Mark's Views, Perhaps — from behind my eyeballs
“OK, Mark,” he whispered intracranially, “you should quit for the day. Just go to bed now.”
“Just let me do a little bit more,” he muttered back.
Now you know the rest more of the story.
I read this somewhere:
“Late to bed and early to rise,
Makes a man baggy under the eyes.”
Fine.
Breaking news (I guess):
| Court: Texas had no right to take polygamists’ kids
A state appellate court has ruled that child welfare officials had no right to seize more than 400 children living at a polygamist sect’s ranch. The Third Court of Appeals in Austin ruled that the grounds for removing the children were “legally and factually insufficient” under Texas law. They did not immediately order the return of the children. Child welfare officials removed the children on the grounds that the sect pushed underage girls into marriage and sex and trained boys to become future perpetrators. The appellate court ruled the chaotic hearing held last month did not demonstrate the children were in any immediate danger, the only measure of taking children from their homes without court proceedings. |
Then why did they “not immediately order the return of the children”?
I smell a lawsuit in the making.
Three news items for you to chew on.
| Most Americans Say Divorce is Morally Acceptable
A record 70 percent of Americans believe divorce is morally acceptable, according to Gallup’s 2008 Values and Beliefs survey. That’s an 11-point increase from seven years ago. […] Of the poll’s 16 ethical issues rated for moral acceptability, divorce topped the list, followed by gambling, embryonic stem-cell research, homosexuality and abortion. Extramarital affairs — often a cause of divorce — are at the bottom of the list, with just 7 percent of Americans finding them morally acceptable. |
By what moral law and standard do my fellow Americans make this judgment? (At 70%, that includes a lot of real — as well as nominal — Christians. Wow!)
And why does that moral law and standard make extramarital affairs so unacceptable?
OK, here’s the second story:
| Boston Doctor Offers Sex Change Treatment to Kids
Dr. Norman Spack, a pediatric specialist at the hospital, has launched a clinic for transgendered kids — boys who feel like girls, girls who want to be boys — and he’s opening his doors to patients as young as 7. |
So Doc Spack is catching lots of flak. I wonder if it’s coming from any in the 70% mentioned above. And why.
Now from the Mail Online (UK), the third story:
| Fathers aren’t needed say MPs: Commons decides IVF babies can do without a male role model
Fathers were last night effectively declared an irrelevance in modern Britain. The requirement for fertility doctors to consider a child’s need for a male role model before giving women IVF treatment was scrapped by MPs. In a free vote, they swept away the rule despite impassioned pleas that the Government plan would “drive another nail into the coffin of the traditional family”. Labour rebels said it would send entirely the wrong signal to society as Britain faces a crisis in responsible parenting. The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, had warned it would remove the father from the heart of the family. |
History Says Sect Moms Will Get Back Kids
| At a series of hearings beginning today, Texas child protection workers are expected to tell a judge that members of a West Texas polygamous sect must renounce an alleged decades-long practice of marrying underage girls to older men if they want to regain custody of their children.
The hearings — individual status meetings for all 464 children in state custody — are the latest step in what is believed to be the largest child protection case in U.S. history, a sprawling process that already has cost millions of dollars and promises to continue into next year. Texas officials will present a series of steps that Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints parents will have to follow in order for their children to be returned, including proving they can provide a home free from potential child abusers and demonstrating the ability to protect children from abuse. “You can’t be in bigamist marriages, and the other thing you can’t do is marry off young teenagers to very old men,” said Scott McCown, a former Texas district court judge. “If they are not willing to give that up, the state’s position is going to be that the children are never going to go home. That’s going to be state’s non-negotiable bottom line,” McCown said. But this is not first time the sect’s practices have been challenged by state authorities, and it was unclear what the long-term impact will be on the polygamous group, which has been raided by authorities in several states four times over the last 75 years. Though Arizona arrested dozens of men and took hundreds of children into custody in 1953, that raid appeared to have little effect on the group’s beliefs or practices, leading some to question whether the results will be any different in Texas. “I think it will be a repeat of history,” said Martha Bradley, a University of Utah professor and author of “Kidnapped From That Land,” a study of the now-infamous 1953 raid on the town known then as Short Creek. Within two years of the raid, all sect members were back in Short Creek. |
As I mentioned in an earlier post, tonight we had a bishop ordination at our church.
The lot fell to our deacon, who is also one of my best friends.
My Dad formally retired tonight as bishop and turned the reins over to Jake Kropf.
Thank you, Dad.
And you too, Jake.
God bless you both for your service.
Interesting news story, for what it says about running scared:
| U.S. soldier riddles Koran with bullets in Iraq
An American soldier has been disciplined and ordered from Iraq, the U.S. military said on Sunday, for using a copy of the Koran for target practice at a shooting range near Baghdad. […] CNN said when Major-General Jeffery Hammond, the commander of U.S. troops in Baghdad, and other officers arrived to deliver the apology to local leaders in Radwaniya they were met by hundreds of protesting Sunni Arab tribesmen. “I am a man of honor, I am a man of character. You have my word this will never happen again,” Hammond told the crowd. “In the most humble manner, I look into your eyes today and I say, please forgive me and my soldiers,” CNN reported on its website. It said Colonel Ted Martin, a brigade commander, held up a new copy of the Koran which he kissed and touched to his forehead as he handed it to the tribal elders. “I hope that you’ll accept this humble gift,” Martin said. |
And for what it says about representing one’s country.
Which of the above three men accurately represented the United States?
(Oh, Mr. Hammond — Do you realize your statement above could seem to suggest that you authorized the incident for which you are issuing a No-Repeat guarantee?)
But far more importantly to me, am I an accurate representation of the Kingdom of Heaven?
When I as a Christian take the name of Christ, am I portraying an accurate representation of my King?
I think this story is tragic for what it says about the US…and for the ill it portends for this country.
But I think that’s far less tragic than Mark Roth (and you?) being a poor representative of and ambassador for Jesus Christ.
Today I finished reading Joel C. Rosenberg’s latest “Christian” novel, Dead Heat.
It’s interesting.
Especially since the author seems well-connected and in-the-know. And at times he could seem remotely semi-prophetic (in a forth-telling sort of way).
But what’s the point and purpose of the novel?
And why would Christians kill or order the deaths of others?
And why did Mr. Rosenberg include an extremely brief — part of a sentence, as I recall — mention of passionate physical intimacy between two of the main characters?
Most importantly to me, perhaps, is something far more personal — Why did I read the book?
Oh my.