Are you blaming me?


News tonight reports hundreds of women and small children, some children unaccompanied, getting into the United States illegally then handing themselves in and wanting to be allowed to stay. The same sort of thing happens in Australia, although it's a bit harder because we don't have land borders with any other nation. They come by boat or plane instead. And wherever it happens, sanctimonious opportunists follow, calling themselves caring people by claiming the moral high ground.
Now real refugees have a need for help, but like any other worthy cause, this one gets exploited unscrupulously and self righteously. I would never want to be unsympathetic to those in real need, but I won't be bullied and morally blackmailed by humbug; and there are some dishonest claims being made in regard to illegal arrivals.
The illegal arrivals, whether genuine refugees or not, are housed, not abandoned in the wilderness.. In the U.S. case reported tonight, emergency accommodation has been set up. And we see various self styled commentators loudly condemning the U.S. Government because the accommodation is not five star. I'm using an analogy here. Suppose fifty people turned up at someone's house, wanting to be taken in, and the house owner is criticized because they can't find a bedroom and a banquet for all of them? Why are they being treated as though these people were their responsibility?
The U.S. Government is not responsible for the citizens of other nations. If they enter the country in an illicit way, so that it is not possible or mandatory to plan for them, why is the U.S. Government to blame? It's the same with our Australian Federal Government. Some fifty thousand people arrived by boat before a change of government and a new policy that put a stop to it. Fifty thousand extra people are not easy to cater for without proper notice and planning, and our government is NOT responsible for the citizens of other nations. If they are genuine refugees, which past experience shows they may NOT be at all, then they have claims under the U.N. Charter. But it is absurd sanctimony for critics to stand there abusing the government because it can't lay out a lavish reception for them. We have our own poor and disaster  victims to look after too. Some of the unauthorized arrivals are wannabe migrants trying to jump the queue by claiming refugee status. They do not have a true and legitimate claim to residence in the country they enter. And even where the arrivals are genuine refugees, the country in which they arrive may have its own resources stretched providing for them. Both the countries discussed here have suffered major natural disasters, and their own  citizens need support and financial assistance to recover. We have to consider those before someone tells us we have to look after thousands of other countries' citizens as well. People who enter without permission or notice should not think that facilities are all laid out for them as a matter of right. The worst part of this is that the attitudes of people become hardened. I would never want to deny someone in real need, if I could help them, but I won't be told that I have to give up our own family's stuff to some outsider who demands it by gate crashing the country without permission. Self righteous critics walking around sounding off are an insult to genuine social conscience - in my humble opinion.

What if it's true?

What if it's true?
 We saw a really sad event in N.S.W. Australia recently. A well known and widely liked T.V. presenter took her own life. In the last year or so she had taken a public stand against cyber bullying, having been a victim herself. She confronted the issue and some of the bullies involved. She suffered from appalling depression. It's a rotten thing to see. I suffer from depression, although medication keeps it under control, but I know how vile a thing it is - one of the devil's deadliest weapons. To some people this woman, who I will call C, is a victim of bullies. But there's more to it, we learn. C wrote in an autobiography that she terminated a pregnancy some years ago because her then partner was involved in the Olympic Games and they did not want the distraction. Now I'm not going to make judgemental comment, just ask a question that seems to need asking.
According to what the press has reported,  C began suffering depression at that time. The horrible affliction  that finally overcame her started with that event. Now I've heard that before: people who terminate pregnancies suffering acute depression afterwards. So it's too easy for a man to talk, some might say, but what if the statement is true: what if there IS a link between abortion and depression? Should that not be said just because some people don't like it?
It's an ongoing problem. Some things are true, but many people do not want them said.
Saying them can arouse the rage and hostility of many. This is political correctness, perhaps, or political censorship of opinions that certain self-styled judges do not think should be said. Some of the same thing has come up about climate change. One extremist said climate change denial should be considered a crime against humanity. 
Some  have not learned much from the days of Hitler, Stalin, or even the Spanish Inquisition. There are still those who think statements they don't approve of should be stifled.
What if it is true that abortion can leave an aftermath of depression? Would C still be alive if she had not done this?
All I'm going to say is: if a thing is true, perhaps we need to hear it whether or not it suits the political fashion of the time, or the political views of those in power, or who think they should be.
The outlook is grim.

Have I got this right?

If anyone reads this, I'd be glad to hear if you can tell  me something I don't know. The issue is, refugees. In Australia, as in the United States, we find people trying to get into the country hoping for a better life (or on the run from something?) and claiming in some cases to be refugees. There is an ongoing argument about how we should respond, should we let them all in or turn back those who can't clearly show refugee status. It's happening in Southern Europe, too, people attempting to get to Italy from Africa by boat - sometimes with tragic results, like mass drowning when a boat sinks, or deaths in the desert when they did not manage to make one part of the journey safely. There are those who say we would solve the problem if we just opened our borders and made it easier for them to get here. Now as a Christian, I would never want to be found lacking proper compassion for the desperate. But there is good evidence that some of the would-be migrants are not refugees, they are not forced to flee from something, they simply want to get somewhere they hope life will be better. But should we just open our borders? I'm wondering: if the U.S. let everyone in who wanted to come, half the population of South America would cross the border, the U.S. population would double in five years and the place would become exactly what the migrants are trying to escape from. It would be critically overcrowded, the infrastructure would not cope, people would be living in desperation without adequate medical services, employment or drinking water, and order would break down with clashes between ethnic groups or gangs preying on the desperate.  In Australia, likewise,  if we simply said "Come who may" the inrush from places like Sri Lanka, Vietnam, China et al would overwhelm the country and cause huge problems with infrastructure, maintaining living standards and stopping violent clashes over scarce resources. So despite the moral blackmail directed at those who do not believe in unrestricted migration, it is pure necessity to keep it in check. If I'm wrong, someone feel free to tell me HOW, not just insist THAT, which proves nothing at all.
Just recently with a change of government the number of illegal arrivals by sea has dropped right off. If the respectable press is to be believed, some people from Iran and Sri Lanka who travelled to Indonesia trying to get to Australia by boat have agreed to return to their homelands. So they cannot be as desperate as they claimed. That would indicate that spurious claims to be refugees were made by some who were just economic migrants, trying to jump the queue and not go through legal channels.   
The movement of refugees around the world is inherently dangerous, and the things that cause them to be refugees need to be counteracted. Simply offering them places in another country does not stop others being made refugees. Indeed it can give rise to an evil industry in people smuggling, which has led to the migrants being tricked into getting onto unsafe boats and sent to sea where they sink. If the United Nations was any good, could it not stop the upheavals and pressures that drive people from their homes?
If you can see that I'm wrong here, show me how. It seems to me that some deceitful moral blackmail and general humbug has been generated around this issue,  by those claiming the moral high ground advocating for 'refugees' and not thinking clearly about the facts of it all.                      

We threw out what we needed.

We threw out what we needed.

Two press reports this year said the same shocking thing about this society: there are thousands and thousands of  men who have given up on life. There is an epidemic of hopelessness, men at risk of suicide or chronically cynical because they can't see much good in life. Having reached adulthood, they feel left thinking about life 'there isn't much there'.  It explains the shocking problem with substance abuse, alcohol or narcotics, people having to escape their feeling about life, the universe and everything - they can't cope with the sense of emptiness and pointlessness and have to escape it.
So WHO are the people who trashed the idea of spiritual faith, be it Christianity or any other like Judaism? Who are they? Who are these people, wise in their own eyes, who shouted down the idea of believing in God and wanting to live a life connected with Him? They said we didn't need that, we could do it ourselves, and 'religion' was an outdated relic of the superstitious past.
And having denounced it, they have nothing better to replace it with, at all. Their claims are false and hollow, their idea that we can get a life by believing in some political doctrine or making life happen all by ourselves. They say we can live for ourselves, our 'self actualization' and make life what we want. But as they don't like to say:  we could die tonight.  We do not have such control over what will become of us at all.  Those who rejected God set up a  cardboard idol to those who were deceived by them, a hollow uselessness instead of the King of the Universe.
For decades so called intellectuals have critisized  and tried to abolish religious instruction in schools, tried to undermine the place of the church in human lives, told people that 'God is dead' or 'we don't need that anymore'.  They have brought a terrible responsibility on themselves.
The Word says that if anyone prevents another coming nigh to God and knowing Him it would be better for them if a millstone was tied around their neck and they were thrown into the depths of the sea. But that would not save them from the judgement of God.
This society is in a bad state because so many people have rejected the idea of God, and replaced it with the idea that we can all be 'free to enjoy ourselves', or given us idols like political parties, sports clubs, cultural activities, or just plain consumerism and hedonism. This was supposed to make life good. When it turns to ashes and proves to be hollow, what then?
Sport is life for some, but it can't make life worthwhile for ever. Environmentalism is a creed for some, but environmentalists start talking about 'the earth goddess', so they need an idol after all! Political doctrines are some peoples' life, but they falter and let us down sooner or later. Communism has become jaded and discredited to many.
One of the Beatles remarked "I've been to the top and there's not much there."  World fame did not make life good after the first flush.
So who rejected God? Who denounced the need for Him in a human's life? How do we now reach those drowning in hopelessness because they find nothing else will do?

Folly

With our Australian Federal election approaching, one of the contenders for office is Clive Palmer, who founded the Palmer Uniting Party and hopes to take government, with himself as Prime Minister presumably. Interesting. He is a mining magnate, very wealthy, with his own vision of how Australia should run. He's quite a character, too. He announced plans to build a replica of the "Titanic" , and have it finish the voyage it never did, and of course he will sell tickets to people who want to travel on it. Much as I love history and recreations of it, I was struck by what seems to me an absurd money wasting folly. If he wants to spend that sort of money, he might remember that there are old age pensioners in Australia struggling to support themselves at all. Power prices have gone up and some elderly people and low income earners have to choose between paying power bills or having food. There are homeless people in Australia, partly because there is a shortage of housing in some major cities. There are people who can't afford to visit a dentist so they go without essential treatment. Of course this is not original. Hundreds of people have said things in this vein. But if something is true we may see reason to keep saying it. A very good friend of mine remarked on when Prince Frederick of Denmark married Mary Donaldson, an Australian lady (so it made big news in Australia) millions of dollars was spent refurbishing one of the Danish royal palaces, for them to take up as their official home; and that money could have been spent on the welfare of those who are struggling to put a roof over their heads at all. I had to agree. No-one needs to have a great ornate palace to live in, and there is a need to help those who are starving, sometimes without it being their own fault at all. There are those who worked as well as they could and did the right thing by those around them, but have not prospered and find it difficult to manage in old age. There are others born disabled or who became disabled who have never been able to earn a lot and make themselves comfortable. This is not original, we have all heard it before, but it is still true. The counter argument is that charity is a bottomless pit. No matter how much money is spent the need will be there again before long. This may be true, but if you are going to spend money spend it on something other than a vanity trip. I keep remembering the parable of rich Dives and Lazarus the starving beggar. How do you justify spending huge sums of money on vanity and ostentation when someone in plain sight is struggling to stay alive? We need something for ourselves. Our children need a house to live in, so I have to spend on that before I contribute to others. But our family have never lived in a showy home or driven a luxury car; and we can get a life without those things. Don't millions of people? I'm not a communist, so I don't believe in seizing the fortunes of rich people and giving their money to others. Government interventions is a second rate substitute for civic minded generosity by individual people anyway. But I'm struck by the blindness of those who throw their cash into things that gratify their need for attention, and don't give any attention to the misery of others in plain sight.

Don't over do it.

I had a conversation some time ago about home schooling. One person remarked that the kids she had known who were home-schooled were not as socially aware of street wise as school educated ones. Now this person is a friend whose opinions I think worth hearing, but there is a value judgement in what she says there. She is saying that home schooled kids are worse off because they do not have the same apparent worldly savvy as school attenders, and I'm wondering: is that necessarily a bad thing? Are we assuming that what is NORMAL is BEST? It may not be so. Kids of this age, early 21st century, are more informed superficially about the world, more confident in general, but are they also prematurely cynical? To use an analogy here: the age of puberty is decreasing. In 1850, one study found that the average age of puberty in girls was 17. (Seems almost unbelievable, late teenage kids still presexual!) By 1950 the average age had decreased to 14, by 1970 to about twelve. So kids grow up more quickly, and that CAN have problems. Too early maturation can coincide with health problems later in life. So accelerating the maturing process is not necessarily a good thing. Emotionally, some high school kids seem like world weary middle aged people who have been through a divorce and a bankruptcy, and it's all a bit of a drag, and this before they've finished school. Could it be that, as they say, school puts old heads on young shoulders in a superficial way, before those young shoulders can carry the weight of age properly. Does the experience of high school sometimes leave people jaded and worn out before they have had a chance to appreciate life and get the best out of it? This has to be treated carefully. I'm not suggesting that we keep young people ignorant, stop them finding out things that they will have to know sooner or later. It is possible to insult the intelligence of a young person by thinking they're not old enough to know something, when the fact is they can't help knowing it. I recall getting really annoyed by adults who thought I should still believe in Santa Claus because they were scared that they could not scare me into behaving the way they wanted me to. It is pointless, and sometimes really insulting, to treat a young person as an idiot. That being said, sometimes people can't help seeing what they see and you can't sell them convenient bulldust. So where is the healthy balance? Adults are sometimes frightened of kids finding out things in case they can't keep their minds under control they way the want. But then some people pretend to know something, or think they know something, when they've only heard things from others and have not got a proper understanding at all. Then they can fail to see the good in things, or at least understand why they are like they are, and become too disillusioned for their own good. They lose hope of getting or seeing any good in life, at least without being ruthlessly self seeking. That can cripple a person, turning them coldly self centred because they don't believe anything else works. If kids take a bit longer to get their heads round adult understanding, that might give them a chance to adjust less abruptly. It can hurt sometimes to see how shocking the world really is, so let a person be ready for it without forcing it on them before they can cope. Does school really help people learn quickly or does it force them to develop superficially adult ways when they are not adult and don't really know what they are doing? Some people whose lives are very privileged by the standards of this world are the angriest, most bitter people on earth. Did they see too much too quickly, or get too much too easily, and become jaded rather than wise and informed? Too much hardship can stunt people, spoiling their development, that's why we forbid child labour. Can too much intellectual exposure, sustained too quickly, spoil a person's mind, so that they lose faith in life having had to deal with too much before they can cope? It can be dangerous to keep things from children or youth, when they are going to have to know certain things eventually. But it might also be dangerous to overload them, so that they are old in the head before they have had a chance to enjoy being young. School is a human invention, not a naturally occurring thing like the family or clan. Schools should not, I believe, supplant the family as the main source of child nurture. And sometimes it seems to be doing that, especially if apathetic parents find it convenient to let the school raise their offspring for them. Families should raise children. I can see why people are opting out of school for their children. It can be a bad place for some people, and it can start taking over what is not really its role. I would not propose to ban it, our own kids all went to school. But I can see where the home schooling movement comes from. I do not condemn it at all. For some people I believe it is better.