Judge rules Internet Porn falls under First Amendment Protection

Child Online Protection Act violates the First Amendment

An American judge has struck down a law passed in 1998 by the US Government that made it a crime for commercial website operators to let children access "harmful" material.

The judge said parents can protect their children through software filters and other less restrictive means that do not limit the rights of others to free speech.

"Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection," wrote Senior US District Judge Lowell Reed Jr., who presided over a four-week trial last fall.

While I do not like porn on the internet from a moral standpoint, I do like the way this judge is thinking. He understands that the internet, by its very nature is not safe, and can never be made safe, for children. He makes it clear that it is neither society's nor government's responsibility to protect children from content on the Web. It is the parent's responsibility.

Children require supervision. Also, it is just not porn on the web that is harmful to children. There are plenty of other things on the web and no law can filter out what is appropriate when. Only a parent can do that.

Parents, don't be afraid to ask for help to protect your family from the destructive side of the Internet.

Sword into Plowshares

A modern approach to the whole turning "swords into plowshares" thing is the turning of "Firearms into Furniture." Cool art!!!

Private Propety rights

Random Thoughts by Thomas Sowell contains this gem:

"When the Constitution's protection of private property was disregarded, so that politicians could rob from the rich to give to the poor, that also gave politicians the power to rob from the poor and give to the rich -- such as seizing homes in low-income neighborhoods and turning that property over to developers."

So, basically the 17th Amendment turned one of the fundamental tenets of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence on its head. Without the protection of private property rights, there is no such thing as liberty and freedom. As a matter of fact, the most-influential philosopher for our Founding Fathers, John Locke, expressed the tenets of individual freedom as the concepts of "life, liberty, and estate (or property)". Later, Adam Smith coined the phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property".

When Thomas Jefferson, wrote the words in the Declaration of Independence, he took a slight departure from the philosophies of Locke and Smith. Since Jefferson viewed the right to property, a concept tied to feudalism and such, as being potentially antithetical to liberty, he replaced the right to property with the right to the pursuit of happiness. However, he was still very much in support of the philosophies that prevented government from forcibly taking a private citizens property.

You're It

I am an antisocial parent. While I know that the game of tag has been banned at schools across the country, I am promoting it with my three year old daughter. I know. It makes me a bad parent. I am teaching competition. I am encouraging running which could potentially lead to falling down which could lead to injury. I am encouraging and promoting behavior deemed inappropriate by the experts on child developments (according to the State), School Administrators (bwaa-haaa).

You see, her cousins from Nashville are visiting. I was playing tag with the 5-year old and the 8-year old when Mihaela decided to join in and run around the yard. People were running and screaming in delight. Who wouldn't want to join in on some of that action. Anyway, I decided to try and include her. It was so funny. She liked chasing people when she was "It," but she wouldn't tag anybody. Also, each time she was tagged, we had to stop and explain the purpose of the game to her.

I would say, "You're it. What do you need to do?" She would reply, "Chase everybody." and then stand there until directed to chase somebody specifically; who she would never tag...even if they stood still...without being explicitly told to touch them.

BUT...she did enjoy herself and enjoyed playing tag. Thus I begin my quiet rebellion against the forces of social indoctrination to bring her up in the same way I was raised. After all, I played tag (in several of its many various forms) and I turned out alright. I'm sure those evil, nameless and faceless School Administrators don't know what they are talking about.

---------------------------------
Updated: Due to the confusion mentioned in the comments, I have changed the reading of the sentence to make it more apparent that I have not played every single variant...although I think it might be fun to try.

John Rosemond on "Hyphenated" children

I am a big fan of John Rosemond and his "old-fashioned" style on parenting and family life. He is to the world of child-rearing what Dave Ramsey is to the world of personal finance. He "teaches" you all the "common-sense" stuff your grandma knew but that many of us lost in our postmodern, liberal culture.

Anyway, his weekly column this week focuses on raising "hyphenated" children. I thought this would be a great article because we get a double hyphen in our children since they are adopted-biracial-children. And, as always, he said exactly what I believe in a much more eloquent fashion. Basically, "hyphens" don't matter.

All children should be raised according to common principles, foremost of which is that parents should balance love and discipline in training children toward becoming productive, responsible members of society. Maintaining said balance requires that a parent's love be disciplined and that discipline reflect love and desire for the best interests of the child. Commonsense wraps itself neatly around the word "child"; it does not wrap itself well at all around words like "adopted." Adjectives are much more slippery than nouns, after all."

Only a Super Geek :(

I only scored a 51.28205% on The Geek Test. I really thought I would do better than that.

Dualism Primer

A couple of weeks ago our small group leader shared an article with me by a guy named Kevin J. Corcoran entitled " A New Way to be Human: A Christian Materialist Alternative to the Soul" from the November 2006 edition of Christianity Today and asked me my opinion of it. I consider myself a pretty intelligent guy, but the truth of the matter was that I could not understand what I was reading at first. This article offers an opinion on some theological concept known as materialism, which is a contrasting theology to some other theological concept called dualism.

Well, since I had never heard these terms, much less looked over them and understand them, I decided to do a little homework and get up-to-speed on the concepts. Most of the information I found was very difficult to understand, so I have decided to create a Dualism 101 post to act as a primer for anyone else who runs across these concepts but does not have a Ph.D in Theology.

First, dual means two. So, when we talk about dualism, we are talking about the existence of two elemental concepts, often in opposition to each other, and how they relate to one another. In Christian Dualism we are, generally, speaking of the body (matter) and the soul (spirit). Most Christians understand that there is a Spiritual World and a Physical World. They believe that we as humans live in the physical world and are matter (or material). But, they also believe that humans have some part of them that is immaterial (or spirit) and it is called a soul. That soul allows a Christian a connection to the Spiritual World, even though he lives in a physical world. When Christians study dualism, then, they are trying to answer the fundamental question of What is a human?.

Like most concepts that can not be emperically tested, there are many, many different answers to that question out there. In fact it seems like some thinkers spend their entire lives writing books and journals articles and debating with other great thinkers only to be nowhere closer to real answers than when they began. There are minuscule differences between some of these people that they magnify to fill hundreds upon hundreds of pages of text that is saturated with academic terms and scholarly writing styles that leaves your average reader drowning in a sea of incomprehensibility. If you are one of these types, then please excuse this layman's poor attempt to concisely and plainly explain these abstract concepts. I feel like I am a trying to explain how a gravity works to my three year old (that might actually be easier than this). I will be using metaphors that will illustrate a point, but not reflect the nuances of the position. I will be using generic terms that will not exactly congeal with the way those words are used in the field.

That being said, there are two major thoughts on the nature of man. The first is dualism (i.e., man is made up of both physical and spiritual parts) and the second is materialism (i.e., man is wholly physical). Materialist are usually atheistic in their belief system and do not believe that any sort of spiritual world exists. There are, however, a flavor of materialist that are theistic (i.e., they believe in God) and believe that there is a spiritual world (God and the other heavenly beings are spiritual), but they believe humankind is completely physical and material and has no immaterial/spiritual part of him.

Most modern day Christians, though, are taught a dualistic view of mankind. I was raised (like many of you) to believe that we humans are body (material) and soul (immaterial). The belief system usually teaches that when we are conceived, God takes a preexisting soul and embeds it in a body. That soul provides our personality and our consciousness. Then, when we die, our soul leaves our body and goes to some "waiting place" until the Second Coming. When we get to heaven, it will be a completely spiritual place.

Many modern day Christians have blindly accepted this teaching, assuming that the Bible is clear about the nature of the human soul (i.e., that we have one and it separate from the body). However, as I was studying these concepts, I came to realize that this not so. The Bible is not entirely clear about the nature of human souls and there have been many ideas and theories about this. Basically, as the article above points out, there are three major flavors of dualism in Christianity:

1. Classical Dualism (Aristotle & Thomas Aquinas) [Coffee View]
2. Cartesian Dualism (Descartes and Augustine) [Lemonade View]
3. Emergent Dualism (William Hasker) [Wine view]

Classical Dualism finds its roots in the philosophy of Aristotle (3rd century BC) and was "Christianized" by Thomas Aquinas (13th century AD). Cartesian Dualism was formalized by Rene Descartes in the early part of the 17th Century, but finds its roots in beliefs held by Saint Augestine (4th Century AD). Finally, the most recent thoughts (late 20th century to present) on can be found in the writings of William Hasker and have been coined as emergent.

Cartesian Dualism
This form of dualism is probably the one that most modern-day, American Christians are familiar with as it is probably the most widely accepted and taught in mainstream churches. There are, of course, subtle variations across denominational lines, but the major concepts seem to be consistent. Cartesian Dualism starts with the idea that the Body and Soul are two separate things. The Body (or flesh) is an unthinking, material thing while the Soul (or mind) is a thinking, immaterial thing. They fundamentally believe that "humans are immaterial souls capable of disembodied existence." That is, I can exist without by body, but I can not exist without my soul because my soul is where my thinking and consciousness lies. Souls are eternal while the body is temporary. My soul will continue even after death.

Its a lot like Powdered Lemonade. Powdered Lemonade and water are two different entities. You can combine them together and mix them up and appear to have one entity. However, the truth is that there is really lemonade particles suspended in water. Given enough time, you could dehydrate the lemonade to return them to two different entities.

Classical Dualism
In classical dualism, the body and soul form a compound. Concerning all physical entities there are two dimensions, matter and form. Matter is not to be thought of physically, rather it is something that has the potential to become physical. Form, then, is that actualized potential of matter. According to Aquinas, "the soul is a substance in the manner of a form that determines or characterizes a particular sort of body." (I know, I know...this doesn't make a lot of sense).

It is a lot like Coffee. Ground coffee is not coffee, but only has the potential to become coffee. Ground coffee beans are the MATTER of coffee. Only when it is brewed does it become coffee. Brewed coffee is the FORM of coffee. Under Aquinas thought, then, the soul is ground coffee and the physical body is the brewed coffee.

Emergent Dualism
Probably the easiest thing to do to explain this form of dualism is to read a paper written by William Hasker himself on Emergent Dualism. He basically proposes that we are immaterial souls; however our souls emerge naturally through the course of ordinary, biological evolution. This fact that they are natural, not introduced or added "from the outside", so to speak is what makes his philosophy so different from Cartesian and Classical dualism. He writes that the physical brain generates its own consciousness (like a magnet generates a magnetic field) and concludes that the soul emerges out of the physical body.

To continue my "drink analogy," this view is a lot like Wine. When you want to make wine, you start with something else, grapes. There is no such thing as "naturally occurring" wine. Rather, wine is a byproduct of a maturation process of of grape juice. Wine starts on as one thing (grape juice), but evolves into something else, wine.

What does the Bible teach about all this?
Remember earlier that I said most Christians think that the Bible is clear about the teaching of the human soul? Well, its not! I did a very, very brief overview of some scriptures dealing with the body/soul problem and quickly came to the conclusion that this discussion can be muddied very quickly. I find it interesting that two of the greatest theological minds (Augustine and Aquinas) reached different conclusions. All of these flavors of dualism have their strengths and weaknesses when it comes to aligning themselves with scripture. So, while I do not believe that not having an understanding of this problem and maybe having reached the wrong conclusion on the discussion will keep anybody out of the Kingdom (either now or in the future), I do believe it is important for people to at least be aware of different views and different scriptures and be able to make up their own minds instead of just doing what we have always done because we have always done it that way. If, after reading some of these scriptures your belief system does not change...then great, Praise God that you have a deeper understanding of what you believe. If, your belief system does change a little bit, then great, Praise God, you have encountered Him and His Word and have come away different.

I will list some scriptures here for you to read and share my thoughts, questions, insights, etc... These are just random ramblings of Randy and not one is a fully substantial thought. These are here for you to peruse and come to your own conclusions. This list is by no means exhaustive.

• Genesis 1:26-27,2:7,2:18-23 - These tellings of the creation of man seem to indicate that Man is different from the other animals...that he was created in a little bit of a different manner. What does in mean to be created in "God's image?" God appears to form man out of some preexisting material (dirt) but that body does not become a life until the breath of life (spirit? soul?) is embedded into it. Two separate parts become one. Could be just an analogy or literary tool to explain a complex process that mankind would never understand.
• Luke 10:27 - There appears to be (to my untrained mind) a distinction (at least in first-century Jewish thought) between these separate entities.
• Hebrews 4:12 - A distinction between SOUL and SPIRIT, but that distinction is unnoticeable except to God
  
• II Corinthians 5:1-5 - There is somehow a need for the earthly body to be replaced by a heavenly body. However, there is also some need for the earthly body to be resurrected to be rejoined(?) to the spiritual self.
• Luke 16:19-31 (Parable of Rich Man and Lazarus) - Infers a separation of body and soul at death. Infers a "waiting" place. May not be best place to build theological philosophies since it was a parable (illustration).
• I Corinthians 15:51-52 - Paul tells us that our bodies will be changed when the final trumpet sounds. We will have some sort of material existence...we just don't know what sort.
• I John 3:2-3 - We cannot understand what immortal life will be like, just as a fetus cannot understand what adult life is like, nor a blind person cannot understand color.
• Matthew 17:1-3 (Transfiguration) - Moses and Elijah are dead, but physically there and physically recognizable. Jesus is also different from his "normal" human body.
• Properties of Jesus' Resurrection Body
• Jesus could be recognized as Jesus (John 20:16,18)
• Jesus could disguise his appearance (Luke 24:16) - also could have been a special intervention by God and not a property of the the resurrection body...
• Jesus bore the scars of his crucifixion (John 20:20, Revelation 5:6)
• He could be touched
• He could eat (many of the scriptures about Heaven indicate great feasting, an activity of a physical being, not a spiritual being)
  
• He could appear and disappear (defy laws of matter) (John 20:19)
  
• He could ascend into heaven (defy laws of physics) (Acts 1:9)
  
• Paul's Teaching on the Resurrection Body (I Corinthians 15)
  
• We will be transformed (v. 51)
• The new body will be imperishable, glorious, powerful, and spiritual (v. 42-44,53)
• But it will be a body that has some continuity with the old body.

So what?
Good question. Understanding dualism has many applications. Some of the ones that require you to have chosen one of these belief systems is to tackle decisions regarding abortion and euthanasia. While many Christians have strong feelings about these issues, they are firmly planted in how one views the body/soul relationship. While it is obviously wrong to kill a body that has a consciousness, is it OK to kill a body if the soul has appeared to have left it (i.e., the body is in a vegetative state, but there is no consciousness)? More practically, can I morally sign a Do Not Resuscitate order? If my body and soul are compounds or my soul has emerged from my body, I could potentially be doing damage to my soul by killing off the body. What about donating organs? If my body is going to be resurrected and have some continuity with the old body, are my organs mine to give away now? Will I be resurrected with a big "Y"-scar across my chest and abdomen? Can I allow an autopsy? What about cremation? Is it moral or have I willfully destroyed my body that I am going to need in the next life?

All these questions have implications based on what you believe. Since most modern day Christians follow the Lemonade View, they have no problems destroying the body after they are done with it because the believe they don't need it anymore as they will be living in some kind of ethereal, spiritual state. While I am sure that God can work out all the details, it would make more sense to me to have a clear understanding of what to do.

Of course, there are less theoretical and more practical (day-to-day) implications of these philosophies.

• We must value the physical world that God has placed us in and made us part of
• We are to care for His creation and for our bodies
• We are to have environmental concerns and health concerns
• We are not to abandon the world we live in
• We are to be concerned about the physical needs of others (homeless, poor, etc...)
• We are not escapists, merely biding time until time ends, but we are to be involved in this world in a positive way.

Conclusion
I know, this has been a very long post. If you made it this far, then great! Like I said, I do not have any answers. Only more questions. I don't understand all of this. I do hope you have at least had your mind broadened and were able to think about some things a little differently. Here is a PowerPoint Presentation (MS Office 2003) that I used to teach this for Small Group the week before we read the article. For what its worth, after doing all this reading and studying, I am tending to lean more toward the classical view of dualism...if I understood enough to really make that claim. :)

AR Legistlature legistlates grammer rules

I've always wondered who wrote the grammar rules. I've been told that most of them exist based on consensus and historical usages. However, I now realize that the State's have the right to make grammar rules state law.

"Legislators will send Gov. Mike Beebe a resolution declaring 'Arkansas's' the proper possessive form of the state's name"

I guess the state can now get on to more pressing issues, like poverty, prison over-crowding, and education.

Government Thinking

So, you wrongly get sent to jail for a crime you didn't commit. You are released after 20 years when the courts realize the error. Your lawyer gets $1,000,000 for wrongful imprisonment, and then a judge orders you to pay 25% of that back to the state for your room and board over the past 20 years...

It happened in England.

Maybe there is a reason to be Muslim

Muslim leaders are telling their congregations to not pay the income tax because it violates Sharia law.

So...which Amendment will the Supreme Court uphold, the First Amendment (Freedom of Religion) or the 17th Amendment (Government may forcefully steal your money)? Gee...I can only wonder?

Teacher sued by student's parents

A student turned her leaf collection project in late because she was at a school function on the day it was due. As the teacher had warned, he failed the student for the late work. Being reasonable people, the student's parents are suing the teacher.

Personal responsibility is waving the white flag.