Church Signs

Can I just ask that churches with church signs be careful about what they put up? Frankly I'm of the opinion that church signs should be restricted to church info like times of service or to Scripture. Anything else seems to get the church into trouble.

Or make them look foolish.

There is a certain church not too far from where I live that makes me cringe EVERY time I drive past it. It's a Baptist church, and for some reason Southern Baptist churches seem to be the worst about this. We're not Baptists anymore, but even back when we were, we would never visit this particular church in large part because of the stupid signs on the front of the building - which faces a major highway here in town. I have always wondered where they get their kitschy little quotes, figuring it had to be some cute little blond secretary who had a book from the local Christian bookstore. If so, please put the book in the trash!

The sayings are either just cheesy and rather stupid like this one from a couple of years ago:

"SALVATION... It does a body good!"

To just really bad theology, like the one currently on the front of the church:

"Seek first God's kingdom and the things you want will seek you."

I have no idea the motive behind the church leadership allowing such things on the front of the church, but I have a hard time believing this will draw in new visitors. It for sure kept us away years ago when we were searching for a Baptist church to attend.

Stepping off the soap box now.

Ridiculous

Over the weekend, I received a letter from a company I had bought a doll dress ensemble from. The dress was a doll belonging to Aubrey who is 10 years old. This letter informed the reader that the Consumer Product Safety Commission recently enacted new safety guidelines, requiring stricter testing for products sold for children. Yeah, I think I heard of that one. Oh yeah, in fact I wrote both my senators about that one. It might go down as the dumbest piece of legislation this century.

Sheesh.

Anyway, The letter was sent to inform me that the soles of the shoes from the dress ensemble failed to meet the new lead requirements. It went on to say:

Therefore, we request that you please take these shoes away from children and dispose of them. The primary safety concern is that IF THESE SHOES WERE SWALLOWED, THE LEAD IN THE SOLE OF THE SHOES COULD BE ABSORBED BY THE BODY and cause adverse health effects. (emphasis most definitely mine)

The company generously offered a $20 credit to compensate for the inconvenience. Grrrr. So not only is Big Brother making these companies do this impossibly strict testing, they now have to compensate us for it?

I'm sorry, but I am not the least bit concern that my TEN YEAR OLD will accidentally swallow these doll shoes. And frankly, if I were, I'd have bigger problems to deal with than lead poisoning.

Oh, and BTW, I do NOT intend to throw away any shoes, and I do not intend to take the company up on the $20 credit, tightwad though I am. This is my way of tossing the tea overboard.

Radical

Most of the people who know me now might not believe this, but I minored in Political Science in college (major in history). I took as many constitutional law classes as I could; I just ate that stuff up. I was also much more idealistic then.

As I've gotten older, I have to admit that I have grown much more cynical. Not that I consider that a good thing. I really don't. However, it seems justified. I think of it as a constant reminder that this world is not my home, lest I grow too attached to it. This has translated, unfortunately, into a tendency to bury my head in the sand. Some weeks, the only news I get is what my husband tells me or what I read on my friend Cathi's blog.

I say this because I don't comment on politics too much here. However, I am going to do something so radical - at least to me - that I felt compelled to post it. (My husband accuses me of blogging about our entire lives, but I think he exaggerates.)

I am not going to vote Republican in the presidential election this fall.

I've been voting for quite a few years now, and I have voted Republican 99% of the time. It is the party which most closely reflected my political ideology. However, I am very dissatisfied with the way the Republican party has drifted further and further away from its roots of limited government. As far as I can tell, the only real difference between most Democrats and Republicans is the fact that most Republicans are pro-life and more friendly towards the 2nd amendment and homeschooling than most Democrats. In other words, Republicans are for "big" government and Democrats for "bigger" government.

Now don't get me wrong, those are the top three concerns in my book. However, I don't believe John McCain is strong enough in these to offset my concerns about his other policies. I voted in the Republican primary, and McCain would have been the last or next to last on my list at that time (because of his pro-choice stance, Guiliani would have ranked lower than McCain).

Now, this does not mean I'm voting for Obama. No siree. The thought of him as president makes me glad I'm a Calvinist.

So I'm going to do something I never thought I would do. I'm voting for a third party candidate. Kelly has been talking to me for a few years about the Constitutional Party. In fact, he has this listed as his party affiliation on Facebook. (I also like the looks of the American Independent Party, with Alan Keyes as its candidate.) I have decided to vote for Chuck Baldwin who, unfortunately, in Texas is a write-in candidate. For those of you who supported Ron Paul during the primary, Paul has endorsed Baldwin.

May God have mercy on us.

P.A.P.A. - Yet Another Reason Not to Send your Kids to Government Schools

Texas has a new mandatory class that all high schoolers in public school must take, called P.A.P.A. - Parenting and Paternity Awareness.

“They talk about buying ‘x’ number of diapers -- over how many months and years and the cost,” explains Beverly Linkneyer, administrator of the Northside ISD health curriculum. *

The Texas Attorney General - who asked for the class to be taught (since when does the attorney general set curriculum policy?)- says that:

Key themes in the curriculum focus on the importance of father involvement, the value of paternity establishment, the legal realities of child support, the financial and emotional challenges of single parenting, the benefits of both parents being involved in a child's life, healthy relationship skills, and relationship violence prevention.**

Did you catch that?

The value of paternity establishment.

The legal realities of child support.

Now the government is wanting to teach your children how to be parents. Not only that, they are preparing your child for a life of single parenthood. No morality, just this will cost too much money - look at all the diapers you'll have to buy, the child support you'll have to pay, and how it will ruin your life. And since God and Christianity are banned from curriculum, does any Christian parent think that this class will be teaching their son or daughter how to raise their children up "in the fear and admonition of the Lord?" Do you really want the government teaching your children how to parent?

Setting the morality issue aside for a moment, in an age when everybody talks about how the education system is failing, and how we have to stress things like math and science, why are we spending millions of dollars and hours of school time teaching these things? Is this the proper arena for this? I think not. This is the job for parents, families, churches. Can schools who are failing academically afford to take the time to teach these things?

Finally, I did want to mention that the reason touted for this new curriculum is to address the extremely high numbers of teen pregnancy. While I share the concern for the problem, I completely disagree with their solution. Sex Ed has been taught in schools for at least 2 decades and the teen pregnancy numbers have just increased. Besides, what teenaged couple - or adult couple for that matter - will stop in the heat of the moment and say, "Wait, we can't do this. We can't afford the diapers."

*Click here for the local story. **Click here for the Texas Attorney General site describing the class.

Nanny Help? *Updated

The other day I was flipping channels, and ran across one of those nanny shows. You know, where the British nanny comes over to some family here in America whose kids are totally out of control. They come in and straighten the whole thing out in a few days with a few simple rules. Yeah, right. I wonder how long it takes for things to get back to the way they were once the cameras and nanny leave?

But I digress into my eternal pessimism.

Anyway, what caught my attention was that the nanny was suggesting that the parents set up an allowance for chores system, because the kids took everything for granted and were used to having everything given to and done for them. I was surprised because current popular American child rearing wisdom says not to tie allowance to work of any kind. If you are familiar with our family, you know we think that is hogwash.* I think, ok, maybe these nannies do know a thing or two.

So she went about setting up a chore chart for an 8 and 9 year old, who had never done chores before, were completely disrespectful to mom, dad, and grandma, and screamed for what they wanted. The nanny set up three chores for these two kids. They had to:

keep their rooms clean
clear off their dishes after meals
make their beds every day

I was stunned. In our house it is considered a "chore" if it helps out the family at large or takes a job from mom or dad. In other words, picking up their own toys in their room is not a chore. It is simply taking responsibility for their own things. Cleaning a bathroom, doing dishes, etc. are considered chores.

Besides that, my three year old does more around the house than that. She does all of these, plus puts away her laundry that she can reach, helps fold the towels - like washrags and dishrags - and put them away if she can reach them, puts the clean silverware in the drawer, brings down her dirty laundry from her hamper on her wash day, and is always bringing me things when I ask.

That poor nanny probably doesn't want to know what my nine year old does! Not only does she do her own laundry, as well as Ashlynn's laundry, she dusts, vacuums, cleans bathrooms - including scrubbing toilets - sweeps, helps cook, does dishes, pulls weeds, dusts blinds, and folds a good bit of the laundry, along with her sisters. Of course my eleven year old does even more than that!

It seems to me a poor way to raise hardworking adults if we never expect them to work, and working around the house is a built in way to instill a desirable work ethic, which includes teamwork and self discipline. I'm all for kids having fun and playing, being creative and doing extra-curricular type activities. We do those as well. But whether your kids are in a day school or homeschooled, they need to learn early and consistently that they have to pull their share of the load. Not only does this teach them valuable life skills - I think we all went to college with kids who had never washed a load of laundry before - but it will prepare them for a productive adulthood.

It also helps make life a little easier in a house full of short people.

*UPDATE: I said this in the comment section but decided to say it here as well. There are perfectly valid reasons not to tie allowance to chores - that is something for each family to decide, as Kristen said. That's not what I meant by "hogwash."

I have read several articles by experts of one kind or another that warn not to ever tie allowance to chores because of the psychological damage it can cause. They premise that paying kids money for chores will cause them and their work ethic harm. They'll grow up only doing housework if they are paid for it. This, I believe, is hogwash.

ATTENTION SAN ANTONIO DRIVERS

I have an announcement:

The left lane of traffic on freeways and interstates is a passing lane. I realize that this is a new concept for many of you, especially those headed west/south on 1604 last night. But, unless you are passing someone, you are supposed to drive in the right lane.

This goes especially if you decide to drive 3 miles per hour below the speed limit.

Oh, and if a car comes up behind you and has to slow down, it might be an indication that you need to move into the right lane of traffic.

And if cars are passing you on the right, it is definitely a sign to MOVE INTO THE RIGHT LANE!

OK, rant over. :-)

Education: tool or religion?

Today is the first day of school for most of our city. This is a puzzling day for Kelly and I as we listen to so many parents who rejoice that their kids are off their hands and back to school. I usually hear several people say this is the happiest day of their year. Since Kelly and I (for the most part) enjoy being around our children, and enjoy raising them, educating, and training them, this really puzzles us. So why did they have kids if they can't wait to be rid of them?

But I digress.

I am concerned about a trend I see in our country. For the last 50-100 years, education has become the new god, and all the trappings of education the new religion. Education is hailed as the cure to all of society's ills. If we can just get them young enough, the professional educator or politician might say, then we can eradicate such and such. If we can just get them to believe the right things, or spend enough money, then we can alter the future. There is nothing from domestic violence to poverty that can't be defeated if the right education were in place.

This ignores some very basic Biblical principles. Man is sinful - is conceived in sin. All of the earth's problems stem from this fact. And the only way to address this very root of evil is the cross. Not the correct K-12 education.

The Old Testament is replete with examples of God's people turning aside to follow the gods of the land in which they inhabited. I fear that many Christians have fallen into the same trap. Some buy into the world's belief that society can be cured through the right school program or curriculum. This in spite of the fact that the public schools teach what is direct opposition to the Word of God.

But I am concerned that those who have bucked the public educational system, especially homeschoolers, can often fall into the same trap. I have read and talked to some homeschoolers who seem to have the idea that doing so is a guaranteed "Do not pass go, go straight to heaven" card for their kids. That somehow it is a guarantee that the kids will turn out well. I think it is really easy to fall into this holier-than-thou attitude when we believe in something so strongly. However, I believe it is a form of legalism to get into this thinking. But no matter our educational method, only faith in their Risen Savior can take these children from sinner to holy and saved.

As the school year begins for so many, remember that our purpose is to glorify God in everything we do, and that includes raising our children. We need to teach them that is also to be their aim in life. Education is a tool in which to do that, to show them how to hide His word in our hearts, and to prepare them for the work God will call them to as adults. If your method of education does not do that, whether your kids go to public school, private, or are homeschooled, might I suggest that this is the perfect time to reevaluate things. Education is important, but without faith, it like a clanging gong or a clashing cymbal.

Warning: I'm getting on my soapbox

Since we did nothing around the house but get ready for Bible Study tonight, I wanted to rant a little about something.

Monday evening I took the girls out to a few stores looking for, among other things, swimsuits for my two oldest daughters, Kora (10) and Aubrey (8). Kora's suit from last year no longer fit, and the one that now fit Aubrey was a two piece that Kora had worn three years ago because I had given up on finding her a one piece that fit - she's very long torso-ed. Well since then, I've re-thought the whole tummy baring two piece for them, and wanted to replace Aubrey's suit as well.

Kora is also in that stage where she is just about ready to out grow the girls' sizes and move up. So I was already nervous. She tried on well over a dozen suits. They were ALL too low cut. Some of them barely covered up what they were supposed to cover! And some of them had a deep vee so low it looked like something a model on the cover of Cosmo would wear! I would have thought that maybe it was just the way Kora was built except that we had similar problem with Aubrey!

We were finally able to find a suit for Aubrey, but not one for Kora in the stores. I was so frustrated. And only one of the stores I went to had a juniors' section, but every single one of their suits was a bikini! I am very fortunate in that my girls are very modest by nature, so they weren't wanting these revealing things either. ARG! Why would manufacturers design little girls' swimsuits this way?!?

So I ended up buying her suit, for three times as much as I spent on Aubrey's, from Lands End. I never thought I would ever buy anything from there, but in the last year I've bought me a swim suit there, and Kora some dresses, and now another swim suit. Thank you Lord, that there are still some places that don't mind dressing little girls like little girls. Now if they could just send me a lifetime discount for giving them a rousing endorsement...

Warning: PG-13 content: so parents, be warned

I missed this article a few weeks ago, but this is how it starts:

A federal judge in Massachusetts has ordered the "gay" agenda taught to Christians who attend a public school in Massachusetts, finding that they need the teachings to be "engaged and productive citizens."

U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf yesterday dismissed a civil rights lawsuit brought by David Parker, ordering that it is reasonable, indeed there is an obligation, for public schools to teach young children to accept and endorse homosexuality.

The article is reporting on a lawsuit that two Christian families brought trying to keep their ELEMENTARY age children from being taught that homosexuality is right at their public schools. The judge ruled that:

In the ruling, Wolf makes the absurd claim that normalizing homosexuality to young children is 'reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy.' According to Wolf, this means teaching 'diversity' which includes 'differences in sexual orientation.'

In addition, Wolf makes the odious statement that the Parkers' only options are (1) send their kids to a private school, (2) home-school their kids, or (3) elect a majority of people to the School Committee who agree with them. Can you imagine a federal judge in the Civil Rights era telling blacks the same thing – that if they can't be served at a lunch counter they should just start their own restaurant, or elect a city council to pass laws that reflect the U.S. Constitution?

This type of ruling was seen in effect even more recently when a high school in Deerfield, Illinois held a gay seminar for all freshman, making them sign a confidentiality agreement to not tell anyone - even their own parents - that they attended such a meeting.

We are often admonished that we can still send our kids to government school and also obey the instruction to bring our children up in the instruction and admonition of the Lord. For many years, Kelly and I have not believed this is the case. And not just because of the homosexuality issues. In spite of many Christian teachers and administrators who try their best, the government schools are firmly in the hands of government officials, judges, administrators, and unions who use the schools to promote, not a neutral atmosphere as they claim, but a very atheistic, anti-Christian atmosphere. Of which this particular issue is merely a symptom.

I often hear, "It's not happening in my child's school." Maybe not. Yet. But if they make a promise not to tell you, how will you know?

HT: Kim

The Vaccine Uproar

Here in Texas there is quite an uproar about the governor's recent executive order to require pre-teen girls to receive a vaccine against the HPV virus before they can attend school. Now before I get into this, I want to state that Kelly and I have not decided whether or not we will give this vaccine to our girls. Since we homeschool, this order does not directly affect our family. We don't know enough about this vaccine yet to make that determination.

BUT, I have to say, I have been so surprised at the reaction across the state to this order. Even within my family there has been outrage from unexpected quarters. And frankly I don't get it.

Why this vaccine? Why not the Hepatitis A or B? Is it that this one is transmitted completely through intimate contact? The parents across the state see this as a violation of their rights to make medical decisions for their children.

And they are right of course. But my point is THAT THIS IS NO DIFFERENT FROM THE OTHER VACCINES, from the state education sex education, and other such things that come part and parcel along with government run education. Frankly, if you think that they have a right to demand your child have all the other vaccines, I don't see why you object to this one.

Yes, I know several of the other vaccines prevent illnesses that are airborne, and thus present a different threat. But (1) this does not trump the responsibility the parent has for the health and wellness of their children, made in consultation with a medical professionals, and (2) in the climate of sexual permissiveness that pervades that public schools these days, the difference between STD and airborne diseases is not as much as one would think.

Now our family is not anti-vaccines. We do give our children most of the shots available. Not all, but most. But we make this decision based upon our own research, upon the advice of our physician, and with much prayer. Not based upon what bureaucrats somewhere have decided would be best for my children, whom they have never seen.