Nous Namlok Ein Problema.

Earlier this week I saw a news story that baffled me. In a nutshell, an Iranian couple filed a formal complaint against the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety. They wanted to take their driver's license exams in Farsi, their native tongue, and the state refused their request. The couple does not understand English well enough to pass the normal exam. The complaint accused the state department of "unlawful discrimination based on national origin."

Um, excuse me, but last time I checked, all of our street signs are in English. I'd hope someone could understand enough English before being issued a driver's license. (Just so happens the couple went across state lines to Kansas where they were allowed to take the test based on symbols and not language. They then crossed back into Oklahoma and exchanged their Kansas licenses for Oklahoma ones.)

I heard the young man who filed the complaint on the couple's behalf in an interview a few days ago. It was his belief that every state should provide driver's tests in any language requested. Can you imagine the administrative and financial burden this would place on the government (and in turn, your tax dollars)?

Now, I have no problem with legal immigration. It's how this nation started and one of the many reasons for its greatness. We've been able to draw from the strength and creativity of so many different cultures, and that is beautiful. But it is my belief that in order to maintain the unity and functionality of a nation, you need at least two things: BORDERS and COMMON LANGUAGE. We need to make English the official language of the United States, and people should be expected to learn it if they choose to make their home here.

What do you think? Should English be made the official language of our nation?

The Buck Stops...Where?

As I listen to the promises being made by the Democratic Presidential candidates, I can’t help but wonder at the worldview inherent within their ideas. They seem to be doing everything possible to eradicate the idea of personal responsibility and replace it with a government of god-like proportions.

Take, for example, their proposed response to the so-called housing crisis. In different ways and to varying degrees, they would, in essence, have the government bail out those facing potential foreclosure. This may sound good and compassionate, until one looks at the implications of such a notion.

Say, for example, you too are a homeowner. You may have done everything right: bought a house you could afford even if its not exactly what you want, made the sacrifices necessary to live on the required budget, maybe even worked two jobs when things got tight. Meanwhile, down the road lives someone in a mansion far beyond their means. They may be completely irresponsible with their money. And who’s to say if they really are working as hard as they could to make the payments? Would it really be right for the government to use your hard-earned money to bail out this neighbor? And what about people who have chosen to forestall buying a house until they know they can afford it? Is it right to use their money to help those living an unearned life of luxury?

Many people these days have a strange sense of entitlement. They think they have a right to a certain lifestyle, even if they must use credit cards to finance it. And if all else fails, well there’s always the government, their virtual savior. But tell me, what would be the harm in people actually facing the consequences for the actions? Isn’t that how we learn and grow?

Now I’m not saying there aren’t people in legitimate need, people who made good decisions and just had some tough breaks. But my husband sees far too much of the other in his line of work as a carpenter. Just the other day, he was working in the home of a young couple in a multi-million dollar house. Their TV’s alone are worth thousands of dollars, and yet, although they’ve already lived in the house for a year, they still owe the builder a sizable chunk of money they claim they can’t afford. Who knows what they owe the bank.

Are you okay with your tax dollars footing the bill for them and others like them? You decide.

But Mercy

In honor of Easter weekend, this is a meditation on the MERCY of God that made the Easter story possible. My husband and I wrote this song for our Easter service this Sunday.

BUT MERCY

Verse 1:
Clothed in flesh the Father's hand
Reached down from heaven's throne
To take upon the guilt of man
A weight that was my own

Chorus:
But Mercy saved my soul
The sweetest sound I know
All saints rejoice
By heaven's choice
We have been made whole
Forever Christ will reign
And this my soul proclaim
Sin held me
But Mercy

Verse 2:
Humbly at the cross I bow
My Savior suffered there
A bloody crown upon His brow
Those thorns were mine to bear

(Chorus)

Hallelujah (x4)

Verse 3:
Come behold the Risen Lamb
The grave could hold him not
And in my place His Mercy stands
For death was all my lot

(Chorus)

Stronger Woman

The other day while driving I was scanning through radio stations when a line from a song I'd never heard before caught my attention. (Those of you who know me know it's the lyrics that make or break it for me). The song said, "From now on I'm gonna be the kind of woman I want my daughter to be."

Ooh, I thought, this oughta be a good one. So I stopped scanning, turned it up and prepared to be inspired. As a new mother, things like this really grab hold of me. So, you might ask, what kind of woman did the singer, who turned out to be Jewel, want her daughter to be? The chorus provided a resounding answer to that question:

I'm gonna love myself

More than anyone else
Believe in me
Even if someone can't see
The stronger woman in me

I'm gonna be my own best friend
Stick with me till the end
Won't lose myself again
never, no
Cause theres a stronger woman
a stronger woman in me

Wow. I was so shocked and appalled I nearly threw up. And I was angry. Angry at the lie being fed to women in my generation. Angry for the little girls who grow up with this model of strength. What a recipe for a miserable life.

To love your self more than anyone else? I'm not sure I've met many people who have to try very hard to do that. To be your own best friend? Comes pretty natural to most of us. To never lose yourself? So many are on a quest to "find themselves." The worst thing that could happen would be for them to succeed.

You see, I've found that what many call strength is in reality nothing more than masked weakness. It's human nature, and therefore easy, to love ourselves above all, to seek our own good at any cost. But what's hard, what requires real strength, is to sacrifice yourself for someone else, to lose your life in order to live for something greater than you.

I, too, desire to be the kind of woman I want my daughter to be, but I've chosen not to fall for the counterfeit strength my culture would offer me. I've found a truer strength, and it comes in giving everything I am in serving my God, my husband and my daughter. Instead of striving to "never lose myself", I've chosen to believe that "Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it" (Matthew 10:39). This is real strength. This is real life.

Freshman of the Week

We digress from our regularly scheduled program to highlight the 3rd member of our sibling triune... our baby bro Chris. Way to go Creeber!


University of Kentucky
FRESHMAN OF THE WEEK

Chris Wade

6-0 * R-Fr. * SS * Lexington, Ky.

Week Stats: .417 (10-for-24), 9 R, 5 2B, 1 HR, 9 RBI, 2 BB, 0 SO

Notes: Freshman making starts in each of his first nine games at shortstop tallied a .417 (10-for-24) average, scoring nine runs, ripping five doubles, one homer, drawing two walks with no strikeouts, and driving in nine RBI … For the year, Wade has posted a .353 average (12-for-34), with an SEC-leading seven doubles, a homer and 14 RBI … Despite making his first collegiate plate appearances, Wade has yet to strikeout … Had a streak during the week with doubles in five-consecutive games … Currently riding a seven-game hit streak … In Tuesday’s win over Oakland, batted 2-for-4 with two runs, two RBI, a double, and his first-career homer … On Thursday, batted 1-for-3 with two runs, two RBI, a double and a walk … Friday, batted 2-for-4 with two runs, two RBI and a double … In Saturday’s game one, Wade batted 3-for-5 with two RBI and a double … In game two, Wade continued his streak of doubles, with a two-bagger in a 1-for-4 game, with two runs and a walk … In the w eeks finale, Wade batted 1-for-4 with a RBI, while making several stellar defensive plays deep in the six-hole behind the ground-ball forcing starter Greg Dombrowski.

Is Hope always Hopeful?

Hope has become the buzz word of at least one campaign this election cycle. Barack Obama has taken the nation by storm, hypnotizing millions in an almost religious-like fervor. He is intriguing, novel, charismatic and contagious. (Let's face it, the man can definitely deliver a speech).

And he claims to bring HOPE.

But what kind of hope is he offering?

Is it hopeful to propose a universal healthcare system, a system that has done nothing but create long lines, low quality and bankruptcy for future generations in those nations who've gone before us?

Is it hopeful to raise taxes on such things as dividends and capital gains from the current 15% to Obama's proposed 39.6%, a tax that penalizes investors, entrepreneurs and risk takers, the very people who create jobs and wealth for lower and middle class America?

Is it hopeful to promise $4000 dollars to every college student, a fair standard of living to everyone who works (What is "fair"? What about those who don't handle their "fair share" wisely and end up "poor" again?), and a regular hike in minimum wage (which does nothing but discourage employers from hiring in the first place and increases the final cost to the consumer)?

Obama's brand of hope might sound good, but is it? Is it sustainable for future generations? We've already seen that government programs like social security are not. Would he add to this mess for our children?

And these are just a few policies I've actually heard him talk about. Let alone the fact that we don't really know much about him. He doesn't have much of a record, and what he does have is known to be one of the most left-wing, liberal voting records in the senate.

But still, mantras like HOPE, CHANGE and BELIEF have blinded the minds of so many. For instance, I was talking to a college student the other day who is supporting Obama. She was quick to let me know that she doesn't like universal healthcare but was willing to overlook it. We also discussed the issue of abortion and she is pro-life... Obama is pro-choice. "So, what policies DO you like?" I asked. "Oh I don't really know where he stands on a lot of things yet... I'm still looking into it, but when he speaks I just believe him." Enough said.

Hey, hope sells. And why not? People are hungry for hope. We all need something to hope in. We all need something to believe in. But there is only one thing in life in which our hope is guaranteed, and that is God. With all of this political talk of hope and with Obama portrayed as a Messianic figure, it leaves me with this question... Has government become our God? And if so, is that really hopeful?

I'm a bit confused

I am increasingly disturbed by the gross inconsistencies I see evidenced in much of the western world. I can at least respect a worldview that is consistent, but a belief system that contradicts itself at every turn is hard for me to stomach.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, the principal leader of the Church of England, recently made some unsettling comments. In the name of tolerance and diversity, he actually believes that sharia, or Islamic law, should become part of what he calls “plural jurisdiction” in Britain. This, he says, would help “maintain social cohesion”.

But what, I might ask, is “social cohesion”? Is punishing a woman because she was raped social cohesion? What about allowing a man to beat his wife? Or maybe forcing a 9-year-old girl to marry a 60-year-old man brings about social cohesion. And since when is sentencing a homosexual to death considered tolerant? All of this and more would be ushered in under sharia law.

This is why it’s confusing to me when I hear liberal feminists calling for tolerance and supporting the idea of Muslims instituting sharia law in the West. Do they not know what life is like for women under this system of warped justice?

It’s why I was a bit perplexed when a pastor in Sweden was recently thrown in jail for calling homosexuality a sin. The leader of the Church of England calls for sharia law (under which homosexuals would be killed), while another church leader is imprisoned for merely calling homosexuality a sin.

You can’t have it both ways people.

And therein lies the problem with trying to serve the god of tolerance—tolerance of one person is often a direct violation of the rights of another.

Or maybe its just Christians for whom modern pluralism has no tolerance.

But even so, can someone please enlighten me as to how it’s possible to create a society that’s simultaneously safe for the homosexual and tolerant of the Islamic extremist who wants to kill him? Or how it’s logical to tolerate Islam’s belief that the homosexual should be killed, while ranting and raving because a Christian said that the practice of homosexuality is wrong?

But then again, maybe the Archbishop is onto something with his concept of multiple legal standards. I mean, I myself might develop a proclivity for driving drunk on the wrong side of the highway at 100 mph. Why should I be restrained due to the bigotry and intolerance of the rest of society?