Racism in our Schools - It's a government thing

I came home yesterday to find a letter from the school where my 5 year old daughter attends. The gist of the letter is to determine what my family's race and ethnicity is as part of the Gwinnett County requirements mandated by either the state of Georgia or Federal Government.

I was pretty disturbed to say the least. Why, you may ask. Well, I don't believe in Races. I have not found any grounds for there being different "Races" of people. Sure there are people who are part of different cultural groups, or even ethnic groups. My wife's parents were born in China. I certainly understand that culturally there is a difference. I was born in Alabama. My line of Maguire's come from Ireland. Where they were before that, only God and some very talented historians know (the latter group I have probably given too much credit).  

First, a Race, defined by the 1828 Webster Dictionary is "The lineage of a family, or continued series of descendants from a parent who is called the stock. A race is the series of descendants indefinitely."

Second, as a Christian, I believe with all my heart and my mind (yes, Christians can be intellectuals, in fact, I'm not sure you can be a Christian and not be intellectual), that God created man. If you read through the Old Testament Genesis account, you find that God created one man and one woman. After that creation of man, the Bible never declares another human being was made by him. So we are all descendents of one man and one woman. Go ahead, you guys who know some Bible, and throw in the flood. Then one could say that we are all descendents of Adam and Eve, yet more specifically we are all descendents of Noah, his wife, and his three sons - Shem, Ham and Japheth.  

According to research done by Steve Olson, Joseph Chang (Yale), and Douglas Rohde, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology neuroscientist and computer expert, they found that all descendents of humanity could be traced back to a single "family" or group. The dates line up, and you can find an article here (http://s8int.com/phile/noahsark24.html).  

In short, I don't believe in different races of people, only the human race or the descendents of Adam/Noah. We certainly have differences, but for the government and people to propagate the thought that people come from different "stock" means that people are different. We are all part of the same "stock". Interesting that we want the division of people to end, yet we continue to be taught that we are different "races" of people.

Give it some thought.

We are the problem

What's wrong with the economy?

What's wrong with the moral fabric in America?

What's wrong with the political system?

What's wrong with education?

What's wrong with kids?

The answer is simple - US.  We are the problem.  Namely - Christians.  Think that's harsh?  Think about it.

Good People - Why do bad things happen

Over the last few days I've been pondering these questions - "Why do bad things happen to good people" and "Why does God allow bad things to happen".

The answer is not what you want to hear.  It's as bad as telling people that the reason Americans are in such bad shape economically is because of ... well US - Americans.  But that's another topic.

The general principle is that people are generally good.  How could a "good" God, allow bad things to happen to "good" people.  I've realized that the question behind the question is more important.  Are we a good people?  Is God good?

Good people - it really depends on whose eyes you look through.  If I look through my eyes, I see lots of really good people.  They are good because I deem them good.  I think they are better than most (or better than myself) in several categories that I choose.  Maybe that's giving, serving, using manors, having honesty, being ethical, etc.  But it's basically something arbitrary that I come up with.   What's the standard?

Good God - once again it depends on the standard, it also depends on the God.  I firmly believe there only one God, the God of Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, Moses, Israel, and me.  This is not Allah.  Let's just assume that God is good, and as part of being a good God, he is also Just.  As a just God, there is a standard for right/wrong and consequences.

Good people? - now if we look at God's standard for judging goodness things change a bit.  Let's assume again that God uses the 10 commandments as a standard.  Now that really changes things.  If the standard is keep all the commandments to be "good", then I'd have to say we've all told a lie, stolen, or at least lusted (adultery in the eyes of Jesus) - not to mention taking the name of God in vain.  So maybe we aren't quite as good as we thought.

So the question being to take shape - what would you want to happen to "bad" people?  Do you put them in prison, fine them, deport them, or execute them?  I'm sure there are several things you want to do for "bad" people, but you certainly wouldn't want to reward them.

If we aren't good, then we must be bad.  When bad things happen to bad people, is that fair?  I would say when a law breaker is punished, that is justice.  Who determines the sentence - the judge.  

In viewing the world, maybe we should starting thinking in terms of when bad things happen we - as bad people, are getting what we deserve.  Tornado, hurricane, fire, and even death are all justified punishments for a bad people.  Maybe, just maybe, we should starting thinking that any part of life itself is something we don't deserve, and only by the Grace of God are we allowed to partake.  Now that would change the way you think about life.

Roles of Church and State

I have been doing a lot of thinking about roles of churches, roles of government, etc.  It is clear to me that needs to be separation of church and state for both the state being involved in the church and the church being involved in the state.  This doesn't mean that Christians should not be politicians, but our work as Christians should influence the culture more than direct/dictate it.  A Christian politician/Governor/President is better in the sense that his morals, ethics and accountability are higher.  In a republic this would mean ruling per the constitution and not your own views.  Honesty and integrity would be/should be givens for a Christian politician, where you have a greater corruptness with those outside of God's Church.

It begs the question, why has the church allowed the state to take over so much of the church's roles/responsibilities?  Widows, orphans, needy, hungry, children, etc.  If the church would do what the church has been called to do, we wouldn't need many (could make the argument for ALL) of the state welfare agencies.  The society/culture in which we currently live, is as much a failure by the church as it is of anything else.  If the salt loses it saltiness...

The problems are easy to point out, the solutions are hard to implement, but easy to point out.  God's people - God's Church - needs to get going on doing God's work.  I love the Shawshank line "Get busy living or get busy dying."  That is so true of the American Christian Church.

Charter Schools and School Choice

I had the opportunity this morning to see what a benefit charter schools and school choice can be.  I woke up a little earlier this morning (4:30am) to go out and wait in line to get my oldest daughter into a charter school.  The school is fairly new, but already ranked among the best in the county.

When I arrived at 5:15am I was the 4th person in line.  The first lady was there at midnight, the second lady at 1am and the 3rd person was there around 4am.  By the time the doors opened at 8:30am, there were around 75 people in line.  

Two points:

1) I wondered if every school had a system of choice, then wouldn't the best schools have the longest lines?

2) If parents are willing to stand in line for 4, 5 or even 8 hours to get their child into a better school, won't these parents be more involved in something they had choice in?

You can argue lots of reason for school choice, private school, charter school, home school, but for me it comes down to choosing the best education that I can afford for my children.  If the school is not teaching in a manner that recognizes my beliefs or my child is not doing well, I want to put them in a place that does and that my child will do well.  

Competition breeds success.  Once a school starts losing people and funding, then maybe that principle should be fired.  Or better yet, if schools were like charter (publicly funded but privately run), then one could argue that they have so much stock in the school succeeding (much like a business).

Right now, we spend on average around $9-10,000 per child in the public school system.  Some have argued the number is closer to $25,000 per pupil real money.  Whatever the case, think of this.  If you and 9 other parents decided to start your own school out of a basement then at current levels you could hire 1 teacher for $90,000 or two at $45,000.  And that is with a 10-1 teacher ratio.  I'm guess at least for the lower grades this would be fantastic.  You could get a PhD candidate for $90,000/year.   Based my observations, students-teacher ratios are more 20-1.   So maybe it's not the money for public education that is the problem.  Maybe it's something else.

Makes you think.

What's your "WHY"?

"What's your 'WHY'"? Rod asked.

I had no clue what a 'Y' was as it pertained to the ministry he was starting with two other guys.  Rod continued down the road "Why is the most important question that needs to be asked when you get into something.  If you have the wrong why, you won't succeed."

As I came to find out, Y was really WHY, and it pertained to the question and answer of "Why do you want to get into this?"  I've since turned it around to a few guys I work with to "Why did you take this job." and "Why are you still working here."

It has been said that if you ask why 5 times you get to the real root of what is going on (Sakichi Toyoda)

This principle is relevant in 3 main areas that our culture is undergoing right now.

1) Government

2) Religion/system of beliefs

3) Personal job/career choice

"What's your why?" 

Why is the government passing this bill?

Why do you believe what you believe?

Why do you want to work there?

For the purposes of career and job, it has a great deal to do with how motivated you are, how much you will care about your employer, and how loyal you will be.  If the why is money, then once the money is not there or not as much as you thought, then you will be discontent with your job.  If they why is hours, then once the hours are long or change, then you won't be happy. 

I'm not saying my "why" is the only why out there that is long lasting, but I am saying that my why has changed the way I view work and life.  If my why differs from this main why, then I often find myself doing things for the wrong reason.

I took my job because I feel like my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ wanted me here.  He orchestrated the events around my interviews, and through prayer and wise council, I was lead to my workplace.  So they money isn't the "best",  I could be making more.  The hours are good, I really like what I'm doing, but most importantly, I feel like this is where God wants me.  That's what makes all the difference.

The other two guys, much like myself when I heard the story, asked "What do you mean, what's a 'Y'"?

"Why is the most important question you can ask as we get into this.  For if you have the wrong why then we'll never succeed."  

So true.  Figure out your why, and things will begin to make a lot more sense.

In addition, I challenge you to begin asking why 5 times on important and even seemingly unimportant issues.  

What would Washington have to say? An interview with our first President about the times.

While I was listening to Wallbuilders Live (www.wallbuilderslive.com) - I heard one of the hosts talk about Washington's farewell address.  I do not remember reading his farewell address, nor did I think anything about going back to read any of the President's farewell addresses.  But this one, our first president, seems to hold many foundational truths about our Republic - namely the role of government.

You can find the full manuscript of Washington's farewell address at http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=62.  

For now, let's take a look at what Mr. Washington has to say:

Q - Mr. Washington, you had many hard choices to make during your Administration.  How would you describe the idea of hard choices and the support of the people during your public service?

"Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that Heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free Constitution which is the work of your hands may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it."

Q - Who are Americans?  Are we more the same people or vastly different?

"With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles."

Q - How should we feel as Americans?

"The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations."

Q - Changing to political views, what is the basis of our political system?

"The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government."

Q - Factions sometimes occur in large numbers of people.  Some want to change (or alter) the government.  These people generally band together to form unions or parties.  What about political parties, lobbyists, and political organizations?

"All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction; to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community, and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans, digested by common councils and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things to become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

Q - Sounds like you are against a party system.  I'm guessing you would have some more insight into what may happen with a party system.  Do you see any issues with these factions/parties that disagree and then elect their figurehead?

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual, and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty."

Q - To follow-up on that last question, will these factions cause hardship as a whole to the American people?  Will something like this cause the nation to become much weaker?

"It serves always to distract the public councils, and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."

Q - Former President Washington, can you be very clear?  Are you saying that we should not have political parties at all?

"There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged."

Q - So what about the Balance of Power?  I'm sure you see a tendency (coming from a Monarchy) to want to give more power to one position in government, instead of spread out among all.  Do you see any dangers of the balance of power?

"It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power and proneness to abuse it which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern, some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield."

Q - So we've covered political parties and the balance of power.  Changing topics a bit, can you tell us about what role Religion has in government, if any?  Do you think that religion is good for a government or bad?  Can the nation survive with religion playing a vital role?  Would it be better to not claim any religion?

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness—these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, "where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?" And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

Q - Right now we are facing a time of great debt.  Do you have any words of advice on how we should extend credit and what role debt should have in our nation?

"As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in times of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear."

Q - On to foreign policy, how should we then treat other countries?

"Observe good faith and justice towards all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct. And can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period a great nation to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that in the course of time and things the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?"

Q - Basically we should avoid being in conflict with other nations for long periods of time.  I assume this means we should then align ourselves in goodness with other nations?

"The nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest."

Q - I understand that hatred can cause problems, but can you expand on how good alliances are harmful?

"So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practise the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak toward a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens), the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests."

Q - Mr. Washington, you have really said a lot there.  But our government does allow for commercial ties with other nations, doesn't it?  Is that as far as you are willing to go?

"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop."

Q - Some nations have similar beliefs in areas.  Isn't it beneficial to have some "permanent" alliances?

"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world"

Q - This does not exclude foreign trade, does it?  I would suppose that although permanent political ties are bad, that you are saying we can have commerce, and even have some form of temporary alliance for trade?

"Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand, neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the Government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard."

Q - Mr. Washington, thank you so much for your time.  As you look at your years in office, are there any thoughts to leave with us?

"Though, in reviewing the incidents of my Administration, I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence, and that, after forty-five years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest."

Religion - 15 percent have no religion?

According to a new report by the American Religious Identification Survey (www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/), the percentage of American people claiming a religion is dropping (or the number of people saying they have no religion is growing).  

Here is a quick look at what the article says has happened over the last 19 years.

1990 - 8.2% of those surveyed had no religion

2001 - 14.2% of those surveyed had no religion

2008 - 15% 

Of those surveyed the percentage of Christians is slowly declining.  In the 1990's the percentage was around 86% that claimed to be Christian, now that number is closer to 76%.

There are several other interesting statistics from the research findings but we won't go over those in this post.  

I do want to focus on the Christian aspect of this. As an evangelical protestant Christian, I would say these numbers for % of Christians is skewed well out of proportion.  According the the North American Mission Board, close to 70% of Americans are "lost".  Barna research shows that 85% are self identified as Christian.  In other Barna research, "Born Again Christians" only represent 41% of the population (much closer to the NAMB numbers).  

So what's the right answer?  Who knows?  Well, God for sure knows, but other than that I'm not sure we can pin this hat on anyone else.  From my own experience, I would have to agree with NAMB and Barna.  The number of born again Christians is much lower than professing Christians.  3 in 10 or 4 in 10 is probably a good estimate.  For a Christian, this means that most people you come in contact with there is a good chance they are not saved - understand the gospel and have accepted Jesus and Lord and Saviour.

So the question me must ask ourselves, is what category do we fall into?  If you had to "prove" you were the born again Christian how would you?  Can you?  Does profession of being a Christian make you a Christian?  What does?  Examine yourself to know that you are in the faith.

The harvest is plentiful.  The workers are few.  

Humble Beginnings/Purpose

These days it's hard to have a conversation that doesn't involve either Politics or Religion. It's the two topics that people say you shouldn't discuss, but they are the heart of what viewpoint you have. Surely there are areas where your viewpoint in these two areas doesn't have a great impact (such as sports), but most of our lives are based on what we view as true or at least on what we perceive as true.

I'm starting this blog to begin to address some of the topics involving our current situation in American Politics as well as our issues in the Church today.

First, I am a Christian. I define myself by my relationship with Jesus Christ who is the only Son of God. I believe Christ died as atonement for my sins, was raised on the third day (physically) and is now seated at the right hand of God the Father. If you want to define me more than that, then by definition, I am a Reformed Southern Baptist. I currently attend Norcross First Baptist Church (www.norcrossfbc.org). I attended Northpoint Community Church (www.northpoint.org) for 7 years - which we will discuss later.

Second, I am a conservative. I think our Constitution is a wonderful document (although not without faults). I love this Republic. I am defining my political views in the sense of what each party has come to believe. Although no party fully details my own beliefs, at this time the party that most closely represents me is the Constitution Party (www.constitutionparty.com).

Next post will jump right in to some political and religious aspects of our day.