(READ the entire article HERE: “Do you promise to love and cherish…until the contract runs out?“)

Her line of thought is summed up with the question: “what do you think about the idea that when people get married they sign a marriage certificate that has an actual end date on it?” She reasons that since it seems as though there are plenty of people who reach the later stages in life and want to end their marriage that perhaps it is unreasonable to ask someone to be your spouce for the rest of your life, or in her words, “With people’s life span being what it is, does it really make sense that we get married to one person for our entire lives no matter how long that turns out to be?”

Luckily, she doesn’t end the article concluding that we need end dates on our marriage contracts, but I could see how some might think this idea a good one. I have a few thoughts on this line of thinking and how I believe a Christian should think through this as well.

Firstly, I think that this expiration idea is just another sign that marriages are no longer seen as sacred. People cling to their autonomy, their “freedom”, and at any sign that their desired lifestyle is in jeopardy they want a way out. Rather than a traditional divorce – an end to a marriage at any given time – the expiration idea ends the marriage at an appointed time. Either way this is a devalued view of marriage and highlights the modern view that marriage is only good when both people are happy and feel good.

Secondly, the idea of an expiration date skews what marriage really is. The expiration date idea promotes the idea that marriage is nothing more than a contract. This is a bad view because like any other contract it can be broken. It is also bad because it fails to recognize the personal nature of a marriage.

Let me explain.

A marriage is not some thing that forces people to stay together, like a legal contract. Too many people make much too big a deal about the legal side of marriage (that’s not to say that we should allow marriage to be legal for anyone, say a person and a robot). Marriage is personal, it involves the will of a person. It is not a contract that must be adhered to, it is a voluntary decision made by the participants. Marriages sort of have an expiration date. Whenever a married person calls it quits, the marriage expires. Let’s not pretend that a divorce is hard to accomplish or that the process is a deterrent. That option is available to any married person any day. There is no external force that will keep two people together in a marriage. But millions of people every day, under no external persuasion, voluntarily decide to remain committed and faithful to their spouse. In a sense, if their marriage expired at the end of every day, they would wake up the next morning and renew their marriage all over again without a hesitation.

The personal nature of marriage must be understood. To anyone who sees marriage as a sacred union before God this is not hard to understand. But our culture is unaware of this. Our culture sees marriage very differently. It is important to promote within our culture the value that God places on a proper marriage. When a couple credits their commitment to one another on the principles that God has set forth in His design for marriage. Until everyone understands that, we will always have people try to accommodate marriage to our feelings and fickleness

First of all, I thought of this because there are already “illustrations” of marraige or analogies that our culture uses for marriage all the time. Marriage is depicted as a “prison” (you know, the “ol’ ball and chain”) or as “game over”. All very negative analogies. The analogies I thought of depict a negative way that many view marriage and the complete opposite way of viewing marriage. I’ll start with the negative.

Many who say they are not ready for marriage, won’t ever be ready for marriage, or don’t like the idea of marriage think so because they don’t like the idea of being “tied down” or “held back” from their current lifestyle. The translation for this is that these folks basically value their freedom and apparent autonomy above anything (or anyone) else in the world. The analogy for their view of marriage is that a married lifestyle is like that of the firefighters that are trapped under all the rubble at the end of the movie World Trade Center (based on true stories). Like the firefighters, married couples are trapped in by insurmountable limitations and are being suffocated by their lack of freedom (figuratively, that is). To ask someone who sees marriage as being “tied down” is to ask someone to voluntarily be buried alive. With this analogy and view of marriage it’s no wonder why folks are waiting longer and longer to be married.

I would like to offer a different analogy and view of marriage.

I see entering marriage as though I were one of the brave Spartan men during the battle of Thermopylae (as in the movie “300″). Like those entering marriage, the men entered the battle with full knowledge of the hardships ahead. Marriage has its hardships. No one said it is easy. And the enemy isn’t one’s spouce (despite what many might have you believe). There are many enemies of marriage that are not one’s spouse. The enemies are all the enemies of faithfulness and committment; laziness, dishonesty, selfishness. These are all enemies that spouses fight to maintain a working marriage. But like the brave Spartans, we voluntarily enter this courageous battle because we believe that there is something radically great worth fighting for. We are not forced into this battle and do not cower into this hardship. We are not trapped in this lifestyle. Like the Spartans, we stand tall as we enter a marriage. The reward is not just emotional, or physical, or spiritual. It is all of that. And dispite the hardships that are inevitable we continue to “hold the line” with every anniversary that we celebrate.

Each time someone engages in marriage they trade the cowardly view that marriage makes you “tied down” and realizes that standing tall for one’s marriage is something of incredible value.

Are we trapped in, or standing tall?

The Family Radio doomsday countdown on their website. 0 days left!!

This got me thinking. I asked myself, “Why are so many people, including Christians, so fascinated with the end of the world?”

I think the answer is, at least in part, found in our humanity, especially a part of our humanity that has risen in recent decades. Part of our humanity is the idea that we can control our own destiny. I don’t mean that in some fairy tale sense, I mean that each one of us feels that everyday we have the power to control what happens to our lives. And while people throughout history have believed in the power of their own hands, we have seen ourselves to the moon, nuclear power, and nanotechnology, so our own destiny must not be far behind. We have been told this sinse the time we were in grade school. How many times have you been told “you can do anything if you just put your mind to it”. Does this include knowing when and how your life and the lives of everyone on earth will end? We love unlocking “codes” and “prophecies” because they serve our dillusions regarding our power over our destiny.

Well, here we are again. Post-non-apocalypse. I was proud to here alot of Christians, young and old, who rightfully repeat the phrase “no one knows the hour” in response to this latest apocalyptic prediction. We who believe that there will be an end of this age should know that it is well outside of our realm of control, even if that control is mere knowledge. We should trade the desire to know when and how the world will end with the desire to know that the same God who affixed the heavens in place will also be the one to bring this age to a close in a triumphant call for his people to come home to reside and reign with their Creator. This of course doesn’t require a Special Bulletin on the 10 o’clock news to reveal. It’s preached accross thousands of faith churches across the country and around the world. There’s no need to hurry to sell all your posession, just to seek first the kingdom of God.

Jack Johnson – With my own two hands (LYRICS)

Jack Johnson’s view of his efforts and abilities is confident, which is commendable. He’s “goinging to make (the world) a better place” and a “brighter place” with his own hands. He can change the world and make peace! What power indeed! Though commendable, his view is ultimately unrealistic. It is hopeful, but the object of his hope (his hands, and undoutedly, other’s hands) is hopeless. He believes that people can make peace on earth if we just try hard enough. Through an examination of history we know that this is false. Mankind is set on conquering and overuling through force. Humans may have had a “hand” in the seldom and sporatic peace that we sometimes experience, but it is ultimately through the work of God that orchestrates peaceful situations.

This song follows in the footsteps of other romantic hippies like John Lennon who think that if we can just get rid of religion and nationality that a brotherhood of man will emerge and errupt in peace. Their ends are admirable, but their means are comical.

Jars of Clay – Two Hands (LYRICS)

Jars of Clay offers a different view of the work of their hands. Firstly, they seem to recognize the struggle within every human being. The struggle is the war within the heart of man that knows what is right, yet still often chooses to do what is wrong. This is the “house divided” and the hands that have one holding him (apparently God) closer while the other pushes him away. This truth resonates with every individual, even Christians. We are aware of our limited good, despite our best, purest, and most righteous efforts. This is a more realistic look at theirs and our own efforts. We know that we are limited; and that’s okay.

It’s okay because of the second point that emerges out of Jars’ song. That is that we rely on God for our strength in our efforts. This is the “ache for faith”, the dependance that Christians have on God for our own hearts and for the actions that make up the work of our hands. It is silly to think that we could “change the world” under mere human efforts. Any hope is based on the relationship that we share with our God. We need the divine help of our Creator for our work, and ultimately our lives, to have meaning and real fruits.

We see that two groups can have to completely different outlooks of the same subject matter and aspect of their lives. One, unrealistic and naively hopeful. The other, more realistic and centered on a far better object of hope.

I know manners are a socialogical phenomenon, where one culture may have different forms of manners than another, and that might lead some to say that they aren’t important. Someone might say “why do I have to subscibe to some subjective list of rules just to please someone else?” They might suggest that we can all decide what is the proper way to ask for something or to interject. I understand this objection, because it is obvious the each culture has its own rules of manners. But the reason I want my children to learn our cultures manners is simple.

Manners are like morals.

Manners are a protocol. They are an established set of rules that is outside of those that follow them and pass them down. No one single member of our culture established our manners, but yet we all follow them and teach them to our children. This becomes obvious to a child when they see not only Mom and Dad following the same protocol, but other children as well. Before being thrown into large world of local authroties (polce, government, etc.) and universal authorities (God’s commands), manners are a good every-day introduction to the idea that their are rules outside of our control. There are probably 100 “thank yous” said in our house everyday and every one of them is a reminder that we are all submitting to a protocol that is outside of us. These are much more frequent and understandale than the lessons about why Covina PD won’t let us park our car somewhere or why God asks us to pray and are a good introduction to eventually get to these more complex scenarios.

So I encourage the teaching and instructing of manners; with your own kids, with others’ kids, with kids on the street. It is a simple protocol that we all know very well just from being in our culture and is a good reminder that there are rules that are outside of our immediate control. Trust me, they matter.

The obvious and less important issue is that these interviews tend to idolize people like Mr. Sheen. All the juicy details serve to open people eyes to the possibility of being “Sheen-like”; that is, having a go at the party lifestyle and to still be “winning”. This ignores the immense personal damage that this type of lifestyle can do.

However, what is even more damaging is the moral callous that can develop when a person like Charlie Sheen is allowed to speak without challenge. Charlie’s interviews allow him to promote his lifestyle in a way that always ends with him “winning”. It is obvious that the interviewers are not crusaders of morality, so while they might ask him “are you worried you are going to relapse”, they wont ask him “isnt it immoral for a father to fail at his responsibility toward his children with such little concern for them?” Instead, he can throw around words like “my passion” or “it was just love” and “I’ve answered to a higher call” and leave people thinking that his lifestyle is actually morally justified.

That is one of the major problem with todays worldview. Things like “passion” and “higher callings” (whatever that means) are seen as noble ideas in and of themselves even though they have absolutely no substance or foundation.

On one level, this is just laughable; how nonsensical this guy is. However, someone needs to call this guy on his moral standing. It must be shown that he has endangered others, ignored responsibilities, and set a precedent for a culture to believe that they are entitled to any lifestyle they see fit; thus abandoning any traditional worldview that is founded on morals. Even though he claims that he has not hurt himself and is under control, it is obvious that he has discarded a moral foundation for living. There is a great danger in this elevated portrayal of a destructive and immoral lifestyle. Sorry Charlie, with your growing popularity and influence in the worldviews of many, we are definitely not “winning”

Indeed it was.

As most art is now-a-days, Wicked, and its counterpart the original Wizard of Oz, are expressions of ideas that permeate the culture during the eras that the art pieces emerge from. It behooves us to seriously consider the art and entertainment we watch and input into our souls and phyches (pronounces “sigh-kees”), for though they seem innocent and often inspiring, their underlying worldviews are deeply rooted in the ideas of contemporary ideologies. For this reason, I will explain my observations regarding the ideologies behind (1) the original “Wizard of Oz”, (2) “Wicked”, the ”alternate view” of the original Oz story, and finally (3) a cultural tradition that stems from its ideological roots dating back several centuries. Yes, we will look at a classic story, a new-found cultural phenomenon, and a tradition older than our great-great-grandparents.

The Wizard of Oz

For those that don’t remember this classic story, let me jog your memory. The story is about Dorothy, a young mid-western girl who during a storm, gets swepped up in a tornado and transported to the magical kingdom of Oz. Her one goal is to get back home, to which she is told the the Wizard of Oz can help her. She meets a montley crue made up of a lion who wants courage, a tin-man who wants a heart, and a scarecrow who wants a brain. The story is also flanked with both good and bad witches, small people called Munchkins, and the Wizard, who turns out to be nothing more than an ordaniry old man.

This story, while endearing and now classic, suggests alot of the ideas found in culture. Many of the themes relate to the Humanism and Individualism that existed, and still exists to this day. For example, the great Wizard is seeks to maintain his identity as an almost diety-like entity. But in the end, he is no wizard at all, and thus has no real powers to help Dorothy and her new friends. This is parallel to the growing idea that there is no Diety in real life as well; that any attempts to look for a higher power will end in disappointment.

Also, the main characters spend the duration of the story trying to find the wizard in order to obtain something they eagerly want (heart, brain, courage, home), but realize in the end that they were able to obtain them by themselves….individually…..inpedendant of the Wizard. This lends to the Humanists and Individualists ideas that we have the power within ourselves to do great things. We don’t need to seek a higher power (diety). Or as Dorothy put it, when the WItch of the East informs her that all along she had the power to return home, “The next time I go looking for my heart’s desire, I won’t look any further than my own backyard; if it’s not there, then I never really lost it to begin with.”

Make no mistake, this story was meant to convey some worldviews that were circulating at the time.

Wicked

The Broadway counterpart of the classic story brings a more modern ideology to the land of Oz. A post-modern ideology that is. Wicked explains that the witches of the East and West had a relationship before encountering Dorothy and friends. The good witch (Glinda) is shown to be a popluar girl in Oz, beloved by many, and the bad witch (Alphaba) is shown as being an outcast (no one else’s skin is green like hers) who is always challenging norms and the status quo. Glinda is like the prom queen, while Alphaba is smart and independant, yet misunderstood and often bitter (any young people feel a connection?). After a rocky start, Alphaba and Glinda become friends and they both go to see the Wizard of Oz because Alphaba is thought to have a unique “gift” that may lead to a career in sorcery. The story soon gets ugly, as Alphaba does not want to do what the Wizard plans to do, and she is then seen as a “Wicked” witch for going against the grain. Questions of right and wrong soon fill the plot as both witches depserately try to do what seems to be “right”.

The first theme that the viewer may pickup on is confusion. The difficult situations that both witch characters are put in cause the audience to question what really is right and wrong. That seems to parallel the desperation that philosophers, and the culture in general, arrived at when trying to devise philosophies, morals, and ethics from a Humanist and individual perspective. Because of the multitude of diverse backgrounds, many began to say that though we all have it within us to know what is right, there simply cannot be one single moral standard or objective truth. And this is seen in Wicked as well.

Arguably the most powerful scene comes at the end of Act 1, when the Wizard and his guards declare Alphaba “wicked” for going against the Wizard and his standards and norms (the wizard, as in the original story, is once again seen to be a regular man, but this one with more angst and desire for control). When people think of the typical Bible-believing Christian, they often imagine a person deaming everything non-Christian as “wicked”, and this is the idea this scene is supposed to capture.

The song “Defying Gravity” occurs at this moment when the Wicked Witch first begins to fly. Though emotionally powerful, the song is a parallel to defying norms, standards, ideals, and maybe even morals. Alphaba explains in the song that she is “through with playing by the rules of someone else’s game,” and “through accepting limits, ’cause someone says they’re so” , which is what leads her to defy gravity, and fly. Gravity is a physical law, a constant, that limits everyone. The metaphor is Alphaba’s defiance of accepted laws. This speaks to everyone who feels oppressed by cultural norms, religious standards, and even moral laws. Alphaba proclaims that even if she is “flying solo (alone), at least (she’s) flying free!” Liberty is such a precious commodity in contemparary culture that most viewers will be captivated by Alphaba’s courage to be free and to be herself, whoever she is. The woman sitting next to us was in tears at the climax of this song.

The end result is that every character goes his/her own way and everyone is left feeling as though all is well. No clear moral is presented, except that all ways are accepted. And Alphaba’s defiance of norms and the freedom to express herself as she wants is portrayed as an attitude to be revered.

Simchat Torah

Finally, there is a cultural phenomenon that is deeply rooted in ideas that are strong in the culture in which it exists.

Simchat Torah, or the Joy of the Law, is a Jewish holiday embedded within the holiday season on the Jewish calendar. This holiday is some 500 years old and is the celebration of a event even older. The giving of the laws to Moses, and subsequently to the people of Israel, is a celebrated afair. Unlike the contemporary ideas of norms and ideals, the Jewish culture embraces its herritage and tradition born of the laws of God. The law is seen as a part of its national identity and a useful and practical tradition to hold on to. The laws of God are not seen as an outdated tradition that must be overcome in order to live a proper life.

This is an idea that both the Jew and Christian can agree upon. It stems from the ideology expressing that in order to know what is right, and to live the proper life, God’s revelation is necessary. God is the final authority and the most precise method of discovering right and wrong and life’s purposes. The Joy of the Law is a tradition that celebrates this ideology found in this culture.

As a Christian, it behooves us to realize the ideas behind all that goes on around us. We will begin to realize alot of things that influence our practices. We need to scrutinize these practices and hold on to the ideas that are true, right, and good.

For this, I navigated my trusty Internet browser (IE 6.0) to the virtual front line of the war on homosexuality:

www.NoOnProp8.com (I encourage you to check it out after reading this article)

But let us focus on the No On Prop 8 campaign. There are three ideas spelled out by this campaign that you should understand and see in a new light.

Keep Government Out of Our Lives

You will notice that on a few ads, there is a prompt to vote no on prop 8 to “keep government out of our lives”. Lets get one thing straight here. Let’s understand what this means. What is meant is not “keep government of our lives”, what is meant is “make government change our lives, then keep government out of our lives so it doesn’t change again.” Let me remind you that the historical definition of marriage as defined by, not only Jews and Christians and Catholics, but by the United States government, and the rest of the world, meant the union of a man and a woman. It was government – namely a few radical district court judges – that injected itself into our lives, changed the meaning of marriage, and now has people asking that it not change our lives again. It is too late to keep government out of our lives. The damage has been done.

People talk about wanting government to remain neutral, typically when discussing issues like abortion, separation of church and state, and gay marriage. But in truth, they are asking for government to side with them; to allow them to murder unborn children; to remove Christianity from the public square, most likely to promote their heathenism or atheism, and to change the definition of marriage to include their skewed view of a sacred commitment.

Gay Marraige will not affect schools and churches

This is already being proven incorrect. California has already tried to force school teachers to include homosexual themed children’s books. Those bills got shot down like a Japanese Zero. California wanted nothing to do with that. Now, in honest, it is not necessarily gay marriage that will affect schools, like a wedding cake with two men on top will automatically make churches stop speaking their long held beliefs. But the more that homosexuals fight for “special right”, those above the average citizen, the more homosexuality will be forced to be tolerated in society, forced to be talked about in schools, and it will force silencing of the church. Don’t think so? It is already happening. Focus on the Family, the Christian talk show dedicated to protecting the Christian marriage idea, is banned in Canada and other countries because it is seen as discriminatory and “hate speech”. Want further proof?

Look at what happened just this past week. (http://www.protectmarriage.com/article/first-graders-taken-to-san-francisco-city-hall-for-gay-wedding) A elementary school teacher held a field trip to a gay marriage. I realize that this was a charter school, which have a little looser regulations, and in the most liberal city in the universe, but are you kidding me?!! They can still say it wont affect schools. The principal didn’t apologize, or express realization that the judgement to allow such a field trip might have been touching on a delicate subject, but rather, expressed that she felt that the event was “a teachable moment”. Let’s not be fooled here. This will affect schools, churches, and society in general.

We shouldnt stop anyone from getting married

This is really the crux of the issue. This is the statement that should be the focus of every proponent of this proposition. Let me spell it out carefully:

Should we really not stop anyone from getting married?

If this statement is true, does that mean that we allow everyone to get married without any reservation? Men with Men? Children with Adults? Relatives? Animals? Surely no one believes that this statement is true.

And this is where the argument in favor of Prop 8 is born. Marriage has a historical and traditional meaning. And it was endorsed by government for its social and economical benefits to society. If we really shouldn’t stop anyone from getting married, then eventually, marriage will mean nothing. Like the kindergarten boy asking a girl “Will you marry me?”, marriage will be just another word that has no qualification and can include who ever and whatever one wishes. The traditional family will not be seen as all that important anymore and, aside from the obvious moral declination, society and the economy will decline as well.

Don’t believe the No On Prop 8 lies. They will tell you that they are the freedom fighters for this poor defenseless portion of society, when in reality, they are undermining the historical and traditional view of marriage, the backbone of American civilization.

“Think Green”

Now, I have heard this phrase before. We all know what it means to be “Green”; to be aware of the consequential effects that our actions have on the environment. The term “Green” seems to have come from the large presence of the color green in nature. The plants of any ecosystem have probably the biggest impact on how the ecosystem exists. It is a large resources that other plants, animals, and other factors depend on. So it seems natural to say that “Green” represents the very “life” of any ecosystem (at least in the mind of the environmentalists), and in large part, the environment.

“Green” is the “soul” of the environment.

What I want to ask you to do is something very similar, although, to my knowledge, there are not campaigns or sloganed t-shirts available. I want you to:

“Think Red”

Let me explain what I mean, then I will explain why. While Green may be seen as the “soul” of the environment because of its presence in plants and the environments dependency on them, “Red” is a similar type of soul.

“Red” is the “soul” of humanity.

I say that “Red” is the “soul” of humanity not because humans souls can be seen and their color is red (for souls are by definition not visible), but because the color Red is seen in the blood of humans; and if there is one physical thing that could be “seen” as the “soul” of a man, it is blood. The blood is so vital to the life of a human that we can properly assign it the metaphorical term soul. The Bible often uses the term “life-blood”, showing the importance of this vital substance. So when I ask you to “Think Red”, what I am asking you to do is to think of humanity. We need to have the same passionate concern for humanity that environmentalists have towards the beloved Mother Earth. Now, why am I asking you to do this? I will give you a few reasons.

1) Proper Focus- The reason I would never dawn a “Think Green” shirt is not because I hate the environment, nor even because I do not like or agree with the political parties and ideologies affiliated with the “environmentalist” movement. But I would never put on a “Think Green” because I think it puts an improper focus on the environment. This is not accidental. In a naturalistic era where man is nothing but a glorified monkey, it makes logical sense that we would care for the environment as much as humans. If we think we are worth having hospitals and government programs to care for humans, why not have political campaigns to care for the environment. Furthermore, in a culture more and more overrun by Eastern ideas and mysticism, the environment is elevated to a god-like status to where it is only proper to put its care in the highest position of care possible.

This is the wrong focus. It should be obvious to humans that the environment is our home indeed, but should in no way have humanity sacrificed for its sake. We will see why in the next point.

2) Humans Inherent Value- It should also be obvious to us that there is something inherently valuable about humans that take priority over all other objects. From a Biblical standpoint, we know that it is because we were created in the image of God, our creator, that we inherit this tremendous value. But to the common person, it should be obvious that there is something “special” or sacred about humans. It is not merely that we are better or smarter (though we are) than other creatures, or even the degree that we are better and smarter, but it is because of the consciousness that we posses that is, not enhance, but unique to humans. We have a unique ability to make moral decisions, to choose to love, to have empathy, that is unique to the rest of creation.

3) Lasting Impact- Finally, the reason we should “Think Red” is because, while all the efforts toward a restored Earth will ultimately end, the concern and action to restore the humans, that is the soul which all humans posses, has an impact in eternity. To “Think Red” is to care about the human’s well being in this life and in eternity.

From some of today’s enactions, it does not seem that the life of a human is totally valued. Many Americans push to stop laying a single hand on the forests, but would also push for the right to end the life of an unborn child.

So, I urge you: “Think Red”.

There are forces at work in the world; many (not all) who “Think Green” invest their lives in protecting and caring for the elements of the Earth that do not have an merely the value of one human life. We have to look no further than God’s own gift to see what really has the value worth pouring into. For “God so loved the world (meaning the people, not the Earth) that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life”.

If we are valuable enough to have God give his own son as a gift for our well-being, shouldn’t we act likewise.

Think Red!

4) Morality / Spirituality – When I say that we shall aim to accomplish these I mean that our children will know what morality and spirituality are and they will know that they are real. It is not uncommon for some to not only deny objective morals and a spiritual nature but for some to also be mispointed and believe falsities in the two. Our children will know the truth about the two.

Morality, as most would agree, is important in raising children. Yes, they must know that sharing with their friends is good and that fighting with their brothers and sisters is bad; it is also vitally important for our children to grow up knowing why these are as such. I hope that our children like sports, because there is a very good analogy they can understand. With all sports there are rules. The rules flow from the rule-giver, the referee. Our morals come from the rule-giver, God. It is in God’s nature that we derive our morals. They will know that without a transcendant entitiy that is the arbitor and the basis for our morality, then all our “morals” are merely “preferences”. No one preference is better or more valid than the other. One person’s preference may be to steal things. If that’s the case, then their brothers and sisters can steal their stuff and all I can say is, “that’s their choice”. They will understand that morality exists because of God.

That leads us to the spirituality. It is easy for a child to understand that there is right and wrong, good and bad, love and evil. And they will understand that these are part of, not our physical nature, but our spiritual nature. Our spirit is the part of us that the physical cannot account for. Our molecules cannot account for our thoughts, our desires, or our choices. So there is some other part of us that contains these non-physical elements.

Our children will know this. And the goal of all this knowledge is to come to an understanding of our being, in order that they can relate with the Supreme Being.

This is critical to their future. This is not just teaching them a skill. This is not a trivial fact. This is the essense of life. It helps them make sense of the purpose for their existence.

I will not have our children leave our homes not knowing this. Their acceptance and practice is their perogative. But our goals will be clearly defined for the children of the House of Saenz.