Recently I heard Dr. Dobson provide an idea about encouraging saving and generosity in teenagers. He recommended making a standing offer to match any contributions your child makes to their savings account or to the church. Two days ago I offered the same plan to my son. Yesterday at church I had forgotten my offer to my son when the offering plate arrived. Dutifully he reached into his billfold and put some of his money in and looked at me. I found myself scrambling throught my billfold to match him. I hope he continues and has fun with this. The importance of managing money wisely is a difficult lesson.

I have been playing around with several thoughts about the separation of church and state. The doctrine of separation of church and state appears to mean different things to different people. This subject continues to be very misunderstood. I did a little internet search and came up with a very nice page, Separation of Church and State Home Page. It makes a persuavise argument for the separationist viewpoint. Their politics slip in here and there but overall the presentation is factual and informative.

The most interesting question that wandered into my brain after reading most of the site is: How much of the federal interpretation of separation of church apply to state governments?

My thought process goes this way. Their site does a nice job explaining the limited role of the Federal government and they make a nice argument that the Constitution does not borrow a lot from the Ten Commandments by saying murder, stealing, etc., are state issues. Then it struck me! When you get down to it, most issues affecting the common man are covered by state law. So why has the federal courts stepped in and made changes on state and local government public policy issues? Is this good law or just an example of federal power? Most of the court cases have been really silly and the only effect has been to make the Federal courts look silly. If the powers of the Federal Government are “few and defined” and religion is not one of the powers defined, why do they seem to be stretching to take on cases that forces their interpretation of church and state doctrine on the states? The polls show that the people believe in the separation of church and state but not to the degree required by the Federal courts. I don't believe that courts should change their decisions because of recent polls but popular opinion ultimately sways judicial opinion. I get this sense of a desire by the Federal courts to try explain their decisions on this law as perfect when the public says something different is required. If a state or local government has a practical reason for including a relationship to religious texts (Ten Commandments text posted in public buildings) or symbols(e.g. cross in the seal for LA) and the people agree, why not let the states and local governments make the decisions on public policies that affect them? This begs the question, does a state have the authority to implement "less strict" separation of church and state view because their need to change the public’s perception to state issues(e.g. murder, quality of local education) is higher than the need of the Federal courts?

Frankly I have a low interest in the Marriage Amendment because I believe it is not a major cause of the decline of marriage. Here is an interesting study courtesy by Carey Roberts. For someone who’s wife had a child after 34 the fact that men are delaying or completely avoiding marriage is a serious problem.

Carey Roberts has some sobering news from the marriage front. According to a Rutgers Univ. study, just released, of attitudes of American men, ages 25-34, toward marriage:

Among those men, 53% said they were not interested in getting married anytime soon — the marriage delayers. That figure alone is cause for concern.

But this is the statistic that every American who wants to strengthen and protect marriage should be worried about: 22% of the men said they had absolutely no interest in finding their Truly Beloved. The report described these guys as “hardcore marriage avoiders.”

When almost one-quarter of single men in their prime courting years — that’s two million potential husbands — declare a Marriage Strike, we’re facing an unprecedented social crisis.

Why are these men refusing to marry? Some of their reasons are spelled out in the 2002 report:

— “Some men express resentment towards a legal system that grants women the unilateral right to decide to terminate a pregnancy … There is also a mistrust of women who may ’trap’ men into fathering a child by claiming to be sterilized, infertile or on the pill.”

— “Many men also fear the financial consequences of divorce…They fear that an ex-wife will ’take you for all you’ve got’ and that ’men have more to lose financially than women’ from a divorce.” …

Four decades ago, radical feminists, taking their cue from Marxist-Leninist theory, decreed that marriage was nothing more than gender slavery. Claiming to speak on behalf of American women, feminists set out to radically rework — or even do away with — the age-old social contract of marriage. And women, mesmerized by the ephemeral promise of liberation and empowerment, opted to go along for the ride.

Now, feminists are succeeding beyond their wildest dreams. And women are left to wonder why their Prince Charming is nowhere to be found.

You know, “be careful what you wish for . . .”
[Via One Hand Clapping]

But Reich concludes his article with a stunning and surprising paragraph, which I'll cite here verbatim:

The great conflict of the 21st century will not be between the West and terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic, not a belief. The true battle will be between modern civilization and anti-modernists; between those who believe in the primacy of the individual and those who believe that human beings owe their allegiance and identity to a higher authority; between those who give priority to life in this world and those who believe that human life is mere preparation for an existence beyond life; between those who believe in science, reason, and logic and those who believe that truth is revealed through Scripture and religious dogma. Terrorism will disrupt and destroy lives. But terrorism itself is not the greatest danger we face.

Via Mark D. Roberts

I got this link via Donald Sensing. I have been personally questioning the validity of the secular viewpoint as a primary foundation of public policy. I do not think this was the intention of the founding fathers. The Protestant Reformation was still vivid in their minds. I continue to think that our “enhancements” to the secular viewpoint would not be appreciated by the founding fathers and are not the basis for good public policy. I do believe in the separation of Church and State but not when it encourages bad public policies. In this case Robert Reich attempts to argue the case for an increased secularization of the government and public policies. In reality when reasonably open minded people read his words and begin to understand the superficiality of his arguements, they see why the secular viewpoint is not popular with the common folks and makes for poor public policy. Public policy derived from this increasingly secular viewpoint just do not seem to work.

I think one of the most obvious failures of this increasingly secularized public policy is genocide. In this information age it is hard not to know when your brother is suffering and yet we do nothing. It is hard to find the moral high ground in arguing for science, reason, and logic when a couple hundred thousand people are massacred in Rwanda. Unfortunately this scenario keeps repeating itself. Science, reason, and logic are important but not sufficient to deal with the various human tragedies. Ignoring these tragedies is our greatest danger because they provide the breeding ground for the next civil conflict and the next group of desperate people.

“This country is the most religious developed democracy in the world,” says pollster Celinda Lake. “On the one hand, Americans want separation of church and state, but on the other they feel comfortable with 'In God we trust' and 'One nation under God.' It's a core value.”

This is from Hagakure: The Book of the Samurai:

A warrior should not say something fainthearted even casually. He should set his mind to this beforehand. Even in trifling matters the depths of one's heart can be seen.

[Via IMAO]

I’ve always believed that we were, each of us, put here for a reason, that there is a … divine plan for all of us. I know now that whatever days are left to me belong to him [God].

–Ronald Reagan

[Via the Presidential Prayer Team]

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a36150180158f.htm

Letter from President Reagan to his son Michael before Michaelis to be married:

Dear Mike:

You’ve heard all the jokes that have been rousted around by all the "unhappy marrieds" and cynics. Now, in case no one has suggested it, there is another viewpoint. You have entered into the most meaningful relationship there is in all human life. It can be whatever you decide to make it.

Some men feel their masculinity can only be proven if they play out in their own life all the locker-room stories, smugly confident that what a wife doesn’t know won’t hurt her. The truth is, somehow, way down inside, without her ever finding lipstick on the collar or catching a man in the flimsy excuse of where he was till three a.m., a wife does know, and with that knowing, some of the magic of this relationship disappears. There are more men griping about marriage who kicked the whole thing away themselves than there can ever be wives deserving of blame.

There is an old law of physics that you can only get out of a thing as much as you put in it. The man who puts into the marriage only half of what he owns will get that out. Sure, there will be moments when you will see someone or think back on an earlier time and you will be challenged to see if you can still make the grade, but let me tell you how really great is the challenge of proving your masculinity and charm with one woman for the rest of your life. Any man can find a twerp here and there who will go along with cheating, and it doesn’t take all that much manhood. It does take quite a man to remain attractive and to be loved by a woman who has heard him snore, seen him unshaven, tended him while he was sick, and washed his dirty underwear. Do that and keep her still feeling a warm glow and you will know some very beautiful music.

If you truly love a girl, you shouldn’t ever want her to feel, when she sees you greet a secretary or a girl you both know, that humiliation of wondering if she was someone who caused you to be late coming home, nor should you want any other woman to be able to meet your wife and know she was smiling behind her eyes as she looked at her, the woman you love, remembering this was the woman you rejected even momentarily for her favors.

Mike, you know better than many what an unhappy home is and what it can do to others. Now you have a chance to make it come out the way it should. There is no greater happiness for a man than approaching a door at the end of a day knowing someone on the other side of that door is waiting for the sound of his footsteps.

Love, Dad.

P.S. You’ll never get in trouble if you say "I love you" at least once a day.

As I approach my 21^st anniversary this is still great advice to remember!

I believe that faith and religion play a critical role in the political life of our nation — and always has — and that the church — and by that I mean all churches, all denominations — has had a strong influence on the state. And this has worked to our benefit as a nation.

I heard about this speech from the radio, K-LOVE. It is intriguing that the issues that plague us today were hot issues in 1984. The scary thing is that his entire speech is just as appropiate to today's issues as they were in 1984. I cannot help but associate this lack of progress with the polarization of the political process. We just do not listen to the other side.

"Too many have dispensed with generosity in order to practice charity."

[Via Quotes of the Day]

A reminder about the heart needed to perform charity. When we let the generosity coming from the heart whither away, we are not practicising charity.