54th Massachusetts

On this day in 1863, the 54th Massachusetts infantry attacked the Confederates at Fort Wagner in South Carolina.  Although it was a Confederate victory, the attack must have scared the Rebels something awful.  


The 54th Massachusetts was one of the very first all-black regiments in the United States Army.  Their leader was white abolitionist Colonel Robert Gould Shaw.  The idea behind the formation of a black regiment was to help bring about Union victory.  Blacks were slaves in the South, so arming free blacks in the North was seen as encouraging slaves to rise up against their masters.  Given how slaves were treated, it makes sense that blacks wanted to do so.  Except that in this case, forming a regiment meant that the men were trained as soldiers.
Because the regiment was an all-black one, the soldiers were paid three dollars less than white soldiers.  Shaw encouraged his men to take no pay because of that.  

When the regiment attacked Fort Wagner, Shaw was killed as he told his men to keep going forward.  The men fought bravely, but had to retreat in the end.  After the battle the Confederate soldiers stripped Shaw's body naked and put him on display for a couple of days. Then buried him at the bottom of a pit and piled the bodies of other soldiers from his regiment on top of him as way to insult him.  When his father asked what became of him, and Confederate soldier said, "We buried him with his niggers."  This proved to be an Insult Backfire as Shaw's father replied that his son would have been honored to be buried alongside his men.  


The 54th Massachusetts proved to the nation that blacks could fight just as well as white soldiers.  More black regiments were formed after that.  Lincoln credited these black soldiers for their part in helping turn the tide of the war in favor of the Union.  Fort Wagner was never taken, but it was abandoned by the Confederates a few months later after repeated bombardment from Union warships.

Thoughts on Diversity

So the church I was worried about turned out to be run by someone who is godly and competent, and apparently qualifies to take on the job of running a church multicultural center.  This is a good thing. 

The only reason I initially freaked out is because I have had some rather bad experiences with the current ideas about what is often called "diversity".  I'll agree that treating someone solely of the basis of race, sex, age, etc., is a bad idea, but the way it's being taught in this culture leaves a lot to be desired.  

Let's start with this fact: No two people are alike.  You've got men and women, each with their own personality and looks.  People may have a similar body pattern (I've observed this), but no one has the same personality or looks. 

With that in mind, let's look at how the issue of diversity is handled in our culture today. 

Kids are taught from an early age to accept other people regardless of any differences.  This is all good and well.  However, as the kids grow up and move on from preschool and kindergarten to grade school on up, the tune slowly changes from "Accept other people despite their differences" to "White person-Bad, Minority person-Good". 

We have all read about the troubles minority groups have faced in the past (slavery, discrimination, lynching, etc.).  It used to be that white supremacy was one of the chief vices plaguing our country.   Nowadays, you can't even say something bad about a black person without being labeled a racist.  

Personal Experience: I had a very incompetent teacher for sophomore English.  She deduced that the theme connecting all the stories we were reading was intolerance.  I was already aware of the stupidities of "tolerance" as it is taught today.  In this particular English class, I got the full force of it (I'm still mad at my teacher for that).  She gave us a packet on The Laramie Project.  Apparently, in 1991 two guys murdered a homosexual man in Wyoming.  This sparked quite a bit of debate.  People were shouting "Oh, he was killed for being homosexual; oh it was a hate crime, blah, blah, blah."  This packet clearly left a lot to be desired.  It was riddled with inaccuracies about prejudice, about Fred Phelps, the man who ran around carrying stupid signs about the murder victim in Hell, and was had more biases than the average politician (exaggerated for effect).  I found out later on that the victim's murderers were thugs in the first place and at the time were high on meth.  So that was not so much a "hate crime" and more of an ordinary mugging; the victim just happened to be a homosexual. 
              The teacher gave us a project on "tolerance" and had us go to this website on the subject.  My dad looked over this website and found that there were more inaccuracies and lies on that website alone than I have ever come across in my twenty-one years; rivaled only by the incredibly stupid and inaccurate piece of junk known as my Sociology textbook from last summer.  For example, one of the things the website suggested to become more tolerant of others was to "Increase my circle of friends".  Whoever made this site clearly doesn't understand that most people don't make friends for a little more "diversity" in their portfolio.  And most people have at least only one or two close friends.  They may have a group of friends, but will only have a close bond with one of them.  Therefore, "Increase my circle of friends" is not very sound advice.  And making friends with someone who's black just because he's black is not a good way to go about this. In fact, it's reverse racism.
          Another thing this lame excuse of a website suggested was to "Create a tolerance website".  My dad said that doing so would be preaching to the choir.  His reason was simple: "Are those idle thrill-seeker going to visit your website?"  No one goes online to look for advice on how to become more "tolerant".  They go online to spend hours playing RPGs and watch silly videos.  They're not going to be interested in reading about "tolerance" at all.
          
How does one handle diversity?  It's hard.  Almost two centuries of prejudice have left many people, black, white, etc., with feelings of resentment.  Everyone resents someone.  And to get past this requires work.  And to get rid of it is rough.  What is really more important is who the person is, not what the person is.  And no, being more "tolerant" does NOT mean condoning sin.  All I can say is the best way to handle it is to love that person as yourself, even when their behavior offends you.  Tell them that you love and respect them, but that you don't approve of immoral or improper behavior.  And do it in such a way as to bring glory to God's name. 

What Is The Purpose?

The Wisconsin State Journal ran an article last Sunday about a church on the South Side of Madison which is building a cultural center.  The idea is to bring people of other ethnic groups into the church and feel welcome.  

At first glance this sounds like a good idea.  However, as articles in the State Journal are notorious for leaving things out, it is not entirely clear to me what the purpose is in building this place and bringing in people from other ethnic groups.  They said that one of the missions was to "be a gathering place where we can learn about each other's cultures.  Fair enough.  

But it doesn't say anything about reaching out to people and telling them the Good News of Jesus Christ.  That might be the purpose, but there's no real indication that it is.  

The other possibility (and the one I unfortunately suspect to be the most likely), is that this church just wants to make their congregation more diverse.  They spoke of being a "neighborhood gathering place to bring various cultures together."  That alone is not enough reason to build a cultural center.


If the purpose of this place is to reach out to other ethnic groups in order to bring more people into the Family of God, by all means; build this cultural center.  Let people come and worship together and enjoy one another in Fellowship.  Let us meet with fellow brothers and sisters in Jesus and share God's love with other people.  The body of Christ is made up of people from every tribe, tongue, and nation the Bible tells us.  But if the purpose is to bring other cultures together for the sake of bringing other cultures together, forget it.  Don't build a cultural center.  If it is not specifically for reaching out to other people, then there is no point in building one of these places.   It's a church cultural center.  So what?  It's just a church cultural center.  That doesn't mean anything to a Christ Follower unless it has the purpose of bringing people to Christ.  


I'll agree with the pastor that there is a real problem with segregation.  It has always been an issue since our country was being formed.  But the purpose must be for the good of God's people instead of being just a cultural center that's part of a church.  And as followers of Christ, we don't want the latter.  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE: It turns out that the church in question is one that my church is partnered with and the pastor is a very Godly man.  So this doesn't sound like a bad idea after all. It turns out that the pastor has been working hard in that community, and that if anyone is qualified for the job, he is.  We should still pray for this operation, and ask God to let it work the way He wants it to, so that it doesn't become like I often think it will. 

Bar Signs 5

There's yet another sign on the side of the Main St. bar.  It read, "Some say the glass is half full; others say the glass is half empty.  I've been wondering who's been drinking my beer."  
That's one of the most hilarious signs I've seen.  I'm going to enjoy this one as long as it's up.  
 

Where Is A Clue-by-Four When You Need One?

There was an article in today's paper about a New Jersey woman who is suing and 11-year-old child of all people after he accidentally hit her with a ball.  He was warming up a pitcher and the ball strayed when he threw it, hitting the woman in the face.  She needed medical attention.  She is now suing the boy for $150,000 in order to pay for her medical expenses.  $150,000!  The boy doesn't have that much money.   
 Read this clip:

   "The lawsuit filed April 24 alleges that the boy's* errant throw was intentional and reckless, 'assaulted and battered' the woman*, and caused 'severe, painful, and permanent' injuries. 
         A second count alleges the boy's actions were negligent and careless through 'engaging in inappropriate physical and/or sporting activities' near the woman.  
         And the woman's husband, in a third count, is suing for the loss of 'services, society, consortium' to his wife.  They've demanded a jury trial." 

What is this woman thinking?  This was an exceedingly rare freak accident, like the batter many years ago who got killed by a fastball.   "The throw was intentional and reckless".  Of course the throw was intentional; but the boy was aiming to warm up his team pitcher.  He was not aiming for the woman.  The ball simply strayed.  Why should this be reason to sue?  Also, the average 11-year-old still doesn't have the best coordination, and so this accusation of the throw being reckless is rather silly. 
        And what was the woman expecting when she went to a Little League baseball game?  Dance?  It's a baseball game.  There's nothing inappropriate about playing on a school baseball team.  Not only are the kids getting exercise, but the kids are learning teamwork.  What does this woman have against that? 
      I'm not even going to try to explain the third set of charges.  However, since the woman's husband is helping with this, he's at fault too.  Allowing his wife to frivolously sue a fifth or sixth grader?  Why doesn't he recognize the lawsuit as undeniably stupid and tell her she's making a mistake.  Neither spouse should help the other do something as vile as this.  The man is not behaving like a proper husband and letting his wife know she's being foolish by suing a child; not only for something the child did not intend to do, but expecting him to pay an obscene amount.  

The lawyer who represents the boy knows that this is appallingly cruel.  He told to newspaper, "I think that it's disgusting that you have people suing an 11-year-old for overthrowing his pitcher in the bullpen." 

Mike Royko wrote of a similar incident in 1996.  The only kind of person who would do this sort of thing is a vengeful, avaricious, and all-around monster.  I sincerely hope that this lawsuit gets rejected immediately.   
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*I have refused to reveal the names of the persons involved.   

"Happiness: The Real Medicine and How It Works" By Blair Lewis

This is my very first book review online.  

I had to do a project for Psychology class where I had to read a self-help book and review it.  I chose this one mostly because of the title because it sounded good.  
        This book is a mostly Buddhist/Hindu guide to being "happy" (that word, unfortunately has lost its meaning).  Mr. Lewis sets out to show us the pathway to "happiness".  But given the heavy Buddhist/Hindu influence, he tends to go off into a lot of mystic gobbledegook. 

Mr. Lewis is right in three places:
1) Cultivating a quiet mind.  This is very hard to do, and for someone like me who has Berserk Buttons aplenty, this is important.  Working keeping your mind calm--keeping YOURSELF calm--helps one think more clearly.  And it also helps in dealing with other people.  If you're calm, you're more likely to be able to handle idiots well.  I know because I've seen what happens when I  blow up.  

2) Self-Restraint.  Seriously, we need more of this in our culture today.  Keeping yourself under control helps deal with annoyances, and it helps keep one from falling into temptation.  

3) Yoga.  Yoga has been scientifically proven to be beneficial to one's health.  Regular stretching and breathing exercises help keep your body in shape.  And it helps you calm down.  
Mr. Lewis fails, however, to use clear words, fails to address one specific problem, and goes off into Buddhist mystic psychobabble.  He also fails to document many of his claims.  

1) Rejuvenation Herbs.  These sound nice and some are useful in medicine.  But, well, read this:

        "The main ingredients in Bacopa monnieria* are saponin  fractions, known Bacosides A and B. there are also alkaloids, brahmine, and herpestine.  A clinical study conducted in India indicates that Brahmi* will improve memory, thinking, and reasoning." 

Notice that Mr. Lewis doesn't actually document which study India he's talking about.  The lack of documentation means he probably doesn't known as much about the plant as he thinks he does.   He later goes on to say that this particular plant "is the magic elixir for putting your thoughts into action.  It helps you overcome the fears and anxieties paralyzing your good intentions".  In regards to that last sentence, doesn't Mr. Lewis know what the road to Hell is often paved with?  

         Also, I have heard of people who have improved their memory, thinking, and reasoning skills without the help of plants.  All it takes is hard work in order to do so.  

2) One of the things Mr. Lewis says that happy people possess is "freedom from conflicts and distractions".  He seems to be talking about this in relation to our troubles with technology.  However, "freedom from conflicts and distractions" has to do with a lot more than just technology.  I get distracted, for example, by talking too much.  I am also a daydreamer.  Does this have anything to do with technology?  On one hand yes, because I get easily distracted by the computer or the console.  On the other hand no, because distractions have been a constant problem for me since my early childhood.  I would recommend that Mr. Lewis go back and look at other things that cause distractions in our lives.  

3) He also talks about how "happy" people are not "interested in worldly charms".  He doesn't specify what that means.  And it's that lack of specification that causes confusion. 

4) Mr. Lewis fails to address one specific problem.  If this were a book on combating depression, I think I could (with some difficulty) figure out how this book might be helpful.  But there isn't one specific problem that is addressed.  That is a problem.  If the reader doesn't know precisely how this book could give them any idea on how to improve their life, then the author has failed in his goal. 

The worst part is when Mr. Lewis begin talking about the "koshas" or "sheaths that cover the soul" and the "kleshas" or "obstacles to happiness".  It is here that he really goes off into Neverland.  I don't want to hear about the layers of the soul and all that stuff.  Not only is it something that I don't believe in, it also isn't very informative.  What all do kleshas and koshas have to do with being happy?  Nothing.  

In conclusion, I will say this: Mr. Lewis does offer some good advice on how to restrain yourself, cultivate a quiet mind, and use breathing and stretching exercises to help keep your body in shape.  But I'm afraid that this is outweighed by all the talk of rejuvenation herbs and all the other Buddhist/Hindu stuff.  

My advice: Skip the book.  It's a waste of time and it's not very informative.  

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*These are both Indian named for the coastal water hyssop plant.

Buzzwords That Should Stop Being Used

I have heard some really ridiculous sounding words and phrases that really should fall out of usage.  These are words and phrases that don't have real meaning.  They are meant to abuse and opponent or to make something sound good.  Here are the ones that I find the most appalling: 

Modern Woman
I remember reading a review of the '09 Disney film The Princess and the Frog.  The heroine was described as a "modern woman".  

       

   "She knows that happiness does not come from a handsome prince or a fairy godmother, but through hard work and good character" 

(That's not the exact quote, but that is the basic gist.)  

I'll admit that there were all sorts of myths about happiness coming from a handsome prince and whatnot floating around back in the Victorian era.  These myths would not have been so popular, however, if the marriage customs had been different.  People married for more for money than for love back then, and they married whoever Mom and Dad picked out for them.  So you were lucky if the person your parents selected actually cared about you.  
But just because a woman knows that happiness comes from hard work and good character does not make her a "modern woman".  King Solomon wrote of such a woman in his Proverbs: The Wife of Noble Character.  This is the ideal woman.  She puts her family before her and works hard to take care of them.  This is nothing new.  Why should it be considered a "modern" thing?  It isn't.  And when you think about it, "modern woman" doesn't really mean anything.  Therefore, it should not be used.  

Homophobic
A popular term of abuse among a lot people today.  It's supposed to mean someone who hates homosexuals.  It sounds more like "same fear", however, and that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  What's more, by saying that the person who disagrees with you has a irrational fear of you, you're being abusive to them.  God says that homosexuality is wrong.  Does that mean He God has a irrational fear of homosexuals?  No, it does not.  Therefore "homophobic" should fall out of usage because it is a term of abuse. 

Bashing
This is supposed to mean insulting people of one particular group, but it's really a synonym for breaking or smashing.  As a word for insulting, "bashing" should not be used.

There are plenty more buzzwords that I hate, but I can't think of them right now.