If the customer is the person who pays for the service, who is the customer of our education system? Not the student. Not the parent. Not even the employer. Rather, it must be the society or government.
When viewed this way, there seem to be three criteria for evaluating the quality of the service. First, is it creating qualified, informed voters? Second, is it producing ethical people and hence law-abiding citizens? Third, is it producing integrated, mutually compatible members of a coherent culture? Given that all three of these objectives are so abysmally achieved, one might reasonably ask whether our educational system is even truly striving toward them anymore. Then again, what if the government is a customer who is getting exactly what he wants, namely a population which both needs and accepts an ever-expanding government?
See, if something is so horribly broken, the natural (and frightening) question is whether it’s brokenness is a result of incompetence…or design.
Thought of the Day 06.07.10
Last week, Al and Tipper Gore announced that, after 40 years of marriage, they had “decided to separate.” They offered no further comment, and they have not clarified whether this is a prelude to divorce or an attempt to avoid it.
I imagine some political conservatives might react to this news by sneering at the downfall of someone they regularly lampoon and mock. Perhaps the worst ones might even propose this is somehow God’s judgment on the former Vice President for his unbiblical social views. On the other hand, some political liberals might also sneer at the illness of a marriage where the wife was once the driving force behind content warnings on music. Such responses reveal nothing about the Gores and much about the hearts of those who think them.
For my own part, I couldn’t care less about a man’s politics when I see his child is sick. And if I care about a man’s children, how much more do I care about the recovery of his ailing marriage? There is only one correct response to this news, and it’s to pray that the Gore’s would rediscover their love for each other by and through their commitment to their Savior, Jesus Christ.
Note: For those who are curious, Tipper is an Episcopalian, and Al is a Baptist.
I imagine some political conservatives might react to this news by sneering at the downfall of someone they regularly lampoon and mock. Perhaps the worst ones might even propose this is somehow God’s judgment on the former Vice President for his unbiblical social views. On the other hand, some political liberals might also sneer at the illness of a marriage where the wife was once the driving force behind content warnings on music. Such responses reveal nothing about the Gores and much about the hearts of those who think them.
For my own part, I couldn’t care less about a man’s politics when I see his child is sick. And if I care about a man’s children, how much more do I care about the recovery of his ailing marriage? There is only one correct response to this news, and it’s to pray that the Gore’s would rediscover their love for each other by and through their commitment to their Savior, Jesus Christ.
Note: For those who are curious, Tipper is an Episcopalian, and Al is a Baptist.
Thought of the Day 06.04.10
1. Does America have a right to exist as a nation?
2. Does America have a right to protect itself against terrorism?
3. Would America have the right to establish a blockade against a militant territory with a history of attacking us and the officially pronounced desire that we be destroyed?
4. Would America have the right to enforce this blockade even if doing so led to the deaths of those trying to break it?
5. Would such deaths be considered primarily the fault of the American forces or primarily the fault of the terrorist supporters who were trying to violate the blockade?
The answers to these questions are fairly obvious, right? And yet, if you simply replace “America” with “Israel,” many people suddenly can’t seem to get those answers right anymore. This is vital to remember as you hear people discussing the events in the Mediterranean Sea, and the reason is simple.
Although not all critics of Israel have this problem, you’d be shocked to find out how many of them can’t even affirm the first two questions, let alone the others. This means that their real criticism of Israel isn’t that it mishandled this blockade incident. Rather, their real criticism of Israel...is that there’s an Israel.
2. Does America have a right to protect itself against terrorism?
3. Would America have the right to establish a blockade against a militant territory with a history of attacking us and the officially pronounced desire that we be destroyed?
4. Would America have the right to enforce this blockade even if doing so led to the deaths of those trying to break it?
5. Would such deaths be considered primarily the fault of the American forces or primarily the fault of the terrorist supporters who were trying to violate the blockade?
The answers to these questions are fairly obvious, right? And yet, if you simply replace “America” with “Israel,” many people suddenly can’t seem to get those answers right anymore. This is vital to remember as you hear people discussing the events in the Mediterranean Sea, and the reason is simple.
Although not all critics of Israel have this problem, you’d be shocked to find out how many of them can’t even affirm the first two questions, let alone the others. This means that their real criticism of Israel isn’t that it mishandled this blockade incident. Rather, their real criticism of Israel...is that there’s an Israel.
Thought of the Day 06.03.10
“That guy sure is a throwback.” “No, he’s a relic.”
“My ideas are traditional.” “No, they’re unevolved.”
“That design is classic.” “No, it’s old-fashioned.”
“My viewpoint is historical.” “No, it’s primitive.”
“This is the ancient way of doing things.” “No, it’s the barbaric way of doing them.”
“That shirt is retro.” “No, it’s just dated.”
Notice that in each of these pairings, there is no disagreement about the fact that something is old. The dispute is whether age is a virtue or a defect.
The reason I bring this up is because in using language, we almost unconsciously manipulate it to reinforce our point, which can be problematic. Age, for instance, doesn’t mean anything. But if it’s something we like for other reasons we call it good oldness, whereas if it’s something we dislike for other reasons we call it bad oldness. Instead, we might do well to simply say something is old, or some even more neutral term. That way we can have a discussion shaped by neutral facts rather than by adjectival bias.
“My ideas are traditional.” “No, they’re unevolved.”
“That design is classic.” “No, it’s old-fashioned.”
“My viewpoint is historical.” “No, it’s primitive.”
“This is the ancient way of doing things.” “No, it’s the barbaric way of doing them.”
“That shirt is retro.” “No, it’s just dated.”
Notice that in each of these pairings, there is no disagreement about the fact that something is old. The dispute is whether age is a virtue or a defect.
The reason I bring this up is because in using language, we almost unconsciously manipulate it to reinforce our point, which can be problematic. Age, for instance, doesn’t mean anything. But if it’s something we like for other reasons we call it good oldness, whereas if it’s something we dislike for other reasons we call it bad oldness. Instead, we might do well to simply say something is old, or some even more neutral term. That way we can have a discussion shaped by neutral facts rather than by adjectival bias.
Thought of the Day 06.02.10
We easily talk about having true and false beliefs, but have you ever considered the possibility that your desires might also be described as either true or false? It seems weird, right? Well, my definition of a false desire is one whose satisfaction does not match or correspond to what was expected. When viewed this way, there are several ways a desire may be false.
First, we may desire something which is truly bad for us. We get it, but it makes us miserable. The Bible calls this sin. Second, we may desire something good, but we believe it will satisfy us more than it possibly can. We may get it, but the results are inadequate. The Bible calls this idolatry. Third, we may simply lack the proper desire for something good. We continually feel dissatisfied because we aren’t even pursuing the right things. The Bible calls this being carnal.
There may be other forms of false desire, too, but the value of seeing these three basic kinds is that now you can stop and ask your desires whether they are true or false before acting on them, a layer of challenge which just might avoid some of the pain of presuming they’re all basically true.
First, we may desire something which is truly bad for us. We get it, but it makes us miserable. The Bible calls this sin. Second, we may desire something good, but we believe it will satisfy us more than it possibly can. We may get it, but the results are inadequate. The Bible calls this idolatry. Third, we may simply lack the proper desire for something good. We continually feel dissatisfied because we aren’t even pursuing the right things. The Bible calls this being carnal.
There may be other forms of false desire, too, but the value of seeing these three basic kinds is that now you can stop and ask your desires whether they are true or false before acting on them, a layer of challenge which just might avoid some of the pain of presuming they’re all basically true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
