Keith Lewis is the co-executive state pageant director for the Miss California competition. He is also gay and while his remarks towards Miss California Carrie Prejean -- the one who had the audacity to say she thought marriage should be defined as being between a man and a woman -- were much more diplomatic than some, he also offers up the thoroughly modern opinion of what the Bible is and what it represents. Sadly, Mr. Lewis is in good company and that's why folks like Ms. Prejean face such stinging rebuke when they use the Good Book to support their positions.
As quoted on FoxNews.com, Mr. Lewis, who was raised Christian, says, "(T)he Bible I have now come to know is an amazing historical document that was written in a time by people who had a different understanding of what our world was. We live in a world that’s very different at this point, our understanding is very different."
Ah, there it is. The left-handed compliment. The Bible, an amazing historical document, but definitely not the Word of God, a living book of rules to safely guide those who will follow it.
Nope, it's just a bunch of dusty old stories told by crusty old men who obviously didn't have enough to do what with scratching out their livelihoods at a time when pretty much everyone had nothing. Give it no credit for changing lives, healing bodies, or otherwise forming the very foundations of civilized nations. Its contents have inspired no one to greater good, made no martyrs -- Harriett Tubman, Corrie Ten Boom, Abraham Lincoln, Florence Nightingale, Albert Schweitzer notwithstanding.
At least this is what athiests and all who are repulsed by its contents would have us believe.
I agree with Mr. Lewis that we do now live in a world that's very different from the one nearly 2000 years ago. It's different alright, but it's not necessarily better.
Wordly discourse on everything from the sad state of public education, politics and world peace to vegetarianism, breast vs. bottle, religious persecution, bad media, and all manner of life's vagaries.
April 29, 2009
April 21, 2009
The beauty queen and the Book of Hebrews
By now, you've likely heard about the obnoxious and politically-charged remarks of gossip columnist Perez Hilton directed at Carrie Prejean, the 21-year-old woman who represented California in Sunday's Miss USA beauty competition.
Hilton was one of the contest's judges and Prejean, favored to win the competition, drew his question and ultimately his wrath.
When asked what she thought about legalizing gay marriage, Prejean said she thought marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman.
That answer cost her the crown.
As if losing the title wasn't bad enough, Hilton saw fit to castigate Prejean on his 'blog, calling her all manner of foul and obscene names.
Hilton is a vile little man whose only claim to fame is gossiping about Hollywood's rich and famous. Prejean is just 21 -- someone's beautiful, smart, and obviously courageous daughter whose decision to honestly answer a question seemed to result in a big loss.
But maybe not.
Prejean, a Christian, says she just couldn't bring herself to compromise her beliefs. Coincidentally, the May 4 issue of a magazine called the Christian Science Sentinel features an article by Principia College Professor of Religious Studies Michael Hamilton in which he explores the topic of how the New Testament holds the keys to a more God-based life. Hamilton writes, "Hebrews appears to be addressed to a people who believe that they have lost everything: their status, their respectability, and their place in the community. Their loyalty to Jesus has apparently cost them their membership in the Jewish synagogues; they are being shunned by the religious authorities and their countrymen. Under the stress of such circumstances, why live a Christ-based life? Is it too hard, or worth the effort?"
Hamilton then quotes Hebrews 3:14. "We are made partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end."
I don't know Carrie Prejean, but I like her a lot and if she was my daughter I'd be bursting with pride right about now. It's not because she managed to piss off the Politically Correct that prey upon us at every twist and turn or because she tweaked the twerpy Perez Hilton. No, I like her because she spoke the truth as she knows it to be and did so unequivocally and unashamed. And in the days after the pageant, she refuses to waffle or retract.
With character like that, she did well to lose out on the beauty competition. She's obviously destined for greater things.
Congratulations, Carrie. You've just restored my faith in the next generation.
And btw, Hilton's trashy insult in which he called Prejean a "dumb b**ch," just proves how dumb HE is. Prejean is studying for her bachelor's degree with plans to earn a master's in special education. She has also been involved in several faith-based outreach programs including one to help young women victimized by the pornography industry, another to help mentor children in foster care and yet another to teach English to refugees.
Tell me again what Perez Hilton has contributed to the culture?
Hilton was one of the contest's judges and Prejean, favored to win the competition, drew his question and ultimately his wrath.
When asked what she thought about legalizing gay marriage, Prejean said she thought marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman.
That answer cost her the crown.
As if losing the title wasn't bad enough, Hilton saw fit to castigate Prejean on his 'blog, calling her all manner of foul and obscene names.
Hilton is a vile little man whose only claim to fame is gossiping about Hollywood's rich and famous. Prejean is just 21 -- someone's beautiful, smart, and obviously courageous daughter whose decision to honestly answer a question seemed to result in a big loss.
But maybe not.
Prejean, a Christian, says she just couldn't bring herself to compromise her beliefs. Coincidentally, the May 4 issue of a magazine called the Christian Science Sentinel features an article by Principia College Professor of Religious Studies Michael Hamilton in which he explores the topic of how the New Testament holds the keys to a more God-based life. Hamilton writes, "Hebrews appears to be addressed to a people who believe that they have lost everything: their status, their respectability, and their place in the community. Their loyalty to Jesus has apparently cost them their membership in the Jewish synagogues; they are being shunned by the religious authorities and their countrymen. Under the stress of such circumstances, why live a Christ-based life? Is it too hard, or worth the effort?"
Hamilton then quotes Hebrews 3:14. "We are made partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end."
I don't know Carrie Prejean, but I like her a lot and if she was my daughter I'd be bursting with pride right about now. It's not because she managed to piss off the Politically Correct that prey upon us at every twist and turn or because she tweaked the twerpy Perez Hilton. No, I like her because she spoke the truth as she knows it to be and did so unequivocally and unashamed. And in the days after the pageant, she refuses to waffle or retract.
With character like that, she did well to lose out on the beauty competition. She's obviously destined for greater things.
Congratulations, Carrie. You've just restored my faith in the next generation.
And btw, Hilton's trashy insult in which he called Prejean a "dumb b**ch," just proves how dumb HE is. Prejean is studying for her bachelor's degree with plans to earn a master's in special education. She has also been involved in several faith-based outreach programs including one to help young women victimized by the pornography industry, another to help mentor children in foster care and yet another to teach English to refugees.
Tell me again what Perez Hilton has contributed to the culture?
April 20, 2009
Columbine
Every once in awhile someone asks me why our family decided to homeschool our children. I always wish I had a lofty, highbrow answer to give -- something along the lines of, "Oh, my husband and I both speak eight languages, do complex mathematical equations over brunch, and read in Latin and Greek for entertainment so we want to make sure our children visit Cambridge at least twice a year and have an audience with winners of the Nobel Prize in science."
But I can't lie. The truth is that we plunged headlong into homeschooling while our first child was still in utero because of Columbine.
I didn't know it at the time, but the life I was living and thought I'd continue to live was radically changing as the events of the morning of April 20, 1999 unfolded.
That day, the day two highschoolers shot up Columbine High School in Littleton, CO and killed 12 of their classmates, a coach, and finally themselves sent shockwaves across the nation.
One of those waves hit me right in the stomach, figuratively speaking, where my firstborn child floated in the dark safety of my womb.
I was only four months pregnant and this baby meant more to me than, well, life itself. I'd been coming to grips with the fact that babies take your energy and turn it back on you, that they come into the world the center of your universe and duly self-centered.
But I didn't plan for a tragedy to take the model of maternal self sacrifice to a whole other level.
When I got home from work and flipped on the TV only to see the endless loop of footage from Colorado, I snapped.
All I could think about was how the parents of Cassie Bernall, Rachel Scott, Corey DePooter, Isaiah Shoels, Daniel Mauser, Daniel Rohrbough, Kyle Velasquez, Steven Curnow, Matthew Kechter, Lauren Townsend, John Tomlin and Kelly Fleming sent them off to school that morning, fully expecting them to return home alive and well that afternoon.
Their precious and beloved sons, their beautiful and talented daughters -- all gone.
A lot of folks mourned the loss of those young lives. I found myself mourning for their parents. So many dreams and expectations . . .
Sheer panic swept over me and I began to cry, wondering how on earth I'd ever be able to let my child go off to school on that fateful, inevitable First Day.
What if she didn't come home? What if, what if, what if?
When my husband got home from work that night, I told him I wasn't letting our daughter go off to school. "Never?" he asked, a bit perplexed but also wary of a pregnant woman with a vow and a mission. "Never," I affirmed. "At least not for many, many years and even then we'll have to weigh it carefully."
And thus it was that we decided to homeschool. In the beginning, we did it out of paranoia, fear and the near-obsessive love most parents feel at the sight of their newborn child.
Over time, we began to see other virtues to our new way of thinking and living with our daughter as we added more children and delved into the astonishing array of learning opportunities unconfined and undefined by traditional classroom walls.
I don't know whether we'd have opted to homeschool if there had been no Columbine. I wish I did. I wish I could say unequivocally that we were dedicated to the ultimate sacrificial style of parenting from the day I found out I was pregnant, but I'd be lying.
Teaching your own children is not easy, it's not even always fun. It doesn't come with an ironclad guarantee that your kids won't grow up to do stupid or bad things and it does usually force radical restructuring of every single priority. It leaves scant room for self indulgence. It compels a family togetherness practically unheard of in an age in which children and parents are regularly disconnected from each other by space, time, and multiple love affairs with televisions, video games, cell phones and computers.
Columbine propelled me into the best life I never dreamed I'd have even as it shattered the lives of so many others, and it taught me from the very beginning of my parenting experience that every day with our children is a gift of monumental importance.
In memory.
But I can't lie. The truth is that we plunged headlong into homeschooling while our first child was still in utero because of Columbine.
I didn't know it at the time, but the life I was living and thought I'd continue to live was radically changing as the events of the morning of April 20, 1999 unfolded.
That day, the day two highschoolers shot up Columbine High School in Littleton, CO and killed 12 of their classmates, a coach, and finally themselves sent shockwaves across the nation.
One of those waves hit me right in the stomach, figuratively speaking, where my firstborn child floated in the dark safety of my womb.
I was only four months pregnant and this baby meant more to me than, well, life itself. I'd been coming to grips with the fact that babies take your energy and turn it back on you, that they come into the world the center of your universe and duly self-centered.
But I didn't plan for a tragedy to take the model of maternal self sacrifice to a whole other level.
When I got home from work and flipped on the TV only to see the endless loop of footage from Colorado, I snapped.
All I could think about was how the parents of Cassie Bernall, Rachel Scott, Corey DePooter, Isaiah Shoels, Daniel Mauser, Daniel Rohrbough, Kyle Velasquez, Steven Curnow, Matthew Kechter, Lauren Townsend, John Tomlin and Kelly Fleming sent them off to school that morning, fully expecting them to return home alive and well that afternoon.
Their precious and beloved sons, their beautiful and talented daughters -- all gone.
A lot of folks mourned the loss of those young lives. I found myself mourning for their parents. So many dreams and expectations . . .
Sheer panic swept over me and I began to cry, wondering how on earth I'd ever be able to let my child go off to school on that fateful, inevitable First Day.
What if she didn't come home? What if, what if, what if?
When my husband got home from work that night, I told him I wasn't letting our daughter go off to school. "Never?" he asked, a bit perplexed but also wary of a pregnant woman with a vow and a mission. "Never," I affirmed. "At least not for many, many years and even then we'll have to weigh it carefully."
And thus it was that we decided to homeschool. In the beginning, we did it out of paranoia, fear and the near-obsessive love most parents feel at the sight of their newborn child.
Over time, we began to see other virtues to our new way of thinking and living with our daughter as we added more children and delved into the astonishing array of learning opportunities unconfined and undefined by traditional classroom walls.
I don't know whether we'd have opted to homeschool if there had been no Columbine. I wish I did. I wish I could say unequivocally that we were dedicated to the ultimate sacrificial style of parenting from the day I found out I was pregnant, but I'd be lying.
Teaching your own children is not easy, it's not even always fun. It doesn't come with an ironclad guarantee that your kids won't grow up to do stupid or bad things and it does usually force radical restructuring of every single priority. It leaves scant room for self indulgence. It compels a family togetherness practically unheard of in an age in which children and parents are regularly disconnected from each other by space, time, and multiple love affairs with televisions, video games, cell phones and computers.
Columbine propelled me into the best life I never dreamed I'd have even as it shattered the lives of so many others, and it taught me from the very beginning of my parenting experience that every day with our children is a gift of monumental importance.
In memory.
April 16, 2009
We needed Susan Boyle
Thanks, Scotland, for sharing your hidden treasure with us. I'm referring to Susan Boyle, the 47-year-old woman who went onstage recently before American Idol's curmudgeonly Simon Cowell and his co-judges for the British version of the show.
Boyle is unemployed, has never been married, and lived with her mother for many years taking care of her until her recent death. Boyle is not a physically beautiful woman.
I can say that last line without a hint of shame because she and I have much in common. At 43, I'm not thin, my hair is not styled, my clothes are not fashionable, and I could give a professional makeover crew a run for their money.
Now, though, thanks to Boyle I'm not even gonna bother.
So what is Susan Boyle's sudden and breathtaking claim to fame?
She sings like an angel.
Cowell and his skeptical audience were fighting off a bad case of the snickers and smug head waggings when Boyle came out on stage to perform. She was tongue-tied, unsteady in her dowdy heels, and not at all the poster child for poised, fabulous talent.
Then she opened her mouth.
Out came the incredibly beautiful but difficult song, "I Dreamed A Dream" from the musical Les Miserables and the judges and audience went wild.
Oh, and a lot of them cried.
Judging from reader comments on British newspaper sites, the makers of Kleenex should have seen a spike in their stock prices following Boyle's performance because crying is listed as the first and most popular reaction to watching her video.
I myself contributed to that spike. I've watched Boyle's online video about five times now and just can't fight back the tears. I'm not sure why. Maybe it's the song with its lyrics of a life wasted and vanished dreams. Maybe it's the surprise of seeing Boyle, so plain, so regular looking cut loose with a voice as good as any pro. Or maybe it's watching the very obvious transformation of a skeptical, haughty audience and the show's judges as they struggle to reconcile their ears with their eyes.
Susan Boyle has done more for middle-aged women in under three minutes than all the self-help books, well-meaning counselors, beauty consultants and Photo Shop airbrush artists ever could.
She's reaffirmed the worth of the individual from the inside out.
I wish she didn't live so far away. I really want to hug her.
Boyle is unemployed, has never been married, and lived with her mother for many years taking care of her until her recent death. Boyle is not a physically beautiful woman.
I can say that last line without a hint of shame because she and I have much in common. At 43, I'm not thin, my hair is not styled, my clothes are not fashionable, and I could give a professional makeover crew a run for their money.
Now, though, thanks to Boyle I'm not even gonna bother.
So what is Susan Boyle's sudden and breathtaking claim to fame?
She sings like an angel.
Cowell and his skeptical audience were fighting off a bad case of the snickers and smug head waggings when Boyle came out on stage to perform. She was tongue-tied, unsteady in her dowdy heels, and not at all the poster child for poised, fabulous talent.
Then she opened her mouth.
Out came the incredibly beautiful but difficult song, "I Dreamed A Dream" from the musical Les Miserables and the judges and audience went wild.
Oh, and a lot of them cried.
Judging from reader comments on British newspaper sites, the makers of Kleenex should have seen a spike in their stock prices following Boyle's performance because crying is listed as the first and most popular reaction to watching her video.
I myself contributed to that spike. I've watched Boyle's online video about five times now and just can't fight back the tears. I'm not sure why. Maybe it's the song with its lyrics of a life wasted and vanished dreams. Maybe it's the surprise of seeing Boyle, so plain, so regular looking cut loose with a voice as good as any pro. Or maybe it's watching the very obvious transformation of a skeptical, haughty audience and the show's judges as they struggle to reconcile their ears with their eyes.
Susan Boyle has done more for middle-aged women in under three minutes than all the self-help books, well-meaning counselors, beauty consultants and Photo Shop airbrush artists ever could.
She's reaffirmed the worth of the individual from the inside out.
I wish she didn't live so far away. I really want to hug her.
April 12, 2009
You might be a right-wing extremist if . . .
The U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security (is it just me or does even the name of this entity inspire disbelief) has released a report detailing characteristics of the population that will be assessed in the months and years to come as part of its effort to weed out right-wing extremists.
After reading the list, I'm beginning to think that not only do I meet many of the the criteria but so does just about everyone else I know.
At this rate, the department's job is exponentially bigger than I think it realizes.
You might be a right-wing extremist if:
You don't agree with the current president's policies (I don't)
You didn't vote for the current president (I didn't)
You believe America should be a sovereign nation and are concerned that it might not stay this way (I do and I am)
You are a professed (as opposed to underground) Christian (I am)
You don't like to pay income tax (I don't)
You're a U.S. soldier returning from duty overseas
You reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority (I think the feds mangle too many things)
You are opposed to ILLEGAL immigration (I am)
You are opposed to abortion (I am, with some caveats)
You are not in favor of increased restrictions on firearms (It depends)
You have more than a passing interest in so-called "end times prophesies" (Nope)
You have a bumper sticker on your vehicle touting Ron Paul, Bob Barr or other alternative presidential candidate (Nope)
You are a racist (No, but I know a couple of these and while their vitriol is offensive, I have to stand by their constitutional right to be morons)
My personal total is 9 out of a possible 13. I'm sure they omitted homeschooling by accident, otherwise I'd have 10 out of 14.
The report states the DHS will be working with state and local agencies over the next several months to determine the levels of right-wing extremist activity in the U.S.
Big Brother just keeps getting bigger.
If my 'blog disappears, you'll know why.
After reading the list, I'm beginning to think that not only do I meet many of the the criteria but so does just about everyone else I know.
At this rate, the department's job is exponentially bigger than I think it realizes.
You might be a right-wing extremist if:
You don't agree with the current president's policies (I don't)
You didn't vote for the current president (I didn't)
You believe America should be a sovereign nation and are concerned that it might not stay this way (I do and I am)
You are a professed (as opposed to underground) Christian (I am)
You don't like to pay income tax (I don't)
You're a U.S. soldier returning from duty overseas
You reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority (I think the feds mangle too many things)
You are opposed to ILLEGAL immigration (I am)
You are opposed to abortion (I am, with some caveats)
You are not in favor of increased restrictions on firearms (It depends)
You have more than a passing interest in so-called "end times prophesies" (Nope)
You have a bumper sticker on your vehicle touting Ron Paul, Bob Barr or other alternative presidential candidate (Nope)
You are a racist (No, but I know a couple of these and while their vitriol is offensive, I have to stand by their constitutional right to be morons)
My personal total is 9 out of a possible 13. I'm sure they omitted homeschooling by accident, otherwise I'd have 10 out of 14.
The report states the DHS will be working with state and local agencies over the next several months to determine the levels of right-wing extremist activity in the U.S.
Big Brother just keeps getting bigger.
If my 'blog disappears, you'll know why.
April 4, 2009
Wow, I must be REALLY good or else. . .
the standards of some public school teachers are really low.
I've recently been involved in an email discussion with a local school teacher about the controversial decision by our school district to put ads on the sides of its school buses beginning this fall. The goal is to raise money that the superintendent says the state cannot or will not pony up. I wrote to him and to an online community group expressing my dismay at such an uncreative and commercialized effort to raise cash. The aforementioned teacher saw my post to the community group and wrote to tell me she thinks the ads are a great idea and that, contrary to my assertion that students are being put up for sale to the highest bidder via the advertising campaign, "we are not selling kids."
I never said the district was going to sell kids. I said the district was going to sell advertising which, in turn, implies that products or services depicted on those ads are endorsed by the district. Not to mention the negative effects of even more commercial marketing targeted at young and impressionable minds.
Anyway, in my private reply to this teacher, I outlined in some detail my own thoughts on the subject based on ideas that resonated with me after reading other people's research as well as information from organizations such as Coalition for a Commercial-Free Childhood.
She wrote me back to say she "didn't need a novel" and that I'd done a good job "copying from some unnoted source."
Wow. I've been accused of plagiarism!!!! Because my own writing was, what, too lofty for a public school teacher who has communicated to me in unpunctuated, uncapitalized and incomplete sentences?
Maybe she thinks no real person really writes like I do unless they are old, obnoxiously scholarly and graduates of Oxford or Cambridge. Can't give credit to a good 'ol gal from South Texas?
There was no "unnoted source." It was all ME, my opinions, my sentence structure, my version of the ideas that are widely available to anyone literate and curious enough to ponder and dissect them.
I replied courteously enough, explaining that I have neither need nor desire to steal other people's words, but thanked her for thinking my work was too good for me to have produced.
Regular readers of this 'blog will vouch for my careful inclusion of reporters' names or original sources for excerpts from which I quote.
I've recently been involved in an email discussion with a local school teacher about the controversial decision by our school district to put ads on the sides of its school buses beginning this fall. The goal is to raise money that the superintendent says the state cannot or will not pony up. I wrote to him and to an online community group expressing my dismay at such an uncreative and commercialized effort to raise cash. The aforementioned teacher saw my post to the community group and wrote to tell me she thinks the ads are a great idea and that, contrary to my assertion that students are being put up for sale to the highest bidder via the advertising campaign, "we are not selling kids."
I never said the district was going to sell kids. I said the district was going to sell advertising which, in turn, implies that products or services depicted on those ads are endorsed by the district. Not to mention the negative effects of even more commercial marketing targeted at young and impressionable minds.
Anyway, in my private reply to this teacher, I outlined in some detail my own thoughts on the subject based on ideas that resonated with me after reading other people's research as well as information from organizations such as Coalition for a Commercial-Free Childhood.
She wrote me back to say she "didn't need a novel" and that I'd done a good job "copying from some unnoted source."
Wow. I've been accused of plagiarism!!!! Because my own writing was, what, too lofty for a public school teacher who has communicated to me in unpunctuated, uncapitalized and incomplete sentences?
Maybe she thinks no real person really writes like I do unless they are old, obnoxiously scholarly and graduates of Oxford or Cambridge. Can't give credit to a good 'ol gal from South Texas?
There was no "unnoted source." It was all ME, my opinions, my sentence structure, my version of the ideas that are widely available to anyone literate and curious enough to ponder and dissect them.
I replied courteously enough, explaining that I have neither need nor desire to steal other people's words, but thanked her for thinking my work was too good for me to have produced.
Regular readers of this 'blog will vouch for my careful inclusion of reporters' names or original sources for excerpts from which I quote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)