So you want to be a good parent?

Melissa and I have been taking daily walks in the morning lately for our health (my knees are poo poo) ... it's wonderful. We end up talking about stuff important to us, something we don't really do around the kids. Anyway, today got on the subject of good parenting and concluded that it's all relative, but there are a few metrics that should be universal.

About young parents (and I guess we still fit that description in some ways ... or at least I feel I can claim the title of "immature parent"): young parents generally are still coming to terms with the parenting they received. Experienced parents sometimes find it almost excruciating talking with young parents who are still doing this (when they say "I'll never do 'this" or 'that' - things which are pretty minor considering the big picture) ... we all have baggage, and with time we can shed it. I think it's easy to assume we never carried such baggage, but I know I did, and probably still do to some extent.

If you give any parent 20, or maybe only 10 years of being a parent and then they'll realize first hand that parents say and do things with the most pure and altruistic motivations to help prepare that child in a way that is almost always misinterpreted as being abusive. It's a fact of life ... there's no way to sugar coat some parts of parenting. Spare the rod and spoil the child is an unhappy reality, and those who refuse to believe it end up with kids that are rotten to be around. They may turn out okay in the long run ... but whew! What a long run.

So being a "good" parent all depends on your frame of reference, and above all every parent should first step back and insure their frame of reference isn't out of whack. Time and experience has a way of doing that for you, but you'll be much better off if you can manage to grow up a bit and see things as they are without life having to show you.

One pet peeve I have is when parents say something to the effect, "My kid's a pain, but I love them anyway." as if they've done their part, and that love is the best thing they can give their kid. That's poppycock. Saying "I love my difficult child" like it's some kind of badge of honor is like bragging that you remembered to breathe. Not only is every parent supposed to do that, they can't help it. They're your flesh for heaven's sake. You'd have to be some kind of degenerate life-form to not love your own spawn.

Do you have a difficult child and want to help them? Then believe in them, and tell them that you believe in them. Anyone can love their own kid no matter how difficult they are ... but "believing-in-them" is where the test of a good parent comes in - and not just "believing in them", but being such that they KNOW IMPLICITLY that you believe in them. If you want my respect as a fellow parent, when talking about your difficult child, say "Gee whiz they sure have put us through the wringer, but I have faith in them, and here's why ..."

The problem is that in most of those cases, they can't finish that sentence, and understandably so if the child is a royal pain. If you want to be a "good parent" and not just a mediocre one then you need to finish that sentence. So what if they have symptoms of Asperger's syndrome and seem doomed to a life of awkwardness and isolation ... so did Einstein. Maybe they seem to have no redeeming qualities ... but is that because they don't have them or are you only a mediocre parent that isn't digging deep enough to find just one ... just one to hang on to and say ... "I believe in you because you're __________", and make that their identity.

It's easy for me to say this though ... I have wonderful kids and I have a million good things to say about them, but I don't say them. That probably makes me just a mediocre parent. They hey need to know I don't just love them but that I believe in them, and know why I believe in them. I had a mom who did that. She believed in me and thought I was wonderful. She would tell me why too ... I can't remember what exactly she said because like most kids I tried to put it out of my mind, but what she said on some level had a pretty enormous effect on me. My dad ... not so much. He made it very clear to me he loved me ... and that he loved me despite me more less a screw up. He pay me a compliment once ... saying that he had no idea how I did what I did on the computer and was impressed with my ability to focus there.

That meant a lot to me. I've decided to throw out the "I love you anyway" comments and hang onto the "I'm impressed ... that's something I could never do".

So will your kids do the same. Do you want your kids to appreciate how you feel about them? Then don't just feel love. Feel faith. Feel hope. Feel belief. Then express those things, not just your love. Love is everything right? Yeah, but it's a free gift ... because your ability to love was given to you. A child should be thanking God, not you, for your love.

And if you just can't seem to go deeper than love, try this: Call your dad (moms are generally more forgiving and forgetful of your stupid teenage antics, though it may be the other way around), and ask them if you were ever like your own kid. You're not an axe-murderer right? We'll at least you have that going for you ... so now you have some thing to believe in for your kid.

ps - Don't tell them "Cheer up, son. I believe you're not going to grow up to become an axe murderer because I'm not and I was a screw-up too." Just say "I believe in you." Mean it. Give them a good reason if you can ... and if you can't just yet then work on it. That's called being a "good parent".

Things I want to blog about in the future

I never have time to blog, so I've jotted down some ideas for blogs when I think of them ... the thing is since my time is limited I think I'll just summarize each of them here and call it good ... for now. May go into one or more in deeper detail at some future date, but here you go:

1) How to grow new skin in your epidermis (silly title, I know).

Your epidermis, of course, is the visible part of your skin ... the outer layer of it is made entirely of dead skin cells. All new skin cells grow in the bottom layer of the epidermis (the living part of your skin), which is why when you have a cut it always peels at the edges of the cut as it heals ... the new skin rises to the top from the lower layers so the cut edges of the epidermis dry, fray, and thin out until eventually they blend in with the new skin.

About a month ago I had a full thickness cut on the end of my finger (normally a difficult place to heal) through all layers of my skin about 1/4" long. I rinsed it, and while it was still wet, plunged it into sodium ascorbate powder (which didn't hurt at all), then put a bandage on it. Within 24 it was sealed shut for good with a barely noticeable hairline indication of where it happened. It never peeled ... the hairline eventually disappeared. I cut myself regularly (I have a shop where I do lots of stuff) and I've tried all the ointments. Nothing has ever caused so miraculous of healing as did that.

2) Human guinea pig trials. More of the above. I use my body like a laboratory ... most people do, but I'm very scientific in my approach and have learned some cool things. I have a bunch of rules I follow to insure my results are statistically significant. Most of the time when people experiment on themselves with diet, etc their methodology renders the results meaningless. One of the things I discovered about 6-7 years ago was that you can completely heal an ulcer with massive doses of Vitamin C - which was recently substantiated in a clinical medical study completed last year. Also I've developed a dermal treatment which I've found nothing short of miraculous and costs 100x less than what similar treatments cost. I can also solve pink-eye in a matter of hours ... this time again with sodium ascorbate. The trick is in the methodology. Some time in the future I'll post what I've discovered along with these rules.

3) A metric for determining the societal worth of a world religion. I've been thinking a lot about this issue lately. I find it fascinating ... if money was no object and I was to go back to school, I've thought something in philosophy would be good and I think I'd specialize in the analysis of religion as a utility. What makes a world religion good for society? What makes it bad? Coercion religions vs. Persasion religions. Something I call the Lord's test. Analysis of revelatory processes. Recent comments about "usefulness" of certain doctrines and/or events by our Prophets and what that means. What's more important when analyzing a religion: beginnings or endings? What if we're confused over the same things that the saints of the primitive saints were confused about ... what then? Where things can go wrong ... what if they did and why isn't anyone asking? These are some deep questions I've never heard anyone else explore from the standpoint of a "faithful saint" like me. There's actually a ton of blogging topics there.

4) How to's - I've a bunch of these, I try to focus on things nobody else has documented. For example, how to make a cool super-convenient and powerful standalone google-tasklist application in under 1 minute (this assumes you have google chrome browser already installed, as well as a gmail account):
- 1) Open gmail in google browser (chrome)
- 2) open tasks
- 3) click the "pop-out" arrow
- 4) rightclick on frame, click "show as tab"
- 5) click document-looking icon, select "create application shortcut"
- 6) place the shortcut on your taskbar at the bottom of your screen (next to the windows "start" button)

5) Unfinished projects ... the museum of horrors. I have so many of these it boggles the mind ... the failed electric lawn mower ... about a billion projects around the house (this is a sympathy call for my wife ... she can use the sympathy) ... business ideas.

6) Cloud computing .. my take: Everything should be on the cloud. There should be no such thing as syncing. The problem of course is the cost and ubiquity of connectivity ... for me it's prohibitive, but if you can afford it my recommendation is to go all the way. I suspect that at least for the next 10 years we'll be stuck having to do some data synchronization, but hopefully in time free wifi networks will prolific enough to allow ubiquitous digital communication everywhere. Legislation should be geared to make it so, but I suspect the wireless carriers will prevent that from happening. This is one case where capitalism is doing more harm than good.

7) Social networking websites and apps ... my take: It is the future. Google needs to figure out how to integrate itself or it will suffer the same fate as Microsoft ... once a giant, now just a player. I don't know who the winners will be, but facebook better pull it's head out of the sand with regard to privacy issues and assuming too many liberties on their part.

8) My Paired-coaching Linkedin database. Noomi got greedy so I picked up where they left off regarding "pair coaching".

Pair coaching is a type of somewhat informal peer2peer coaching/mentoring arrangement where two people coach or mentor each other. Extremely flexible in nature, it may take the form of just a human-interactive checkin service to help each keep-on-track with their own self-defined objectives and plan-of-attack, or at the other extreme it could be far more involved - a mutual mentoring with regard to a specific objective each wants to realize in a field for which the other is a qualified expert.

Interestingly the concept was pioneered by the founders at noomi.com a few years ago, but who sadly phased it out in the interest of developing a more profitable model. Co-mentoring is about as close a concept as I've found to this. Anyway I found a linked-in group call "Mentors and Mentees" that is centered on this model, but they don't have a good way to implement it so I've created a google database form to facilitate the process. More on this later.

9) I make websites. Too many. I have a ton of clients I maintain for whom I maintain websites but I also have a ton on my own. Don't as me why ... I don't know why. It's like an illness. Often if I expect a website to be out there to provide a certain service that to me seems intuitively obvious should exist and I can't find it I'll take it upon myself to make it as if I have the time - as if. Why not let someone else do it? Somewhere in there I think maybe it will go viral ... that never happens, certainly not to someone too busy making new websites to promote the ones they have. So basically I think with some of these I'm going to throw them out there in some development communities and see if anyone wants to participate. I also think I'll develop a "Please help develop this website/webapp" template I can plug into any of the following that will include a link to a groupsite.com group.

Anywho ... he're some of them ... some of them don't even have anything there because they were just an idea. It costs me $10/yr to keep the domains ... if you want one of the ones with the word "available" let me know ... I'll give it to you for what I have into it. Sometime in the future I'll give an update what each is for.
- planthetrip.com
- kionetics.com
- liveinterface.com
- pnpkiosks.com
- GreenThePower.com powermegreen.com net0power.com greengrided.com etc.
- ComfortSphere.com
- edensciences.com & skinsoak.com - both available
- SolarNowConsulting.com SolarNowSupply.com solartelligence.com pvdummies.com SolarPowerTruth.com
- brainsteptech.com - available
- sleepwavelabs.com s-l.us
- hirecommand.com - available
- goyork. sellyorkcom, sellcoleman.com, sellluxaire.com
- simspan.com - available
- the-austins.com
client websites

10) Separate and private blog for family. Michael mowed the lawn today for the first time ... dang I was proud of him ... just grabbed the thing without being asked and started trying to start the thing. In 5 minutes he was doing it all ... even starting it by himself. Of course, Melissa told him that he'd get $ to buy a Harry Potter nintendo game, but he wanted to do it ... to "pull his own weight" so-to-speak. My other kids are just as awesome ... I see that awesomeness everyday and am just amazed ... I wasn't that good of a kid. Must get it from their mom.

But this particular blog doesn't seem to be the right place for me to go on about that stuff. My kids really are my highest priority though you wouldn't know it reading my past blogs ... it's just that I used blogs to resolve ideas and though I know it's conceit I have to admit: I think ideas are the things that shape the future, and I'd like a part of that, but kids are so pure and simple that I ... I blog to figure stuff out that I find vexing or that I think others might benefit from ... and although I know my kids will be the most lasting impression I'll leave on this world, and although I know my kids as they are today are the most wonderful kids I know, I also know other people don't care to hear that ... but my kids do need to hear how much more they are to me that the junk that I end up posting here, so I need to do this.

11) Population Control Absurdities. We're economically dependent on a growing future generation that we've already pre-saddled with astonishing levels of debt. Population control would doom our future as a nation, people, and power. Rather we should invest all we can to develop a generation that will solve the problems we've created, imparting our wisdom, love, faith, and hope, into a generation large enough to ease the burden shared among every child who will someday have to bear our legacy of spend, spend, spend.

12) My experience with Silva Learning Method. I'm "programming" myself. I'll let you know how it turns out.

13) Inventions I wish existed, but am too lazy/busy to do myself.

Sunday School, Academic Style.

Someone posted over at bigthink.com some praise for an essay from someone designated as "one of Ivy's most celebrated" professors, Clayton Christensen. The essay was on selflessness and humility. At first glance it sounded pretty good to me except some things seemed just a bit off kilter ... that the more I read the more it became evident why: It was Sunday School taught from the academic perspective, and I was used to studying those topics from a religious perspective.

That's a good thing that Sunday School was taught at Harvard, even if it was just an introduction. As an intro it was a pretty good I thought considering the audience ... less than perfect if the audience was perhaps more embracing of the religious roots that the concept of humility came from. The concept of humility as the essay described it was changed in fact from the religious concept, for whatever reasons I'm not sure, but I suspect it was to avoid suspicion that the principle of humility has it's origins in religion, which it does.

Still it was Sunday School, part 1, which is a good thing for a bunch of people that probably think they wouldn't like to go to sunday school. It seemed some ideas were conveyed, even developed from a academic approach. As such the concepts were bound to be inferior, not just from a religious standpoint, but also from an intellectual / logical standpoint, when compared with those ideas as they are or should be taught in Sunday School. I mean, after-all, they are religious principles, not academic ones, no matter how you slice them.

Now I suspect that some would argue with my contention was that this was sunday school at all, academic style or otherwise, that these topics are common in business ethics, etc. Not that I'm aware of. Ethics talks of being good to your fellowman, and in fact Dr. Christensen defined humility in those terms (which is where he erred) but in ethics one is good to their fellowman because it's the humane and socially responsible thing to do, whereas Dr. Christensen suggests that humility is spiritual in nature ... an almost indefinable quality which can bestow happiness on those who follow certain rules - actually pretty much Christlike behavior (though uttering the word "Christ" in supreme reverence is a sure way to insure you'll never be invited to another major university commencement speech).

Dr. Christensen's 'essay' was really a commencement speech to people who are mostly unreligious. Dr. Christensen does a pretty decent job for the most part in adapting the content to the capabilities and perceptions of his audience. Dr. Christensen knows by experience that when you speak of ethical and moral issues in an academic environment it is assumed that you will approach such subjects from a purely academic view. Even Christ said you adapt your message to the capability and needs of your audience (Matt. 7:6)

As such, of course I needed to remind myself while reading the essay of the challenge Dr Christensen faced in sharing essentially religious principles to a significantly unreligious, and in some cases anti-religious audience. It should be expected that man-made concepts would be inferior to the real deal - I need no greater testimony of the truths found in Sunday School than by comparing them with the rationale of men, of which terms Christensen certainly had to use to get the importance of humility across to a crowd that Mastered in skills to profit from greed, which is the opposite of humility.

That is incidentally what an MBA largely says: "I know how to take a vile thing called greed, and turn it into something useful that can result in good and wholesome outcome.", and in fact when you think about that ... what a noble thing to do. I'm not opposed to academia or the business ethic, and in fact I, like Dr. Christensen, believe the best of those things are utterly compatible with the best of religious ideals.

I was pleased to read that in his address Dr. Christensen relates his personal search for the divine, and the personal satisfaction he's received as a result. He went on a Mormon mission (like I did), and further mentions his efforts to understand the purpose of life and define his own mission ... something that would give his own life meaning. What's more is that he invites others to seek out the divine. He's actively involved preaching the word (even a link on his homepage to his testimony of our church), he is surely doing more good in that regard and far more effectively than I have. That's why I was surprised with how he taught some of the principles he discusses in his essay, but then again I remembered, he had to adapt the messaged to the abilities and mindset of his audience.

Above all it should be noted that his essay enumerates many recommendations to living a life with meaning and among those are many that have their roots in wholesome and good living ... beyond mere secular-humanism ... he's not afraid to refer to God and his personal dependence on him though not so bold to outwardly recommend the same to others, which recommendation probably wouldn't be welcome, but if his life is an example to follow his message there was clear: make God part of your life as I did an you'll be blessed as I have. Truly, there is no greater teacher than example.

To be sure, it's wonderful that that socially constructive ideas are championed by everyone who thought so highly of his piece. For starters, I was astonished to learn that the essay came about after he taught a class at Harvard on "Humility". I have a new found respect for Harvard, willing to stretch the concepts in Business Ethics to include concepts normally considered hindrances in Capitalist profit-maximizing methodologies such as maximizing greed. As much as I wish that they would acknowledge that the concept of humility is inherently religious in nature I should be happy that it's even taught at all. I'd love to teach a class on "Faith", or "Temperance", or above all ... "Love".

Sadly, if such topics were taught, I'm sure they'd be modified so that "Love", for example, wouldn't really mean what I know it means. The first thing they'd do is throw out the Sunday School definition for it and write their own. In fact it seems the first thing Dr. Christensen did in his class on humility was to entirely throw out the window pre-conceived notions of humility and develop their own definition based on their own observations.

I can't imagine what I'd have done in that environment. I've stood for religious principles on religious grounds before and have been threatened as a result. The world today in general can be very hostile toward religion. I like to think Dr. Christensen would have welcomed my ideas, even though they'd basically be what I've been taught in Sunday School since I find them so superior to the concepts he developed in their absence, and perhaps his essay would have ended up differently.

Apparently his strategy worked too, as Christensen's essay has been lauded by Harvard's alumni as some great revelation in which a number of profound edicts are issued. Reportedly the essay is being passed around by Harvard's elite as some great revelation. Even David Brooks of the New York Times sang it praises.

Wow ... what a wordy, long drawn out intro to the main portion and intent of this blog entry. Sorry, I need to work on being more succinct - perhaps my most grievous error in writing. Anyway, this is what I was intending on discussing:

If what he gave was Sunday School, part 1 "The milk before the meat", I thought I'd give Sunday School, part 2 "The milk vs. the meat", at least with regard to the subject of humility so it will be very evident how superior your understanding of any religious subject will be if acquired from a religious source. As such, I'm going to discuss one line from his essay, and it's the same line the blogger at bigthink.com thought was so profound. She (I'm assuming 'Lea' is a girl's name) said the line was "disruptive" and "proprietary", both which apparently are good things in the world of academics. It was this:

"You can only be humble if you feel good about yourself."

I can see how in some cases it may be true - and certainly how it would be appreciated in academic circles, so it's like the milk. The milk approach to figuring out what humility even means, a meandering approach, involves making stuff up to fit some loosely collected observations - and so we get Dr. Christensen's observation above (see here to learn how he reached this conclusion).

The meat of the concept of humility, a more rigorous approach, however shows how Dr. Christensen's statement is not true in some cases (if not the most important cases). For example, how does it relate to say a person who's just committed some grave error, like adultery? Let's repeat it with that scenario in mind: "You can only be humble if you feel good about yourself." - hmmmm. Dr. Christensen's statement wouldn't be just "disrputive", but flat-out and offensively wrong.

A little more discipline in his logic and Christensen's statement should have been transposed as follows: "You can only feel truly good about yourself if you are humble". (In fact, such a conclusion should have followed naturally when he considered his student's observations). Academic concept development and analysis is a messy process though ... a lot of mistakes are bound to happen along the way. At a minimum the student of spiritual matters should be acutely aware that all academic approaches are easily botched up in a 1000 different ways, whereas if you get truth from the source (like water from a well) ... well, it's pure and true from the start.

Discussing humility from a more "meat" (religious edicts) than "milk" (academic considerations) perspective also means delving into the original definition of humility. When Dr. Christensen crafted his speech he spoke of humility as an esoteric trait - something to which you aspire by behaving in a certain way. The meat of matter is that humility is not esoteric, but rather a very definable principle that everyone should firmly understand even if the definition isn't appreciated, and if well understood there is so much more learning available than how Dr. Christensen had to adapt the meaning of humility to meet the tolerance of his audience.

The real definition of humility is that it is a principle to which one commits themselves, not a reputation or condition that someone achieves or experiences by merely following certain rules. Again, humility is a principle of action not a result of actions. The principle simply states that you think you deserve no more than anyone else deserves and you feel compelled to act in accordance to that belief. Period. That's all humility means, nothing more, but as simple of a definition as that is the wonderful thing is that you can deduce all kinds of things from that simple definition - and that's where the resulting logistics of humility starts to get exciting...

For example, if you are humble then you think you deserve no more than anyone else deserves (just restating the definition), and if you think you deserve no more than anyone else deserves then you feel good about yourself when you get no more than anyone else gets. In other words: the humble person feels naturally good about themselves when they are charitable, and they feel out of balance with nature when they are selfish and are compelled to bring things back into balance. It's really quite a beautiful construct of logic in both it's simplicity and power.

"You can only be humble if you love yourself" is another axiom that becomes obvious when you consider how humility relates to love. In fact the deeper one delves into similar sunday school subjects as they are taught in the sunday school environment, the greater and more significant are the truths that are revealed and the logical constructs that result are far superior to what you can get via academic means in matters of moral significance.

What's more profound is that similarly simple yet powerful axioms can all be gained by going to Sunday School without taking a Harvard class on "Humility" by one of the Harvard's "most celebrated".

So Sunday School part 2 regarding humility is simply this: Being humble is a principle you decide to live by, not some indefinable condition or status enjoyed only by people who feel good about themselves. In fact, it's a recipe that when combined with charity guarantees feeling good about one's self. Now how much Zoloft would we really need if that was a truth the APA would be willing to admit? I know for a fact that my late father, a psychologist, recommended the terminally selfish patient to volunteer weekly at the food kitcher, or something similar, and it worked. That's not just psychology ... that's religion.

Hopefully Dr. Christensen's essay will hopefully get people thinking more about these things and go the next step to learn more on their own. It's a shame his hands were tied enough that his recommendations to live morally and ethically had to be taught from ideas that evolved in a class rather from where they originally came, but that they were taught at all is a great start. Dr. Christensen did what he thought was necessary in a forum that often sees religion as the enemy to science, and did much good in the process.

Stephen Covey, another LDS man, does a similar thing ... as an LDS person it was obvious to me that he used certain code words are replacements for words we use in our church, but otherwise his seminars sounded very much like what I've heard in church a hundred times. He just uses code words like "tradition" instead of "religion", or "deeply personal" instead of "spiritual", or "something greater" instead of "God", or "selfish behavior" for "sin". Good business people with sound moral compasses love it because it's what they should be getting in church, they thirst for it, but they aren't going to church to get it. If I switch the words back his seminars they sound exactly like a Sunday School lessons (and a very good ones at that).

I think there's nothing wrong with suiting the language to fit the audience. As long as it doesn't change the message it should not matter whatever language you use to promote the principles normally taught in sunday school. What's important is that you're promoting wholesome behavior in a world where words like "wholesome" are ever more disparaged as time goes on.

I've alluded to this above so let me stop beating around the bush. As much as I respect and think highly of Dr. Christensen and his effort to bring Sunday School principles ... concepts on which our nation was founded but are now disparaged, into our universities, he erred when he didn't provide more guidance when his class "defined" humility. He erred when he distanced himself what humility really means. I understand that he had to adjust his approach given his audience but I do not for example understand why he felt the need to redefine humility in a way that pretends there are no sinners. Was it precisely because he wanted to be "disruptive"? That is incidentally what he's known for ... promoting "disruptive ideas" (i.e., unusually innovative and presumably timely and appropriate ideas) in the business world.

I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that reinventing religious concepts from an academic standpoint deprives the student from all kinds of truths that had previously been revealed to others. The best policy when learning anything is to first learn everything others have to share on the matter. Then develop, seek greater guidance, go deep inside and grab what's waiting next to be discovered which no man has yet considered. The greatest thinkers are those who already possess all preexisting knowledge, who then and only then are suited to expand upon the overwhelming preponderance of preexisting knowledge.

There's one other thing that I think the would-be academic-sunday-school teacher (he who teachers religious principles in academic settings for the benefit of humanity) should do differently. The last line of Dr. Christensen's essay reads: "This is my final recommendation: Think about the metric by which your life will be judged, and make a resolution to live every day so that in the end, your life will be judged a success." It's another good recommendation commensurate for people not quite ready to embrace that metric, but I think you should never assume an audience will get what you mean if you don't say it outright. In fact, Lea Carpenter didn't even get it ... her final conclusion about his essay was rather telling: "So the path is to find the path. The path is to find the right metric to measure the path. The more things change, the more they stay the same".

It's not a bad conclusion, but I suspect that wasn't Dr. Christensen was going for. So let me reveal that metric here: Charity is the metric, and charity is far more than doing stuff for others ... it's the subject of a thousand essays ... but the best of them are taught in Sunday School ... not at Harvard.

But if you don't go to Sunday School and you expect to get this direction from Harvard, you'll get it in a way that is at best "part 1", if it's even available there at all. We should be thankful that there are good people like Dr. Christensen who are willing to make an effort to bring such subjects into that environment.

Again, I think it's noteworthy that Dr. Christensen (or anyone for that matter) are bringing these principles back into public discourse where they enjoyed guiltless open discourse by our financial, political, and social founders of our country, and he deserves our respect and admiration ... he stands as a model for me of what to do when blessed as he's been blessed with success and a platform of respect within the academic world. I hope that most who hears such messages will feel the challenge and desire to go beyond mere allusions to religious ideals. I hope it wakens something inside them and that they look for part 2 where part 2 is to be found. The argument for a moral and ethical life is so much stronger when principles are taught in Sunday School rather than as developed via academic conjecture.

And perhaps Lea's conclusion is right if the path she finds is sunday school, though she and most other people need to rethink sunday school before they even give it a try. When people think of sunday school they think "yeah my kids can use that" but Sunday School is for grown-ups too ... it isn't just a bunch of stories about Jesus. In a grown-up Sunday School class you explore why humility is defined the way it is and why it is so superior to how Christensen's discusses it in his essay. You learn WHY humility is the enabling force behind both happiness, and misery ... and why both and when both emotions are appropriate and useful, and how humility enables a more enriching and fulfilling life. You learn in sunday school in words that are clear and unmistakable the very metric by which you should live your life (charity) and why it results in the greatest sense of personal peace, joy, and satisfaction - indeed resulting in a "meaningful life", as Dr. Christensen was trying to promote.

These are seeds of life-enriching truths of which Dr. Christensen already knew, but felt bound to not give them in full measure to his class, nor to the Harvard class of 2010 which received the commencement speach. But they got a taste, and for many they might not have been ready for any more than just a taste.

It's a step in the right direction ... and for many that's a huge step.

For those who want to go beyond that step they only need to get sunday school part 2, part 3, part 4 etc. Not by going to just any sunday school, but a good one for grown ups who ponder and ask the deep questions. Too many Pastors only spew ecumenical platitudes from the pulpit once/week without any substance but people need a more rigorous approach. One that's separate from the main services ... one with a sincere discussion leader who uses a good manual and asks the right questions, letting the class teach each other. One where they're invited to raise a hand and ask tough questions.

Sometimes it's hard time finding that. Even within my church a great Sunday School exists only when you make it that way for yourself. You have to study the lesson the week before and be ready with questions. If you challenge the instructor, in most cases they'll at least try to rise to the occasion, and if they don't ... maybe you can.

In summary I have my own recommendation for those who love learning of all kinds: Go to the institutions of men to learn the ideas of men, and to Sunday School to learn Sunday School truths. Go to both, but aim your efforts to get the best from the sources from where they first came pure and true.

For those who, like me, found it refreshing to see Christensen's ideas in academia, but also felt like they needed both more visibility and greater depth - don't be afraid. You can spread these truths without sounding religious ... though don't stray from the actual message, or from the definitions, or the concepts. Don't reinvent the wheel. Any religious person can write a good commencement speech if they know what words to use in place of the churchy words, but stay true to as much as you can. That's my "final recommendation".

Constitutionality, Fairness, and being a good neighbor

I've been thinking about the constitution a lot lately and all these claims of unconstitutionality with regard to different laws. I'd concluded that the constitution guarantees 'equality' but not 'fairness', and so by understanding the differences between 'equality' and 'fairness' one can accurately assess the constitutionality of a law.

I'm sure many would cry foul over this approach, but if you read the constitution you'll find that the closest guarantee of fairness (i.e., justice) is only a guarantee that a justice system will be established to determine justice on a case by case basis (an extremely prudent call to prevent the constitution itself becoming a document as large as all the combined civil and state court proceedings since then mid 1700's). So it begs the question: What is the difference between 'equality' and 'justice', or in other words what is to be decided by constitution and what by the justice system?

'Equality', I came to believe, has to do with the application or how a law is applied, rather than the impact of a law. In other words it's a yes/no test whether all the citizens are subject to the same law. Class-based gov't privileges, male-only voting, gov't imposed persecution of certain religions or ethnicities, and slavery laws all violate this rule of equal application to all citizens, hence they are unconstitutional. A law that only applies to heterosexuals for example is thus also unconstitutional.

But that's where many seem confused ... are speed limits unconstitutional because only those genetically pre-disposed to speeding feel limited? No, just because the law impacts then differently, it is still applied equally. Same goes for those who are genetically pre-disposed toward homosexuality feel limited by DOMA. DOMA is perhaps unjust, but the wording of the law is applied equally to all sexual orientations.

Then can you say a law limiting Saturday religious activities is equal and thus constitutional since all people have to abide by that law (be they 7th Day Adventists or Wednesday-worshiping Pagans)? Not if it can be proven that it was crafted for the express purpose of persecuting a person fitting a certain profile and in that case it seems cut and dry. Even so such a law would be immediately challenged and stricken, found grossly unfair and unjust in a court of law.

Can such a case them be made about DOMA? That is in fact what we are seeing done today ... as lawyers claim it is expressly for the purpose to persecute the gay community, but the case is not so cut and dry and the evidence is fairly overwhelming that most supporters are mainly interested in saving the institution of marriage in this country after seeing the institution (gay or straight) become a rarity in countries soon after gay marriage was sanctioned by their governments. Marriage is overwhelmingly understood and proven again and again to be the bedrock of a stable society throughout human history, and social scientists have good history and science based reasons to be deeply concerned about it's future if it isn't treated with the same sanctity that most people have had for it since the beginning of recorded history.

This seemed a pretty good theoretical construct to help simplify issues of constitutionality and fairness: i.e, the constitution deals with how equally rules are implemented from person to person, and the legal system deals with issues of fairness (i.e., justice). For some time I thought this simple distinction greatly simplified constitutional matters, and in fact I've yet to find a construct as concise and reasonable.

By using that distinction, it made sense how a constitutional law, a law everyone must live by, is not necessarily fair. It also helped me deduce that all laws are inherently unfair ... i.e., more favorable to one group than to another depending on varying conditions (needs, situations, predispositions, etc), and that our judicial system was a natural means whereby fairness could be meted out more equally by making laws and judgements to make justice more balanced.

Take the speed limit for example: My neighbor likes to drive slow, and I'm predisposed to drive fast (genetically I think as all my siblings are like that). It may seem unfair to some that by law he gets to drive his "happy speed", but by law I'm not allowed to drive my "happy speed". Now maybe going 25 mph down our street will someday be my "happy speed" too, but if it always drives me crazy to drive that slow, I'm okay with that. Why? Because: 1) it's constitutional since we both have the same rule: drive 25 mph down our street, and 2) if it's unfair, life is unfair - a fact I accepted long ago, and 3) I know genetically-customized speed limits are probably doable in the near-future but such a thing is not good for society for a number of reasons. So, not driving my "happy speed" is a sacrifice I'm happy to make for the sake of society, despite the fact that my neighbor get's to drive his "happy speed" everyday.

Take more controversial laws that seem to dance on the edge of constitutionality ... how do they fare with regard to my construct:

The DOMA (Defense Of Marriage Act) is constitutional according to the construct, and similarly to the speeding law it is not considered fair for everyone. 'Affirmative Action' on the other hand is certainly unconstitutional according to the construct, to which even Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas agrees: Affirmative Action is unconstitutional. Nonetheless, in the 90's it was ruled 'constitutional'. Did the construct fail?

I'm not sure if it failed or the Supreme Court fudged their definition of constitutionality, but what I do know is that it looks to me that the Supreme Court sometimes probably tells white lies to bring about fairness instead of admitting that they think that sometimes two wrongs really do make a right (whites were once allowed to be given preference, so now we're mandating that blacks be given preference).

Don't get me wrong ... constitutional or not, I think something should have been done to make our social system more equitable - even today Black America is disadvantaged in my opinion. So could that social equity have been better brought about some other way? Judge Clearance Thomas seems to think so. I don't know ... perhaps. What I do know is that simple definitions are better than complex ones and I think it must have been a rather creative definition for "constitutionality" to make Affirmative Action fit the definition. (getting offtopic, but imo the unique moral need for certain reparations should justify a temporary admittedly unconstitutional law to set things right, which would both highlight the importance of reparations while maintaining the integrity of the definition of constitutionality).

I also know most gay people would say that the DOMA is unconstitutional because the DOMA's rules will only result in legal action for people who are born with certain genetic predispositions. I see their point, but then I see that same point could be made about any law (the speed law will only result in legal action for those genetically predisposed to drive fast). Ensuing arguments, as far as I can anticipate can also be equally applied to both scenarios - equality must be judged based on the both the way the law is applied (not received) and the legally assessed main intent behind the law. Admittedly these distinctions leave the LGBT without constitutional teeth in this matter, but they still can fight the fairness of it in the state courts and surely they will and surely they will win anyway in the long run. This is by far the popular consensus among those both against or for gay marriage.

But at times I've wondered if my dismissal of the anti-DOMA point is weak. The most powerful argument the LGBT community has is that there isn't a difference between equality and fairness. They say the rules and outcomes of a given law are inseparable, and we're slicing hairs trying to take a sanitized approach to meting out justice in a way that's intrinsically messy ... trying to put into place some mechanical-like system that keeps us somehow unstained of any inequities that might result as we hide under the guise of "hey DOMA is constitutional".

Not that I think a legal system is intended to do that .. make justice seem less messy than it really is, Not that I'm an anarchist ... I do think however the written law can become a crutch to deal with difficult issues head-on on a case by case basis. I'm no longer, for example, such a fan of a constitutional provision for defining marriage being between a man and woman despite my insistence that it must not be defined any other way. In the end I find DOMA to be perhaps somewhat like Affirmative Action - a moral necessity that justifies it's existence despite the fact that, like "Affirmative Action" peoples of certain genetic make ups will be more limited with respect to what they want to do.

I don't like doing it the way they did affirmative action calling something clearly worthy of an exception to the constitution as constitutional - let's call these things what they are - reparations technically bordering on unconstitutionality but necessitated by dynamics that are the greatest threat to the bedrock of American society: the future average American family.

In the final assessment one must consider whether these reparations are important enough to support. In constitutional matters one MUST consider of the morals our founding fathers universally held, whether that they themselves would have welded them into the constitution themselves if they could have anticipated the precarious state of divorce and inner-city blight that our nation has. One must consider that the only hope for offsetting this damning trend is found with our youth ...those able to still have faith in our most common of sacred institutions which is being prostituted for selfish political gain of a small number who refuse to acknowledge the quickly ensuing and irreversible damage done to the institution of marriage in those countries that sanctioned gay marriage.

But I honestly think DOMA falls short ... and a fundamental re-understanding of the value and sanctity of marriage needs to envelope the nation if we hope to have a nation of strong families as we still have today. 1000 years from now I hope the forces for maintaining the traditional nature of that institution are just as strong, but not because we got too lazy to stay vigilant, thinking a constitutional provision would allow us to pretend that the institution is safe.

Regardless, there are issues too important to leave to future debate when the balance of public opinion can sway so radically, and in fact thats why our founding fathers created a constitution to protect us from the mobocracy into which democracy so frequently devolves. Our laws should be something future generations will always respect as being important enough to put into into writ. I think this was the thinking behind both DOMA. I'm not so sure it was the thinking behind Affirmative Action (It's intent being of a temporary nature).

Since both of those cases that dance on the edge of constitutionality we should at least ask if we're doing the right thing. Wherein is more damage done to the constitution:

1) to pretend a unconstitutional law is constitutional because it seems at least temporarily prudent? That is what I believe is currently taking place with a number of laws.
2) to conclude that we have a law or laws that are unconstitutional, but yet are so morally prudent as to supersede the need and authority of the need for "absolute equality at all costs"? This seems a more wholesome and honest approach ... one wherein the definition of the constitution can maintain more of it's integrity. Or,
3) should we conclude that all laws are exercises in varying levels of constitutionality?

Though I think there is some truth in the 2nd approach I like the last approach above the most ... to admit all laws involve a loss of freedoms somewhere and somehow ... to admit that every law impacts a group of people with one disposition, situation, or need better or worse vs. another group ... but to also simultaneously admit that the benefit of each law outweighs the harm caused by those factors .. and that it's the responsibility of of our legal institutions run by a living breathing institution that insures that balance exists, along with other checks and balances to keep everything honest.

It's the most humane approach to constitutional matters too. This approach allows a way to officially recognize those disadvantaged (for example, the gay community) as a result of any law and to provide as much compassion and means of compensation as deemed prudent.

We don't approach constitutionality that way though. Despite the fact that the constitution is in fact one of the most sacred documents of our nation and most revered with respect to it's authority in guiding and directing us, we've mistaken it's function as being a drop-in replacement for the mediation that we should be doing everyday to solve the differences between our ever-more disparate political and philosophical factions. As a result things are called constitutional that aren't, and things are called unconstitutional when in fact all laws have varying degrees of constitutionality associated with them. It's made for a bunch of awful rulings even at the highest level of our legal system, rendering the integrity of the word "constitutionality" not unlike a bowl of soggy oatmeal to be slung at any personal agenda an appointed judge wants to champion.

In the end what I've concluded is simply this: When you try to turn the constitutional and legal system into a mathematical formula or into a substitution for timely intelligent interactive and compassionate dialog, the system breaks down. Although you can rough in some basic guidelines from which a level of constitutionality can be ascertained, relying entirely on such criteria as if it were some justice-machine is a poor substitute for the mediation that takes place in the justice system. Mediation should be the rule rather than the exception. As a civil society it seems that we as a people should stop engineering a system that automatically meets our rights, privileges and justice according to some complicated formula agreed upon by biased appointed judges and conniving lawyers.

Instead we should hope to work these things out as needed having the prescience of a seer, the wisdom of a sage, and the intellect of a genius and to not be lazy hoping for constitutional provisions to do our thinking as to what's right for the present and the future. Instead of provisions, we should consider the merits of each altercation on a case-by-case basis, and no long champion the foolish and increasingly meaningless cries of "unconstitutionality", or cries to amend at every incidence of injustice. No longer should we allow judges to mangle the meaning of "constitutionality" as suits the will of their secret constituency to pass whatever they want. We should stop and ask ourselves in a marginal majority in a Supreme Court ruling is adequate proof that their verdict is just and based on sound principles (in fact it should actually be very disturbing that we automatically assume absolute veracity regarding any decision that involved disagreement splits nearly right down the middle). Justice isn't nor should it ever be believed to be so flexible and dubious.

I wish we could work toward fairness by common consent, and not just equity by vote, and I wish we could do it without government involvement. When government involvement is necessary, I hope we can keep it minimal since all laws are intrinsically without feeling and without personal regard. I hope also people would step back and be more prudent ... asking, "have I investigated what similar laws have done elsewhere, and what do I or my closest associate stand to gain in my cause? Are there incidents in my past that have made me unusually biased, and if so should I try a little harder to familiarize myself with others and other opinions coming from the best my competition has to offer rather than letting myself believe their worst to be their spokesman?"

These are far easier said than done. I don't seek out the best of those with opposing ideas, but I've been blessed to know some who are just that. I still mainly disagree, but I also disagree with my old party line far more than I used to - and it has been unpleasant, but ultimately a personally peace-enabling process, and one that has greatly increased my capacity to love whom at one time I'd have considered my enemy.

I highly recommend it to others to seek out the same experience but with regard to the most kind, and considerate, and intelligent of those they oppose. Toss Hannity and Olbermann aside and stop joining in on the hatefest. If you're so entrenched in your party that you know nobody outside it you're most likely deprived on some concepts that have never been fairly presented to make sense in a way that can really expand your preceptions. Get out of your comfort zone, and seek intelligent life elsewhere. If you don't know where to do this in person, you can try online. Start looking here: http://findblogs.com/political_economics_blogs

I've come to believe in both the goodness and the fearfulness of people, enough that I'm convinced if anything will undo America it is our lack of unity, given a public that is ever fearful of itself, ever more willing to shout reported differences and failings, ever more willing to mock without understanding, and ever more willfully stubborn to hear the story from the accused. Partisanship and snaps to judgement are destroying this country (and this world) faster than the best of mankind could possibly hold it together. Reactionary politics are strangling our legal and economic systems with laws and rules intended to favor one's own root constituency instead of favoring the citizenry as a whole. This is especially true for politicians and teachers and pundits who've pretended to pull-together and hold beer-summits while really playing only to their native constituencies under the table. Never before has the word "transparency" been so ironic.

I think we need to admit that we're all muddling through this - I know I am, and I know I know very little, yet even so it's obvious to someone as clueless as me that either I have a better grip on the unconstitutional nature of all laws than do some Judges in the Supreme Court, or that they're knowingly deceiving the public because they're afraid to admit to the public that our laws aren't as sacred as each person's ability to solve their differences in person.

It seems that while we admit there are gross inequities all throughout in the system it makes sense to also recognize our responsibilities as fellow citizens to those who feel victimized, finding common ground and showing compassion despite our differences. I've yet to see a situation where true compassion (or at least an effort to feel such) didn't at least begin to forge a way forward, even if it's just by saying, "I know this stinks for you ... and I'd like to see your side of the story", and then as a listener practice the most brotherly part of your religion or tradition whatever that religion or tradition might be.

It may not help every time, but this wrangling of the constitution as some sort of twisted rag that people use just to whip at each other ... I don't think that's what the constitution was intended for. To me, it's more of a guide, more than jsut any guide though ... it's the supreme guide for how we should govern our land - an example, and a standard. A standard FOR ME, so I can be more fair and just in my treatment of those around me. A standard FOR ALL, willing to take the time to study and weigh the weightier matters on a case by case basis, fully aware of the freedoms lost and inequities bestowed by every law made so we might not make laws lightly nor do so without provisions to insure disadvantaged parties receive some sort of restitution or at least official recognition of the sacrifice they must then make in the interest of the well-being of society.

Spock said the needs of the many out-weigh the needs of the few. Kirk said the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many. It's our job to simultaneously be logical as Spock, and sensitive as Kirk ... and that will never happen if we expect legal writ to do our thinking for us my making more and more laws, especially since the law only gets more inflexible and oppresive over time.

Jews for Jesus Founder Dies, 'Messianic Judaism' Controversy Lives On

Jews for Jesus Founder Dies, 'Messianic Judaism' Controversy Lives On

Two months ago the Jews for Jesus (JFJ) founder died. For sometime I've found this movement a bit interesting, but far more interesting has been the Jewish reception of this small sect, and when I say small I mean minuscule compared to the rest of Judaism. And by minuscule I mean a fraction of a fraction of a percent, and yet every Jew knows about it, and nearly every Jew has been indoctrinated by the Jewish community about how horrible the JFJ sect is.

It's really not too unlike how much of Christianity treats Mormonism, and our claims as being Christian. We believe Jesus was the Son of God, Savior, Creator, Redeemer of all Mankind, and the ONLY way whereby man can be saved ... and yet there's this one thing called "the Trinitarian doctrine", which mainstream says you must accept in order to be a TRUE Christian. Never mind that nowhere in the bible does it say you must believe in that concept of Christ, and never mind that the Trinitarian belief only exists among the mainstream Christians because it was borrowed from the Catholic from which they split.

Never mind the Catholic church invented it and voted it in on 323 AD in Nice Italy by popular (however not unanimous) vote. Never mind that it contradicts Jesus talking to a separate being called "God the Father" on multiple occasions (i.e., forgive them Father for they know not what they do" - talking to himself?), and there being 3 separate entities mentioned during his baptism, not to mention a fair number of New Testament based visions of his apostles depicting Him on the right hand of God. We're supposed to accept the Baptism minister's interpretation that these are all symbolic, right? Again ... who was Christ praying to in the Garden when his disciples fell asleep? Himself?

I don't mean to lightly dismiss of a concept that others might find enabling in some way, but for me "God so loved the world that he gave his only Begotten Son" looses all it's impact to me if he's just talking about giving of himself, but sacrificing his distinctly separate and literal Son, who was perfect - that's love that knows no bounds. And yet, because I believe that I'm not a Christian? Such a rule is absurd just like the Jewish rule that you have to deny Christ to be a Jew.

But it's to be be expected that all popular sects eventually make up whatever rules they can to stay in power and put down sects that they might find threatening.

That said, the Jews weren't the author of this "By definition a Jew rejects Jesus" rule so some compassion should be afforded to them in this matter. Do you know where that rule came from? Do any of the Jews?

I don't think so. The history books are pretty clear on this one: The Jewish people never considered the rejection of Jesus as Messiah as being intrinsic to their Jewish identity until long after early Christianity identified them first as Christ-crucifiers (incidentally, a despicable and grossly unfitting moniker, especially for descendents who never knew Jesus). I.e., historically speaking that is exactly where this absurd illogical rule came from: from the gentiles.

In fact before Jesus there were many Messiah type figures and the OT could be and was interpreted to suggest that a Messiah was the Lords 'Annointed" server to "deliver" his people from bondage something that happened frequently, whether it be Hazael, Jehu, Saul, Joash of Judah, David ... the difference that Christ was a deliverer of a spiritual nature, and a kingdom not of the world ... most indications are that although he was despised of the Sanhedrin most who didn't follow him certainly didn't define their Jewishness by that fact. In fact, their Jewishness was defined by their adherence to the Jewish law ... enough that when Paul said it wasn't necessary to keep it anymore it caused quite an uproar among the Christians of the time.

That was how Jews identified themselves - the strictness of their observances of their law ... it had nothing to do with Christ, or a Messiah of any kind. Again, that's not to say some didn't find the concept of Christ offensive - but it was only the Sanhedrin who stirred that pot and even the NT bears out that fact.

So it should be no surprise that Josephus merely mentions Jesus in passing, the popular consensus even among non-Christians being that his references to Christ at a minimum admitted he existed, and among Christians a consensus that Josephus (a well-published prodigy of Jewish thought in 60 AD) did not consider Christ as a key figure in Jewish thought in any way even 30 years after his death (which is what one would expect when considering Josephus' background).

The first time we hear of the "Rejection of Jesus" being associated with Jewish identity is at the time of Christ among the Christians, not the Jews. Even then it took 300 years until this association the became the justification for persecuting the Jews and that is where the Jewish people came face to face with that identity - but to their credit they maee their resilience and self-determination in the face of such persecution by Christians part of their identity. Still evil rarely begets pure good, and even if the Jews were the best of people and being told by not only their persecutors, but admissions by their teachers .. the Rabbi's for the next 1700 years that such noble resilience is tied to their rejection of Jesus as the Christ ... How could "Rejector of Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ" not become one's self-imposed identity under such conditions?

So here we are today after 1700 year of it being forced upon them, the idea has become central to all Jews, both secular or orthodox: Being Jew means rejecting Jesus as the Christ - an idea that neither originated with them nor was even representative by more than a small minority of powerful Jews at the time of Christ. Remember also, it wasn't the Jews that pierced his side with a sword, or whipped him, and forced a bloody crown of thorns upon his head. In short, not only was the identification forced upon them, the identification is no less suitable to the rest of mankind.

Now consider that concept of judging someone out of hand, out of pure bias, ... MIND YOU again: not their fault in any way that this rule exists as part of Jewish self-identification (and I hope my point that non-Jews are to blame for it is well established). Is it a logical rule? Sensible? It is in fact the very definition of prejudice.

Nowhere in the scriptures, OT or NT, is prejudice of any kind promoted. Even the Old Testament is replete with the efficacy of prayer as a means to gain understanding, as well as the virtue of justice and mercy extolled. These concepts ever have been universal. We all are taught to judge fairly, and everyone with a brain knows God gave it to be used to judge between light and dark. By their fruits shall you know them, or in secular terms: actions speak louder than words, and to do otherwise is the very definition of prejudice.

So why would anyone want that as part of their identity, especially since it would be used for tens of generations to return such prejudice but by 1000 fold? Surely anyone should be able to see that this part of their identity is not a calculated investment ... it was programmed into the Jewish community as part of their identity.

Furthermore if they themselves, the Jews, believe an association with a prejudicial behavior to be true ... even an identity to be protected and honored ... there is there no wonder why similarly it could, even should, be so easily levied against the JFJ constituents?

Now don't get me wrong here ... Jews need not accept Jesus to be considered a fair and just people, but they only need to strike the elements of prejudice from their self-imposed definition of what it means to be a Jew. Instead they should adopt on official identity as a people who reserve judgement of anyone until fair investigation is made, living and letting others live, without bias but rather with compassion.

I hope they do but those Haredi seem to have a strangle-hold on the upper elements of the Israeli ministry. Despotism and Aryan-like philosophies find strange bedfellows ... I'd never have suspected they'd happen among those who once suffered most from them.

And what am I talking about here? I'm talking about just how much prejudice is leveled against the JFJ movement throughout Judaism - a story you likely haven't been told. Believe me when I say the level of abject disregard that most Jews have for the JFJ group is difficult to believe, and the origin as coming from 2000 years of indoctrination by persecutors is poorly understood as I described above even by Rabbi's. For example, in my experience most Jewish people would rather share an elevator with any anti-semite" bent on Israel's demise than with a Jew-for-Jesus member who sees them as a brother.

Admittedly I understand how they feel threatened by any organization who's #1 goal is to convert them specifically (and such is the case with JFJ - their primary target is to convert other Jews), but let's look at the official Israeli response, and you be the judge if the punishment fits the crime:

For over 20 years according Israeli State law, any foreign Jew by birth may be granted Israeli citizenship upon mere application (even unbelievers so long as the documents are valid) UNLESS they are a Jew for Jesus (JFJ) member. This sounds crazy, but it is true. Due to Rabbinical oversight of the ministry in the 1980's they REDEFINED a Jew as including the fact that one must NOT believe in Jesus. As if that wasn't discriminatory enough, the ultra-orthodox are now trying to make the JFJ organization illegal so it can purge it's remaining adherents (which make up a fraction of a percent of the population) from the country of Israel. A simple google search will even reveal claims that Israeli ministry has admitted to working WITH ultra-orthodox Jewish sects to further harass and intimidate existing JFJ members.

This is an unfortunate development in a region already synonymous with gross discrimination and injustice. This is egregious when practiced at the State level by a so-called-democracy that enjoys the friendship of the west who expects them to be a beacon of justice, espousing freedom of thought and speech in a region otherwise devoid of such virtues. Sadly, it seems that with regard to Jews-for-Jesus they are exactly like their neighbors. Just last month the same ultra-orthodox Jews in league with the ministry proudly admitted to segregating children from less strict forms of Judaism within the schools (resulting in jail time for the perpetrators proving at least that the legal system isn't yet entirely as corrupted as is parts of the Israeli ministry).

Rabbis rationalize this injustice by claiming that JFJ rebrands Christianity as a branch of Judaism, but of course all Christianity considers itself the successor of Judaism, and considers Judaism as the "lesser" law with Christianity as the rightful successor. Where's the outrage over that? JFJ seems much less harsh in it's view of Judaism - at least maintaining that compatible Jewish traditions are noble and worth continuing. Rabbi's arguments that it can only be understood on religious terms COMPLETELY fails due to the fact that even most unbelieving Jews dislike the existence of the JFJ as much as most of the most religious conservatives. Instead it's all as I said earlier: offensive because they see it as attacking their now prized-identity as Jesus-Rejectors ... and identity they adopted from gentiles as I explained above.

In the end, despite my dismay at this institutionalized discrimination within Israeli thought I have great hopes for Israel ... and I understand and relate with the sacred nature of the identity of a people ... especially regarding the Jews when you look at their resilience throughout history. Having an attachment to my identity as a Mormon in light of the struggles of my forefathers also means a lot to me.

Furthermore, I understand and can excuse to date how they can adopt for themselves an uncouth definition for their identity originally espoused by their enemies because I've seen that happen to some of my LDS friends where a false idea imposed from the outside has made it's way into their self-identification as a Mormon. As an example of this I think of the doctrine of being saved by a mixture of works and grace. It's a criticism leveled against Mormons "earning their way to heaven". I've heard Mormons respond by defending such a belief despite the fact that we do NOT believe in being saved through a mixture of works and grace*, in other-words other I've seen first-hand people of my own faith adopting an identity forced upon them because they wrongly assumed the criticism levied against us was honest in nature.

The Jews are therefore no worse for doing the same ... adopting for themselves the forced-upon identity of "Christ Rejectors" as being definitive of their Jewish identity.

I'm an Israel supporter, largely because I see a lot less institutionalized prejudice in them than in their neighbors, and their military actions are for the most part far more defensive than what we see exhibited by any of their neighbors. As Americans and as their allies we need to expect from them a higher standard of justice and equity. It behooves the President of the United States to have Israel reconsider how far right it is willing to go ... will the ministry entrench itself more deeply with the Haredi who seem bent on purging Christians from among their citizenry? How do they expect us to believe their claims of clemency for Palestinians, which they disregard such for JFJ members? What will we do if they try purging from among themselves a group of peaceful citizens, and do they know or believe that we won't stand for religious or ethnic intolerance by them anymore than we would from ourselves?

Frankly I'm ashamed our government has looked the other way this long on this issue. At a minimum we need to call out prejudice when we see it, and not just when it's politically expedient. I appeal to Benjamin Netanyahu ... a man who's career I've followed and admired for a long time and have seen as a bright hope of sensible and rationale thought in a sea of otherwise radical ideologies: encourage your people to be prudent, wise, and fair - especially your cabinet members. Help your people see they are above institutionalized prejudice as a national, ethnic or religious identity ... promote the idea that no judgement is just regardless of the reputation of the accused, until investigated thoroughly and fairly, free of cultural, religious or ethnic bias, and with compassion. Once such ideas are adopted Israel will have a permanent hope for salvation in this life and in the next, but without complete equity and efforts toward fairness there is no hope.
----

* Regard the true Mormon belief regarding faith and works as they pertain to salvation: We believe in being saved by grace, not by works, lest any man boast ... HOWEVER one who is truly worthy of Christ's grace must have works to be qualified so that the grace can work a mighty miracle to bring about the forgiveness of one's sins. Nobody has the capability to erase sin but Christ regardless of how much good they might do ("[saves another] hideth a multitude of sins" also frequently misunderstood), and perfect cleanliness is required for exaltation and eternal life. Mormon doctrine regarding salvation is however still distinctly different than mainstream Christian thought. In Mormon doctrine qualifying for grace is a constant process of proving one's devotion to Christ's teaching ... not a mere destination achieved by uttering the words "I believe" after-which one will go to heaven regardless of their subsequent behavior (that's the mainstream Christian belief on the issue). So Mormon belief is different than mainstream Christian belief in this matter, but it's still all done by the grace of Christ for which we must qualify by our faith and works ("grace without works is dead"). Note that this misunderstanding largely comes from misunderstanding a scripture in the Book of Mormon to mean that salvation is at least partially "earned". It says "We are saved by grace, after all that we can do", but that doesn't mean what we do is part of what saves us. It merely means that those who don't love him enough to continually try to do their best ... i.e., "all we can do" can take advantage of the sacrifice the offered in our behalf. But this is often misunderstood in popular Mormon thought, and I firmly believe that it comes from a knee jerk reaction to defend anything thrown in our face by those who don't like us - i.e., adopting for ourselves an identity forced upon us which is not accurate.

Can't shut up

I used to have a blog. Thought i was smart or something. Now am not so sure ... but still have this propensity to not shut up about some things.

A blog seemed too much work, so I stopped doing it. Then I found myself barfing in the comments of other people's blogs ... by barfing I mean basically making their comments section a replacement for my blog.

Sorry if I did that to your blog.

So I stopped all online interactions for 6 to 12 months, then felt like I needed to start up again, but not really.

So this is the result.

If I offend anyone ... I'm sorry.

About

I used to have a blog ... thought I knew stuff. Now I'm not so sure.

Anyway, I stopped blogging for a lot of reasons, but found I was blogging in other people's comments. It was shameful, and I was embarrassed. I stopped all online interactions altogether for about 8 months.

Then I entered a competition. My entry needed promotion and I was encouraged to use every online social tool at my disposal ... I thought "hey, maybe I should break my silence and visit people's blogs again if I'm short and succint and not 'bloggy' in the comments". On the 1st blog I visited I realized I just plugged my competition entry in the comments section ... I'd become a spammer ... oh, the shame! Gone from bad to worse!

That’s when I realized that I have to blog. It’s not a choice … I was born that way ... like some sort of genetically pre-disposition, or a health condition. When people ask my how I see myself I think I’ll tell them: “Blog ... I am blog. I can’t help it, I was born blog.”

But I really have no time to blog, and now is like the worst time in the world for me to start up blogging again due to various pressures put on my life right now from just about every angle imaginable (except from my wife and kids – God bless them). So I’m trying to limit my blogging to really late at night when I should be in bed, so when you read a post and it sounds like I’m half asleep yammering on about nothing in particular then you’ll know why: because that’s exactly what’s happening, I’m half asleep yammering on about nothing in particular.

Cognitive excess is what I call it … spewing it out before it builds up and explodes out at the most inapropriate time, like when I'm commenting on someone else's blog, or at the water cooler when I'm supposed to be talking about sports. Maybe with time and good commenting behavior some of those blogs will stop screening my comments.