “The logic of retribution implies no end and no hope. If I kill my enemy, and my brother kills his brother, and so on and on, we may all have strong motives and even good reasons; the world may be better off without all of us…The essential point is an ancient one: that to be peaceable is, by definition, to be peaceable in time of conflict…It is not passive. It is the ability to act to resolve conflict without violence...In the face of conflict, the peaceable person may find several solutions, the violent person only one.” (Wendell Berry, Peaceableness Toward Enemies in Sex, Economy, Freedom & Community, 86-87) Dead-on words. I enjoy reading the essays of Berry, but in writing this essay, I could not help but be reminded of this passage. Killing only leads to more killing; and no matter how “prominent” or “dangerous” a madman is, there are always more madmen in the making. As I understand it, there are plenty more madmen scheming about how best to destroy the world; we seem only to be unconcerned with the madmen we can trust (probably through some economic exchange, but I merely hypothesize).

But Berry’s greatest contribution is that peaceableness is not passive and it is not intermittent; it is active (even assertive) and constant. It is something that must be true during war and peace. And it is more than a process; it is an attitude, a conviction even. It is being patient, kind, content, humble, gentle, charitable, quick to be merciful, slow to anger, protective, trusting, hopeful and perseverant. (cf. 1 Cor. 3:5-8)

We have not been a peaceable country in the past, but we can start. If there were any country that would have the greatest impact in taking the first steps to peace, it would be the United States. We have the most weapons and enough nuclear bombs to kill millions in a second. We also possess the greatest economic influence and can stop supplying our trusted madmen with weapons to later turn against us (or others). If we truly are the greatest, freest nation in the world, we must take the greatest, freest step imaginable in working towards peace. I do not endorse disarmament or the destruction of nuclear warheads or the dissolution of the military. I merely endorse a philosophy that has been and will always be: Love.

As for the current war in Iraq, I can only mirror the statement made by Jeannette Rankin, the first woman ever elected to Congress and the only person to vote against World War I, World War II, and the Vietnam War, concerning her plan for Vietnam: “boats…lots of boats.” Bring our soldiers home. A man with a gun to his head will obey orders to be peaceable, but only when the gun is removed can the foundations for true peace begin to be laid. Stop the death. Stop killing the innocent. Stop killing the children. Come home.

The second is the true War, and the one we have been fighting from the beginning of time. It is the War spoken of in Genesis 3:15:

“And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and
hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”

The words are from God to the serpent that tempted Eve into sinning in the Garden. The verse here sets the stage for the rest of history; it designates two seeds or lineages, the seed of the snake and the seed of the woman. God says that the two seeds will hate each other, but ultimately, the seed of the woman will prevail (Christ’s victory over sin and death on the Cross, as well as Christ’s return to destroy Satan once and for all). It is God’s first action on the path to Christ, since man has now fallen and is in need of a Savior. It is also God’s first statement of setting aside his people. Throughout the Old Testament, both the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent clash (i.e. Abel/Cain, Jacob/Esau, Israelites/Pharaoh, etc). Satan’s rule over death and sin ultimately ended on the Cross on which Jesus Christ died. The clash was not complete, however, because man still sinned and the world in which he lived was sinful. The battle, or War as I will call it, continued through the New Testament and continues today.

Want proof? 55,000 Christians die every year for recognizing themselves as part of the seed of the woman, one of the Children of God. Christians, when not persecuted, are laughed at for believing in something the world cannot see and scorned upon for trying to spread the so-called love of Christ. In America, Christianity, the bedrock of this country when it was founded 230 years ago, has been expelled from schools, removed from nearly all political decisions, and trampled upon by our perverse sins, i.e. homosexuality. Christianity, according to today’s culture, is anti-intellectual, unnatural, superstitious and hypocritical. It seems like as time marches on and the War becomes more intense that Christianity is losing the battle.

But it is not, and it will not. Statistically, Christianity is experiencing phenomenal growth outside the Western World. The number of Christians in Latin America has doubled since 1970, with the amount in Asia and Africa tripling in size during that same period. Annually, Christianity grows 1.25%, despite the 55,000 Christians persecuted and petty attempts by the seed of the serpent to win the War in this world.

The final victory belongs to Christ and the seed of the woman. God has never backed out on a promise before, and being an unchanging, everlasting God, he cannot. Each one of those 55,000 Christians live by the words of Mark 1:15: “’The time has come,’ [Jesus] said. ‘The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!’” They know the words of Paul: “For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” (Phil. 1:21) They have fought the peaceable War: they have loved their enemies, blessed they that curse them, done good things for those that hate them, and prayed for they which despitefully use and persecute them (cf. Luke 6:27). The War they fought was one they were guaranteed to win. Though they, like a person in war, have died being peaceable, they know that “when a peaceable person is killed, peaceableness survives.” (Berry, 88) They have found the greatest weapon of all, and it is astoundingly not made of radioactive explosives or toxic poisons. They have discovered love, love received from the Father, and go out to all the corners of the earth boldly proclaiming God’s perfect Message in full knowledge that “love never fails.” (1 Cor. 13:8)

~fin~

That took a really long time to write, but probably the essay about which I am most passionate. let me know what you think! Pray for those facing persecution. Pray for this war. Pray for the persecutors, and our enemies, and your enemies. The time is near, there's no time for hatred.