Love Letter In Care Of My Employer's IT Department

To whom it may concern:

I say "to whom it may concern" because I'm not quite certain whom it may concern. I'm fairly certain that the IT department knows, as it is responsible for carrying out your decisions. However, being that this is __________________, it's entirely possible that your decisions are filtered through so many layers of bureaucracy that the IT is ignorant of your existence. Perhaps, like the good angel portrayed by Al Pacino under the name John Milton, you prefer to keep your influence subtle and understated. In which case, I beg the IT department to forward this as best it knows. If the IT department itself is responsible for these policies, it may be wisest to remain silent; my love for the person in question is quite abundant and probably best enjoyed from a safe distance.

First, let me say that I appreciate how difficult your job is. So much lies within your purview: ensuring student safety, intellectual integrity, and above all wise use of time in an era where that horrible demon, the Internet, provides so many temptations to degradation, dishonor, and dissipation. Why, if you didn't block Wikipedia from student access, they might copy/paste info from it at school rather than at home! Worse, they might actually begin to research at school, starting in the familiar place, rather than giving up and googling whatever comes to mind. Indeed, this is so important that I understand when my own access is similarly blocked. I'm sure I'll find a detailed dissection of the differences between film and book elsewhere. Nothing makes me happier than seeking information and clicking on a link that leads immediately back to your "Blocked by ______" page - as per "student policies". It makes me feel so warm and fuzzy, knowing you think of me just like a student.

I'm also glad for the numerous blocks on "adult content". Heaven knows, high schoolers will never find a way to find pornographic material on school grounds as long as you block such sites as Cracked. Although it may sometimes impede searches for clever, witty examples of literary, scientific, and historical note, it helps me rest more easily, knowing that students who want smutty material are restricted to the very active hacked file in our school's student directory.

Ah, but most of all, I appreciate the way you block timewasters like blogs. Who knows how much time and effort might be wasted if teachers were allowed to participate in social sites while on school computers? Yesterday, instead of participating in social sites, I was strictly limited to helpful educational sites listing logical fallacies in helpfully exhaustive groups. Not once in my two hours of searching for helpful information was I distracted by a social networking site. Alas, I was unable to complete (or properly start) the lesson with such a wealth of information and was required to retire home. From home, I resumed my search. Not thirty seconds in, I was led astray by a socially networked blog by a teacher who had a detailed lesson plan on exactly the topic I intended to teach, complete with handouts and materials which probably saved me two hours on prep work.

I'm so glad you help by blocking blogs and social networking sites. I'm so glad that I can post this, secure in the knowledge that this will be so difficult to access from school that it will probably never come to your attention.

Love and kisses,
Mouse

What Is Right and What Is Easy

I find myself in an awkward position regarding the Church and social morality. Well, it's not awkward on all fronts: I find that any "Christian" agenda which fails to provide for the poor and despised in our society is no Christian agenda at all. That's simple. I can even feel a bit smugly (self-?)righteous in the "caring for the despised" category, because not everyone is able to see this obvious point. But in the field of sexual morality, things get complicated. Largely because I can see traces of smug self-satisfaction in both the major visible camps, traces I can see in myself whichever stance I take.

I have grown up in a conservative environment. I've long understood the arguments against abortion, and I agree with them. I've long understood the arguments in favor of limiting sexual relationships to a heterosexual monogamous context, and I cannot disagree with them. Abortion is bad because it kills humans. God created sex for a purpose, and that purpose is clearly outlined in the Bible. Fairly simple.

Unfortunately, it got more complicated when I encountered a liberal environment. I understand the arguments against-against abortion (few, I find, are simply "for" it), and I agree with them. I understand the arguments in favor of permitting sexual relationships in a variety of contexts, and I cannot entirely disagree with them. Abortion can save lives. I find myself disgusted by finding some "pro-life" arguments which show exactly the sort of misogynistic anti-choice logic which I had dismissed as abortionist anti-life caricature. (But I never would argue for the life of the fetus over that of the mother without the mother's consent!) (But some would.) (But I would never demand that an unviable fetus be carried to term at the risk of the mother!) (But some would.) (But I don't want to punish women for promiscuity by refusing birth control, demanding they raise the baby, while permitting the man freedom from judgment! That would be totally contrary to even the Law of Moses!) (But some would.) As for alternatives to heterosexuality (yes, alternatives plural, for those concerned about a monolithic "homosexual agenda") - well, here's where I get into the really murky waters.

It is easy for me to condemn the sins which tempt me little.

It is easy for me to condemn the sins which I have buried in shrouding denial.

It is easy for me to condemn the sins which, condemned, still permit me to maintain my familiar lifestyle.

It is easy for me to condemn the sins which permit me to pretend love and Christian concern.

It is easy for me to condemn the sins which permit me to hate my enemy, curse them that curse me, do evil to them that hate me, and pray against them which despitefully use me and persecute me.

It is easy for me to condemn the sins which permit me to hate my neighbor as I hate myself.

I find that it is easy for most Christians to do these things. We want to take bold stands for Christ and stand for the right thing in despite of the World, the Flesh and the Devil, but we want to do so at the least possible cost to ourselves. History demonstrates that Christians have always been divided sharply when the time came to choose between right and wrong. I will be the first to point out the large role of the Church in abolition - but other members of the Church used the Bible, with more ease, to justify slavery, because abolition would involve change, discomfort, and an admission of sin. I will be the first to point out the large role of the Church in the Civil Rights movement - but other members of the Church used basic common sense to show how "unnatural" such indiscriminate Christian brotherhood would be.

I cannot take the liberal step of assuming the heterosexuality issue is identical to these previous issues. I cannot say that that which is inborn is inevitable. But I can and must note that conservatives have long declared homosexuality (let alone other sexualities) so impossible that it is invisible in much of the conservative community. It's one of the easy sins of the "other". Abortion is redefined as the lazy, cowardly, or callous slut's easy way out, and becomes one of the easy sins of the "other". So, conservatives: how do we know the Lord's will on sexuality is more literal and obvious in the Bible than His will on slavery or racial mixing? And every frickin' person debating abortion: how do we know the point at which the cells transform into an independent human being? Because those who assert the answer without considering it are less concerned with human rights than with the rights of the human they choose to like better.

I know, it's a set of tired, tired debates. But I worry that the divide in the Church is largely along the lines of what is easy for each side to declare right, and therefore making it possible to make what is easy = what is right. And what is right is rarely the same thing as what is easy. And the right way to determine what is right in a heated debate is rarely the same thing as the easy way to determine what is right.

Regarding the London Riots and Responsible Society

This was posted as a series of tweets by Tony Evans of The Times around noon British Summer Time today, and really struck me with truth. (Thanks to JoshR commenting on this interesting Mightygodking article for bringing it to my attention!)

First off, I don’t know what’s best. But this is what I do know. Unlike most of you, I’ve fought with police, I’ve thrown missiles at them, I’ve kicked in shop windows and looted stuff. I was born into an area that people told me was full of ‘the dregs of society’. I’ve been young, poor and angry. I’ve felt there was no opportunity in life and all that stretched in front was a bleak, penniless future. And I know that most people with happy, fulfilled lives don’t go on rampages of violence. I also know that successive Governments have put the pursuit of wealth ahead of maintaining a sense of community. When you’ve been told there’s no society, why would you care about other people? When you see the bankers nearly destroy capitalism and still get their bonuses, what do you think of personal responsibility? The key is making people believe they have opportunities in life, not opportunities to loot. And maybe the money spent intervening in a civil war in Libya would be better spent on schools. I could go on, but most of you have made up your minds. You get the society you create. Enjoy it.

A tale of two puppies

My beloved dog has lived with our family for almost all of her fourteen years. Even though she is now old, graying and arthritic, she is still Puppy to me. When we take her for walks, she is still mistaken for a puppy (she's vaguely the size and shape of a half-grown Lab, enough that someone who doesn't know dogs well will think she is one despite a rather different build), so I guess I may be a bit justified in my opinion.

Which makes it hard to think of how to compare her to my sister's six-month-old boxer/pit bull mix. He is far more a puppy than Puppy, but is probably ten to twenty pounds heavier and altogether on a different scale. Already I'm calling him Beast. Last night went something like this:

Beast-Puppy: Play!
Old-Puppy: Yay! I feel young!

*five minutes later*

Beast-Puppy: Play harder!
Old-Puppy: Gettin' tired...

*five minutes later*

Beast-Puppy: Play?
Old-Puppy: Sleepin' now in bed. Go 'way.

Christianity And

My dear Wormwood,
The real trouble about the set your patient is living in is that it is merely Christian. They all have individual interests, of course, but the bond remains mere Christianity. What we want, if men become Christians at all, is to keep them in the state of mind I call 'Christianity And'. You know -- Christianity and the Crisis, Christianity and Faith Healing, Christianity and Psychical Research, Christianity and Vegetarianism, Christianity and Spelling Reform. If they must be Christians let them at least be Christians with a difference. Substitute for the faith itself some Fashion with a Christian colouring...

That would be the introduction to the 25th Screwtape Letter, and if you don't know what that means, please see the link. C.S. Lewis at his finest.

I have grown particularly sick of the current Fashion in America to describe Christianity as Christianity and Conservatism, or Christianity and Republicanism, or the battle cry "For God, America and St. George W. Bush!" (or whomever shall replace said fallen idol). While God may have opinions in American politics, I doubt very much that He has anointed any particular political party or political organization with the whole measure of His blessing and favor; democracy leaves little room for the divine right of kings, after all, and if God favors America, He surely favors democracy. The inherent conflation of "religious" and "neither left nor center" in "Religious Right" worries me, especially the gnawing suspicion that some members see a different "right" in that phrase - "We are the ones to the right; therefore, we are the ones IN the right!"

Still, I know plenty of people who belong to the Religious Right who place their faith in God first and foremost, who are wonderful, decent Christians and possibly better in their faith than I can ever be. The movement, therefore, is not spawned of Satan, whatever I would like to believe when Religious Right spokespeople appear on television. I've learned to view quite a lot of fallacies as either merely amusing or fallacies on the part of the liberal interpreter rather than the conservative speaker.

Therefore, I was shocked to learn about the Conservapedia Bible Translation Project. Now, my link is to an outside source. This is intentional. I do not wish to encourage the project by diverting any traffic its way, and this article does a fairly good job describing and quoting it. If, like me, you find it unbelievable, an exaggeration or joke, there is a link to the actual project inside the article. The link to the actual project may not work at the moment; Stephen Colbert set the Colbert Nation to work last night vandalizing the project, and probably-not-coincidentally the servers for the Bible Project are currently unreliable. But you know. You can figure it out.

This project, ladies and gentlemen, proposes that the Bible itself is too liberal as received and needs to be adjusted accordingly. There appears to be some restraint; excisions are technically limited to later additions to the text and the suggested word replacements have at least a shred of validity. But any "translation" which works by adjusting the KJV by fiat rather than learning and interpreting the original languages... does not deserve the name "translation". At best, it is a paraphrase; at worst, a retcon. The guidelines look suspiciously like a retcon. (I was not aware, for instance, that Jesus' parables were supposed to be a clear and unambiguous statement of support for the free market.) This is considerably beyond Christianity And. This is getting into And Christianity. Or, Is Christianity. We can change the Bible, because if God Himself supports our ideology, we are justified in putting words in His mouth to clarify His position.

This is exactly the kind of thing I hate. Christianity is loving the Lord thy God and loving thy neighbor as thyself. Christianity is doing unto others as thou wouldst have them do unto thee. Christianity is not defined by capitalism, small government, military spending, the death penalty, or harsher jail sentences by any logical stretch. Christian politics ought to have priorities in line with Christ's. To me, this means that homosexual marriage is a nonissue; divorce is a more pressing one. If abortion is to be a priority issue, for the love of all that is holy, hold politicians accountable - don't permit a politician to buy your vote with an entirely empty promise to "support" abortion prevention, and don't permit a politician to give lip service to that ideal while performing unChristian acts in every other area.

Got that?

Now here's the hellishly tricky part for me. It's incredibly tempting to fight Christianity and Conservatism by becoming Christianity and Anti(Christianity and Conservatism). I have friends who entice me into Christianity and Liberalism - which, with some idiot Conservapedia people thinking that forgiveness is a Liberal concept (fine, I caved and linked directly), seems awfully tempting to believe. If being forgiving is inherently liberal, wouldn't that mean that Christianity is inherently liberal? The only judgment and damnation I recall in the NT was on people who claimed to be believers but acted falsely. There I go, buying into the Christianity And Anti-Anti-Christianity again.

It comes back to learning to stand - learning to follow God Himself, to stand for God rather than against something else. I am not called to rant about the follies of legalism. (Howevermuch fun Paul might have had doing so. So, so much fun.) I am not called to go out of my way to confront fringe elements, and it's not like I have any erring high authorities to correct in the daily course of things. I have to drop "Christianity And", even when the "and" is fighting "Christianity And". Of course, this can create an infinite regression of Christianity And Anti(Christianity And)...

I see only one thing to do at the moment. Your patient has become humble; have you drawn his attention to the fact? All virtues are less formidable to us once the man is aware that he has them, but this is specially true of humility. Catch him at the moment when he is really poor in spirit and smuggle into his mind the gratifying reflection, 'By jove! I'm being humble', and almost immediately pride - pride at his own humility - will appear. If he awakes to the danger and tries to smother this new form of pride, make him proud of his attempt - and so on, through as many stages as you please.

Oh, Number 14, how thou knowest me.

Religion in schools

I was required to write on a "contemporary issue" for my secondary experience class, and we've been talking about religion and schools. Guess what I ended up writing on?

Bear in mind that I'm writing to an audience of scientists very dismissive of religious priorities, and I'm wishing I could address my fellow Christians. My tone gets kind of confusing otherwise.

I've discussed religion frequently in the eJournals, but I can't help bringing it up again. Perhaps it is in part because I wish I could explain to the fervent fundamentalists how much a thoroughly secular education has helped my own faith. I also grow tired of defending my love of God and my love of scholarly analysis; it seems I am expected to choose one or the other. The culture wars are just as much an issue in the modern church as in any secular sphere, and as hotly debated. So much for "if it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone"! And, of course, at least one college friend has asked condescendingly how I can be so smart and still be religious. So much for open-mindedness!
Religion is at the core of our lives, and defines us if it is itself defined. This is the crucial understanding for a secular school. We do not want to deny that which defines many of our students in a positive way. Imagine if all mention of football or art were forbidden at school! Yet to truly allow religion, we cannot advocate any one religion. My test has always been this: would I be happy if the same lesson were given with an equally Muslim/Jewish/Hindu/Buddhist slant? If we are discussing the history of the Reformation or the influence of Christianity on literature, yes, I generally would be happy. It would be beneficial to learn more about the Sunni/Shiite split or the Eastern influence on Modernism. I actually came up with my idea for a religion/philosophy class because of the variety of philosophies I've encountered in debates. It's impossible to understand how reasonable minds can differ if we do not understand the other reasonable minds. Fundamentalists ought to recognize the value of knowing their demographic if they view all other faiths as merely the unconverted awaiting conversion. Non-fundamentalists know that intolerance can be broken only by understanding and empathizing.
In the humanities, it's easy enough to stick to factual ground - "x people believed this and acted thus". Ironically, it's the sciences where religion gets dodgy. And again ironically, it's the immense respect which the ignorant have for science which causes some of the problem. Creationists fear evolutionary theory not because they think science is worthless, but because they think science proves truth. Knowing truth cannot contradict truth, and knowing the Bible is true, they think the science supporting evolution must be faulty. The creationists I know earnestly believe that credible science must prove the Bible, and that the creation science must therefore be more credible than evolutionary science. It then becomes a simple question of whether we intend to teach real science or a flimsy excuse to support atheism.
Isn't it lovely how the problem gets inverted? Therefore, the biggest mistake any teacher can make, the biggest mistake any other person can make, is to treat it as simply a religious debate - because we don't want to cede the religious debate to the godless atheists. Similarly, it's silly to think we'll persuade everyone that science could draw a conclusion that might contradict the infallible Word of God.
In a broad-minded community, I don't think the problem would get too severe. In a narrow-minded community, I might encourage biology teachers to teach the entire course through the lens of evolution, to allow time to deal with all the objections. I would introduce the course with a discussion of Bacon and secondary causes - the idea that science started with the assumption that God did it, but that "God did it" is not a sufficient answer, and that science is about examining secondary causes - if God did it, how God did it. The class could then examine the evidence for evolution themselves. Parents could be allowed to participate. What is our best guess for how God did it? Plenty of intelligent design folks would be happy to provide evidence that young earth is unlikely, and coming from a source designed to combat godless evolution, a religious community might be more ready to accept the flaws in young earth theory. Gaps in evolutionary theory could be admitted with the caveat that just because we don't know, it doesn't mean we'll never figure out a good reason for this. Children inclined to explain this with intelligent design could: though intelligent design is an unscientific theory (because it involves God, not just secondary causes), it is not problematic as a philosophy. The problem could be a marvelous opportunity to examine what science is and isn't, and how conclusions are reached. However, it would require a great deal of time, because creationism delights in posing complicated questions and demanding simple answers.
Prayer in schools, the Ten Commandments in schools... honestly, if people can't tell the difference between their faith and the trappings of their faith, they're in trouble. No person's right to pray in school should be abridged. No person's right to display religious teachings should be abridged. I'm inclined to think that if someone wants to say a prayer at a commencement, as long as it doesn't include terms of "and smite/enlighten the godless heathens here present" or "give us faithful victory", it should be considered acceptable; good wishes should always be acceptable, and those good wishes expressed through prayer can be the more earnest. If the Ten Commandments are on display, it had better be for a comparison with Hammurabi's Code or some such, because otherwise one might as well post the rules on kosher or the five pillars of Islam. Again, if a similar thing involving another faith would be offensive, your faith shouldn't be privileged.
As for abstinence and other questions of sexuality, I think a little pragmatism is vitally important. Parents need to take the responsibility to teach their children their values on sex and drugs; it is the duty of the school only to teach what is wise and foolish according to secular standards. In secular America - well, I almost typed "sexular America" there, and I'm not sure that Freudian slip isn't accurate. If parents do not wish their children to learn what can be discovered everywhere in America, those children should be kept safely at home. If parents do not believe even in safe sex outside marriage, they should be able to explain to their children why. It might be wise for schools to include the emotional aspects of sex in sex education, but the responsibility for transcending the secular standard lies at home. Perhaps youth group Sunday Schools should start sex ed!
This paper may have been more of a description of my beliefs than an action plan, but what can I say? My beliefs will be integral to how I act on this issue. I may as well know what they are. I don't think America's future depends on solving our religious conflicts. Conflicts, smart and stupid, have been here throughout America's history, and this fight causes less damage than some. I think the future of the faithful, though, looks grim if they can't stop fighting for God to follow God.

Calling All Samaritans

I expect no one will read this, seeing as how I haven't updated in almost a year, but I have to write anyway.

We did the parable of the Good Samaritan in church today, and quite wonderful it was. I got intrigued when the pastor began describing how Samaritans were viewed by the Jews. Oh, I knew the two groups hated each other - loathed each other - despised each other; I didn't fully understand why.

You see, the Samaritans were simply not good enough. They were the bastards, the half-breed descendents of Jews who had compromised the true faith. Some synagogues would close their services with a prayer that God would exclude the Samaritans at the resurrection - basically, "Damn them, O Lord." Worse than pagans, these people had known the true faith but adulterated it almost beyond recognition.

At least, according to the Jews.

It occured to me to wonder what sort of unholy practices these Samaritans accepted. Perhaps they embraced the legitimacy of other faiths. Perhaps they accepted homosexuals. Perhaps they allowed women a place of power. Perhaps they despised the self-righteous hypocrisy rampant among the Pharisees and Sadduccees of the day. Perhaps they simply challenged the status quo.

Probably not.

But still. The Jews had a violent hatred of the Samaritans because they regarded them as second-class, illegitimate members of the same faith; the Samaritans had a violent hatred of the Jews in response. It sounds awfully familiar. It sounds, in fact, like Christianity in modern America, where anyone much to the left is a heretic and anyone much to the right is a fanatic - at least in the eyes of whoever speaks. Having moved to the left of the traditions in which I was raised, I feel very much like a Samaritan at times. And hatred of the self-righteous can get so very, very easy.

So I want to issue a call to all Samaritans: Let's see how we can imitate the Good Samaritan. So we are despised, rejected, hated; so what? We still follow a God who calls us to respond to hate with love, to bigotry with charity, to coldness with warmth. And that call does not extend only to those outside the faith, but to those so far in that they're heading out the other side. And perhaps we can remember that while Jesus spent a lot of time attacking the Pharisees and teachers of the law, while His only encounters with Samaritans were friendly ones, He nonetheless considered Himself a Jew and not a Samaritan. There is a place between fanaticism and heresy.

Oh, and that great line from the movie Luther: "It is easier to hate evil than to love good." But not better.

Katrina

What's in a hurricane?

I'm a little callous about natural disasters, generally. Possibly because most of my memories of surviving Hurricane Hugo are quite pleasant - Dad buying ice cream (which had to be finished immediately in the power outage!), camping out in the hallway, playing on the new jungle gym of fallen trees. So when a disaster strikes with warning, I kind of tend to assume that everyone will be okay, that everyone will sensibly and safely evacuate, and if not, well, maybe they can go swimming a lot closer to home than usual.

Then today I was informed that, in my town in North Carolina, gasoline was going to be out of supply from 6:00 PM tonight until at least Monday, thanks to Katrina. That slightly cloudier, slightly windier day we had the other day had spent itself wrecking our nation's petroleum ports and refineries.

I've never heard of one storm having such a wide effect in the States. It started me wondering about the depth. I'd been avoiding the news stories, you see, because I've been sticking to reading every moment I'm not working. But tonight I look it up, and discover that the death toll is likely to be in the thousands.

In the thousands.

One storm. And this isn't a tsunami striking without a decent warning system. This is one we've been watching approach for days. We've known for at least two days that it was likely to hit New Orleans and the surrounding area. We have sophisticated communication and transportation systems. Why couldn't we avert the tragedies? Property damage is painful, but loss of human life is ...

is...

.

And I can't understand it. Why should rescue missions even be necessary? Why in Heaven's name were there more than a tiny handful of people left, and why were any people left outside, say, the Astrodome?

It probably has to do with logistics and complications I don't know about. Who knows what kind of glut was on the highways out? How many stubborn souls simply refused to move? Who was forgotten, left behind as evacuees streamed by on every side...

I recall hearing that people will be dying of dysentary and dehydration because of the impossibility of maintaining a supply of drinking water. How little it takes for our society to crumble. I may not see my sister this weekend, because her roommate may not be able to refill her tank upon reaching this place. Suddenly, a few hundred miles have grown from a few hours away to an impassable distance. I'm trying to imagine how it is where there are no roadways left above water.

And I'm imagining floating in a little boat on a lake, with maybe some treetops and alligators, but fun enough in the end, right? *sigh* I really am too callous about disaster. Now to go get that stupid song (I'll let you guess which one specifically) out of my head.

Addendum

When Hamlet says "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy," could we also take it to mean that more things qualify as heavenly and earthly (rather than infernal) than we might expect? Not that Hamlet's exactly a source of divine truth, but a point worth pondering. Or so it seems to my sleep-fogged brain.

Constants

I'm a shameless magpie when it comes to ideas. That's why the bulk of this post is someone else's work. But it's good work!

My friend has been musing of late about constants. He started out thinking about how hard it would be to simulate air in a computer program, because it's too chaotic and doesn't lend itself to neat mathematical constants. He then continued to think about other things which aren't constants:

There are a lot of them. We make assumptions. We ignore variety in favour of a simpler, unified outlook. It's actually not a bad thing, really -- it's necessary to deal with the chaos of reality. I remember the first time I did wallpapering -- okay, the only time -- and it surprised me. The walls weren't straight. The bathroom wasn't a perfect block, but more trapezoidal. It makes sense once I realized it, but until then ... well... I'd just picked the nicest, easiest numbers, and assumed they were so.

The same thing happened when people studied the orbits of planets. They wanted them to be circles. Not ellipses, as they turned out to be. Except, wait a sec -- ARE they ellipses, or is that just the nearest equivilant -- once more, we make things nice, smooth, and homogeneous when they're probably not -- not really.

So, what's my point?

Groups aren't people.

Let me run that by you again. Groups aren't people. People aren't groups.

An example, maybe?

The ACLU does not have a anti-christian agenda. The ACLU does have a anti-christian agenda. Republicans want war and dictatorship. Republicans want freedom and peace. I could go on, but ... eh.

All four of those statements are true. (Five if you include my ability and lack of desire to go on). Contradictory, but true. Why? Because the ACLU has thousands of people in it. There are millions of Republicans. Some of them are this; some of them are that. Groups are not constants. Groups aren't people -- they CONTAIN people. And yes, people have agendas, and some of them are hateful and some of them are loving and some of them don't even know who they are or why they're in a group to begin with... but to indicate that a group is one thing or another as if every member of the group is the same as every other is akin to racism, sexism, or any of those other discriminatory things that people tend to frown on.

So, I get a bit annoyed when people talk about a group as if it were a single entity; a single will, a single purpose, a single group-mind controlling everything. It's a tactic of hate, usually, because it's easy to hate groups -- and it's easy to assign them motives, because there's bound to be someone like that in the group, somewhere.

So -- groups of people? Not a constant.

People are people.

Credit goes to the Pirate Pope.

Drug Treatment Courts

I started this blog because I was tired of seeing hate becoming the main language of truth. I feel like it ought to be possible to love the sinner and hate the sin at the same time. I'm hardly an expert at it. But I can see some awesome work on that front being done by my father. He's currently doing a lot of work with Drug Treatment Courts, in North Carolina in particular but also in the world at large. It's a radical way of looking at the system. We have a problem with drug addicts turning to crime to fuel their addiction, and returning to crime after punishment. The Drug Treatment Courts are concerned with treating the disease of drug addiction so that these people can stand a fighting chance at living a decent, healthy life.

Why am I bringing this up? Because today I got an email from my father with this information:

Drug Treatment Courts, among other worthy court and intermediate
sanction programs, are on the legislative chopping block this year. It is just wrong to continue to underfund treatment, the courts and worthy programs while expanding prisons. In 1995 the President of the American Bar Association spoke to the first drug court conference and spoke these words that are sadly just as relevant today. Please read and follow the attached infromation. I once heard that in order to triumph, evil only needs good people to do nothing...

"My how we love prisons. Forget the extraordinary costs we incur today. We love prisons so much we are threatening to steal any available funding from education system in most states just to build, staff and operate our prisons. As Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has so eloquently pointed out: 'We must not view our collective ability to build more prison space as a sign of success in our society.'

Yet the public continues to respond to harsh and superficial rhetoric. And worst of all, far too many of our fellow Americans continue to operate under the delusion that we can shock, scare or punish people into abandoning drugs. We make it sound so easy. And we want it to be easy, for the sad truth is that it suits our convenience. For if we simply put people away for using drugs, we never have to deal with the underlying desperation which drives so many people to the hopeless and painful life offered by narcotics.

But each of you has seen the hopelessness of our current policies. You have determined that a simple, basic human act the act of compassion and understanding may well hold the key to this problem. You have seen or you would like to see this nation deal with the narcotics problem on medical as well as criminal terms.

And, at the very least, you are willing to try something else other than a re-hashed version of the failed policies of the past. And so, it will take courage and persistence to keep going, to seek new partners in your communities for your efforts. But, please, please, I implore you to keep trying, to keep fighting. For what you do is more than dispensing justice. You're saving lives!

Most importantly of all, you are giving people hope: hope to those who thought they'd been forgotten, hope to those who don't feel the goodness of life, hope to those who think they are all out of chances. You give hope, you give opportunity and you restore dignity.

That is as close a definition to doing justice as one could ever
find."

Later in the letter, there is a forward outlining effectiveness and strategies. Feel free to skip to the "What Can I Do?" section - the rest is included for the statistically-minded.

The Drug Treatment Court (DTC) Programs are in jeopardy of losing funding. Your advocacy is needed to ensure continuation of these vital programs. DTCs began in Mecklenburg County 10 years ago (02/09/95). These programs have been so successful that they have now grown to 30 such adult, youth and family treatment courts throughout North Carolina. Please note the following program features:

What are Drug Treatment Courts?

- Adult DTC: Works with non-violent repeat offenders facing prison time

- Family DTC - Works with parents/guardians who are in danger of permanently losing custody due to abuse or neglect charges.

- Juvenile DTC - Works with non-violent juvenile offenders whose drug/alcohol abuse is impacting their lives at home, school, and within the community.

- DWI Court works with individuals convicted of Levels 1, 2, and 3 or multiple DWI offenses.

DTC Facts – Recidivism

- 80% of criminal offenders in the justice system are drug and/or alcohol involved. Most are addicted.

- Over 75% of abuse and neglect cases have parental drug and/or alcohol abuse as a major cause.

- An independent evaluation of NC DTCs shows that DTC graduates are rearrested at half the rate of non-graduates. 18% of DTC graduates were rearrested in the 12 months after discharge compared to 44% of the comparison group members.

DTC Facts - Cost Effectiveness

- It costs approximately $2,000-$2,500 annually to provide community treatment and supervision as compared to $23,000 annually to house an offender in a NC prison.

- A recent St. Louis study showed that for every dollar in added costs to operate DTCs, taxpayers realized a savings of $6.32. This represents the expenses that would have been incurred by the taxpayer over a four year period had the DTC client been placed on regular probation

What Can I Do?

The time has come to institutionalize funding for drug treatment courts. Their value has been well established and the best interests of the community require the requisite level of support be provided. For offenders who can meet the program’s requirements, the DTCs offer a way out of the costly, dehumanizing spiral of substance abuse that ruins lives and costs taxpayers a bundle. To help preserve the Drug Treatment Court Programs in this community your advocacy is needed. Please take a moment to:

1. Visit the following web address and log your support for Drug Treatment Courts.

http://www.petitiononline.com/savedtc/petition.html


2. Send a letter, E-mail or make a phone call to your local elected officials expressing your support for the Drug Treatment Court Programs and ask that they examine the record on DTCs and create a sustainable way to provide permanent, recurring funding for North Carolina’s Drug Treatment Courts. You may find the members of your local delegation by going to the North Carolina General Assembly page and selecting “House” and/or “Senate” and then “Member List.”

Thank you for considering support of this very worthwhile and cost effective program.

Janeanne Tourtellott

If you're not North Carolinian, you can still express support. Then get out there and find out what your state is doing. Because far too many places are abandoning the hard, effective method of love for the easy, ineffective method of Institution.

Starting with an explanation of the title

Last night, I wrote in my LiveJournal,

I've been trawling the blogosphere again. I should start a blog. I always like to shout and contradict people. The only trouble is, I'd be forced to be quiet and agreeable. Because that's the only way to contradict all of them.

Then I realized that I don't have to contradict everyone. I can contradict one person at a time! I can debate to my heart's content!

This would have delighted me to no end four years ago, a freshman starting college, ready to take on the errors of the world. Lately, though, I'm noticing a troubling trend in my contradictions: they seem to come from a single source. I've actually started to believe something, something bigger than a mere desire to always show the other side of an argument.

That something is rooted in one of my favorite passages of Scripture, Isaiah 27:2-5. NIV specifically - most other translations come across somewhat differently.

2In that day -

"Sing about a fruitful vineyard:
3 I, the LORD, watch over it;
I water it continually.
I guard it day and night
so that no one may harm it.
4 I am not angry.
If only there were briers and thorns confronting me!
I would march against them in battle;
I would set them all on fire.
5Or else let them come to me for refuge;
let them make peace with me,
yes, let them make peace with me."

I've always been stunned by this God who is so fiercely protective of his own, yet willing to make peace with all. And I realize this is one good impulse I have: to fight evil where I see it, and yet to make peace afterward. I like peace. I like faith, hope, and love; I like love, joy and peace; I like all these things so short in supply in most blogs.

And yet I keep thinking - in Philippians 4:8, we're told what sort of things to think about. "Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable - if anything is excellent or praiseworthy - think about such things." Truth tops the list. So if some ugly truths have to be faced before we can get to what is lovely and admirable - well, bring it on.