A Day at College

I recently had the opportunity to stay overnight at Linfield College, complete with some interviews and sitting in on a class. I don't really know what I was expecting to find at college. I was even a bit nervous before I went, met my overnight host, and sat in on the International Politics class. Suffice to say, it was an enlightening experience.

The first revelation was that college is boring. I guess I hit campus at an "off" time, but there was still very little activity going on. I had fun in the library for a couple of hours, but it was a weird thing afterward. We sat around. A lot. We sat until 2:00 in the morning. For no reason in particular. We didn't really even talk about anything important. It was the longest period of doing absolutely nothing that I can remember. I used this opportunity to observe college students in their "natural habitat" but I really can't imagine doing that all year. For one thing - I'd be really tired.

The second revelation is that college will be hard. The proliferation of cussing, sexual references, and alcohol was astounding … even from several students who told me they were Christians and "led worship." I came away from campus feeling dirty on the inside simply from being around all the filth constantly being thrown around me. Unless a Christian student finds a Christian niche in which to fellowship and draw strength from other Christians and God, I can understand why so many young Christians walk out of the faith – sheer attrition.

My final and most startling revelation was that homeschoolers look different. That's right. My friends look different. College students do not. All the girls had the same make-up, most had the same hairdo, and the same type of clothing. I had trouble telling them apart. The guys weren't much better. There were three basic sub-types: the nerd, the jock, and the skater. Usually these cliques are entertaining attempts at humor, but at Linfield … they are real. The guys were either really big and buff with shaved hair, small and greasy with glasses, or loose with long hair. I'm sure I'm exaggerating to some extent, but I honestly mistook several people I met for other – completely different – people that I had met previously that day. I guess in college one is free to be an individual, and as individuals, they choose to conform.

In conclusion, this trip was really eye-opening. I definitely intend to put a lot of effort into my time at college because it is directly proportional to what you get out of the college experience. When I think of my brief overnight stay, I shake my head and marvel ... but such is life. I'm just glad that I was homeschooled and was able to develop the basis to my faith, because I can guarantee you that the world (even in college) is just waiting for us to get complacent.

Bumpersticker Sets Off Thinking! More on Page 3!

Recently seen on a bumpersticker: "Evolve, d----t!"

I must admit, ladies and gentlemen, I laughed. And not a little giggle or silent snicker, oh no! It was a full out guffaw! And that was followed by... A head shake! At the pagans who were being silly again, screaming "Great is Diana of the Ephesians!" whilst the rest of the world spins with a sovereign God at the helm of both the natural and the supernatural.

The sight of the bumpersticker neatly collated itself with a thought process I've been having for awhile, though. About evolution, that is, not pagans being silly (which is not a new thought in my brain). If the human race is still evolving, then why aren't those who believe we are (still evolving) acting like we actually are (still evolving)? If we're still evolving, how come those who believe we are (still evolving) aren't getting kids to start making babies as soon as they're physically capable? Why aren't they stretching for that next dynamic step in the evolutionary chain? They're on somewhat of the right track by no longer caring for the weak and old (the "death with dignity" movement and senior euthanasia come to mind), but abortion doesn't make any sense in an evolutionary mindset. Neither does liberty (something we have too little of) or equality (something that's been perverted).

Even if the theory of evolution is true as far as origins, the fact that we (in general) care for our old and sick
is a serious problem. Quite frankly, even if all the evolutionary-origins bullhonky was true, WE'VE STOPPED EVOLVING. If we were still evolving, nobody would whine about the US invading other countries, because hey, that's just survival of the fittest! You can't be on top? Tough, you're out of the gene pool! Murder would be fine, promiscuity would be encouraged, but don't you dare use birth control or abortion! If we as a species were actually evolving, folks, we would have a TOTALLY different set of social mores! And if one culture started falling behind, another would swallow it up.

Well, we're not evolving. We never did, in a theory-of-evolution sort of way. We were created in the image of God, by God, and even if that image is now distorted and corrupted by sin, it doesn't change the base nature of that image. There are standards because God exists. He *is* the standard, against which all other standards are measured. There can be a Christian society because (and only because) God has redeemed His people by His Son. Glory be to God.

And the bumpersticker is still very funny. Glory be to God.

Freedom's Challenge

Freedom is a majestic word that entails so much. It is a word that brings to mind bald eagles soaring high, the Flag waving majestically in the wind, or Founding Fathers debating at the Constitutional Conventions. Freedom is a word that brings to mind such quotes as Patrick Henry's "Give me liberty or give me death," or Abraham Lincoln's "Freedom is the last, best hope of the earth."

It should be noted that freedom itself carries a responsibility. Just as the right of voting carries the reciprocal responsibility of actually participating in elections, freedom has a reciprocal. The responsibility of freedom is to keep freedom, for this and subsequent generations. As Abraham Lincoln said, "From where can we expect the approach of danger? I tell you, if it ever reaches us, it must spring up amongst us. As a nation of free men, we must live through all time or die by suicide." The responsibility of freedom is to not commit national suicide, something that we are unfortunately failing to do as a nation. Therefore, we must remember the value of freedom and choose it above tyranny.

Not making a choice is a choice. A philosophy of apathy is a sure route to destruction. If we don't choose freedom, tyranny is the default option. Throughout history, we can see the idea of national suicide is not a new one. George Orwell in his book 1984 and Aldous Huxley in his book Brave New World both envisioned societies that had effectively committed suicide. The people, except for the rare individual, did not care enough about freedom to do anything about the government. They didn't understand that to not make a choice is a choice. To sit still in today's world is to effectively fall behind.

Unfortunately, as a nation we are failing in this regard. There is both a lack of understanding and a lack of participation. For example, the Zogby pollsters found that 75% of teens could name the Three Stooges (Larry, Moe, and Curly) but only 42% could name the three branches of government (Legislative, Judicial, and Executive.) There is a lack of understanding in the generation that will soon have to be in charge of the political system - and this is a bad thing. Aside from the lack of understanding of the political system, there is also a lack of participation in the political system. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, just a little over 50% of the population participated in the 2000 Presidential election. This number has decreased by 10% since some forty years ago. This percentage is the national statistic - turnout for local and state elections are even lower. When there is such a widespread lack of participation in the system that allows voting in the first place, there is a problem.

We must, therefore, remember the value of freedom in our life. Remembering this value can be done through education and demonstration. First, it is important to educate the upcoming generations about the importance of freedom and its foundation in the United States system. Second, we need to demonstrate our appreciation through significant, if small, actions. For example, standing as the flag passes by during parades or taking of one's ball cap for the national anthem are important actions that help solidify the concept of respect for freedom throughout life.

In conclusion, Freedom's challenge is to prevent national suicide. Unfortunately, this is something we are failing to do as a nation. Therefore, we must remember the value of freedom and actively choose it above tyranny and apathy at all times.

If... Then...

If civil government's purpose is to protect its citizens from outside and inside threats (defense and justice),

Then why should we have a Pledge of Allegiance?

Ethical Handicaps

I was perusing a discussion on the national homeschool debate forums when I ran into this tidbit from a poster.

"The search for absolutes is a handicap in ethical reasoning." He went on to clarify, "I did not say there are no absolutes; I said there are little to no absolutes in ethics. That's a difference."

I've already posted about the need for absolute truth, but I think it's worth discussing the need for absolute truth in ethics. I could care less whether the sun revolves around the earth or vice versa. How we live, interact with others, and choose right and wrong has a far more pertinent impact on life in general.

There must be an absolute, without it we cannot have progress or work toward any goal, especially in ethics. Without an absolute standard, we cannot say that the world is becoming better, worse, more depraved, or more enlightened. We don't know whether any action is good, bad, or simply neutral. We don't know anything about the realm of ethics. In short, there can be no ethics without absolutes.

Practical experience also tells us that there must be some kind of absolute in ethics. As C.S. Lewis noted in Mere Christianity, "though there are differences between the moral ideas of one time or country and those of another, the differences are not really very great - not nearly so great as most people imagine - and you can recognize the same law running throughout them all: whereas mere conventions, like the rule of the road or the kind of clothes people wear, may differ to any extent. ... [Furthermore] If no set moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring civilized morality to savage morality, or Christian morality to Nazi morality."

What we see in the world, as summed up in Lewis's quote, is that there has never been a totally "opposite" ethical system. There has never been a society that valued falsehood, cowardice, cheating, or dishonor. We also can plainly see that we are able to evaluate different systems by some standard. That standard must be an objective absolute standard or else there is absolutely no basis for differentiating between systems of ethics.

In contrast to the poster's belief that the "search for absolutes is a handicap in ethical reasoning," in reality there can be no ethics without absolutes.

Straight Outta Lynwood

I picked up Weird Al Yankovic's newest album, "Straight Outta Lynwood," and I must say I really do enjoy it. There're only one or two yawners (Confessions Part III and Do I Freak You Out in particular), but the rest are very good. An interesting thing to mention is there are more originals than he usually does, and I think the CD is better for it. Of course, maybe that's just because you don't have to do much to music these days to make it sound ridiculous. Ah, the poor satirists...

-"Pops"

Wherefore?

I detest drama. No. That is too little emphasis. I detest drama. By drama, I do not mean the noble and ancient art of theatre. This form of drama that I refer to is the phenomenon so often demonstrated in relationships. I am referring to the pining, sappy, over-emphasized, craving, over-analyzing, insipid, reactionary drama of contemporary culture.

Being homeschooled, I consider myself blessed that I avoid the majority of this problem. The "did you hear what she said?" "can you believe what he did?" "know about her?" kind of gossip that pervades even the Boy Scouts, debate league, and youth groups that I attend. Whenever I see drama, (Of which, thankfully, I am mostly ignorant.) I ignore it. If someone calls me out and asks me if I want to know the latest insider gossip and/or latest relational drama, I have to pull out the oft too-harsh-sounding, "I don't care!"

It's true. I don't care. I couldn't care less! I don't want to know about so-and-so. I don't want to know about your boyfriend/girlfriend woes. I don't want to know what s/he said that made you so mad, sad, or glad. I just wanted to talk to you about what's new in life (or whatever.)

I guess I should preface the rest of this post with a qualifier. I enjoy reading Shakespeare. I am taking a Shakespeare class this semester, and I am really excited about reading more of his plays.

That said, I really do not like Romeo. The play is well written and Mercutio is my favorite character. But Romeo! Romeo the quintessential lover, the bard of spoken infatuation, the man's form who weeps "womanish tears." I want to take him, buffet him soundly by the ears, and tell him to get a grip. He is infatuated with the idea of love. He loves Rosaline with a undying passion ... until he sees Juliet. Barely five minutes pass and he kisses her as a lover. GAH! It seems to me that Romeo has a "drama" problem. Moving from relationship to relationship, from crisis to crisis.

Therefore, I encourage you not to be another lost romantic, another Casanova, another Romeo. Get out of the narcissistic pit of infatuation, boy/girl acting, gossip, and image and step into the glorious light of a relationship on the basis of real conversation, enjoyment of the other person's unique personality, and (dare I say) crisis-free fun.


Afterward: "Pops" once called a blog, "A place to complain and pour out your emotions online." I just broke the once proud tradition of Radical Traditions of being intellectually-based, hard-hitting political commentary and spiritual thinking. Romeo drove me to it. My sincere apologies.