On Choosing a Mate

Nancy and I have just come home from a wedding between our grandson, Jonathan Manring and the former Sarah Morton. A more perfectly matched couple you cannot imagine. We were quite impressed with that marriage. But...we thought at the time about the other young, unmarried, people at the wedding. Will they make such wise and advantageous marriages for themselves? Thus, here comes some unsolicited advice from a couple of oldies.

In choosing a mate, one should remember that with the mate comes the mate’s family—and that entails a lot of baggage. Some of that baggage might include different worldviews, different values, habits, customs, goals, affinities, and religion. One should consider how these differences are going to stack up with one’s own qualities and values; because when you marry someone, you will need to live with the other person’s qualities for a very long time.

Let us talk about differences in religion: Homogeneity in religion in a marriage is very important. Marriages between a Jew and a Christian, a Muslim and a Christian, even a Catholic and a Protestant are often not happy joinings.  Our religions are so integral to our very being that difference in that area can cause everlasting conflict. The only way those differences can be resolved is that one or the other partner must completely give up his beliefs to conform to the other—or else, they both must give up religion, altogether. Neither of these solutions bring good resolution to a marriage difference.

Racial difference between husband and wife can cause dissention. When one marries a person of a different race, the racial/cultural characteristics come with the new spouse. If you can live with that, then you will probably do okay with a spouse of a different race. But…think about it. Racial differences can be a problem.

Political differences often split couples apart. It is very hard for a conservative to live with a liberal/progressive. Differences in this area are becoming more and more prevalent and divisive.

Watch out for marrying a divorced person or one with a family history of divorce. Divorce in a family infects other members of the family, and when conflict arises in the family (as it surely will, occasionally) a person who embraces the possibility of divorce for conflict resolution will not infrequently resolve the conflict by suggesting divorce. NOT A GOOD SOLUTION!

Marrying an “only child” can cause difficulty. “Only children” have often been imbued by their parents with the idea that they are about the most wonderful people in the world, i.e., intelligent, clever, personable, etc., etc. If a person carries that mindset into a marriage he may be difficult to live with.

How about bad habits? Some habitual behavior can be a powerful disrupter in a family. One of the worst habits to bring into a family is heavy drinking and/or drug abuse. How often have I heard from a young woman a remark like the following: “We love each other so much, I am just sure he will change his drinking habits after we are married.” That is the devil’s delusion. Drinking habits usually get worse after a wedding, not better. An addiction to pornography can cause intense difficulties in a family, too.

Do not marry someone who has ever lied to you! Enough said about that.

Money handling is very often the divider between couples. If a person has not learned to live frugally and without materialistic values, that person is probably not the one you should marry. Money matters!

Watch out for materialism in your intended. Over-buying and spending can disrupt a whole family economy and put the family in distress. Over-use of credit cards is a trap you should avoid like the plague.

Marriage is a place where common values, practices, religion, and all the other things I have mentioned above should be found. Do not marry someone very different from you, thinking that you are going to “grow together;” it probably won’t happen. More frequently, couples with significant differences will actually grow apart.

Following is a check list of things marrying couples should consider:

Does the person you have chosen:

T_____ Keep promises

F_____

T_____ Obey rules

F _____

T_____ Speak or act calmly when hurt or angry

F_____

T_____ Avoid alcohol, drugs, smoking and premarital sex

F_____

T_____ Do what is expected without being watched

F_____

T_____ Never hit or strike someone when angry

F_____

T_____ Care about children

F_____

T_____ Help and finish household chores

F_____

T_____ Be on time

F_____

T_____ Listen well

F_____

T_____ Tell the truth always

F_____

T_____ Have your same believes and values

F_____

T_____ Work for a living

F_____

T_____ Spend money wisely

F_____

T_____ Is liked by my family

F_____

T_____ Always have to have their own way

F_____

T_____ Have never been to jail for a crime

F_____

T_____ Has never had another wife

F_____

T_____ Like my family

F_____

THINK ABOUT IT!

 

 

The Progressive/Liberal Mind is Closed

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal carried an article describing how many university graduation speakers across the country are being cancelled because of protests by students and faculty over their political stands or even because they were remotely associated with political issues, which were obnoxious to the university.

For instance, Somali-born feminist Ayaan Hirsi Ali withdrew herself from the speaker rostrum at Brandeis University because of student opposition. Hirsi Ali has a record  anti-Islam statements, which students think violate Brandeis's "core values."

In like fashion, Smith College has experienced the withdrawal from their invitation for commencement speaking, Christine Lagarde, the French head of the International Monetary Fund.

Most puzzling of all, however, was the withdrawal of Robert J. Birgeneau from his commencement address at Haverford College. Mr. Birgeneau is the former chancellor of UC Berkeley, the big bang of political correctness. He is famous as an ardent defender of minority students, the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) community and undocumented illegal immigrants. This man is a super-supporter of liberal beliefs in America. It is unbelievable that a liberal institution would make things so uncomfortable for him that he would withdraw from such an invitation. Opposition to Mr. Birgeneau originated from student and faculty who were offended by the Berkeley police action in 2011 when they used "force" against Occupy protesters in Sproul Plaza. I assume that the university believes its chancellors are responsible for the action of local police departments!

In defense of university administrations and faculties, it must be added that there has been strong push-back from these opposition activities of their student bodies. Not all representatives of the universities are opposed to political diversity.

Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at New York University and an avowed liberal in political belief has written a book published in 2012. The book is called “The Righteous Mind—Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion.” In his book, he describes his well-researched findings that people’s attitudes, beliefs, and values are shaped by six kinds of belief areas. These areas of psychological belief are:

1)    Care/harm
2)    Fairness/cheating
3)    Loyalty/betrayal
4)    Authority/submission
5)    Liberty/oppression
6)    Sanctity

He found that conservatives usually consider all of these areas when forming their belief and value systems. On the other hand, he found that liberals live, almost exclusively in the first two, i.e., in Care/harm and Fairness/cheating. Liberals, for the most part do not give much consideration to the last four, i.e., Loyalty/betrayal, Authority/submission, Liberty/oppression, and Sanctity.

What must be done if our culture is ever to heal is for students on university campuses to harken to all six of Dr. Haidt’s belief areas and quit concentrating exclusively on the first two.

The universities mentioned above have traditionally advertised that they are institutions that welcome divergent and varied statements from people of all persuasions—that has always been the stance of so-called “liberal” institutions of higher learning. From the trend of intolerance being demonstrated by university personnel over the speakers at graduation exercises, the progressive left has given up on its previously avowed claims of open-mindedness to belief systems, which do not perfectly comport with their own stated value systems. The closed mind has apparently won the day with America’s universities.

This trend is alarming. When Americans cannot even listen to both sides of controversial issues, our country is in deep trouble. Universities are the institutions that often shape the belief systems of the rest of the nation. Universities have traditionally and predominantly been staffed by liberal thinkers, and they only have a few conservatives scattered among their faculty members; but it is a sad day when they cannot even listen to such important speakers as the ones listed above—real leaders of the free world.

Does Political Conservatism Flow From an Understanding of God?

Liberals/Progressives would answer “NO.” They believe that only they stand for the Christian principles of freedom and liberty for individuals—conservatives are only interested in money matters. Liberals also believe that conservatives are averse to new ideas and innovation. 

The truth is quite the opposite. Although liberals claim to have the interests of the poor and the disenfranchised at heart, their formula for helping them, i.e., giving away money, tax credits for money they never earned, health care, unemployment insurance payments, etc., etc. does not help in the long run; it only makes the poor more and more dependent and unable to care for themselves. And Conservatives have much more than a balanced budget in mind when they talk about money; they want to make the nation solvent so that money can be used for buying real goods for the poor and for constructive programs, rather than just selling more IOU notes and paying interest. It is true that deep debt ties the hands of good governance; and that is what conservatives want to prevent. Conservatives also want to conserve good programs and procedures that have worked well in the past. Borrowers turn out to be slaves to lenders; and that does not make for a good situation in our country.

Conservatives have been accused of being unkind and mean spirited toward the poor. But, I point out that it is liberals who want to make the poor more dependent on government instead of working for their living—and that is not being kind to them. Conservatives, on the other hand try to encourage people to work for their living in order to produce goods and services for society. Working is an obvious admonition of the Bible. Any careful reader of the Bible will note such passages as “if a man will not work, he shall not eat” 1 Thess 3:10 (Also, compare 1 Thess 4:11, 5:12,13.)

In reference to the liberal/progressive attitude toward the supposed conservative avoidance of innovation, entrepreneurs, who are mostly conservatives, are the masters of innovation. It is by innovation that they survive in business and produce the good things in life that we all enjoy.

It should be self-evident that liberals often vote in direct refutation of biblical principles, e.g., for abortion and euthanasia. Nothing could be more obvious than God’s attitude toward the preservation of human life. Liberals were the ones who voted for no fault divorce and the removal of prayer from the schools. It is liberals who want to take “In God We Trust” off our coinage. It is liberals who have nullified the Defense of Marriage Act. It is liberals who want to take “under God” out of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Liberal thought has broken down the barriers to sexual promiscuity, which make America so repugnant to foreigners who respect modesty and chastity outside of marriage. Conservatives, on the other hand cling to the biblical principle of modest dress, (1 Tim 2:9). Widespread pornography is eating into the character of weak-willed men, especially; and this trend is being condoned by liberal universities, a liberal communication media, and liberal courts—all in the name of “freedom of speech.”

Liberal thought has brought into being a whole genre of philosophical thinking that refutes the existence of truth—this, in contrast to Jesus own statement that He came into the world to testify to the truth. This whole body of philosophical ideation is called “postmodern philosophy.” It certainly does not comport with conservative belief.

So, I ask you, who is closer to God’s words and His Spirit?  Is it liberals or conservatives?

I realize that I have been speaking in generalities, and not all liberals endorse all the degenerate social and intellectual trends I have outlined. But the above observations are generalities that cannot be refuted. There is no use hiding one’s head in the sand about these objections to liberal thought and practice. They are eating the heart out of our society—only a return to Christian principle can bring our country back to its senses. We must work toward the goal of bringing Christ back to our land. 

The Collectivist State—It Thinks It Knows Better than You Do!

The fundamental concepts of dignity, respect, equality before the law and personal freedom are under attack by the nation's own government. That's why, if we want to restore a free society and create greater well-being and opportunity for all Americans, we have no choice but to fight for those principles. This is why we need  to engage in the political process.

A truly free society is based on a vision of respect for people and what they value. In a truly free society, any business that disrespects its customers will fail, and deserves to do so. The same should be true of any government that disrespects its citizens. The central belief and fatal conceit of the current administration is that you are incapable of running your own life, but those in power are capable of running it for you. This is the essence of big government and collectivism.

More than 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson warned that this could happen. "The natural progress of things," Jefferson wrote, "is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." He knew that no government could possibly run citizens' lives for the better. The more government tries to control, the greater the disaster, as shown by the current health-care debacle. Collectivists (those who stand for government control of the means of production and how people live their lives) promise heaven but deliver hell. For them, the promised end justifies the means.

Instead of encouraging free and open debate, collectivists strive to discredit and intimidate opponents. They engage in character assassination. This is the approach that Arthur Schopenhauer described in the 19th century, that Saul Alinsky famously advocated in the 20th, and that so many despots have infamously practiced. Such tactics are the antithesis of what is required for a free society—and a telltale sign that the collectivists do not have good answers.

Instead of fostering a system that enables people to help themselves, America is now saddled with a system that destroys value, raises costs, hinders innovation and relegates millions of citizens to a life of poverty, dependency and hopelessness. This is what happens when elected officials believe that people's lives are better run by politicians and regulators than by the people themselves. Those in power fail to see that more government means less liberty, and liberty is the essence of what it means to be American. Love of liberty is the American ideal.

Racism—Which Way Does It Go?

The country is taken up these days with the subject of racism. The owner of the Los Angeles Clippers basketball team, Donald Sterline, was caught on a hidden audiotape by his girlfriend making an obnoxious racist comment about Black people. He has been fined $2.5 million and strongly encouraged to sell his ownership of the team. The NBA wants to get rid of him, apparently.
All that being said, I want to make the point that Nancy and I have been the recipients of heavy-handed racism at the hands of Black people in Detroit. Racism goes both ways.

This episode of racism was racism against Blacks from a White man. My question is—how much media buzz and strong public opinion would this episode have engendered if the racism had been against Whites from a Black man? The answer is, “Hardly none.”

Discriminating against persons on the basis of their race, alone, is a terrible sin; and nobody of good character will participate in it. But, Whites, alone, are not the only ones guilty of this kind of travesty—other races are just as guilty.

No More Keystone Excuses

After 5½ years of studying (dithering) over the pros and cons of the Keystone XL pipeline, the State Department has issued its 5^th and possibly its final report on the environmental impact of the Keystone pipeline. The report says that the environmental impact of the pipeline will be very small.

Environmentalists argue that the pipeline will release unacceptable amounts of CO₂ into the atmosphere and will cause more global warming. They also complain that the pipeline will contribute to the earth’s warming because it will increase the use of fossil fuels, worldwide. That last complaint is warrantless, because the oil will be extracted from the Canadian oil sands even if the pipeline is not constructed—the oil will be shipped to China or some other overseas consumer.

Presently, Canadian oil from the oil sands fields is being shipped to United States oil refineries on the Gulf coast via trucks or trains. The State Department calculates that if the large quantity of oil from Canada is shipped totally by those routes, there will be 27.5% more greenhouse gas released into the atmosphere than if the pipeline is actually constructed.

Railroad companies are now doing a lot more business transporting Canadian oil than they were in 2009. That year, rails transported 9,500 car loads of oil. In 2012, rails transported 234,000 car loads; and the likely figure for 2013 is 400,000 car loads. That oil is reaching the gulf coast refineries by this less efficient and more polluting way.

State Department says the pipeline would create 42,100 new jobs—jobs the United States could well use.

It seems evident that President Obama is not paying attention to the environmental impact studies or the job creation potential of the pipeline. His main concern seems to be that huge moneyed interests in San Francisco, namely billionaire Tom Steyer, have threatened to cut off contributions to the Democrat Party if President Obama approves the pipeline. Does this sound like the payoff of a hireling politician to you?

If any of my readers are interested in reading the original data on the environmental impact of the pipeline, I would suggest that you read the report of the State Department, called the Environmental Impact Statement http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/205719.pdf.  (If this link does not work, copy it into your browser and activate it.)

What Ever Happened to the America We Once Knew?

America has changed drastically, and these changes are showing unmistakably in the polling reports that show the people do not approve of Congress and the President. No matter how rosy President Obama tries to make the country’s condition appear in his State of the Union speech, the fact is that we, the people, are not satisfied with the results.

It is of great interest that the President’s approval rating is at 81% in the Washington, D.C. area. And…that’s where the unemployment rate is the lowest. It is lowest there because the jobs the government is creating are mostly government jobs.

Why do most people in America disapprove of our government? Well…one reason is that we see the government attacking such organizations as the Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic charity that now runs 30 homes for the needy across the nation. The sisters are being targeted because of their refusal to knuckle under to the government’s demand that they give up on their religious beliefs that the use of contraceptives is immoral. It is apparently okay these days for the government to dictate the religious beliefs of our people.

We disapprove of the government because of the attack on quality public education, such as the Justice Department’s suit against the State of Louisiana for running a school voucher program so that students can get out of a poorly performing public school system and into a better performing charter or religious school. The Justice Department says that the voucher system will violate civil rights law by worsening racial imbalances in the public schools. Never mind that the scholarship students are predominantly black. Of course, it is common knowledge that the government program is being run by the teachers’ union, the NEA, which sees vouchers as threatening to public teachers jobs in the public schools.

We disapprove because we don’t like to see the government defining our medical coverage out of existence.

We disapprove of the government because we see the IRS changing from an agency to collect taxes to an organization concentrating on enforcing the 1^st Amendment. They do this be snooping out possible political statements by conservative organizations. Never mind that they do not do such things to left-leaning progressive organizations.

We don’t like our government because we see the government stepping on traditional moral values as exemplified in the Defense of Marriage Act, which the Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional because it offends homosexuals—who make up about 5% of our people.

We don’t like the government because we see it pumping money into the economy which goes indirectly into the pockets of the rich, making a temporary stop in the rising values of the stock market. The market, I believe, is overpriced because the Federal Reserve, by keeping bond prices very low, makes investment in bonds unprofitable. This effect directs private investment into equity stocks.

Oh, how I wish we could have a government we approve of once, again!